'T^iMsjhtp^^pi^iff^
| for the founding ef a. College, in this Colenj"

'YAlJE'WiWmUBWTY'

S. AUSTIN

AND HIS PLACE IN THE

HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT.

LONDON: C. J. CLAY AND SONS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.

CAMBEIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL & CO.
LEIPZIG: F. A. BEOCKHATJS.

THE HULSEAN LECTURES, 1885.

S. AUSTIN
AND HIS PLACE IN THE
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT.

W. CUNNINGHAM, B.D.,
CHAPT.ATH AND BTJRKBECK LECTUEER, TRINITY COLLEQE, CAMBRIDGE.

LONDON: C. J. CLAY & SONS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE
1886
[All Eights reserved.']

eEamrjri&rje:
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

PREFACE.
The Hulsean Lectures of 1885 are now published in
the form in which they were delivered : some verbal
changes have been made, but there are no substantial
alterations. My object in writing them was to give such
an account of S. Austin's philosophical and theological
doctrines as might form a suitable introduction to the
study of his works. I have tried while preparing them for
the press, to render them better adapted to serve this
purpose, and have added in an appendix brief discussions
of several important points which could not be conveni
ently treated within the limits of the lectures. I have also
printed at length in the footnotes passages which may
enable the reader to judge for himself how far the state
ments in the text can be substantiated. S. Austin has
suffered so much from the way in which isolated expressions
have been quoted to give the weight of his authority to
opinions he would have repudiated, that I have been
careful to avoid the very appearance of such unfairness,
by making my citations both frequent and full ; while I
trust that I have done something to show that there is less
ground than is commonly supposed for the alleged incon
sistencies in his writings and changes in his doctrine.
I have ventured to depart so far from the prevailing
fashion as to speak to an English congregation of the

VI PREFACE.
great African doctor by the English name which was in
common use for centuries, and was adopted by English
men of letters from Langland onwards. Were it merely
a matter of literary taste I might be satisfied to plead
the examples of Sir W. Hamilton and Dr Munro : but in
the case of one who exercised such a striking influence
upon English theologians, the fact that his name became
a household word is not without significance. There is
besides a difference in the theological associations of the
two forms of the name which Chillingworth seems to have
recognised when he appealed from S. Augustine as quoted
by his Roman adversary to the calmer judgment of S.
Austin ; while there is reason to believe that the longer form
came into common use in connexion with the Genevan
interpretation of his doctrine.
I have reason to thank the Rev. E. G. de S. Wood,
Vicar of S. Clement's, the Rev. R. S. J. Parry, Assistant
Tutor of Trinity College, and other friends for reading the
proof sheets and giving me many valuable suggestions.
To Mr Parry I am specially indebted for the care he has
taken in verifying and correcting the quotations from
S. Austin's writings. These are printed from Migne's
Edition, though the somewhat peculiar punctuation there
used has not invariably been retained.
The discussion of S. Austin's teaching in regard to the
Eucharist by George Smith has been transcribed from the
copy of his Epistolary Dissertation in the library of the
British Museum.

W. Cunningham.
Trinity College,
28 August, 1886.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.
PAGE
Preliminary Considerations  .3
1. Christian Life in the Fourth Century. S. Ambrose and Pastoral
Work, S. Jerome and Christian Scholarship, S. Austin and
Christian Thought. 3
2. Christian Thought
(a) Neglected in our day. 4
(b) Its work in formulating doctrine. 5
(c) And in harmonizing our knowledge — Christian Philo
sophy. 6
3. \ No finality in Christian Philosophy. 7
S. Austin as the example of a Christian Philosophee ... 8
1. Personal Characteristics. 10
(a) Love of truth and especial carefulness in regard to
external facts. 10
(6) His convictions the fruit of personal experience. 11
2. Circumstances of his age. 12
\I3. The Range of his Studies, and consequent difficulty of any survey
of his teaching. 12
4. The extraordinary influence he has exercised. 15
(a) Mediaeval Church, monastic life, scholastic theology,
mysticism. 15
(b) Post-Reformation Controversies — Lutherans, Calvinists,
Jansenists. 16
(c) Consequent misinterpretation of his teaching and pre
judice against him. 16
(a) Was his influence baneful ? 17
(fi) How far was any evil that ensued due to him per
sonally ? 18

Vlll CONTENTS.

TRUTH AND THE POSSIBILITY OF ATTAINING IT. PAGE
S. Austin's Philosophical Doctrines  19
^sJ. "What is Truth?" Academic Scepticism. 21
2. Si enim pallor, sum. 22
3. Intellectual elements in our knowledge, and intellectual principles
which are common to all intelligents, while sensations are
special to each. 25
4. Numbers and Harmony. 27
5. The Light of Truth, self manifesting, and manifesting intellectual
principles. 29
6. The fruitfulness of this analogy. Mysticism and Scholasticism. 32
(a) The unique position of S. Austin. 32
(b) Belief and knowledge. 35
(c) Argument for Christian verities rests on the nature, not
on the limitations of human knowledge. 35
Contrast with othee Thinkers, Ancient and Modern . . .36
1. Plato and thought of God. Plato's theology is difficult to
interpret, while S. Austin's is definitely Theistic. 36
2. Neoplatonists and doctrine of Man's nature. 37
"* 3. Schoolmen. Application of Aristotelian categories to knowledge
of God. 3g
4. Descartes. Cogito ergo sum. Contrast in the argument for the
trustworthiness of the senses. 39
5. High place which may be assigned S. Austin, though he has not
said the last word on any philosophical problem, and despite
the defects in his mode of treatment. Philosophy was not his
main pursuit. ..
II.
THE ORIGIN OF EVIL AND THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN.
The Manich^ians and the Natuee of Evil . . ak
1. The teaching of Mani. .-
(a) Public Disputations. 4fi
(6) The attraotiveness of Mani's teaching. 47
(c) Its relation to other faiths, Buddha, Zoroaster; the
religion of the Jains. Esoteric Buddhism. 43

CONTENTS. ix
. _ , PAGE
2. Goodness and Happiness. 49
(a) Influence of Greek Thought. 49
(b) External Goods. 50
(c) The Unreality of Evil and harmony of the Universe. 51
II. The Oeigin of Evil  54
1 How is Evil Possible ? 54
(a) Beings that are good but changeable. 54
(b) Defect of Will. 55
2. How did Evil actually arise ? 55
(a) The Scriptural story of the Fall, as symbolical or the
account of an actual event. 56
(a) S. Austin superadds the literal interpretation. 56
(p) Partly from antagonism to the Manichaeans, partly
from the bent of his mind. 57 I
(b) Pre-Adamite Death. 58
3. The Sting of Death. 59
III. The Punishment of Sin  61
1. The nature of punishment, as assertory not merely remedial or
exemplary. 6J —
2. The physical effects of sin. 62
3. Its punishment — Ignorance and Incapacity. 63
4. S. Austin's horror of sin —
(a) Incontinence. 64
(6) Was his opinion still partly Manichamn or not ? 65
5. The proportion of the Divine Punishments. 68
6. Are future punishments material as well as spiritual ? 69
7. The question of final salvation is not a question of time, but of
the possibility of restoration. 70
8. Is there any limit to the power of God's grace ? 71
9. A harmonious whole, or the restoration of each creature to the
fullest life of which it is capable. 72
III.
HUMAN FREEDOM AND THE DIVINE WILL.
The Pelagian Conteoversy.  77
1. Its origin and character. 77
2. Its value and bearing on modern discussions. 78
3. A necessary question, though little considered in the East. 79

X CONTENTS. PAGE
4. Personal importance for S. Austin. 80
(a) His own experience. 80
(b) A psychological question as to the nature of evil, and
thus connected with the metaphysical question he
had discussed with the Manichaeans. 81
Commonly Recognised Facts of Human Nature. . . . .81
1. Heredity, and evil dispositions. 81
(a) Perfectionism out of date. 81
(b) S. Austin's doctrine of original sin. 82
(c) Contrast with Calvin and the doctrine of total de
pravity. 83
2. My responsibility for what I do. 84
(a) Strongly held by S. Austin. 84
(b) Contrast with Calvin. 85
3. Pessimism. 86
(a) Is a not uncommon and a consistent (though incom
plete) view of Ufe. 87
(b) A difficulty is created by the Christian revelation. 87
(c) The rejection of Christianity may remove this difficulty,
but does not give us a gospel. 88
Divine Foreknowledge.  88
1. Knowledge and Control. This distinction rejected by Calvin as a
superstition. 88
2. The creation of a mutable will, liable to defect. 91
(a) The true freedom of the will. 91
(6) Distinct from the Pelagian Uberty of indifference. 93
(c) Man's wiU, when free, comes to be at harmony with
other men, and with God. 94
d) Freedom for caprice, and freedom from sin. 95
(e) The faUacy of discussing the WiU of God apart from
the Character of God, and the WUl of Man apart
from the Nature of Man— Abstract reasonings about
concrete realities. 96
3. The effects of the defect of the mutable wUl. 97
(a) S. Austin's view. 97
(i) Permitting not causing evil. 97
(ii) The wiU is a noble power stiU. 98
(iii) The unknown good in evil. 99 *

CONTENTS. XI
PAGE
(b) These considerations are not a proof of the goodness
of God, but they serve to confirm our beUef in His
goodness as made known by Christ. 99
(c) This belief as a key to knowledge of what is other
wise unintelligible — it renders knowledge possible. 100
(d) The argument from the limits of our experience is of
weight to warn us agamst trusting our power of
criticising God's purpose. 101
DrvrNE Omnipotence  102
1. Is the use of means derogatory, or the use of the particular
means He has ordained ? 102
2. The true nature of Omnipotence, which can never be arbitrary.
Contrast with Calvin's teaching. 102
3. S. Austin's doctrine of the WiU. 104
(a) Pelagius and Calvin. 105
(6) SimUarity to that of Kant. 105
(c) The distinctive testimony from the English Church. 106
IV.
THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE MEANS OF GRACE.
The City of God  .... Ill
1. The Goths and Rome. Fugitives in Africa. Ill
2. Christ as a protector against temporal evil. 112
3. Christians and the discipline of temporal evils. 113
4. Was this misery due to the vengeance of the old gods, or how is
it to be explained? By a faith in the Holy CathoUc Church. 113
5. S. Austin's PhUosophy of History; its originality and value. 115
6. The Church, not merely as ideal, but as actual. 116
7. The faUure to realise the ideal in S. Austin's day. 116
(a) Schismatics. 117
(6) Unworthy Members. 119
The Donatist Controversy ...  120
1. Its character and the point at issue. 120
(a) Breach of continuity. 121
(6) Self-opinionated schismatics. 121
2. The validity of baptism by heretics. 122
(a) F. D. Maurice and re-baptism. 122
(6) Is the worthiness of the minister a sine qua non 123

XII CONTENTS. PAGE
Fourth Century Doctrine of the Means of Grace . . . 123
1. Regeneration and Conversion. 124
2. Baptismal Regeneration. 125
3. The limits to the operation of God's grace. 126
(a) The area of administration, and its bearing on the
doctrine of predestination. No excuse is furnished
for Antinomianism when the doctrine is stated thus. 126
(b) The hardness of human hearts. Pelagian Uberty of
indifference. 128
(c) Article XVH. 128
4. Contrast with more modern schools of thought. 129
(a) The Sacraments are only means of grace. 129
(b) The divinely ordained Sacraments are not the only
means of grace. Repentance. The truth, and the
impUcit danger of EvangeUcaUsm. 130
(i) Fixing attention- on divine power in unexpected
and exceptional phenomena. 131
(u) Undervaluing the divinely appointed means of
grace. 132
(in) Pelagianism in regard to Preaching. 132
(e) The sacraments are real means of grace. Formalism
and self-deception. 133
5. Importance of his doctrine on this point and its place in his
theological system. 134
APPENDIX.
Excursus A. S. Austin and the Observation of Nature . . 137
Excursus B. S. Austin's influence in the Middle Ages . . 142
1. Mode of Testing it. 142
2. The System of Study. 143
3. Erigena on Reason and Authority. 143
4. Erigena on Prescience and Predestination. 145
5. Erigena on Eternal Punishment. 146
6. S. Anselm. 150
^ 7. The Decline of S. Austin's influence. 152
Excursus G. S. Austin's knowledge of Greek  154
Excursus D. The Authority and Interpretation of Scripture . . 157
1. Eternal Truth. 157
2. The Bible and the Church, 159

CONTENTS. xill
PAGE
3. How is a confliot between "Reason" and "Authority" possible? 160
4. False pretensions to Authority and the Umits of Empirical
Opinion. 162
5. The Interpretation of Authority. 165
6. The conditions for apprehending Bible Truth. 166
Excursus E. Continence in Married Life ..... 168
Excursus E. The Freedom of the Will ..... 171
1. Freedom as a faculty and differences of moral condition. 171
2. S. Austin's originality. 174
3. The asserted modification of his views. 175
Excursus G. The influence of S. Austin on the English Church . 177
1. The negative and positive proofs of his influence. 177
2. Its duration. 178
3. The Prayer Book, and Articles. 180
4. The Brownists— Gyffard. 184
5. The Penal Laws against Dissenters. 189
6. Passive Obedience. 192 .
7. His popular influence in the Seventeenth Century. 195
8. The Eighteenth Century. 196
9. His Eucharistic Doctrine. 197
An Epistolary Dissertation addressed to the Clergy of Middlesex
wherein the Doctrine of S. Austin concerning the Christian Sacrifice is
set in a true Ught: by a Divine of the University of Cambridge.
London, 1739 . .  199
Excursus H. The Chronology of S. Austin's Life  277

LECTUKE I.
And Pilate saith unto Him, ]\hat is Truth?
S. John xviii. 38.

C

INTRODUCTION.
I. Preliminary Considerations.
The end of the fourth century of our era was marked
by the work of three men who have left an impress on all
subsequent ages. Amidst the ruin that was overtaking
civilisation and culture around them these three preserved
that which was to show itself in a new and worthier growth,
for each contributed something to the progress of Christian
life. At Milan, S. Ambrose devoted himself to teaching his
flock, to enriching the services of his church, and to the
pastoral care of his people. In his cell at Bethlehem,
S. Jerome was busy in studying the text of the Scriptures
and in sending forth those volumes which were among the
firstfruits of Christian scholarship. At Hippo, S. Austin
was defending the Christian verities against the open
attacks of the enemies of the cross or the more insidious
errors of mistaken brethren. Pastoral work, Christian
scholarship and Christian thought had each found a
worthy representative.
In the revived Christian life of the present century
there are everywhere traces of earnest pastoral work such
as once distinguished the see of Milan. More frequent and
more hearty services abound, and at no time in the history
of the English Church have greater efforts been made to
1—2

4 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
render the parochial ministry available for the spiritual
needs of all the dwellers in our parishes. The revised trans
lation of the Bible, issued this year, is a monumental work
which shows that the Church in our day has fully maintained
the progress made by the Christian scholarship of other ages.
There is no need to dwell now on the example of fourth
century saints to quicken our energies in these directions.
But with the work of S. Austin it is different : he still
towers, as a master of Christian thought, above all who
have followed him in Western Christendom; there has
been no crisis of religious history in later days, when men
have not turned to him for direction. And not only has he
thus proved himself worthy our study, but the department
of Christian life in which he was pre-eminent is one in
which our age is singularly weak, and singularly blind to
its own weakness ; for it is much easier to depreciate what
we do not understand, than to try and understand what we do
not appreciate. In the outcry which greeted the teaching of
Frederick Maurice, or the publication of the Essays and
Reviews, we have recent examples of the jealousy with which
freshness of thought on theological subjects is apt to be re
garded in religious circles ; while in the literary world there
are not a few who speak as if thought about the Christian
Faith were wholly thrown away. Religious sentiment in
any land, the spirit of our age can respect and admire:
religious benevolence it will even applaud and hail as the
only worthy expression of the devout spirit: but of the
results of thought about God, and man's relation to Him it
takes no heed. And to those who thus disparage the results
of such thinking it seems to be a not wholly harmless waste
of time, since they feel that dogmatic discussions have
caused and do cause so much bitterness among those who
engage in them, and that they thus interfere with the
united and harmonious prosecution of works of Christian
philanthropy.

I.] PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 5
Yet after all, however highly we prize the personal
earnestness of a devout man or woman, it may be an
ensample, but it cannot be a possession for ever: however
devoted Christian work may be, it is limited both in time
and place. The life of S. Ambrose is an example for all
time, but his work has to be begun anew in each new age ;
his course is over, his task completed. And Christian
scholarship too takes us away into the long past.
As it sets forth the written revelation of God in its
greatest fulness, and accumulates proofs of the authenticity
of each part of the message, it leads us back to the begin
nings of our Faith, to the first manifestation of the Truth.
Very different is the work of Christian thought : it has to
set before us the meaning for all time of the events to
which Christian scholarship testifies, and of the Divine
words it has treasured and preserved. Be it so that there
was One mysteriously born, living strangely, inspiring
strong enthusiasm and wild hatred, suffering death and
rising from the grave to a new life among men, what is the
import of that story for all time? what is the full force of
the message He had to give, the real measure of the autho
rity with which He spake? And the answer to these ques
tions — of desperate interest as they are to us here and now
— comes to us in those dogmas as to the person of Christ
which were formulated by the earnest thought of the Fathers
of the Church. The unifying power of their thought
gathered into one the scattered sayings, and the records of
Divine doings, and set their meaning forth in a form in
which it may be treasured for all time, as a precious posses
sion for every age.
But there is other work for Christian thought to do : it
is not only through Christ that we know of God ; there is
evidence of Him in the heart of man and in the world
around us. It is not only through His death that we may
see that sin has entered the world, though we may learn its

S. AUSTIN.

[lect.

heinousness at the foot of the cross — as nowhere else. It is
not only by conscious reliance on His Spirit that we may
begin to overcome evil and attain to a true freedom ; it is
not merely in the history of God's ancient people, or of the
planting of the Church, that we learn His dealings with men,
though we see them most fully there. Philosophy had dis
cussed the being of God, and the nature of good and evil,
of human freedom, and of human society, before the Chris
tian revelation came. It was tempting, but not wholly safe,
to accept "the rational residuum of centuries of Greek
mental activity1" and express the Christian verities in
terms which should harmonise with it ; and it was no light
or easy task to re-cast the current philosophic thoughts of
God and Man and the World in the light of the new revela
tion regarding each, which was given in the person and
work of Christ.
The earlier Fathers, in defining Christian dogmas, had
thought out the meaning of the Christian revelation for
all time : they did not aspire to be Christian philosophers,
or to combine the knowledge which we have from all
sources, in one consistent scheme of thought. This was the
Avork on which Origen" entered for Greek-speaking Christians
and the East, and which S. Austin began for Latin Christ
ianity, to which time after time he returned as the exigencies
of new controversy led him once more to the fray : and if
for the present we try to concentrate attention on the
work of the Bishop of Hippo, it is from no special desire
to draw a comparison in his favour with other workers in
1 Mark Pattison, Sermons, 16.".
2 The suspicion which his contemporaries felt of Origen's orthodoxy
was due to the fact that rightly or wrongly they believed he was accom
modating Christian truth to non-Christian philosophy, not building a
Christian philosophy on the enlarged basis given by the Christian
revelation of divine truth. It was on precisely similar grounds that
the teaching of Erigena was subsequently repudiated bv the orthodox
in the middle ages.

I.J PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. 7
the same field, but because his Avritings are more akin to
our Western modes of thought.
And since these great problems about the being of God
and the nature of Man press on us too, the solutions at
which the earliest of Christian philosophers arrived may
have a real and living interest for us to-day : they can never
be out of date. Even though the solutions offered were
necessarily partial, they have a worth for all time. For here
we must distinguish : so far as the great events of Christ's
life and work are concerned, the duty of thinking out their
import for all time was done once, and need not be done
again : it is embodied for us in the three Creeds. But
there is no such finality in Christian philosophy : apart from
the continual self-revelation of God in His Church, there is
a continual change in the material which is submitted to
us to think about, and a change from age to age in human
habits of thinking about it. Great advances have been
made in both respects in our own century, and the difficulty
of co-ordinating older and newer truths is forced upon us
day by day in many lines of study. The discoveries and
inventions which abound in our day have opened up fields
of knowledge that were undreamed of by S. Austin. The
post-Kantian account of the development of Thought has
affected every department of human study, for it has affected
the habits of study themselves. No philosophy, Christian
or other, can make itself heard which does not take this
new material into account, or recognise these new habits of
thinking. As the ages pass we get, time after time, new
light on the way in which God rules the world ; there can
be no finality in philosophy, though the partial solutions of
other ages, the phases of Truth they apprehended, must be
kept in full view, if our own knowledge is to be more com
plete1. 1 G. W. F. Hegel, Geschichte der Philosophie, I. 42.

K. AUSTIN.

[lect.

II. S. Austin as the Example of a Christian
Philosopher.
Since the old questions about God, and Man and the
World are before us still, if any of us feel that we cannot
ignore them, that we must strive to face them and to con
sider how far the old solutions harmonise with new experi
ence, we can surely prepare ourselves for this task in no
better way than by sitting at the feet of the greatest of
Christian thinkers. We shall turn to S. Austin, not as a
dogmatic teacher1, but as the greatest example of a Chris
tian Philosopher. It is to follow in his steps that we may
look to him now, — not to accept his teaching as a ready
1 Compare his own language in regard to the respect due to his
opinion : Sane cum in omnibus litteris meis non solum piuin lectorem,
sed etiam liberum correctorem desiderem, multo maxime in his, ubi ipsa
inagnitudo quse3tiouis utinam tam multos iuventores habere posset,
quam multos contradictores habet. Verumtamen sicut lectorem meum
nolo mihi esse deditum, ita correctorem nolo sibi. Ille me non amet
amplius qu»in catholicam fidem, iste se non amet amplius quam
catholicani veritatem. Sicut illi dico, Noli meis litteris quasi Scripturis
canonicis inservire ; sed in illis et quod non credebas, cum inveneris,
incunctanter crede, in istis autem quod certum uou habebas, nisi
certum intellexeris, noli firmiter retinere : ita illi dico, Noli meas
litteras ex tua opinione vel conteutione, sed ex divina lectione vel
inconcussa ratione corrigere. Si quid in eis veri compreheuderis,
existeudo non est meum, at intelligendo et amando et tuum sit et
meum : si quid autem falsi conviceris, errando fuerit meum, sed jam
cavendo nee tuum sit nee meum. De Trin. in. 2.
Libera me, Deus, a multiloquio quod patior intus in anima mea,
niisera in conspectu tuo, et confugiente ad misericordiam tuam. Non N
enim cogitationibus taceo, etiam tacens vocibus. Et si quidem non
cogitarem nisi quod placeret tibi, non utique rogarem ut me ab hoc
multiloquio liberarcs. Sed multoe sunt cogitationes me*, tales quales
nosti, cogitationes hominum, quoniam vanoe sunt. Dona mihi non eis
consentire, et si quando me delectant, eas nihilominus improbare, nee
in eis velut dormitando immorari. Nee in tantum valeaut apud' me,
ut aliquid in opera mea procedat ex illis ; sed ab eis mea saltern sit '
tuba scntontia, tuta conscientia tc tucnte. De Trin. xv. 51.

l.J personal characteristics. 9
made solution of the difficulties that press on us to-day.
Old controversies return, but in new forms ; yet the way
which he pursued in his search for truth is open to us too ;
it is still the path of faith that leads to knowledge1. And
1 Aderit enim Deus, et nos intelligere quod credidimus, faciet.
Prsescriptum enim per prophetam gradum, qui ait, Nisi eredideritis,
non intt'lliijetis (Isai. vii. 9, fee. LXX), tenere nos, bene nobis conscii
sumus. De Lib. Arb. I. 4.
Credibilium tria sunt genera. Alia sunt quse semper creduntur, et
nunquam intelliguntur: sicut est omnis historia, temporalia et humana
gesta percurrens. Alia qun; mox ut creduntur, intelliguntur : sicut
sunt omnes rationes humanse, vel de numeris, vel de quibuslibet disci-
pliuis. Tertium, quse primo creduntur, et postea intelliguntur: qualia
sunt ea quse de divinis rebus non possunt intelligi, nisi ab his qui mundo
sunt corde ; quod fit prseceptis servatis, quse de bene vivendo accipiun
tur. De Die. Quest. LXXXIII. qu. xlviii.
Quo cognito, satis apparebit, quantum homo assequi potest, quam
necess.iriis et invictis et justis legibus Deo et Domino suo cuncta
subjecta sint : ex quo ilia omnia, quse primo credidimus, nihil nisi
auctoritatem secuti, partim sic intelliguntur, ut videamus esse cer-
tissinia ; partim sic, ut videamus fieri posse, atque ita fieri oportuisse,
doleamusque illos hsec non credentes, qui nos antea credentes irridere,
quam nobiscum credere maluerunt. De Vera Religione, 14.
Fides quaerit, intellectus invenit. De Trin. xv. 2.
As a personal trust in its parents and its reliance on them is the
first step which a child takes in knowledge of social relationships and
ethical duty, so our trust in the Eternal God, in so far as He has revealed
Himself, is the first step towards a right understanding of the relations
of man to the Eternal and Unseen Realities. There is even an analogy
in the progress of empirical science from hypothesis tentatively accepted
(or believed) till by being verified it becomes knowledge. On the whole
subject compare Gangauf, Metaph. Psych. 1. 31, also Excursus D. p. 157.
Credulity, according to S. Austin, is the state of mind of those who
think they know what tbey know not, and who therefore rest satisfied
with mere belief and never try to advance to knowledge. De Ulil. Cred.
22. 25. He has no sympathy with the standpoint of Tertullian or any
of those whose motto is Credo quia absurdum. S. Anselm reiterates his
view excellently when he says, Negligentia mihi videtur, si postquam
confirmati sumus in fide, non studemus, quod credimus intelligere.
Cur Deus Homo, I. ii.
It is often said that there is much in common between Christian
philosophy and such theosophics as are contained in Buddhist or Her
metic writings. But these, generally speaking, regard yvw<ns as a thing

10 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
we in our day, distracted with anxiety and doubt, may well
turn to him, — to him perhaps rather than any of the Fathers
of the Church. He above all others may be our guide,
philosopher and friend, both because of hisjiersonal^quali-
ties and of the times in which he wrote, because of. the
range of his studies and the effect they have produced in
Christendom throughout all subsequent ages.
1. Perhaps the most striking trait in the personal cha
racter of S. Austin as it stands out before us in his own
writings is his devotion to truth wherever jt is found. Not
only truth as set before us in revelation, or reached by
patient argument and intellectual discussion, but also in
the form in which it is specially prized by our generation —
empirical^ truth as detected through the senses in scientific
investigation1. He pours his contempt on the physical
philosophers of his own day who ignored such inquiries.
"For pray because they dispute most truly and persuade
"us by most certain proofs that all things in time depend
"upon eternal principles, are they therefore able to discover
"a priori or to deduce from their principles the different
"kinds of animals there are, the original seeds of each, the
"rule of their growth, the limits that run through their con
ception, births, ages, decease, their natural attractions and
"repulsions ? Are they not forced to leave that unchange-
"able wisdom, and to look for all these things to the actual
"particulars of place and time, and to the experience and
to which few can attain, and thus separate the clceti from the auditores.
Christianity imposes no such hard-and-fast line, but offers its doctrines
in a form in which they can be apprehended and believed by the most
uncultivated, and which may afford those who believe a guide to action.
Prom this platform the more thoughtful and devout may advance to
greater and greater degrees of knowledge of divine things.
1 See Excursus A. on S. Austin and the Obsereation of Nature,
p. 138 : also Excursus B. § 3, on Erigena on Reason and Authority,
p. 143 ; also Excursus D. § 3, on The Possibility of a Conflict between
Reason and Authority, p. 160.

I.] PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS. 11
"records of others1?" Nor does he spare those who would
prejudge such enquiries on the supposed authority of Scrip
ture. <!It is a very disgraceful and pernicious thing, and
"one greatly to be watched against, that any infidel should
"hear a Christian talking wild nonsense about the earth
"and the heaven, about the motions and magnitude and
"intervals of the stars, the courses of years and times, the
"natures of animals, stones and other matters of the same
"kind, pretending that he has the authority of the Scriptures
"on his side. The other who understands these things from
"reason or experience, seeing that the Christian is utterly
"ignorant of the subject, that he is wide of the mark by a
"whole heaven, cannot refrain from laughter2." Again and
again we see what an attraction physical science and the
experimental investigation of facts had for his own mind,
and how his reasonings are affected by the influence it exer
cised over him.
While his writings thus show that his mind remained
ever open to the reception of new evidence, the story of his
life brings clearly before us the passiouateness of his search
for an intellectual truth which should render the world and
his own being less incomprehensible. It_ almost _ seems
when we read his Confessions as if Christianity won him,
not so much through the promise of deliverance from sin,
as by affording him a solution ofthe mysteries of this unin
telligible world. The personality of the writer in all its
intellectual earnestness has left an indelible mark on his
treatment of the most abstruse problems. Each of the
positions of his philosophy owes its strength, not to a mere
series of rigid logical demonstrations, but to the convictions
which had been formed in his own experience by his eager
wrestling for Truth. He found a certainty through
1 De Trin. iv. 21.
2 De Genes, ad Lit. i. 39. Quoted by F. D. Maurice, The Old Testa
ment, 14.

12 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
struggling with every form of doubt. He knew the nature
of evil, since he had sounded its depths himself. He
understood human freedom, since he was himself attaining
it : and he could realise something of God's working in the
world, since he had traced it in his own life.
2. While the cast of S. Austin's mind was so similar to
that of many men to-day, the circumstances of his age were
very different to ours. Deep metaphysical problems which
some of us are tempted to ignore as insoluble or unin
telligible were pressed upon his attention : he was forced to
deal with them, and his age was one in which no debater
could hold his own who did not wield the weapons of
speculative thought most warily. The wonders of the
physical universe excite the enthusiasm of our contempo
raries ; attention and thought are so generally directed
to these matters that the cultured public of to-day has
little interest and less appreciation for philosophy. But
in days when the points of the Arian controversy were
frequently debated in the streets, when public disputations
between Christians and Manichaeans were matters of eager
interest to a whole population, there was a wide field for
speculative energy. He who won the honours then, may
fairly claim the attention of all who think on such subjects
now. 3. S. Austin may also move our admiration and attract
us by the extraordinary range of his studies1. Some of his
earlier writings from a heathen standpoint2, as well as his
treatises on particular branches of science, are lost to us3.
1 A. Dorner, Augustinus, 324.
" Et ista consideratio scaturivit in animo meo ex intimo corde meo ;
et scripsi libros de Pulchro et Apto; puto, duos aut tres. Tu scis,
Deus: nam excidit mihi. Non enim habemus eos, sed aberraverunt
a nobis, nescio quomodo. Conf. iv. 20.
3 Per idem tempus quo Mcdiolani fui, Baptismum percepturus, etiam
Disciplinarum libros conatus sum scribere, interrogans eos qui mecum
erant, atque ab hujusmodi studiis non abhorrebant ; per corporalia

I.] PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS. 13
But more than enough remains to impress us with the
marvellousjFertility of his pen, and the versatility of his
talents. There is hardly a topic in the whole range of
theology and philosophy on which he has not something to
say. However diverse our interests may be, whichever of
the many problems of life weighs on us most heavily, we
may learn that it is not peculiarly our own, but that the
great African Father wrestled with something similar in his
time. Indeed we dare not neglect him, for though he lived
so long ago his work is by no means antiquated ; he
deals with many of the questions that vex us now, and
raise restless longings for a certainty that seems unattain
able, or give place to the bitter hopelessness that weighs on
our hearts and hampers our efforts to struggle after good
and for good.
Thus to set S. Austin before you, as a man whose work
is of living interest to-day, is no light undertaking, both
because of the difficulty of the subject and the shortness of
the term allotted to a lecturer. To do so at all one must
touch lightly on many deep matters, must state questions
rather than discuss them, and pass rapidly from one broad
issue to another. But even the most hasty and inadequate
sketch is not wholly useless, if it can help any of us to
realise that we are blameworthy indeed, in so far as we
ignore S. Austin now, or let ourselves fancy that the
points he discussed have lost their importance, or that his
treatment of them is wholly out of date.
cupiens ad incorporalia quibusdam quasi passibus certis vel pervenire
vel ducere. Sed eannn solum de Grammatica librum absolvere potui,
quem postea de armario nostro perdidi : et de Musica sex volumina ;
quantum attinet ad earn partem quae Rythmus vocatur. Sed eosdem
sex libros jam baptizatus, jamque ex Italia re jressus in Africam scripsi ;
inchoaveram quippe tantummodo istani apud Mediolanum disciplinam.
De aliis vero quinque discipliuis illic similiter inchoatb. de Dialectica,
de Rhetorica, de Geometria, de Arithmetica, de Philosophia, sola
principia remanserunt, quse tamen etiam ipsa perdidimus: sed haberi
ab aliquibus existimo. Retract, l vi.

14 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
There is a peculiar difficulty in attempting a rapid
survey of S. Austin's work, for he has no^ given us a
systematic exposition of his views in a single treatise : and
besides this, the views expressed in the books he wrote
as a catechumen before his baptism appear to have under
gone some modification in his later years : the works pub
lished during his episcopate are not obviously in complete
harmony with his first essays, and he was at the trouble to
revise and correct his earlier writings only with respect to
the statements they contained on one particular question1.
The difficulty is farther increased by the fact that there are
frequent and hasty expressions of his opinions in private
letters, or thrown out in the heat of controversy, and one
cannot hope to be always successful in choosing statements
which fairly embody his view on the whole.
The want of system in his teaching gives rise to
another difficulty — in what order are we to delineate the
many doctrines discussed here and there throughout his
numerous treatises? By expounding his teaching in a
regular system, as Dorner has done, we may get the means
of summarising the value of his conclusions, but we
cannot hope to preserve the living personal interest which
attaches to his doctrines in the less rigid sequence in which
he has expressed them. The very form of his writings —
the dialogues which make no pretence to art but which
purport to represent actual conversations2 — the correspon-
1 At the same time it may be said that there is far less alteration in
his standpoint during the period of his authorship than has been the
case with many philosophers, notably, the Platonic dialogues, Berkeley or
Schelling. Compare Excursus A. p. 139 note, for the alleged alteration in
his view of secular studies ; also Excursus F. p. 1 73, for the asserted modi
fication in his doctrine of the Will. On the changes in his attitude
towards the Platonic philosophy see p. 29 note 4, and p. 36 note 1 below.
2 Idibus novembris mihi natalis dies erat : post tam tenue prandium,
ut ab eo nihil ingeniorum impediretur, omnes qui simul non modo illo
die, sed quotidie convivabamur, in balneas ad consedendum vocavi ; nam

I.] PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS. 15
dence which Avas called forth by special opportunities of
conveying letters1 — the Confessions and Soliloquies which
tell of his own personal experience — the treatises and public
debating Avhich were required for the special instruction
of his flock in connexion with blatant or novel errors, all
have an occasional interest, besides their permanent value,
either in their matter or their form. With the view of
retaining something of this personal interest, it may be
Avisest for us to review the more important subjects on
which he wrote, as they successively attracted his own
attention. The order in Avhich the various controversies
arose will serve at any rate to indicate the order in which
Ave may begin the discussion of them now.
4. The practical cast of his mind, together Avith the
wide range of the subjects of Avhich he treats, goes far to
account for the extraordinary influence he has exercised on
Christendom. The Avhole life of the mediaeval Church Avas
framed on lines which he had suggested : its religious
orders claimed him as their patron ; its mystics found a sym
pathetic tone in his teaching ; its theology was consciously
moulded after his doctrine ; its polity was to some extent the
actualisation of his picture of the Christian Church ; it was in
is tempori aptus locus secretusque occurrerat. Erant autem, non enim
vereor eos singulari benignitati tuse notos interim nominibus facere, in
primis nostra mater, cujus meriti credo esse omne quod vivo ; Navigius
frater meus, Trygetius et Licentius, cives et discipuli mei ; nee Lastidia-
num et Rusticum consobrinos meos, quamvis nullum vel grammaticum
passi sint, deesse volui, ipsumque eorum sensum communem, ad rem
quam moliebar, necessarium putavi. Erat etiam nobiscum setate minimus
omnium, sed cujus ingenium, si amore non fallor, magnum quiddam
pollicetur, Adeodatus filius meus. Quibus attentis, sic coepi. De Beata
Vita, 6.
Post pristinum sermonem, quem in primum librum contulimus, septem
fere diebus a disputando fuimus otiosi, cum tres tantum Virgilii libros
post primum recenseremus, atque ut in tempore congruere videbatur,
tractaremus. Contra Acad. n. 10. See also De Ordine, n. 21.
1 Ep. cxlix. (Paulino).

16 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
its various parts a carrying out of ideas which he cherished
and diffused. Nor does his influence end with the decline
of medisevalism : Ave shall see presently how closely his
language was akin to that of Descartes, who gave the first
impulse to and defined the special character of modern
philosophy. There, are those Avho identify his doc^rijie^
Avith that of Luther, the founder of Protestantism : the con
troversies in which he took part were fought over again by
the Jansenists in the Gallican Church, and by Calvinists
and Arminians in those countries which renounced the
Roman obedience : and once more in our own land when a
reaction arose against rationalism and Erastianism it was to
the African doctor that men turned Avith enthusiasm : Dr
Pusey's edition of the Confessions was among the first-
fruits of the Oxford movement. But if these facts help us
to estimate the importance of S. Austin, they render it
harder for us to approach him fairly. We are apt to
interpret his doctrines in the form into which they were
cast by others, or in the light of the applications that were
made of them in subsequent ages. To some of us, it may be,
the name Augustine is but the symbol for the propounder
of certain so-called Augustinian theories : and our first
effort must be to rid our minds of these associations. Or
again, in so far as we are out of sympathy with mediaeval
monachism, or scholastic theology, or contemplative piety,
or the ecclesiastical hierarchy, we are prejudiced against
the ancient Father who did so much to encourage these
developments of Christian life. But Ave do not judge him
fairlyjin judging him thus: his teaching was actualised
ratherthan realised, — applied in actual life, but not applied
precisely as he would himself have Avished. I shall have to
point out, as these lectures proceed, several crucial instances
Avhich show that he too would have condemned much that
was afterwards current in scholastic theology and mediaeval
practice ; we want to understand what he really thought

L] PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS. 17
and said, and we must try not to prejudge him because of
the ways in Avhich other people carried out or modified the
views he held.
Some of those who admit that scholasticism and
medisevalism were exaggerated expressions of his teaching,
and who do not hold him directly responsible for all that
they dislike in the teaching and life of Latin Christendom,
are yet inclined to contend that he was indirectly responsi
ble for it, that his influence was exerted banefully to
develop Christianity in the directions in which these evils
subsequently appeared. They are ready to blame him,
not for the full amount of the evil, but for fostering the
conditions under which these evils appeared. But to argue
thus is to forget the incalculable good which accrued from
the movements which S. Austin, with all the best men of
his age, favoured.
Itjvas not possible that Christian life should remain in
the undeveloped condition in which it first made its mark
in j;he world : hoAv chaotic and disordered it was in the days
of S. Austin we may learn from many incidental remarks in
his writings1. If Christian life was to be perpetuated in the
world it was needful that it should be organised in more
definite institutions : the good men and true in these times
who had the preservation of the Christian Faith at heart
1 Comessationes enim et ebrietates ita concessse et licitse putantur,
ut in honorem etiam beatissimorum martyrum, non solum per dies
solemnes (quod ipsum quis non lugendum videat, qui hsec non carnis
oculis inspicit), sed etiam quotidie celebrentur. Quse fceditas si tantum
flagitiosa et non etiam sacrilega esset, quibuscumque tolerantise viribus
sustentandam putaremus. Quanquam ubi est illud, quod cum multa
vitia enumerasset idem apostolus, inter quse posuit ebriosos, ita con-
clusit, ut diceret cum talibus nee panem edere. Sed feramus hsec in
luxu et labe domestica, et eorum conviviorum quse privatis parietibus
continentur, accipiamusque cum eis corpus Christi, cum quibus panem
edere prohibemur; saltern de sanctorum corporum sepulcris, saltern de
locis sacramentorum, de domibus orationum tantum dedecus arceatur.
Ep. xxii. 3. See also Ep. xxix. xxxiv. xxxv.
C. 2

18 S. AUSTIN. j_LECT" L
were all working on similar lines. To speak as if S. Austin
were personally responsible for such changes is to overrate
the possible influence of any one man : and though his
poAver and energy Avere most important factors, we need not
blame him solely for all the evils that eventually ensued,
since we cannot ascribe to him the sole credit of so
organising the teaching and Avork of the Church, that she
was able to survive the shock of the barbarian invasions,
and to bring forth a better and nobler civilisation when the
dark days Avere done.

TRUTH, AND THE POSSIBILITY OF ATTAINING IT.
I. S. Austin's Philosophical Doctrines.
The first great controversy Avith which Ave are concerned
was a discussion of the views of those who like Pilate
doubted of the possibility of attaining Truth at all; for
they showed that the evidence of the senses — that Avhich
seems to the plain man to give the strongest possible convic
tion — was not altogether beyond question. S. Austin must
have come across the opinion at an earlier time, for the
writings of Cicero are full of references to the Academics,
and that lost dialogue which he prized so highly — the Hor-
tensius — alluded to the question, if it did no more1. But
the eloquence and imaginative power of the Manichaean
teachers had carried him away in his earlier days ; it Avas
after he had left Carthage, and taken up a temporary resi
dence in Rome2 that the questioning habit of Academic
1 Itane falsum erit, unde nee ipse (cum Academicis omnia dubia sint)
Academicus ille Cicero dubitavit, qui cum vellet in Hortensio dialogQ
ab aliqua re certa, de qua nullus ambigeret, sumere suse disputationis
exordium, Beati certe, inquit, omnes esse volumusl Absit ut hoc
falsum esse dicamus. De Trin. xiii. 7.
2 See Excursus H, for the Chronology of S. Austin's Life, p. 277.
Rationem ipse mecum habui magnamque deliberationem jam in
Italia constitutus, non utrum manerem in ilia secta, in quam me
incidisse poenitebat, sed quonam modo verum inveniendum esset, in
cujus amorem suspiria mea nulli melius quam tibi nota sunt. Ssepe
mihi videbatur non posse inveniri, magnique fluctus cogitationum
meamm in Academicorum suffragium ferebantur. De Util. Cred. 20.
2—2

20 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
doubt gained a hold upon him. It may be that the isolation
of the life of a stranger in a great city, along with the de
pressing effects of the serious illness from which he suffered,
preyed upon his spirits, and predisposed him to enquire
aneAV as to the foundation on Avhich his convictions rested.
He has himself recorded for us the course of reasoning by
which he came to be sure that truth, and not mere proba
bility, is attainable by men; he learned to hope that his own
seeking Avould at length be rewarded by finding, and to be
ready to receive the Truth as it is in Christ Jesus1.
S. Austin's argument on these points is much affected
by the nature of the doctrines he was forced to oppose.
1 Quse cum ita sint, accipe, mi Theodore, namque ad id quod
desidero, te unum intueor, teque aptissimum semper admiror ; accipe,
inquam, et quod illorum trium genus hominum me tibi dederit, et quo
loco mihi esse videar, et abs te cujusmodi auxilium certus exspectem.
Ego ab usque undevigesimo anno setatis mese, postquam in schola
rhetoris librum ilium Ciceronis, qui HortenBius vocatur, accepi, tanto
amore philosophise succensus sum, ut statim ad earn me transferre
meditarer. Sed neque mihi nebulse defuerunt, quibus confunderetur
cursus meus ; et diu, fateor, quibus in errorem ducebar, labentia in
oceanum astra suspexi. Nam et superstitio qusedam puerilis me ab
ipsa inquisitione terrebat : et ubi factus erectior illam caliginem dispuli,
mihique persuasi docentibus potius quam jubentibus esse credendum,
incidi in homines, quibus lux ista, quse oculis cernitur, inter summa et
divina colenda videretur. Non assentiebar, sed putabam eos magnum
aliquid tegere illis involucris, quod essent aliquando aperturi. At ubi
discussos eos evasi, maxime trajecto isto mari, diu gubernacula mea
repugnantia omnibus ventis in rnediis fluctibus Academici tenuerunt.
Deinde veni in has terras ; hie septentrionem cui me crederem didici.
Animadverti enim et ssepe in sacerdotis nostri, et aliquando in sermoni-
bus tuis, cum de Deo cogitaretur, nihil omnino corporis esse cogitandum,
neque cum de anima : nam id est unum in rebus proximum Deo. Sed
ne in philosophise gremium celeriter advolarem, fateor, uxoris honorisque
illecebra detinebar; ut cum hsec essem consecutus, tum demum me,
quod paucis folicissimis licuit, totis velis omnibusque remis in ilium
sinum raperem, ibique conquiescerem. Lectis autem Platonis paucis-
simis libris, cujus te esse studiosissimum accepi, collataque cum eis,
quantum potui, etiam illorum auctoritate qui divina mysteria tradide-
runt, sic exarsi, ut omnes illas vellem anchoras rumpere, nisi me non-
nullorum hominum cxistimatio commoveret. Quid ergo restabat aliud,

I.] PHILOSOPHICAL DOCTRINES. 21
The doubt of the Academics was by no means so thorough
going as the philosophical scepticism of modern times, for
they did not question the existence of things of sense, but
the possibility of attaining to any certain knoAvledge in
regard to them1. The search for truth Avas not to their
minds a less Avorthy pursuit, because the goal lies beyond
our reach ; there might be probability in our opinions but
Iioav could there be certainty? Were our ordinary impres
sions more vivid than those of the dreamer or the man in
delirium2? and if not why should Ave pin our faith to them?
Does not our sight mislead us Avhen a straight oar seems
bent in the Avater3? why then should Ave trust it at other
times? And if these simple seeming matters are thus
nisi ut immoranti mihi superfluis, tempestas quse putabatur adversa,
succurreret? Itaque tantus me arripuit pectoris dolor, ut illius pro-
fessionis onus sustinere non valens, qua mihi velificabam fortasse ad
Sirenas, abjicerem omnia, et optatse tranquillitati vel quassatam navem
fissamque perducerem. De Beata Vita, 4.
1 On Academic doubt compare Bindemann, Der h. A ugustinus, 1. 1 85,
or Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, 522 f. S. Austin discusses their
doctrines not only in his treatise Contra Academicos, but also in the
EpistolcB iii. — xiv. to Nebridius, De Trinitate, xiii. 8 and xv. 21, and De
Cicitate Dei, xix. iii. ; there are frequent allusions throughout his writings.
2 Credo enim sensus non aceusari, vel quod imaginationes falsas
furentes patiuntur, vel quod falsa in somnis videmus. Si enim vera
vigilantibus atque sanis renuntiarunt ; nihil ad eos, quid sibi animus
dormientis insanientisque confingat. Contra Academicos, in. 25.
3 Ergone verum est quod de remo in aqua vident ? Prorsus verum.
Nam causa accedente quare ita videretur, si demersus unda remus
rectus appareret, magis oculos meos falsse renuntiationis arguerem.
Non enim viderent quod talibus existentibus causis videnduin fuit.
Quid multis opus est? Hoc de turrium motu, hoc de pinnulis avium,
hoc de cseteris innumerabilibus dici potest. Ego tamen fallor, si
assentiar, ait quispiam. Noli plus assentiri, quam ut ita tibi apparere
persuadeas ; et nulla deceptio est. Contra Academicos, in. 26.
Primo ipsa scientia, de qua veraciter cogitatio nostra formatur,
quando quse simus loquimur, qualis aut quanta potest homini provenire,
quamlibet peritissimo atque doctissimo ? Exceptis enim quse in animum
veniunt a sensibus corporis, in quibus tam multa aliter sunt quam viden-
tur, ut eorum verisimilitudinc nimium constipatus, sanus sibi esse

22 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
dubious and uncertain Iioav can we hope to attain to true
knowledge as to the idtimate nature and real causes of
phenomena? S. Austin points out that the Academics had been seek
ing for certainty in the wrong direction1: he holds that
though it is easy enough to fancy Ave may be mistaken or
mad in regard to particular things Ave see or feel, there is
one matter about which no mistake is possible. Even
though I err, still I am2: the fact of my self-conscious
videatur qui insanit; unde Academica philosophia sic invaluit, ut de
omnibus dubitans multo miserius insaniret ; his ergo exceptis quse a
corporis sensibus in animum veniunt, quantum rerum remanet quod ita
sciamus, sicut nos vivere scimus ? in quo prorsus non metuimus, ne aliqua
verisimilitudine forte fallamur, quoniam certum est etiam eum qui
fallitur vivere; nee in eis visis hoc habetur, quse objiciuntur extrinsecus,
ut in eo sic fallatur oculus, quemadmodum fallitur cum in aqua remus
videtur infractus, et navigantibus turres moveri, et alia sexcenta quse
aliter sunt quam videntur ; quia nee per oculum carnis hoc cemitur. De
Trin. xv. 21.
1 Noli foras ire, in teipsum redi; in interiore homine habitat Veri
tas ; et si tuam naturam mutabilem inveneris, transcende et teipsum....
Omnis qui se dubitantem intelligit, verum intelligit, et de hac re quam
intelligit certus est : de vero igitur certus est. Omnis igitur qui utrum
sit Veritas dubitat, in seipso habet verum unde non dubitet ; nee ulluni
verum nisi veritate verum est. Non itaque oportet eum de veritate
dubitare, qui potuit undecumque dubitare. De Vera Religione, 12, 73.
Ita omnis palma cognitioni datur et artificio et comprehensj.oni
veritatis ; ad quam nullo modo perveniunt qui foris earn quaerunt. De
Vera Rel. 94.
Ssepe mihi videbatur non posse inveniri, magnique fluctus cogita-
tionum mearum in Academicorum suffragium ferebantur. S;vpe rursus
intuens, quantum poterain, mentem humanam tam vivacem, tam
sagacem, tam perspicacem, non putabam latere veritatem, nisi quod in
ea quterendi modus lateret, eumdemque ipsum modum ab aliqua divina
auctoritate esse sumendum. De Vtil. Cred. 20.
2 Nulla in his vcris Academicorum argumenta formido, dicentium,
Quid, si falleris? Si enim fallor, sum. Nam qui non est, utique nee
falli potest : ac per hoc sum, si fallor. Quia ergo sum si fallor, quomodo
esse me fallor, quando certum est me esse, si fallor ? Quia igitur essem
qui fallercr, etiamsi fallerer ; procul dubio in eo quod me novi esse, non
fallor. De Cit: Dei, xi. xxvi. Intima scientia est qua nos vivere

I.] PHILOSOPHICAL DOCTRINES. 23
existence is involved in my very doubting itself. "Attend
"more carefully to the position Ave have laid doAvn that
"all minds know and are certain concerning themselves.
"For men certainly have doubted Avhether the poAver of
"living, of remembering, of understanding, of willing, of
"thinking, of knoAving, of judging, be of air, or of fire, or
"of the brain, or of the blood, or of atoms, or besides the
"usual four elements of a fifth kind of body I know not
"what, or whether the combining or tempering together
"of this our flesh has poAver to accomplish these things.
"And one has attempted to establish this, and another
"to establish that. Yet who ever doubts that he himself
"lives, and remembers, and understands, and wills, and
"thinks, and knows, and judges? Seeing that even if he
"doubts, he lives; if he doubts, he remembers why he
"doubts; if he doubts, he understands that he doubts;
"if he doubts, he wishes to be certain; if he doubts,
"he thinks ; if he doubts, he knows that he does not know;
"if he doubts, he judges that he ought not to assent rashly.
scimus, ubi ne illud quidem Academicus dicere potest: Fortasse
dormis, et nescis, et in somnis vides. Visa quippe somniantium
simillima esse visis vigilantium quis ignorat ? Sed qui certus est de
vitse suse scientia, non in ea dicit, Scio me vigilare ; sed, Scio me
vivere : sive ergo dormiat, sive vigilet, vivit. Nee in ea scientia per
somnia falli potest ; quia et dormire et in somnis videre, viventis est.
Nee illud potest Academicus adversus istam scientiam dicere, Furis
fortassis et nescis ; quia sanorum visis simillima sunt etiam visa
furentium : sed qui furit vivit ; nee contra Academicos dicit, Scio
me non furere ; sed, Scio me vivere. Nunquam ergo falli nee mentiri
potest, qui se vivere dixerit scire. Mille itaque fallacium visoruin
genera objiciantur ei qui dicit, Scio me vivere ; nihil horum timebit,
quando et qui fallitur vivit. Sed si talia sola pertinent ad humanam
scientiam, perpauca sunt ; nisi quia in unoquoque genere ita mul-
tiplicantur, ut non solum pauca non sint, verum etiam reperiantur per
infinitum numerum tendere. Qui enim dicit, Scio me vivere, unum
aliquid scire se dicit: proinde si dicat, Scio me scire me vivere; duo
sunt jam; hoc vero quod scit hsec duo, tertium scire est: sic potest
addere et quartum, et quintum, et innumcrabilia, si sufficiat. De Trin.
xv. 21.

24 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
"Whosoever therefore doubts about anything else, ought
"not to doubt of all these things, since if they were not he
"would not be able to doubt at all1." Thus self-conscious
life finds a sphere where certainty is attainable and Avhere
doubt is impossible. Again and again S. Austin returns to
the argument in neAV forms2 or with new illustrations ; and
1 Sed quoniam de natura mentis agitur, removeamus a considera
tione nostra omnes notitias quse capiuntur extrinsecus per sensus
corporis ; et ea quse posuimus, omnes mentes de se ipsis nosse certasquo
esse, diligentius attendamus. Utrum enim aeris sit vis vivendi,
reminiscendi, intelligendi, volendi, cogitandi, sciendi, judicandi ; an
ignis, an cerebri, an sanguinis, an atomorum, an prseter usitata quatuor
elementa quinti nescio cujus corporis, an ipsius carnis nostrse compago
vel temperamentum hsec efficere valeat, dubitaverunt homines : et alius
hoc, alius aliud affirmare conatus est. Vivere se tamen et meminisse,
et intelligere, et velle, et cogitare, et scire, et judicare quis dubitet 1
Quandoquidem etiam si dubitat, vivit: si dubitat, unde dubitet
meniinit ; si dubitat, dubitare se intelligit ; si dubitat, certus esse
vult; si dubitat, cogitat ; si dubitat, scit se uescire; si dubitat, judicat
non se temere consentire oportere. Quisquis igitur aliunde dubitat, de
his omnibus dubitare non debet : quse si non essent, de ulla re dubitare
non posset. De Trin. x. 14.
2 Quare prius abs te qusero, ut de manifestissimis capiamus ex
ordium ; utrum tu ipse sis. An tu fortasse metuis, ne in hac interro-
gatione fallaris, cum utique si non esses, falli omnino non posses?
E. Perge potius ad csetera. A. Ergo quoniam manifestum est esse te,
nee tibi aliter manifestum esset, nisi viveres, id quoque manifestum est,
vivere te : intelligisne ista duo esse verissima 1 E. Prorsus intelligo.
A. Ergo etiam hoc tertium manifestum est, hoc est intelligere te.
E. Manifestum. De Lib. Arb. n. 7.
R. Tu qui vis te nosse, scis esse te ? A. Scio. R. Unde scis ? A.
Nescio. R. Simplicem te sentis, anne multiplicern ? A. Nescio. R.
Moveri te scis ? A. Nescio. R. Cogitare te scis 1 A. Scio. R. Ergo
verum est cogitare te. A. Verum. Solil. n. 1.
At si tollatur assensio, fides tollitur; quia sine assensione nihil
creditur. Et sunt vera quamvis non videantur, quse nisi credantur, ad
vitam beatam, quse non nisi seterna est, non potest perveniri. Cum
istis vero utrum loqui debeamus ignoro, qui, non victuros in Eeternum,
sed in praesentia se vivere nesciunt : imo nescire se dicunt, quod nescire
non possunt. Neque enim quisquam sinitur nescire se vivere: quando
quidem si non vivit, non potest aliquid vel nescire; quoniam non solum
scire, verum etiam nescire vivontis est. Sed videlicet non assentiendo
quod vivant, cavcre sibi videntur errorem : cum etiam errando convincan-

I-J

PHILOSOPHICAL DOCTRINES. 25

thus he states with extraordinary clearness the same proof
of the possibility of indubitable certainty, which Descartes1
was to bring forth once again, when more than a thousand
years had passed away.
He points out too that there are kinds of knowledge2 to
tur vivere ; quoniam non potest qui non vivit errare. Sicut ergo nos vivere
non solum verum, sed etiam certum est ; ita vera et certa sunt multa,
quibus non assentiri, absit ut sapientia potius quam dementia nominanda
sit. Enchiridion, xx.
Et cum dubitaret: Scisne, inquam, saltern te vivere ? Scio, inquit.
Scis ergo habere te vitam, siquidem vivere nemo nisi vita potest. Et
hoc, inquit, scio. De Beata Vita, 7.
1 De Methodo iv.
' It has been unnecessary for my immediate purpose to dwell on the
use he makes of the distinction between ratio (Siavoia, Verstand) and
intellectus (vovs, Vernunft). It is carefully discussed by Storz, Philo
sophie des h. A. §§ 6, 7. It is, however, worth while to quote his own
summary statement of the distinction, and one application he makes
of it : Si ergo hsec est sapientiae et scientise recta distinctio, ut ad
sapientiam pertineat seternarum rerum cognitio intellectualis ; ad
scientiam vero, temporalium rerum cognitio rationalis : quid cui
prasponendum sive postpouendum sit, non est difficile judicare. Si
autem alia est adhibenda discretio, qua dignoscantur hsec duo, quse
procul dubio distare Apostolus docet, dicens, Alii datur quidem per
Spiritum sermo sapientiae, alii sermo sciential secundum eumdem
Spiritum ; tamen etiam istoram duorum quse nos posuimus evidentis-
sima differentia est, quod alia sit intellectualis cognitio seternarum
rerum, alia rationalis temporalium, et huic illam prseponendam esse
ambigit nemo. Relinquentibus itaque nobis ea quse sunt exterioris
hominis, et ab eis quse communia cum pecoribus habemus introrsum
ascendere cupientibus, antequam ad cognitionem rerum intelligibilium
atque summarum quse sempiternse sunt veniremus, temporalium rerum
cognitio rationalis occurrit. Etiam in hac igitur inveniamus, si possu-
mus, aliquam trinitatem, sicut inveniebamus in sensibus corporis, et in iis
quse per eos in animam vel spiritum nostrum imaginaliter intraverunt ;
ut pro corporalibus rebus quas corporeo foris positas attingimus sensu,
intus corporum similitudines haberemus impressas memorise, ex quibus
cogitatio formaretur, tertia voluntate utrumque jungente : sicut forma-
batur foris acies oculorum, quam voluntas, ut visio fieret, adhibebat rei
visibili, et utrumque jungebat, etiam illic ipsa se admovens tertiam. De
Trin. xn. 25.
It is perhaps important to add that he does not ignore the real
unity of the various mental faculties. Et sicut una caro est duorum in

26 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
which the objections that the Academics urged against
the validity of the evidence of our senses do not apply.
Many elements of our knowledge are obviously not merely
sensible but rational1. The distinction of right and wrong
is not given through the senses2, and the force of a logical
argument is not dependent on them3. We constantly enu-
masculo et femina, sic intellectum nostrum et actionem, vel consilium
et exsecutionem, vel rationem et appetitum rationalem, vel si quo alio
modo significantius dici possunt, una mentis natura complectitur : ut
quemadmodum de illis dictum est, Erunt duo in came una ; sic de
his dici possit, Duo in mente una." De Trin. xii 3. Compare also
page 97 note 1 below.
1 Tenemus, quantum investigare potuimus, qusedam vestigia rationis
in sensibus ; et quod ad visum atque auditum pertinet, in ipsa etiam
voluptate. Alii vero sensus non in voluptate sua, sed propter aliquid
aliud solent hoc nomen exigere : id autem est rationalis animantis
factum propter aliquem finem. Sed ad oculos quod pertinet, in quo
congruentia partium rationabilis dicitur, pulchrum appellari solet.
Quod vero ad aures, quando rationabilem concentum dicimus, cantum-
que numerosum rationabiliter esse compositum ; suavitas vocatur
proprio jam nomine. Sed neque in pulchris rebus cum nos color illicit,
neque in aurium suavitate cum pulsa chorda quasi liquide sonat atque
pure, rationabile illud dicere solemus. Restat ergo ut in istorum
sensuum voluptate id ad rationem pertinere fateamur, ubi qusedam
dimensio est atque modulatio. De Ordine, u. 33.
Quamvis enim alia corpore, alia mente videamus ; horum tamen
duorum generum ipsa discretio videtur mente, non corpore ; et ea quse
mente conspiciuntur, non indigent ullo corporis sensu, ut ea vera esse
noverimus. Qua; autem per corpus videutur, nisi mens adsit quse talia
nuntiata suscipiat, nulla possunt scientia contineri; et quse nuntiata
quasi suscipere perhibetur, foris ea relinquit. Ep. cxlvii. (Paulina')
38. 2 Hsec tamen sine conclusione securissima non relinquo. Aut enim
amittitur furore sapientia, et jam non erit sapiens, quem verum ignorare
clamatis: aut scientia ejus manet in intellectu, etiamsi pars animi
csetera id quod accepit a sensibus velut in somnis imaginetur. Contra
Acad. in. 2S.
3 Non hie et sol lucet, et nox est. Aut vigilamus nunc, aut dormi-
mus. Aut corpus est, quod mihi videre videor, aut non est corpus.
Hsec et alia multa, qua; conimemorare longissimum est, per istam [dia-
lecticam] didici vera esse, quoquo modo sese habeant sensus nostri, in
se ipsa vera. Centra Acad. m. 29.

l] PHILOSOPHICAL DOCTRINES. 27
merate sensible objects, but in apprehending unity1 as Avell
as in reasoning about numbers2, Ave have proofs of intellec
tual activity. Thus our thoughts are turned toAvards an
intellectual sphere where the illusions of sense cannot
1 Quod si ita est (nam quis non admonitus videat, neque ullam
speciem, neque ullum omnino esse corpus quod non habeat unitatis
qualecumque vestigium ; neque quantumvis pulcherrimum corpus, cum
intervallis locorum necessario aliud alibi habeat, posse assequi earn quam
sequitur unitatem?): quare si hoc ita est, flagitabo ut respondeat, ubi
videat ipse unitatem banc, aut unde videat : quam si non videret, unde
cognosceret et quid imitaretur corporum species, et quid implere non
posset ? Nunc vero cum dicit corporibus, Vos quidem nisi aliqua unitas
contineret, nihil essetis, sed rursus si vos essetis ipsa unitas, corpora
non essetis ; recte illi dicitur, Unde illam nosti unitatem, secundum
quam judicas corpora, quam nisi videres, judicare non posses quod earn
non impleant : si autem his corporeis oculis earn videres, non vere
diceres, quanquam ejus vestigia teneantur, longe tamen ab ea distare?
nam istis oculis corporeis non nisi corporalia vides : mente igitur earn
videmus. Sed ubi videmus 1 De Vera Religione, 60.
2 Hoc ergo, quod per omnes numeros esse immobile firmum incor-
ruptumque couspicimus, unde conspicimus ? Non enim ullus ullo sensu
corporis omnes numeros attingit ; innumerabiles enim sunt : unde ergo
novimus per omnes hoc esse, aut qua phantasia vel phantasmate tam
certa Veritas numeri per innumerabilia tam fidenter, nisi in luce
interiore conspicitur, quam corporalis sensus ignorat? De Lib. Arb.
II. 23. Sed quia dedit numeros omnibus rebus etiam infimis, et in fine
rerum locatis ; et corpora enim omnia, quamvis in rebus extrema sint,
habent numeros suos ; sapere autem non dedit corporibus, neque animis
omnibus, sed tantum rationalibus, tanquam in eis sibi sedem locaverit,
de qua disponat omnia ilia etiam infima quibus numeros dedit : itaque
quoniam de corporibus facile judicamus, tanquam de rebus quse infra
nos ordinatse sunt, quibus impresses numeros infra nos esse cerni-
mus, et eos propterea vilius habenms. Sed cum cceperimus tan
quam sursum versus recurrere, invenimus eos etiam nostras mentes
transcendere, atque incommutabiles in ipsa manere veritate. Et quia
sapere pauci possunt, numerare autem etiam stultis concessum est,
inimntur homines sapientiam, numerosque contemnunt. Docti autem
et studiosi, quanto remotiores sunt a labe terrena, tanto magis et
numermn et sapientiam in ipsa veritate contuentur, et utrumquo
earum habent : et in ejus veritatis comparatione non eis aurum, ct
argentum, et csetera de quibus homines dimicant, sed ipsi etiam viles-
cunt sibi. De Lib. Arb. n. 31. The part which numbers play in

2 8 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
affect us, and about Avhich we are in complete agreement
Avith one another. We are all ready to differ about mere
sense-impressions, the pleasantness of this or that taste,
the precise shade of any colour, and so forth : but all are
agreed that tAVO and two make four. Such intellectual
principles are as it Avere a common ground which all of
us enjoy together, Avhile the senses with their impressions
give to each of us their own peculiar report, which is
the private property of the sentient person1. So too the
principles of geometry2 are intellectual principles which
are exhibited and illustrated in things of sense: all such
principles, but especially the contemplation of numbers, lead
us to realise that there is knoAvledge which is not obtained
from sensation, and which yet is common to all intelligents3.
S. Austin's philosophy is very remarkable. Compare De Ordine, u.
§§ 35 — 43 ; also his high appreciation of Pythagoras, De Cic. Dei, vin.iv.
This should be borne in mind in reading his mystical interpretations of
the numbers in Scripture.
1 Proprium ergo et quasi privatum intelligendum est, quod unicui-
que nostrum soli est, et quod in se solus sentit, quod ad suam naturam
proprie pertinet : commune autem et quasi publicum, quod ab omnibus
sentientibus nulla sui corruptione atque commutatione sentitur. E. Ita
est. De Lib. Arb. n. 19.
2 Hinc est profecta in oculorum opes, et terram ccelumque collustrans,
sensit nihil aliud quam pulchritudiuem sibi placere, et in pulchritudine
figuras, in figuris dimensiones, in dimensionibus numeros ; qusesivitque
ipsa secum, utrum ibi talis linea talisque rotunditas, vel quaelibet alia
forma et figura esset, qualem intelligentia contineret. Longe deteriorem
invenit, et nulla ex parte quod viderent oculi cum eo quod mens cerne-
ret, comparandum. Hose quoque distincta et disposita, in disciplinam
redegit, appellavitque geometriam...In his igitur omnibus disciplinis
occurrebant ei omnia numerosa, quse tamen in illis dimensionibus mani-
festius eminebant, quas in seipsa cogitando atque volvendo intuebatur
verissimas : in his autem quse sentiuntur, umbras earum potius atque
vestigia recolebat. De Ordine, n. 42, 43.
3 His et talibus multis documentis coguntur fateri, quibus dispu-
tantibus Deus donavit ingenium, et pertinacia caliginem non obducit,
rationem veritatemque numerorum, et ad sensus corporis non pertinere,
et invertibilem sinceramque consistere, et omnibus ratiocinantibus ad
videndum esse communem. De Lib. Arb. n. 24.

I.] PHILOSOPHICAL DOCTRINES. 29
Such in brief outline are the steps of the argument by
wliich S. Austin rose above the quibbling objections of the
Academics to a firm vantage ground from which he could
establish the certainty of our intellectual principles. It would
be tedious to summarise any of the other lines of reasoning
he pursues when, in dealing Avith the ideas of Beauty1 and the
Good2, he shows that they too testify to an intelligible order,
Avhich is not revealed to us by mere sense-impression, and
which is not subject to the variableness of things of sense ",
which still is while they change and pass.
But whence can Ave attain to a knowledge of these un
changing realities4 ? Must it not be that just as the light of
1 Quoquo enim te verteris, vestigiis quibusdam, quse operibus suis
impressit, loquitur tibi, et te in exteriora relabentem, ipsis exteriorum
formis intro revocat ; ut, quidquid te delectat in corpore et per cor-
poreos illicit sensus, videas esse numerosum, et quseras unde sit, et in
teipsum redeas, atque intelligas te id quod attingis sensibus corporis
probare aut improbare non posse, nisi apud te habeas quasdam pulchri-
tudinis leges, ad quas referas quseque pulchra sentis exterius. De Lib.
Arb. n. 41.
2 Si sum mum bonum omnibus unum est, oportet etiam veritatem in
qua cernitur et tenetur, id est sapientiam, omnibus unam esse com
munem. De Lib. Arb. n. 27.
3 Omne quod corporeus sensus attingit, quod et sensibile dicitur,
sine ulla intermissione temporis commutatur: velut cum capilli capitis
nostri crescunt, vel corpus vergit in senectutem aut in juventam
efflorescit, perpetuo id fit, nee omnino intermittit fieri. Quod autem
non manet, percipi non potest: illud enim percipitur quod scientia
comprehenditur  Quamobrem saluberrime admonemur averti ab hoc
mundo, qui profecto corporeus est et sensibilis, et ad Deum, id est
veritatem, quse intellectu et interiore mente capitur, quse semper manet
et ejusdem modi est, quse non habet imaginem falsi a qua discerni non
possit, tota alacritate converti. De Divers. Qucest. LXXXIII. qu. ix.
4 This is one of the points on which he explicitly rejects a Platonic
doctrine— the theory of reminiscence ; though in this he was consciously
or unconsciously following Plato himself.
Unde Plato ille philosophus nobilis persuadere conatus est vixisse
hie animas hominum, et antequam ista corpora gererent : et hinc esse
quod ea quse discuntur, reminiscuntur potius cognita, quam cognos-
cuntur nova. Retulit enim puerum quemdam nescio quse de geome-

30 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
day makes the changing things of sense visible to our
differing eyes, so the light of Truth makes clear these
unchanging realities to our intelligence1 ? And just as the
trica interrogatum, sic respondisse, tanquam esset illius peritissimus
disciplinse. Gradatini quippe atque artificiose interrogatus, videbat
quod videndum erat, dicebatque quod viderat. Sed si recordatio hsec
esset rerum antea cognitarum, non utique omnes vel pene omnes, cum
illo modo interrogarentur, hoc possent : non enim omnes in priore vita
geometrse fuerunt, cum tam rari sint in genere humano, ut vix possit
aliquis invenire. Sed potius credendum est mentis intellectualis ita
conditam esse naturam, ut rebus intelligibilibus naturali ordine, dis
ponente Conditore, subjuncta sic ista videat in quadam luce sui generis
incorporea, quemadmodum oculus carnis videt quse in hac corporea
luce circumadjacent, cujus lucis capax eique congruens est creatus. De
Trin. xn. 24.
It appears that in his earlier days he was inclined to adopt this expla
nation. Compare De Quanlitate Anima', 34, for a passage which he sub
sequently criticised. In quo libro illud quod dixi, omnes arte s animam
secum attulisse mihi videri ; nee aliud quidquam esse id quod dicitur
discere, quam reminisci ac racordari, non sic accipiendum est, quasi ex
hoc approbetur, animam vel hie in alio corpore, vel alibi sive in corpore
sive extra corpus aliquando vixisse, et ea quse interrogata respondet cum
hie non didicerit, in alia vita ante didicisse. Fieri enim potest, sicut jam
in hoc opere supra diximus, ut hoc ideo possit, quia natura intelligi bilis
est, et connectitur non solum intelligibilibus verum etiam immutabilibus
rebus, eo ordine facta, ut, cum se ad eas res movet quibus connexa est
vel ad seipsam, in quantum eas videt, in tantum de his vera respondeat.
Retract. I. viii. 2. See also Ibid. i. iv. 4.
1 Quse vis magna atque mirabilis mortalibus, prseter homini, ani-
mantibus nulla est : licet eorum quibusdam ad istam lucem contuendam
multo quam nobis sit acrior sensus oculorum : sed lucem illam incor-
poream contingere nequeunt, qua mens nostra quodammodo irradiatur,
ut de his omnibus recte judicare possimus. De Cicitate Dei, xi.
xxvii. 2.
Ipsumque lumen, quo cuncta ista discernimus, in quo nobis satis
apparet quid credamus incognitum, quid cognitum teneamus, quam
formam corporis recordemur, quam cogitatione fingamus, quid corporis
sensus attingat, quid imaginetur animus simile corpori, quid certum et
omnium corporum dissimillimum intelligentia contempletur: hoc ergo
lumen ubi hsec cuncta dijudicantur, non utique, sicut hujus solis et
cujusque corporei luminis fulgor, per localia spatia circumquaque
diffunditur, mentemque nostram quasi visibili candore illustrat, sed
invisibilitcr et ineffabiliter et tamen intelligibiliter lucet, tamque nobis

!•]

PHILOSOPHICAL DOCTRINES. 31

sun not only makes all other things to appear but is itself
apparent to the eye, so is it that God Avho is the Truth not
only makes all truths known to men, but is Himself
knowable by our intelligence1. We may see Him since He
certum est, quam nobis efficit certa qure secundum ipsum cuncta con-
spicimus. Ep. cxx. (Consentio) 10.
Quod si et de coloribus lucem, et do cseteris, quse per corpus
sentimus, elementa hujus mundi eademque corpora, quse sentimus, sen-
susque ipsos, quibus tanquam interpretibus ad talia noscenda mens
uti tur, de his autem, quse intelliguntur, interiorem veritatem ratione
consulimus : quid dici potest unde clareat, verbis nos aliquid discere
prseter ipsum qui aures percutit sonum ? Namque omnia quse. percipi-
mus, aut sensu corporis aut mente percipimus. Ilia sensibilia, hsec
intelligibilia; sive, ut more auctoruni nostrorum loquar, ilia carnalia,
hsec spiritualia nominamus  Cum vero de iis agitur quse mente
conspicimus id est intellectu atque ratione, ea quidem loquimur quse
praesentia contuemur in ilia interiore luce veritatis, qua ipse, qui dicitur
homo interior, illustratur et fruitur : sed tunc quoque noster auditor, si
et ipse ilia secreto ac simplici oculo videt, novit quod dico sua contem
platione, non verbis meis. De Magistro, 39, 40.
Istse siniilitudines datse sunt, ut quantum possumus intelligamus,
vel, si hoc nonduni possumus, sine ulla dubitatione credamus, animam
rationalem non esse naturam Dei; ilia quippe incommutabilis est: sed
tamen earn posse participando illuminari; lucernse quippe accendi
indigent, et exstingui possunt. Ep. cxl. (Honorato) 7. See also De
Trin. xir. 24 quoted above, p. 29 n. 4.
1 Te invoco, Deus Veritas, in quo et a quo et per quem vera sunt,
quae vera sunt, omnia, Deus sapientia, in quo et a quo et per quem
sapiunt, quse sapiunt, omnia, Deus vera et summa vita, in quo et a quo
et per quem vivunt, quse vere summeque vivunt, omnia. Solil. I. 3.
Nunc accipe, quantum prsesens tempus exposcit, ex ilia similitu-
dine sensibilium etiam de Deo aliquid nunc me docente. Intelligibilis
nempe Deus est, intelligibilia etiam ilia disciplinarum spectamina ;
tamen plurimum differunt. Nam et terra visibilis, et lux ; sed terra,
nisi luce illustrata, videri non potest. Ergo et ilia quse in disciplinis
traduntur, quae quisquis intelligit verissima esse nulla dubitatione
concedit, credendum est ea non posse intelligi, nisi ab alio quasi suo
sole illustrentur. Ergo quomodo in hoc sole tria quaedam licet animad-
vertere ; quod est, quod fulget, quod illuminat : ita in illo secretissimo
Deo quem vis intelligere, tria qusedam sunt ; quod est, quod intelligitur,
et quod csetera facit intelligi. Solil. I. 15.
Quippe pro sua quisque sanitate ac firmitate comprehendit illud
singulare ac verissimum bonum. Lux est qusedam ineffabilis et incom-

32 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
is the Light, and it is in His Light that all other realities
become clear to us.
It is thus that S. Austin leads us from the conviction of
certainty, and the kind of knoAvledge which is certain for
all of us, to Him who is the Truth and the ground of Truth
— the Light manifested and manifesting. The analogy is
marvellously fruitful : it is the firm grasp which he has
upon this thought in its double bearing that renders S.
Austin supreme among Christian philosophers. The Divine
Truth is directly borne in upon the human soul1, as the sun
prehensibilis mentium. Lux ista vulgaris nos doceat quantum potest,
quomodo se illud habeat. Nam sunt nonnulli oculi tam sani et vegeti,
qui se, mox ut aperti fuerint, in ipsum solem sine ulla trepidatione
convertant. His quodammodo ipsa lux sanitas est, nee doctore indi
gent, sed sola fortasse admonitione. His credere, sperare, amare satis
est. Alii vero ipso, quem videre vehementer desiderant, fulgore
feriuntur, et eo non viso saepe in tenebras cum delectatione redeunt.
Quibus periculosum est, quamvis jam talibus ut sani recte dici possint,
velle ostendere quod adhuc videre non valent. Ergo isti exercendi
sunt prius, et eorum amor utiliter differendus atque nutriendus est.
Primo enim qusedam illis demonstranda sunt quse non per se lucent,
sed per lucem videri possint, ut vestis, aut paries, aut aliquid horum.
Deinde quod non per se quidem, sed tamen per illam lucem pulchrius
effulgeat, ut aurum argentum et similia, nee tamen ita radiatum ut
oculos Isedat. Tunc fortasse terrenus iste ignis modeste demonstrandus
est, deinde sidera, deinde luna, deinde aurorse fulgor, et albescentis
coeli nitor. In quibus seu citius seu tardius, sive per totum ordinem,
sive quibusdam contemptis, pro sua quisque valetudine assuescens, sine
trepidatione et cum magna voluptate solem videbit. Solil. I. 23.
Sed quemadmodum illi qui in luce solis eligunt quod libenter
aspieiant, et eo aspectu laetificantur ; in quibus si qui forte fuerint
vegetioribus sanisque et fortissimis oculis praediti, nihil libentius quam
ipsum solem contuentur, qui etiam caetera, quibus infirmiores oculi
delectantur, illustrat : sic fortis acies mentis et vegeta cum multa vera
et incommutabilia certa ratione conspexerit, dirigit se in ipsam verita
tem, qua cuncta monstrantur, eique inhrerens tanquam obliviscitur
csetera, et in ilia simul omnibus fruitur. Quidquid enim jucundum est
in caeteris veris, ipsa utique veritate jucundum est. De Lib. Arb. n. 36
Compare also De Gen. ad Lit. xii. 59.
1 Quse [ratiocinans poteutia] se quoque in me comperiens nmtabilem
erexit se ad intelligentiam suam ; et abduxit cogitationem a consue-

I-J

PHILOSOPHICAL DOCTRINES. 33

is directly apparent to the human eye : here Ave have the
mode of thought which was worked out in all the diverse
forms of Christian mysticism. But S. Austin would have us
remember that it is not only in such holy devotion and
fixed contemplation that we can enter into the mind of God.
tudine, subtrahens se contradicentibus turbis phantasmatum, ut inve-
niret quo luniiue aspergeretur, cum sine ulla dubitatione clamaret in-
commutabile prseferendum esse mutabili ; unde nosset ipsum incommu-
tabile, quod nisi aliquo modo nosset, nullo modo illud mutabili certo
praeponeret. Et pervenit ad id quod est, in ictu trepidantis aspectus.
Tunc vero invisibilia tua, per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspexi ;
sed aciem figere non evalui: et repercussa infirmitate redditus solitis,
non niecuni ferebam nisi amantem memoriam, et quasi olfacta deside-
rantem quse comedere nondum possem. Conf. vn. 23.
Sed non est nobis ullus cum eis excellentioribus philosophis in hac
qusestione conflictus. Viderunt enim, suisque litteris multis modis
copiosissime mandaverunt, hinc illos, unde et nos, fieri beatos, objecto
quodam lumine intelligibili, quod Deus est illis, et aliud est quam
illi, a quo illustrantur, ut clareant atque ejus participatione perfecti
beatique subsistant. Saepe multumque Plotinus asserit sensum
Platonis explanans, ne illam quidem, quam credunt esse universi-
tatis animam, aliunde beatum esse quam nostram: idque esse
lumen quod ipsa non est, sed a quo creata est, et quo intelligibiliter
illuminante intelligibiliter lucet. Dat etiam similitudinem ad ilia in-
corporea de his ccelestibus couspicuis amplisque corporibus, tanquam
ille sit sol, et ipsa sit luna. Lunam quippe solis objectu illuminari
putant. Dicit ergo ille magnus Platonicus, animam rationalem (sive
potius intellectualis dicenda sit, ex quo genere etiam immortalium
beatorumque animas esse intelligit, quos in ccelestibus sedibus habitare
non dubitat) non habere supra se naturam nisi Dei, qui fabricatus est
mundum, a quo et ipsa facta est : nee aliunde illis supernis praeberi vitam
beatam et lumen intelligentiae veritatis, quam unde prsebetur et nobis;
consonans Evangelio, ubi legitur, Fuit homo missus a Deo, cui nomen erat
Joannes: hie venit in testimonium ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine,
ut omnes crederent per eum. Non erat ille lumen, sed ut testimonium
perhiberet de lumine. Erat lumen verum, quod illuminat omnem
hominem venientem in hunc mundum. In qua differentia satis osten-
ditur, animam rationalem vel intellectualem, qualis erat in Joanne, sibi
lumen esse non posse, sed alterius veri luminis participatione lucere.
Hoc et ipse Joannes fatetur, ubi ei perhibens testimonium dicit : Nos
omnes de plenitudine ejus accepimus. De Civitale Dei, x. ii. See also
Conf. x. passim.
C. 3

34 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
The ideals we cherish, the intelligible relations we all
recognise, are the thoughts of the Eternal Creator — His
Eternal Being manifested in space and time among things
of sense1, through which we may see Him as in a glass
1 Sunt namque ideas principales formae qusedam, vel rationes rerum
stabiles atque incommutabiles, quae ipsae formatse non sunt, ac per hoc
asternse ac semper eodem modo sese habentes, quae in divina intelligentia
continentur. Et, cum ipsse neque oriantur neque intereant, secundum
eas tamen formari dicitur omne quod oriri et interire potest, et omne
quod oritur et interit  Quod si hae rerum omnium creandarum
creatarumve rationes in divina mente continentur, neque in divina
mente quidquam nisi seternum atque incommutabile potest esse, atque
has rerum rationes principales appellat ideas Plato : non solum sunt
ideas, sed ipsse verse sunt, quia seternae sunt et ejusmodi atque incom
mutabiles manent. Quarum participatione fit ut sit quidquid est quo-
quomodo est. Sed anima rationalis, inter eas res quas sunt a Deo
conditas, omnia superat; et Deo proxima est, quando pura est; eique in
quantum caritate cohaeserit, in tantum ab eo lumine illo inteliigibili
perfusa quodam modo et illustrata cernit, non per corporeos oculos sed
per ipsius sui principale quo excellit, id est per intelligentiam suam,
istas rationes, quarum visione fit beatissima. De Divers. Qucest.
LXXXIII. qu. xlvi. 2.
Nemo enim dubitat quod sit ipse [Deus] primitus bonus. Multis enim
modis dici res possunt similes Deo : alias secundum virtutem et sapien
tiam factas, quia in ipso est virtus et sapientia non facta; alias in
quantum solum vivunt, quia ille summe et primitus vivit; alias in
quantum sunt, quia ille summe et primitus est. Et ideo quae tan-
tummodo sunt, nee tamen vivunt aut sapiunt, non perfecte, sed
exigue sunt ad similitudinem ejus ; quia et ipsa bona sunt in ordine suo,
cum sit ille super omnia bonus, a quo omnia bona procedunt. Omnia
vero quae vivunt et non sapiunt, paulo amplius participant similitudinem.
De Divers. Qucest. LXXXIII. qu. li. 2.
Religet ergo nos religio uni omnipotenti Deo ; quia inter mentem
nostram qua ilium intelligimus Patrem, et veritatem, id est lucem
interiorem per quam ilium intelligimus, nulla interposita creatura est
Quare ipsam quoque Veritatem nulla ex parte dissimilem in ipso et cum
ipso veneremur, quae forma est omnium, quse ab uno facta sunt, et ad
unum nituntur. Unde apparet spiritualibus animis, per hanc formam
esse facta omnia, quse sola implet quod appetunt omnia. De Vera
Religione, 113.
Hsec dicta sint, ne quisquam, cum de angelis apostaticis loquimur,
existimet eos aliam velut ex alio principio habere potuisse naturam, nee
eorum naturae auctorem Deum. Cujus erroris impietate tanto quisque

I-] PHILOSOPHICAL DOCTRINES. 35
darkly. Here are the ideas which were developed in the
splendid structure of the scholastic philosophy1 and which
in another form reappeared in the Theodicee of Leibnitz,
and the Analogy of Butler.
These two veins of thought Avhich have been separated
and sometimes opposed in subsequent Christian teaching,
are found side by side and interconnected in the writings
of S. Austin : he was not merely the founder of scholasticism,
because he was also the first of the Western mystics, and
has thus attained his unique position in Christendom2.
Such is the foundation on which S. Austin's teaching
rests: his arguments on behalf of Christian truths are based
on the nature of knowledge, on the analysis of its elements
and the character of its conditions. But other Christian
philoscrptrefs, Avith all their respect for the name of the
great African doctor, have not followed him closely in this.
They have sought to build up the edifice of Christian
doctrine not on the nature, but on the limitations of
knowledge : they have neglected the teaching which points
to belief as the necessary condition of knowledge3, and
have treated it as a supplemental source of truths which
may be contrasted with and opposed to knowledge. We
need not follow out the weary sophistries which have come
from trying to mark out two spheres of mental activity,
or dwell on the futility of trying to base any positive con
viction on the limitations of our powers ; but we cannot
carebit expeditius et facilius, quanto perspicacius intelligere potuerit,
quod per angelum dixit Deus, quando Moysen mittebat ad Alios Israel :
Ego sum, qui sum. Cum enim Deus summa essentia sit, hoc est summe
sit, et ideo immutabilis sit, rebus, quas ex nihilo creavit, esse dedit, sed
non summe esse sicut ipse est ; et aliis dedit esse amplius aliis minus ;
atque ita naturas essentiarum gradibus ordinavit. De Civitate Dei, xn. ii.
1 See Excursus B. on S. Austin's influence in the Middle Ages, p. 142.
2 A position which is however shared by S. Anselm and to some
extent by Erigena. Compare Wiggers, August, und Pelag. I. 27.
3 For an excellent discussion of this subject see Gangauf, Metaph.
Psych. I. 31. Compare also p. 9, note 1, above and Excursus D, p. 157.
3—2

36 S. AUSTIN. [lect.
wonder that under the influence of such teaching men have
come to despair of knowing with certainty aught of the
nature of God.

IL The Relation op his Doctrines to those of
other Thinkers.
It may possibly render this meagre sketch of S. Austin's
fundamental teaching more definite, if some indication
can be given of the precise points at which his doctrines
diverge from those of other schools. The merest statement
too may serve to shoAV that just as S. Austin has an almost
unique position in the history of Christian doctrine — as a
scholastic thinker who is also a mystic, so he has a unique
position in the history of philosophy. He stands alone — a
central figure — the last spokesman of the wisdom of the
ancient world, the first who discussed the characteristic
problems of modern times. It is just because he thus
stands midway as it were between the old and the new,
that it is profitable, nay that it is possible, to compare his
doctrines with those of the men of all other ages.
1. He gradually diverged farther from Plato in his
treatment of the sensible and intelligible worlds1; but
1 Gangauf, Met. Psy. i. 92, Ritter, Gesch. der Philos. vi. 237, Storz,
Phil, des h. Aug. 71. Compare however his own remarks. Et quod
duos mundos unum sensibilem alterum intelligibilem non ex Platonis vel
ex Platonicorum persona sed ex mea sic commendavi, tanquam hoc etiam
Dominus significare voluerit, qua non ait, Regnuin meum non est de
mundo; &ed,Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo; cum possit et aliqua
locutione dictum inveniri, et si alius a Domino Christo significatus est
mundus, ille congruentius possit intelligi, in quo erit ccelum novum et
terra nova, quando complebitur quod oram us, dicentes, Adceniat regnum
tuum. Nee Plato quidem in hoc erravit quia esse mundum intelligibilem
dixit, si non vocabulum, quod ecclesiastica; consuetudini in re ilia non
usitatum est, sed ipsam rem velimus attendere. Mundum quippe ille in
telligibilem nuncupavit ipsam rationem sempiternam atque incommuta-
bilem, qua fecit Deus mundum. Quam qui esse negat, sequitur ut dicat,

I.] relation to other thinkers. 37
the crucial difference betAveen them is in S. Austin's thought
of God. It is not enough for him to say that Truth has its
ground and source in God, for it is not apart from Him, but
Truth itself is God. It will not suffice S. Austin to say that
God is above all being and all reason : God is the Highest
Being, He is the completest Reason. And with this fuller
thought of the Divine Being put before us we find ourselves
in a different atmosphere. The theology of Plato has proved
susceptible of various interpretations1, it has been held by
different scholars to be theistic, deistic and pantheistic in
turn. But S. Austin's doctrine is unmistakably theistic :
not only does he show that Ave must believe that God is,
since otherwise the Avorld would cease to be intelligible; we
may learn to recognise what He is, and to bow before Him
in reverence and worship. It is in the passionate devotion
of the Confessions and the Soliloquies that we feel how
far S. Austin has moved from the Platonic thought of God.
2. From the current Neo-Platonism he is most clearly
separated by his teaching as to the nature of man2. His
irrationabiliter Deum fecisse quod fecit, aut cum faceret, vel antequam
faceret, nescisse quid faceret ; si apud eum ratio faciendi non erat ; si
vero erat, sicut erat, ipsam videtur Plato vocasse intelligibilem mundum.
Retract, i. iii. 2.
Sed animal esse istum mundum, sicut Plato sensit, aliique philosophi
quam plurimi, nee ratione certa indagare potui, nee divinarum Scriptu-
rarum auctoritate persuaderi posse cognovi. Retract. I. xi. 4.
1 Gangauf, Met. Psy. i. 78. Hegel, Gesch. Phil. nr. 47.
2 Ritter, vi. 230, 235.
Sed philosophi, contra quorum calumnias defendimus civitatem Dei,
hoc est ejus Ecclesiam, sapienter sibi videntur irridere quod dicimus,
animse a corpore separationem inter posnas ejus esse deputandam : quia
videlicet ejus perfectam beatitudinem tunc illi fieri existimant, cum
omni prorsus corpore exuta ad Deum simplex et soli et quodammodo
nuda redierit  Hoc tantum contra istos commemorandum putavi, qui
se Platonicos vocari vel esse gloriantur, cujus superbia nominis erubes-
cunt esse Christiani, ne commune illis cum vulgo vocabulum vilem
faciat palliatorum tanto magis inflatam quanto magis exiguam pauci-
tatem : et quaerentes quid in doctrina Christiana reprehendant, exagitaut

38 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
strong sense of human personality prevents him from
sharing in the aspiration for mere absorption into God. His
regard for every-day experience forces him to believe that
the human soul is so linked to the human body that they
react on one another, that the souls which God has given
may be changed for the worse by deeds done in the body.
And thus he has light to give us on our every-day duties —
truth not merely for the hermit in his cell, or the scholar
in unperturbed and cultured leisure, but for the market and
the street, for man as he jostles with man in the struggles
of daily life.
3. The Schoolmen1, Avho treasured his words with such
reverence, did not altogether retain the spirit of his teach
ing ; they spoke of God and of His work in the world in
the same sort of language as they used of the things that
He has created and made. In their admiration for Aristotle
and the clearness with which he discussed the phaenomena
around us, they sought to force our knowledge of God into
the same shell, and express it in the same terms. S.
Austin had given a note of warning against this error. He
had applied the Aristotelian logic to the thought of God
and learned to confess, "It was falsehood I conceived of
" Thee, not truth ; fictions of my misery not the realities of
" Thy Blessedness 2." And from this profounder view of the
aeternitatem corporum, tanquam base sint inter se contraria, ut et
beatitudinem quseramus animse, et earn semper esse velimus in corpore,
velut serumnoso vinculo colligatam: cum eorum auctor et magister
Plato, donum a Deo summo diis ab illo factis dicat esse concessum, ne
aliquando moriantur, id est a corporibus, quibus eos connexuit,
separentur. De Civitate Dei, xm. xvi.
1 See Excursus B, p. 152. Compare also the criticism of S. Austin
in C. van Endert's Gottesbeweis, 176 n.
2 Conf. iv. 28, 29. Compare also the following more detailed state
ment: Ut sic intelligamus Deum, si possumus quantum possumus, sine
qualitate bonum, sine quantitate magnum, sine indigentia creatorem,
sine situ praesidentem, sine habitu omnia continentem, sine loco ubique
totum, sine tempore sempiternum, siue ulla sui mutatione mutabilia

I.] RELATION TO OTHER THINKERS. 39
nature of God, and of the extent to Avhich our thoughts
and conceptions are applicable to it, he Avas able, as the
mediaeval thinkers Avere not, to protest against the crudeness
of much popular theology and the grossness of popular
superstitions. " One class of men," he said, "endeavour to
"transfer to things incorporeal and spiritual the facts they
"have learned about things corporeal, whether through ex
perience of the bodily senses, or by natural human wit and
"diligent quickness, so as to seek to measure and conceive of
" the former by the latter. Others again frame whatever
"idea they have of God after the pattern of the nature
"and affections of the human mind: and through this error,
"in disputing concerning God, they argue by distorted and
"fallacious rules. While yet a third class do indeed strive
"to transcend the whole creation, which doubtless is change
able, and so to raise their thought to the unchangeable
"substance, which is God; but being weighed down with
"the burden of mortality, Avhilst they both would seem to
"know what they do not, and cannot know what they
"would, they shut against themselves the path of under
standing by an overbold affirmation of the assumptions of
" their own judgment 1." We certainly cannot charge against
him the defects which have been alleged against the
scholastic theology.
4. And if we turn to that other thinker who sought to
pass through every phase of doubt that he might attain
certainty at last, we cannot but feel that though the cogito
ergo sum of Descartes repeats the si enim fallor, sum of
S. Austin, there is yet something far nobler in the use the
ancient Father made of his principle. Descartes' train
of thought was so individualistic that one may say he never
facientem, nihilque patienteni. Quisquis Deum ita cogitat, etsi nondum
potest omni modo invenire quid sit ; pie tamen cavet, quantum potest,
aliquid de eo sentire quod non sit. De Trin. v. 2.
1 De Trin. i. 1.

40 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
advanced beyond subjective certainty1 : he felt that the
existence of God Avas clear to his own mind, and to any
other mind that followed his process, but S. Austin recognises
throughout that there are intellectual elements which are
common to all intelligents, and forces his way to objective
knowledge, to knowledge of the truth. S. Austin's argu
ments on the reliability of the evidence of the senses2
1 See my Descartes and Metaphysical Speculation in England,
p. 50. 2 Quod autem attinet ad illam differentiam, quam de Academicis
novis Varro adhibuit, quibus incerta sunt omnia, omnino civitas Dei talem
dubitationem tanquam dementiam detestatur, habens de rebus, quas
mente atque ratione comprehendit, etiamsi parvam propter corpus
corruptibile quod aggravat animam, (quoniam sicut dicit Apostolus, Ex
parte scimus,) tamen certissimam scientiam: creditque sensibus iii rei
cujusque evidentia, quibus per corpus animus utitur: quoniam misera-
bilius fallitur, qui nunquam putat eis esse credendum. De Civitate Dei,
xix. xviii.
Cum enim duo sint genera rerum quae sciuntur, unum earum quae
per sensus corporis percipit animus, alterum earum quae per se ipsum,
multa illi philosophi garrierunt contra corporis sensus, animi autem
quasdam firmissimas per se ipsum perceptiones rerum verarum, quale
illud est quod dixi Scio me vivere, nequaquam in dubium vocare
potuerunt. Sed absit a nobis ut ea quae per sensus corporis didicimus,
vera esse dubitemus : per eos quippe didicimus cesium et terram et ea
quae in eis nota sunt nobis, quantum ille, qui et nos et ipsa condidit,
innotescere nobis voluit. Absit etiam ut scire nos negemus, quse testi-
monio didicimus aliorum : alioquin esse nescimus Oceanum ; nescimus
esse terras atque urbes, quas celeberrima fama commendat ; nescimus
fuisse homines et opera eorum, quae historica lectione didicimus ; nesci
mus quse quotidie undecumque nuntiantur et indiciis consonis contes-
tantibusque firmantur ; postremo nescimus in quibus locis, vel ex quibus
hominibus fuerimus exorti ; quia haec omnia testimoniis credidimus
aliorum. De Trin. xv. 21.
Deinde paulatim tu, Domine, manu mitissima et misericordissima
pertractans et componens cor meum, consideranti quam innumerabilia
crederem quse non viderem, neque cum gererentur adfuissem : sicut
tam multa in historia gentium, tam multa de locis atque urbibus quae
non videram, tam multa amicis, tam multa medicis, tam multa homini
bus aliis atque aliis, quos nisi crederentur, omnino in hac vita nihil
ageremus : postremo, quam inconcusse fixum fide retinerem, de quibus

I- j RELATION TO OTHER THINKERS. 41
appear even more striking when Ave contrast them with the
rough and ready process by Avhich Descartes reassured
himself on this point1.
If I thus claim a very high place for S. Austin among
the greatest thinkers the Avorld has ever seen, I do not
forget the defects of his writings. Philosophy was not the
main business of his life, and perhaps it chiefly interested
him because in his own case it had served as a guide to
prepare his heart to receive the Christian Faith. He fell
on evil days when the pressing needs of active controversy
kept him too busy to pursue philosophical enquiries with
heart and soul. Nor need anyone suppose that he was
before his time in the sense of answering questions which
no one had asked or settling issues that had never been
raised. He has not said the last Avord on any of the
problems of philosophy ; but even if we look at the most
recent advances the human mind has made in the search
for truth, Ave may yet feel that it was the principle he
announced which became fruitful in after times.
But to judge of him fully we must stand above him:
shall we not rather do well to look up to him as a teacher
from whom we fain would learn? There is a wonderful
interest about such a man as he — the last of the thinkers
of the old world, trained in the wisdom of his age, in
terested in the subtleties of its logic, fascinated by the
parentibus ortus essem, quod scire, non possem, nisi audiendo credi-
dissem. Conf. vi. 7.
1 S. Austin is content to treat the evidence of the senses and oral
communications as giving us probable evidence, while Descartes attempts
to deduce the validity of empirical knowledge directly from the veracity
of the Perfect Being who has created us.
Ratio enim nobis non dictat ea quae sic videmus vel imaginamur,
idcirco revera existere. Sed plane nobis dictat, omnes nostras Ideas
sive notiones aliquid in se veritatis continere; alioqui enim fieri non
posset ut Deus qui summe perfectus et verax est, illas in nobis posuisset.
De Methodo, iv.

42 S. AUSTIN. [LECT. I.
strange speculations Avhich India and Persia had given to
the Western world, wearied by doubt, and reassured in con
viction as he pondered over the thoughts1 of Plato, and
who yet turned at last to enter the kingdom^ of God as a
little child, and offer himself to be Christ's faithful soldier
and servant to his life's end.
1 Procurasti mihi per quemdam hominem immanissimo typho turgi-
dum quosdam Platouicorum libros ex graeca lingua in latinam versos :
et ibi legi, non quidem his verbis, sed hoc idem omnino multis et
multiplicibus suaderi rationibus, quod in principio erat Verbum, et
Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Conf vn. 13. See
Excursus C, on S. Austin's knowledge of Greek, p. 154.

LECTUEE II.
The sting of death is sin. 1 Cor. xv. 56.

THE ORIGIN OF EVIL AND THE PUNISHMENT
OF SIN.
I. The Manichaeans and the Nature oe Evil.
The firstfruits of S. Austin's regenerate zeal were shown
in the energy with which he threw himself into the contest
with the followers of Mani. He had been so long under
the spell of their teaching that he was specially fitted to
expose as erroneous the opinions which he had cherished
through his early manhood : and when he once more found
himself in Rome on his way to his native land, circumstances
arose which seemed to call on him to take a part in the
controversy. It gives us some idea of the intellectual
ferment which was then going on in the capital of the
world, when we remember that it was in Rome that S.
Austin had come in close contact with the doctrines of the
Academics and that it was again "when in Rome after his
"baptism that," as he tells1 us, "he could not bear in silence
"the vaunting of the Manichaeans about their pretended
"continence... in which to deceive the inexperienced, they
"claim superiority over true Christians to whom they are
"not to be compared." He then wrote two short treatises
on the subject.
But when he reached his old home, and when after a
time he was ordained to be a priest and appointed to the care
of the Christian flock in Hippo, he found himself forced in
1 Retract, i. vit 1.

46 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
the interest of the souls wliich were committed to his charge1
to attack the false doctrine in every way, in his sermons,
tracts and letters, as well as by public disputations. These
public disputations were much in favour with the Mani
chaeans : and were perhaps a practice which indicated their
Eastern origin : the first teacher of their tenets had suffered
a violent death as the consequence of being worsted in
one of those contests which gave the courts of Eastern
monarchs their pretensions to learning2. In his public
controversy with Fortunatus, S. Austin was so successful as
to turn the tide of popular opinion at Hippo in favour
of the orthodox faith3: and when the practical issue was
thus decided in his own church, he ceased to take such
a keen interest in the matter, though he had occasionally
to return to the controversy during his episcopate4. But
it is not out of place to note that the nature of these dis
cussions affects the form of his principal treatise against
the Manichaeans: in the work against Faustus there are
statements and counter-statements,— statements which are
one of the chief sources of our knowledge of Manichaean
teaching and which seem to be fairly made. It is no longer,
as in his Academic dialogues, the report of a conversation
where friends were engaged in helping each other in the
search for truth, it is a written controversy in which the
two opponents each try to establish their OAvn case and to
weaken the position of their adversary in the eyes of the
public. It may appear at first sight that there can be httle
permanent interest for us in the religious disputations of
the fourth century. Public discussions have gone out of
1 Bindemann, Der h. Aug. n. 342.
2 Beausobre, Histuire critique de Manichee et du manicheisme, I.
202. 3 Vila S. Augustini, in. vii. 3.
1 Bindemann, in. 122.

II.] MANICH^EISM. 47
fashion ; the courtly argument and pre-arranged conversions
of the sixteenth century were more decorous but not more
weighty than the public wranglings over the mysteries of
faith Avhich attracted popular audiences in the last genera
tion. But at any rate the controversies in which S. Austin
took part have an historical interest for us, — for he had to
face the last, the final struggle of heathenism to absorb a
measure of Christian truth, and thus to persuade men to
sacrifice the distinctive and vital elements of the Christian
Faith. There was a place for Christ among the gods of
Rome, but Rome was pagan for this very reason that He
was only one among her many gods : and there was a place
for Christ in the system of Mani, but that system was
heathen still. The best of heathen aspiration, — to lose
oneself in God, the best of heathen morality — to destroy
the fleshly passions which fetter the spirit, and no small
measure of heathen art and heathen eloquence, were all
arrayed against the Church of Christ — but not to prevail.
And if we have found an interest in seeing how S. Austin
received a noble heritage of pre-Christian thought and
built it into the edifice of Christian philosophy — may we
not also pause for a while to note how he came in contact
with the best of heathen aspiration and morality and
worship, and showed how meagre and imperfect they are,
at their best ?
Mani was indeed a religious reformer : deeply impreg
nated with the belief and practice which Buddhist monks
were spreading in the East1, he tried with some success to
reform the religion of Zoroaster in Persia — his native land.
While his fundamental doctrine, the root of his system, was
of Persian origin, and he figured the universe to himself
as if it Avere given over to one unending struggle between
the Powers of Light and Darkness, in regard to discipline
1 On the Buddhist elements in Manichseism compare F. C. Baur,
Das manichdische Religionssystem, 424, 434, 445.

48 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
his system very closely resembles that founded by
Buddha; the elect of the Manichaeans correspond to the
Buddhist monks ; the precepts about abstinence from meat
and things of sense are, if not borrowed from the rules
Gotama gave for the conduct of his followers, the outcome
of the same principles about the nature of man. But if
Mani thus sought to reform one of the noblest non-Christian
religions through the influence of another, he did not rise
above heathenism. He still set the problem of religion as
it occurs to heathen minds ; man is but a part of the Avorld
of phaenomena, to be explained as other phaenomena are1:
the dualism of his doctrine did not render it wholly incom
patible with popular polytheism2, and its contempt for hea
then modes of worship did not really raise it above heathen
modes of thought, although there were portions of New
Testament story and teaching which could be easily assimi
lated to the rest of his teaching. In S. Austin's controversy
with the Manichaeans then we may find no ordinary theo
logical polemic : it gives us the record of the last struggle
of heathenism, and of its defeat.
But it may have more than a merely historical interest
for us. Heathenism was defeated ; for the future, learning
and science and philosophy were to be cast in Christian
not in heathen moulds, Christian not heathen modes of
thought were to enter into all the affairs of life among the
peoples which formed the van of human progress. But
heathenism is not extinct : Buddhism is still supreme in
Ceylon ; the doctrine of Zoroaster is cherished by the
Parsis in Bombay ; and the belief of the crowds who flock
to the lovely shrines on the Girnar and at Mount Abus
shows still closer affinities to the teaching of Mani. The
vitality of the primaeval theology is shown by the attraction
1 Baur, D. man. Rei. 345.
2 Ibid. 340.
3 On its affinities with the Jain religion see Baur, D. man. Rei. 449.

II.] MANICTLEISM. 49
it exercises over Western minds : when we are told of
the grandeur of Theosophy or the depths of Esoteric
Buddhism we cannot but see that we may be called on to
enter on the old controversy in some neAv form among our
fellow-subjects or even in our oavh land ; and if such a day
shall come for any of us, we may feel that it is no small
gain that the weapons S. Austin used are ready to our
hands. The vantage ground from which he attacked their
position was furnished by his studies in Greek philosophy.
"We all," he says, "desire to live happily ;... but the title
"happy cannot in my opinion belong either to him who has
"not what he loves, whatever it may be, or to him who has
"what he loves, if it is hurtful, or to him who does not love
"what he has although it is good in perfection.... There is
"a fourth case where the happy life exists, when that which
"is man's chief good is both loved and possessed1." He
goes on to show that there is but one worthy object of love
through Whom we may attain true happiness. It is "God,
"in following after Whom we live well, and in reaching
"Whom we live both well and happily2." "Following after
"God is the desire of happiness, to reach God is happiness
"itself. We follow after God by loving Him: we reach
"Him, not by becoming entirely what He is, but in near-
"ness to Him, and in wonderful and spiritual contact with
"Him, and in being thoroughly illuminated and embraced
"by His truth and holiness. For He is light itself: but we
"too may receive light from Him.... And if nothing can
"separate us from His love must not this be surer as well as
"better than any other good3?"
This is the true good and source of happiness, and it is
one which external things cannot mar. "Present troubles
"do not separate us, for we feel their burden the less the
1 De Moribus Eccl. 4. 2 Ibid. 10. 3 Ibid. 18.
C. 4

50 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
"closer we cling to Him from Whom they try to sever us1."
God alone is to be loved, and all this world, that is, sensible
things are to be despised — while however they are to be
used as this life requires.
The old question, as to how far external goods were
necessary to the life of virtue and therefore to true happi-
mess, presents little difficulty to S. Austin. All earthly things
' work for the good of those who love God. The very passions
which disturb the even tenour of life may be rightly directed
and offer occasions for self-discipline2. Pain, sickness, suf
fering and all else may be disciplinary, and in so far as they
serve for our training and improvement they cannot be really
evil ; since even the poisons and mischiefs in the physical
universe, harmonise into a Avhole that is truly good3.
1 De Moribus Eccl. 19.
2 Denique in disciplina nostra non tam quasritur utrum pius animus
irascatur, sed quare irascatur ; nee utrum sit tristis, sed unde sit tristis ;
nee utrum timeat, sed quid timeat. Irasci enim peccanti, ut corri-
gatur ; contristari pro afflicto, ut liberetur ; timere periclitanti, ne
pereat ; nescio utrum quisquam sana consideratione reprehendat. Nam
et misericordiam Stoicorum est solere culpare : sed quanto honestius
ille Stoicus misericordia perturbaretur hominis liberandi, quam timore
naufragii ! De Civitate Dei, ix. v.
3 Quemadmodum nee bonis imputatur, quod ipsis prodesse volentibus
nocetur alicui, sed bono animo benevolentiae prasmium tribuitur : ita
etiam caetera creatura pro meritis animarum rationalium vel sentitur
vel latet, vel molesta vel commoda est. Summo enim Deo cuncta bene
administrante quas fecit, nihil inordinatum in universo, nihilque in-
justum est, sive scientibus sive nescientibus nobis. De Dicers. Quces.
LXXXIII. qu. xxvii.
Quibus recte consideratis atque perspectis, attende utrum aliquid
mali acciderit fidelibus et piis, quod eis non in bonum verteretur.
De Civitate Dei, i. x. 1.
Nee attendunt, quam vel in suis locis naturisque vigeant, pulchro-
que ordine disponantur; quantumque universitati rerum pro suis
portionibus decoris tanquam in communem rempublicam conferant, vel
nobis ipsis, si eis congruenter atque scienter utamur, commoditatis
attribuant; ita ut venena ipsa, quae per iiiconvenientiam perniciosa
sunt, convenienter adhibita in salubria medicamenta vertantur : quam-
que a contrario etiam haec quibus delectantur, sicut cibus et potus et

II-] MANICH^EISM. 51
There are diverse ways in which the good things God
bestows subserve the highest good ; some cannot be misused,
while others can1. But all that God gives us is still in its
OAvn nature good, as the Creator at first pronounced it to be.
And thus in the full vieAv of all the evil in the world, physical
and moral, all the suffering and all the sin, S. Austin main
tains the old Platonic doctrine2, that evil is not an absolute,
positive factor in the universe3, but that it is only the priva-
ista lux, immoderato et iuopportuno usu noxia sentiantur. Unde nos
admonet divina providentia, non res insipienter vituperare, sed utilitatem
rerum diligenter inquirere ; et ubi nostrum ingenium vel infirmitas
deficit, ita credere occultam, sicut erant quaedam quae vix potuimus
invenire : quia et ipsa utilitatis occultatio, aut humilitatis exercitatio
est, aut elationis attritio ; cum omnino natura nulla sit malum, nomen-
que hoc non sit nisi privationis boni : sed a terrenis usque ad coelestia,
et a visibilibus usque ad invisibilia sunt aliis alia bona meliora ; ad hoc
inasqualia, ut essent omnia. De Civitate Dei, xi. xxii. Compare also
De Vera Religione, 74 — 78.
1 Ista ergo magna bona sunt : sed meminisse te oportet, non solum
magna, sed etiam minima bona non esse posse, nisi ab illo a quo sunt
omnia bona, hoc est Deo. Id enim superior disputatio persuasit, cui
toties tamque lastus assensus es. Virtutes igitur quibus recte vivitur,
magna bona sunt : species autem quorumlibet corporum, sine quibus
recte vivi potest, minima bona sunt : potentise vero animi sine quibus
recte vivi non potest, media bona sunt. Virtutibus nemo male utitur :
cseteris autem bonis, id est, mediis et minimis, non solum bene, sed
etiam male quisque uti potest. De Lib. Arb. il. 50.
2 It was accepted by several of the Fathers. Origen (Comment, in
Eoan. Joan. ii. 7). Athanasius (Orat. contra Gentes, 4). Greg. Nyss.
(Or. Cat. v. vi. vii.).
3 Peccatum nihil est, et nihil fiunt homines cum peccant. Tract. I.
in Eo. Joan. 13.
Omne igitur quod est, sine aliqua specie non est. Ubi autem
aliqua species, necessario est aliquis modus : et modus aliquid boni est :.
summum ergo malum nullum modum habet ; caret enim omni bono.
Non est igitur ; quia nulla specie continetur, totumque hoc nomen mali
de speciei privatione repertum est. De Divers. Quasst. LXXXIII. qu. vi.
Unde res mira conficitur, ut, quia omnis natura in quantum natura
est bonum est, nihil aliud dici videatur, cum vitjosa natura mala esse
natura dicitur, nisi malum esse quod bonum est : nee malum esse, nisi
quod bonum est ; quoniam omnis natura bonum est, nee res aliqua mala
4—2

52 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
tn2n_of_goodi: there is no existence apart from the good2, —
esset, si res ipsa quae mala est, natura non esset. Non igitur potest esse
malum, nisi aliquod bonum. Enchiridion, xiii.
Malumque illud quod quasrebam unde esset, non est substantia,
quia si substantia esset, bonum esset. Conf. vn. 12.
1 Quid est autem aliud quod" malum dicitur, nisi privatio boni ?
Nam sicut corporibus animalium nihil est aliud morbis et vulneribus
affici, quam sanitate privari (neque enim id agitur, cum adhibetur
curatio, ut mala ista quse inerant, id est, morbi ac vulnera recedant
hinc, et alibi sint; sed utique ut non sint. Non enim ulla substantia,
sed carnalis substantiae vitium est vulnus aut morbus : cum caro sit
ipsa substantia, profecto aliquod bonum cui accidunt ista mala, id est
privationes ejus boni quod dicitur sanitas) ; ita et animorum qusecumque
sunt vitia, naturalium sunt privationes bonorum : quas cum sanantur,
non aliquo transferuntur ; sed ea quae ibi erant, nusquam erunt, quando
in ilia sanitate non erunt. Enchiridion, xi.
Mali enim nulla natura est; sed amissio boni mali nomen accepit.
De Civitate Dei, xi. ix.
Quseram ergo tertio quid sit malum. Respondebitis fortasse,
Corruptio. Quis et hoc negaverit generale malum esse? Nam hoc est
contra naturam, hoc est quod nocet. Sed corruptio non est in seipsa,
sed in aliqua substantia quam corrumpit : non enim substantia est ipsa
corruptio. Ea igitur res quam corrumpit, corruptio non est, malum
non est. Quod enim corrumpitur, integritate et sinceritate privatur.
De Mor. Manich. 7.
2 Dicimus itaque incommutabile bonum non esse, nisi unum verum
beatum Deum : ea vero quse fecit, bona quidem esse, quod ab illo ;
verumtamen mutabilia, quod non de illo, sed de nihilo facta sunt. Quan-
quam ergo summa non sint ; quibus est Deus majus bonum : magna sunt
tamen ea mutabilia bona, quse adhserere possunt ut beata sint, immuta-
bili bono ; quod usque adeo bonum eorum est, ut sine illo misera esse
necesse sit. Nee ideo caetera in hac creaturae universitate meliora sunt,
quia misera esse non possunt. Neque enim caetera membra corporis
nostri ideo dicendum est oculis esse meliora, quia caeca esse non possunt.
Sicut autem melior est natura sentiens et cum dolet, quam lapis qui
dolere nullo modo potest: ita rationalis natura praestantior est etiam
misera, quam ilia quse rationis vel sensus est expers, et ideo in earn non
cadit miseria. Quod cum ita sit, huic naturae, quse in tanta excellentia
creata est, ut licet ipsa sit mutabilis, inhaerendo tamen incommutabili
bono, id est summo Deo, beatitudinem consequatur, nee expleat indi-
gentiam suam nisi utique beata sit, eique explendas non sufficiat nisi
Deus, profecto non illi adhaerere, vitium est. Omne autem vitium
naturae nocet, ac per hoc contra naturam est. Ab ilia igitur quse
adhaeret Deo, non natura differt ista, sed vitio : quo tamen etiam vitio

II. J MANICTLEISM. 53
the most corrupted nature has good in it or it could
not be1.
By thus insisting on the unreality of evil, on its un-
substantiality and nothingness, S. Austin is able to strike a
blow at the very foundation of the Manichaean system.
Evil no longer appears an eternal power ever opposing
God, nor are Ave forced like the Manichaeans to think of
God as one Avhose will is Umited, whose power is thwarted
by evil, for He ever brings good out of it : He so orders
all things that fail that they may exist where their exist
ence is most suitable2. On no other supposition can we
think worthily of God, as unchanging, eternal, incorruptible,
for if God is not thus supreme in all that is, but merely a
Soul that is in every human soul, then does it seem that the
corruptions of human souls must be corruptions of that
God of which they form the parts3.
valde magna multumque laudabilis ostenditur ipsa natura. Cujus enim
recte vituperatur vitium, procul dubio natura laudatur. Nam recta vitii
vituperatio est, quod illo dehonestatur natura laudabilis. De Civ. Dei,
xii. i. 3. On S. Austin's philosophy of Nature see the excellent remarks
in Dr Konrad Sc:pio's Des A. A. Melaphysik in Rahmen seiner Lehre
vom Uebel, p. 31.
1 Quia nee ipse diabolus a potestate Omnipotentis alienus est, sicut
neque a bonitate. Nam et maligni angeli unde qualicumque subsisterent
vita, nisi per eum qui vivificat omnia? De Trin. xiii. 16.
1 Sed Dei bonitas eo rem perduci non sinit, et omnia deficientia sic
ordinat, ut ibi sint ubi congruentissime possint esse, donee ordinatis
motibus ad id recurrant unde defecerunt. Itaque etiam animas
rationales, in quibus est potentissimum liberum arbitrium, deficientes
a se, in inferioribus creaturse gradibus ordinat, ubi tales esse decet.
De Mor. Manich. 9.
Ita nee praeter ordinem sunt mala, quae non diligit Deus, et ipsum
tamen ordinem diligit : hoc ipsum enim diligit, diligere bona et non
diligere mala ; quod est magni ordinis et divinae dispositionis. Qui
ordo atque dispositio quia universitatis congruentiam ipsa distinctione
custodit, fit ut mala etiam esse necesse sit. Ita quasi ex antithetis
quodammodo, quod nobis etiam in oratione jucundum est, id est ex
contrariis, omnium simul rerum pulchritudo figuratur. De Ordine, I. 18.
See also De Lib. Arb. in. 35.
3 Deus igitur vobis auctoribus, siquidem pars Dei est Deus, et

54 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.

II. The Origin of Evil.
The question as to the nature of evil is to S. Austin
a far more important one than the issue which the Mani
chaeans constantly raised as to its origin. They challenged
their opponents on this point; if evil is not, they argued, a
substantial element in the universe, it is incumbent upon
you to sIioav us Avhence it comes : and S. Austin took up the
challenge ; he proceeds to shoAV how the origin of evil is
possible, how it might appear among the works of an un
changing God Who is all good.
The answer I shall give in the words in which he himself
summarises it. "All things that exist, therefore, seeing
"that the Creator of them all is supremely good, are them-
" selves good. But because they are not like their Creator
"supremely and unchangeably good, their good may be
j "diminished and increased1. . .and the cause of evil is the fall-
ring away from the unchangeable good, of a being made good
t'but changeable2.... This is the first evil that befell the in-
"telligent creation — that is, its first privation of good. Fol
lowing upon this crept in, and now even in opposition to
"man's will, ignorance of duty, and lust after what is hurt-
"ful, and these brought in their train error and suffering...
stultitia corrumpitur, et cadendo mutatus est, et amissa perfectione
violatus, et opis indiget, et debilis morbo, et oppressus miseria, et
servitute turpatus est. Quod si Dei pars Deus non est ; nee incorruptus
potest esse, in cujus parte corruptio est ; nee incommutatus, qui ex
aliqua parte mutatus est ; nee inviolatus, qui non ex omni parte per-
fectus; neque non indigens, qui sedulo agit ut sibi restituat partem
suam; nee omnino sanus, qui aliqua parte imbecillus est; nee beatis-
sinius, qui habet aliquam partem subjectam miserise ; nee omnino liber,
cujus pars aliqua premitur servitute. Hrec omnia cogimiui dicere, cum
animam, quam tsmtis obrutam calamitatibus cernitis, partem Dei esse
perhibetis. De Mor. Manich. 22, 23.
1 Enchiridion, xii.
2 Ibid, xxiii.

II.] ORIGIN OF EVIL. 55
"From these fountains of evil which spring out of defect
"rather than superfluity, flows every form of misery that
"besets a rational nature1."
It is thus through the defect of will — -the negligence of
a changeful Avill— that the origin of evil is possible. "For
"as a snake does not creep on Avith open steps, but by
"the very minutest efforts of its several scales, so the
"slippery motion of falling away from what is good, takes
"possession of the negligent only gradually, and begin-
"ning from a perverted straining after the likeness of God,
"arrives in the end at the likeness of beasts2." Such is S.
Austin's argument to show that the possibility of the origin
of evil was conceivable, when its true nature was under
stood, and that it was unnecessary to assume with the
Manichaeans that eAil like good Avas a substantial and
permanent reality.
Had S. Austin left the matter here, little exception
could have been taken to his treatment of this difficult
problem : but he went on to discuss the farther point as to
the actual origin of sin in this Avorld. How did evil actually
and as a matter of fact come to take possession of human
hearts? It is of course clear that this is a question of actual
history ; and it is also pretty clear that the Bible, — the only
history to which we should be likely to turn — does not give
us an account of actual occurrences. The allegory of the
1 Enchiridion xxiv. Compare also another statement of the same
doctrine, Nemo igitur quserat efficientem causam malae voluntatis : non
enim est efficiens, sed deficiens ; quia nee ilia effectio est, sed defectio.
Deficere namque ab eo quod summe est, ad id quod minus est, hoc est
incipere habere voluntatem malam. Causas porro defectionum istarum,
cum efflcientes non sint, ut dixi, sed deticientes, velle invenire, tale est
ac si quisquam velit videre tenebras, vel audire silentium : quod tamen
utrumque nobis notum est; neque illud nisi per oculos, neque hoc nisi
per aures ; non sane in specie, sed in speciei privatione. De Civitate
Dei, xii. vii.
2 De Trinitate, xn. 16.

56 s. austin. [lect;
Fall puts clearly before our minds the important truths
that evil is not the work of God — that it arises through the
defect of will of a changeful creature, that its punishment
' follows in consciousness of guilt, and separation from God.
It was in parables that our Lord taught the gospel of the
kingdom of God, and it was in an allegory that the truth
about creation and the origin of sin was divinely set before
human minds. Christian teachers hke Origen and S. Am
brose laid stress almost entirely upon the allegorical inter
pretation: and had S. Austin been careful to take a line
which should be perfectly consistent with other portions
of his teaching, he would not have insisted on interpret
ing this chapter of Genesis as a history of actual facts.
It was of course clear to him that the first chapter of
Genesis was purely allegorical, for it is obvious that the
coming into being of Time could not take place in periods
of time1: but the third chapter he regards as actual his
tory, and it may not be uninstructive, both with respect
to the man2 and his times, if we dwell briefly on the cir-
1 Cum igitur Deus, in cujus seternitate nulla est omnino mutatio,
creator sit temporum et ordinator, quomodo dicatur post temporum
spatia mundum creasse, non video ; nisi dicatur ante mundum jam
aliquam fuisse creaturam, cujus motibus tempora currerent. Porro si
Litterse sacrae maximeque veraces ita dicunt, in principio fecisse Deum
cesium et terram, ut nihil antea fecisse intelligatur, quia hoc potius
in principio fecisse diceretur, si quid fecisset ante caetera cuncta
quae fecit ; procul dubio non est mundus factus in tempore, sed cum
tempore. Quod enim fit in tempore, et post aliquod fit, et ante aliquod
tempus ; post id quod prasteritum est, ante id quod futurum est : nullum
autem posset esse prasteritum ; quia nulla erat creatura, cujus niuta-
bilibus motibus ageretur. Cum tempore autem factus est mundus, si in
ejus conditione factus est mutabilis motus, sicut videtur se habere etiam
ordo ille primorum sex vel septem dierum, in quibus et mane et vespera
nominantur, donee omnia quae his diebus Deus fecit, sexto perficiantur
die, septimoque in magno mysterio Dei vacatio commendetur. Qui
dies cujusmodi sint, aut perdifficile nobis, aut etiam impossibile est
cogitare ; quanto magis dicere ? De Civitate Dei, xi. vi.
2 See Excursus 1), p. 157.

II-] ORIGIN OF EVIL. 57
cumstances which may have induced him to prefer this
interpretation. The Manichaean controversy incidentally raised many
questions as to the interpretation of Scripture to an import
ance which they had never previously possessed. That
system being as it was a heathenism, though a pure heathen
ism, was utterly opposed to the genius of the religion of
Israel1, and thus attacks Avere constantly directed against
the sacred scriptures of the Jews. There was a debased
form of Christianity Avhich the Manichaeans extracted from
the New Testament, and though they seemed to orthodox
Christians to play fast and loose Avith the Gospels and Epis
tles, they did not reject these altogether as they did the books
of the Old Testament, which they were accustomed to criti
cise with unmeasured scorn. S. Austin defended the Old
Testament from their attacks by asserting the fundamental
harmony which existed between it and the New : while he
also Avrote elaborate commentaries in which he replies to
the objections they urged against particular passages —
objections which are repeated in very similar form by
Secularists in the present day. The story of the Fall was
especially a stumbling-block to the Manichaean, who denied
the possibility of evil originating and asserted its substantial
character; there was accordingly a great temptation to a
controversialist to attempt not only to prove that evil could
arise, but to make the most of an account that purported
to describe how it had arisen as a matter of fact.
There was another influence which affected S. Austin
too : there is a considerable difference between the allegor
ising of such a preacher as S. Ambrose and the elucidations
which S. Austin gives : the very cast of his mind forced him
to treat many things as plain matters of fact, which
others had chiefly valued for some spiritual interpretation.
1 Baur, D. man. Rei. 356.

58 S. AUSTIN. [LEC'T.
He seems to have accepted some such canon as this — to
treat all Scriptural narratives as not only revelations of
matters of faith about the unseen, but also as statements of
actual fact, unless they Avere obviously allegorical1. Now
in the times when he wrote, and with the knowledge of
natural history and cognate studies which he could draw —
say from the pages of Pliny — there was no real ground for
regarding the Biblical account of the Fall as inconsistent
with human experience, and he would not consent to sacri
fice a shred of the possible meaning of the written word.
One may add as a third point, that the reference which
S. Paul makes in the Epistle to the Romans to death coming
into the world through the fall of Adam, seems to give apo
stohc sanction to the opinion that the Biblical story is a
relation of actual matters of fact.
The exigencies of the Manichaean controversy no longer
weigh upon us directly ; but it is worth while to notice how
far we are removed from S. Austin's position in other
respects. For there is a point in which the Biblical narra
tive conflicts with our knowledge of man's physical nature
and the phenomena of animal life. We know that physical
death had entered the world long before man appeared,
and that generation after generation of living beings had
already passed away : we know too that man, the noblest
of created things, was not so different from the others in
physical organism that he could subsist for ever, that no
decay awaited him, and that he was free from the claim
which death asserts over all that lives on the earth2. Yet
1 Sermo lxxxix. 4, 5, 6. De Doctrina Christiana, in. 14. See
Excursus D, § 5, p. 165.
2 Posse non mori. The doctrine of a minor immortality appears to
imply a belief in the earth as everlasting : but S. Austin insists on the
possibility of a deathless translation to the true immortality, mori non
posse. Op. imp. contra Jul. vi. xxx. The belief that divine Grace was
so given to Adam that he was preserved from physical decay and that
during his sinless life a supernatural harmony reigned throughout the

II.] ORIGIN OF EVIL. 59
the third chapter of Genesis seems to imply that the ani
mate creation enjoyed the possibility of an immortal life
upon earth, before man's sin brought on it the penalty of
physical death.
We then, with our greater experience of the facts of life,
shall, if we regard human intelligence as reverently as S.
Austin did1, be satisfied with grasping the spiritual truth
Avhich is conveyed in the story of the Fall,Avithout insisting on
it as an account of an historical event in the world. There
may be some of us, hoAvever, Avho have been habituated to
regard it as recounting an actual event, and to whom it
may seem that in taking it as symbolical we deprive S.
Paul's argument on death and the resurrection of all its
force, since he too writes as if death had been newly im
posed on created beings as a penalty on fallen man.
But assuredly to fallen man — to man who by defect of
will has allowed evil to enter his heart — death is a new
thing ; parting from life is not the same thing to him as it
is to a mere animal : for the Fall of man — through whatever
event it actually occurred — was an awakening to a know
ledge of good and evil, to a new consciousness of himself —
and thus has given death new terrors. For in the Fall, the
earth, is not contradicted by evidence of any kind but it is unverified by
our empirical knowledge. On the relation between the words of Scrip
ture and empirical knowledge see Excursus D, §4, p. 162.
1 Nam quo intellectu Deum capit homo, qui ipsum intellectum
suum quo eum vult capere nondum capit? Si autem hunc jam capit,
attendat diligenter nihil eo esse in sua natura melius, et videat
utrum ibi videat ulla lineamenta formarum, nitores colorum, spatiosam
granditatem, partium distantiam, molis distensionem, aliquas per
locorum intervalla motiones, vel quid ejusmodi. Nihil certe istorum
invenimus in eo, quo in nutura nostra nihil melius invenimus, id est, in
nostro intellectu, quo sapientiam capimus quantum capaces sumus.
Quod ergo non invenimus in meliore nostro, non debemus in illo
quaerere, quod longe melius est meliore nostro : ut sic intelligamus
Deum, si possumus, quantum possumus. De Trin. v. 2. See above
p. 10 and Excursus A, p. 137.

60 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
awakening to a consciousness that the human heart is out
of harmony with the Powers above us, man comes to feel
that at death he has to face the moral realities which he
has tried, it may be, to ignore and forget in life. It is thus
that sin is the sting of death ; to the mere animal, death
may be painful but it has no sting ; while for man, a moral
being, conscious that he is part of a moral order, an order
which prevails apart from the things of sense, death has a
sting ; he may hardly fancy there is a future life before him,
he may figure it in the dimmest way, and yet it is thus
that death — apart from the pain of dying — comes to be
dreadful. Physical death comes to have a new meaning,
through the Fall, to the awakened moral consciousness of
man, who has begun to have a sense that he is apart from
God. If we thus fix our thoughts as S. Austin bids us do1,
on the character of evil, rather than merely on its origin,
we may feel that the whole springs from the defect of a
mutable will — be it angelic or be it human, be the will a
sudden creation, be it evolved through a long series of
ages. The accidents of time and place do not affect the
truth of a story Avhich sets these deep realities before us ; the
investigation of physical phenomena, and the new lights
which may be given us on the development of man, do not
render the old account of the nature of evil, and its mani
festation in the world less striking; still it puts before us the
really important elements which are true for all time — the
defect of will, the awakening of moral consciousness — the
dread of a moral ruler and severance from Him2. None the
1 De Duabus Animabus, 10. Contra Epistolam Manichcei, 38.
2 Evitando vivit anima, quae appetendo moritur. Continete vos ab
immani feritate superbise, ab inerti voluptate luxuriae, et a fallaci
nomine scientiae; ut sint bestise mansuetse, et pecora edomita, et
innoxii serpentes. Motus enim animse sunt isti in allegoria : sed fastus
elationis, et delectatio libidinis, et venenum curiositatis motus sunt
animse mortuse ; quia non ita moritur, ut omni motu careat, quoniam

II.] PUNISHMENT OF SIN. 61
less may Ave regret that S. Austin, avIio set the teaching of
the story in its clearest Ught, should have supposed it had a
double meaning — not only as a manifestation of everlasting
truths, but as a record of actual occurrences as well.

III. The Punishment of Sin.
The train of thought which Ave have followed thus far
leads us naturally to the consideration of the punishment
of sin. There were those in S. Austin's times as well as in
ours who held that all punishment is remedial in character
and that it is for the sake of correcting the evil doer that
punishment can be justified. "Some Platonists there are
"who though they assign a punishment to every sin, yet
"hold that all such inflictions, be they human or divine, in
"this Ufe or the next, tend only to the purgation of the
"soul from enormities1." But it would be hard indeed to
plead for the infliction of punishment, if it were only justi
fied by its corrective influence. Punishment is requisite on
other grounds: for it is the assertion of the moral order
which crime has disturbed ; be it heavy or be it light, it is
the way in which the moral order necessarily reasserts
itself. Some punishments come in the ordinary course of
nature, when vice is stigmatised by marks of suffering.
discedendo a fonte vitae, moritur, atque ita suscipitur a praetereunte
saeculo, et eonformatur ei. Conf. xni. 30.
Nulla vita est quae non sit ex Deo, quia Deus utique summa vita
est et ipse fons vitas, nee aliqua vita in quantum vita est, malum est,
sed in quantum vergit ad mortem: mors autem vitas non est, nisi
nequitia, quse ab eo quod ne quidquam sit, dicta est; etideo nequissimi
homines, nihili homines appellantur. Vita ergo voluntario defectu
deficiens ab eo qui earn fecit, et cujus essentia fruebatur, et volens
contra Dei legem frui corporibus, quibus earn Deus prasfecit, vergit ad
nihilum; et hsec est nequitia: non quia corpus jam nihilum est. De
Vera Religione, 21. See also De Trinitate, xn. 13.
1 De Civitate Dei, xxi. xiii.

f

62 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
There are other punishments which men inflict on those
who break the law of the land ; the criminal has defied
the law, he has set himself in opposition to it, and it re
asserts itself in the punishment which declares what is
right, by depriving him of his goods or confining his person,
even perhaps by taking aAvay his Ufe1.
Punishment thus is the vindication of right, the suppres
sion of wrong2, whether done in full consciousness or not.
The best manner of punishment is an entirely different
question : if a punishment is a corrective discipline as well
as a vindication of right so much the better ; if it proves
exemplary and warns others lest they sin, so much the
better also ; but it is not the usual characteristic of punish
ment that it corrects the evil doer. It is a matter of every
day knowledge that the punishments of our code are not
remedial ; capital punishment is not ; sending boys to jail
may only serve to corrupt them ; and flogging is commonly
said to be brutalising. And neither are the divine punish
ments in themselves corrective ; whether they take the form
of bodily sufferings, or consist in the increased bUndness of
error, and subjection to lust and passion. Assuredly those
who reaUse how truly such punishment follows sin, and
cuts the sinner off from righteous Ufe, and from the true
freedom of true manliness will never suppose that divine
punishments were meant to be corrective. For had it been
so, had the Law Avith its penalties sufficed to restore human
nature, to what purpose had the Son of God come forth to
1 Bradley, Ethical Studies, 26, G. W. P. Hegel, Phil. d. Rechts, 132.
2 Nos vero etiam in hac quidem mortali vita esse quasdam posnas
purgatorias confitemur, non quibus affliguntur quorum vita vel non inde
fit melior, vel potius inde fit pejor ; sed illis sunt purgatoriae, qui eis
coerciti corriguntur. Casteras omnes pcense, sive temporarise, sive
sempiternas, sicut unusquisque divina providentia tractandus est,
inferuntur, vel pro peccatis sive prseteritis, sive in quibus adhuc vivit
ille qui plectitur, vel pro exercendis declarandisque virtutibus, per
homines et angelos, seu bonos seu malos. De Civitate Dei, xxi. xiii.

H-] PUNISHMENT OF SIN. 63
redeem us? It is not by punishment that man is saved, not
by the bare assertion of right upon him and in him, not by
the Cain-like brand that cuts him off from God and man,
but by the love that goes forth to seek and to save those
Avho have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
The nature of the inevitable punishment of sin is well
worthy of consideration ; physical evil may or may not follow ;
the body which has been the instrument of sin may or may
not bear a part in its punishment ; but there is a far more
terrible penalty which is certain and inevitable. "It is the
"most just punishment of sin, that everyone should lose
"that which he would not use well, when he might have
"done so without any difficulty if he had wished: that is to
"say that he who knows what is right and does not do it
"should lose the knowledge of what is right; and that he
"who will not do right when he might should lose the
"power of doing it. For in actual fact ignorance and inca
pacity are two penalties that befall every soul that sins1."
Punishment leaves its mark on the soul in increased prone-
ness to choose evil, and increased weakness in striving after
1 De Lib. Arb. in. 52.
Non enim sicut peccatum in ejus potestate est, ita etiam poena
peccati. Magna quippe res est ipsa anima, nee ad opprimendos lascivos
motus suos idonea sibi remanet. Valentior enim peccat, et post
peccatum divina lege facta imbecillior, minus potens est auferre quod
fecit. De Musica, vi. 14.
Verum hie admonendus es, quid de hoc unde nunc agimus, sapere
debeas, posnam scilicet et prsemium, intuenda inter se esse contraria,
et alia duo contraria his contrariis adhaerere; sic ergo in poena est non
posse recte agere, sicut erit in prsemio non posse peccare. Operis imp.
contra Jul. vi. x.
Caecitas igitur cordis, qua nescitur quid justitia vetet, et violentia
concupiscentiae, qua vincitur etiam qui scit unde debeat abstinere, non
tantum peccata, sed posnae sunt etiam peccatorum. Operis imp. contra
Jul. vi. xvii.
Ac per hoc, nisi prius homo faceret peccando quod vellet, non
pateretur concupiscendo quod nollet. Operis imp. contra Jul. vi. xiv.
See also De Utilitale Jejunii, iv. Contra Adv. Leg. et Proph. i. 18.
Enarr. in Ps. xxxvii. 15.

64 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
right : this is the mark of wrong-doing, the punishment of
sin, a punishment which serves directly to set before us the
truth that it is only as our life is lived in close communion
with the source of life that it is true life worthy the name
at all. The weakness of a changeful creature and defect of
Avill were the causes of evil, but its punishment is found in
the bands which the sinner has forged for himself — the
bands of sins by franty committed — and which in their turn
force him into deeper sin, and more complete aUenation
from God.
Perhaps it was his sense of the terribleness of the
punishment of sin, of the way in which it drags us farther
and farther from God, that tended to give S. Austin such a
deep horror of sin — a feeling which comes out again and
again in his writings. It might be supposed that because
he holds that evil is a defect and unreality, which merely
exists as a parasite on goodness, he would attach Uttle
importance to it as an actual phenomenon in the world
and in our hearts; but his sense of the actual power
of lust and sin distinguishes him markedly from many
modern writers. This striking difference comes out most
clearly in his treatment of incontinence — he insists on con
tinence as a virtue for all, in every state of Ufe, and exhorts
to what many regard now as impossible virtue ; while he
tries to show how it may be cultivated. And just because
this form of self-indulgence seems to many a necessity, we
may find in it the clearest evidence of the power of sin to
darken and weaken our nature. But while we in modern
times are tempted only to exclaim against its violent ex
cesses, and to try to set up one feeble barrier or another
which shall confine, and serve to regulate lust, he will have
no compromise with it whatever. The raging of human
lust may indeed carry man to the lowest depths of fiendish
cruelty, as S. Austin saw in his day, as we have heard in
ours. But he kneAv only too well — as we all may knoAV—

II-] PUNISHMENT OF SIN. 65
that this same lust was in him, that he dared not yield to it
at all, or tolerate its sUghtest promptings: he knew the
futiUty of trying to raise the social standard, unless he
could dare to denounce the evil of lust under what guise
soever it sought to hide itself. We in this day, even if we
strive to salve our consciences by denouncing its grosser
forms, are not thus intolerant of the evil itself: there are
many men Avho make a profession of Christianity, and Avho
think lightly of incontinence in married life1 : there are
others perhaps who make no such profession who yet treat
the incontinence of the married as an excuse for their own
fornication ; and thus each sinner strives to palliate his OAvn
crime by pointing at the self-indulgence of others. Let us
not deceive ourselves in this matter : it is not the suffering
caused by fiendish lust that renders self-indulgence an evil
— that only exhibits how evil it is. The consent of partners
in guilt does not render self-indulgence less guilty ; nor is
it innocent because it does not overstep the bounds set by
the institutions of society. Self-indulgence is an evil at all
times, and there is no condition of life in which those who
yield to it do not suffer the penalty of sin — in the darkening
of the eye whereby we see the right, in the weakening of
the power to do it.
S. Austin's decided utterances on this point cost him
dear during his Ufe, and have in our own days served to
cast a shadow on his reputation2. It was said that the old
leaven of Manichaean teaching still affected his doctrine ;
because he had a strong sense of the actual power of sin in
the human heart he seemed to regard it as an original part
of the constitution of our nature, to figure it to himself as a
mighty opponent of God. To those who are not convinced
1 See Excursus E, On Continence in married life, p. 168.
2 Milman, Latin Christianity (1872), I. 152. Neander (History of
ths Christian Religion, iv. 290) does him complete justice in this parti
cular.

66 S. AUSTIN. [lect.
by the language in which he himself repudiated the charge1
it is perhaps hopeless to try to say more, but whether we fix
our attention on his teaching as to the real nature of evil
or the duties he inculcated, we may see that he Avas funda
mentally opposed to the Manichaean. To him the things
of sense are not evil but good, though good which may be
abused : it is not in avoiding matter2, as the Manichaean
vainly tried, but in the right use of the things which God
has pronounced good that Ave attain to virtue. Nor could
his authority be fairly appealed to by those mediaeval
reformers Avho insisted on ceUbacy as a duty, and condemned
1 De Nuptiis, n. iii. quoted in Excursus E, p. 171.
2 Non enim parva sunt hsec interim duo, quas salubriter sua incarna-
tione monstravit, nee carne posse contaminari verani divinitatem, nee
ideo putandos daemones nobis esse meliores, quia non habent carnem.
De Civitate Dei, ix. xvii.
His own practice in regard to eating and drinking was entirely free
from those Manichsean elements which occasionally reappear both in
Teetotalism and Vegetarianism. Possidius (Vita xxii.) describes his
habits thus, Vestes ejus et calceamenta vel lectualia ex moderato et com-
petenti habitu erant, nee nitida nimium, nee abjecta plurimum : quia his
plerumque vel jactare se insolenter homines solent, vel abjicere; ex utro-
que non quae Jesu Christi, sed quse sua sunt iidem quserentes : at iste,
ut dixi, medium tenebat, neque in dexteram, neque in sinistram declinans.
Mensa usus est frugali et parca, quae quidem inter olera et legumina,
etiam carnes aliquando propter hospites, vel quosque infirmiores, semper
autem vinum habebat. Quia noverat, et docebat, ut Apostolus dicit,
quod omnis creatura Dei bona sit, et nihil abjiciendum, quod cum
gratiarum actione percipilur; sanctiftcatur enim per cerbum Dei et
orationem. Et, ut idem Augustinus sanctus in suis Confessionum
libris posuit, dicens: Non ego immunditiam obsonii timeo, sed im-
munditiam cupiditalis. Scio Noe omne genus carnis quod cibo esset
usui, manducare permissum; Eliam cibo carnis refectum; Joannem
mirabili abstinentia prevditum, animalibus, hoc est locustis, in escam
cedentibus non fuisse pollution. Scio et Esau lenticulw concupiscentia
deceptum; et David propter aquw desideriam a. se ipso reprehensum ;
et Regem nostrum, non de carne, sed de pane esse tentatum. Ideoque et
populus in ererno, non quia carnes desideracit.sed quia esere desiderio
contra Deum murmuravit, meruit improbari (Confess, x. 46). De vino
autem sumendo Apostoli exstat sententia ad Timotheum scribentis,

H-] PUNISHMENT OF SIN. 67
marriage as little if any better than fornication. He knew
that the celibate might fall into other sins, as truly evil as
that he abjured ; Avhile marriage Avas not in itself evil, but a
good instituted by God, though not as S. Austin thought
the most excellent way of life to choose, since it was a path
beset by many temptations.
Thus far we have endeavoured to follow out S. Austin's
view as to the nature of punishment — it is assertory, and as
to the kind of punishment which follows sin — ignorance and
incapacity. But we cannot pass aAvay from the topic without
dwelling on one other point : How far are the divine punish
ments proportionate to the sin? The opinion put forth by
some Christian teachers that since all human sin is infi
nitely guilty all aUke demands an infinite punishment, has
given a great shock to the ordinary sense of justice, and
has done much to discredit Christianity in the eyes of men
of deep moral feeling who do not accept its teaching. But
though the tone of S. Austin's discussion of this subject is
sure to jar on many ears noAV-a-days, when his teaching is
taken as a whole it is seen that it is far less likely to
cause offence in this matter than that of many more recent
writers. He insists that in those words where our Lord
lifts the veil and tells us something of the judgment to
come, He does set that judgment before us as a real
decision1, and He speaks of it as a just one Avhere penalty is
proportioned to guilt, since some are to be beaten with few
stripes and some with many. There are present punish
ments of the soul and of the body, there will be future
ac dicentis: Noli usque adhuc aquam bibere, sed vino modico utere
propter stomachum etfrequentes tuas infirmitates. Cochlearibus tantum
argenteis utens, caetera vasa quibus mensae inferebantur cibi, vel testea,
vel lignea, vel marmorea fuerunt: non tamen necessitatis inopia, sed pro-
posito voluntatis. Sed et hospitalitatem semper exhibuit. Et in ipsa
mensa magis lectionem vel disputationem, quam epulationem potatio-
nemque diligebat.
1 De Civitate Dei, xx. v.
5—2

68 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
punishments as well, but much of that in the future as in
the present is temporary1 punishment. He inserts an
interesting discussion2 on the possibility of proportioning
the duration of punishment to guilt in treating of punish
ment which has no end, and which seems necessarily dis-
proportioned to any act in time, though even this may differ
in degree if not in duration3.
There is another matter in regard to which he speaks
with less uncertainty* and again adopts an opinion, grounded
on the Uteral sense of Scripture and exempUfied as he be-
1 Sed temporarias pcenas alii in hac vita tantum, alii post mortem,
alii et nunc et tunc, verum tamen ante judicium illud severissimum
novissimumque patiuntur. Non autem omnes veniunt in sempitemas
pcenas, quae post illud judicium sunt futures, qui post mortem sustinent
temporales. Nam quibusdam, quod in isto non remittitur, remitti in
futuro saeculo, id est, ne futuri saeculi aeterno supplicio puniantur. De
Civitate Dei, xxi. xiii.
2 Sic autem quidam eorum, contra quos defendimus civitatem Dei,
injustum putant, ut pro peccatis quamlibet magnis, parvo scilicet
tempore perpetratis, poena quisque damnetur seterna; quasi ullius id
unquam justitia legis attendat, ut tanta mora temporis quisque puniatur,
quanta mora temporis unde puniretur admisit. Octo genera poenarum
in legibus esse scribit Tullius, damnum, vincula, verbera, talionem,
ignominiam, exsilium, mortem, servitutem. Quid horum est quod in
breve tempus pro cujusque peccati celeritate coarctetur, ut tanta
vindicetur morula, quanta deprehenditur perpetratum, nisi forte talio?
De Civitate Dei, xxi. xi.
3 De Civitate Dei, xxi. xvi.
4 Utrumque autem horum, ignem scilicet atque vermem, qui volunt
ad animi pcenas, non ad corporis pertinere, dicunt etiam uri doloro
animi sero atque infructuose poenitentis eos qui fuerint a regno Dei
separati : et ideo ignem pro isto dolore urente non incongrue poni
potuisse contendunt, unde illud Apostoli est, Quis scandalizatur, et ego
non uror ? Eumdem etiam vermem putant intelligendum esse. Nam
scriptum est, inquiunt, Sicut tinea vestimentum et vermis lignum,
sic mceror e.rcruciat cor viri. Qui vero posnas et animi et corporis
in illo supplicio futuras esse non dubitant, igne uri corpus, aninmm
autem rodi quodammodo verme mceroris affirmant. Quod etsi cre-
dibilius dicitur; quia utique absurdum est, ibi dolorem aut corporis
aut animi defuturum : ego tamen facilius est ut ad corpus dicam utrum
que pertinere, quam neutrum. De Civitate Dei, xxi. ix.

II- J PUNISHMENT OF SIN. 69
lieved by actual experience1, that the punishment after
death is material, as Avell as spiritual. His whole philosophy
of punishment and its nature shoAvs that the true punish
ment of sin is spiritual, and he recognises that the punish
ment of the evil angels is only spiritual ; but in his anxiety
not to sacrifice a shred of the meaning that can be fairly
drawn from Holy Writ he insists on taking the literal inter
pretation as well2. In thus insisting on the literal as well
as the allegorical sense of the Scriptural language, he forces
himself into a position which was one of great difficulty in
his own time, and the difficulty of which has been consider
ably increased in ours. For in figuring the future Ufe to
himself as a physical state3, he was inclined to view it too
exclusively as subject to the same conditions of place and
1 De Civitate Dei, xxi. iv.
2 There is however some recognition of the difficulties in Enarr. in
Ps. Ixxxv. 17, 18. In 21 and 24 the eternal life is interpreted in a
purely spiritual sense as the vision of God. See also the discussion in
De Gen. ad Lit. xii. xxxii., xxxiii., xxxiv. The difficulty in which S.
Austin's literalism places him here is very similar to that noted above —
seeing he is forced to maintain an everlasting continuance of certain
physical conditions, and thus to put forward an opinion in regard to
phenomena in space and time which at all events transcends all our
experience. But though this is hardly in accordance with his own
principles of Scriptural interpretation, his doctrine is not self-contra
dictory ; he never admits that the existence of evil is a blot on God's
universe, or that its everlasting continuance can in any sense affect the
real carrying out of the Divine purpose. Erigena attempted to reconcile
Origen and S. Austin ; he ultimately repudiated the belief in material
punishment, while holding that the effects of sin on the spiritual nature
were everlasting. See Excursus B, § 5, p. 146.
3 Si autem quaeritur, cum anima de corpore exierit, utrum ad aliqua
loca corporalia feratur, an ad incorporalia corporalibus similia, an vero
nee ad ipsa, sed ad illud quod et corporibus et similitudinibus corporum
est excellentius : cito quidem responderim, ad corporalia loca earn vel
non ferri nisi cum aliquo corpore, vel non localiter ferri. Jam utrum
habeat aliquod corpus, cum de hoc corpore exierit, ostendat qui potest ;
ego autem non puto: spiritualem enim arbitror esse, non corporalem.
Ad spiritualia vero pro meritis fertur, aut ad loca pcenalia similia
corporibus. De Gen. ad Lit. xii. 60.

70 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
time as our life here, and to regard the life of the world to
come as extended through an indefinite protraction of time.
Had he sought to realise his own conception of the eternal
and blessed life, and to frame a corresponding thought of a
life of defect and misery, he might not have so readily dis
missed Origen's doctrine of the final salvation of all1. As
apprehended by S. Austin that doctrine was fanciful, and it
did not seem to harmonise readily with the plain language
of our Lord. But even if we confine ourselves to S. Austin's
own teaching as to the real nature of the punishment of sin
— in want of knoAvledge and of capacity, we may set the
problem before ourselves in a different Ught. Punishment
is bitter to bear, — a misery rooted in an undying spirit, it is
the assertion of the Eternal Righteousness of God, in and
through those who have set Him at nought — it is the venge
ance of Eternal Fire2. But the question of final salvation,
of deUverance from this punishment, is not a question of
time, as if it were a physical state from which the sufferer
could be withdrawn, but rather we must ask whether such
defect and corruption as this can be healed at all? If there
is to be a deliverance from this eternal punishment, it is
not the mere cessation of the duration of suffering that is
needed, but the restoration and heaUng of the bUnded and
diseased spirit. This always, and nought but this, is the
passage from death unto life, both in this world and in the
world to come. If then we ponder whether there is a
deliverance from punishment in the world to come, Ave
need not ask the irrelevant and inapplicable questions, at
what time, after Avhat years it may take place? but Ave shall
turn our thoughts to such considerations as these — Is there
1 De Civitate Dei, xxi. xvii.
2 Obliviscendo autem Deum, tanquam obliviscendo vitam suam,
converses fuerant in mortem, hoc est, in infernum. Commemoratse vero
convertuutur ad Dominuin, tanquam reviviscentes reminiscendo vitam
suam, cujus eas habebat oblivio. De Trin. xiv. 17.

II.] PUNISHMENT OF SIN. 71
any corruption of spirit so deeply seated, that the grace of'
God cannot heal it1? Can man succeed in his effort to hold
himself aloof from God?
There are many avIio are inclined to answer these ques
tions unhesitatingly in the negative : it seems to them that
if evil should anyAvhere maintain itself ultimately, it must
be because God's Avork had failed, because the opposition
of the rebels who held out against Him had triumphed.
But this difficulty did not press on the mind of S. Austin ;
he Avould haAe resented the impUed Manichaeism of the
argument. To him evil was not a real substantial existence
opposing God, it was a defect in things otherwise good, and
which despite these defects still made a harmonious whole :
in so far as a being persists it is because it has elements of
goodness; and thus as he believed the whole of existence
continues to afford a changed but perfect harmony. To
most of us it is hard so to look at things sub specie wterni-
tatis that we can see that God is glorified in all His works :
and for those who cannot see it in earthly things2, it is
indeed hard to beheve it as S. Austin did, of the life beyond
the grave3. And if we cherish another hope, if we think
that S. Paul's paean points to another form of Divine tri-
1 S. Austin's opinion on this point is expressed in an entirely different
connexion, but is perfectly decided.
Cum ergo alius sic, alius autem sic moveatur ad fidem, eademque
res ssepe alio modo dicta moveat, alio modo dicta non moveat ; aliumque
moveat, alium non moveat ; quis audeat dicere defuisse Deo modum
vocandi, quo etiam Esau ad earn fidem mentem applicaret voluntatemque
conjungeret, in qua Jacob justificatus est ? Quod si tanta quoque potest
esse obstinatio voluntatis, ut contra omnes modos vocationis obdurescat
mentis aversio ; quseritur utrum de divina poena sit ipsa duritia, cum
Deus deserit non sic vocando, quomodo ad fidem moveri potest. Quis
enim dicat modum quo ei persuaderetur ut crederet, etiam Omnipotenti
defuisse? De Divers. Qucest. ad Simpli. I. qu. ii. 14.
2 See above, p. 50, note 3. Also below p. 99.
3 Sed in parte offenditur anima peccatrix : tamen quia pro meritis
ibi est ubi talem esse decet, et ea patitur quse talem pati sequum est,

72 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
umph, and trust to see, not only a harmonious whole, but
every individual part restored to the fullest measure of
existence of which it is capable1, let us at least also remem
ber the plain words of our Lord as to the sin for which
there is no forgiveness in the world to come and the lan
guage of the Epistle to the Hebrews concerning the repro
bate ; let us beware how we diminish aught of the force
Avhich these warnings ought to have for ourselves. We
cannot doubt of the power of the grace of God to win the
ignorant who have never known His love, who have never
universum regnum Dei nulla sua foeditate deformat. De Diversis
Qucest. LXXXIII. qu. xxvii.
Deus igitur summus et verus lege inviolabili et incorrupta, qua
omne quod condidit regit, subjicit animas corpus, animam sibi, et sic
omnia sibi : neque in ullo actu earn deserit, sive poena, sive prasmio.
Id enim judicavit esse pulcherrimum, ut esset quidquid est quomodo
est, et ita naturae gradibus ordinaretur, ut considerantes universitatem
nulla offenderet ex ulla parte deformitas, omnisque animse poena et
omne praemium conferret semper aliquid proportione justas pulchritu-
dini dispositionique rerum omnium. De Quantitate Animce, 80.
Non igitur numeri, qui sunt infra rationem et in suo genere pulchri
sunt, sed amor inferioris pulchritudinis animam polluit : quse cum in
ilia non modo aequalitatem, de qua pro suscepto opere satis dictum est,
sed etiam ordinem diligat, amisit ipsa ordinem suum ; nee tamen
excessit ordinem rerum, quandoquidem ibi est et ita est, ubi esse et
quomodo esse tales ordinatissimum est. Aliud enim est tenere ordinem,
aliud ordine teneri. De Musica, vi. 46.
Quoniam igitur vitium animae non natura ejus sed contra naturam
ejus est, nihilque aliud est quam peccatum et poena peccati; inde
intelligitur nullam naturam, vel, si melius ita dicitur, nullam substan
tiam sive essentiam malum esse. Neque de peccatis posnisque ejus
animse efficitur, ut universitas ulla deformitate turpetur. Quia rationalis
substantia, quae ab omni peccato munda est, Deo subjecta, subjectis sibi
casteris dominatur. Ea vero quse peccavit, ibi ordinata est, ubi esse
tales decet, ut Deo conditore atque rectore universitatis decora sint
omnia. Et est pulchritudo universes creaturse per haec tria inculpabilis;
damnationem peccatorum, exercitationem justorum, perfectionem
beatorum. De Vera Religione, 44.
1 For some interesting criticism of S. Austin's doctrine of the har
mony of the Kosmos, and its bearing on the personal problem of indivi
dual suffering, see Scipio Des A. A. Metaphysik, 106. \

II-] PUNISHMENT OF SIN. 73
heard His call and have never turned from it : sinful they
are and have been, fit subjects for punishment, yet for them
the stripes are feAv. But for those who have been received
into the membership of Christ's Church, sealed with His
Spirit, and strengthened by His Life — by what stronger
pleading shall He win them if they turn from the Grace of
God? Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take
heed lest he fall : let him keep under his body and bring it
into subjection.
And if while these terrible warnings come home to our
hearts in their full significance — that those who have tasted
the grace of God may yet so alienate themselves from Him
that His grace does not restore them to their true life — we
still strive to hold to a hope of triumphant goodness ; if the
puzzle seems too hard for us let us not despair, though S.
Austin's attempt to reconcile the opposing truths shall fail
to satisfy us. For we have studied him to little purpose if
Ave cherish a hope of obtaining light by merely going to his
books, or any books, for teaching ; rather let us follow his
example. The views we can gather from his writings will
not suffice us, for it is not the reading of the Fathers, but
Faith that is the source of knowledge. It was by turning
to God for light, that he attained the measure of truth
which cheered his heart and showed him the path of action ;
it is by turning to God now that we too may each obtain a
new measure of truth for ourselves.

LECTURE III.
If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be
free indeed. S. John viii. 36.

HUMAN FREEDOM AND THE DIVINE WILL.
I. The Pelagian Controversy.
The part which S. Austin had taken in the controversy
with the Manichaeans as to the nature of evil had attracted
attention far beyond his own diocese; the works he had
written on the subject had been circulated over a wide
area and had met with general approval ; but a Welsh
monk Uving in Rome into whose hands they fell took
decided exception to an expression he used in the Con
fessions1. This was the occasion which gave rise to the
Pelagian controversy — to which I now wish to turn, leaving
the Donatist controversy — the next in biographical order —
for incidental mention next lecture ; for it is convenient to
treat some of the issues raised by Pelagius as an appendage
to the contest with the Manichaeans, rather than to sketch,
even in the briefest way, the course of the argument with
Pelagius and his foUowers. For the fact that this was a
controversy within the Church gave it a different character
from those we have already tried to revieAV. The opposing
1 Quid autem meorum opusculorum frequentius et delectabilius
innotescere potuit, quam libri Confessionum mearum ? Cum et ipsos
ediderim antequam Pelagiana hasresis exstitisset; in eis certe dixi
Deo nostro, et saepe dixi : Da quod jubes, et jube quod vis (x. 40,
44, 60). Quae mea verba Pelagius Romas, cum a quodam fratre et
coepiscopo meo fuissent eo praesente commemorata, ferre non potuit,
et contradicens aliquanto commotius, pene cum eo qui ilia comme-
moraverat litigavit. De Dono Persev. 53.

78 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
parties appealed to the judgment of the leaders in the
Christian Church in all parts of the world ; petty personal
questions of honesty of conviction and fairness in discussion
came to assume an immense temporary importance and to
confuse the fundamental issues. Perhaps Ave shall do
wisely therefore to try and fix our minds on the difficulty
Avhich came to the front at that time, and which after cen
turies of discussion may be set in clearer Ught than when
it was first forced on the attention of the Church.
But there is after aU something significant in the form
of this new controversy. It was no question as to the
possibility of knowledge to be solved by strict analysis of
self-consciousness in a little circle of friends ; it was not
the defence of the faith of his own flock from the attacks
of the open but insidious enemies who Uved among them
in Africa ; it was a question which was of interest to every
Christian man, as to his personal need of the salvation
which was offered in Christ ; it was a question which was
of interest to the whole Church, as to the kind of corruption
in the hearts of unregenerate men to whom she offered a
deliverance from evil. And hence it came to be one of
those great theological discussions which seem to be so
unnecessarily embittered by personal feeUng, which seem
to refine themselves into mere exercises of hair-spUtting
ingenuity, but which are not barren, since it is through
them that the minds of God's faithful people are taught to
discern some truth more clearly, to see at least some error
they will do well to avoid. For the outcome of it aU was a
real gain, a gain for which all subsequent generations of
Christians are deeply indebted to S. Austin. Not that
Christian experience has fully endorsed aU the positive
teaching of S. Austin ; neither at Orange1 nor at Trent Avas
1 Bright, Antipelagian Treatises, lxiv. 384. I cannot however see
that either of these Councils departed from S. Austin's standpoint, in
the way that is commonly supposed.

III.] THE PELAGIAN CONTROVERSY. 79
his language adopted, though his doctrine was retained and
restated; but Christian experience has condemned the
explicit teaching which he deemed so dangerous and
against which he furnished the strongest defences.
And thus on entering this new field we seem to find
ourselves engaged on a very different task — not looking
back to the old world and its great philosophers, — not
tracing the final struggle of heathenism in its effort to
pervert the message of the Cross, but marking the lists
Avithin which modern combatants were to engage and
noting the issues for Avhich they Avould contend. S. Austin
no longer appears in the guise of the last of ancient phi
losophers, nor as the latest of the apologists who resisted
the attacks of paganism, but as a thinker whose principles
have gone far to determine the direction of the thoughts
of many later students and the discussions of subsequent
ages. Those who do not fully appreciate the gain which came
from his treatment of the subject have sometimes been
incUned to blame S. Austin as if he had been personally
responsible for raising a hopeless problem which he could
not settle. Greek Philosophy had troubled itself but little
about the question of Free Will : and the controversy never
took much of a hold upon the Eastern Church — Avhy could
he not let it alone as they did? But it Avould be more
profitable to try and account for the fact that this contro
versy was not raised before or elsewhere, rather than to
amuse ourselves with the fancy that S. Austin Avas person
ally responsible for aAvakening an intellectual monster
which would othenvise have rested undisturbed. It may
be enough to say that their less perfect understanding of
personaUty prevented the Greeks from dwelling on the
subject, and that the irresponsiveness of the East was
perhaps a symptom of the inactivity which was even then
beginning to spread over the Church under Byzantine

80 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
influence. But a question which had been debated by
Cicero, and which underlay the whole structure of Chris
tian doctrine, could not remain for ever outside the pale of
discussion : it was sure to be raised sooner or later. And
it was most natural that, when the issue was raised by
Pelagius, S. Austin should take a leading part in the fray1.
For the doctrine of Pelagius was speciaUy distasteful to
S. Austin since it was so completely inconsistent with bis
own religious experience. His extraordinary care for the
facts of the case — as he understood them — is very notice
able in all his philosophical writings. The earnestness AA'ith
which he has described his own rehgious experience has
made the Confessions a precious possession to thousands of
seekers after God : we can read there how he interpreted
his own rehgious experience2, how it seemed to him that
he was always turning from God but that God's Love sought
him and prevailed within him, — overpowering his habits,
altering all his aspirations — giving him a new peace in Ufe.
He could do nothing good of himself, his will had not been
able to choose the right tiU through God's grace a new
Ught and a neAV strength came upon him.
And it was natural too that one who had not only had
this rehgious experience, but had been eagerly engaged in
a contest with the Manichaeans should take up this new
controversy. For it is no mere accident that connects
the tAvo; when we find the innermost core of each we
1 His doctrine however was definitely formulated before the con- 1
troversy with Pelagius arose, and was less affected by exigencies of
polemics than is usually supposed. Neander, History of Christian \
Religion, iv. 298. See Excursus P, § 3, p. 175.
2 Et in eisdem etiam libris quod de mea conversione narravi, Deo
me convertente ad earn fidem, quam iniserrima et furiosissima loquaci-
tate vastabam, nonne ita narratum esse meministis, ut ostenderem me
fidelibus et quotidianis matris mese lacrimis ne perirem fuisse concessum ?
Ubi utique prasdicavi, non solum aversas a recta fide, sed adversas etiam
rectse fidei, Deum sua gratia ad earn convertere hominum voluntates.
De Dono Persev. 53.

HI. J FACTS OF HUMAN NATURE. 81
feel that they are different aspects of the same problem.
The dispute with the Manichaeans centred in the meta
physical question as to the nature of evil in the universe,
and as to its first manifestation in the world. The dispute
with Pelagius was chiefly concerned with the psychological
question as to the nature of evU in the heart of man and as
to the depth of the corruption of his fallen nature. We
have again to deal with a subject very similar to that
which Avas before our minds last lecture, but now in its
psychological and not in its metaphysical aspect.

II. Commonly recognised Facts of Human Nature.
It may serve to set the matter in the clearest light if
we note two or three of the facts in regard to human
nature which are commonly recognised in the present day,
and note S. Austin's opinion on each of these points in turn.
1. Observations have been made in recent years which
have rendered the depravity of man as born into the world,
even in his earliest years, more obvious than was formerly
the case. Attention has been called to the extraordinary
influence of heredity, and we are all ready to note inherited
tendencies as going far to account for the conduct of many
criminals. Evil dispositions appear to be clearly born in
us, and physical tendencies to evil are handed on from one
generation to another. We all feel the absurdity of the
doctrines which were promulgated about the beginning of
the century by a school of thinkers who argued that evil
was not planted in every human heart, but that it was
really maintained by the corrupting institutions of society,
and that if the individual intellect had only free play it
would shake off these mischievous influences and attain to
a perfectly rational and comfortable condition of life. But
though we may sometimes hear isolated opinions expressed
c 6

82 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
which can only be justified on such principles as these, the
principles themselves are no longer accepted as tenable1.
It is generaUy recognised that as a matter of fact children
/are born with dispositions which incUne them more or less
decidedly towards evil.
S. Austin's doctrine of the origin of evil and of its first
manifestation in the world has already claimed our atten
tion ; and the plain fact, as I think one may call it, of the
transmission of evil from one generation to another is the
other element which is combined to give us his doctrine of
original sin, of human depravity commencing in a fall and
transmitted to all future generations — a depravity which
according to his view consists of a double defect in a
nature which remains otherwise good — a defect in the power
of seeing what is right and a defect in the power of doing it.
And here a brief digression is necessary to enable us to
appreciate S. Austin's doctrine fairly. We have seen already
how he has suffered at the hands of those who professed to
follow him. His theology has been recast by the scholastics ;
his asceticism has been exaggerated by mediaeval rules of life;
and now we may see how much his doctrine of the nature
of man has suffered by being presented to us in the form of
Calvinism ; it is therefore necessary if we are to weigh S.
Austin's teaching fairly that we should note how at point
after point Calvin failed to folloAV the doctrine of the African
doctor. It has been so often said2 and believed that the
1 Somewhat similar principles in regard to life according to nature
had been advocated by the Stoics.
\ 2 Calvin, Institutes, in. xxii. 8. "Were we disposed to frame -an "
entire volume out of Augustine it were easy to show the reader that I
lhave no occasion to use any other words than his."
A very full demonstration of the differences which really separated
the two writers and of which Calvin was so completely unconscious may
be found in the excellent Antithesis Augustini et Calvini by F. J[ean]
Ffonteau], C[anon]. R[egularis] S.T.P. A[cad]. P[aris]. C[ancellarius].
(Paris, 1651). See also F. Hewit, Studies in S. Augustine i. (New York ;
1868). Gangauf, Met. Psych, p. 345.

III.] FACTS OF HUMAN NATURE. 83
doctrines of these tAVO teachers are precisely similar that it
is necessary to try and exhibit how widely they really
fall apart.
f There is a fundamental difference of opinion in regard
to the subject before us. Calvin and his followers
have asserted that human nature is totally depraved: of
the innocent injants which have committed no actual sin
he says, " their Avhole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of
sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to
God1." Now this doctrine, whatever there may be to be
said for it, is not the doctrine of S. Austin : he held that
sin is the defect of a good nature, which retains elements
of goodness even in its most diseased and corrupted state,/
and he gives no countenance whatever to ihls^moderu^pin-/ ^
ion of total depravity2.
\ 1 Institutes, ii. i. 8, see also n. v. 19. "Let it stand, therefore, as an
indubitable truth, which no engines can shake, that the mind of man is
so entirely alienated from the righteousness of God that he cannot
conceive, desire or design anything but what is wicked, distorted, foul,
impure and iniquitous ; that his heart is so thoroughly environed by sin
that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness ; that if
some men occasionally make a show of goodness, their mind is ever
interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with
the fetters of wickedness."
2 Tamen si etiam ipsa peccaret, sufficeret Dei potestas ineffabilia
potentiae ad regendam istam universitatem, ut omnibus congrua et
condigna retribuens nihil in toto imperio suo turpe atque indecorum
esse permitteret. De Lib. Arb. m, 35.
Quid enim majus in creaturis quam vita intelligens, aut quid minus
potest esse quam corpus ? Quse quantumlibet deficiant et eo tendant
ut non sint, tamen aliquid formse illis remanet, ut quoquo modo sint.
Quidquid autem formae cuipiam rei deficienti remanet, ex ilia forma
est quae nescit deficere motusque ipsos rerum deficientium vel pro-
ficientium excedere numerorum suorum leges non sinit. De Lib. Arb.
H. 46. Quapropter natura est, in qua nullum malum est, vel etiam in qua
nullum potest esse malum : esse autem natura, in qua nullum bonum
sit, non potest. Proinde nee ipsius diaboli natura, in quantum na
tura est, malum est: sed perversitas earn malam facit. De Civitate
6—2

84 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
2. To pass once more to current opinion in the present
day. In spite of heredity, and all other excuses which can
; be made for the criminal, we feel that he deserves to be
^punished. The disposition may have been planted at his
birth, it may have been fostered by circumstances, but it is
in him, an element in his character, and it is at each moment
with his consent that it ripens into action. He has been
willing to carry out the promptings of evil actions —
he has made them his own, and he is responsible for them.
We may analyse the motives for action as we like, but the
play of motive is part of my deepest conscious life ; the
decision under whatever pressure is mine — this is certain
with the deepest measure of certainty to which we can
attain, — I will therefore I am1. What I do is my doing, it
is in my mind that the various motives have been at work,
it is through my determination that they issue in action,
and for this act and its results I am responsible2. This is
the common opinion in the present day: the amount of
temptation may affect the fair amount of punishment, but
it can never render a rational being Avholly irresponsible
for his actions.
This doctrine of personal resjionsibility is strongly
insisted on by S. Austin: his whole treatment of the
will, though difficult to folloAv from the defectiveness
of the current terminology, is a marvel of skilful ana-

Dei, xix. xiii. 2. Ilia vero quse facta sunt, ejus bono indigent, summo
scilicet bono, id est summa essentia. Minus autem sunt quam erant,
cum per animse peccatum minus ad ilium moventur: nee tamen
penitus separantur ; nam omnino nulla essent. De Vera Religione, 28.
Nee moveat quod naturaliter eos dixit, quce legis sunt facere, non
spiritu Dei, non fide, non gratia. Hoc enim agit spiritus gratias, ut
imaginem Dei, in qua naturaliter facti sumus, instauret in nobis. Vitium
quippe contra naturam est, quod utique sanat gratia. De Spiritu et
Lit. 47.
1 See above, p. 23.
2 Bradley, Ethical Studies, Essay I.

III.] FACTS OF HUMAN NATURE. 85
lysis and weighty judgment1: but he is clear that evil deeds
cannot be justly punished unless they are done volun
tarily2. And here again Calvin fails to follow on the lines of the
Father he so frequently quotes. Although he prefers his
treatment of the subject to that of any other Father or
Schoolman he does not accept it3, he does not appear to
see the importance of voluntariness in our action as bearing
on responsibility, and he uses language Avhich seems to
make the Divine control over the human consciousness so
complete as to remove the decision in cases of sin from the
mind of man to the mind of God — as when he notes without
any attempt at qualification hoAV God "directs men's coun-
" sels, and excites their wills, and regulates their efforts as He
1 See Excursus F, p. 171.
2 Non igitur nisi voluntate peccatur. Nobis autem voluntas nostra
notissima est: neque enim scirem me velle, si quid sit voluntas ipsa
nescirem. Definitur itaque isto modo ; Voluntas est animi motus,
cogente nullo, ad aliquid vel non amittendum, vel adipiscendum. Cur
ergo ita tunc definire non possem ? An erat difficile videre invitum
volenti esse contrarium, ita ut contrarium sinistrum dextro esse dicimus,
non ut nigrum albo I Nam eadem res simul et nigra et alba esse non
potest : duorum autem in medio quisque positus, ad alterum sinister est,
ad alterum dexter; simul quidem utrumque unus homo, sed simul
utrumque ad unum hominem nullo modo. Ita quidem invitus et volens
unus animus simul esse potest; sed unum atque idem nolle simul et
velle non potest. Cum enim quisque invitus aliquid facit, si eum roges
utrum id facere velit, nolle se dicit: item si roges utrum id velit non
facere, velle respondet. Ita invitum ad faciendum, ad non faciendum
autem volentem reperies : id est enim unum animum uno tempore
habentem utrumque, sed aliud atque aliud ad singula referentem. Cur
haec dico ? Quia si rursum quasramus quam ob causam id invitus faciat,
cogi se dicet. Nam et omnis invitus faciens cogitur ; et omnis qui
cogitur, si facit, nonnisi invitus facit. Restat ut volens a cogente sit
liber, etiamsi se quisquam cogi putet. Et hoc enim modo omnis qui
volens facit, non cogitur ; et omnis qui non cogitur, aut volens facit, aut
non facit. De Duabus Animabus, 14.
Qua propter peccatum sine voluntate esse non posse verissimum est.
Retract, i. xv. 3.
3 Institutes, n. ii. 7.

86 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
"pleases1." It is difficult to reconcile such language with
any sort of human responsibility : but S. Austin is careful
to attempt to harmonise the beUef in God's omnipotence
with human responsibility in speaking of these very passages
of the Old Testament on which Calvin reUed for the proof
of his doctrine. "They both came of their own will, and
"yet the Lord stirred up their spirit: and this may with
" equal truth be stated the other way, The Lord stirred up
"their spirit and yet they came of their own wiU2." He
here tries to show that the play of motive and the human
decision are not iUusory, and that the deepest convictions
of our inner consciousness are sound. And thus whatever
may be the tendency of the teaching of Calvin, the doctrine
of S. Austin is carefully guarded so as not to diminish the
sense of real human responsibiUty for evil deeds.
On these two fundamental points as to the nature of
man Calvin's doctrine diverges considerably from that of
S. Austin, who did not hold that man, though sinful, was
totally depraved, and who was careful to maintain that
men are fully responsible for their actions.
3. There is another view which is not so commonly ex
pressed perhaps, but which certainly is very generally held
at present, as to the hopelessness of finding a remedy for >
I existing evils. Evidence has already been adduced which
goes to show that punishment is rarely remedial, and the
recognition of this fact along with the depressing conviction
which is forced on many men who accept the teaching of
some Malthusians as to the overwhelming strength of animal
impulses, goes far to induce the hopelessness as to reforma
tion, which is by no means uncommon. There are some of
1 Institutes, n. iv. 3. Similar expressions (De Gratia et Lib. Arb. 41),
which Calvin subsequently quotes (iv. 7.) are used by S. Austin to
illustrate the view that voluntas humana non tollitur sed ex mala
mutatur in bonam by Divine grace. See also Institutes, n. v. 5.
2 De Gratia et Lib. Arb. 42.

III.] FACTS OF HUMAN NATURE. 87
course who stiU pin their faith to national education1 as a
panacea, but the evidence draAvn either from other countries
or our own2 can hardly inspire us with much confidence in
its effects in destroying crime. And in the presence of all
these miserable phenomena of immediate and growing evil
which is handed down to future generations we cannot won
der that there are so many who are forced into some sort
of Pessimism, — or at least into a cynical indifference to the
fate of a world that is in a hopeless case. As we ponder
on it we may feel as if the cry which has risen in all ages
that the world is becoming worse and worse, was simply the
confirmation of a fact which might have been estabhshed by
more general reasoning and which becomes more appalling
when viewed in the Ught of a behef in a life beyond the
grave — a Ufe of ever-increasing wickedness and misery. Here
Ave have a doctrine which is assuredly terrible enough, but
Avhich, be it observed, is perfectly self-consistent, and which,
though it seems to neglect some important facts3, presents
no serious difficulty to many acute minds in the present day.
This self-consistent doctrine as to the growing and in
eradicable power of evil is in brief the doctrine of S. Austin ;
but in his writings, and as he holds it, it does give rise to a
very serious difficulty — a difficulty which is created by the
Christian view* of God. Men might patiently accept the
horror of a Ufe in which they were condemned to evil, and
in which the evil tended to increase continually, but the
mind begins to revolt against such pessimistic teaching
when it is assured that this world — now existing under this
1 The arguments on behalf of national education are sometimes put
in such a form that they seem to imply the perfectional principles
alluded to above.
2 Statistical Society's Journal, xlvi. 343.
3 The facts of religious experience and successful struggling with evil.
4 The theology of the Mohammedan is fatalistic, but it does not give
such teaching in regard to the character of God as to raise this
difficulty.

88 'S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
terrible blight — has been created by an all-loving God,
omnipotent, and omniscient. It is then and only then that
the terrible facts of the undying power of evil in the world
come into an apparently irreconcilable conflict with what
we are told of the character of God.
There are many who are tempted to solve the dilemma
at once, by rejecting the Christian revelation which has
created the difficulty. But at least let us remember that if
they thus get rid of the inteUectual inconsistency, they also
get rid of every element of hope. The problem of evil with
its increasing horror is stiU before us unsolved when we
have said in our hearts that there is no God. We may
brace ourselves to struggle against it — to aUeviate it, as far
as in us lies ; or we may turn our backs upon it and try to
forget it ; but if our faith is vain the misery of sin and evil
is still appalUng — the horror of a great darkness over
shadowing us still. But if we are not ready thus to sever
the knot, if we would fain solve the problem let us look at it
as S. Austin does : and take each separate difficulty in turn.
III. Divine Foreknowledge.
There are difficulties which arise from our belief in
God's forelaiowledge.
(A) How is it possible to say that man is really re
sponsible for all the evil in the world,— the first sin that
manifested it, and the many sins that have perpetuated it, —
if God the Creator foreknew it all? But as S. Austin argues,
even though all things happen as God foreknew them, this
does not remove the responsibility of those Avho commit
any crime, for Ave may think of Him as foreseeing Avhat
they would decide, not as controlling their decision. To
assert His foreknowledge does not imply that the human
beings whose conduct He foresaw were not really responsi
ble, and that no real play of motive and decision took place

III.] DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE. 89
in their minds1. It is only a matter of knoAvledge, not of
control, for, to use his oavh illustration, "as the memory
1 Certe enim hoc te movet et hoc miraris, quomodo non sint con
traria et repugnantia, ut et Deus praescius sit omnium futurorum, et nos
non necessitate sed voluntate peccemus. Si enim praescius est Deus,
inquis, peccaturum esse hominem, necesse est ut peccet : si autem
necesse est, non ergo est in peccando voluntatis arbitrium, sed potius
inevitabilis et fixa necessitas. Qua ratiocinatione hoc videlicet ne
conficiatur times, ut aut Deus futurorum omnium prsescius impie
negetur, aut si hoc negare non possumus, fateamur non voluntate sed
necessitate peccari : an aliquid aliud te movet ? E. Nihil interim aliud.
A. Res ergo universas, quarum Deus est prsescius, non voluntate sed
necessitate fieri putas. E. Omnino ita puto. A. Expergiscere tandem,
teque ipsum paululum intuere, et die mihi, si potes, qualem sis habiturus
eras voluntatem, utrum peecandi, an recte faciendi. E. Nescio. A.
Quid 1 Deum itidem nescire hoc putas ? E. Nullo modo id putaverim.
A. Si ergo voluntatem tuam crastinam novit, et omnium hominum, sive
qui sunt sive qui futuri sunt, futuras prsevidet voluntates, multo magis
prasvidet quid de justis impiisque facturus sit. E. Prorsus si meorum
operum prsescium Deum dico, multo fidentius eum dixerim prasscire
opera sua, et quid sit facturus certissime prasvidere. A. Nonne igitur
caves ne tibi dicatur etiam ipsum quascumque facturus est non
voluntate sed necessitate facturum, si omnia quorum Dens praescius est
necessitate fiunt, non voluntate 1 E. Ego cum dicerem necessitate
universa fieri quae Deus futura prsescivit, ea sola intuebar quae in
creatura ejus fiunt, non autem quae in ipso : non enim ea fiunt, sed sunt
sempiterna  Non enim posses aliud sentire esse in potestate nostra,
nisi quod cum volumus facimus. Quapropter nihil tam in nostra potes
tate quam ipsa voluntas est. Ea enim prorsus nullo intervallo mox ut
volumus praesto est. Et ideo recte possumus dicere, Non voluntate
senescimus, sed necessitate ; aut, non voluntate morimur, sed necessi
tate ; et si quid aliud hujusmodi : non voluntate autem volumus, quis
vel delirus audeat dicere ? Quamobrem, quamvis praesciat Deus nostras
voluntates futuras, non ex eo tamen conficitur ut non voluntate aliquid
velimus  Attende enim, quaeso, quanta cascitate dicatur, Si prasscivit
Deus futuram voluntatem meam, quoniam nihil aliter potest fieri quam
prasscivit, necesse est ut velim quod ille prsescivit : si autem necesse est,
non jam voluntate, sed necessitate id me velle fatendum est  Quod
si fieri non potest ut dum volumus non velimus, adest utique voluntas
volentibus ; nee aliud quidquam est in potestate, nisi quod volentibus
adest. Voluntas igitur nostra nee voluntas esset, nisi esset in nostra
potestate. Porro, quia est in potestate, libera est nobis. Non enim
est nobis liberum, quod in potestate non habemus, aut potest non esse

90 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
"does not compel those deeds of yours which are past, so
"the foreknowledge of God does not compel that those
"things which are in the future should be done1."
Here we may again notice how different is the doctrine
of Calvin; and on this point we are not left to gather
the difference by comparing the statements of the later
writer with those of the doctor he professed to foUow, for
he explicitly rejects the distinction thus drawn. "Even
"Augustine," he says, "was not always free from this super
stition, as when he says that bUnding and hardening2
"have not reference to the operation of God, but to pre
science. But this subtilty is repudiated by many passages
"of Scripture, which clearlyshowthat the Divine interference
"amounts to something more than prescience3." And thus
Ave may once more be warned against taking popular Cal
vinism as a fair representation of the teaching of S. Austin.
But even though, so far as this distinction can be main
tained4, the reaUty of human responsibiUty is kept in sight,
quod habemus. Ita fit ut et Deum non negemus esse prasscium omnium
futurorum, et nos tamen velimus quod volumus. Cum enim sit prsescius
voluntatis nostrse, cujus est prsescius ipsa erit. Voluntas ergo erit, quia
voluntatis est praescius. Nee voluntas esse poterit, si in potestate non
erit. Ergo et potestatis est praescius. Non igitur per ejus prasscien-
tiam mihi potestas adimitur, quae propterea mihi certior aderit, quia
ille cujus prasscientia non fallitur, adfuturam mihi esse prsescivit. E.
Ecce jam non nego ita necesse esse fieri quaecumque prasscivit Deus, et
ita eum peccata nostra prsescire, ut maneat tamen nobis voluntas libera,
atque in nostra posita potestate. De Lib. Arb. in. 6, 7, 8.
1 De Lib. Arb. in. 11.
2 Ac per hoc quando legitis in litteris veritatis, a Deo seduci homi
nes, aut obtundi vel obdurari corda eorum, nolite dubitare praecessisse
mala merita eorum ut juste ita paterentur. De Gratia et Lib. Arb. 43.
It is of course true that an increase of wickedness is the penalty
imposed on sin in the order of God's Universe ; but it is a self-inflicted
penalty. 3 Institutes, n. iv. 3.
4 Calvin appears to think that S. Austin altered his opinion on this
point, but the passage to which he refers does not appear at all con
clusive. There was apparently some modification (Neander, History of

III.] DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE. 91
it may yet appear as if all the misery and sin were really
due to the fact that man had been created with the nature
he possesses. Since he was created with a Will, which was
in some sense free, was it not by the very fact of its free
dom impeUed to resist the guiding and direction which
might conceivably have kept men in a state of innocence,
— if they had not thus been endued with free wiU?
But to S. Austin's mind this implied a confusion as to
the real nature of freedom. _A_rational being is only free
Avhen delivered from those penalties of sin which distort
andTTuind- his true nature. To be free from the preying
anxieties and cares which press on those who cannot trust
God's discipUne for them here, to be free from the weight
that may press on the conscience Avhich has never sought
Christian Religion, iv. 295), but he continued to draw the distinction
between foreseeing and predetermining even in his latest writings;
though it is exceedingly difficult to grasp the precise meaning which it
had for him.
At first sight it would seem as if the distinction implied that the
Eternal purpose of God is something that has followed upon foreseen
events in time : but S. Austin has no such meaning. Omnia itaque
Dei dona quae in eodem opere sive optavi, sive laudavi, quis, non dicam
negare, sed dubitare saltern audeat Deum daturum se esse prasscisse, et
quibus daturas fuerit, nunquam potuisse nescire ? Hsec est prsedesti-
natio manifesta et certa sanctorum. De Dono Persev. 53. But the
severance of knowledge from will seems to lose all meaning in regard
to the Eternal Mind.
The distinction presents less difficulty in regard to the evil than to
the good. Since evil is due to man, a defect not caused by God, it is
easy to say that He foresees their evil thoughts and deeds as the ground
of His decision. But of the good it is different : they have been called
by God, but on what grounds have they been called and the others left
to themselves i What is it that is foreseen, and the knowledge of which
determines the Divine will 1 It is not according to S. Austin because of
the right deeds (De Divers. Quwst. ad Simpl, i. qu. ii. 2), nor because
of the faith (ibid. 5) of men, as God foresees it, that they are chosen by
God to be the recipients of His grace ; nor because of the opportunities
of hearing His message (ibid. 14). To assert any of these would be either
implicitly to deny that faith and goodness are the gift of God (ibid. 21),
or to deny the power of God's grace to win any heart (ibid. 14). The

92 ,, '' S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
God's pardoning mercy; to be free from the dread of going
forth alone to face the eternal reaUties, this is a true free
dom, the true Ufe of the wise man, the real field for rational
self-development. "There is no true Uberty but that of
"those who are blessed and who keep the eternal law1."
Self-conscious life is the thought from which all his reason
ing starts, the reaUsation of this life apart from all the
deliraments of sense and passion is, as he paints it, the
blessedness to which men may attain, it is the true Free
dom. At all times, under any condition, in a primaeval
passage is very strong, and seems to leave the human will so little part
in cooperating with God, that all human action seems to be determined
rather than merely foreseen by God. But we must bear in mind that
the purpose of this argument is to show that it is not any merit on the
part of the recipient that determines the gift of grace.
At the same time it must be borne in mind that according to
S. Austin the effect of God's grace is to free the will from the slavery of
sin, and that thus man's will is set free to cooperate with God's in working
out his salvation. See below p. 93 note 1. As then evil is not from
God, and the will of those who are called is set free by grace, it cannot
be said that the course of either the evil or the good is absolutely and
directly controlled by God, and there is room for a distinction between
prescience and predetermination. So with regard to the argument
just quoted, the freed will is given by God, but it is given by Him to man
to use. Again He might draw the vilest by His love, and therefore it is
no mark of goodness to turn at His call, but yet His call is given through
means and institutions which He has ordained — it is mediate. Hence,
once again we may see that S. Austin does not figure the Divine will as
immediately and directly determining, and that there is room for a pre
science which is not predetermination. See below p. 127 note.
1 De Lib. Arb. i. 32. Compare also a more expanded statement.
Nee ideo liberum arbitrium non habebunt, quia peccata eos delectare
non poterunt. Magis quippe erit liberum, a delectatione peecandi
usque ad delectationem non peecandi indeclinabilem liberatum 
Certe Deus ipse numquid, quoniam peccare non potest, ideo liberum
arbitrium habere negandus est? Erit ergo illius civitatis et una in
omnibus et inseparabilis in singulis voluntas libera, ab omni malo
liberata, et impleta omni bono, fruens indeficienter seternorum jucun-
ditate gaudiorum, oblita culparum, oblita posnarum ; nee tamen ideo
suae liberationis oblita, ut liberatori suo non sit grata. De Civitate Dei,
xxii. xxx. 3.

HI.] DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE. 93
paradise1, in the Avorld here, in the Avorld to come, this is
the nature of Freedom, the condition of the exercise of a
will that is truly free, Uke the Will of God.
We can have Uttle difficulty in distinguishing such
freedom as this from the liberty of indifference, or scope
for the exercise of caprice for which Pelagius contended
long ago2, and which is claimed by many to-day. If the
true freedom is attained there must be perfect harmony
1 Sic enim oportebat prius hominem fieri, ut et bene velle posset, et
male ; nee gratis, si bene ; nee impune, si male : postea vero sic erit, ut
male velle non possit ; nee ideo libero carebit arbitrio. Multo quippe
liberius erit arbitrium, quod omnino non poterit servire peccato. Enchi
ridion, cv.
This gives a clue to the interpretation of all the passages about
Grace rendering the will free : they have been very generally mis
apprehended. Liberum ergo arbitrium evacuamus per gratiam ? Absit : sed magis
liberum arbitrium statuimus. Sicut enim lex per fidem sic liberum
arbitrium per gratiam non evacuatur, sed statuitur. Neque enim lex
impletur nisi libero arbitrio : sed per legem cognitio peccati, per fidem
impetratio gratiae contra peccatum, per gratiam sanatio animse a vitio
peccati, per animas sanitatem libertas arbitrii, per liberum arbitrium
justitise dilectio, per justitise dilectionem legis operatio. Ac per hoc,
sicut lex non evacuatur sed statuitur per fidem, quia fides impetrat
gratiam qua lex impleatur : ita liberum arbitrium non evacuatur per
gratiam, sed statuitur, quia gratia sanat voluntatem, qua justitia libere
diligatur. Omnia haec, quae velut catenatim connexi, habent voces suas
in Scripturis Sanctis. Lex dicit: Non concupisces. Fides dicit : Sana
animam meam, quoniam peccavi tibi. Gratia dicit: Ecce sanus factus
es, jam noli peccare, ne quid tibi deterius contingat. Sanitas dicit :
Domine Deus meus, exclamavi ad te, et sanasti me. Liberum arbi
trium dicit : Voluntarie sacrificabo tibi. De Spir. et Lit. 52.
Haec enim voluntas libera tanto erit liberior quanto sanior : tanto
autem sanior, quanto divinae misericordias gratiasque subjectior. Ipsa
enim fidehter orat et dicit : Itinera mea dirige secundum verbum
tuum, et ne dominetur mihi omnis iniquitas. Quomodo enim libera
est, cui dominatur iniquitas? Ep. cxlvii. (Hilario), 8.
Compare especially the admirable note in Gangauf's Speculative
Lehre, 421.
2 Liberum arbitrium non est aliud quam possibilitas peecandi et non
peecandi. Op. Imp. contra Jul. vi. ix.
Libertas arbitrii, qua a Deo emancipatus homo est, in admittendi

94 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
with other beings who attain it too. The caprice of one
man may conflict with the caprice of another— since it is
the self-seeking of a sensuous being: but the free play of a
rational nature need involve no conflict with those who are
rational too in their decisions and aims : there may be the
fullest enjoyment of true freedom by each without en
croachment on one another. And thus, it is when man
finds his true freedom, the freedom of his rational nature
from sense and passion, that he can at length live in com
plete harmony with the Will of God.
Human freedom then, so far as it is reaUsed here below,
is in complete harmony with the Will of God. It is the soul
that is not free, that is in bondage to lust, that is deceived
by the devil, that is at enmity with God. It is when by
God's grace man is delivered from these bonds that he be
comes free from the slavery of sin1. The question which
peccati et abstinendi a peccato possibilitate consistit. Ibid. i. lxxviii.
See also lxxxii.
To this S. Austin answers : Si liberum non est nisi quod duo potest
velle, id est et bonum et malum ; liber Deus non est, qui malum non
potest velle. Ibid. I. c.
1 Proinde bonus etiamsi serviat, liber est : malus autem etiamsi
regnet, servus est ; nee unius hominis, sed quod est gravius, tot domi-
norum, quot vitiorum. De quibus vitiis cum ageret Scriptura divina, A
quo enim quis, inquit, devictus est, huic et servus addictus est. De
Civitate Dei, iv. iii.
Hasc sunt duo ilia, libertas et cupiditas laudis humanae, quae ad facta
compulere miranda Romanos. Si ergo pro libertate moriturorum et
cupiditate laudum, quse a mortalibus expetuntur, occidi filii a patre
potuerunt ; quid magnum est, si pro vera libertate, quse nos ab iniqui-
tatis et mortis et diaboli dominatu liberos facit, nee cupiditate huma-
narum laudum, sed caritate liberandorum hominum, non a Tarquinio
rege, sed a dsemonibus et dsemonum principe, non filii occiduntur, sed
Christi pauperes inter Alios computantur? De Civitate Dei, v. xviii. 1.
Arbitrium igitur voluntatis tunc est vere liberum, cum vitiis pecca-
tisque non servit. Tale datum est a Deo : quod amissum proprio vitio,
nisi a quo dari potuit, reddi non potest. Unde Veritas dieit, Si vos
Filius liberaverit, tunc vere liberi eritis. De Civitate Dei, xiv. xi. 1.
Quem ergo delectat libertas, ab amore mutabilium rerum liber esse
appetat. De Vera Religione, 93.

HI-] DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE. 95
has agitated moral philosophers in England as to the scope
for human caprice is not the one which is of chief interest
for S. Austin : he would be at one with the modern defenders
of Free Choice in firmly upholding human responsibility,
but freedom for the exercise of caprice was not a liberty
which he greatly cared about. It did not seem to him a
very precious boon, for he held that the saints of God have
no freedom to sin1: he held too that unregenerate man is
so bound by lust that he is not "free" to do right. His
Avhole mode of stating and discussing the question differs
from that Avhich is current in ordinary English discussion,
for the only freedom he cares about and discusses is
rational freedom, freedom from sin: in this sense, unre
generate man is not free, though through the Grace of
God he may at length attain to Freedom. Thus in its true
nature, as created, and as delivered from the disease of sin,
the will is in complete harmony with the wiU of God : evil
was not necessarily involved in the act of creating beings
1 Posset enim perseverare si vellet : quod ut nollet, de libero de-
scendit arbitrio ; quod tunc ita liberum erat, ut et bene velle posset et
male. Quid erit autem liberius libero arbitrio, quando non poterit
servire peccato, quas futura erat et homini, sicut facta est Angelis
Sanctis, merces meriti ? Nunc autem per peccatum perdito bono merito,
in his qui liberantur factum est donum gratiae, quae merces meriti futura
erat. Quapropter, bina ista quid inter se differant, diligenter et vigi-
lanter intuendum est ; posse non peccare, et non posse peccare, posse
non mori, et non posse mori, bonum posse non deserere, et bonum non
posse deserere.  Prima ergo libertas voluntatis erat, posse non
peccare ; novissima erit multo major, non posse peccare : prima im-
mortalitas erat, posse non mori ; novissima erit multo major, non posse
mori : prima erat perseverantiae potestas, bonum posse non deserere ;
novissima erit felicitas perseverantiae, bonum non posse deserere. De
Corrept. et Grat. 32, 33.
Ipsa enim sanitas est vera libertas, quse non perisset, si bona
permansisset voluntas. Quia vero peccavit voluntas, secuta est pec-
cantem peccatum habendi dura necessitas, donee tota sanetur infirmitas,
et accipiatur tanta libertas, in qua sicut necesse est permaneat beate
vivendi voluntas, ita ut sit etiam bene vivendi et nunquam peecandi
voluntaria felixque necessitas. De Perf. Just. Horn. 9.

9G S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
endowed with a Free Will. For betAveen the will of the
Divine nature, which is set on the good of His creatures,
and the will of true human nature there is no necessary
conflict ; the depraved will, blinded by passion and enslaved
by lust, does indeed rebel against God : but not so the will
of the man who has attained to Freedom : he has come to
see things as God sees them, and to will as God wiUs ; just
for the very reason that he is at length free, the discord
between the human will and the divine is at an end, since
the two natures are reconciled1.
A few words may be added to point out the nature of
the. fallacy which S. Austin, has avoided, but by which later
writers and Calvin among them have been entangled. There
is a temptation to separate the WiU of God from the Nature
of God, and to discuss His WUl and His Power without
taking His Character into account as well. In the same
Avay men are ready to separate man's will from man's
nature ; and then proceed to try and discuss the relation
between such an unreal divine WiU, and an unreal human
will. If we have two capricious wills in close connexion
with each other, there can be no doubt that a conflict must
arise, and that the struggle between a capricious divine
Will and a capricious human will, could only mean the
subjection of the human wul, whatever free play for its
caprice it may appear to have.
We must thus be forced into some form of determinism,
for the play of such a human will, in the presence of such
a divine Will must be an iUusion. But S. Austin does not
follow this train of thought : he does not try to separate
the Will and the Nature of God. He is the supreme
1 Beato autem, quales se esse omnes volunt, non recte nee vere
dicitur, Non potest fieri quod vis. Si enim beatus est, quidquid vult
fieri potest ; quia non vult quod fieri non potest. Sed non est mortali-
tatis hujus haec vita, nee erit nisi quando et immortalitas erit. Quae
si nullo modo dari homini posset, frustra etiam beatitudo qusereretur ;
quia sine immortalitate non potest esse. De Trin. xiii. 10.

III.] DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE. 97
Reason, free from change, the Eternal Thought. His Will
is not capricious or changeful, but the Will of a Loving
Nature : it is ever Avorking out His Eternal Purpose, and
willing not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should
be converted and live. S. Austin could not treat the Divine
Will as mere Absolute Caprice, acting apart from the
Divine Nature as revealed to us, for he knew that conscious
life cannot be thus severed into isolated parts1.
(B) A second difficulty arises however, from our
beUef in God's foreknowledge : did He not foresee that as
a matter of fact, the created will would become depraved,
that all the sin and misery would ensue? was not the
very creation of man accomplished in full view of all the
infinite misery which Avould follow from it? Can God be
good AA'hen He has done this?
There lire three points oh which S. Austin lays stress:
to which attention may be recalled.
1. For one thing, at the utmost it can only be said that
evil is divinely permitted2 but it is really due to human
1 Atque ita fit ilia trinitas ex memoria, et interna visione, et quae
utrumque copulat voluntate. Quae tria cum in unum coguntur, ab ipso
. coactu cogitatio dicitur. Nee jam in his tribus diversa substantia est.
De Trin. xi. 6.
Ego per omnia ilia tria memini, ego intelligo, ego diligo, qui nee
memoria sum, nee intelligentia, nee dilectio, sed haec habeo. De
Trin. xv. 42.
Haec igitur tria, memoria, intelligentia, voluntas, quoniam non sunt
tres vitas, sed una vita ; nee tres mentes, sed una mens : consequenter
utique nee tres substantiae sunt, sed una substantia. Memoria quippe,
quse vita et mens et substantia dicitur, ad se ipsam dicitur; quod vero
memoria dicitur, ad aliquid relative dicitur. Hoc de intelligentia
quoque et de voluntate dixerim : et intelligentia quippe et voluntas ad
aliquid dicuntur. Vita est autem unaquseque ad se ipsam, et mens, et
essentia. Quocirca tria haec eo sunt unum, quo una vita, una mens, una
essentia : et quidquid aliud ad se ipsa singula dicuntur, etiam simul, non
pluraliter, sed singulariter dicuntur. De Trin. x. 18.
2 Quocirca cum in Catholica dicitur, omnium naturarum atque
substantiarum esse auctorem Deum, simul intelligitur ab eis qui hoc
possunt intelligere, non esse Deum auctorem mali. Quomodo enim
c 7

98 S. AUSTIN. [lect.
action : it is not divinely caused, it has come about through
man's act with God's permission. We dare not say that
His purpose in creation has failed unless evil had attained
an absolute mastery Avhich we cannot ascribe to it. For,
2. After all, despite its depravity, the power of Avill is
a noble power1. Creation is not so utterly spoiled by
potest ille, qui omnium quae sunt causa est ut sint, causa esse rursus ut
non sint, id est, ut ab essentia deficiant et ad non esse tendant ? quod
malum generale esse clamat verissima ratio. De Moribiis Man. 3.
Quisquis omnium quse sunt auctor est, et ad cujus bonitatem id
tantum pertinet ut sit omne quod est, non esse ad eum pertinere nullo
pacto potest. Omne autem quod deficit, ab eo quod est esse deficit, et
tendit in non esse. Esse autem et in nullo deficere bonum est, et
malum est deficere. At ille, ad quem non esse non pertinet, non est
causa deficiendi, id est, tendendi ad non esse ; quia, ut ita dicam,
essendi causa est. Boni igitur tantummodo causa est: et propterea
ipse summum bonum est. Quocirca mali auctor non est, qui omnium
quae sunt auctor est : quia in quantum sunt, in tantum bona sunt. De
Divers. Qucest. LXXXIII. qu. xxi.
Sicut ergo tu dicis, Cur permittit ista, si displicent ? ita ego dico,
Cur punit ista, si placent ? Ac per hoc sicut ego confiteor quod omnino
ista non fierent, nisi ab Omnipotente permitterentur ; ita tu confitere
facienda non esse quae a justo puniantur : ut non faciendo quas punit
mereamur ab eo discere cur permittit esse quae puniat. Perfectorum
est enim, sicut scriptum est, solidus cibus : in quo hi qui bene profece-
runt, jam intelligunt ad omnipotentiam Dei potius id pertinuisse,
ut ex libero arbitrio voluntatis venientia mala esse permitteret. Tanta
quippe est omnipotens ejus bonitas, ut etiam de malis possit facere
bona, sive ignoscendo, sive sanando, sive ad utilitates pioruni coap-
tando atque vertendo, sive etiam justissime vindicando. De Con-
tinentia, 15.
Here again Calvin rejects S. Austin's opinion :
"It seems absurd that man should be blinded by the will and
command of God, and yet be forthwith punished for his blindness.
Hence, recourse is had to the evasion that this is done only by the
permission and not also by the will of God. He himself, however, openly
declaring that He does this, repudiates the evasion." Institutes, I. xviii. 1.
1 Fecit et hominem ad imaginem suam ; ut quemadmodum ipse per
omnipotentiam suam prseest universae creaturas, sic homo per intelli-
gentiam suam, qua etiam Creatorem suum cognoscit et colit, prseesset
omnibus terrenis animalibus  Praesciobat autem Deus eos transgres-
suros : sed tamen quia conditor est et effector omnis boni, magis eos

HI- J DIAMINE FOREKNOWLEDGE. 99
sin1 through all its length and breadth, that it Avere better
it had never been, or that it should be altogether blotted
out. God's creation is still good, though marred.
3. And again, Ave cannot see all the aspects of evil2:
misery and pain may be disci phnary, and as such may be
not evil but good : only if we could see the end from the
beginning, could be sure that good is not brought out
of the evil, is not exhibited through evil, only then could
we dare to be sure that the very permission of evil had not
been justified by the ultimate triumph of good.
These considerations are not urged Avith the view of
demonstrating to natural reason that the Governor of the
universe is good, after the manner of eighteenth century
theologians : S. Austin had no hope of attaining to know
ledge of God by direct inductions from the experience of
the man of ordinary intelligence and honesty. For him the
goodness of God, a supernatural reality, had been mani
fested in the person of our Lord ; it had been declared by
fecit, quando fecit et bestias, ut impleret terram bonis terrenis. Et
utique melior est homo etiam peccator, quam bestia  Qui enim
hominibus dedifc liberum arbitrium, ut non servili necessitate, sed
ingenua voluntate Deum colerent. De Cat. Rud. 29, 30.
Nam Deus hominem inexterminabilem fecit, et ei liberum volun
tatis arbitrium dedit. Non enim esset optimus, si Dei praeceptis
necessitate, non voluntate serviret. De Agone Christ. 11.
1 Neque enim Deus ullum, non dico Angelorum, sed vel hominum
crearet, quem malum futurum esse prasscisset, nisi pariter nosset quibus
eos bonorum usibus commodaret, atque ita ordinem sasculorum tanquam
pulcherrimum carmen ex quibusdam quasi antithetis honestaret. De
Civitate Dei, xi. xviii.
s Talia, credo, sunt omnia; sed oculos quasrunt. Soloscismos et
barbarismos quos vocant, poetas adamaverunt ; quae schemata et meta-
plasmos mutatis appellare nominibus, quam manifesta vitia fugero
maluerunt. Detrahe tamen ista carminibus, suavissima condimenta
desiderabimus. Congere multa in unum locum, totum acre, putidum,
rancidum fastidibo. Transfer in liberam forensemque dictionem, quis
non earn fugere atque in theatra secedere jubebit ? Ordo igitur ea
gubernans et moderans, ncc apud se nimia, ncc ubilibet aliena esse
patietur. De Ordine, n. 13. Compare p. 71, note 3.
7-2

100 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
the Incarnate Word. To him the belief in the goodness of
God had been confirmed as time after time the Spirit bore
witness with his spirit : he held to this belief. Nor was his
belief shaken by the objection drawn from the misery in
the world which God has made, since that misery is not so
utter, the good is not so wholly extinguished, as to exclude
a beUef in the goodness of God, despite it all.
And if that belief, based on God's revealed love, be
firmly held, it may become more than a mere belief, it may
prove to be the jtey of knowledge. The strange medley of
human life is not self-interpreting : is it all an evil dream,
purposeless and vain, are we the sport of malign and
capricious influences, or is there a dismal fate Avhich drags
us slowly to lower depths of misery and sin? It often seems
as if it must be so, and we cannot find a clue to unravel the
mystery fully. It is beyond our ken : our experience fails us,
but we need not ponder in doubt over the depths which our
eyes cannot scan, if grace is given us to beUeve that our
Father is good. We cannot know that the suffering of this
present time is not worthy to be compared to the glory which
shall be revealed, but we may believe. It is this belief and
this belief alone which can harmonise aU our conflicting
experiences and render them intelligible; such a belief
does not conflict with knowledge; it systematises it; it
renders the various parts of our knoAvledge self-consistent :
it is to many minds an intellectual necessity, since our
life seems to be an unintelligible contradiction unless we
can look at it in the Ught of the belief in the goodness of
God. The belief does not enable us to understand it all,
but it renders knowledge possible, it makes us see that
there is a meaning in our life here which we may find out
at length. And when an objection is urged which strikes,
not at any particular opinion but at the very possibility of
knowledge at all, we are bound to subject it to the closest
scrutiny.

HI- J DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE. 101
For the belief in the goodness of God, and this belief
alone, renders our knowledge harmonious with itself. We
know that sorrow and suffering are a discipline which may
work for good ; we know that "men may rise on stepping-
stones of their dead selves to higher things," yet how can
we reconcile these facts1 with the evidences before us of
the power of evil? The world must remain a mystery,
the scene of a strangely SAvaying struggle between opposing
principles. And to hold that this warfare wages unceasingly
with no vantage gained, as a confused mel^e, is to treat the
history of the world as a purposeless contradiction ; it is to
hold that it is not merely hard to explain, but that it is in
itself unintelligible.
It is hard indeed to hold fast to the belief in the good
ness oTtheDreator in presence of the agony of pain, or the
bitterness of death or the horrors of sin and passion and
crime, — to believe that the God Who has permitted it aU is
good : yeTitTs harder stiU to cast away that belief, and with
it att hrope of ever reading the riddle — to see all the misery
in the world, all the pain and aU the evU and to say that
there is no purpose in TTat all, no triumph of good accom
plishing itself through It all, but that it is an evil dream
from avhich there is no awaking.
And thus, though we cannot see far enough to solve the
terrible questions which the misery of the world forces
upon us, cannot demonstrate from experience that God is
good, we may yet feel that the difficulty when scrutinised
has no force to rob us of our beUef — a belief which we may
hold not merely as a comfortable opinion which we wish to „.
be true despite the conflicting evidence, but as an intellec
tual necessity which is forced upon us in the effort to
harmonise our knowledge, and to find a meaning in human
Ufa Tlie~ argument from the" limitation of our range of
1 Which have become a matter of common experience through the
influence of Christianity.

102 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
vision which is falsely applied to throw doubt on our know
ledge of the Unseen and Eternal, is really valid against
those who would treat our earthly experience as so com
plete and convincing that we are able to criticise the Divine
purpose and its modes of operation.
IV. Divine Omnipotence.
There are other difficulties Avhich arise from our
belief in the omnipotence ofGod. It seems (A) derogatory
to omnipotence to stoop to the use of means at all, to work
by the gradual evolution of good, instead of at once and
for ever destroying evil and accomplishing the triumph of
good ; while it may also (B) be felt that the particular
means provided in the Gospel are proving themselves so
limited as not to cover the Avhole field, and it almost seems,
inadequate to cope with the poAver of evil. The second of
these questions will occupy our attention in the last lecture,
in a someAvhat different form, but we may now say that so
far as there is in the use of means an apparent conflict
with the Divine Omnipotence, Ave may once more remember
the limitation to our knoAvledge, and that it is not for us to
decide what the Omnipotent can, and what He cannot do.
I say advisedly Avhat the Omnipotent cannot do ; for just as
we cannot separate God's Will from His Character, so we
cannot separate His Omnipotence from His Nature. It is
impossible to think of His Omnipotence as a power of defy
ing Himself, of setting His oavu Purpose at nought, of dis
regarding His OAvn Will. It was said of old that there are
things the gods cannot do, that they cannot alter the past :
and there are things God cannot do : He cannot change :
the eternal purpose of Love Avhich as Ave believe was uttered
at first in creation is working itself to its completion. The
Eternal Wisdom has manifested itself iii all His works, its
poAver is felt over all, it is omnipotent ; but in that Will

III.J DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE. 103
there is no variableness, nor shadoAv of turning, no undoing
and no hasting. The omnipotence of the Divine Will is
shown not in the sudden accomplishment of a purpose, but
in the marvellous control of all the unruly elements1 till by
their interaction the end is at length attained.
So long as Ave think of God as arbitrary, so long will the
belief in His omnipotence suggest one insuperable difficulty
after another : but to say that He is arbitrary is to neglect
the revelation of Himself Avhich He gave to His ancient
people, to ignore the perfect manifestation of His character
in the Incarnate Word. Let us not be wise above what is
written, or venture, from the hope of exalting Him in the
eyes of men, to depict His purpose as unintelligible in its
nature, or to think of His Will as arbitrary. It has been
by thus falsely honouring God that Calvinism has done so
much to alienate men's minds from His service. Mere
1 Tanta quippe est omnipotens ejus bonitas, ut etiam de malis possit
facere bona, sive ignoscendo, sive sanando, sive ad utilitates piorum
coaptando atque verteudo, sive etiam justissime vindicando. Omnia
namque ista bona sunt, et Deo bono atque omnipotente dignissima :
nee tamen fiunt nisi de malis. Quid igitur melius, quid omnipotentius
eo qui cum mali nihil faciat, bene etiam de malis facit ? Clamant ad
eum qui male fecerunt, Dimitte nobis debita nostra : exaudit, ignoscit.
Nocuerunt sua mala peccantibus: subvenit eorum medeturque languori-
bus. Sasvinnt suorum hostes: de illorum sasvitia facit martyres. De
Continentia, 15.
Omnipotens enim Deus qui operatur bona etiam de nostris malis,
qualia dabit bona, cum libera veritab omnibus malis? De Continentia, 16.
Utrum enim non potest facere ut resurgat caro, et vivat in aeternum ;
an propterea credendum non est id eum esse facturum, quia malum est
atque indignum Deo ? Sed de omnipotentia ejus, qua tot et tanta
facit incredibilia, jam multa diximus. Si volunt invenire quod omnipo
tens non potest, habent prorsus : ego dicam, Mentiri non potest.
Credamus ergo quod potest, non credendo quod non potest. Non
itaque credentes quod mentiri possit, credant esse facturum quod se
facturum esse promisit. De Civitate Dei, xxii. xxv.
Qui certe non ob aliud vocatur omnipotens, nisi quoniam quidquid
vult potest. De Civitate Dei, xxi. vii. 1.
Compare other passages quoted and discussed by Gangauf, Specu
lative Lehre von Gott, 167.

104 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
Power apart from Reason, mere Might apart from Love, is
not that which we have learned to worship ; and Calvin in
asserting the absolute and apparently arbitrary power of
the Divine Will1, has once more taken up a position which
was not that of S. Austin.
It thus appears that the really distinctive and funda
mental doctrine in S. Austin's teaching in this controversy,
is in regard to the nature of Will. Will is free when it is
1 Institutes, in. xxi. 1. "It is plainly owing to the mere pleasure of
God that salvation is spontaneously offered to some, while others have
no access to it. ...It is not right that man should with impunity
pry into things which the Lord has been pleased to conceal within Him
self and scan that eternal wisdom which it is His pleasure that we should
not apprehend but adore, that therein also His perfection may appear."
S. Austin is careful to point out that even if the Divine decisions are
inscrutable and mysterious now, they are not arbitrary but rest on
reasons we shall eventually understand. De Gratia et Lib. Arb. 45.
Calvin of course attributes the Highest Reason to the Divine Being,
but he seems to use the term in a non-natural sense. For S. Austin
man is really a partaker of the Divine Reason, while with Calvin human
reason appears to be different in kind, not only limited in range and
power. It is in a " way superior to human judgment " that we become
convinced of the worth of the Scriptures. " We ask not for proofs or
probabilities on which to rest our judgment, but we subject our intellect
and judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate  Such
then is a conviction which asks not for reasons, such a knowledge
which accords with the highest reason, namely knowledge in which the
mind rests more firmly and securely than in any reasons  This
singular privilege God bestows on the elect only whom He separates
from the rest of mankind. ..God having been pleased to reserve the
treasure of intelligence for His children, no wonder that so much
ignorance and stupidity is seen in the rest of mankind." (Institutes, i.
vii. 5.) On these principles it is clear that " purpose," " wisdom,"
"reason" &c. when spoken of God are used in an esoteric sense, and do
not mean purpose, wisdom, reason such as are found in the men who are
made in the image of God. When we remember how S. Austin's
doctrine of God is all built upon the certainty of our intellectual con
ceptions, and the necessary conditions for such conceptions, we see that
Calvin's doctrine of the knowledge of God differs entirely from that of
S. Austin : it seems to vacillate between a deism which is satisfied to
seek for God in His Works, and a superstitious credulity about the
Bible which refuses to advance to knowledge.

III.] DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE. 105
rational, and the will of man here in this world is not
entirely free: he cannot as the Pelagians maintained be
good if he likes; he has not the liberty of indifference.
But when we go farther to ask, Why is he not thus free to
do as he Ukes? Ave find that the answer of S. Austin is very
different to that of Calvin. Man is not free to do good if
he likes, because he is enslaved by lust and blinded by
passion, because his resolution is weak ; he cannot do the
good he would : — such is the plain matter of fact. Calvin
on the other hand holds that man is not free to do good if
he likes because his course here in this world has been
determined for him by the arbitrary decree of an Omnipo
tent power — a doctrine which at once transcends our ex
perience and conflicts with the whole teaching of revelation
as to the Nature and Character of God.
Had he written on no other subject than this, his treat
ment of it would serve to place S. Austin in the front rank
of philosophers. Just as it is true that he may well be
compared with Descartes in regard to the problem of the
certainty of knowledge, so is it true that he seems to have
anticipated Kant1 in proclaiming the true Freedom of the
WiU. But the doctrine, so subtle and so profound, has
never been cordially accepted throughout Christendom : it
might indeed be almost said to be the distinctive mark of
the English Church that so many of her leaders have
sought to reproduce and perpetuate the very teaching of
the African Doctor. In the days when Pelagian opinion
seemed everywhere to have triumphed in Christendom2,
when the recognised authorities in theology were affected
1 It has also been maintained that he anticipated Kant in another
important point — the anthropological argument for the existence of
God. Gangauf, Speculative Lehre, 94.
2 Sicut olim contra unicum Dei prophetam octingenti et quinquaginta
prophetae Baal, et similes sunt reperti, quibus et innumerabilis populus
adhaerebat ; ita et hodie in hac causa. . . Totus etenim posne mundus
post Pelagium abiit in errorem. Bradwardine, De Causa Dei, preface.

106 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
by it, there was one man who stood forth to oppose it— the
most learned student, the deepest thinker, the holiest
Christian of his time— the one man whom king and monks
and pope alike agreed was fittest to rule the see of Canter
bury1— the Englishman who in our Chaucer's eyes was
worthy to have his name coupled with "the holy doctor"
S. Austin2. Thomas Bradwardine too was a man of the
deepest personal religious experience ; he too had learned in
his communing with God3, that all the good that Avas in him
was of Him ; and having thus learned for himself as it were
the falseness of Pelagian teaching4, he set himself to attack
it on the ground where it fancied itself impregnable5. With
1 Fuller, Church History, n. 305. Compare however Collier, Eccl.
Hist. ni. 108.
2 Chaucer, Nun's Priests Tale.
3 Verum talia mihi supplicauti diutius et anxins deprecanti, ecce nuper
in cujusdam noctis silentio, postquam coram Domino prsecordia mea fudi,
soporatus didici et inveni, quod ipse est qui post tempestatem facit tran
quillum, et post lachrymationem exultationem infundit, ac omnibus invo-
cantibus eum veraciter prope adest. Bradwardine, De Causa Dei, preface.
1 Ego autem stultus a scientia Dei et vanus, quando Philosophicis
literis intendebam, errore contrario seducebar. Quandoque enim audivi
Theologos istam tractare materiam, et pars Pelagii mihi verior videbatur.
In Scholis enim Philosophorum, raro solebam quicquam audire de gratia,
nisi asquivoce forsan dicta ; sed tota die audivi, quod nos sumus Domini
nostrorum actuum liberorum, et quod in nostra potestate est, operari
bene vel male, habere virtutes vel vitia, cum similibus suis multis. Et
si quandoque in Ecclesia audivi lectionem Apostoli gratiam extollentem,
et liberum deprimentem arbitrium, cujusmodi est illud ad Rom. ix.
Non volentis atque currentis, sed miserentis est Dei, et multa similia,
ingrato mihi gratise displicebat . . . Postea vero adhuc nondum Theologiae
factus auditor, praedicto argumento velut quodam gratiae radio visitatus,
sub quadam tenui veritatis imagine, videbar mihi videre a longe gratiam
Dei omnia bona merita proecedentem tempore et natura, scilicet gratam
Dei voluntatem, qui prius utroque modo vult merentem salvari et prius
naturaliter operatur meritum ejus in eo, quam ipse, sicut est in omnibus
motibus primus Motor; unde et ei gratias refero qui mihi hanc gratiam
gratis dedit. Bradwardine, De Causa Dei, 30S.
5 Audivi namque quosdam advocatos Pelagii, licet multum provectos
;.i sacris apicibus, affirmantes Pelagium nusquam potuisse convinci per
naturalom et philosophical!! rationem ; sed vix arguebatur utcunque per

III.] DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE. 107
a fervent admiration for S. Austin personally he had also
an extraordinary familiarity Avith his works, for there is
hardly a single treatise of the Bishop of Hippo's to Avhich
reference is not made in the De Causa Dei1 ; Avhile the
whole plan of the book, the prominence that is given to the
question as to the nature of Will2 and the masterly argu
ment on the subject3, alike seem to shoAV hoAV accurately
he apprehended, how fully he sympathised Avith the doctrine
of S. Austin.
And in after days, when Christendom no longer appeared
to be at one, when it was rent in pieces, and the discord
had robbed every land and every city of all appearance of
peace, one branch of the Church was still faithful to the
ancient teacher. While Calvinism, Avith all its exaggera
tions, was fixing its hold in France and SAvitzerland and
Scotland, the English Church4 Avas not carried away by
any novel definition of orthodoxy — not because the leaders
Avere successful in cunningly framing some meaningless
compromise which all parties could accept, but because
they would not desert the old paths ; and alike in re
arranging our services, in setting forth Christian truth in
homilies, and in the framing of the Articles, they were
constantly and consciously influenced by S. Austin.
quasdam auctoritates Theologicas satis nudas, maxime autem per auc-
toritatem Ecclesiae, quae Satrapis non placebat. Quapropter per ra
tiones et auctoritates philosophicas ipsos disposui reformare. Bradwar
dine, De Causa Dei, preface.
1 Lechler, De Thoma Bradwardino, 17.
2 Dr Mozley has unfortunately followed a different order of treat
ment, and discussed predestination without a sufficient preliminary
examination of the nature of the will.
3 The keynote is given in the De Causa, 444. Ex his autem evidenter
apparet, quod liberum arbitrium, seu potius arbitrium liberum potest
definiri seu describi hoc modo, Quod ipsum est potentia Rationalis
rationaliter judicandi, et voluntarie exequendi.
4 See Excursus G, § 3, p. 182.

LECTUEE IV.
By grace are ye saved, through faith. Eph. n. 8.

THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE MEANS
OF GRACE.
I. The City of God.
There is one point in Avhich the life of S. Austin contrasts
strikingly Avith those of many of the other bishops of his
time. Alike at Antioch and Alexandria, at Constantinople
and Kome, political troubles and political partisanship often
interfered Avith the due discharge of strictly episcopal
duties, and the bishop might be forced to take an impor
tant part in affairs of state. But in the obscurity of his
own little city, S. Austin was but little affected by palace
intrigues or political cares ; and though he eagerly watched
the course of affairs, and corresponded with one at least of
the leading courtiers at Ravenna1, his Avork was not inter
rupted, nor was he disturbed in pursuing the even tenour
of his way.
But there Avas at length an event which sent a shock
through the length and breadth of the known world. Rome
had fallen from her high estate ; her last great soldier had
been basely destroyed, and she fell a prey to the plundering
army of Alaric. History has draAvn a veil2 over the horrors
of that unexampled catastrophe ; we know of it chiefly from
the sensation it caused in distant places — such as is reported
1 Olympius. Ep. xcvi, xcvii.
2 The sixth book of Zosimus is incomplete. S. Austin, like other
writers at a distance, only preserved such details as served his imme
diate purpose.

112 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
in the writings of S. Jerome. But many of the fugitives
who escaped the slaughter and destruction took refuge in
Africa, — a province which seemed for the time to be pro
tected from the barbarian hordes ; though it too had terrible
days in store1, it served to shelter the Italian refugees from
immediate danger. And thus it came about that in S. Austin's
diocese there were many, many exiles who had lost all but
their lives ; and while some were Christians who were able to
thank God that they had escaped when so many had perished,
there were not a few heathens among them who constantly
maintained that Rome had perished because she had begun
to follow the doctrine of Christ, that since she had forsaken
her ancient gods, the gods had forsaken her and suffered
her glory to perish.
It was under these circumstances that S. Austin was led
to begin his book on the City of God. He insists that all
the mitigations of the horror were due to Christian influence,
and that the very men who blasphemed the name of Christ
had themselves profited by the protection which it gave
from earthly death. "Now in their ungrateful pride, and
"ungodly madness, they stand against that Name (in per-
"verseness of heart and to their punishment in eternal
"darkness) to which they fled even with lying lips that
"they might enjoy the light of this present world2."
As an argument against these heathen exiles it was fair
to maintain that Christ had been their protector against
temporal evil ; but it was clear enough that the Christians
too had suffered terribly. They lost all their possessions3 : the
extremity of famine destroyed them4, and the dead were left
1 From the invasion of the Vandals. See Ep. ccxxviii. (Honorato),
in which he decides the principles which should determine a bishop
on remaining with or leaving his flock in such troubled times.
2 De Civitate Dei, i. i.
3 De Civitate Dei, i. x. 1.
4 De Civitate Dei, i. x. 4.

IV- J THE CITY OF GOD. 113
unburied1: others were led into captivity and suffered
violence2 that was worse than death itself. And yet with
aU this misery before his eyes, with the wail of it ringing in
his ears3, S. Austin did not lose his faith in the goodness of
the God who had permitted it all. "Tell me now," he says4,
"in all this desolation Avhat one thing did the Christians
"endure that upon due consideration might not turn to
"their edification?" ^'For as for temporal goods and evils,
"God had intended them for the common use both of good
"and bad ; that the goods of this world should not be too
"eagerly desired, Avhen even the wicked are seen to partake
"them ; and that the evils of this world should not be too
"coAvardly avoided, wherewith the good are sometimes
"visited.... For neither do these temporal goods exalt a
"good man, nor do the evil deject him.. . .Whatever affliction
"good and bad men suffer together in this life it doth not
"prove the persons to be the same, because they jointly
"endure like pains. For as under one flail the straw is
"bruised and the ear cleansed, and as the lees and the oil
"are not confused because they are both pressed in one press,
"so likewise one and the same violence of affliction proves,
"purifies and melts the good, and condemneth, wasteth
"and casteth out the bad. And thus in one and the same
"distress do the wicked offend God by hate and blasphemy,
"and the good glorify Him by prayer and praise."
Starting thus from the personal experience of these
terrible sufferings, he goes on to discuss the two explana
tions which were being currently given of that marvellous
event— the fall of the city of Rome. To say as many did
that the destruction of the city had come about because
she had forsaken her gods was, he argued, absurd, for these
1 De Civitate Dei, I. xii. 1.
2 De Civitate Dei, i. xiv. xvi.
3 De Urbis Excidio, 3.
4 De Civitate Dei, I. ix. viii.
C. 8

114 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
very gods had failed to protect her in old days : they were
really powerless to avert any evil1. Rather was it the case
that all this evil was permitted by God, so that in the course
of His Providence, His great purpose might be accomplished,
and the City of God might be established among men. And
thus he turns away from the sorrows and misery that had
come on his OAvn generation to review God's dealings with
His chosen people, and to use the clue thus furnished to
unravel the intricate story of His dealings with the other
races of men, with mankind as a whole. And so he sets be
fore us a philosophy of History, — the continuous evolution
of the Divine Purpose iii human society : he contrasts the
earthly polities which change and pass with the eternal
City of God which is being manifested in the world: he
shows how these two are intermingled, interacting now, but
how different they are in their real nature : one is of the
earth, centred only in earthly things, whUe the other,
because it has its chief regard fixed on that which is
Eternal, gives us the best rule for the things of time. The ^
earthly city which aimed onfy'at earthTy prosperity failed y
to attain even that, while the Heavenly City, aiming at an
Eternal Peace, supplies the best conditions for earthly good \
as welLj It is in the hope of the final triumph of the City^
of God, that the course of the Avorld becomes inteUigible,
for then we may see that the rise and fall of earthly empires,
the glories of ancient civilisation, the sufferings of men in
their ruin, have not been unmeaning or in vain ; for they
have served to prepare for the coming of the kingdom of
God. Thus it is that for S. Austin, faith in the Holy Catholic
1 Si igitur Virgilius tales deos et victos dicit, et, ut vel victi quoquo
modo evaderent, homini commendatos; quae dementia est existimare
his tutoribus Romam sapienter fuisse commissam, et nisi eos amisisset,
non potuisse vastari? Imo vero victos deos tanquam prsesides ac
defensores colere, quid est aliud quam tenere non nuniina bona, sed
omina mala. De Civitate Dei, I. iii.

IV.] THE CITY OF GOD. 115
Church serves to render History intelligible : this faith was /
tne_key of knowledge, for it gave the first philosophy of
history worthy the name. His work was indeed a masterly
argument on the pressing practical difficulty in his own
diocese, but it was far more than this ; and if to some of us
the train of thought is commonplace and obvious, that is
because the world in which we have been brought up has
been permeated with such teaching as his. But to those
who imagined that the affairs of men were swayed by the
mere caprices of many gods, or subject to the inscrutable
decrees of fate, this philosophy of History was by no means
commonplace. And indeed if we examine it more care
fully even now we shall be amply rewarded. We may find A
new reasons to admire S. Austin, — the discrimination he
occasionaUy displays in the use of evidence1, the marveUous
power of combining many isolated facts into a connected
system, even though here and there he puts forward opinions
which are hard to reconcile with his general position. But }
we may find greater merits than these : we may turn from \
the grandest modern account of the evolution of human pro
gress — turn from Hegel himself— to S. Austin and feel that
the historical system of the ancient father is more perfect
and complete ; inasmuch as he had a clearer conception
of the beginning, and a more definite perception of the
final end2 towards which the whole Creation moves.
There are other ways in which many of us may learn
from him. We are so often ready to cherish a hope in the
kingdom of God as something in the far future, and justify
the troubles of the present by reference to this dim far-off
event. Or if we think of the kingdom of God as in the
present, evil world, we profess that we cannot discern it,
that it is a spiritual reality invisible8 to the human eye,
1 Reinkens, Die Geschichtsphilosophie des h. A. 37.
2 Reinkens, Die Geschichtsphilosophie des h. A. 40.
3 " When in the Creed we profess to believe the Church, reference is
8—2

11G S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
unperceivable by the human mind. But for S. Austin the
kingdom of God was not a mere hope, but a present reality,
not a mere name for a divine idea, but an institution, duly
organised among men, subsisting from one generation to
another; closely inter- connected Avith earthly rule1, with
definite guidance to give, and a definite part to take in all
the affairs of actual life. To him the kingdom of God Avas
an actual Polity, just as the Roman Empire was a Polity
too: it was 'visible' in just the same way as the earthly
State, for it was a real institution with definite organisation,
with a recognised constitution, with a code of laws and means
of enforcing them, with property for its uses, and officers to
direct it.
Some of us may perhaps fancy that in the time of S.
Austin it was easy enough to identify the divine ideal of
the kingdom of God with the actual institution, — the
Church throughout the world? Tn~ those early days of
purity it may seem that there was no room for the dis
sensions which have marred the Church in our day, or the
schisms which have severed so many from it. Which body
of professing Christians is the true Church? one is often
made not only to the visible Church of which we are now treating, but
also to all the elect of God, including in the number even those who
have departed this life. And, accordingly, the word used is 'believe,'
because oftentimes no difference can be observed between the children
of God and the profane, between His proper flock and the untamed
herd.... Hence, regard must be had both to the secret election
and to the internal calling of God, because He alone ' knoweth them
that are His ' ; and as Paul expresses it, holds them as it were
enclosed under His seal, although, at the same time, they wear His
insignia, and are thus distinguished from the reprobate. But as they
are a small and despised number, concealed in an immense crowd, like
a few grains of wheat buried among a heap of chaff, to God alone must
be left the knowledge of His Church, of which His secret election forms
tho foundation." Calvin, Institutes, iv. i. 2.
1 On S. Austin's political teaching compare Dubief, Essai sur les
idees politiques de Saint Augustin (1859) : also Excursus G, § 6, p. 192.

IV.] THE CITY OF GOD. 117
asked, or if Ave are unwilling to 'unchurch'1 any set of pro
fessing Christians, how can Ave discern a unity in the Church
noAv? But if Ave suppose that this difficulty did not occur
in the fourth and fifth centuries— that the Church through
out the Avorld Avas then one, undisturbed by dissension,
unrent by schism — Ave shall do well to consider the times of
S. Austin and the difficulties with wliich he had to con
tend in his own diocese. The Donatists in his day held
aloof from communion Avith the Church throughout the
1 One may notice in passing that those who deny the name of
" Church" to any of the protestant sects, are not in any way guilty of
intolerance, since they are perfectly willing to admit of the members of
these bodies what they claim for themselves. The Independent who
denies that there is a visible Catholic and Apostolic Church, and applies
the word either to the invisible aggregate of the elect, or to his own
congregation, can hardly be hurt when those who do believe in a visible
Catholic and Apostolic Church decline to assert that his congregation is
a part of that body the very existence of which he himself denies. So
too, according to Zwinglian doctrine, the Lord's Supper offers an oppor
tunity for self-recollectedness and quiet thought about our Lord's death.
That an opportunity for the exercise of such pious dispositions is good
and profitable can never be denied. But there are those who treasure
the faith that the Sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood is more than
this, that the benefit accrues through That which is divinely bestowed,
not merely in the quickened fervency of our own thoughts. This is not
one of the points on which Calvinism departs from the Augustinian
doctrine. Edward Irving, in the preface to his edition of the Scotch
Articles of 1560, writes on the fifth of them, "It was this article which
delivered me from the infidelity of evangelicalism, which denies any
gift of God either in the work of Christ, or in the sacraments, or any
where, until we experience it to be within ourselves, making God a mere
promiser, until we become receivers ; making His bounty and beneficence
nought but words, till we make it reality by accepting thereof ; in one
word making religion only subjective in the believer, and not elective in
God, — objective in Christ, in order that it may be subjective in the
believer; a religion of moods, and not of purposes and facts ; having its
reality in the creature, its proposal of reality only in God." (Confessions
of Faith, 1831, p. xcix.) Those who treasure a faith in the Sacraments
are not necessarily arrogant, because they are dissatisfied with Zwinglian
doctrine, and deny that the rites which embody it are an adequate ful
filling of our Lord's dying command.

118 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
world ; they professed to enforce a stricter sort of Church
discipline than that which was elsewhere current, and
to attach more importance to personal holiness, — while
some of them certainly showed a vehement earnestness
about matters of religion. And S. Austin never denied
that their Christian teaching, their Christian ordinances
Avere vaUd as means of grace for the soul1. He thus was
confronted with the same difficulty as we find to-day, in
the real Christian faith of many, who are yet organised
into distinct and separate and it may be rival bodies of
worshippers. And his treatment of this real difficulty may prove in
structive now: he does not deny the efficacy of Christian
teaching or Christian ordinances for personal salvation, but
he notes whence and how the efficacy of these ordinances
has been derived : the sectaries had indeed cut themselves
off from the full enjoyment of Church Ufe, but in so far as
they retained Gospel truth, or sacramental privileges, they
were to just this extent partakers in the Ufe of the One
Church. "There is one Church which alone is called
"CathoUc, and whenever it finds any element of itself, in
"these communions of different bodies which are separate
"from itself, it is by means of this element so found that
"the Church regenerates and not the separated communion.
"It is certainly not their separation which regenerates but
"that element which they have received from the Church.
"...The regeneration, then, in each case proceeds from the
"Church, and from the retention of its sacraments, for from
"them alone can such regeneration proceed, — although not
"all who are thus regenerate, belong to that unity which
"shall save those who persevere even to the end. Nor
"again are they alone outside that unity who are openly
"guilty of the manifest sacrilege of schism, but also those
1 De Baplismo, i. 22.

IV.] THE CITY OF GOD. 119
"who, being outwardly joined to its unity, are yet separated
"by a life of sin1."
The last sentence shows that it was not only through
schism that the Church Life of the Fifth Century fell short
of the ideal : persecution had not ahvays served to purify.
It had sometimes helped to relax the discipline, or to dis
organise the government of the Church ; and when the days
of trial were over it sometimes happened that numbers of
heathen were attracted to seek baptism, and were admitted
to membership before they were fully instructed, or whue
they were stiU inclined to retain immoral habits and super
stitious practices. The Church of the Fifth Century was
not united, and it was not pure : many of its members were
a disgrace to their profession, their Uves were an open dis
avowal of their baptismal promises : and if any of us cherish
the fancy that the Early Church was perfectly pure, we
may be as completely disillusioned by reading the letters of
S. Austin as by studying those of S. Paul. For from the"
first Christ's kingdom has been in the world, has been
composed of men who are still struggling with sin, not of
saints whoUy free from its power : and from the first Christ's
Church has been torn with dissension and rent with schism :
and it has ever been by faith, not by sight, that men have
recognised that the Church though in the world is not of
it ; it is through faith they have learned that though her
chUdren err and wander she yet is the pillar and ground of
the truth ; by faith they have come to know that through
the things_oi Lnature and here in time she exercises an in
fluence which is supernatural and eternal.
1 De Baptismo, i. 14. Compare also 23. Si ergo potest dare aliquid
quia aliquid habet, manifestum est posse dare hsereticos Baptismum,
quia cum ab Ecclesia recedunt, habent lavacri Sacramentum quod ibi
acceperant: nam redeuntes non recipiunt, quia non amiserant cum
recesserunt. De Bapt. vii. 57.

120 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.

II. The Donatist Controversy.
S. Austin's doctrine on all matters of Church organisa
tion and Church Ufe comes out most clearly not in the
City of God, but in the controversy with the Donatists.
The schism was no new thing like the teaching of Pelagius,
for it had lasted for eighty years before S. Austin was
ordained at Hippo, and it necessarily engaged his attention
during the whole of his ministry : but his chief treatises on
the subject appeared soon after his consecration. Contro
versial treatises however were not the only nor indeed the
chief means by which he exposed the evil of the schism : it
was only by his Avritings that he could reach the distant
cities where Pelagius was diffusing his doctrine: but the
Donatists were close at hand : they were not unwiUing to
listen to his discourses from the pulpit. The ManicliEeans
had been met and confuted in pubUc discussion, and it Avas
by Ms preaching that S. Austin produced the greatest effect
upon the schismatics1. They came to Usten to his words,
and were often deeply impressed with the power of his
pleading for unity.
There were two points on which he dwelt ; not only does
1 Bindemann, in. 198. A few remarks on preaching by such a
master of the art are worth quoting.
Sed quod ad tuam proprie considerationem pertinet, nolim te
moveri ex eo quod saepe tibi abjectum sermonem fastidiosumque habere
visus es. Fieri enim potest ut ei quem instruebas non ita sit visum, sed
quia tu aliquid melius audiri desiderabas, eo tibi quod dicebas videretur
indignum auribus aliorum. Nam et mihi prope semper sermo meus
displicet. Mclioris enim avidus sum, quo sscpe fruor interius, antequam
eum explicare verbis sonantibus cospero : quod ubi minus quam mihi
notus est evaluero, contristor linguam nieam cordi meo non potuisse
sufficcre. Totum enim quod intelligo, volo ut qui me audit intelligat ;
ct sentio me non ita loqui, ut hoc efficiam : maximc quia ille intellectus
quasi rapida coruscatione pcrfundit animum ; ilia autem locutio tarda
ct longa est, longeque dissimilis. De Cat. Rud. 3.

IV.] THE DONATIST CONTROVERSY. 121
he show that they had, by their separation, broken the true
unity of the Church, but he proves that they had departed
from the ordinary custom of the Church by the practice on
Avhich they insisted in regard to Baptism1. If the Church
existed before this schism, and "had not perished through a
"breach of continuity, but was on the contrary holding its
"ground and receiving increase, surely it is the safest plan to
"abide by this same custom which then embraced good and
"bad aUke in unity2." If the Church before that schism were
contaminated and unworthy, whence had the schismatic
bishop made his appearance, "from what land did he spring ?
"or from what sea did he emerge? or from what sky did he
"faU?" There Avas a continuity in the Ufe of the Church,
while the innovators had broken with the past, and were
condemning their own fathers in Christ.
And this leads naturaUy to his main point. The schis
matics were so self-opinionated : they had struck out their
own Une, that was a trifling thing, but they were so
enamoured of their own opinions that they separated them
selves from all who would not accept their way of thinking.
It was in this respect that they differed from S. Cyprian —
,the renowned prelate under whose name they sought to
shelter themselves. He held their view it is true, but yet
"his pious humiUty in guarding the peace of the Church
"was most noticeable." For when a bishop of so "important
"a church, himself a man of so great merit and virtue,
"endowed with such exceUence of heart and power of elo
quence, entertained an opinion about baptism different
"from that which was to be confirmed by a more diligent
"searching into the truth, though many of his colleagues
1 Verumtamen quae soleret esse Ecclesiae consuetudo, satis idem
Cyprianus ostendit, qui ait, in praeteritum de hasresi ad Ecclesiam
venientes sine Baptismo admissos. De Baptismo, in. 7. Compare also
8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
2 De Baptismo, in. 3.

122 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
"held Avhat was not yet made manifest by authority but
"was sanctioned by the past custom of the Church, and
"afterwards embraced by the whole CathoUc world, he did
"not sever himself, by refusal of communion, from the
"others who thought differently, and indeed never ceased
"to urge on the others that they should forbear one an
other in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit
"in the bond of peace1." Even then if they were of the
same opinion as Cyprian, their self-opinionated conduct
was condemned by his humUity and charity.
The very nature of the point on which the whole con
troversy turned shows that error had made a deep mark
on the Church Ufe of the Fourth Century. All agreed that
in Baptism men received forgiveness of sins and became
citizens of the kingdom of Heaven,— but could it be said
that Baptism by heretics was efficacious? was it reaUy valid?
To some of us here the question may appear to be of greater
interest when we remember that it was a very anxious per
sonal question with Frederick Maurice. He had been bap
tized as an infant by his father, who was a Unitarian minister,
but in later Ufe he determined to seek re-baptism2, thus it
would appear following the opinion of Cyprian and rejecting
the doctrine of S. Austin. The Donatists argued that right
beUef and true faith on the part of the priest was a neces
sary condition, and that, without it, baptism had no efficacy.
They therefore insisted on re-baptizing those who had re
ceived the rite at the hands of heretics, and emphasised in
this practical form their conviction that baptism by heretics
was no baptism at all.
Put in its most general form the question was this — is
the worthiness of the minister, the rightness of his beUef
and the purity of his life, an essential condition without
1 De Baptismo, i. 28.
2 Life of F. D. Maurice, i. 122. The precise reasons for this step
are not quite clear though of course the two cases are not identical.

IV.] THE MEANS OF GRACE. 123
which Baptism is not valid? To this S. Austin answers with
an emphatic No, Avhich is re-echoed in our xxvith Article.
"The baptism of Christ consecrated by the words of the
"Gospel is necessarily holy, hoAvever polluted and unclean
"its ministers may be : because its inherent sanctity cannot
"be polluted, and its divine excellence abides in the sacra-
"ment whether to the salvation of those who use it aright
"or to the destruction of those Avho use it wrong.... If we
"turn our thoughts to the visible materials themselves,
"which are to us the medium of the sacraments, everyone
"must know that they admit of corruption. But if we
"think on that which they convey to us, who can fail to see
"that it is incorruptible, hoAvever much the men through
"whose ministry it is conveyed are either being rewarded
"or punished for the character of their lives?1" The effect
of Christ's ordinance is not taken away by their wicked
ness2; and who that remembers how Moses and Isaiah
protested their own unworthiness to bear a message from
God, and how S. Peter felt his own sinfulness and shrank
from the presence of his Lord, shall dare to say that the
ministers of Christ's Church can ever be personaUy worthy
to exercise their high vocation?

III. The Means of Grace.
Perhaps however it may be more instructive for us to
dwell on the point on which the disputants were agreed,
on which the whole Church was at one and which had been
held from time immemorial, as to the benefit which was
bestowed in baptism when vaUd, rather than to linger on
the controverted point, as to the primary conditions under
which baptism was vaUd. 1 De Baptismo, in. 15.
2 Article xxvi.

124 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
In Baptism, God besto\vs forgiveness of sins1 : the sacra
ment does not constitute a fully formed religious life— it
does not take the place of repentance, though repentance
is easier to him Avho realises the meaning of Baptism : it
has no magic power of instantaneously creating a well-
instructed fully-disciplined Christian2. "Certainly this
"renewal does not take place in the single moment of
"conversion itself, as that renewal in baptism takes place
"by the remission of all sins; for not one, be it ever so
"small, remains unremitted. But as it is one thing to be
"free from fever and another to grow strong again from
"the infirmity wliich the fever produced, and again one
"thing to pluck out of the body a weapon thrust into it
"and another to heal the wound thereby made by a pro
sperous cure, so the first care is to remove the cause of
"infirmity, and that is wrought by the forgiving of aU sins :
"but the second care is to heal the infirmity itself, and this
"takes place graduaUy by making progress in the renewal
1 Ac per hoc non solum peccata omnia, quorum nunc remissio fit in
Baptismo, quae reos faciunt, dum desideriis vitiosis consentitur atque
peccatur ; verum etiam ipsa desideria vitipsa, quibus si non consentitur,
nullus peccati reatus contrahitur, quae non in ista, sed in alia vita nulla
erunt, eodem lavacro Baptismatis universa purgantur. De Pec. Or. 44.
2 Ex quo itaque sumus adhuc filii hujus sasculi, exterior homo noster
corrumpitur, ex hoc et hujus sseculi filii generantur, nee filii Dei nisi
regenerentur fiunt : sed ex quo sumus filii Dei, interior de die in diem
renovatur. Quamvis et ipse exterior per lavacrum regenerationis
sanctificatus sit, et spem futuras incorruptionis acceperit, propter quod
et templum Dei merito dicitur: Corpora vestra, inquit Apostolus,
templum in vobis Spiritus sancti est, quem habetis a Deo : et non estis
vestri ; empti enim estis pretio magno. Glorificate ergo et portate
Deum in corpore vestro. Hoc totum non solum propter prassentem
sanctificationem, sed maxime propter illam spem dictum est, de qua
idem alio loco dicit : Sed et nos ipsi primitias Spiritus habentes, et ipsi
in nobismetipsis ingemiscimus, adoptionem exspectantes, redemptio-
nem corporis nostri. Si ergo redemptio corporis nostri, secundum
Apostolum, exspectatur ; profecto quod exspectatur, adhuc speratur,
nondum tenetur. De Nuptiis et Concup. i. 20.
See also De Pec. Mer. i. 39, li. 45 : compare Vomer Auguslinus, 198.

IV.] THE MEANS OF GRACE. 125
"of the image, which tAvo things are plainly sIioavii in the
"psalm Avhere Ave read Who forgircth all thine iniquities,
"winch takes place in Baptism, and then folloAvs, and heal-
"eth all thine infirmities, and this takes place by daily
"additions, Avhile this image is being renewed1."
It is true that God is the Father of all men, but this
relationship wliich has its ground in God's great love does
not reaUy hold good as effective and operative unless the
man knoAvs of it. A relationship cannot exist Avith one
term only : so long as by the depravity of his nature, man
is blinded to God's Love, it does not exist for him. And
hence the evidence of that Love declared in Baptism con
stitutes the relationship for him : it is the Divine message
of love specially declared to him and none other, by sign
and word; to eye and ear the comforting assurance is
given. It is hard for the human heart to rest on general
declarations of the love of God — to believe that Love ex
tends to such a sinner as he feels himself to be, and that
the message of salvation is for him. But Baptism has given
this assurance to each individual person : he may have been
neglected in his early years and grown up in ignorance of
God, but he is the chUd of God, the love has been extended
to him. But besides this, Baptism makes us members of Christ,
parts of His body the Church : the Uttle child has been re
generated ; he is not merely an earthly being with needs
that must be satisfied and ambitions to be fulfiUed ; he has
a real part in a higher, better Ufe. Besides the sense of
earthly ties of father and mother and home, there is
awakened a gradual consciousness of the deeper ties in
which he too has a part ; vaguely and dimly they may be
understood it is true, but none the less they may be felt as
real. The conscious sense may come to the child in earUest
years that God is a Father, that he himself is that Father's
1 De Trin. xiv. 23.

126 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
child ; he may come to know that the Church is an army,
and that he himself is a soldier who marches with the rest ;
he may come to have the hope of a Blessed Life wliich shall
be his when Death shall have laid him cold and stUl. And
thus the child need never think of himself as merely earthly,
with merely an earthly Ufe, and merely an earthly home.
His mind as it awakens, and as he comes to reaUse what he
is, may begin to understand that he has, in his Baptism,
become something more than he appears.
While S. Austin did not hold, as the Donatists did, that
the worthiness of the minister was so essential that, with
out it the Divine power was inoperative, he did recognise
that there are other conditions which do limit the operation
of God's grace.
(a) It is not every heart that is reached by the Grace
of God. The knowledge of God's Love is given through
human lips, the assurance of it is conveyed by human
hands, and those to whom that Love remains unknown,
cannot be touched by it : it is hid from them. The knowledge
of the Lord shall cover the earth as the waters cover the
sea, but It is through human agencies that the knowledge
is spread, and if those to whom that charge is committed
are slothful and Ustless there must be many who remain in
ignorance of the salvation that has appeared. God has not
shed this Ught miraculously on aU ; He has committed the
torch to human hands that they may bear it to the ends of
the earth.
It is at this point that we may see most clearly the
nature of S. Austin's doctrine of Predestination. God Avho
foresees all things sees also that there are some who never
receive the message of grace, and some to whom it is
brought. He has provided the means of salvation, He
foresees how far these shall be rendered accessible to any
generation, how far each man shall avail himself of them,
and thus there are some who are predestined to salvation

IV.] THE MEANS OF GRACE. 127
since God knoAvs from the first that they will work out
their oaati salvation Avith fear and trembling. The effort to
preach the Gospel is a real effort, the struggle to persevere
is a real struggle, not the mere rehearsing of a decision
taken before the world was. It_is.J)_ecause God foresees
Avhat man AyiUihvthat-He predestines; and thus it is by
the use of the means of grace that human beings accom-
pUsh the destiny which He has foreseen1. The doctrine of
Calvin however by ignoring the distinction between fore
knowledge and predetermining seems to take all reality
out of the ordinances of Christian Life : why should I listen
to preaching if I am predestined to damnation? why should
I seek to discipline my body or to seek God in prayer if I
am predestined to salvation? It is thus that the doctrine
of Predestination may give an excuse for Antinomianism,
if it be regarded as an arbitrary decree, not a foreknowledge
which has its ground in the divine prevision of the actual
occurrences in time. It is because S. Austin holds so firmly
to the real efficacy of the sacraments as means of accom-
pUshing God's Purpose of Love towards the world that he
1 Haec est praedestinatio sanctorum, nihil aliud : prsescientia scilicet,
et praeparatio beneficiorum Dei, quibus certissime liberantur, quicumque
liberantur. De Dono Persev. 35.
Electi sunt itaque ante mundi constitutionem ea prasdestinatione,
in qua Deus sua futura facta prasscivit : electi sunt autem de mundo ea
vocatione, qua Deus, id quod prsedestinavit, implevit. De Prcedest.
Sanct. 34.
The prescience here spoken of is not a prescience of human deserts,
but of the divine operation through the instituted means. He thus
even in his latest writings adheres to the distinction between prescience
and predetermination, and guards against the appearance of anything
arbitrary in what God does. Thus it may be said that God's purpose is
to win a willing service from man, and that to this end, He has established
certain means : in regard to the whole world we may recognise why
this is His Will (see page 90, note 4). In regard to individuals we
may recognise that He foresees how the ordained means operate.
From this point of view there is no arbitrariness in the bestowal of
grace on one and not on another.

128 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
does not regard predestination as a mere arbitrary decree,
but as prescience of the actual course of the ministration
of divine grace through a defective human agency.
(6) Again, there is another limit to the operation of
God's Grace: not only in the energy and earnestness of
those to whom the ministry is committed, but in the fact
that some hearts are more hardened than others, not all
are equally ready to enter the kingdom of God, or willing
to five as its citizens. Inherited dispositions and deeply-
( rooted habits, if nothing else, make them to differ as subjects
' for the operation of God's Grace. This was the point which
Pelagianism ignored : insisting as it did on the indifference
of the human will, its perfect ability to choose this or that,
to be good by its own apprehension of the Divine truth
manifested to it, it ignored the truth that man is in bondage
to sin : that he must be divinely set free from that bondage
by Divine forgiveness, that he must be kept free from that
bondage by partaking of the strength of Christ, or he cannot
choose his true good, he cannot make a start on the path
of life. From this it necessarily follows that Pelagianism is
inclined to overvalue preaching as the most important,
means of grace1, since it sets before the man good and evU
and leaves it to him to choose on the representation set
before him.
(c) But those who feel that they were not thus free, to
choose, that it was because Christ came to the world that
the world was enabled to turn to God, because they were
brought to Christ that He blessed them, will have no pride
in the saintliest life, in the best work for God : they will
recognise with S. Paul that it all comes from the Grace of
God ; that it is through God's purpose of Love that they
have attained any measure of good: they will thank the
goodness and the grace which have smiled on their birth,
and thus the meditation on this Divine poAver may save us
1 De Gratia Christi, 45.

IV.] THE MEANS OF GRACE. 129
from the spiritual pride of fancying Ave have done aught for
ourselves1. Or if Ave seem to be falhng away from God, if we feel
that we have turned from Him and grieved His Spirit, and
the terrible thought haunts us that He has not predestined
us to life, let us lay firm hold of the knowledge that He has
given grace, that He has called us in His providence and
by the ministry of the word and sacraments : that if we fall
from Him it is not because of His decree, but because of
the sloth and negligence which He foresaw in us, that we
would not come to Him for Life. He has forgiven our sins,
He has called us to membership in His Church ; He will
give His Holy Spirit to them that ask Him. We may
conquer our sloth and neghgence if we will use the means
of life He has provided. Let us not dare to lay the blame
of our own backwardness on Him. We need not fear that
any decree of His loving heart is holding us back from Him.
Perhaps the whole doctrine of the means of grace may
come into clearer light, if we try to note one or two points
which distinguish S. Austin's doctrine from that of more
recent schools of thought.
(a) The sacraments are the means of grace but after
aU only means. Baptism does not restore the primaeval
condition of those who have not sinned2, but the grace
conveyed through it delivers from the power of sin, en-
Ughtens the eye and strengthens the resolution, whUe it
removes the burden of guilt. Precious as we may find
them to be they are only the means of grace, not things
which by their mere operation deUver from evil. In so far
as any have come to think of the sacraments as magical
means, committed to human hands, of turning to good and
deUvering from evil, they have departed from the doctrine
of S. Austin : they go to the channels through which God's
1 Article xvn. See also Excursus G, § 3, p. 182.
2 See p. 124, note 2.
C. 9

130 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
Love may reach us most fully, and mistake them for God's
Love itself. Thus to exalt the sacraments, and the human
agency in administering or receiving them, may lead to
many grievous errors : but it is enough for us to note in
passing that it lends itself to the entry of Pelagianism,
under a new and more subtle form.
(b) Farther, the sacraments are not the sole means of
grace, they are the divinely appointed means, the means by
Avhich God's Grace may most easily reach the human heart,
the means by which God's Love may most ftdly embrace it,
but they are not the sole means. For just because God's
Love works so powerftdly through them, — through Avater
and bread and Avine, — we may know that it can work
through things of sense, that all that He has created and
made may have a sacramental Power, if Ave can perceive
Him in it. The stream of God's Love weUs forth to the
world and overflows the channels He has provided for it :
on hearing the word the grace of Repentance is given to
many, and the Faith which comes through hearing. The
hearts of those who are strangers to God's revelation of
Himself may yet receive some message from Him, for the
centurion Cornelius was devout and earnest, and his faithful
struggle Avas reAvarded by full Christian privileges1.
It was the fuU recognition of this truth Avhich gave their
poAver to Whitfield2, the followers of the Wesleys, and to all

1 Neque enim et Cornelii gentilis hominis orationes non sunt
exauditas, aut eleemosynas non sunt acceptse : imo et angelum ad se
mitti, et missum meruit intueri, per quem posset utique sine hominis
alicujus accessu cuncta necessaria discere. Sed quoniam quidquid boni
in orationibus et eleemosynis habebat, prodesse illi non poterat, nisi per
vinculum christianse societatis et pacis incorporaretur Ecclesiae; jubetur
mittere ad Petrum, et per ilium discit Christum; per ilium etiam
baptizatus, christiano populo consortio quoque communionis adjungitur,
cui sola bonorum operum similitudine jungebatur. De Bapt. i. 10.
2 Sermon on The Nature and Necessity of the New Birth in
Christ Jesus, preached in S. Mary, Rcdcliffe, 1738. John Wesley's own

IV. ) THE MEANS OF ORACE. 131
avIio since their day have spoken of conversion as the true
beginning of the Christian life. They have felt and known
the poAver of God in converting the hearts of those who
listened to His messages though they had never been
regenerated in Baptism, or, if baptized, had been brought
up in total ignorance and neglect of their Christian
privileges. They have seen that Baptism did not create
Christian habits of life, and they have thus been apt
to prove inattentive to the importance of the sacraments
as real means of grace. But while we may fully recognise
the vast importance of the truth they hold so dear,- —
a truth Avhich had perhaps been suffered to fall into
neglect, — a truth Avhich must be the foundation of all
missionary effort and the fuller recognition of which has
caUed forth unexampled missionary energy — we may yet
note that it is but a part of the truth about the manifesta
tion of God's Love to the world, and that if we treat it as
the sole truth we may fall into dangerous modes of thought,
and serious errors of Ufe.
(i) For by laying stress on this special mode of the
manifestation of God's Love — on a sudden awakening to
teaching was of an entirely different type and harmonised with that of
S. Austin. " By baptism we who were ' by nature children of wrath '
are made the children of God. And this regeneration which our
Church in so many places ascribes to baptism is more than barely being
admitted into the church though commonly connected therewith ; being
grafted into the Body of Christ's church, we are made the children of
God by adoption and grace. This is grounded on the plain words of
our Lord : ' Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God ' (John iii. 5). By water then, as
a means, the water of baptism we are regenerated or born again,
whence it is also called by the Apostle, 'the washing of regeneration.'
Our Church therefore ascribes no greater virtue to Baptism than Christ
Himself has done. Nor does she ascribe it to the outward washing, but
to the inward grace, which, added thereto, makes it a sacrament.
Herein a principle of grace is infused, which will not be wholly taken
away, unless we quench the Holy Spirit of God by long-continued
wickedness." A Treatise on Baptism. Works (1836) x. 184.
9—2

132 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
the sense of sin, or a conscious realising of complete deliver
ance from its guilt and power — we are apt to frame to
ourselves a misleading thought of God. To look for
His chief manifestations of Himself only in special times
of excitement, to see His power only in strange and un
wonted occurrences, to find an answer to prayer only in
unexpected events. But it has been by constant and daily
communing with God, that His saints have come most truly
to abide in Him ; they have seen His hand in all the events
of Ufe, in all the course of His proAidence, in aU the order
of His Universe ; they have found an answer to their cry
for strength to bear His WiU when the cup was not taken
away, and the adversary beset them still. It is indeed a
terrible thing if we come to think of God's grace and love
and purpose as only given in exceptional ways, and never
advance to realise that it embraces and suffuses the whole
of human life at all times, not only at every time of need.
(ii) And just because there is this danger of a false the
ology, there is a danger too of inattention to the use of these
means by which God strengthens His Ufe within us. The
prayers and alms of Cornelius Avere accepted and blessed,
for God brought him Avithin the fold of the Church, where
he might taste more fully of the grace of God. It is indeed
a terrible error if any of us shall be satisfied with having
known the love of God, AAith having tasted of the powers of
the Avorld to come, and shall undervalue the means by
which that Power may free our wills from weakness and
form in us a fuller knoAvledge of God1.
(iii) And in such teaching S. Austin would once more
have detected the taint of Pelagianism. He Avould have
seen that it tended to the overvaluing of preaching— of
effective oratory, and touching appeals, and the personal
power of the speaker as a man, — not as the mere mouth
piece for the utterance of a Divine message. In so far as
1 On S. Austin's doctrine of the Eucharist see Excursus G, § 9, p. 198 f.

IV.] THE MEANS OF GRACE. 133
Ave come to trusting to the power of the preacher to stir
the emotions, AAre begin to lose our firm hold of the truth
that it is only God Who can touch the heart. Or again, if
we venture to neglect the Divine offers of strength and
grace, if Ave are so satisfied that our life is a true life given
by God, that we are not careful to use those means whereby
it may grow, AAre may come to trust to our oavh experience,
or the depth of our feelings, or the fervency of our utter
ances, to ourselves, and not to Him.
(c) It is perhaps unnecessary to add that S. Austin would
have strongly repudiated the doctrine which found its
fullest expression in the usages of the Society of Friends,
that the sacraments have no efficacy and may be ignored —
and that God Avorks directly in the human heart without
the intervention of any means. For it seems as if the
Omnipotent did indeed always work in this world by
means, even if we cannot always detect the means through
which He works, — through which He clears the eye for a
brighter vision of Himself. He has Himself instituted the
means of grace which He is ever ready to bless ; and those
who choose to disdain what He has appointed do not thereby
escape the necessity of using means, they are only compeUed
to institute new means of grace for themselves, whether it
be the sitting stiU in silence of the Quakers, or the violent
excitement of the Shakers' dancing. It is true that
there may be an excuse for such self-willed devotion, in
the superstition which lurks in aU our hearts, and treats
the preaching of the word or the administration of the
sacraments as though they could bestow goodness, not as
the means by which God gives His grace. But if there is
danger of self-deception in thus misusing the means of
grace, there is still deeper danger of self-deception in
neglecting them altogether. Those who claim to live in
the Spirit and who yet forsake the assembUng of themselves
together aud reject bodily self-discipline, may fall aAvay un-

134 S. AUSTIN. [LECT.
Avittingly, " as the snake moves," into a strange carelessness
about the things of God. For a reUgion that is thus spiri
tual, just because it has its hold merely on the spirit, may
fade away and disappear without any noticeable signs of
decline to arrest attention and awaken vigilance.
The importance which S. Austin attaches to the means
of grace has prevented him from falling into the difficulties
which have beset later writers. If the Divine life is formed
in the human heart by the mere direct action of God's
Spirit, then the election of those who are to be saved does
not depend on the energy with which men work for God,
foreseen by His Avisdom, but is the immediate result of His
own decree, a decree which we can only characterise as
arbitrary. Here once more we find that the difficulties
arise from thinking of God's WUl, apart from His Cha
racter : ' election ' comes to be the bare decision of a will
which is depicted as merely capricious, as having no in
telligible ground of determination. As too there is no
outward sign by which those who are thus elected can be
distinguished from others, the Church of God can no longer
be conceived, as the body of Christ, apparent and working
in the world, bearing His name though unworthhy, but
as a band of individuals with no definite marks of jfellow--
ship, unknown and unrecognisable by all but God alone.
And apart from all the danger which may ensue from
neglecting the cUscipline of mind and body that S. Austin
prized, those who rely on the direct action of God's love on
the human soul, or on His more powerful aid through other
means, can attach little real import to the sacraments, and
must either neglect them altogether, or retain them as
harmless if empty ceremonies.
But any of us avIio feel Iioav Aveak after all is our faith
in God's Love extended through His sacraments, how little
we realise the privileges of the Baptized, how dimly we
discern the Lord's Body, Avill have little heart to try and

IV.] THE MEANS OF GRACE. 135
measure the distance Avhich others have gone in disparaging
the means of Grace. Some perhaps trust to God's omni
potent Love, constraining Avithout limit: some dwell on
His Omnipotent Will decreeing without grounds; and
others on His aU-poAverful Spirit working Avithout means.
Let us then each beAvare Iioav we come to reverence the
mere abstraction of some one divine attribute, instead of
the Living God, revealed to us in Jesus Christ and working
in the world through definite ordinances by His Spirit.
Let us pray that God, Who has given us grace by the con
fession of a true faith to acknowledge the glory of the
Eternal Trinity, to keep us stedfast in that faith. Let us
beware of ever resting satisfied vrith meagre thoughts of
God, remembering how many have been turned away from
seeking Him, because they could not really reverence One
Who is said to be arbitrary, even though He be omnipotent.
And if our Uves have been darkened by a sense of this
horror, and we would fain see God as He has revealed
Himself, and not as men have described Him, let us go
to the Bible, but not to the Bible only, lest Ave find there a
mere echo of the discords in our own hearts. Let us turn
too to the Fathers of the Church and see what Christianity
was to them, let us take the Prayer-book and learn what
Christ may be to us, and how He will meet us ; above all,
let us discipUne our minds and bodies, let us offer ourselves,
our souls and bodies to Him, as we kneel to plead the
memorial of the one atoning sacrifice.

EXCURSUS A.
8. Austin and the Observation of Nature, pp. 10, 14, 59.
There are many allusions which enable us to see that S. Austin
was keenly interested in the observation of nature, and attached
great importance to empirical investigations. We may remark
it even in the aptness of his illustrations, — such as that taken from
the gliding of a snake (De Trinitate, xn. 16), the description of a
cock-fight (De Ordine, I. 25), the olive and oleaster (Ep. cxciv.
44), and the nightingale's song (De Ver. Rei. 79). Throughout
his writing one feels that all the pictures are true to nature and
drawn by one who had a keen eye for what was happening around
him. But he was not a mere observer, he was inclined to speculate
on the reasons of things. The cock-fight gives him a considerable
fund for speculation ; his difficulty about the oleaster is propounded
to the husbandman ; and in another passage (De Civ. Dei, xxi.
vii. 2) he mentions a whole series of perplexities in regard to
natural phenomena that had come under his ovm observation, as
well as others of which he had been credibly informed.
The most interesting of his observations and remarks are those
which are connected with animal life, and the relation of soul
and body. In this respect one may notice especially the long
discussion (De Quantitate Animw, 62 — 68) which arose from his
seeing that a little reptile, which had been cut in two, continued
to move, and to be sensitive in both the dismembered parts. He
refers too to questions as to the memory of swallows in returning

138 S. AUSTIN.
to their old nests, and bases a part of his argument in regard to
the true nature of different human faculties upon these and
similar facts (Contra Ep. Manich. 20). In another passage
he gives us the facts from which he had gathered that fishes
also were possessed of memory (De Genes, ad Lit. ill. 12).
Equally noteworthy are his remarks on the consciousness of an
infant, and its interest in seeing a light (De Trin. xrv. 7), and
again on the nature of vision (De Trin. xi. 4).
Though these psychological inquiries appear to have had a
special attraction for him we have also interesting remarks on
other phenomena as well : an empty jar is really full of air, and
it has a considerable power of resistance (De Anima et Orig. ejus,
iv. 18). The physical science of his day had comparatively
little to do with observation and experiment, and he refers to it
again and again with considerable and not undeserved scorn : but
his whole attitude is not unlike that in which a modern might
speak of the methods of fourth century physicists. He is specially
scornful of the calculations of the magicians and astrologers.
Ad versus eos autem qui nunc appellantur mathematici, volentes
actus nostros corporibus ccelestibus subdere, et nos vendere stellis,
ipsumque pretium, quo vendimur, a nobis accipere, nihil verius
et brevius dici potest, quam eos non respondere, nisi acceptis
constellationibus. In constellationibus autem notari partes,
quales trecentas sexaginta dicunt habere signiferum circulum :
motum autem cceli per unam horam fieri in quindecini partibus,
ut tanta mora quindecim partes oriantur, quantam tenet una
hora. Quae partes singula sexaginta minutas habere dicuntur.
Minutas autem minutarum jam in constellationibus, de quibus
futura prasdicere se dicunt, non inveniunt ; conceptus autem
geminorum quoniam uno concubitu efficitur, attestantibus medi-
cis, quorum disciplina multo est certior atque manifestior, tam
parvo puncto temporis contingit, ut in duas minutas minutarum
non tendatur. Unde ergo in geminis tanta diversitas actionum,
et eventuum, et voluntatum, quos necesse est eanidem constella-
tionem conceptionalem habere, et amborum unam constellationem
dari mathematico, tanquam unius hominis ? (De Divers. Qucest.
LXXXIII. qu. xiv. ). Ad hoc genus pertinent omnes etiam ligatura
atque remedia, quse medicorum quoque disciplina condemnat, sive
in prsecantationibus, sive in quibusdam notis quos characters

OBSERVATION OF NATURE. 139
vocant, sive in quibusque rebus suspendendis atque illigandis, vel
etiam aptandis quodammodo, non ad temperationem corporum,
sed ad quasdam significationes aut occultas, aut etiam manifestas ;
quai mitiore nomine physica vocant, ut quasi non superstitione
implicare, sed natura prodesse videantur : sicut sunt inaures in
summo aurium siugularum, aut de struthiouum ossibus ansulse
in digitis, aut cum tibi dicitur singultienti, ut dextera manu
sinistrum pollieem teneas (De Doctrina Christ, n. 30). The
superstition of the ' mathematicians ' was on the one hand akin to
mere fatalism, and repellent to one who was fully alive to the
reality of human responsibility ; and on the other hand mini
stered to an idle curiosity which was gratified by the marvels
of spectacular exhibitions, and served no useful end1 (Conf.
x. 55). There is indeed one speculation, which he condemns, which
later days have completely established ; but even in regard to the
antipodes the position which he takes is genuinely scientific. He
1 Ritter (Geschichte, vi. 200) quotes this passage without reference to its
context, and argues that S. Austin was in the latter part of his life inclined to
disparage mere secular studies. But it is clear that he is condemning
inquiries which modern science also completely discards. In so far as the
passage in De Trin. xiv. 3 depreciates knowledge, it clearly applies to these
superstitions, as the whole Chapter argues for the prosecution of rational
knowledge, in which the faithful were too often deficient. The remaining
passage to which Ritter refers (Enchiridion, ix.), asserts that a knowledge of
the things that concern his salvation suffices for the Christian man and that it
is unnecessary for him to penetrate the mysteries of nature in regard to
which students often differ, and about which they attain to opinion rather
than rational knowledge. It is difficult to see any evidence here of a
disparagement of scientific investigation, in the face of the evidence of his
own continued interest, and the strong expressions he uses as to its value.
Et quoniam de auctoritatis benefieentia, quantum in praesentia satis visum
est, locuti sumus ; videamus quatenus ratio possit progredi a visibilibus ad
invisibilia, et a temporalibus ad seterna conscendens. Non enim frustra et
inaniter intueri oportet pulchritudinem coeli, ordinem siderum, candorem
lucis, dierum et noctium vicissitudines, lunae menstrua curricula, anni
quadrifariam temperationem, quadripartitis elementis congruentem, tantam
vim seminum species numerosque gignentium, et omnia in suo genere modum
proprium naturamque servantia. In quorum consideratione non vana et
peritura curiositas exercenda est, sed gradus ad immortalia et semper
manentia faciendus (De Ver. Eel. 52).

140 S. AUSTIN.
does not attempt to prejudge the empirical enquiry by Scriptural
assertions : and in a matter of this kind we need pay far less
attention to the results he obtained than to the steps by which
he reached them. The real measure of the intelligence of a
fourth century writer lies in the grounds on which he based his
opinion not in the actual opinion itself. S. Austin did not
believe in the existence of human beings at the antipodes, — not
because he denied the rotundity of the earth, but because he
denied that even if the earth were round it was necessarily
inhabited by men, and because he regarded it as inconceivable
that the descendants of the first pair should have traveUed there.
He holds that the Scriptural astronomy is confirmed, but he
argues the question on empirical grounds, in exactly the same
way as men might now discuss the existence of inhabitants in the
moon, or in Jupiter1. His view in regard to the whole matter
is stated at length in the treatise in which he discusses various
branches of human knowledge and shows their bearing on the
interpretation of Scripture. It brings out very clearly the nature
1 He does assume that mankind sprang from a single pair as Scripture
asserts. Quod vero et Antipodas esse fabulantur, id est, homines a contraria
parte terras, ubi sol oritur, quando oecidit nobis, adversa pedibus nostris
calcare vestigia, nulla ratione credendum est. Neque hoc ulla historica
cognitione didicisse se affirmant, sed quasi ratiocinando conjectant, eo quod
intra convexa coeli terra suspensa sit, eumdemque locum mundus habeat, et
infimum, et medium : et ex hoc opinantur alteram terras partem, quas infra
est, habitatione hominum carere non posse. Nee attendunt, etiamsi figura
conglobata et rotunda mundus esse credatur, sive aliqua ratione monstretur;
non tamen esse consequens, ut etiam ex ilia parte ab aquarum congerie nuda
sit terra : deinde etiamsi nuda sit, neque hoc statim necesse esse, ut homines
habeat. Quoniam nullo modo Scriptura ista mentitur, quas narratis prasteri-
tis facit fidem, eo quod ejus prasdicta complentur : nimisque absurdum est,
ut dicatur aliquos homines ex hac in illam partem, Oceani immensitate
trajeeta, navigare ac pervenire potuisse, ut etiam illic ex uno illo primo
homine genus institueretur humanum. Quapropter inter illos tunc hominum
populos, qui per septuaginta duas gentes et totidem linguas colliguntur
fuisse divisi, quasramus, si possumus invenire illam in terris peregrinantem
civitatem Dei, quas usque ad diluvium arcamque perduota est, atque in filiis
Noe per eorum benediotiones perseverasse monstratur, maxime in maximo,
qui est appellatus Sem : quandoquidem Japheth ita benedietus est, ut in
ejusdem fratris sui domibus habitaret. Civ. Dei, xvi. ix. Compare Plin.
Hist. Nat. n. 65. Lactantius, Instit. in. 24.

OBSERVATION OF NATURE. 141
of the science falsely so called against which he protested, and
the value he attached to the genuine study of natural science ',
as well as to the masterpieces of classical literature 2.
1 Siderum autem cognoscendorum non narratio, sed demonstratio est,
quorum perpauca Scriptura commemorat. Sicut autem plurimis notus est
lunas cursus, qui etiam ad passionem Domini anniversarie celebrandam
solemniter adhibetur; sic paucissimis casterorum quoque siderum vel ortus,
vel occasus, vel alia quaslibet momenta sine ullo sunt errore notissima.
Quas per seipsam cognitio, quanquam superstitione non alliget, non multum
tamen ac prope nihil adjuvat tractationem divinarum Scripturarum, et
infructuosa intentione plus impedit ; et quia familiaris est perniciosissimo
errori fatua fata cantantium, commodius honestiusque contemnitur. Habet
autem praster demonstrationem prassentium, etiam prasteritorum narrationi
simile aliquid, quod a prassenti positione, motuque siderum, et in prasterita
eorum vestigia regulariter licet recurrere. Habet etiam futurorum regulares
conjecturas, non suspiciosas et ominosas, sed ratas et certas ; non ut ex eis
aliquid trahere in nostra facta et eventa tentemus, qualia genethliacorum
deliramenta sunt, sed quantum ad ipsa pertinet sidera. Nam sicut is qui
computat lunam, cum hodie inspexerit quota sit, et ante quotlibet annos
quota fuerit, et post quotlibet annos quota futura sit potest dicere ; sic de
unoquoque siderum, qui ea perite computant, respondere consueverunt. De
qua tota cognitione, quantum ad usum ejus attinet, quid mihi videretur
aperui. De Doct. Christ, ii. 46.
2 Sed sive ita se habeat quod Varro retulit, sive non ita ; nos tamen non
propter superstitionem profanorum debemus musicam fugere, si quid inde
utile ad intelligendas sanctas Scripturas rapere potuerimus ; nee ad illorum
theatricas nugas converti, si aliquid de citharis et de organis, quod ad
spiritualia capienda valeat, disputemus. Neque enim et litteras discere non
debuimus, quia earum repertorem dicunt esse Mercurium ; aut quia justitias
virtutique templa dediearunt, et quas corde gestanda sunt in lapidibus adorare
malnerunt, propterea nobis justitia virtusque fugienda est : imo vero quisquis
bonus verusque christianus est, Domini sui esse intelligat, ubicumque
invenerit veritatem, quam confitens et agnoscens, etiam in Litteris sacris
superstitiosa figmenta repudiet ; doleatque homines atque caveat, qui
cognoscentes Deum, non ut Deum glorificaverunt, aut gratias egerunt, sed
evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis, et obscuratum est cor insipiens eorum :
dicentes enim se esse sapientes, stulti facti sunt, et immutaverunt gloriam
incorruptibilis Dei in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis, et
volucrum, et quadrupedum, et serpentium. De Doct. Christ, n. 28.

142 S. AUSTIN.
EXCURSUS B.
8. Austin's influence in the Middle Ages. pp. 10, 35, 60.
1. Mode of testing it.
2. The system of Study.
3. Erigena on Reason and Authority.
4. Erigena on Prescience and Predestination.
5. Erigena on Eternal Punishment.
6. S. Anselm.
7. The decline of his influence.
1. It is unfortunate ' that no serious attempt has yet been
made by students of scholastic philosophy to examine the precise
nature of the influence which S. Austin exercised in the middle
ages. I can only attempt to indicate one or two points which
seem to show that both the extent and the value of the influence
he exercised have commonly been underrated.
It has been too much the habit to treat the beginnings of
literary effort in the ninth century as the real starting point from
which the developments of mediaeval thought can be properly
traced. But though a revival of learning becomes apparent
then, we must go much earlier to find the spring in which the
hidden stream really had its source. The schools of Charlemagne
may mark the beginnings of Scholasticism1, but the revived
interest in study was not the immediate occasion of a fresh start
in philosophical investigation : it does not mark a real turning
point in the history of Thought. The whole range of study was
dominated by the influence of the great bishop of Hippo, and the
thinkers of the ninth and tenth centuries may be appropriately
described as the school of S. Austin. That his name carried
great weight has of course been abundantly recognised, and it
would be idle to accumulate eridence on the point. But it would
be worth while to put the question in another form and ask, How
far did the early mediaeval raters consciously discard him, and
1 Haur^au, Histoire de la Phil. Scol. i. 3G.

MIDDLE AGES. 143
strike out some original vein ? How far does their positive
teaching show the influence of any school of thought that is not
congruent with his doctrine ? It is no part of my purpose to
attempt to answer this question fully, and it must suffice for the
present to take one or two alleged cases of independence and
examine them briefly.
2. There is no more difficult question in regard to early
mediaeval studies than that as to the origin of the common
division of the Arts and Sciences. It has been ascribed to
S. Austin, but on mistaken grounds, for the Dialectic in which
M. Bartheleniy Saint-Hilaire traced it, was not from his pen.
But for all that, without ascribing to him the first suggestion of this
famous division, one may at least say that the founders of an
educational system in the dark ages might well feel that the
arrangement was in complete accordance with his views. Haureau '
dismisses the question of the Augustinian recognition of this
distinction with the hasty discussion of a phrase2 to which
Brucker3 had called attention, but it would have been worth while
to examine the careful discussion of the different sciences which
occupies the latter chapters of the second book De Ordine. Gram
mar, Dialectic and Rhetoric are treated of first of all : the author
then proceeds to extol the higher sciences, which afterwards formed
the Quadrivium. Music, Geometry, and Astronomy are treated
in turn, and though Arithmetic is not enumerated with the others,
it is by no means ignored in his discussion of liberal studies :
for S. Austin it is the very type of intellectual knowledge, and as
such was discussed in another portion of the same book, while at
every turn stress is laid on the close connexion between numbers
and each of the special branches of knowledge. Whether founded
on it or not, the mediaeval scheme of education is in complete
harmony Avith the Augustinian classification of knowledge.
3. Johannes Scotus Erigena is the most striking figure, the
most learned and independent of all ninth century authors, and
1 Histoire de la Phil. Scol. I. 22.
2 Cum enim artes illas omnes liberales, partim ad usum vitas, partim ad
cognitionem rerum contemplationemque discantur. De Ordine, n. 44.
¦'¦ Hist. Crit. Phil. in. 957.

144 S. AUSTIN.
his relations to S. Austin wiU therefore well repay a brief exami
nation in connexion with the special point before us. Modern
writers have been inclined to bestow on him a somewhat indis
criminate praise. "C'eiait un penseur libre et original, celui
qui osait dire : L'autorite' est derivee de la raison, nuUement la
raison de l'autorite '." But even here he was only following the
suggestions thrown out by S. Austin, who was to almost the
same extent un libre penseur du monde nouveau, and who gave us
the phrase, Tempore auctoritas, re autem ratio prior est2. Erigena
does indeed sometimes express the ideas which are common
to both more tersely and forcibly, and sum up in a sentence the
result of a paragraph of S. Austin's, but in the whole treatment
of reason and authority there is comparatively little difference
between the two.
Reuter3 recognises the Augustinian influence on Erigena far
more fully than most recent writers, but he singles out" one sentence
as distinctly original. Vera enim auctoritas rectae rationi non
obsistit, neque recta ratio verae auctoritati. Ambo siquidem ex
uno fonte, divina videlicet sapientia, manare dubium non est s. But
though there is nothing so epigrammatic in S. Austin's treatment
of the subject, he really expressed the same opinion as to the
complete harmony and similar origin of reason and authority.
Nulli autem dubium est gemino pondere nos impelli ad
discendum, auctoritatis atque rationis. Mihi autem certum est
nusquam prorsus a Christi auctoritate discedere : non enim
reperio valentiorem. Quod autem subtilissima ratione perse-
quendum est; ita enim jam sum affeetus, ut quid sit verum, non
1 Rousselot. Phil, dans le moyen dge, i. 44.
2 De Ordine, n. 26.
Unde igitur exordiar? ab auctoritate, an a ratione? Naturas quidem
ordo ita se habet, ut cum aliquid discimus, rationem prascedat auctoritas.
Nam infirma ratio videri potest, quas cum reddita fuerit, auctoritatem postea,
per quam firmetur, assumit. Sed quia caligantes hominum mentes consue-
tudine tenebrarum, quibus in nocte peccatorum vitiorumque velantur, per-
spicuitati sinceritatique rationis aspectum idoneum intendere nequeunt;
saluberrime comparatum est, ut in lucem veritatis aciem titubantem veluti
ramis humanitatis opacata inducat auctoritas. De Moribus Eccl. 3.
s Geschichte der religiijsen AtifkUirung im Uittelalter, i. 41 and 277,
note 2.
i Ibid. 52. 5 De Divis. Natural, i. 66 (Migne, exxu. 511).

MIDDLE AGES. 145
credendo solum, sed etiam intelligendo apprehendere impatienter
desiderem ; apud Platonicos me interim quod sacris nostris non
repugnet reperturum esse confido. Contra Acad. in. 43.
Duplex enim est via quam sequimur, cum rerum nos obscuritas
movet ; aut rationem, aut certe auctoritatem. Philosophia ra
tionem promittit, et vix paucissimos liberat : quos tamen non
modo noi* contemnere ilia mysteria, sed sola intelligere, ut intel-
ligenda sunt, cogit. NuUumque aliud habet negotium, quae vera,
et, ut ita dicam, germana philosophia est, quam ut doceat quod
sit omnium rerum principium sine principio, quantusque in eo
maneat inteUectus, quidve inde in nostram salutem sine ulla
degeneratione manaverit : quem unum Deum omnipotentem
eumque tripotentem, Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum sanctum,
docent veneranda mysteria, quae fide sincera et inconcussa populos
liberant. De Ordine, n. 16.
Quanquam pudet imbecillitatis, cum rationi roborandae
hominum auctoritas quaeritur, cum ipsius rationis ac veritatis auc
toritate, quae profecto est omni homine melior, nihil deberet esse
praestantius. De Musica, v. 10.
The sole point of difference appeared to arise when Erigena went
further and not only proclaimed the harmony of true reason and
true authority but the identity of religion and philosophy : and
even for this he supported himself by a reference to S. Austin's De
Vera Religione. For this view he was taken to task by Pruden-
tius1 and it need not now be discussed : it is sufficiently obvious,
as S. Austin contends more than once, that the two are so far
distinct that truth in the form of religious teaching may be
apprehended by those who cannot grasp it in the form of philo
sophical discussions.
4. In regard to the vexed question of predestination, in which
he followed S. Austin's De Libero Arbitrio very closely, there is
one important divergence. As the Benedictine editors note2, he
taught that predestination and prescience were one and the same,
thus ignoring the distinction examined above (p. 90, note 4).
He reached this result in a somewhat curious way. He accepts
1 In Maguin, Veterum Auctorum, i. De Pmdest. contra J. Scot. 1.
2 Migne, cxxii. 348.
C. 10

146 S. AUSTIN.
from Dionysius the doctrine that all things exist in the divine
mind, that things are, in so far as God thinks them ; Divinus
itaque animus nullum malum nullamque malitiam norit. Nam
si nosset, substantialiter extitissent neque causa carerent. Jam
vero et causa carent, ac per hoc in numero conditarum natura-
rum essentialiter non sunt, ideoque omnino divina alienantur
notitia1. The unreality of evil is asserted in a new and
more startling form.
Since then God cannot know evil men and angels, and the
transgressors of divine laAV, He cannot design or think their
increasing eril and punishment2 ; there can be no divine repro
bation, but only predestination to life. His argument against
Gotteschalk really turns on this point ; that from the very consti
tution of the divine nature there cannot be a double, but only one
true and sole dirine predestination3. Condemnation thus occurs
without divine design, because -without divine knowledge. It is
unnecessary to show that this is not an Augustinian doctrine : it
really came from Greek writers, Avhose influence on Erigena was
so strikingly marked4.
5. There is one other point on which Erigena appears to
break away from S. Austin altogether: he again follows Greek
writers, and is commonly referred to as one who pronounced
against the eternity of future punishment5. He did indeed differ
from S. Austin in this matter, but not to the extent that has
been generally asserted. The question was not as to the eternity
but the materiality of future pain : in the work on Predestination
(c. xi.) his language is somewhat undecided, though even here
Prudentius saw that he argued for an undying feeling rather than
an indestructible substance6, and thus departed from the original
sense of the passages which he quoted from S. Austin. In the
1 De Divis. Natura, v. 27 (Migne, cxxn. 925).
2 0 miranda, imo dolenda cascitas eorum qui e contrario intelligere
nolunt, si quando in divina, seu humana legerint auctoritate, Deum
prassciisse vel prasdestinasse peccata, mortem, supplicia, quas penitus nihil
sunt, quia defectus sunt. De Prcedest. xi. 5 (Migne, 396, 7).
3 De Prcedestinatione, cc. ii, in, iv.
4 Baur, Die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, n. 203, 263.
* R. L. Poole, Illustrations of the History of Medieval Thought, 60, 71.
" Maguin, Veterum Auctorum, i. 545.

MIDDLE AGES. 147
last book of the De Divisione Natures, however, the subject is
treated much more explicitly. He discards entirely the idea of
materiality in future punishment1, — a point in regard to which
S. Austin showed some hesitation, but was decided by his desire
not to depart unnecessarily from the letter of Scripture. But
Erigena does hold that the defect which sin introduces into the
nature of men and angels will continue eternally. Differences
will eternally subsist : all attain to paradise but not all to the
enjoyment of the true life, which is Christ2. Thus there may
be extreme differences among those Avho are together in the place
of the dead.
Beati sunt, qui adyta intrant sapientiae, quae est Christus ;
1 Hasc enim omnia tormentorum nomina figurate in sacra Scriptura
posita sunt, sancto Ambrosio attestante, graseisque vocabulis, quas, ut
prasdiximus, expressius informant, quid divina Scriptura inferni nomine
insinuat. "AiSr/s quippe dicitur, hoc est, ut paulo superius expositum,
absque deliciis, vel absque voluptatibus, vel iusuavitas. Item \viry vocatur
cujus interpretatio est tristitia, vel masror vel luctus. "Axos quoque solet
appellari, hoc est desperationis gravitas, quas demersas oppressasque malas
cupiditates, egestate temporalium rerum, quas in hac vita intemperanter
concupiverant, afflictas veluti in profundissimam quandam voraginem, inque
vanaram phantasiarum rerum sensibilium caligines in quibus cruciantur,
obruit, divinasque sententias incommutabili mole perpetualiter calcatas et
irrevocabiliter contemptas. Quas cunctas significationes apud Grascos infernum
cum omnibus suis suppliciis non esse localem vel temporalem vel sensibilem,
seu in aliqua parte quattuor elementorum, quibus mundus iste constituitur,
neque in toto ipsius constitutum, sed quiddam lugubre lacrimabileque,
gravemque, desperationis plenum inevitabilemque carcerem, omniumque
bonorum egestatem in phantasticis vanissimisque visionibus incunctanter
prominciant. De Divis. Nat. v. 36 (Migne 971).
2 Aliud enim est in paradisum redire, aliud de ligno vitas comedere. Legi
mus quippe, primum hominem, ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei factum, in
paradiso positiun fuisse, sed non legimus eum de ligno vitas comedisse. Esus
siquidem prohibiti ligni prasoecupatus, dulcedine ligni vitas est expulsus :
futurum quippe erat ei de ligno vitas edere, si divinis prasceptis voluisset
parere : feliciter tamen vixisset, etiam priusquam de ligno vitas comederet,
si absque mora, postquam creatus est, non peccaret. Ubi datur intelligi,
quod tota nostra natura, quas generaliter vocabulo hominis ad imaginem et
similitudinem Dei facti significatur, in paradisum, hoc est, in pristinam
conditionis suas dignitatem reversura sit, in his autem solummodo, qui
deificatione digni sunt, ligni vitas fructum participabit. Ligni autem vitas
quod est Christus, fructus est beata vita, pax asterna in contemplatione
verifatis quas proprie dicitur deificatio. De Divis. Nat. v. 36 (Migne, 979).
10^2

148 S. AUSTIN.
qui accedunt in obscurissimas tenebras excellentissimae lucis, in
qua simul in causis suis vident omnia, ubi non locorum vel tem
porum intervalla bonos a malis, sed meritorum distantia segregat ;
non quantitas et pulchritudo corporum, sed honestas et magnitudo
virtutum laudatur ; non personarum, sed morum dignitas et
nobilitas quaeritur : una omnibus communis natura, diversa autem
gratia ; ubi omnes simul sunt, et simul non sunt, simul sunt
similitudine substantiarum, simul non sunt dissimilitudine affec-
tuum. Simul erant dives et Abraham, in spiritualibus substan-
tiis, quas una eademque humana colligit et inseparabiliter jungit
essentia, sed non simul erant per differentiam spiritualium quali-
tatum. Chasm a magnum inter eos erat : Abraham quippe in
aeterna quiete gaudebat, dives in flumine inextinguibili lugebat :
propterea Aadit dives de longe Abraham. Quis verbis potest
exprimere, quantum interstitii est inter laetitiam et tristitiam,
etiam in hac vita, quanto magis in altera, in qua nulla tristitia
sequetur justorum laetitiam, neque ulla laetitia sequetur impiorum
tristitiam, divina sententia dignas singulis incommutabiliter attri-
buente retributiones ! Et hoc est chasma magnum et imper-
meabilis hiatus, dividens inter praemia et supplicia. Dives tamen
non de longe sed juxta ad Abraham loquebatur, ut intelligas,
eum non natura segregatum fuisse ab Abraham, sed culpa.
Una siquidem essentia jungit, quos meritum dissimile dividit.
Paulo priusquam Dominus pateretur simul in uno ccenaculo
Judas Iscariotes et Simon Petrus cum Christo ccenabant, sed unus
juxta Christum, alter longe erat a Christo. Unus qui cum
Christo intingebat manum in paropsidem, humanitatis Christi
erat traditor, alter qui non legitur intinxisse manum cum Christo
in paropsidem, divinitatis Christi erat contemplator ; unus avarus
vendidit hominem Deum, alter theologus cognovit Deum homi
nem, unus osculo corporis corpus tradidit, alter osculo mentis
divinam mentem dilexit. Hoc autem dico, ut cognoscas, quod
non locorum intervalla, sed meritorum qualitates faciunt homi
nem appropinquare Christo, aut ab eo elongari. Hinc datur
intelligi, omnes homines unius ejusdemque naturae, quae in Christo
redempta est omnique servitute, sub qua adhuc congemiscit et
dolet, liberata, participes esse, et in ea unum omnes subsistere :
meritorum vero qualitates et quantitates, hoc est, bonorum
actuum malorumque differentias, quibus unusquisque in hac vita

MIDDLE AGES. 149
bene vixit adjutus Deo per gratiam, seu male desertus Deo per
justi tiara, longe a se invicem et multipliciter et in infinitum dis-
parari, omnia autem hsec in ilia una et amplissima domo ordinari
et comprehendi, in qua respublica universitatis a Deo et in Deo
conditae per multas diversasque dispensatur mansiones, hoc est,
meritorum et gratiarum ordinationes. De Divis. Nat. v. 36
(Migne 983).
This passage is quoted from the long discussion as to how far
the doctrine of eternal punishment is consistent with that belief in
the restoration of all things on which Erigena also strongly insists.
Jam video undique me captum, nullamque rationem reperire, qua
possim astruere, malitiam mortemque ac miseriam in humanitate
aut in tota aut in aliqua parte ejus dominaturam perpetuoque
permansuram, quoniam in Verbo Dei, quod earn totam in
unitatem suae substantiae suscepit, universaliter et redempta et
liberata est ; ac per hoc rectae ratiocinationis virtute superatus
cogor fateri, totam humanitatem in omnibus earn participantibus
liberandam, omnibusque malitiae vinculis mortisque atque miseriae
absolvendam, quando in suas causas, quae in suo Salvatore sub-
sistunt, reversura est. De Divis. Nat. v. 27 (Migne 927). Those
who assert that he gave up the doctrine of the eternity of pun
ishment rely on this and similar passages ; but apparently in
Erigena' s view mors and miser ia were evil, but tristitia was not.
There may be a godly sorrow ; such sorrow is not an evil, and
its continuance is according to his doctrine quite consistent with
the restoration of aU things. This doctrine is at least easy to
grasp as compared with S. Austin's doctrine of the persisting har
mony and perfection of the universe, both now, and in the future.
It is of course clear that he here departs from the doctrine of
S. Austin ; though he defends himself against the charge of doing
so with ingenious special pleading1. On one other point also he
discards him — as to the nature of humanity before the Fall2.
But in neither instance can he be said to disregard the authority
of this father, but only to try and reconcile his doctrine with that
of S. Ambrose or S. Gregory in regard to points where they
differed. The positive influence of S. Austin is apparent on almost
i De Diois. Nat. v. 37 (Migne 991).
2 De Divis. Nat. iv. 14 (Migne 804).

150 S. AUSTIN.
every page, though recent commentators have failed to recog
nise it. The striking sentence, Clare perspicis Deum nullam
creaturam, quam fecit, punire * * sed quod non fecit in omnibus
punit1, is ascribed by himself to Augustinian2 influence, not as
by Christlieb to that of Dionysius. The same writer is almost
equally bold in claiming for Erigena3 an independent discovery of
Descartes' doctrine of certainty, or S. Anselm's credo ut intelligam,
when both are so frequently found in the writings of S. Austin.
6. The influence of S. Austin is perhaps most perfectly
reflected in the -writings of S. Anselm4, though here again there
are considerable differences in the form of expression. S. Austin
-wrote with a practical bearing, stating a principle and hurrying on
to its application, almost regardless of the form of his argument,
with interruptions and repetitions. But S. Anselm had to set
himself to give oral instruction in its clearest form to the brethren
of his order ; and thus his treatment is careful and systematic
throughout. We may remember too that the dialectic art was
carefully studied in his time by a master, and we shall see at once
that it was necessary for his purpose and in his day that the old
truths should be presented in a new form. And one may readily
admit that in many cases the old truths gained by being re-cast ; if
there is much interest in noticing the occasional character of
S. Austin's Avritings there can be little doubt that his doctrine
loses something in force and in clearness from the various modes
of expression he adopted at different times and from the want of
system in his treatment. S. Anselm was far more systematic in
the mode of expression, but it is the old doctrine after all that re
appears — the old doctrine in all its completeness. We have once
more the union of scholastic and mystic lines of thought — the
scholastic argument of the Cur Deus Homo, and the mysticism
of the Proslogion.
The ontological proof of the Divine existence has often been
claimed as an original effort of the genius of S. Anselm, but
Hasse5 A?ho has urged this most strongly can hardly have
1 De Divis. Nat. v. 27 (Migne, 927). 2 De Gen. ad Lit. xi. 28.
3 Leben und Lehre des J. S. Erig., pp. 287, 418, 436.
4 The 'alter Augustinus' of the middle ages. Hasse, n. 32.
6 Anselm v. Canterbury, n. 240.

MIDDLE AGES. 151
compared those passages to which S. Anselm refers in urging that
his Monologion is not new, and has overlooked the extent to
which ontological elements are present in S. Austin's various
statements on this subject. S. Anselm has separated out the
cosmological argument in the Monologion from the ontological in
the Proslogion, and by so doing has rendered both clearer: the
hours of pious contemplation which he devoted to setting forth
this train of thought have indeed conferred a priceless boon on
subsequent ages of Christian thought. But the ontological argu
ment, from our thought of God to His Existence is completely
implied in passages of that book De Trinitate1 which S. Anselm
specially studied2 as well as in others of S. Austin's -writings3.
It Avould be beside the mark to enter here on any discussion as
to the precise validity of this proof : but one may note in passing
that since it is an argument from my idea of God, its force must
greatly depend on the nature of the idea I have. For the mere
deist it will have none ; he must first be convinced as S. Anselm
tries to show, that his thought of God is inadequate4 ; and then
the proof ceases to be a mere paralogism5.
While then S. Anselm Avas not entirely original in the
substance of his argument, though his way of putting it is
entirely his own, there is another point of theology in regard to
which he does seem to have struck out an independent line.
S. Austin only once, I believe, uses the word satisfacere in
connexion Avith human sin (Sermo cccli. 12), and there he insists
that it is necessary that the sinner should not only change his
mode of life, but ' make amends' to God by the grief of peni
tence, by the sigh of humility, by the sacrifice of a contrite
heart, accompanied by almsgiving. This is an entirely different
conception of satisfaction from that Avhich occurs throughout the
1 Bk viii. Cf. van Endert, Gottesbeioeis, 153.
2 Quapropter, si cui videbitur quod in eodem opusculo aliquid protulerim,
quod aut nimis novum sit, aut a veritate dissentiat, rogo ne statim me aut
prassumptorem novitatum, aut falsitatis assertorem exclamet ; sed prius
libros prasfati doctoris Augustini de Trinitate diligenter perspiciat, deinde
secundum eos opusculum meum dijudicet. Monologion, Preface.
3 Lib. Arb. ii. 11—39. Bitter, vi. 280 n. Gangauf, Spec. Lehre, 81.
4 Proslogion, cc. ii. iv.
5 Hegel, Phil, der Rei. n. 209. For an excellent and brief statement on
the subject see Caird, Phil, of Rei. 153.

152 S. AUSTIN.
Cur Deus Homo. How far S. Anselm was adopting the ordinary
legal language of the time, we need not pause to consider, but
the doctrine of the atonement as it was shaped by him and com
monly held since his day, was not the doctrine of S. Austin.
7. These are the chief points in regard to which it has been
argued that any writer of the early middle ages had broken away
from the Augustinian tradition : but more careful consideration
seems to show that for seven hundred years his modes of thought,
and the opinions he held were not so much dominant as supreme.
A few words may be added with regard to the decline of his
influence. The subject of dialectic had undoubtedly proved advantageous
in enabling men to Avrite in more systematic form, — as Ave have
seen in the case of S. Anselm, but it Avas eventually pursued with
more zeal than discretion. It is curious to note hoAV from holding
a subordinate place in the trivium, the dialectic art came to
attract a chief share of intellectual activity till in the twelfth
century it absorbed all other interests. John of Salisbury com
plains when reAdsiting his former class-fellows at S. Genevieve "that
whereas dialectic furthers other studies, so if it remain by itself it
lies bloodless and barren, nor does it quicken the soul to yield
fruit of philosophy, except the same conceive from elsewhere1."
But barren though it might prove, dialectic set the form in which
the problems of philosophy were then raised. The great question
Avas no longer as to the reality of that which I know, but as to
the nature of that which I use in discussion and exposition.
This was the beginning of the reaction against the dominance
of S. Austin : he ceased to command attention by his philosophy.
The problem of certainty, which he had discussed, did not attract
much interest; and on the nature of universals he had little
if any light to give. Before this dialectical fervour arose, the
great problems of nature and the world presented themselves in
forms in which he could help to give a solution, but on the
special problem of the Scholastic philosophy he had little to say :
his language had an affinity with the views of the realists, but he
could furnish them with few weapons, and the nominalists dis-
1 Quoted by E. L. Poole, Illustrations, 212.

MIDDLE AGES. 153
carded him altogether. He thus ceased to dominate in mediaeval
philosophy and his place as an authority was taken by Aristotle.
There are two most important points of a theological doctrine1
which Avere undoubtedly affected by this change. Scholastic
Aristotelianism furnished those conceptions of Substance and
Accident, which lent themselves to supply a metaphysical explana
tion of the doctrine of the real presence : and it framed a doctrine
of the will which laid stress on mere indifferentism rather than
rational freedom. ^Neither of these doctrines are Augustinian,
but both of tbem came to be incorporated in the orthodox
doctrine of the Latin Church. In the time of S. Thomas Aquinas,
the philosophy of Aristotle was once more asserting its sway : de
based and disguised as it was by translators and commentators it
yet gave the form in which theological doctrine was cast. There
were some in England who held aloof : Roger Bacon, Robert of
Lincoln, and Thomas Bradwardine were not carried away by this
enthusiasm, but on the Continent and at length in England the
new philosophy was completely triumphant. S. Austin was still
studied and quoted ; but he only furnished extracts to deck out
the peripatetic scholasticism, not the whole body of doctrine.
His opinions were forced by the schoolman into a setting which
he jiajL-distpfitly disavowed. There waTT indeed" one English
theologian who more than any of the other doctors of his time
influenced popular thought : though Wyclif was a Thomist and
familiar with the current philosophy of his time, he became
more and more attached to the study of theology and of the
tlreology of S. Austin. His doctrines of the Being of God, and of
the " Incarnation are both according to Mr ~Shirley2 definitely
Augustinian : the same careful editor finds that the doctrine of
Dominion, when stripped of its paradoxical form, is also completely
congruous with S. Austin's teaching 3; and apparently the same
1 For divergences on other theological points see van Endert.
2 Shirley's Introduction to Zizaniorum Fasciculi, liv. His adversaries
endeavoured to prove that Wyclif's doctrine was not based on that of the
fathers, but on Plotinus, Hermes Trismegistus and other non-Christian
writers. This of itself shows that he was more in sympathy with S. Austin's
Platonism than most contemporary Thomists could possibly be. Thom.
A\raldensis, Doctrinale, i. xxxiv.
3 See below Excursus G, § 6, p. 193.

154 S. AUSTIN.
might be said of the doctrine of the Eucharist. Considering the
extraordinary influence which was exercised at home and abroad
by one whom his disciples spoke of as specially Augustinian1, it
is interesting to remember from what source his inspiration Avas
drawn. The unqualified condemnation of Wyclif, however far it may
have been justified on political and other grounds, could hardly
have taken place unless the current philosophy had undermined
the influence of S. Austin. The spirit of the age too demanded
other changes— not only the discussion of the special philosophical
problem of these days, but social and political life was very different
from that in which S. Austin had lived. The political doctrine
of S. Thomas and of Wyclif alike is strongly affected by feudal
conceptions ; new orders, new rites, new aspirations had come into
being, and in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the teaching
of the Bishop of Hippo seems to have fallen more and more
into the background : his works furnished a quarry from which
fragments could be drawn, but he was no longer the great
master spirit who presided over the whole structure.

EXCURSUS C.
Knowledge of Greek, p. 42.
The frequent references to Greek words and phrases, as well
as the considerable knowledge of Greek philosophical writers
Avhich one finds in S. Austin's writings, seem at first sight diffi
cult to reconcile Avith the statement in the Confessions, as to
his unwillingness to learn that language. Cur ergo graecam
etiam grammaticam oderam talia cantantem ? Nam et Homerus
peritus texere tales fabellas, et dulcissime vanus est, et mihi
tamen amarus erat puero. Credo etiam graecis pueris Virgilius
1 Et forsan hac audaoi pompa confisi sui discipuli vocabant eum famoso
et elato nomine Joannem Augustini. Thorn. Waldensis, Doctrinale, I.
xxxiv. § 5.

KNOWLEDGE OP GREEK. 155
ita sit, cum eum sic discere coguntur, ut ego ilium. Videlicet
difficultas, omnino ediscendae peregrinae linguae, quasi felle asper-
gebat omnes suavitates graecas fabulosarum narrationum. Nulla
enim verba iUa noveram, et saevis terroribus ac pcenis ut nossem
instabatur mihi vehementer. Conf. I. 23. But there are several
passages Avhich show that though he was afterwards able to
understand and use the Greek language, he was never thoroughly
familiar with it. Quod si ea quae legimus de his rebus, sufncienter
edita in latino sermone aut non sunt, aut non inveniuntur, aut
certe difficile a nobis inveniri queunt, graecae autem linguae non
sit nobis tantus habitus, ut talium rerum libris legendis et intel-
ligendis uUo modo reperiamur idonei, quo genere litterarum ex
iis quae nobis pauca interpretata sunt, non dubito cuncta quae
utiliter quaerere possumus contineri. De Trin. in. 1. We need
not therefore be surprised to find that he preferred to use trans
lations out of Greek Avhen he had the opportunity of doing so.
Compare the Confessions, vii. 13, quoted above, page 42 note.
Petimus ergo, et nobiscum petit omnis Africanarum Ecclesiarum
studiosa societas, ut interpretandis eorum libris, qui graece Scrip-
turas nostras quam optime tractaverunt, curam atque operam
impendere non graveris. Potes enim efficere ut nos quoque
habeamus tales illos viros, et unum potissimum, quem tu libentius
in tuis litteris sonas. Ep. xxviii. (Hieronymo), 2.
It is sufficiently clear therefore that his knowledge of Greek
Philosophy (see especially De Civ. Dei, viii., x.) was chiefly
obtained through translations ; for Plato he relied on Victorinus.
But it would be a mistake to assume too hastily that because
he preferred to use translations he was as entirely ignorant of
Greek as he appears to have been of Hebrew. Clausen has
investigated the matter with care (A. A. Hippo. 8. Script.
Interpres, 1826, pp. 30 — 40) on the only satisfactory method, by
examining the actual use he makes of Greek in his wirings. He
comes to a conclusion which is quite in accordance with S.
Austin's oato language, that though he was not an accurate scholar
he had a working knowledge of Greek. One may note a single
instance to show that he attempted to carry on critical studies.
Verum Scripturarum sanctarum multiplicem copiam scrutatus,
invenio scriptum esse in libro Job, eodem sancto viro loquente :
Ecce pietas est sapientia; abstinere autem a malis est scientia

156 S. AUSTIN.
(Job xxvin. 28). In hac differentia intelligendum est ad
contemplationem sapientiam, ad actionem scientiam pertinere.
Pietatem quippe hoc loco posuit Dei cultum, quae graece dicitur
Oeoo-efitia. Nam hoc verbum habet ista sententia in codicibus
graecis. De Trin. xn. 22. At any rate he fully recognised the
value of such scholarship. Tum vero, facta quadam familiaritate
cum ipsa lingua divinarum Scripturarum, in ea quae obscura sunt
aperienda et discutienda pergendum est, ut ad obscuriores locu-
tiones illustrandas de manifestioribus sumantur exempla, et quae
dam certarum sententiarum testimonia dubitationem incertis
auferant....Nunc de incognitis agimus, quorum duae formae sunt,
quantum ad verba pertinet. Namque aut ignotum verbum facit
haerere lectorem, aut ignota locutio. Quae si ex alienis linguis
veniunt, aut quaerenda sunt ab earum linguarum hominibus, aut
eaedem lingua, si et otium est et ingenium, ediscendae, aut
plurium interpretum consulenda collatio est. Si autem ipsius
linguae nostrae aliqua verba locutionesque ignoramus, legendi
consuetudine audiendique innotescunt. Nulla sane sunt magis
mandanda memoriae, quam ilia verborum locutionumque genera
quae ignoramus ; ut cum vel peritior occurrerit de quo quaeri possint,
vel talis lectio quae vel ex praecedentibus vel consequentibus vel
utrisque ostendat quam vim habeat, quidve significet quod igno
ramus, facile adjuvante memoria possimus advertere et discere.
Quanquam tanta est vis consuetudinis etiam ad discendum, ut
qui in Scripturis Sanctis quodammodo nutriti educatique sunt,
magis alias locutiones mirentur, easque minus latinas putent,
quam illas quas in Scripturis didicerunt, neque in latinae linguae
auctoribus reperiuntur. Plurimum hie quoque juvat interpretum
numerositas collatis codicibus inspecta atque discussa ; tantum
absit falsitas : nam codicibus emendandis primitus debet invigi-
lare solertia eorum qui Scripturas divinas nosse desiderant, ut
emendatis non emendati cedant, ex uno duntaxat interpretationis
genere venientes. De Doct. Christ. II. 14, 21.

AUTHORITY AND INTERPRETATION OE SCRIPTURE. 157
EXCURSUS D.
Hie Authority and Interpretation of Scripture, pp. 10, 35, 56, 58.
1. Eternal Truth.
2. The Bible and the Church.
3. How is a conflict between ' Reason ' and ' Authority ' possible ?
4. False pretensions to Authority and the limits of Empirical Opinion.
5. The Interpretation of Authority.
6. The conditions for apprehending Bible Truth.
1. It is exceedingly difficult to appraise the precise authority
which S. Austin attributed to Holy Scripture ; but it may at
least be worth while to state a few of the questions which are
involved and thus get an approximation to his view, even though
we cannot hope to do more than this.
We may of course take for granted that he recognised in the
Bible a revelation of truth, not the Truth itself. The Eternal
Unchanging Reality, Truth, God, is manifested through the
changing phenomena of time1, and has expressed His will in the
word, but all such expressions bring us within the realm of
sense, and away from the Truth itself. The whole argument as
to certainty, and the reality of the divine existence, shows us that
he treats Truth, or Intellectual Principles as the supreme reality.
This is re-iterated as the introduction to an interesting passage
where he discusses the grounds of the Christian faith : Distribui-
tur enim [animae medicina] in auctoritatem atque rationem.
Auctoritas fidem flagitat, et rationi praeparat hominem. Quan-
quam neque auctoritatem ratio penitus deserit, cum consideratur
cui sit credendum ; et certe summa est ipsius jam cognitae atque
perspicuae veritatis auctoritas. Sed quia in temporalia devenimus,
et eorum amore ab aeternis impedimur, quaedam temporalis
medicina, quae non scientes, sed credentes ad salutem vocat, non
naturae et excellentiae sed ipsius temporis ordine prior est. De
Ver. Rei. 45. (Compare also De Utilitate Credendi, 34.) These
1 De Civ. Dei, viii. vi. De Trin. xv. 7. De Vera Religione, 57, 58.

158 S. AUSTIN.
distinctions are pre-supposed in his whole philosophy ; and reap
pear explicitly in the schoolmen who systematised his teaching.
Not only in Erigena1 with his proof that Reason is first in Nature
and that all Authority must depend on Reason, or when S. Anselm
wrote his Proslogion in the expectation that those who believed
the true faith might be led by understanding the reason of the
hope that was in them to the fuller contemplation of God : for it
is at least illustrated by S. Thomas Aquinas when he distinguishes
the Eternal Law, from the Law of Nature, and from Divinely
Revealed Law. Truth is the supreme reahty which is manifested
in Holy Writ, as well as in other ways : authority is the means
by Avhich we may attain to reason. Vide ergo secundum haec
verba tua, ne potius debeas, maxime de hac re in qua praecipue
fides nostra consistit, solam sanctorum auctoritatem sequi, nee
ejus intelligentiae a me quaerere rationem. Neque enim cum
coepero te in tanti hujus secreti intelligentiam utcumque introdu-
cere (quod nisi Deus intus adjuverit, omnino non potero), aliud
disserendo facturus sum, quam rationem ut potero redditurus :
quam si a me, vel a quolibet doctore non irrationabiliter flagitas,
ut quod credis intelligas, corrige definitionem tuam, non ut fidem
respuas, sed ut ea, quae fidei firmitate jam tenes, etiam rationis
luce conspicias. Absit namque ut hoc in nobis Deus oderit, in
quo nos reliquis animantibus excellentiores creavit. Absit,
inquam, ut ideo credamus, ne rationem accipiamus sive quaera-
mus ; cum etiam credere non possemus, nisi rationales animas
haberemus. Ut ergo in quibusdam rebus ad doctrinam salutarem
pertinentibus, quas ratione nondum percipere valemus sed
aliquando valebimus, fides praecedat rationem, qua cor mundetur,
ut magnae rationis capiat et perferat lucem, hoc utique rationis
est. Et ideo rationabiliter dictum est per prophetam : Nisi cre-
dideritis, non intelligetis (Isai. vn. 9 sec. LXX). Ubi procul
dubio discrevit haec duo, deditque consilium quo prius credamus,
ut id quod credimus intelligere valeamus. Proinde ut fides
praecedat rationem, rationabiliter visum est. Nam si hoc praecep-
tum rationabile non est, ergo irrationabile est : absit. Si igitur
rationabile est ut ad magna quaedam, quae capi nondum possunt,
1 De Divis. Nat. i. 69 (Migne 513). This is also explicitly stated by S.
Austin, Tempore auctoritas, re autem ratio prior est. De Ordine, n. 26.

AUTHORITY AND INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 159
fides praecedat rationem, procul dubio quantulacumque ratio quae
hoc persuadet, etiam ipsa antecedit fidem. Propterea monet
apostolus Petrus, paratos nos esse debere ad responsionem omni
poscenti nos rationem de fide et spe nostra : quoniam si a me
infidelis rationem poscit fidei et spei meae, et video quod ante-
quam credat capere non potest, hanc ipsam ei reddo rationem
in qua, si fieri potest, videat quam praepostere ante fidem poscat
rationem earum rerum quas capere non potest. Si autem jam
fidelis rationem poscat, ut quod credit intelligat, capacitas ejus
ihtuenda est, ut secundum earn ratione reddita sumat fidei suae
quantam potest intelligentiam ; majorem, si plus capit; minorem,
si minus : dum tamen, quousque ad plenitudinem cognitionis
perfectionemque perveniat, ab itinere fidei non recedat. Hinc est
quod dicit Apostolus : Et tamen si quid aliter sapitis, id quoque
vobis Deus revelabit ; verumtamen in quod pervenimus, in eo
ambulemus. Jam ergo si fideles sumus, ad fidei viam pervenimus,
quam si non dimiserimus, non solum ad tantam intelligentiam
rerum incorporearum et incommutabihum, quanta in hac vita
capi non ab omnibus potest, verum etiam ad summitatem contem-
plationis, quam dicit Apostolus, facie ad faciem, sine dubitatione
perveniemus. Nam quidam etiam minimi, et tamen in via fidei per-
severantissime gradientes, ad illam beatissimam contemplationem
perveniunt : quidam vero quid sit natura invisibilis, incommuta-
bilis, incorporea, utcumque jam scientes, et viam quae ducit ad
tantae beatitudinis mansionem, quoniam stulta illis videtur, quod
est Christus crucifixus, tenere recusantes, ad quietis ipsius pene-
trale, cujus jam luce mens eorum velut in longinqua radiante per-
stringitur, pervenire non possunt. Ep. cxx. (Consentio) § 2, 3, 4.
2. That this Truth is not explicitly manifested, according
to his view in the Bible, becomes apparent from other considera
tions : the authority of the Bible is so directly dependent upon
the Church, and men may make grievous errors in interpreting it.
The book did not spring into being by a sudden miracle, complete
as we have it ; still less is it self-interpreting. And thus both in
regard to the formation of the Canon and the interpretation of
Scripture, we are forced back from the authority of the Bible to
the authority of the Church, and the singleheartedness of the
reader. Even in the authority of the Church however there is

160 S. AUSTIN.
no final resting place : not only is truth progressive and rendered
clearer by the opposition of heretics and the experience and
discussions of the faithful, but even the decision of a General
Council of the Church may require subsequent modification1 : we
must be ready to test the decisions of Councils by the language of
Scripture, and check the one by the other. Just as we have seen
from the nature of Truth that it cannot be perfectly expressed
through phenomena, so we may see from S. Austin's view as to the
possibility of error on either hand, that he does not recognise any
absolutely infallible authority either in the Bible or the Church.
And if this is the case with authority, it is still more obviously
true that ordinary human reason does not give us a complete
solution of all the problems in the universe : there are but few if
any who can attain to a great measure of insight by this light
alone2. Thus S. Austin will not let either stand in the place
of God, the Eternal Reason, and hence we have the constant
attempt, which is repeated by S. Anselm, to advance beyond the
mere acceptance of truth from some authority, to the fuller light
in which we may know, even as also we are known.
3. But if authority and reason are thus fundamentally at
one — different stages in the progress of knowledge — how can a
conflict arise ?
It may be due on one hand to false pretensions to authority
or to the misuse and misinterpretation of an authority that
rightly demands our respect. Manichaeans and others produced
their pretended revelations, and Donatists quoted miracles on
behalf of their doctrines : but S. Austin meets them by contempt
uous criticism3. He urged that it was foolish to seek for autho
rity where we have the light of reason to guide us. (Compare
1 [Quis autem nesciat] et ipsa concilia quas per singulas regiones vel pro-
vincias fiunt, plenariorum conciliorum auctoritati, quas fiunt ex universo
orbe christiano, sine ullis ambagibus cedere : ipsaque plenaria saspe priora
posterioribus emendari ; cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod
clausum erat, et coguoscitur quod latebat ; sine ullo typho sacrilegas
superbias, sine ulla inflata cervice arrogantias, sine ulla contentione lividas
invidias, cum sancta humilitate, cum pace catholica, cum charitate Chris
tiana? De Bapt. contr. Donat. n. 4.
2 De Util. Cred. 24.
3 In Joan. Evan. Tract, xiii. 17.

AUTHORITY AND INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 161
Excursus B, § 3.) The existence of these false pretenders to
authority must put us on our guard whom we trust, but need
not lead us to abandon authority altogether : Itaque ut inter
studentem alicujus rei et omnino studiosum, rursumque inter
curam habentem atque curiosum, ita inter credentem et credu-
lum plurimum interest. De JJtil. Cred. 22. False pretenders do
serve however to show one of the grounds for the apparent oppo
sition between authority and reason. Another which lies in mis
interpretation of a genuine authority need only be noticed here,
as it is discussed below in § 5.
But the opposition is also partly caused by the defective
character of human intelligence : mere empirical opinion so often
mistakes itself for 'knowledge' and 'reason.' Opinari autem
duas ob res turpissimum est : quod et discere non potest, qui sibi
jam se scire persuasit, si modo illud disci potest ; et per se ipsa
temeritas non bene affecti animi signuni est. Nam etiamsi hoc
ipsum quod de Cicerone dixi, scire se quisquam arbitratur, quan-
quam nihil eum impediat a discendo, quia res ipsa nulla scientia
teneri potest : tamen quod non intelligit multum interesse, utrum
aliquid mentis certa ratione teneatur, quod intelligere dicimus,
an famae vel litteris credendum posteris utiliter commendetur ;
profecto errat, neque quisquam error turpitudine caret. Quod
intelhgimus igitur, debemus rationi : quod credimus, auctoritati :
quod opinamur, errori. Sed intelligens omnis etiam credit, credit
omnis et qui opinatur : non omnis qui credit intelligit ; nullus
qui opinatur intelligit. De Util. Cred. 25. Quia cum ordinem
suum peragit pulchra mutabilitas temporum, deserit amantem
species concupita, et per cruciatum sentientis discedit a sensibus,
et erroribus agitat ; ut hanc esse primam speciem putet, quae
omnium infima est, naturae scilicet corporeae, quam per lubricos
sensus caro male delectata nuntiaverit, ut cum aliquid cogitat,
intelligere se credat, umbris illusus phantasmatum. Si quando
autem non tenens integram divinae providentiae disciplinam, sed
tenere se arbitrans, carni resistere conatur ; usque ad visibilium
rerum imagines pervenit, et lucis hujus quam certis terminis
circumscriptam videt, immensa spatia cogitatione format inaniter :
et hanc speciem sibi futurae habitationis pollicetur ; nesciens
oculorum concupiscentiam se trahere, et cum hoc mundo ire velle
extra mundum ; quem propterea ipsum esse non putat, quia ejus
C. 11

162 S. AUSTIN.
clariorem partem per infinitum falsa cogitatione distendit. De
Vera Relig. 40. Compare also Ep. xiii. (Nebridio) § 2. Our
first crude opinion is of course that the impressions of our senses
give us the fullest knowledge we can possess : it is needless to
repeat here the arguments by which the Academics, and modern
agnostics, have destroyed this claim. The phenomena of colour
blindness prove that we do not see things as they really are : the
reliance each man places on the reports of his senses is after all
belief, and not knowledge. In the combining of these impressions
too there are opportunities for error, and thus while true authority
harmonises with reason, it may yet be opposed by mere empirical
opinion. And thus we reach the result that while authority and
reason are at one, there is ample room for conflict between these
different factors, — pretended authority or falsely interpreted
authority and reason, and between true authority and mere
empirical opinion.
4. If we start from the behef that authority and reason are
really at one we may find that in the case of an apparent conflict
it is necessary either to test the weight, or the interpretation
of our authority, or to correct our empirical opinions. From the
hints that S. Austin has thrown out here and there, as well as
from his practice, it seems that he would have tried to solve the
difficulty of an apparent conflict in different ways, according to
the circumstances of the case.
If it were a question about the constitution of the world of
phenomena there can I think be httle doubt that he would have
preferred the results of human experience. The Bible is not
meant to be an easy substitute for investigation and discovery
and we dare not use it as such. The literal statements of the
Bible on the phenomena around us, must give way to the more
careful results of empirical investigation where they come in
conflict. S. Austin was careful not to pre-judge any empirical
investigation by scriptural assertions. This comes out most
clearly in his treatment of the subject of the Antipodes1.
When we come however to consider the possibility of the oc
currence of particular events which conflict with our experience, it
1 Compare Excursus A, p. 140.

AUTHORITY AND INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 163
is a different matter : for our experience is not exhaustive. The
first question must of course be, what is the evidence for the
marvel ? And in regard to alleged contemporary miracles S. Austin
shows himself extremely critical1. The Donatists maintained that
miracles had been done by their founder. This S. Austin disputes,
but he also holds that the power of working miracles is not
necessarily a proof of the truth of the opinion of those who
perform such wonders : he would not have rested his belief in the
Apostles' doctrine on the ground that they did mighty works2.
He distinguishes ' faith ' in past events, from faith in the eternal
reahty. Temporal faith is propaedeutic to faith in the eternal,
and this may rise to the full knowledge of God. All other
knowledge of things of sense, and even of God's dealings
with men is of true value in so far as it leads to this complete
vision3. The evidence for the miracles recorded in Scripture is to his
mind infinitely stronger ; and he has no hesitation in taking the
1 He holds that the age of miracles had passed lest we should be
enthralled by things of sense. De Vera Rei. 47. On the whole subject com
pare A.'s Lehre vom Wunder, by F. Nitzsch, 1865.
2 Though this might be the occasion of belief. Tenet auctoritas miraculis
inchoata, spe nutrita, caritate aucta, vetustate firmata. Contra Ep. Manich. 5.
3 De [humana scientia] volumine tertio decimo disputavi, non utique
quidquid sciri ab homine potest in rebus humanis, ubi plurimum super-
vacaneas vanitatis et noxias curiositatis est, huic scientias tribuens, sed illud
tantummodo quo fides saluberrima, quas ad veram beatitudinem ducit,
gignitur, nutritur, defenditur, roboratur : qua scientia non pollent fideles
plurimi, quamvis polleant ipsa fide plurimum. Aliud est enim scire tan
tummodo quid homo credere debeat propter adipiscendam vitam beatam, quas
non nisi asterna est: aliud autem scire quemadmodum hoc ipsum et piis
opituletur et contra impios defendatur, quam proprio appellare vocabulo
scientiam videtur Apostolus. De qua prius cum loquerer, ipsam prascipue
fidem commendare curavi, a temporalibus asterna breviter ante distinguens,
atque ibi de temporalibus disserens : asterna vero in hunc librum differens,
etiam de rebus asternis fidem temporalem quidem, et temporaliter in creden
tium cordibus habitare, necessariam tamen propter adipiscenda ipsa asterna
esse monstravi. Fidem quoque de temporalibus rebus, quas pro nobis
asternus fecit et passus est in homine, quem temporaliter gessit atque ad
asterna provexit, ad eamdem asternorum adeptionem prodesse disserui;
virtutesque ipsas, quibus in hac temporali mortalitate prudenter, fortiter,
temperanter, et juste vivitur, nisi ad eamdem, licet temporalem fidem, quas
tamen ad asterna perducit, referantur, veras non esse virtutes. De Trin.
xiv. 3. See also De Consensu Evangel, i. 53. 11—2

164 S. AUSTIN.
Gospel narrative as a record of facts. He is of course aware that
the account of the Resurrection conflicts vrith all our other
experience, and from his high regard for empirical knowledge we
might have supposed that hke Hume he would have regarded
any human testimony however good as insufficient to outweigh the
conclusions of our organised experience. Just because he had, as
Hume had not, rational grounds for his reverence for empirical
knowledge, he did not unduly magnify its worth. To his mind
empirical knowledge was incomplete and it was not the most
certain part of our knowledge : it has to do vrith mere changing
phenomena, not with the Eternal Reality. Just as we must not
rule empirical knowledge out of court because of some scriptural
assertion, so we must not rule a narrated miracle out of court
because we have no experience of such occurrences; for though
exceptional, they may still be rational, and in complete accordance
with the Eternal Reason1.
They may be rational as manifesting a truth which ordinary
phenomena do not exhibit : the victory of the Divine Life over
Death and Sin was manifested by the Resurrection of our Lord :
from the very nature of the truth thus exhibited it could not be
conveyed in normal experiences. It is in the import of the miracle
that we may find its rational justification.
At times indeed it may take place as a mere portent to attract
human attention, and awaken attention to a divine message that
is being given in some other form. For this purpose an occurrence
that goes beyond our knowledge of nature may possibly serve as
truly as a real miracle, or actual departure from the normal course
of phenomena. It is thus that he conceives miracles hold a place in the Divine
Order and have therefore a rational justification, as serving to
manifest Eternal Truth in time, though in ways that are incon
sistent -with the normal course of events as well as inconsistent
with our empirical knowledge. They have their ground in the
1 Et universa Dei miracula ideo ab infidelibus non creduntur, quia
eorum ratio non videtur. Et revera sunt de quibus ratio reddi non potest,
non tamen non est : quid enim est in rerum natura, quod irrationabiliter
fecerit Deus? Sed quorumdam mirabilium operum ejus, etiam expedit
tantisper occultam esse rationem, ne apud animos fastidio languidos
ejusdem rationis cognitions vilescant. Ep. cxx. (Consentio) 5.

AUTHORITY AND INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 165
Divine Will1, as the divinely appointed means of effecting the
Divine Purpose for the world.
5. So far cases have been considered where the solution is
reached by noting the false pretensions of authority, or the true
hmits Avithin which empirical opinion may be relied on. There
are other cases however where we must reconsider our interpreta
tion2 of an authority which we rightly revere, and where, as in
the case of the Scriptural account of Creation, we are compeUed
to discard it, in its literal sense.
For S. Austin it is not less truly the word of God, but we
have failed to interpret it aright. There is a threefold reference
in most of the Psalms or Prophecies — some refer to the earthly
Jerusalem, some to the Heavenly City, and some apply both to
one and the other3. He denies that the Scripture is merely
allegorical, and also rejects the views of those who treat it as
merely literal4, while he cannot see, as some maintained, that
1 Not an arbitrary changing Will, but an Eternal Will which is not
limited by the normal course of phenomena, but is none the less un
changing. 2 De Util. Credendi, 10.
3 On the fourfold interpretation see De Utilitate Cred. 5. Omnis
igitur Scriptura, quas Testamentum Vetus vocatur, diligenter earn nosse
cupientibus quadrifaria traditur ; secundum historiam, secundum astiologiam,
secundum analogiam, secundum allegoriam.***Secundum historiam ergo
traditur, cum docetur quid scriptum, aut quid geatum sit, quid non gestum
sed tantummodo scriptum quasi gestum sit. Secundum astiologiam, eum
ostenditur quid qua de causa vel factum vel dictum sit. Secundum analo
giam, cum demonstratur non sibi adversari duo Testamenta, Vetus et
Novum. Secundum allegoriam, cum docetur non ad litteram esse accipienda
quasdam quas scripta sunt, sed figurate intelligenda.
- Nam in principio cavendum est ne figuratam locutionem ad litteram
aceipias. Et ad hoc enim pertinet quod ait Apostolus : Littera occidil,
spiritus autem vivificat. Cum enim figurate dictum sic accipitur, tan
quam proprie dictum sit, carnaliter sapitur. Neque ulla mors animas
congruentius appellate, quam cum id etiam quod in ea bestiis ante-
cellit, hoc est, intelligentia carni subjicitur sequendo litteram. Qui enim
sequitur litteram, translata verba sicut propria tenet, neque illud quod
proprio verbo significatur, refert ad aliam significationem : sed si Sabbatum
audierit, verbi gratia, non intelligit nisi unum diem de septem, qui continuo
volumine repetuntur ; et cum audierit Sacrificium, non excedit cogitatione
illud quod fieri de victimis pecorum terrenisque fructibus solet. Ea demum

166 S. AUSTIN.
every passage has a double bearing. So long as the Hteral
reference is not sacrificed, he has little objection1 to finding profit
in additional senses. In some cases, e.g. in the song of Hannah,
he feels that the occasion is too paltry for such an outburst of
devotion and that a spiritual reference is certainly implied2. The
laxity which he thus allows himself produces most curious results :
he is able to regard the Septuagint and Hebrew text as equally
inspired despite their differences and inconsistencies, for there is
a reference to some part of the work of Christ — to His Resur
rection or to the Great Forty Days — whether we take three days
or forty days as one reading in the Boole of Jonah3. The variety
of the lessons Avhich could be dravm from Holy Writ on such
principles as these is practically infinite, and we may see that
mediaeval theologians found ample authority in S. Austin for
pursuing their method of study. "The sense of the divine
utterances," said Erigena4, "is manifold and infinite."
6. If we admit such laxity and variety of interpretation, it
almost seems as if the Bible must cease to be an authority in any
real sense of the word. And so it would if we could admit the
right of the individual to handle it as he pleased : and do not
limit the freedom of interpretation by insisting that the sense
drawn from it shall be for edification. Whatever appears dero
gatory to God must be taken figuratively, what does not incite
to charity is not a true interpretation of Scripture. Non autem
praecipit Scriptura nisi caritatem, nee culpat nisi cupiditatem ;
et eo modo informat mores hominum. Item si animum praeoccu-
pavit alicujus erroris opinio, quidquid aliter asseruerit Scriptura,
figuratum homines arbitrantur. Non autem asserit nisi catholi-
cam fidem, rebus praeteritis, et futuris, et praesentibus. Praeteri-
torum narratio est, futurorum praenuntiatio, praesentium demon-
stratio : sed omnia haec ad eamdem caritatem nutriendam atque
corroborandam, et cupiditatem vincendam atque exstinguendam
valent. De Doct. Christ, hi. 15.
est miserabilis animas servitus, signa pro rebus accipere ; et supra creaturam
corpoream oculum mentis ad hauriendum asternum lumen levare non posse.
De Doct. Christ, in. 9.
1 Civ. Dei, xvii. iv. 2 Civ. Dei, xviii. xliv.
3 De Doct. Christ, ii. 17. 4 De Divis. Nat. iv. 5 (Migne, 749).

AUTHORITY AND INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 167
So too, the right of putting an interpretation on Scripture is
affected by the state of mind in which the reader approaches the
study (De Doct. Christ. I. 44, n. 62). The Manichaeans contended
for an unconditioned right of private judgment, and it was S.
Austin's part to expose the falseness of such pretensions. It is by
faith that we discern the things of the Spirit, it is as the indi
vidual partakes in this Spirit that he really finds the Scripture
profitable : to the unbelieving it is of no avail. It is as faith is
wakened and maintained through the ordinances and ministry
of Christ's Church, that the individual is able to receive nour
ishment from the word : but to the faithful it supplies all the
knowledge of the things of God that he needs.
The Bible is thus an authority in things of faith to the faithful,
for it is a source from which they learn the Will of God : it is
His message to them ; let them learn to receive it in all humility
and search the Scriptures for the light God gives in them. But
just because it only profits when it thus speaks authoritatively,
it must be commended to those who read it — commended by the
living faith of the Church or the personal power of a teacher, such
as S. Ambrose had been1.
Great evil has accrued in modern times from the neglect of
these personal qualifications for the apprehension of God's truth
in the Scriptures. Protestants often seem2 to regard Scripture as
possessed of some magical efficacy, and have neglected the con
ditions on which its authority depends. The indiscriminate
scattering of the Bible, Avith no real instruction, with no Church
hfe to commend it3, would not, so far as one can judge have had
the approval of S. Austin : for his own personal experience was
against it. Ego vero Evangeho non crederem nisi me catholicae
Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas (Contra Epist. Manichwi 6).
Nor would he have been surprised that one4 who discarded all
previous opinions and set out to study the Bible by the light of his
own judgment should make but httle progress in apprehending the
1 De Util. Cred. 20.
2 " Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as
white and black do of their colour, sweet and bitter of their taste." Calvin,
Institutes, i. vii. 2.
3 De Doct. Christ, i. 43, 44.
4 Locke, Reasonableness of Christianity, 1,

168 S. AUSTIN.

Christian faith '. The spread of Christianity must come by leadmg
men to accept it— not as a system which is proved congruent with
our empirical knowledge,— but as an authority which conducts
us to a higher and more enduring knowledge, and through the
reverent study of which we may enter into the mind of God.

EXCURSUS E.
Continence in Married Life, p. 65.
It seems to be the common impression in England in the
present day that continence is not a thing to be aimed at by
married people, and that if aimed at it cannot be attained ; that
the -desires of the flesh are too strong to submit to any check.
And those who have either before or after marriage resigned
themselves to the complete indulgence of their desires for any
length of time must certainly find it terribly hard to recover a
mastery over the passions to which they had given full rein.
" Sunt item viri usque adeo incontinentes, ut conjugibus nee
gravidis parcant" (De Bono Conjugali, 5). But the results of
such incontinence are plain enough to those who will consider
the matter; not only in the physical effects on the offspring, but
in the cruel suffering and serious weakness to which wives are
often condemned, and under which they may sink before their
time. If these things attract httle attention in ordinary society,
they are noted by those who are rebelling against its institutions.
There are some who, like Robert Owen, are so repelled by the
misuse of marriage that they are led to inveigh against the
institution itself, and to declare in favour of some form of free
love, as the less objectionable practice. And those who are eager
1 Compare De Util. Cred. 31. At scriptura omnis, si nova et inaudita
proferatur, vel commendetur a paucis, nulla confirmante ratione, non ei, sed
illis qui earn proferunt, creditur. Quamobrem scripturas istas si vos pro-
fertis, tam pauci et incogniti, non libet oredere. Simul etiam contra pro-
missum facitis, fidem potius imperando, quam reddendo rationem.

CONTINENCE. 169
to retain the institution of marriage and who regard the family
as necessary to the weU-being of the State, would do well to
refute the attacks which are made upon it by using every
endeavour to render marriage pure and matrimony a truly holy
state. The Christian view of the subject is clearly stated in the
Marriage Service in the Prayer-book; the preliminary address
folloAvs S. Austin's teaching so closely that it is unnecessary to
seek to frame a better exposition of his views.
Marriage was ordained for the procreation of children to be
brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord and to the praise
of His holy name. And carnal connection with this end in view
is amply justified ; the human race is to be perpetuated that God
may be glorified by__men_ throughout all times (De Nuptiis et
Concup. ii. 25). But carnal connection which has not this end in
view is mere self-indulgence and tends to sin ; though over-indul- 1
gehceln the married state is venial and a far less serious evil than 1
the sin of those who are guilty of fornication or adultery (De
Bono Conjugali, 5, 12). Thus continence is a virtue after which
the Christian should make a life-long struggle, and for the sake
of which he should use such self-discipline in matters of diet and
exercise as may render the practice more possible.
Such is the broad principle which governs Christian marriage ;
but those who after serious effort fail to attain such complete
mastery over themselves are not to be condemned, though they
can never be exonerated from the duty of farther effort. Hence
follows the second reason why marriage was ordained, as a remedy
against sin and to avoid fornication. It may be that one of the
partners in marriage is willing and able to live in continence, but
to do so may be inconsistent with conjugal duty. Each has
power over the body of the other, and each must render to the
other due benevolence ; if either so refused conjugal duty, from
whatever motive, as to drive the other into fornication, marriage
would cease to be preventive of serious sin. The rendering of
conjugal duty is a remedy against sin, in that one partner is thus
able to aid the other in avoiding fornication (De Bono Conju
gali, 6).
That which the Prayer-book puts last is regarded by S. Austin
as the main object for which marriage was ordained : it was for

170 S. AUSTIN.
the mutual society, help, and comfort that one ought to have
of the other that Eve was given to Adam, and this (De Bono
Conjugali, 1) is the main element in marriage. Those who
agree together to live in continence by no means break the
marriage bond ; " imo firmius erit, quo magis ea pacta secum
inierint, quae carius concordiusque servanda sunt non volup-
tariis nexibus corporum sed voluntariis affectibus animorum''
(De Nuptiis et Concup. i. 12).
Even during his life it was alleged against S. Austin that he
unduly disparaged marriage, and that he had not wholly shaken
himself free from the Manichaean errors of his youth ; the charge
has been repeated by Dean Milman in the most popular Church
history of modern times, but it is difficult to see on what grounds
it is based. S. Austin's language gives no excuse for that
exaggerated depreciation of the married state which became
common in Christendom at a later date. The conduct which
Bede commends so highly in S. Etheldreda would possibly have
seemed to him an unwarrantable reluctance to fulfil the duty to
which she was bound by her marriage vows. The language in
which he enforces the objection to the election of digamous
bishops (De Bono Conjugali, 21) affords no palliation for the
persistence shown by mediaeval reformers, in imposing celibacy on
the clergy of the English Church. He altogether repudiates the
principles which were implied in the practice of later ecclesiastics.
Non ergo duo mala sunt connubium et fornicatio quorum alterum
pejus, sed duo bona sunt continentia et connubium quorum
alterum est melius (De Bono Conjugali, 8). Bodily health
and sickness are not two evils of Avhich one is worse, but bodily
health and immortality are each good, though one is better than
the other. Like knowledge, the married state shall pass away,
but continence, like charity, endures for ever, and hence the
celibate life is the better of the two. But those who enter on
this hfe may fall into sins which are as truly evil as incontinence,
into luxury and pride and the habits of busybodies (De Bono
Conjugali, 14).
Such teaching as this is entirely free from the exaggerations
of a later age ; but his doctrine is rendered clearer in the defence
which may be found in the second book of his De Nuptiis, where
he replies to the charge which had been brought against him by

FREEDOM OF THE WILL. 171
Julianus, that in his antagonism to the Pelagian and Coelestine
heresies he had adopted the views of Manichaeans, especially as
to the transmission of sin to the offspring of carnal connexion.
His detailed vindication of himself against the misrepresentations
in a lost treatise are of little interest (see, however, xii.) ; but
it is worth while to quote his summary on the main point at
issue. Audi ergo breviter, quid in ista quaestione versetur.
Catholici dicunt humanam naturam a creatore Deo bono conditam
bonam, sed peccato vitiatam medico Christo indigere. Manichaei
dicunt humanam naturam, non a Deo conditam bonam peccato-
que -vitiatam, sed ab aeternarum principe tenebrarum de com-
mixtione duarum naturarum, quae semper fuerunt una bona et
una mala, hominem creatum. Pelagiani et Ccelestini dicunt
humanam naturam a bono Deo conditam bonam sed ita esse in
nascentibus parvulis sanam, ut Christi non habeant necessariam
in ilia aetate medicinam (11. 9),

EXCURSUS F.
The Freedom of the Will, pp. 14, 80, 85.
1. The Will and Rational Freedom.
2. S. Austin's originality.
3. The asserted modification of his views.
1. WlGGERS complains (August, u. Pelagian, n. 383) that S.
Austin confuses freedom as a moral condition vrith freedom as
the faculty of a rational being, and the objection has been
popularised by Neander (History of Christian Religion, iv. 371)
and Professor Bain (Mental and Moral Science, 409). This -widely
diffused opinion amply deserves the caustic criticism it has called
forth from Gangauf (Metaph. Psych. 325, 412). For it is diffi
cult to see that S. Austin has been guilty of any confusion here :
it would be more correct to say that the originality of his doctrine
lies in his attempt to discriminate these two things, and to show
how the exercise of freedom as a faculty is affected by differences
of moral condition.

172 S. AUSTIN.
According to S. Austin, will is the power of determination
without external compulsion, and rational beings are distinguished
from things by the possession of this characteristic. .Whether I
determine to do what I like or what I dislike, it is by my will
that the decision is taken. Non igitur nisi voluntate peccatur.
Nobis autem voluntas nostra notissima est : neque enim scirem
me velle, si quid sit voluntas ipsa nescirem. Definitur itaque
isto modo : Voluntas est animi motus, cogente nullo, ad aliquid
vel non amittendum, vel adipiscendum. Cur ergo ita tunc
definire non possem? An erat difficile videre invitum volenti
esse contrarium ita ut contrarium sinistrum dextro esse dicimus,
non ut nigrum albo? Nam eadem res simul et nigra et alba
esse non potest : duorum autem in medio quisque positus, ad
alterum sinister est, ad alterum dexter ; simul quidem utrumque
unus homo, sed simul utrumque ad unum hominem nullo modo.
Ita quidem invitus et volens unus animus simul esse potest ; sed
unum atque idem nolle simul et veUe non potest. Cum enim
quisque invitus aliquid facit, si eum roges utrum id facere velit,
nolle se dicit : item si roges utrum id velit non facere, veUe
respondet (De duab. Animabus 14). Si autem nolunt, non
utique coguntur ut non faciant, sed voluntate sua nolunt (De
Act. cum Eel. Man. n. v.).
But the exercise of this faculty must be affected by the
different conditions in which rational beings have existed. To
the first man there was a real liberty of indifference, a complete
"free choice." Sic et hominem fecit cum libero arbitrio, et quamvis
sui futuri casus ignarum, tamen ideo beatum, quia et non mori
et miserum non fieri in sua potestate esse sentiebat (De Correp.
et Grat. 28). Denique ille [Adam] et terrente nullo, et insuper
contra Dei terrentis imperium, libero usus arbitrio, non stetit in
tanta felicitate, in tanta non peecandi facilitate (De Correp. et
Grat. 35). Peccavit anima, et ideo misera est. Liberum arbi
trium accepit ; usa est libero arbitrio quemadmodum voluit : lapsa
est, ejecta de beatitudine, implicata est miseriis (Contra Fortu-
natum Disput. n. 25).
Fallen man is enslaved by lust ; separated from God he has no
longer the power to keep himself free from sin. Man has not lost
the power of will, but he has fallen from the state of freedom
where he could exercise that power by avoiding sin. His act is

FREEDOM OF THE WILL. 173
still determined by his will, but it is a base and "servile freedom"
of follovring his lower nature willingly. Nam et animae in ipsis
peccatis suis non nisi quamdam similitudinem Dei, superba et prte-
postera, et, ut ita dicam, servili libertate sectantur (De Trinitate
xi. 8). But he need not rest satisfied vrith this low estate, for a
better freedom than freedom to sin, or even than mere free choice,
is held out to him : he may ultimately attain through Christ
to a complete victory over sin, and thus to a divine freedom
from evil in which it shall be impossible to sin. Sic enim
oportebat prius hominem fieri, ut et bene velle posset et male ;
nee gratis, si bene ; nee impune, si male : postea vero sic erit,
ut male velle non possit ; nee ideo libero carebit arbitrio.
Multo quippe liberius erit arbitrium, quod omnino non poterit
servire peccato (Enchir. cv.). Nam et ipsa libertas credentibus
a liberatore promittitur. Si vos, inquit, Filius liberaverit, tunc
vere liberi eritis. Victa enim vitio in quod cecidit voluntate,
caruit libertate natura. Hinc alia Scriptura dicit, A quo enim
quis devictus est, huic et servus addictus est. Sicut ergo non est
opus sanis medicus, sed male habentibus : ita non est opus liberis
liberator, sed servis; ut ei dicat gratulatio libertatis, Saham
fecisti de necessitatibus animam meam (Psal. xxx. 8). Ipsa
enim sanitas est vera libertas, quae non perisset, si bona
permansisset voluntas. Quia vero peccavit voluntas, secuta
est peccantem peccatum habendi dura necessitas, donee tota
sanetur infirmitas, et accipiatur tanta libertas, in qua sicut
necesse est permaneat beate Aavendi voluntas, ita ut sit etiam
bene vivendi et nunquam peecandi voluntaria felixque neces
sitas (De Perfect. Just. rat. 9). Nee ideo liberum arbi
trium non habebunt, quia peccata eos delectare non poterunt.
Magis quippe erit liberum, a delectatione peecandi usque ad
delectationem non peecandi indeclinabilem liberatum. Nam
primum liberum arbitrium, quod homini datum est, quando
primum creatus est rectus, potuit non peccare, sed potuit et
peccare : hoc autem novissimum eo potentius erit, quo peccare
non poterit, verum hoc quoque Dei munere, non suae possibilitate
naturae. Aliud est enim, esse Deum ; aliud, participem Dei.
Deus natura peccare non potest ; particeps vero Dei ab illo
accipit, ut peccare non possit. Servandi autem gradus erant
divini muneris, ut primum daretur liberum arbitrium, quo non

174 S. AUSTIN.
peccare posset homo ; novissimum, quo peccare non posset :
atque illud ad comparandum meritum, hoc ad recipiendum
praemium pertineret. Sed quia peccavit ista natura cum peccare
potuit, largiore gratia liberatur, ut ad earn perducatur libertatem,
in qua peccare non possit (De Civit. Dei, xxii. xxx. 3).
It may render the whole clearer if we note that Pelagius
ascribed to fallen man the same free choice which S. Austin
regarded as the possession of Adam but forfeited by him. Libertas
arbitrii, possibilitas est vel admittendi vel vitandi peccati, expers
cogentis necessitatis (Op. imp. contr. Julian, i. lxxxii., also lxxviii.,
vi. x.). The Pelagians argued that if there were no such liberty of
indifference, there could be no justification for the punishment of
the sins of individuals now, but S. Austin held that as sin is
committed "voluntarily" or willingly it does deserve punishment :
while by maintaining that Adam really had free choice he avoided
the position of the Manichaeans.
2. It would be easy enough to show that there was no
originality in any part of S. Austin's doctrine : it is chiefly
remarkable for the subtle combination of views that had never
been placed in such interconnexion before. Rational freedom as
an ideal moral condition, freedom from sense and passion, had
been the aim of many philosophers, both Oriental and Grecian.
Free choice and the limits of its exercise was not a new subject
of debate. The great body of Christian Avriters had undoubtedly
spoken of it in terms which seemed to harmonise with the views
of Pelagius in regard to human nature, for this was inevitable in
consequence of the special character of the controversies of their
time. Certe enim si de divinarum Scripturarum tractatoribus
qui fuerunt ante nos, proferrem defensionem hujusce sententiae,
quam nunc solito diligentius atque copiosius contra novum
Pelagianorum defendere urgemur errorem ; hoc est, gratiam Dei
non secundum merita nostra dari, et gratis dari cui datur ; quia
neque volentis, neque currentis, sed miserentis est Dei ; justo
autem judicio non dari cui non datur, quia non est iniquitas
apud Deum : si hujus ergo sententiae defensionem ex divinorum
eloquiorum nos praecedentibus catholicis tractatoribus promerem ;
profecto hi fratres, pro quibus nunc agimus, acquiescerent :
hoc enim significastis litteris vestris. Quid igitur opus est

FREEDOM OF THE WILL. 175
ut eorum scrutemur opuscula, qui priusquam ista haeresis
oriretur, non habuerunt necessitatem in hac difficili ad sol-
vendum quaestione versari ? quod procul dubio facerent, si
respondere talibus cogerentur. Unde factum est ut de gratia
Dei quid sentirent, breviter quibusdam scriptorum suorum locis
et transeunter attingerent : immorarentur vero in eis quae
adversus inimicos Ecclesiae disputabant, et in exhortationibus ad
quasque virtutes, quibus Deo vivo et vero pro adipiscenda vita
aeterna et vera felicitate servitur (De Praidest. 8s. 27). But
S. Austin's doctrine of the voluntary nature of the actions of
fallen man — as well as his admission of an initial free choice —
takes account of the phenomena on which they insisted. On the
other hand, by dwelling as he does on the bondage of man to
lust and passion, he calls attention to those phenomena on which
the Stoics and other determinists rested their case.
It is perhaps all the more remarkable that he reached this
deep and subtle doctrine by a simple endeavour to follow out the
teaching of Scripture : here as always his philosophy is based on
revelation, faith is the key to knowledge. He accepted the
Bible account of the creation of man and his fall, and thus had
new data on which to build his doctrine of the true character of
the human will, and the conditions of its exercise. He accepted
the Gospel message of a deliverance from sin, and thus was able
to cherish the hope that man may attain to a condition of the
truest freedom at length. It was in the light of the story of the
fall and the hope of salvation that he could attempt to harmonise
the one-sided and conflicting or isolated doctrines of preceding
philosophers. 3. Much learned discussion has taken place on the question
of a supposed modification in S. Austin's doctrine of the will ; it
has had reference specially to the date at which the alteration
may be noted. It is commonly said that the exigencies of the
Pelagian controversy forced him to express himself differently
(Bright, Anti-Pelagian Treatises, li.). On the other hand Neander
maintains (History of Christian Religion, rv. 298) that the change
took place before his Episcopate ; and that it would be more true
to say that the exaggerated development of his doctrine called
forth the Pelagian opposition than that the controversy with

176 S. AUSTIN.
Pelagius forced him to adopt extreme views. This difficulty is set
in a new light by Gangauf, who argues with much acumen (Metaph.
Psych. 325) that S. Austin's vieAv did not undergo any real
modification at all ; but that he was forced to accentuate different
sides of his opinion in the earlier and later controversies. S.
Austin was as a rule by no means self-complacent when criticising
his own work. Qui primo ratiocinationum contortione atque
brevitate sic obscurus est, ut fatiget, cum legitur, etiam inten
tionem meam, vixque intelhgatur a meipso (Retract. I. v. 1).
Item de Mendacio scripsi librum, qui etsi cum aliquo labore intelli-
gitur, habet tamen non inutilem ingenii et mentis exercitationem,
magisque moribus ad veriloquium diligendum proficit. Hunc
quoque auferre statueram de opusculis meis, quia et obscurus et
anfractuosus, et omnino molestus mihi videbatur, propter quod eum
nee edideram (Retract. I. xxvii.). But the question was raised in
his own time, and he maintains that on this point he has not
changed at all. Speaking of his books on Free Will he says, Ecce
tam longe antequam Pelagiana haeresis exstitisset, sic disputavimus
velut jam contra illos disputaremus (Retr. I. ix. 6). There is
certainly a presumption that he understood his own opinion and
could note a modification better than modern readers can hope to
do : and an examination of the passages on which his critics rely
confirms the impression that if his earlier and later statements
appear to be inconsistent, it is because the view which he steadily
maintained is one that is difficult to apprehend.
S. Austin's doctrine of the Will must however be understood
before it is possible to enter on any discussion as to his opinion
regarding- the mode and effectiveness of the operation of divine
grace on the human will. On this it must suffice to refer to
Gangauf 's excellent remarks (Speculative Lehre, 421). But the
greater number of those who have appealed to S. Austin's
authority, or criticised citations from his Avritings in regard to
grace, have failed to grasp his position about the will. It is this
which renders it unnecessary to discuss S. Austin's influence in
connexion with the controversy between Calvinists and Arme
nians or Jesuits and Jansenists. Attempts Avere made to graft
his theological views on to a doctrine of will which was not his ;
to try and find a clue by which to unravel the confusions that
ensued would be a weary task which cannot be attempted here.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 177

EXCURSUS G.
The influence of 8. Austin on the English Church,
pp. 107, 129, 132.
1. The negative and positive proofs of his influence.
2. Its duration.
3. The Prayer Book and Articles.
4. The Brownists.
5. Penal Laws against Dissenters.
6. Passive Obedience.
7. Popular Influence in the XVIIth Century.
8. The XVHIth Century.
9. His Eucharistic doctrine.
1. The influence of S. Austin on the English Church is shovm
in two ways, negatively and positively. There is no point in
which she has departed from his principles : there is no doctrine
or practice of his which she has disavowed or condemned: no
doctrine which she has defined in terms which he could not
have accepted. On the other hand, Calvinism in all lands has
discarded as superstitious many things he loved, and has recast
his theological teaching in several points of Adtal importance.
His positive influence is shown in the fact that so many
leading English theologians have consciously and avowedly been
his disciples. S. Anselm, and Bradwardine, Cranmer and Laud
were all consciously guided by him in regard to the points for
which they were severally called to witness. Nor was it merely
the heads of the hierarchy who looked to the Doctor who had
done much to strengthen the episcopal order in his own day ;
King Alfred translated a portion of the Soliloquies for his people,
and some of the leaders of popular religious movements within
our Church have been his followers ; for Wyclif quoted his au
thority, and Wesley was familiar with the patristic teaching which
so closely resembled his own. The details which follow may help
to show how greatly the English Church has been indebted to
S. Austin in modern as well as in mediaeval times.
C. 12

178 S. AUSTIN.
2. It is a familiar fact that in the countries which acknow
ledged the authority of the Roman See through the middle ages
there was far greater scope for diversity of opinion than has been
permitted by the papacy since the sixteenth century. The
decrees of the Council of Trent formulated with some slight
modifications the theological doctrine which had been generally
current in the immediately preceding centuries ; but by the mere
formulating of these doctrines, and through the action of the
papacy in insisting on their acceptance as final, the opportunity
for divergence of opinion was taken away. There was little
enthusiasm anywhere for the neAV exposition of Latin orthodoxy,
but it Avas in the Gallican Church that the opposition was most
pronounced. At this juncture, the scope for the exercise of
opinion on points of theology was distinctly narrowed, and the
success of the Jesuits did something to enforce this uniformity;
but in pre-Tridentine days, the tone of Christian thought in one
land might differ considerably from that which was current in
another. In a preceding section (Excursus B, § 6) there has
been occasion to notice that the most perfect representative
of S. Austin's school was found in the person of an English
Archbishop : and that even after the time of S. Anselm, Thomas
Bradwardine, and some of the most popular ecclesiastical Avriters
which mediaeval England produced followed on similar lines.
Thus we find that while the world at large was divided between
the Aristotelian Thomists, and Scotists with at least affinities to
Pelagianism, the genuine Augustinian tradition was at any rate
Avell represented among the leaders of English theology, in an
age when it was much neglected elsewhere. The Franciscans
who enjoyed such extraordinary popularity in England, doubtless
diffused semi-Pelagian views among the people here and elsewhere
in Europe. It is difficult to know how far the doctrine of the
Archbishops and Bishops penetrated among their clergy, or
permeated popular consciousness, but the mere fact that she pro
duced writers and thinkers, who did so much to present the
doctrine of S. Austin in its purity, does very distinctly mark the
English Church from the rest of mediaeval Christendom.
It might have been supposed that the Adolent reaction against
mediaeval usages which took place in the sixteenth century Avould
have made a marked change in the treatment which his teaching

THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 179
received. Especially might this have been the case as he was at
fill events a patron of that mode of exposition which the first
reformers at Oxford had denounced as futile and misleading. It
is therefore curious to note that while Duns found his way to
Bocardo, and the scholastic philosophy and canon law were dis
carded and forgotten, S. Austin retained his place as an authority
in theology. He was perhaps more thoroughly read than had
been the case for some generations, and rather gained than lost
importance and influence.
This was undoubtedly partly due to the line which was taken
by Molina and the Jesuits, as it seemed possible to convict them
of departing from the teaching of one of the great doctors of the
Latin Church'. Indeed polemical fervour carried men much
farther than this : in so far as Lutheran and Calvinist Avriters
ventured to appeal to Christian antiquity at all they sheltered
themselves under the name of S. Austin. JLuther and Calvin
had dismissed_the_ fathers generally with scant courtesy; but
tSeyTnaaTsTpartial exception in favour of the Bishop of Hippo.
Itthus "came about that the works of S. Austin furnished a
commonly recognised authority to which writers of every possible
school appealed ; and a good deal of controversy ensued of a
most inconclusive sort between Romanists and their opponents.
A priest named John Breerely published a work entitled 8.
Austin's religion, which I have not seen2 : it called forth a
vigorous Calvinistic reply by Mr William Crompton of Brazenose \
College, Oxford/and Preacher of the Word of God at Little
Kymbell in Buckinghamshire. This is called Saint Austin's
religion: wherein is manifestly proved out of the Worhes of that
Learned Father who lived near twelve hundred years before the
time of Luther, that he dissented from Poperie, and agreed with

1 Compare True Idea of Jansenisme by T(homas) G(ale), 1669, pp. 3 — 5.
2 On the same side may be noticed the preface by Sir Tobias Matthew to
his translation of the Confessions published in 1620, pp. 45—89. This work
of the son of an English Archbishop who had been received into the Church
of Rome called forth an angry rejoinder from Sutcliffe, the Dean of Exeter,
which he entitled The Unmasking of a Masse-monger, who in the counterfeit
Habit of S. Augustine hath cunningly crept into the closets of many English
Ladies. Or the Vindication ¦ of Saint Augustine's Confessions from the
calumniations of a late noted Apostate, 1026.
12—2

180 S. AUSTIN.
the religion of the Protestants in all the maine points of faith and
doctrine, contrary to the impudent, erronious, and slanderous
Position of the bragging Papists of our times who falsely affirme
\wee had no Religion before the Times of Luther and Cahaine.
^Whereunto is newly added, Saint Austins Summes, in answer to
Mr John Breerley Priest (1625). It is a work of considerable
ingenuity, but is a mere patchwork of excerpts from different
parts of S. Austin's writings : it was easy enough to quote
isolated statements to show a certain affinity to Calvinistic
doctrine, but the treatise cannot have been convincing to anyone1.
It was easy for Romanists and Calvinists alike to show that their
opponents had departed from the lines of doctrine and practice
laid down by S. Austin, but it Avas impossible for either to
demonstrate that their own system would have met his approval.
Other writers appealed to him on particular issues ; but just as
he had exercised a special influence over English thought in the
middle ages, so he continued to dominate as the greatest of
Christian Doctors throughout the seventeenth century ; and hence
we find a very distinct continuity of doctrine through the leading
English theologians from the time of S. Anselm to the beginning
of the eighteenth century: though it seems as if his writings
ceased to be generally studied during the Georgian era, when the
philosophy of Locke had come to have its full effect on theological
opinions in England.
3. The most striking change which took place under Henry
VIII. and Edward VI. was the disuse of many pious rites which
had undoubtedly been abused, but wliich were endeared to many
1 Mr C. H. Collette's Saint Augustine puts the argument in regard to the
departure of the Church of Rome from the teaching and practice of S.
Austin in its strongest form — with special regard to recent definitions and
developments of doctrine. Father Hewit, in his Studies in S. Augustine,
has given a trenchant criticism on Calvinism. On the whole controversy it
is worth while to remember the judgment of Julius Miiller, "This must be
openly admitted, by every unprejudiced historical investigation, that not
merely the ecclesiastical theology of the middle ages, but even the Patristic
theology of the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries, are upon every point that
is a matter of dispute between Catholicism and Protestantism, more on the
side of the former than of the latter." (Quoted by Diillinger, Church and
Churches, 298.)

THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 181
hearts by long association. But there were good grounds for
saying that these changes were in accordance Avith the tone of
S. Austin's teaching and would have had his approval. In the
preface to the Prayer Book Ave read Of Ceremonies:
" Some are put away, because the great excess and multitude
of them hath so increased in these latter days, that the burden of
them Avas intolerable ; whereof Saint Augustine in his time
complained, that they were groAvn to such a number, that the
estate of Christian people was in Avorse case concerning that
matter, than were the Jews. And he counselled that such yoke
and burden should be taken aAvay1, as time would serve quietly to
do it. But Avhat would Saint Augustine have said, if he had
seen the Ceremonies of late days used among us ; whereunto the
multitude used in his time was not to be compared ?"
It may not unfairly be said that the general principles of the
revision of the services of the English Church under Cranmer
in 1549, were in complete accordance vrith the principles ex
pressed in S. Austin's letters to Januarius. The above quoted
declaration on the subject appears as an appendix in the First
Prayer Book of King Edward VI. Cranmer and the first reformers
were consciously and avowedly following his instructions in this
matter. This is confirmed by a comparison of the ritual explicitly
retained and enjoined in that Prayer Book with these letters, as
there is a close accordance between the religious usages that were
there enjoined and those which S. Austin had practised. Complete
coincidences in detail we hardly hope to find : the address in the
1 Omnia itaque talia, qua8 neque sanctarum Scripturarum auctoritatibus
continentur, nee in conciliis episcoporum statuta inveniuntur, nee con-
suetudine universes Ecclesia? roborata sunt, sed pro diversorum locorum
diversis moribus innumerabiliter variantur, ita ut vix aut omnino nunquam
inveniri possint causa, quas in eis instituendis homines secuti sunt, ubi
facultas tribuitur, sine ulla dubitatione resecanda existimo. Quamvis enim
neque hoc inveniri possit, quomodo contra fidem sint ; ipsam tamen religio
nem, quam paucissimis et manifestissimis celebrationum sacramentis miseri
cordia Dei esse liberam voluit, servilibus oneribus premunt, ut tolerabilior
sit conditio Judseorum, qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnoverunt,
legalibus tamen sarcinis, non humanis prasumptionibus subjiciuntur. Sed
Ecclesia Dei inter multam paleam multaque zizania constituta, multa
tolerat, et tamen qua? sunt contra fidem vel bonam vitam non approbat, nee
tacet, nee facit. Ep. Iv. 35. See also Ep. liv.

182 S. AUSTIN.
Marriage Service to which reference has been made above (Excursus
E) was apparently drawn from the Cmisultatio of Archbishop
Hermann of Cologne, and was not directly borrowed from the
African Bishop. On the other hand, in the Homilies which date
from the same period, the references to S. Austin are not in
frequent. There are far fewer signs of his direct influence on
the Articles, although they are not inconsistent with his teaching.
The seventeenth Article appears to be Calvinistic ; but it has no
reference to predestination to evil, except as an opinion that
may drive the " curious " to " desperation " : it deals Avith pre
destination to life, and certainly implies the important distinction
between prescience and predestination. " It is evident," Avrote
Dean Fogg, "that although the Hypothetical Prescience Avhich we
have said must be understood in this Doctrine of Predestination
is not Mention'd in express Words in this Article, yet it must
necessarily be supposed, because the Article affirms God to have
firmly decreed from Eternity, to have delivered those Avhom he
had Chosen in Christ, and by certain means bring them to Salva
tion ; for it is necessary that he should Fore-see those to be
Created, and in the Rank of Creatures indowed with Freedom
of Choice, to be ready to abuse their Freedom, yea, to be lapsed,
that he should, I say, foresee them, at least Hypothetically,
and Antecedently (according to our Capacity of Understanding
in Matters of this Nature) before he decreed anything concerning
their Deliverance. Therefore we have only uttered, that some
thing more Explicitly, which is Necessarily supposed and
Concisely suggested in the Article1."
That the Articles, though Augustinian, are not Calvinistic is
farther brought out by the refusal of the Hampton Court Conference
to accept the gloss which the Puritans desired to incorporate
into Article XVI., so as to introduce the Calvinistic doctrine
of perseverance. But in protesting against this change, and
retaining the Article in the same form as before, the Conference
was really maintaining the doctrine of S. Austin, as is clearly
shown by Thorndike2. It thus appears that the Church of
England refused to incorporate definitely Calvinistic doctrines
1 God's Infinite Grace in Election, by Lawrence Fogg (1713), p. 43.
3 Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England, n. xxxi. §§ 48, 51.

THE ENGLISH ClIURltl. 183
even in that portion of her formularies Avhere Genevan influence
showed itself most strongly : she still continues to maintain the
doctrine of S. Austin.
4. Passing now from these changes in the services of the
Church and the new formularies to the principles on Avhich action
was taken in the seventeenth century, we find the same constant
appeal to S. Austin. The pressing question as to the treatment
of Brownists, and Puritan Dissenters generally, presented a striking
parallel to the difficulties connected with the Donatist schism.
The subject is worked out with much acuteness by George
Gyffard, Minister at Maldon, a writer Avith Genevan sympathies,
in a work entitled A Plaine Declaration that our Brownists be
full Donatists. Some paragraphs may be quoted as showing the
method by wliich he endeavoured to establish his thesis.
"We see that the Donatists departed disorderlie out of the
Church, condemning it not for any point of doctrine (for therein
they did not disagree) but for that many, which in the time of
persecution dissembled, many which revolted, and to save their
lives did sacrifice to the Idolls : many Avhich delivered the
bookes of holie Scripture to bee burned, and betraied the names
of the brethren : when the storme was over, and there was a
sodaine calme, the Emperor Constantine being become Christian,
such joy in all Christian lands, Christianitie magnified with such
honour : for that (I say) many such returned to professe the
Gospel againe as members of the Church, and were received.
For, saide the Donatists, the Church is holie, consisting of such as
he called foorth and separated from the impure and wicked
world : and therefore no separation being made, but such
Adllanous traitors, so vile Idolaters and their children being
communicated with all, all your assemblies through this mixture
are none other before God, but heapes of abominable unclean
persons. Your teachers are the sons of Apostates and traitors,
and no Ministers of Christ. Now look upon the Donatists of
England : Antichrist hath been exalted according to the pro-
phesie of S. Paul, he hath sate in the Temple of God, boasting
himselfe as God, persecuting and murthering God's true worship
pers. He is disclosed by the glorious light of the Gospell : his
damnable doctrine, cursed Idolatrie, and usurped tyrannie are

184 S. AUSTIN.
cast foorth of this land by the holie sacred power of our dread
Souveraigne Ladie Queene Elizabeth, whom God hath placed
and settled upon the Throne of this noble Kingdome. The
true doctrine of faith is published and penalties are by lawes
appoynted for such as shall stubbernlie despise the same. Our
Donatists crie out, that our assemblies (as ye may see in
their printed bookes) and that the people were all by constraint
received immediatlie from Idolatrie into our Church without
preaching of the Gospell, by the sound of a Trumpet at the
Coronation of the Queene, that they be confused assemblies,
without any separation of the good from the bad. They
affirme also that our Ministers have their discent and ordi
nation, and power, from Antichrist, and so are his marked
servants. Hereupon, not understanding the manifest Scripture,
that the Apostasie having invaded the Church, it continued still
even then the temple of God in Avhich Antichrist did sit, and
that the verie Idolaters were within the Church, were sealed Avith
the signe of baptisme, professed Christ in some points rightlie,
their children from ancient discent being within the covenant of
God, and of right to bee baptized, the Ministerie of Christ so farre
remaining, as that it was the authentick seale which was
delivered by the same ; in a mad furie, hke blind hypocrites they
condemne the reformation by cirill power, and purging God's
Temple by the authoritie of Princes, because the Church of Christ
is founded and built by the doctrine of the Gospell. Herein they
are deceived, that they imagine the Princes take upon them to
compel! those to bee a Church which were none before : whereas
indeed they do but compell those within their kingdom over
whome the Lord hath set them, which have received the signe
of the covenant, and professe themselves to bee members of the
Church, accordinglie to renounce and forsake all false worship,
and to imbrace the doctrine of salvation. What other
thing did Josias and other holie Kings of Juda, when they
compelled the multitude of Idolaters, Avhich were the seed
of Abraham, and circumcised, to forsake their Idolatrie and to
worship the Lord? It is most cleare also, that where the reforma
tion of the Kings Avas not perfect, (as appeareth in the bookes of the
Kings and Chronicles) yet all the foulest things being abolished,
and the substance of trueth brought in, they Avere reputed godlie

THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 185
Churches, where many were false brethren and open offenders.
The Brownists blinded with their swelling pride, and not see
ing the eA-ident matters of the Scriptures, without all order of
that holie discipline of Christ, accuse, condemne and forsake our
Churches, under the appearance of fervent zeale, and rigorous
severitie against all sinne, not inferiour to the Donatists: as if
they Avere the onely men that stood for Christ and his kingdome,
they crie out aloude and proclaime all the Ministers of our
Churches to be Antichristian, the sonnes of the Pope, false
Prophets, Baal's Priests that prophesie in Baal, and plead for
Baal, persecutors of the just, bearing the marke, the power
and life of the beast, because they say our ordeiners bee such.
They say wee have no word of God, no Sacraments nor true
Church, but that all is utterlie polluted and become abominable :
our assemblies they call the very Synagogs of Antichrist, utterlie
faUen from the Covenant of God, and all that joyne with them,
through the pollution of open sinners which are not cast foorth :
and therefore they have separated themselves, and crie aloud unto
others to doo the same if they will be saved. What rule of
discipline have they observed in this: Have these things been
brought foorth, scanned, discussed, and judged in the Synods of
the learned Pastors and teachers of the Churches? Nay, but
even as Augustine saith of the other, furor, dolus, et tumultus,
furie, deceit and tumult, do beare the sway. Then I con
clude, that in this poynt of accusing, condemning, and manner
of separating themselves from the Church, the Donatists
and the Brownists doo agree and are alike.

"Thus have I laide open, that the Church in olde time
Avas full of open wicked men both of ministers and people :
That the Donatists under the colour of zeale and severitie
against sinne did separate themselves, affirming that aU were
polluted and fallen from the covenant, which did communicate in
the worship of God and Sacraments with such notorious evill men.
All men may see by that which I have noted, that the Donatists
did maintaine this their opinion Avith the same Scriptures and
arguments that the Brownists doe maintain it withall nowe : And
received the same answers to confute them, which we make nowe

186 S. AUSTIN.
to confute the BroAvnists. This was the maine point of
Donatisme and as it were the pith and substance thereof : and it
is one of the foure chiefe pillers of BroAvnisme. Yea but now the
Brownists doe separate themselves from a worship Avhich is
Idolatrous, full of blasphemies and abominations : The Donatists
did rend themselves from an holy and true worship. Indeede
where the worship is idolatrous and blasphemous, a man is to
separate himself. But there are many and great corruptions
before it come to that : for it is the true worship of God where the
foundation is layd and standeth sure. If there be timber, Hay,
and stubble built upon the foundation, the fault is great, such
things are not to bee approved : But yet there is Gods true
worship. And now to come to the verie poynt of the matter : I
doe affirm and will stand to justifie that there were greater
corruptions in the worship of God, even in those Churches from
which the Donatists did seperate themselves, than be at this day
in the worship of the Church of England. So that if Brownisme
be anything to be excused in that, the Donatisme may as justly
therein be defended. For if wee consider matters which concerne
doctrine what can any man shew so corrupt in this our Church,
as in the publike worship to pray for the soules of the dead, and to
offer oblations for the dead? This corruption was generali in
the Church then, yea long before the days of Augustine, as it
appeareth in Cyprian and by Tertullian which was before him,
and nearer to the time of the Apostles : who in his booke De
Monogamia reasoning against second marriage (for hee was
fallen into that error) woulde persuade any woman that had
buried her husband not to marie againe, because, he being
separated from her in peace and not divorced, she was to
pray for his soule and yearely to offer oblation for him : thus
he writeth, Et pro anima ejus oret, et refrigerium interim
adpostulet ei et in prima resurrectione consortium: et offer at
annuls diebus dormitionis ejus. That is, And let her pray for his
soule and crave refreshing for him nowe in the mean time,
and his felowship in the first resurrection, and let her offer
yearely upon the day of his departure. It will be said by some
ignorant man, that this Avas but the minde and practice of
some few which Avere corrupt and superstitious. I answere it
Avas the practice of the Church in generali, and the cor-

THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 187
ruption so auncient, that the same Tertullian in his booke De
corona militis, speaking of it and certain other things saith
they were observed by tradition from the Apostles, they
were observed so generally in the Churches and no scripture
to vrarrant them. These bee his wordes, Oblationes pro
defunct is, annua die facimus. Wee make oblations for the dead
on the yeerely day. The doctrine of Purgatory, and the doctrine
of Free will were crept in also1, besides divers other grosse errors
1 Gyffard's argument would have been more conclusive if he could have
shown that either the Donatists or S. Austin disapproved of these practices.
As to S. Austin's views, the English priests abroad endeavoured to keep
their countrymen fully informed in various works, but especially in a little
volume, Saint Austin's care for the dead, which was issued in 1636. Calvin
and his followers endeavoured to explain away his language as if it were a
mere accommodation to popular superstitions which he was not at the trouble
to rebuke. "We ought not," says^Calvin, "to indulge our love so far as to
set up a perverse mode of prayer in the Church. Surely every person
possessed of the least prudence easily perceives, that whatever we meet with
on this subject in ancient writers, was in deference to public custom and
the ignorance of the vulgar. I admit they were themselves also carried
away into error, the usual effect of rash credulity being to destroy the
judgment. Meanwhile the passages themselves show, that when they
recommended prayer for the dead it was with hesitation. Augustine relates
in his Confessions that his mother, Monica, earnestly entreated to be
remembered when the solemn rites at the altar were performed ; doubtless
an old woman's wish, which her con did not bring to the test of Scripture,
but from natural affection wished others to approve. His book de Cura pro
mortuis agenda is so full of doubt, that its coldness may well extinguish the
heat of a foolish zeal." Institutes in. v. 10.
It is however sufficiently clear that S. Austin himself attached a high
value to the practice of offering the Eucharist on behalf of the dead, and to
prayers for the dead. Besides those in the tract on which Calvin pronounced
such a strange criticism there are many other references to the subject in his
writings. The chief passages on the state of the dead are, Conf. ix. 6, Enarratio
in Ps. xxxvi. 1, 10, Enchiridion, cix. As to the offering the Eucharist on
behalf of the dead his language is very clear. Orationibus vero sanctas
Ecclesia?, et sacrificio salutari et eleemosynis, qu& pro eorum spiritibus
erogantur, non est dubitandum mortuis adjuvari ut cum eis misericordius
agatur a Domino, quam eorum peccata meruerunt. Hoc enim a patribus
traditum, universa observat Ecclesia, ut pro eis qui in corporis et sanguinis
Christi communions defuncti sunt, cum ad ipsum Sacrificium loco suo com-
memorantur, oretur ac pro illis quoque id offerre commemoretur. Sermo
clxxii. 2, compare also Conf. ix. 27, 32. Of course to S. Austin's mind universal
custom and tradition of the fathers implied apostolic authority. In Macha-

188 S. AUSTIN.
which sundrie of the chief teachers held, some in one poynt some in
another. Touching Ceremonies not for order and comlynes, but
with signification, the libertie was exceeding which men tooke and
the corruption greevous, which was not espied but of few. Tertullian
for his time nameth these, which he saith were received by
tradition and had no scripture to warrant them. First in baptism
having shewed what they professed, and the three times dipping
into the water, hee addeth, Inde suscepti lactis et mellis concordiam
basorum libris legimus oblatum pro mortuis sacrificium (n. Mac. xn. 43).
Sed et si nusquam in Scripturis veteribus omnino legeretur, non parva est
universal Ecclesiae, qua? in hac consuetudine claret, auctoritas, ubi in precibus
sacerdotis quse Domino Dei ad ejus altare funduntur, locum suum habet
etiam commendatio mortuorum. De Cura pro Mortuis, 3. It is also clear
from S. Austin's own prayer for his mother in Conf. ix. 35 and from
Enchiridion, ex. that he believed that the defilements of sin which God's
saints carry with them from this world are expiable in the place of the dead.
At the same time it is pretty clear that, whether it is a legitimate
development of his view or not, he did not hold the Roman doctrine of
purgatory, as popularly understood in the present day. On this as in so many
other points his position is adequately represented by the doctrines of our
Reformers as represented in the First Prayer Book of Edward VI., especially
in the Burial Service : nor does Article xxn. condemn his practice in this
matter, so far as we can gather it from his writings. The whole subject,
both as regards Scriptural and patristic authority and the opinion of English
theologians, was thoroughly discussed by the Hon. Archibald Campbell, in
his book on The Doctrines of a Middle State (1721), a work which called
forth the following judgment from Dean Hickes : "And it were much to be
wished that in those Churches (both of the East and West) where it is still
kept up it were perfectly reformed according to the true Primitive Model,
from all Superstitions and Abuses of every kind ; and that in those where
for the sake of these it hath been removed out of the Public Service, it
might be restored again in its first Integrity, according to the best and most
ancient forms which we have extant. This though it be a Real, yet I can
by no means look upon as an essential defect in a Church ; and especially
where the same is barely omitted, not positively condemned or anathema
tised : And therefore I cannot but esteem it very unwarrantable and absurd
for anyone to leave a Communion on that Account and go over to another
where the same is retained, but not without most gross Superstition, were
there even nothing else to be considered in the Change of Communions. So
far is the Primitive Practice of Prayers and Oblations for the Souls of the
Faithful Departed from either inferring the Purgatory of the Modern Church
of Bome, or from disposing any one to seek for refuge in a Church so greatly
departed from her first Faith and Practice." Campbell's Doctrines of a
Middle State, 202.

THE ENGLISH CHURCPI. 189
prwgustamus. Exque ea die lavacro quotidiano per totam hebdoma-
dam abstinemus. That is Taken from thence (hee meaneth from
the water) wee first taste the concord of milke and hony, and from
that day we abstaine from the dayly washing a whole week. Die
dominico jejunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare:
Eadem immunitate a die paschw in Pentecostem usque gaudemus.
That is We account it an heynous matter to fast on the Lord's
day or to worship upon the knees : by the same freedome, from
Easter unto Pentecost we rejoyce. And by and by after hee saith
Ad omnem proaressumatquepromotum,ad omnem aditumetexitum,
ad vestitum, ad ealciamentum, ad lauacra, ad mensas, ad lumina,
ad cubilia, ad sedilia, quacunque nos cmiversatio exercet, frontem
crucis signaculo terimus. That is, At everie setting forward
and moving, at everie coming to or going foorth, at our
appareling and putting on our shoes, at washing, at table, at
fighting the candle, at bed, at sitting, whatsoever wee are busied
about, we weare our forehead Avith the signe of the Crosse.
These superstitious observations were crept into the Church,
and in the days of Tertulhan who lived not much more than two
hundred yeares after our Saviour Christ, receaved so generallie, that
hee saieth they were by tradition from the Apostles. Augustine
unto Januarius complaineth that there was such a multitude of
rites or ceremonies in the Church. But what should I labour in
this point : If the Brownists will affirme that there be as great cor
ruptions in the worship of the Church of Englan d, if we respect either
doctrine or ceremonies, as were in the Churches from which the
Donatists did separate themselves, they shall be convinced of
grosse ignorance. And if they stande in it, they shall shew them
selves shameless : let the reader in the meantime, but looke upon
the Epistle of Master Beza before the new Testament, and see what
he affirmeth in this matter, how corrupt the Churches were.
Then I conclude that the Donatists separating themselves
from Churches more corrupt than the Churche of England in the
worship of God, as I dare stand to maintain against them ; if they
denie it, may as well bee excused as the Brownists, and so
hetherto they bee even bretheren with them or their naturali
Children, no difference to bee found at all" (pp. 6 f., 37 f).
5. It was not only in the early days of Puritanism that it

190 S. AUSTIN.
was confronted by the authority of the Bishop of Hippo : he was
also summoned to justify the civil proceedings which were sub
sequently taken against non-conformists. When after the
temporary triumph of Presbyterianism, the State stepped in to
enforce penalties against non-conformists and dissenters, there
was once more a parallel to be found in the similar action of the
Christian Emperors. In neither case had the Church initiated the
movement for penal legislation1, in neither case did the penalties
compare in severity Avith the treatment which Churchmen had
already suffered at the hands of schismatics when they had
the power of working their will2 : but it was obvious that the
A'iolence of the sectaries could never give any real justification for
violent reprisals, and it was doubtful whether such civil penalties
could be fairly accepted by the Church as a support to her
Master's cause. Such a question of political duty, depending as
it did on the political conditions of the time, could not of course
be decided by an appeal to the opinion of a bygone age, but the
opinion of S. Austin on the corresponding difficulty in his oavu
day might certainly be of use in helping men to a sound judgment
on the expediency of imposing civil disabilities upon schismatics.
It was speciaUy convincing perhaps because S. Austin had
himself changed his opinion on the point3 ; experience of the
working of the penal laws had led him to renounce the opinions
he had once held, — that no man ought to be compelled to the
unity of Christ, and that this was to be done only by argument
1 Banke's History of England, ni. 367.
2 Walker's Sufferings of the Clergy, pp. 59, 73.
3 Si trahimur ad Christum, ergo inviti credimus ; ergo violentia adhi
betur, non voluntas excitatur. Intrare quisquam ecclesiam potest nolens,
accedere ad altare potest nolens, accipere Sacramentum potest nolens :
credere non potest nisi volens. Si corpore crederetur, fieret in nolentibus :
sed non corpore creditur. Apostolnm audi : Corde creditur ad justitiam.
Et quid sequitur? Ore autem confessio fit ad salutem. De radice
cordis surgit ista confessio. Aliquando audis confitentem, et nescis cre-
dentem. Sed nee debes vocare confitentem, quem judicas non credentem.
Hoc est enim confiteri, dicere quod habes in corde : si autem aliud in corde
habes, aliud dicis ; loqueris, non confiteris. Cum ergo in Christum corde
credatur, quod nemo utique facit invitus, qui autem trahitur, tanquam
invitus cogi videtur ; quomodo istam solvimus quaistionem, Nemo venit ad
me nisi Pater qui misit me traxcrit eum'! In Joan. Er. Tract, xxvi. 2.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 191
and the force of disputation, and that men were to be convinced
by reason and not compelled by laws, — and to approve of the edict
of Constantine (Ep. xciii. 17, Vincent id). The anonymous trans
lator who reprinted this Judgment of the learned and pious 8.
Augustine concerning penal lawes against Conventicles in 1670,
introduces it with an interesting preface in which he says that he
publishes this epistle "because of the Great Esteem Avhich this Holy
and Learned Prelate hath ahvays had in the Church of Christ, and
especiaUy in that part of it which hath accounted itself the most
Reformed, and we see that most Men are more led by the
Authority of the Writer than the Strength of the Argument.
Besides when those who have written amongst us are charged by
the Adverse Party to be partial, by reason of their interest in the
Present Controversie ; This cannot be laid to the charge of Him
who dyed many hundred years before Our Present Debate." But
the translator did not notice that it was this very fact of distance
of time and diversity of circumstances which made S. Austin's
experience irreleA'ant to the precise issue. The general opinion
in the present day, based on the experience of the last two
centuries, would certainly be against reliance on penal laws in
such a cause. This was very strongly put by Peter Bayle in the
third part of his Commentaire philosophique sur ces paroles de
Jesus Christ, Contrain les d'entrer which was published at
Canterbury in 1687, where there is some caustic criticism of
S. Austin's reasoning.
Perhaps the chief interest in the matter lies in the side light
which it throws on the working of S. Austin's mind, and his
persistent reliance on experience (see above, Excursus A). For
the rest it is easy to show that he had attained to a far truer
ideal of toleration than Avas at all common among those Avho
denounced the Clarendon Code at the time of the Revolution.
Locke was satisfied to prove in his Essay on Toleration that the
State might be indifferent to any form of religious opinion
(except Atheism) because they had all a sufficiently similar
bearing upon civil duty. S. Austin goes far deeper: he has
such confidence in the prevailing power of Truth that he can
listen calmly to the most hostile opinion. Nullus enim repre-
hensor formidandus est amatori veritatis. Etenim aut inimicua
reprehensurus est, aut amicus. Si ergo inimicus insultat,

192 S. AUSTIN.
ferendus est : amicus autem si errat, docendus ; si docet,
audiendus (De Trin. n. 1).
6. Far more interesting than his apology for penal measures
is the question as to the political principles which he upheld.
There were in the seventeenth century two very opposite opinions
Avhich were held and acted upon by professing Christians : we
have on the one hand the active desire to obey God's AviU as under
stood, and to oppose to the death any authority Avhich dared to
intervene : this was the standpoint of Puritanism generally, but
it is seen most clearly in the persons of the Covenanters, and
constantly led them into rebellion against existing authority.
At the opposite pole was the doctrine of those who seemed to
carry compliance to the extreme of subservience, and insisted on the
duty of obedience to constituted authority. Their doctrine was
that of passive obedience : that it was the duty of the subject to
do the commands of the ruler in everything which did not
conflict with the revealed vrill of God ; and that in cases where
this active obedience was inconsistent with Christian duty, as in
the time of the Christian emperors, they were still to submit
themselves to the will of the earthly ruler by bearing the
punishments he imposed patiently, i.e. by passive obedience.
A most striking instance of the effort to maintain these principles
may also be drawn from Scotland, in the story of the Epis
copate there since the Revolution.
English Churchmen and Scotchmen who remained in com
munion -with them, were in advocating the duty of passive
obedience sufficiently distinguished from Jesuits on the one
hand and Puritans on the other ; but they were also maintain
ing precisely the Christian view of civil duty as it had been
understood and set forth by S. Austin. It may even be said
that his teaching in political matters came into greater promi
nence in England in the xvnth century than in any other
land, or at any previous time. It is of course true, that the
Avhole form of the political institutions of the middle ages was
an actualisation of ideas that he set forth, and that he exercised
an extraordinary political influence even then. But it is also true
that the feudal forms which moulded society in so many ways did
not readily lend themselves to the application of his doctrines ;

THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 193
while in the later middle ages the influence of Aristotle and the
example of the free citizenship of ancient pagan times impressed
the schoolmen more deeply than the isolated hints in S. Austin.
These tAvo elements are very noticeable in Wyclif's doctrine of
Dominion ; it is permeated by feudal analogies, and speciaUy by
analogies Avith the English feudalism of 1085, when each tenant
received his land directly from the king. But in the xvnth century
all this was changed and the influence of S. Austin was more
directly and fuUy felt. There are two points on which it is
Avorth whUe to note his opinion. He does not conceal his
preference for the monarchy of the Empire in discussing the
fortunes of the Roman Repubhc (De Civ. Dei, in. xxi.) ; and his
criticism of its injustice and cruelty leads him to speak of the God
who is the supreme Governor of the whole universe (De Civ. Dei, xix.
xxi). But on the whole his preference for monarchical institutions
is not so decided as it was among xvnth century English Church
men, as he considers that under some circumstances one, and
under others another form of polity may be preferable (De Lib.
Arb. 1. 14), though royalty as opposed to faction is the type of well-
ordered rule (De Bono Conjug. 16). CivU authority has however
grown up with the divine sanction — it was not, as in Filmer, part
of the primal grant to man — and it wiU pass away when its
purpose is served (De Civ. Dei, xix. xv). Still he insists on the
Christian duty of obedience to the civil power, while he carefully
draws a line as to the limits of its authority. Quod autem ait,
Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit : non est enim
potestas nisi a Deo, rectissime jam monet, ne quis ex eo quod a
Domino suo in libertatem vocatus est, factusque christianus, ex-
toUatur in superbiam, et non arbitretur in hujus vitse itinere
servandum esse ordinem suum, et potestatibus sublimioribus,
quibus pro tempore rerum temporalium gubernatio tradita est,
putet non se esse subdendum. Cum enim constemus ex anima et
corpore, et quamdiu in hac vita temporali sumus, etiam rebus
temporahbus ad subsidium degenda? hujus Aritse utamur ; oportet
nos ex ea parte, quae ad hanc Adtam pertinet, subditos esse potes
tatibus, id est, hominibus res humanas cum aliquo honore ad-
ministrantibus. Ex ilia vero parte qua credimus Deo, et in reg
num ejus vocamur, non nos oportet esse subditos cuiquam homini,
idipsum in nobis evertere cupienti, quod Deus ad vitam seternam
C. 13

194 S. AUSTIN.
donare dignatus est. Si quis ergo putat quoniam christianus est,
non sibi esse vectigal reddendum, aut tributum, aut non esse
exhibendum honorem debitum eis quas hasc curant potestatibus ;
in magno errore versatur. Item si quis sic se putat esse subden-
dum, ut etiam in suam fidem habere potestatem arbitretur
eum qui temporalibus administrandis aliqua sublimitate pras-
cellit ; in majorem errorem labitur. Sed modus iste servandus
est, quem Dominus ipse prasscribit, ut reddamus Cassari qua?
Cassaris sunt, et Deo quas Dei sunt. Quanquam enim ad illud
regnum vocemur ubi nulla erit potestas hujusmodi, in hoc tamen
itinere dum agimus, donee perveniamus ad illud sasculum ubi fit
evacuatio omnis principatus et potestatis, conditionem nostram
pro ipso rerum humanarum ordine toleremus, nihil simulate
facientes, et in eo ipso non tam hominibus quam Deo, qui hsec
jubet, obtemperantes. Quarumdam Prop, ex Epist. ad Rom.,
Expositio lxxii.
Very interesting too is his doctrine as to the true basis of civil
law, not in mere human convention or expediency, but in the
Divine Will. Simul etiam te videre arbitror in ilia temporali
[lege] nihil esse justum atque legitimum quod non ex hac asterna
sibi homines derivarint. De Lib. Arb. i. 15. Compare also De
Civitate Dei, xix. xxi, De Vera Religione, 58.
These are the elements which were compounded into the
doctrine of the divine right of kings, as we find it in the pages of
Jacobean and Caroline writers. The doctrine of passive obedience
is more explicitly stated in a passage to which Archbishop Laud
referred in his defence of the Canon of 16-iO ( Works, ill. 36). It
runs thus : Si Dominus coeli et terras, per quem facta sunt omnia,
servivit indignis, rogavit pro sasvientibus et furentibus, et tanquam
medicum se exhibuit adveniens (nam et medici et arte et sanitate
meliores serviunt asgrotis) ; quanto magis non debet dedignari
homo, ex toto animo, et ex tota bona voluntate, cum tota dilec-
tione servire domino etiam malo ? Ecce servit melior deteriori,
sed ad tempus. Quod autem dixi de domino et servo, hoc
intelligite de potestatibus et regibus, de omnibus culminibus
hujus swculi. Aliquando enim potestates bonas sunt, et timent
Deum ; aliquando non timent Deum. Julianus exstitit infidelis
imperator, exstitit apostata, iniquus, idololatra : milites christiani
servierunt imperatori infideli ; ubi veniehatur ad causam Christi,

THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 195
non agnoscebant nisi ilium qui in ccelo erat. Si quando volebat
ut idola colerent, ut thurificarent, prasponebant illi Deum :
quando autem dicebat, Producite aciem, ite contra illam gentem,
statim obtemperabant. Distinguebant dominum aeternum a domino
temporali ; et tamen subditi erant propter dominum aeternum
etiam domino temporali. Enarr. in Ps. cxxiv. 7. This passage
is also noticeable as it not impossibly suggested to Wyclif the
famous paradox in which he expressed his doctrine of dominion.
There is indeed a curious irony in noticing that it is at all events
possible that the revolutionary doctrines of John Ball may be traced
through a misunderstanding of Wyclif's idealism to the very sen
tences which served as the chief patristic authority for the passive
obedience of the Caroline divines. However that may be there
can be no doubt that the doctrine of civil obedience which was
adopted by the clergy of the seventeenth century was consciously
based on the teaching of the fathers, and in particular of S. Austin.
For other sides of his political teaching it is well Avorth while
to consult M. L. Dubief 's Essai sur les idees politiques de Saint
Augustin (1859).
7. We have other evidence of the influence Avhich his name
exercised during the seventeenth century. When the authorised
version of the English Bible was first put forth the translators
compiled a most interesting preface which is too little known in
the present day. They were anxious to remove certain objections
to their undertaking, and to the way in which they had executed
their task, and it is very remarkable to notice how time after time
they attempt to justify themselves by an apt quotation from
S. Austin. They of course appeal to other patristic authority as
weU, but the frequency of their references to the Bishop of Hippo
in regard to one point after another shows that if they did not
rely on him exclusively, they believed that their readers would
especially value his opinion.
There were several other matters too in which appeal was
made to his authority : it Avas obviously the opinion of seventeenth
century writers that S. Austin's words would carry greater weight
with the public than anything they could say themselves. Thus
Sir Henry Spelman appends to his De Non Temerandis Ecclesiis
(1613) a translation of a supposititious sermon of S. Austin's, De
13—2

196 S. AUSTIN.
Reddendis Decimis (Appendix, Sermo ccixxvn.), for the genuine
ness of which he contends.
Matthew Scrivener fell into a similar error, when he translated
two sermons (Appendix, Sermo ccxliv., ccxlv.) with the view of
better "encountering so grand an Enemy and over-grown a
Monster as the vice of Drunkenness in this present Age" (A treatise
Against Drunhennesse, 1685).
One other attempt of a similar kind may be noticed. Dr
Stillingfleet had published in his Vindication of the protestant
grounds of faith some rather disparaging criticism of miracles
attributed to S. Francis Xavier and other Jesuits. This called
forth the Digitus Dei, an anonymous pamphlet without date or
place of publication, which consists of a translation of the De
Civitate, xxn. viii, and is folloAved by some Reflexions, in which the
argument from the continuance of miraculous gifts is used in a
way which S. Austin would hardly have endorsed. It is perhaps
most interesting where the appeal is made to moral certainty — a
conception which is carefully defined, and which was destined to
play an important part in the great controversy with the Deists,
that must have been beginning about that time : though some
verbal criticism is directed more especiaUy against Stillingfleet,
the full force of the argument is turned against those who held
deistical opinions. Thus through the whole of the seventeenth
century we find indirect evidence from the use that was made of
S. Austin's works as to the weight which his opinion appeared
to have with the English public.
8. The ejghteeath^century witnessed a revival of the con
troversy in regard to PrMestioa&ian-and Free. WUl : it was called
forth by the Avritings of President Edwards, but the references to
S. Austin's doctrine are comparatively few, and Avriters on each
side seemed to assume that it was identical with that of Calrin.
The philosophy of Locke, and indirectly the discoveries of NeAvton,
had come to exercise an enormous influence over the English
public ; and for good or evil, they rendered disputants more
inclined to argue out questions as they appeared to their own
individual minds, and less disposed to attach importance to the
opinions of bygone ages. Even among the Oxford methodists
with their strong attachment to the authority of the Church, and

THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 197
determination to live by a strict rule, personal experience was the
basis of their Avhole doctrine. When we consider the interesting
parallels which might be drawn between the story of S. Austin
and that of John Wesley, — the similarity in the combination
of a dialectical and mystical vein in both, — the close affinity
on many points of doctrine — it is most extraordinary that the
African father should be so little regarded. It is of course
true that Wesley Avas acquainted with S. Austin's writings,
and refers to him not infrequently : he knew him better than
most of his contemporaries, for he was clear that he could not be
treated as a thorough -going supporter of Calvinistic doctrine
(Works, x. 255). There are frequent references to different
treatises in his Roman Catechism and a Reply to it, and Augus
tinian phrases occur here and there in his sermons. He dwelt
with approval on the account of S. Austin's conversion in his
Confessions, vn. 10. But Wesley felt no enthusiasm for the
African Doctor and pronounced a judgment on him which is very
unsympathetic ( Works, vi. 310). Nor did the founder of Method
ism attribute any of his own spiritual progress to the influence of
S. Austin's writings ; while he did not include any of them among
the numerous abridgments wliich he issued for the use of the
English public.
Nor is it only in this connexion that the absence of eight
eenth century references to S. Austin is noteworthy, for it
marks a startling change in the habits of English thought
when Ave find pamphlet after pamphlet treating of the claims
of authority and reason, in Avhich there is hardly a passing
reference to the father who had dealt so thoroughly with
the subject. Berkeley's Alciphron, both in its form, and in
its dependence on Plato, may serve to recall the Contra Acade
micos and other dialogues, but there is no reason to believe
that Berkeley1 had been much influenced by these writings.
The teaching of S. Austin had at last ceased to be a matter of
living interest to English theologians.
9. There was however one important exception, for it is in
the eighteenth century that we have the most thorough English
1 He mentions the De Civitate in his Fifth Dialogue and the Tract, in
Evan. Joannis in Siris : but they are merely incidental references.

198 S. AUSTIN.
discussion of S. Austin's Eucharistic doctrine. It is of course
obvious that he held firmly to a doctrine of the Real Presence :
but in what sense did he hold it I It would be generally admitted
that his writings do not contain the doctrine of Transubstantiation :
that attempt at explaining the manner of Christ's presence was
due to a phUosophical doctrine which had not been formulated in
his day. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is a scholastic
explanation of that which S. Austin believed, but it is not his
own explanation, and there is at aU events room for much
argument as to whether he could have approved this Aristotelian
statement of his faith. Dr Waterland, who was then Archdeacon
of Middlesex, had made the doctrine of the Eucharist the subject
of a charge1 to the clergy of that Archdeaconry at S. Clement
Danes in 1738. He had then quoted S. Austin as an authority
for the Calvinistic doctrine of a Real but purely Spiritual Presence.
The reply which this statement called forth from a divine of the
Universit3r of Cambridge who is identified byLathbury with a non-
juring clergyman named George Smith is a lengtliy discussion of
S. Austin's doctrine on this important subject. It is so full and
careful that I have ventured to reprint in its entirety a tract
which is rare and practical!}' unknown. It seems to show that
the Calvinistic doctrine of the Real Presence does not contain the
full sense of S. Austin's language, just as Bishop Hamilton's
charge2 has proved that the Genevan teaching is not an adequate
expression of the opinion Avhich the Reformers embodied in
the services of our Church. There is perhaps an additional
interest in the matter when we remember that shortly before this
discussion took place John Wesley was resident at Oxford, in full
knowledge of the theological controversies of the da}". These
facts, connected with the time at wliich he wrote, must be
remembered before we venture to explain as mere poetical
licence those Eucharistic hymns which have done so much to
maintain and diffuse a doctrine precisely simUar to that which
was expressed by S. Austin.
1 The Christian Sacrifice Explained. He remarks, "The sacrament of
the Eucharist has for some time been the subject of debate among us, and
appears to be so still in some measure " (p. 1).
a A Charge at his Triennial Visitation, in May 1867, by Walter Kerr,
Bishop of Salisbury (1885), 51.

AX
EPISTOLAKY DISSERTATION
Addressed to the
CLERGY of Middlesex,
AVUERETN THE
Doctrine of St. AUSTIN,
CONCERNING THE
CHRISTIAN SACRIFICE,
Is set in a true Light :

By Way of EEPLY to
Dr "VVaterlaxd's late Charge to them.
By a Divine of thi University of Cambridge.
In nullum autem nomen religionis, seu verum, seu falsum, coagulari
homines possunt, nisi aliquo signaculorum vel sacramentorum visibilium
consortio coUigentur : quorum sacramentorum vis inenarrabiliter valet pluri
mum, & ideo contemta sacrilegos facit. Impie quippe eontemnitur, sine
qua non potest perfici pietas. S. Aug. cont. Faust, lib. xix. c. 11.
LONDON:
Printed by J. Bettenham, and sold by
J. Roberts IN Warwick Lane
M.DCC.XXXIX.

Epistolary Dissertation
Addressed to the
Clergy of Middlesex, ETC.
Reverend Brethren,
I have read your learned Archdeacon's Charge con
cerning the Christian Sacrifice, but must confess I have not
received the Satisfaction I usually found in his other excellent
Writings. I question not but those of your venerable Body,
whom he is pleased to distinguish by the Name of Mate
rialists, think of this Piece as I do. And I fancy the
Reverend Mr. Wheatley for Instance, who perhaps might be in
the Number of his Auditors, will scarce upon the Perusal of it,
now it is printed, retract what he has said in his admirable
Commentary upon the Liturgy. Our Doctrine of the Sacrifice
Avas, in the Dispute between the late Dr. Hickes and his Opponents,
formerly cried down as Popish : Of this Imputation Dr. Water-
land has been so just as to clear it, for Avhich we cannot but
return him our Thanks. I say so just ; because it is evident it is
entirely inconsistent Avith the Popish, and quite overthroAvs it ;
there being as much Difference between it and the Romish,
as between the Substance of Bread and Wine, and the Substance 4
of our blessed Saviour's Body and Blood. And this the Papists
are so sensible of, that they endeavour all they can to render our
notion of a Sacrifice contemptible ; and they have by their Wiles
decoy'd some Protestants, not sufficiently attending to the
primitive Doctrines, to join with them in this. But tho' the

202 S. AUSTIN.
Archdeacon has Avip'd off the Scandal of its being Popish, yet he
has laid another on, that it is Jewish ; Avhich it cannot be, unless
it could be proved the Christian Sacraments are Jewish ; a thing
I dare say he will never attempt. We are exhorted to return to
the old Definitions, and to regard nothing else but Avhat some
have been pleased to confine the Name of spiritual Sacrifice to :
as if our material Sacrifice, considered as what Christ by his
holy Institution has made it, is not as much at least a spiritual
Oblation, an unbloody, reasonable, holy and lively Sacrifice unto
God, a Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving, as any vocal Service
can possibly be. We have St. Austin's Definition produced
against us, as if that was absolutely inconsistent Avith a Aasible or
material Sacrifice ; whereas I hope to prove to every Person, even
of the meanest Capacity, that St. Austin intended to contain the
visible Sacrifice under his general Definition, and that this holy
Father's Sense is altogether mistaken.
In order to this I will first set down St. Austin's Definition of
a true Sacrifice : "Verum Sacrificium est omne opus quod agitur,
" ut sancta Societate inhsereamus Deo, relatum scilicet ad ilium
" finem boni, quo veraciter beati esse possimus : A true Sacrifice
" is every Work Avhich is performed to unite us Avith God, and to
" keep up a holy Covenant and Communion with him ; having a
" Respect to that great End and sovereign Good, by which we may
5. " be truly happy." This is St. Austin's general Definition, which
you see is very extensive, and wUl comprehend a great many
various Works and Sacrifices under it. Every Work, whether the
Subject of the Operation be something internal or external ; be
invisible, or visible and material ; if it be done Avith a view to
God and his Glory, to unite us to God, and to maintain our
Fellowship and Communion with him. and in the End to bring us
to everlasting Life, is a true and proper Sacrifice. But to
consider the Particulars a little more minutely.
And 1. This Definition contains the internal or mental
Sacrifices, such Works as are done or performed within us by our
Thoughts only, out of a true and sincere Love to God, and out of
a pure Heart and a good Conscience, and a Faith unfeigned ; of
which Works no one is conscious but God and the Doer of them.
Among these Ave may reckon, 1. Mental Prayers and Praises, as
they are considered abstractedly from vocal ones, and as they

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 203
proceed from a pure Mind. 2. The Sacrifice of a penitent and
contrite Heart. 3. The Sacrifice of our selves, our Souls and
Bodies, by which is meant, as it is an inward Sacrifice, a firm and
unfeigned Resolution and Engagement to God to persevere in all
religious Duties which concern either our Souls or Bodies, and to
perform all sorts of good Works : And this Sacrifice supposes,
that our Hearts will actually concur with our inward Actions
in the Performance of those Duties, and that Ave intentionally
refer them all to the Honour of God. Now these internal
Sacrifices, or if there be any other of the like Nature, of sincere
Piety, Charity, and Obedience, are the Oblations of Christians as
Members of the invisible Church, and are no Part of the external
Sacrifice of the visible Church, wliich the Priest in a solemn
Manner offers at the Altar. For the Priest cannot offer that 6.
which he is entirely ignorant of, and is kuown only to God and
the Conscience of the Offerer. Such invisible Sacrifices can only
be offered11 by the Souls of devout and holy Men themselves, and
by Christ the inA'isible High-Priest, asb St. Austin informs us :
The visible Priest offering them not really, but vocally and by
Signs and Symbols. These invisible Sacrifices then ought not to
be brought into the Debate. And tho' it be granted they are not
only true and proper Sacrifices, but also the most "perfect,
exceUent and acceptable to God, (and without which the external
Sacrifices are so far from being beneficial, that they are indeed
hurtful to the Offerers,) and may and ought to be offered, tho'
invisibly, at the Eucharist both by Priest and People ; yet they
are manifestly besides the Question, which relates only to the
publick and visible Ministration of the blessed Sacrament; unless
Sacrifices can be visible and invisible at the same Time, Avhich
seems to me a Contradiction.
¦ Ei sacrificamus hostiam humilitatis & laudis in ara cordis igne fervidaa
caritatis. De civ. Dei, lib. x. c. 3, § 2. Cum ad ilium sursum est, ejus est
altare cor nostrum. Ibid.
b Ejus unigenito eum sacerdote placamus. Ibid. & cap. 6. Cum igitur
vera Sacrificia opera sint misericordise... opera vero misericordia! non ob
aliud fiant, nisi ut a miseria liberemur — profecto efficitur, ut tota ipsa
redempta Civitas, hoc est, congregatio societasq; sanctorum, universale
sacrificium offeratur Deo per sacerdotem magnum —
' Hujus autem prsclarissimum atq; optimum sacrificium nos ipsi
sumus, hoc est Civitas ejus— lb. lib. xix. c. 23, § 5.

204 S. AUSTIN.
2. Besides these invisible Sacrifices, Avhich are only the
inward Operations of the Soul, and which therefore in the
strictest Sense are spiritual Sacrifices, Sacrifices of the Heart, or
Soul and Spirit ; there is another Sacrifice, formerly visible when
7. offered, but now invisible to us, and that is the Sacrifice of the
Death of Christ, the all-sufficient and truly meritorious Atonement
which Christ made in Person upon the Cross for the Sins of the
whole World. This Avas a Work wliich only our blessed Saviour
himself, being God as weU as Man, could perform. And since
this Sacrifice could be but once offered, it cannot now be often
repeated, but can only be commemorated and represented in the
Way our Lord has appointed. 'Tis this Sacrifice once offered,
which alone is in itself and in its own Nature propitiatory and
expiatory : This great Work of Mercy is the Foundation of the
Covenant God made with Mankind, and purchased for us all
those Benefits which will undoubtedly make us everlastingly
happy : And from this one Oblation aU other Sacrifices Avhatever
derive their whole Efficacy and Virtue.
3. Having thus treated of the internal and of the invisible
Sacrifices, which the visible Priest or sacerdotal Officer can't
perform ; I come now to speak of the external Sacrifices, the
Oblation of which is his proper and sole Business. And Ave may,
I think, rightly enough divide these into two Sorts, A'iz. Vocal
and Material.
And 1. Of the Vocal, Avhich consist of Forms of Prayer,
Praise, and Commemoration offered to God by the Tongue of the
Priest. Now these are commonly called spiritual Sacrifices,
because the Priest presents them to God in the Name of the Avhole
Congregation, as supposed to be expressive both of his own and of
their Sentiments, Avhich are the Acts of the Soul or Spirit of
Man. But I must beg Leave to observe, that these are not
strictly speaking spiritual Sacrifices, because tho' they may seem
to signify and declare the real inward Sense of the whole
Congregation, yet this is too frequently not the Truth of the
8. Matter. For both Priest and People may be very wicked, and
they may dcome near to God with their Lips, while their Hearts
d St. Cyprian intimates something to this Purpose in these Words :
Obrepit adversarius frequenter & penetrat, & subtiliter fallens preces nostras
a Deo avocat, ut aliud habeamus in corde, aliud in voce, quando intentione

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 205
are far from him. And in such a Case, tho' the Matter of
Prayers, Praises and Commemorations be very good and holy in
itself, yet they are not spiritual and reasonable, but mere Lip-
Service with Regard to those who pay it ; and therefore their
paying it is an Abomination, for which God will severely punish
them. Suppose in an Assembly there are a great many, as too
often happens, who in their Hearts believe nothing of the
Christian Religion ; or, if they do believe it, do it in so slight and
superficial a Manner, which their wicked and debauched Lives do
notoriously testify, that they may as Avell, perhaps better, not
believe it at all. Now these may come to Church for Form's
Sake, and give their assent to the Words of the Prayers ; but it
by no Means follows that those Prayers express the inward
Thoughts of their Hearts. The Sacrifice of the Priest therefore,
as he is as it were the Mouth of the Assembly, is merely
external and vocal : And those Avho are the good Members of the
Congregation, whether the Priest or any of the People, joining
their true inward and properly spiritual Sacrifices to the publick
Ministration of the Priest do their whole Duty. But in this
Affair every Man is his own Priest, because, as I hinted above, he
alone can invisibly offer such a spiritual Sacrifice. And if he
unfeignedly, without Guile and Hypocrisy in his Mind and
Heart, goes along with the Words the Priest utters, the outward 9.
Celebration will become to him a spiritual Sacrifice, because
through the Mediation of Christ God will certainly hear the
Prayers with Regard to him, and confer upon him those spiritual
Blessings, which are the ReAvard of all true and sincere Worship
pers. To prove farther, that the Office of the Priest is merely
external, let me put the Case with eSt. Austin, that one who
merely counterfeits a Belief in Christ should come to receive
sincera Dominum debeat non vocis sonus, sed animus & sensus orare. De
oratione Dominica, p. 152.
* Quid si ad ipsum baptismum Actus accessit, dimissa sunt peccata,
annon sint dimissa ? — Si dixerint, non esse dimissa ; quaero, si postea
Actionem suam corde concusso & vero dolore fateretur, denuo baptizandus
judicaretur? Quod si dementissimum est dicere; fateantur vero baptismo
Christi baptizari posse hominem, & tamen cor ejus in malitia vel sacrilegio
perseverans peccatorum abolitionem non sinere fieri. De Baptismo, lib.
1§18.

206 S. AUSTIN.
Baptism, and the Priest thereupon performs the outward Rite ; no
Body will deny that he receives true Baptism, tho' he remains
still unconverted. The Priest then does not here offer that
inward Christian Sacrifice of the Person's Conversion of the heart,
altho' he does his Part completely. The same may be said with
Regard to all the other sacerdotal Functions. He can perform
the outward Offices of preaching, praying, and administring the
Sacraments, and that is all. Paul can plant, and Apollos can
water, but God giveth the Encrease. God concurs with the out
ward Act of the Priest in bestoAving the Blessings upon the true
Believer. It is therefore a great Mistake to say, as Dr. Water-
land does, that the sacerdotal Oblation consists in offering the
inward spiritual Sacrifices of the People's contrite Hearts, their
Faith, Hope, Self-humiliation, the redempta civitas, or the elect
Members of the invisible Church, their Sacrifice of Prayer from a
10. pure Heart, the Sacrifice of true Converts or sincere Penitents:
All the Priest can do, is to present the vocal Prayers, Praises,
Commemorations and Professions of Obedience, which the People
are to take care by their own Integrity and Holiness shaU be
profitable to them.
Now these vocal Sacrifices are acceptable in themselves, by
whomsoever offered, and may be called spiritual, in Opposition to
the gross, carnal and typical Rites of the Jews, which Avere
abolished by Christianity, for these Reasons : Because in them
selves they signify those inward spiritual Sacrifices which every
Christian ought to offer ; and because through the Intercession of
Christ they bring down spiritual Blessings upon those who offer
them Avorthily. Noav the Jewish Sacrifices related primarily to
the purifying of the Flesh and to temporal Blessings and Punish
ments. For which Cause they were no longer to be continued,
but on course being but mere Shadows of Christ's grand Sacrifice
did vanish and expire. But tho' these vocal ones are, I grant,
true and proper Christian Sacrifices, and in a large Sense may be
called spiritual, yet they are much to blame avIio oppose these to
all Sacrifice of the material Kind, under Pretence that every
material Sacrifice must necessarily be Jewish. It may, I think,
as well be argued that all external or bodily Worship is Jewish,
as that a material Sacrifice as such is so. The Words of Prayer
are as much Signs of the Matter they express, and boAving the

EPISTOLARY' DISSERTATION. 207
Body or kneeling and the like significative (or ought to be so) of
the inward Dispositions of the Soul, as material or visible Sacri
fice is a sacred Sign of the Thing it represents. Now if this
outward and bodily Service may be dignified Avith the Name of
spiritual, as being sacred Actions whereby we reverence and
honour God, and holy Duties which God hath required of us to 11.
his Glory and our oavu Salvation, if we perform them as we
ought ; I can't see Avhy a material Sacrifice should not be equally
a Thing of a spiritual Nature, since by it Ave pay direct Homage
to God, and keep up our League of Amity with him ; and
through Christ's all-sufficient expiatory Oblation (of Avhich it is
the instituted Memorial and Representation) have all the good
Things promised in the Gospel bestowed upon us. All the Reason
I can find why it cannot be a spiritual Sacrifice, is because it is
typical, and if typical, therefore JeAvish. But this methinks is a
very weak Consequence, unless it is typical in the same Sense
the Jewish Sacrifices were ; that is not only Types of Christ to
come, but also such Aveak and beggarly Elements as they were,
such feint Resemblances as had scarce any Force or Virtue in
them, and not prima facie or directly designed for that great
End and supreme Good, by Avhich Ave may truly attain everlasting
Salvation. A Material therefore as Avell as the Vocal may be a
Christian Sacrifice, and consequently a spiritual one, being or
dained by Christ for spiritual Ends and Purposes, and as exactly
agreeing to St. A ustin's Definition, as any other external Sacrifice
whatsoever. I am sure St. Austin himself thought so, nay he
plainly prefers the material and visible Sacrifice of Christians
before the vocal ones, as any one may perceive by the following
Words : "Those Avho think f, says he, these visible Sacrifices are 12.
"proper for other Gods, but invisible ones to the true God as
" inAasible, and the greater and better to him Avho is greater and
f Qui autem putant haac visibilia sacrificia diis aliis congruere, illi vero
tanquam invisibili invisibilia, & majori majora, meliorique meliora, qualia
sunt purs mentis & bonae voluntatis officia ; profecto nesciunt, hsec ita esse
signa illorum, sicut verba sonantia signa sunt rerum. Quo circa sicut
orantes atque laudantes ad eum dirigimus significantes voces, cui res ipsas
in corde quas significamus offerimus : ita sacrificantes non alteri visibile
sacrificium offerendum esse noverimus, quam illi cujus in cordibus nostris
invisibile sacrificium nos ipsi sumus. De civ. Dei, lib. a. c. 19.

208 S. AUSTIN.
" better, such as the Duties of a pure Mind and a good Disposi-
" tion ; they do not perceive that the one are the Signs of the
" other, as Words are the Signs of Things. Wherefore as in our
" Prayers and Praises we direct our significant Words to him,
"whom Ave offer the Things themselves to, which are in our
" Hearts, and which we signify by them. So Avhen we sacrifice we
" know that the visible Sacrifice is to be offered to no other, than
" to him whose invisible Sacrifice we ourselves ought to be in our
"Hearts." And what this visible or material Sacrifice is, he
informs us in the very next6 Chapter : " The Sacrament of which
" Thing, says he, (meaning Christ's personal Sacrifice) he would
" have the daily Sacrifice of the Church to be ; which, since she is
" the Body of Christ her Head, learns to offer herself by it." If
then St. Austin spake the Sense of the Churches before him, as
1 3. Dr. Waterland asserts, then it is plainly the Sense of all Antiquity,
that the blessed Sacrament, the material and Adsible Elements, is
the daily Sacrifice of the Church : It is also pretty plain too, that
according to him, praying and praising are Things somewhat
distinct from sacrificing ; and are therefore to be only reckoned
Sacrifices in a large Sense, and are not to be strictly speaking
accounted as such. But I wiU not insist upon that ; for both
Kinds of Offering may be comprehended, I presume, under St.
A ustin's general Definition, but whether properly or improperly I
will not dispute ; for that would be only wrangling about Words.
I proceed to discourse
2. Of the other sort of external Sacrifices of Christians, and
they are the Material. Now a material Sacrifice may agreeably
to St. Austin's general Definition of Sacrifice be thus defined:
E Unde verus ille Mediator, in quantum formam servi accipiens Mediator
effectus est Dei & hominum homo Christus Jesus, cum in forma Dei sacrificium
cum patre sumat, cum quo & unus Deus est, tamen in forma servi sacri
ficium maluit esse quam sumere, ne vel hac occasione quisquam existimaret
cuilibet sacrificandum esse creatura?. Per hoc & sacerdos est, ipse offerens,
ipse & oblatio. Cujus rei sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit ecclesiffl
sacrificium : quaa cum ipsius capitis corpus sit, seipsam per ipsum discit
offerre. Hujus veri sacrificii (meaning Christ's own Sacrifice, and not the
Church's offering herself, as Dr. Waterland mistakes it in his Keview, p. 529.)
multiplicia variaque signa erant sacrificia prisca sanctorum, cum hoc unum
per multa figuraretur, tanquam verbis multis res una diceretur, ut sine
fastidio cuncta sacrificia falsa cesserunt.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 209
" Any hWork, for the complete Performance of which a material
" Thing is offered, in order to keep up our Covenant and Commu-
" nion Avith God, to the End that we may be everlastingly happy" :
Material Sacrifice then may be divided into two sorts, private
and pubhck. Private are such as every Christian makes, when
he gives an Alms to the Poor, or feeds the Hungry, or clothes the
Naked for God's Sake. In Avhich Case the Money, the Meat, the
Clothes are Oblations to God, and tho' given to Man, are as it
were offered a Sacrifice to his Honour and Service. But these
private Sacrifices being wide of our present Question, I shall say
no more of them.
The pubhck material Sacrifices are such, as are instituted by
Christ to be performed by his Ministers or Priests in the publick
Worship of God. And here I shall not dispute whether Baptism 14.
may not in a large Sense, conformably to St. Austin's Definition,
be caUed a Sacrifice. Yet since it is not commonly called so, and
the Eucharist is indeed so in the most eminent and emphatical
Manner, we will set aside the Consideration of Baptism, and
proceed directly to treat of the other Sacrament, as it is a part of
the pubhck external Worship of God.
To keep close therefore to St. Austin's Definition : The
Eucharistick Sacrifice is a Work done by a Priest, for the Per
formance of which Bread and Wine is used or offered in the
Manner Christ has appointed, in order to keep up our Covenant
and Communion Avith God, to the End that we may be everlast
ingly happy : Or in other Words : It is a sacerdotal Oblation of
Bread and Wine made to God in the Manner Christ has appointed,
&c. Now this is a Definition of the Eucharistick Sacrifice, the
Word Sacrifice being taken, as it frequently is, for the sacrificial
Ministration. And here let me take Notice, that St. Austin1
says there are four Things to be considered in every Sacrifice ;
viz. to whom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered,
and for whom it is offered. And in kanother Place, speaking of
h This falls in with Dr. Hickes's first Definition of a material Sacrifice,
as it means the Celebration of it. See Christian Priesthood, Vol. I. p. 159.
1 — Quatuor considerantur in omni sacrificio cui offeratur, a quo offeratur,
quid offeratur, pro quibus offeratur. — De Trin. lib. IV. § 19.
k Becte quippe offertur sacrificium, cum offertur Deo vero, cui uni tantum-
modo sacrificandum est. Non autem recte dividitur, dum non discernuntur
C. 14

210 S. AUSTIN.
Cain's Sacrifice, he affirms, that "a Sacrifice is rightly offered,
" when it is offered to the true God, to Avhom alone we ought to
15. " sacrifice : But it is not rightly diAdded, if either the Places or the
" Times of offering, or the Things themselves Avhich are offered, or
"he who offers, and to whom it is offered, or those to whom that
"which is offered is distributed to be eaten are not rightly
"distinguished." He seems to have forgot to mention, the
essential Rites Avith Avhich it is offered. But it is remarkable,
that one of the Things to be considered in a material Sacrifice,
(for of that he is talking) is what is offered, or the holy Gift
which is presented by the Priest unto God. For in a material
Sacrifice there is strict Regard had to the Gift aU along through
the whole Action, and without the Gift the Action or work
cannot possibly proceed. In such a Work every Thing the
Priest says or does apparently relates to it. The sacrificial
Ministrations of the Jewish Priests, and aU the particular Rites
belonging to them had Respect to the Thing sacrificed, whether
animate or inanimate. And if such Ministrations were Sacrifices,
it must follow, that Ministrations or Works of the same Nature
must be so too. In the Jewish Sacrifices the material Things
were offered to maintain their League and Covenant with God.
If then the Bread and Wine in the Eucharistick Sacrifice are
offered, dedicated and consecrated to God, and also eaten and
drunk as such, to maintain FeUowship and Communion with
Christ and with God, it is as much a Sacrifice as the Jevrish ; and
as its farther End is to bring us to everlasting Life, it is a far
more valuable Sacrifice. Let it be granted then that the Eucha
ristick Sacrifice is a Work or Service : But then take this along
with you, that this Work cannot be done, nor this Service
cannot be performed without the material Thing. The Priest by
our Saviour's Command, is to take something into his Hands, and
give Thanks over it, and bless it, and break it, and declaring it
16. to be Christ's Body distribute it to be eaten; the like is to be
said of the Cup. Now pray what is this something ? 'Tis Bread
and Wine, which is thus both by manual and vocal Rites dedi-
recte vel loca, vel tempora, vel res ipsa? qua? offeruntur, vel qui offert & cui
offertur, vel hi quibus ad vescendum distribuitur quod oblatum est. lb. Ub.
XV. c. 7, § 1.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 211
cated and consecrated to God, and consumed in a sacrificial
Feast both by Priest and People. Here is a sacrificial Work
done, in which the Bread and Wine have a principal Part, since
it cannot possibly be done Avithout them : Certainly then it would
be exceeding strange, if this Work should be a Sacrifice, and yet
the material Part should not be a chief Ingredient. I presume it
wiU not be denied, that the Sacrifice of the Cross was a material
Sacrifice : And yet this was a Work or a Service too as well as
the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. Therefore being a Work or a
Service does not make a Sacrifice spiritual. For if it did, there
could be no such Thing as a material Sacrifice ; then the Patri
archal and Jewish Sacrifices Avere not material, for they were
Works and Services too ; neither was our blessed Saviour's
Sacrifice of himself. A Work, Service, or Sacrifice therefore
must be denominated spiritual or material from the Subject-
matter : If the Subject-matter be spiritual, as acts of the Mind,
&c. then the Work or Sacrifice is spiritual ; but if it be a material
Thing, then it is material. Consequently the Matter of the
Eucharist being Bread and Wine, it is a material Sacrifice, or is
Bread and Wine materiaUy considered.
Having thus, I imagine, sufficiently sho-wn, that the being a
Work or Service does by no Means exclude the material Thing,
the Bread and Wine, from being an essential Part of the Eucha
ristick Sacrifice ; I shaU consider the Thing in another View, as
the Word Sacrifice means the Gift or material Thing itself offered
to God by a Priest with certain Rites to pay him Honour and
Service, and closely to knit and unite us to God by covenanting
Avith him. Now the Eucharistick Elements dedicated and con- 17.
secrated to God's Service may very properly be called a Sacrifice
in this Sense. For we offer and present them upon God's Altar
with those Rites our Lord has appointed, that we may worship
him in the most solemn and beneficial Manner Avith them ; and
that through Christ commemorated, represented and applied by
these consecrated Gifts, we may derive doAvn upon us all the
Benefits of our Lord's Passion. The Gifts therefore being thus
offered may very justly and properly be called a Sacrifice. And
indeed this Notion of a Sacrifice, as it is a material Gift offered,
is a plain Consequence of the former Notion, as a Sacrifice means
the actual Oblation of a material Gift. For if the sacerdotal
14—2

212 S. AUSTIN.
Oblation to God, the Work done, be a Sacrifice or Celebration of a
Sacrifice, then the Thing offered is the Victim or Gift sacrificed.
For Instance, the performing of aU the appointed Rites over the
Things presented to God by the Jewish High-Priest, was the
sacrificing Action, consequently the Things presented were the
Things sacrificed : Our blessed Saviour's voluntary Oblation of
himself was his sacrificial Ministration ; and therefore himself or
his human Nature hypostaticaUy united to the divine was the
Victim. The like may be said of the sacrificial Celebration of the
Eucharist, and of the material Thing offered thereby. It were
needless to prove from Scripture, that the material Thing offered
is frequently caUed a Sacrifice, because there are many knovm
Places, where the Word might be taken in this Sense. And as to
St. Austin I have shewn above, that he caUs the Things offered
visible Sacrifices, and in particular, that he calls the Eucharistick
Elements the daily Sacrifice of the Church. And in this very
Chapter, where he gives us the abovementioned Definition of a
18. Sacrifice, after speaking- of the internal Sacrifice of Christians
which they invisibly offer, he has the following 'Words : "Which
"Sacrifice, (meaning the inward one just now specified) the
"Church solemnizes in the Sacrament of the Altar, for that she
"herself is offered in that Thing which she offers." Now the
Thing she offers or sacrifices is the Bread and Wine, which both
represent Christ and his Church. The Priest then by offering
the Elements, offers the Church symbolically and externaUy, and
Christ our invisible High-Priest offers it reaUy and visibly
[? invisibly]. And as a further Proof, that the Word Sacrifice wiU bear this
Acceptation, in the Chapter before his famous Definition St.
Austin tells us what a visible Sacrifice is : "A visible Sacrifice,
"msays he, is a Sacrament, that is a sacred Sign of an invisible
"Sacrifice." This is manifestly a Definition or Description of the
material Gift. Now it would be very unaccountable, that he
should so immediately contradict himself, if the Word Sacrifice,
1 Hoc est sacrificium Christianorum : multi unum corpus in Christo.
Quod etiam in sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat Ecclesia, ut ei
demonstratur, quod in ea re quam ofiert ipsa offeratur.
m Sacrificium visibile invisibilis sacrificii sacramentum, id est, sacrum
signum est.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 213
consider'd as a material one, will not admit of both these Senses,
and may not be understood, not only of the obligatory Service,
but also of Avhat is offered thereby, Mr. n3Iede observes, that St.
Austin defines a Sacrifice in this Manner, "That Avhich Ave
"devote, dedicate, and render unto God, for this End, that we may
"have a holy Society and Fellowship with him." According
therefore to St. Austin, who is acknowledged to speak the Sense
of the Churches before him, it is not at aU inconsistent to compre- 19.
hend both the Work and the Gift under the Name of Sacrifice.
Let me here just intimate, that if this is a good Definition of a
visible or material Sacrifice, that it is a Sacrament or sacred Sign
of an invisible Sacrifice, dedicated or devoted to God for the End
aforesaid, then vice versa, by the Rule, that Definitions and the
Things defined ought to be reciprocal, such a Sacrament or
sacred Sign is a visible Sacrifice. Now it cannot be denied that
the Eucharist or the Thing which is offered is such a sacred Sign ;
therefore according to St. Austin it must be a visible Sacrifice.
In both Views then the Eucharist is a material Sacrifice, and if
St. Austin may stiU have leave to be Judge, I am much mistaken,
[if] it is not proved to a Demonstration. In Confirmation of the
Definition of a visible Sacrifice above set down, I beg leave to
subjoin, what St. Isidore of Sevil, (an antient Writer contemporary
with Gregory the Great) who studied St. Austin throughly speaks
of the Eucharist as being a Sacrifice : "It is called a Sacrifice,
"°says he, that is, a Thing made holy, because it is consecrated
"by mystical Prayer for a Memorial of our Lord's Passion for us."
From which Passage it is sufficiently manifest, that the holy

" Quod Deo nuncupamus, reddimus & dedicamus, hoe fine, ut sancta
societate ipsi adhsereamus. Mede's Works, p. 370.
D Sacrificium dictum, quasi sacrum factum, quia prece mystica con-
secratur in memoriam pro nobis dominicas passionis. Isidor. Hispal. lib. VI.
Orig. c. 18. (al. 19). The latter Part of this Sentence is borrowed from
St. Austin, lib. III. de Trin. c. 4. St. Isidore likewise gives us another
Definition of a Sacrifice ; " Sacrificium est victima, & quacunque cremantur
" in ara, vel ponuntur : A Sacrifice is a Victim and whatsoever is burnt upon an
"Altar or placed upon it." Whatsoever then is placed upon an Altar for
divine Worship is a Sacrifice. These abovementioned Definitions of a
material Sacrifice, considered as a material Gift, agree with Dr. Hiehes's
second Definition, and with that of Mr. Johnson and others.

214 S. AUSTIN.
Elements offered and consecrated by Prayer are the Sacrifice of
the Eucharist.
20. I have already said enough to shew it is St. Austin's opinion,
that the Eucharist is a visible or material Sacrifice ; but to put
the matter beyond aU Question, I wiU produce some more
Testimonies from the Works of that great Doctor of the Church.
In his Book de Civ. Dei he endeavours to shew, that we are not
to offer any sort of Sacrifice, whether visible or invisible, to any
but God. He plainly distinguishes in the 3d Chapter of the 10th
Book pbetween the Service we pay to God in the outward
Celebration of the Sacraments, and that we pay to him within
ourselves ; and both these are contained in the Worship due only
to God. In the one Service something material is used, in the
other the Oblation is purely spiritual. In the 4th Chapter he declares
that external and material Sacrifice is due to God alone, and
shews the Antiquity of it from the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel, of
whom the Elder's Sacrifice God rejected, the Younger's he
accepted. In the next Chapter he informs us of the Nature of the
visible Sacrifice : That it was only the Sign of the invisible, that
it was changeable at the WiU and Pleasure of God, that God did
not require this Kind of Sacrifices for their oavu Sake, but for the
Sake of those Things which they signify ; lastly, that the spirit
ual or invisible Sacrifices are more perfect and valuable, and
therefore are to be preferred to them. They both indeed are true
Sacrifices in their Kind, but that the one is only the Sign of the
other; and both are comprised under St. Austin's general Defi
nition, which introduces the 6th Chapter. In the 7th Chapter he
lets us knowq, that the holy Angels would not have us offer Sacri-
21. fice to them, but to him whose Sacrifice both they and we are.
And in the 16th Chapter he asserts rwe are to give Credit to those
Angels, who command we should sacrifice to God alone, and not
to those who require we should sacrifice to themselves or to false
p Huic nos servitutem, quas \arpeta GreeeS dicitur, sive in quibusque
sacramentis, sive in nobis ipsis debemus.
i —Nolunt nos sibi sacrificare, sed ei, cujus & ipsi nobiscum sacrificium
se esse noverunt.
r Quibus igitur Angelis— credendum esse censemus ? Utrum eis qui se
religionis ritibus coli volunt, sibi sacra & sacrificia flagitantes a mortalibus
exhiberi ; an eis qui hunc omnem cultum uni Deo deberi dicunt?

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 215
Gods, even tho' they should work Miracles to persuade us to it.
And that he means by sacrificing, offering visible or material
Sacrifices, is clear both from his comparing them with the religious
Rites and the Sacrifices offer'd to bad Angels and false Gods,
wliich were confessedly material, and by his saying that this very
Kind of Worship was owing to the Creator of all Things, and also
by his declaring in the 19th Chapter, that visible Sacrifice is to
be offered to the true God, as appears from the Passage I have
cited above. To which let me add another from 8 Chapter 26.
"That Ave need not fear the good Angels will be offended at our
"not sacrificing to them. For what they knoAv is only due to the
"true God, by adhering to whom they are happy, they would not
"have us pay to them either by any significant Figure, or by the
"Thing itself signified by the Sacraments." Where by the
significant Type or Figure is meant the Sacrament or material
Sacrifice, and by the Thing signified the spiritual and invisible.
From whence it foUows, that God requires the visible as weU as
the spiritual Sacrifice as due to him. And who is ignorant, that 22.
the Eucharist is in the most eminent Manner the visible Sacrifice
of Christians ?
Which, as it was not aUowed to be offered to Angels, so
neither was permitted to be offered to the Martyrs. To which
Purpose St. Austin is like-wise very express : "We don't, 'says
¦ Non itaque debemus metuere, ne immortales & beatos uni Deo subditos
non eis sacrificando offendamus. Quod enim non nisi uni vero Deo deberi
sciunt, cui & ipsi adhserendo beati sunt, proeuldubio neque per ullam signifi-
cantem figuram, neque per ipsam rem quae sacramentis significatur, sibi
exhiberi volunt.
' Nee tamen nos eisdem Martyribus templa, sacerdotia, sacra & sacrificia
constituinras : quoniam non ipsi, sed Deus eorum nobis est Deus. Hono-
ramus sane Memorias eorum tanquam sanctorum hominum Dei, qui usque
ad mortem corporum suorum pro veritate certarunt — Quis autem audivit
aliquando fidelium stantem sacerdotem ad altare etiam super sanctum
corpus Martyris ad Dei honorem cultumque constructum, dicere in precibus,
Offero tibi sacrificium, Petre, vel Paule, vel Cypriane; cum apud eorum
Memorias offeratur Deo, qui eos & homines & Martyres fecit ? — Quscunque
igitur adhibentur religiosorum obsequia in Martyrum locis, ornamenta sunt
Memoriarum, non sacra vel sacrificia mortuorum tanquam Deorum. Qui-
cunque etiam epulas suas eo deferunt, quod quidem a Christianis melioribus
non fit, & in plerisque terrarum nulla talis est consuetudo ; tamen quicunque
id faciunt, (quas cum apposuerint, orant, & auferunt, ut vescantur, vel ex

216 S. AUSTIN.
"he, constitute Temples, Priesthoods, holy Rites and Sacrifices to
" the Martyrs ; because not they, but their God is also our God.
" We indeed honour their Memorials as of Holy Men of God, who
"even unto Death contended for the Truth. — But who of the
" Faithful ever heard a Priest standing at the Altar, built for the
" Honour and Worship of God over the holy body of a Martyr,
" say in his Prayers, I offer Sacrifices to thee, 0 Peter, or Paul,
" or Cyprian ; since at their Memorials Sacrifice is offered to
" God, who made them both Men and Martyrs ? — Therefore
"whatsoever Respects religious Men pay in the Places of the
23. " Martyrs, they are Ornaments of the Memorials, and not sacred
" Rites or Sacrifices to dead Men as if they were Gods. Who-
" ever also bring hither their Banquets, which yet is not done by
"the sounder Christians, and in most places there is no such
" Custom : Nevertheless, whoever does so, (which Entertainments
"when they have brought thither, they pray, and take them
" away again, that they may eat them, or bestow Part of them
"among the Poor) they only mean that their Food should be
" sanctified to them by the Merits of the Martyrs in the Name of
"the Lord of the Martyrs. But that such Banquets are not
" Sacrifices to the Martyrs he knows, who knows the one Sacrifice
" of Christians which is there offer'd." No Body can doubt but
the Sacrifice here mentioned is something material. He here
shews that the Feasts at the Tombs of the Martyrs, which were
material Things, could not be Sacrifices of Christians ; for this
Reason, because the Faithful knew they had but one Sacrifice,
which as the Feasts were, was visible and material. This Reason
therefore would lose aU its Force, if the one Christian Sacrifice
were purely spiritual ; it therefore must be the Sacrifice of Bread
and Wine, which St. "Austin says all the Church offers. There
is a hke Passage in his 20th Book against Faustus c. 21 where
24. hew informs us, they did not build Altars to the Martyrs but to
eis etiam iudigentibus largiantur) sanctificari sibi eas volunt per merita
Martyrum in nomine Domini Martyrum. Non autem esse ista sacrificia
Martyrum novit, qui novit unum, quod etiam illic offertur sacrificium
Christianorum. De Civ. Dei, lib. VIII. e. 27.
* Aquarii ex illo appellati sunt, quod aquam offerunt in poculo sacramenti,
non illud quod omnis ecclesia. Lib. de Hares. LXIV.
" — Ut nulli Martyrum, sed ipsi Deo Martyrum quamvis in memoriis

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 217
God ; and that the Sacrifice which Avas offered, Avas offered only
to God. Now that this Sacrifice Avas as to its Substance material
is manifest from hence, because a material Sacrifice is the only
proper one for a material Altar. And this is farther clear'd from
what soon after foUoAvs : " We worship the Martyr, says he, Avith
" the Worship of Love and Society — But Avith that Worship called
"XxLTpela, — being a Service proper to God, we neither worship,
" nor teach any one to worship any other but God alone. And
"whereas the offering of Sacrifice appertains to this Kind of
" Worship, whence it is called Idolatry in those that give it to
" Idols. We neither offer nor teach any to offer any such Thing
" either to any Martyr, or any holy Soul, or any Angel." Which
is all manifestly to be understood of offering the external Sacri
fice of the Eucharistick Elements. For soon after he assures us,
that they frequently sacrificed to God in the Memories or
Churches of the Martyrs, by that only Rite, whereby he ordered
in the Gospel that Sacrifice should be offered to him : Which
belongs to that Worship which is called Latria, and is due to
God only. What Sacrifice is here meant is visible enough ; and
what the Drift of all this is, appears sufficiently plain, to wit,
that they did not celebrate the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine
according to the Rite or Method prescribed by Christ to the
Martyrs, but to God. And this St. Austin fully confirms else- 25.
where. For xsays he "We do not build to our Martyrs Temples
Martyrum constituamus altaria. Quis enim antistitum in locis sanctorum
corporum assistens altari, aliquando dixit, Offerimus tibi Petre — ; sed quod
offertur, offertur Deo— Colimus ergo Martyres eo cultu dilectionis & soci-
etatis — At illo cultu, quae Grasce Xarpela dicitur — , cum sit quaadam proprie
divinitati debita servitms, nee colimus, nee colendum docemus, nisi unum
Deum. Cum autem ad hunc cultum pertineat oblatio sacrificii, unde
idololatria dicitur eorum, qui hoc etiam idolis exhibent ; nullo modo tale
aliquid offerimus aut offerendum praecipimus, vel cuiquam Martyri, vel
cuiquam sancta? anima? vel cuiquam Angelo — Sacrificare martyribus dixi :
non dixi sacrificare Deo in memoriis martyrum ; quod frequentissimS
facimus, illo duntaxat ritu, quo sibi sacrificari novi testamenti manifesta-
tione praecepit : quod pertinet ad ilium cultum quae latria dicitur & uni Deo
debetur. * Nos autem Martyribus nostris non templa, sicut Diis, sed memorias
sicut hominibus mortuis, quorum apud Deum vivunt spiritus, fabricamus ;
nee ibi erigimus altaria, in quibus sacrificemus Martyribus, sed uni Deo &

218 S. AUSTIN.
"as to Gods, but Memories or Churches in Memory of them as
" to dead men, whose Spirits live with God ; neither do we erect
" Altars, upon Avhich we sacrifice to the Martyrs, but to the one
" God both theirs and ours : At Avhich Sacrifice, as Men of God,
"who have overcome the World in confessing him, they are
" named in their Place and Order ; but are not invoked by the
"Priest who sacrifices. For he sacrifices to God, and not to
" them, altho' he sacrifices in their Memorial ; because he is
"God's Priest and not theirs. But the Sacrifice itself is the
" Body of Christ, which is not offered to them, for they them-
" selves also are it." That is they are the mystical Body of
Christ, as the external Sacrifice of Bread and Wine is the Body
of Christ symbolicaUy and virtuaUy. Here it is to be noted the
Word Sacrificium has a twofold Acceptation in this Passage.
The Words, at which Sacrifice, are to be understood, of the
Work or Celebration of the material Sacrifice at the material
Altar : And the Words, the Sacrifice itself, mean the material
Thing offered. So that according to St. Austin, not only the
Oblation of a Sacrifice may be caUed a Sacrifice, but the Thing
offer'd also, which confirms what I have discoursed above. This
26. may be iUustrated by what St. Austin ysays about the mensa
Cypriani, or the Altar or Communion Table which was erected
in the place where St. Cyprian suffered. He teUs us, " That in
" the same Place a Table was built to God ; and yet it is caUed
"the Table of Cyprian, not because he himself was sacrificed
" upon it, and because by his OAvn being sacrificed he prepared
" this Table, not upon which he eats or is fed, but upon which
"the Sacrifice is offered to God, to whom he also himself was
" offered." The Table shews Avhat sort of Sacrifice that is, such
a one as St. Optatus who flourished a little before St. Austin,
Martyrum & nostro : ad quod sacrificium, sicut homines Dei, qui mundum
in ejus confessione vicerunt, suo loco & ordine nominantur. Deo quippe,
non ipsis, sacrificat, quamvis in memoria sacrificet eorum: quia Dei
sacerdos est non illorum. Ipsum vero sacrificium corpus est Christi, quod
non offertur ipsis, quia hoc sunt & ipsi. De Civ. Dei, lib. XXII. u. 10.
y Sicut nostis, quicunque Cartaginem nostis, in eodem loco Mensa Deo
constructa est : & tamen mensa dicitur Cypriani, non quia ibi est immolatus,
& quia ipsa immolatione sua paravit hanc mensam, non in qua pascat sive
pascatur, sed in qua sacrificium Deo, cui & ipse oblatus est, offeratur.
Serm. 310, § 2.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 219
speaks of: "Wine, zsays he, is trodden and pressed out by
" Workmen who are Sinners, and so of it a Sacrifice is offered to
"God." Another Argument to prove, that St. Austin held the
Eucharist to be a material Sacrifice, may be draAvn from his
affirming, that Melchisedech' s Sacrifice was a Type of it, and that
the Matter Avas the same in both. There are several Passages in
his Book De Civ. Dei, which I will set down in the same order as
they are to be found. "Abraham, "says he, was blessed by
"Melchisedech, who was Priest of the most high God — There 27.
"first appeared the Sacrifice, which now through the whole
" world is offered by Christians to God, and that is fulfilled which
" was long after said by the Prophet to Christ, who was yet to
" come in the Flesh, Thou art a Priest for ever, after the order
"of Melchisedech." Again, upon citing the Words of God to
Eli 1 Sam. ii. 36, he ^comments thus : "By adding, to eat Bread,
" he elegantly expressed the very Kind of Sacrifice, of which the
" Priest himself says, The Bread which I will give is my Flesh
"for the Life of the World. It is the very Sacrifice, not
"according to the Order of Aaron, but according to the Order
"of Melchisedech; he that reads, let him understand. — He
" therefore said, to eat Bread, which is the Sacrifice of Christians
"in the New Testament." A little "above he says, "There is no
" Priest according to the Order of Aaron ; and whosoever is of
z Nam & vinum a peccatoribus operariis & calcatur & premitur ; & sic
inde Deo sacrificium offertur. Lib. HI.
* Sed plane tune benedictus est » Melchisedech, qui erat sacerdos Dei
excelsi. — Rii quippe primum apparuit sacrificium, quod nunc a Christianis
offertur Deo toto orbe terrarum, & impletur illud quod longe post hoc factum
per prophetam dicitur ad Christum, qui fuerat adhuc venturus in carne, Tu
es sacerdos in aeternum secundem ordinem Melchisedech. Lib. XVI. c. 22.
b Quod ergo addidit, manducare panem, etiam ipsum sacrificii genus
eleganter expressit, de quo dicit sacerdos ipse, Panis quem ego dedero, caro
mea est pro seculi vita. Ipsum est sacrificium, non secundum Aaron, sed
secundum ordinem Melchisedech : qui legit, intelligat. — Ideo hie dixit
manducare panem, quod est in novo Testamento sacrificium Christi-
anormn. Lib. XVH. c. 5, § 5.
Nullus sacerdos est secundum ordinem Aaron, & quicunque ex ejus
genere est homo, cum videt sacrificium Christianorum toto orbe pollere, sibi
autem honorem ilium magnum esse subtractum, deficiunt oculi ejus, &
defluit anima ejus tabe moeroris. lb. § 2.

220 S. AUSTIN.
"his Race, Avhen he sees the Sacrifice of Christians prevail aU
" over the World, and himself spoiled of that great Honour, his
"Eyes fail him, and his Soul sinks down with Sorrow." The
Sacrifice of Christians then is to be seen, it must then have
something material in it. In another Place commenting on,
28. Thou art a Priest for ever Sc. hed subjoins: "Since the
" Priesthood and Sacrifice according to the Order of Aaron is no
" where, and that is every where offered under Christ the Priest,
"Avhich Melchisedech brought forth, who is permitted to doubt of
"whom those Things are said 1" Again, expounding Prov. ix. 1
&c. Wisdom has built her a House, &c, he thus6 discourses:
" Here we acknowledge the Wisdom of God, that is, the Word
" coeternal Avith the Father, — did prepare a Table in Wine and
"Bread, where appears also the Priesthood after the Order of
"Melchisedech. — To be made Partaker of that Table is to begin
"to have Life. For in Ecclesiastes viii. 15, where it is said,
" It is not good, but to eat and to drink, what can more credibly
" be understood, than what relates to the partaking of this Table,
" which the Priest himself, the Mediator of the New Testament,
"furnishes after the Order of Melchisedech Avith his Body and
29. " Blood? For that Sacrifice succeeded to all the Sacrifices of the
" Old Testament, which were immolated by way of Shadow of
" that to come : On the Account of Avhich we approve of that
"saying of the same Mediator speaking propheticaUy in the
d Ex eo quod jam nusquam est sacerdotium & sacrificium secundum
ordinem Aaron, & ubique offertur sub sacerdote Christo, quod protulit
Melchisedech, quando benedixit Abraham, quis ambigere permittitur, de quo
ista dicantur. lb.
" Hie certe agnoscimus Dei sapientiam, hoc est, Verbum Patri coetemum
— mensam in vino & panibus prsparasse, ubi apparet etiam sacerdotium
secundum ordinem Melchisedech — participem autem fieri mensae illius, ipsum
est incipere habere vitam. Nam & in alio libro, qui vocatur Ecclesiastes,
ubi ait, Non est bonum homini, nisi quod nuinducabit di bibet, quid credibilius
dicere intelligitur, quam quod ad participationem mensa? hujus pertinet,
quam sacerdos ipse Mediator testamenti novi exhibet secundum ordinem
Melchisedec de corpore & sanguine suo? Id enim sacrificium successit
omnibus illis saorifioiis veteris testamenti, qusa immolabantur in umbra
futuri : propter quod etiam vocem in Psalmo 39, ejusdem Mediatoris per
prophetiam loquentis agnoscimus .- sacrificium & oblationes noluisti, coipus
autem perfecisti mihi. Quia pro illis omnibus sacrificiis & oblationibus
corpus ejus offertur, & participantibus ministratur. lb. c. 20, § 2.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 221
" xxxixth Psalm : Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a
" Body hast thou prepared me. For instead of all these Sacri-
" fices and Oblations his Body is offered, and is administred to the
" Communicants." From whence it is evident, that the Christian
Sacrifice is in Substance Bread and Wine, as Melchisedech' s was,
and in Significancy and Power Christ's Body and Blood ; and
that it is not completely offered tiU it is fuUy consecrated by
Prayer, and thereby made what our Saviour appointed it to be at
the Institution. He in an allegorical Avay accommodates the
Passage in the Psalm to the Eucharistick, which is primarily
understood of Christ's personal Sacrifice, to shew the great
Dignity and Value of it, and to declare that the Sacrifice we
partake of at the Lord's Table is not tmean Cates and ignoble
Drink but constructionaUy or in Virtue and Efficacy, the Flesh
and Blood of our Great Shepherd. From hence also we may
learn, that the Christian Sacrifice, tho' symbolical or typical, or
rather antitypical, is not such a mere cold shadow as the Jewish
Sacrifices were ; neither is it Jewish, but Evangelical, since it
was ordained by the Mediator himseff to succeed in the Room of
aU the Jewish Sacrifices. I shall only add one more Passage out
of many that might be produced relating to this Point. It is in
his BBook de diversis 8. 3. qucestionibus : " He himself is our 30.
" Priest for ever, after the Order of Melchisedech, who offered
"himself an entire Sacrifice for our Sins, and recommended a
" SimUitude of that Sacrifice to be celebrated for a Memorial of
"his Passion, that what Melchisedech offered to God, we may
"behold offered through the whole World in the Church of
"Christ." What this is I need not say, because every Body's
Eyes cannot but give them full Information.
It is not here my Business to dispute, whether the Generality
f Invitata est postea universarum gentium multitudo, ipsa implevit
ecclesiam, ipsa accepit de mensa dominica non viles epulas aut ignobiles
potus, sed ipsius Pastoris, ipsius occisi Christi carnem pradibavit et
sanguinem. Serm. 372, § 2.
e Ipse est etiam sacerdos noster in aeternum secundum ordinem Mel-
chisedec, qui seipsum obtulit holocaustum pro peccatis nostris, & ejus
sacrificii similitudinem celebrandam in suae passionis memoriam commen-
davit, ut illud quod Melchisedec obtulit Deo, jam per totum orbem terrarum
in Christi ecclesia videamus offerri. Qussst. LXI.

222 S. AUSTIN.
of the Fathers, and St. Austin in particular, were in the Right to
affirm, that Melchisedech offered a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine
as a Type of the Eucharist ; and that our blessed Saviour was a
Priest after his Order upon Account of his offering the same
Things, when he instituted the holy Sacrament, as weU as in
other Respects ; and that the Christian Clergy are Priests
likewise after his Order for the same Reason ; tho' I humbly
apprehend, he must be a bold man, who will pertinaciously
contradict such venerable Authority. The whole Point lies here,
whether St. Austin did in Fact believe, that the Sacrifice of
Melchisedech, and that of the Christian Church consist of the
same Materials, and consequently are both of them to be look'd
upon as material Sacrifices. Dr. Waterland h contends, the ancient
Fathers meant, "That Melchisedech by a divine Instinct fore-
" seeing the Sacrifice of the Cross, offered to God by Way of
" Thanksgiving, a mental, vocal, manual Representation or
31. "Figuration of it, by the Symbols of Bread and Wine; and by
"the same Symbols, instrumentally, conveyed to Abraham the
"spiritual Blessings of it." Now I desire to know, whether this
is not tantamount to saying, That Melchisedech in order to
represent or prefigure the Sacrifice of the Cross, did take Bread
and Wine into his Hands, and mentaUy and vocaUy give Thanks
over them and blessed them, that they might become Symbols of
that Sacrifice, and by performing these mental, vocal, and
manual Rites over them did by Way of Address to God present
them to him as such Symbols ; and then gave the same Symbols
so presented and consecrated by these Rites to Abraham, that
by them the spiritual Blessings of Christ's Sacrifice might
instrumentaUy be conveyed to him. If this is not the very same
in Sense with what Dr. Waterland asserts, I am mightily mis
taken ; and I must confess, I am so shortsighted as not to be
able to discern the least Disagreement. Certainly he must have
a very nice Head, that can possibly distinguish between offering
to God by Way of Thanksgiving a Representation or Figuration
of a certain Thing by material Symbols, and offering to God by
Way of Thanksgiving material Symbols to represent or figure
that certain Thing. This, as it appears to me, is a Distinction
h Append, p. 30.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 223
without a Difference. I must therefore take leave to say, that
according to Dr. Waterland's oato Account of the Matter, St.
Austin and the ancient Fathers maintained, that Melchisedech' s
was a material Sacrifice of Thanksgiving, whereby the Sacrifice of
the Cross was prefigured, and applied to Abraham; and there
fore sure there can be no Harm in concluding, that the Christian
is also a material Sacrifice of Thanksgiving, whereby the Sacri
fice of the Cross is commemorated and represented, and applied
to those who worthily partake of it. I beg therefore, that St. 32.
Austin may stUl be permitted to say Avith Propriety, that the
external Sacrifice of the Christian Church is an Oblation of
Bread and Wine performed with such manual and vocal Rites as
our Lord ordained : But whether he wiU be permitted or no, 'tis
undoubtedly true, that he does say it, beyond all Possibility of
reasonable Contradiction. For tho' it could even be made out,
that this holy and learned Father is mistaken in believing
Melchisedech offered a material Sacrifice of Bread and Wine, yet
his Testimony is too strong to be resisted, that the Eucharist is a
material Sacrifice, such a one as he imagined at least Melchise-
dech's to be. Which being enough for my present Purpose, I
shaU proceed no farther upon this Argument.
My next observation shaU be, St. Austin's teaching that the
Jewish material Sacrifices were changed, and that the material
Sacrifice of the Eucharist succeeded in their Room. - This is in
Part shewn already by a Passage just now cited. And indeed it
is no Wonder the Jewish Sacrifices ceas'd and Avere chang'd, for
they only foretold Christ to come in an obscure Manner ; but our
Sacrifice openly proclaims he is come. St. Austin1 acquaints us:
" Our Saviour did not abolish those old Signs [or Sacrifices] by
" blaming them, but changed them by fulfilling them, that those
"which declare Christ was already come might be other than
"those which were predictive of his coming." Now I hope both 33.
1 Proinde ilia Vetera signa rerum non evaeuavit arguendo, sed implendo
mutavit : ut alia essent, quaa nuntiarent venisse jam Christum, quam
fuerant ilia, quas preenuntiabant esse venturum. Tract, adv. Judaaos, § 4 &
contra Faust, lib. XIX. c. 13. Prima sacramenta — praenuntiativa erant
Christi venturi : quae cum suo adventu Christus implevisset, ablata sunt —
& alia sunt instituta virtute majora, utilitate meliora, actu faciliora, numero
pauciora.—

224 S. AUSTIN.
sorts of Signs, both new and old, are material, and you know who
says, that a visible Sacrifice is a holy Sign of the in-visible.
'"Again : Those Sacrifices of the Old Testament were Figures to
" us, and they all signified the one Sacrifice, the Memorial of which
" we now celebrate." mAdd hereunto, "The Hebrews in Sacrifices
" of Cattle, which they offered to God, celebrated a Prophecy of
" the future Sacrifice, which Christ offered. Whence Christians
" now celebrate the Memory of the same Sacrifice already past by
" a sacred Oblation and Participation of the Body and Blood of
" Christ," or which is all one, of the blessed Sacrament thereof:
For you lmow St. Austin calls the daily Sacrifice of the Church
the Sacrament of this Thing. "Again : " The Flesh and Blood of
"this Sacrifice was promised before the coming of Christ by
" Victims of Resemblance ; was in Verity offered in the Passion
" of Christ, and is celebrated by a Sacrament of Memory after the
"Ascension of Christ." Now what this Sacrament of Memory
or Commemoration is let St. Fulgentius, who closely adhered to
St. Austin's Doctrine, inform us : "Firmly believe, °says he, and
1 — ipsa figure nostrae fuerunt, & omnia talia mnltis & variis modis unum
sacrificium, cujus nunc memoriam celebramus, signifieaverunt. lb. lib.
iv. c. 5.
™ Hebraei autem in victimis pecorum quas offerebant Deo — prophetiam
celebrabant futuras victims?, quam Christus obtulit. Unde jam Christiani
peracti ejusdem sacrificii memoriam celebrant saerosaneta oblatione &
participatione corporis & sanguinis Christi. lb. lib. XX. c. 18.
° Hujus sacrificii caro & sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas
similitudinum promittebatur ; in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem
reddebatur ; post adscensum Christi per sacramentum memoria? celebratur.
lb. c. 21.
° Firmissime tene & nullatenus dubites, ipsum unigenitum Deum Verbum
carnem factum, se pro nobis obtulisse sacrificium & hostiam Deo in odorem
suavitatis : cui cum Patre & Spiritu sancto a Patriarchis & Prophetis &
Sacerdotibus tempore veteris Testamenti anhnalia sacrificabantur, & cui nunc,
id est, tempore novi Testamenti, cum Patre & Spiritu sancto, cum quibus
illi est una divinitas, sacrificium panis & vini in fide & caritate S. Catholica
Ecclesia per universum orbem terras offerre non cessat. In illis enim
carnalibus viotimis significatio fuit carnis Christi, quam pro peccatis nostris
ipse sine peccato fuerat oblaturus, & sanguinis quem erat effusurus in remis-
sionem peccatorum nostrorum : in isto autem sacrificio gratiarum actio
atque commemoratio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit, & sanguinis
quem pro nobis idem Deus effudit. — In illis sacrificiis quid nobis esset
donandum figurate significabatur : in hoc autem sacrificio quid nobis jam

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 225
" doubt not in any Avise, that the very only begotten Son, God 34.
" the Word, being made Flesh offered himself for us a Sacrifice
'' and Oblation of a sweet-smelling Savour to God : To whom with
"the Father and Holy Ghost, by Patriarchs, and Prophets, and
" Priests Animals were sacrificed in the Time of the Old Testa-
"ment; and to whom noAv, that is under the New, together with
"the Father and Holy Ghost, with whom he has one and the
"same Divinity, the Catholic Church throughout the World
" ceaseth not to offer a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine in Faith and
" Charity. In those carnal Sacrifices there was a Signification of
" the Flesh of Christ, which he without Sin should offer for our
" Sins, and of that Blood which he was to shed on the Cross for
"the Remission of our Sins: But in this Sacrifice there is a
" Thanksgiving and Commemoration of that Flesh of Christ, which
" he offered for us, and of that Blood Avhich he our God has shed
" for us. — In those Sacrifices, what was to be given for us, was
" represented in a Figure ; but in this Sacrifice, what is already
"given is evidently shewn." Upon which0 Ratramnus thus 35.
briefly comments: "By saying, that in those Sacrifices was
" signified what should be given for us ; but that in this Sacrifice
" what is already given is commemorated ; he plainly intimates,
" that as those Sacrifices were a Figure of Things to come, so this
"Sacrifice is the Figure of Things already past." It appears
from hence, that St. Austin's Sacrament of Memory, is the same
with St. Fulgentius's Sacrifice of Bread and Wine, whereby the
grand Sacrifice is commemorated, and with the Sacrifice of Bread
and Wine or of the Body and Blood, which St. Austin frequently
speaks of. From whence Ave may observe, that the ancient
Fathers were not so nice as we are now a-days in distinguishing
between the Sacrifice and the Sacrament. pSt. Austin speaks of
donatum fit evidenter ostenditur. De Fide ad Petrum § 62, in the Appendix
to the 6'h Tome of St. Austin's Works. Ed. Ben.
" Dicens quod in illis sacrifices quid nobis esset donandum significabatur,
in isto vero sacrificio quid sit donatum commemoretur, patenter innuit, quod
sicut ilia figuram habuerint futurorum, sic & sacrificium figure sit prateri-
torum. De Corp. et sang. Dom. § XVI.
* And in his Epistle to Honoratus he calls the Sacrifice of Christ's Body
the Sacrament of the Faithful : Vota sua sacrificium vult intelligi corporis sui,
quod est fidelium sacramentum, which shews they were only different Names
for the same Thing.
C. 15

22G S. AUSTIN.
eating as well as offering the Sacrifice of Christians, and of the
holy Oblation and Participation of the Body of Christ, and
"Isidore Hispalensis mentions offering the Sacrament of Christ's
Body and Blood, that is, the Oblation of Bread and Wine: And
Tertullian both names the Orationes Sacrificiorum, the Prayers
by which the Sacrifice was offered, and also the Participation of
the Sacrifice. Foe this Remark I must acknowledge myself obliged to Arch-
36. bishop Usher, who without Disparagement to any Body was so
weU acquainted both with the Language and Doctrine of the
Ancients as any one either before or since his Time. It being, I
think, much to my present Purpose, I will give it you in his OAra
exceUent Words out of his rBook concerning the Religion of the
ancient Irish, Avhich by the By was wrote many Years before Mr.
Mede's upon the Subject, and therefore Dr. Waterland is mistaken
in supposing that he was the first Broacher of the Doctrine of a
Material Sacrifice. " In the Relation of the Passages, says that
" great and learned Prelate, that concern the Obsequies of Colum-
"banus performed by Gallus and Magnoaldus, we find that
"missam celebrare and missas agere is made to be the same with
"Divina celebrare mysteria and salutis hostiam or salutare
" sacrificium immolare : The saying of Mass the same with the
" Celebration of the Divine Mysteries and Oblation of the health-
" ful Sacrifice : For by that Term was the Administration of the
" Sacrament of the Lord's Supper at that Time usually designed.
" For as in our Beneficence and communicating unto the Neces-
" sities of the Poor, (which are Sacrifices wherewith God is well-
" pleased) we are taught to give both ourselves and our Alms,
" first unto the Lord, and after unto our Brethren by the Will of
" God, so is it in this Ministry of the blessed Sacrament. The
" Service is first presented unto God (from which, as from a most
"principal Part of the Duty, the Sacrament itself is called the
" Eucharist ; because therein Ave offer a special Sacrifice of Praise
" and Thanksgiving always unto God) and then communicated to
37. "the Use of God's People. In the Performance of which Part of
¦ — Corporis & sanguinis saeramentum, i.e. oblatio panis & vini, in toto
orbe terrarum offertur.- In Allegor. vet. Test.
' Chap. IV.

EPISTOLARY" DISSERTATION. 227
" the Service, both the Minister was said to give and the Com-
"municant to receive the Sacrifice: As AveU as in Respect of the
"former Part they were said to offer the same unto the Lord:
" For they did not distinguish the Sacrifice from the Sacrament,
" as the Romanists do now a-days ; but used the Name of Sacrifice
"indifferently, both of that which was offered unto God, and of
"that wliich Avas given to and received by the Communicant.
" Therefore Ave read of offering the Sacrifice to God : As in that
" Speech of Gallus to his Scholar Magnoaldus, My Master Colum-
" banus is accustomed to offer unto the Lord the Sacrifice of Salva-
" tion in brazen Vessels. Of giving the Sacrifice to Man : As when
" it is said in one of the ancient Synods of Ireland, that a Bishop
"by his Testament may bequeath a certain Proportion of his
" Goods for a Legacy to the Priest that giveth him the Sacrifice,
"and of receiving tlie Sacrifice from the Hands of the Minister:
" As in that Sentence of the Synod attributed to St. Patrick; He
" who deserveth not to receive the Sacrifice in his Life, how can it
" help him after his Death? And in that Gloss of Sedulius upon
" 1 Cor. xi. 33, Tarry one for another, that is, saith he, until you
" do receive tlte Sacrifice. And in the British Antiquities, where
" we read of Amon a Nobleman in Wales, Father to Samson the
" Saint of Dole in little Britain, that being taken with a grievous
" Sickness, he Avas admonished by his Neighbours, that according to
" the usual Manner he should receive the Sacrifice of the Com-
" munion. Whereby it doth appear, that the Sacrifice of the
" elder Times was not like unto the new Mass of the Romanists,
"wherein the Priest alone doth all; but unto our Communion,
" where others also have free Liberty given unto them to eat of
"the Altar, Heb. xiii. 10, as Avell as they that serve the Altar." 38.
I hope this will not be look'd upon as an useless and foreign
Digression ; but to return :
St. Austin proves from the Prophet "Malachi, that the Jewish
Sacrifices were laid aside, and the Christian Oblation took place
every Avhere: "Malachi, 'says he, prophesying of the Church
¦ Mai. i. 10.
' Malachias prophetans Ecclesiam, Judaeis apertissime dicit ex persona
Dei : non est mihi voluntas in vobis & munus non suscipiam de manu vestra.
Ab ortu enim solis — & in omni loco sacrificabitur & offeretur nomini meo
oblatio munda— Hoc sacrificium per sacerdotium Christi secundum ordinem
15—2

228 S. AUSTIN.
" speaks openly to the Jews in the Person of God : / have no
"pleasure in You, and I will not receive a Gift at your Hands.
" From the rising of the Sun &c. in every Place Incense shall
" be offered unto my Name and a pure Offering. This Sacrifice
" by the Priesthood of Christ, according to the Order of Melchi-
"sedech, we see offered in every Place, and they cannot deny
"that the Sacrifice of the Jews is ceas'd, why do they yet
"expect another Christ—?" AndT again: "We ourselves, that
"is, his City, are his best and most excellent Sacrifice, the
" Mystery of which Thing we celebrate by our Oblations, which
"are known to the Faithful.— For the Hebrew Prophets foretold,
39. " that the Sacrifices which the Jews offered for a Shadow of what
"was to come should cease, and that from the rising to the set-
" ting of the Sun the Gentiles as we now see done, should offer
"the one Sacrifice." The one Sacrifice then, which the Faithful
knew and saw was visible and consequently material. And tho'
the spiritual Oblation of ourselves is the most exceUent Sacrifice,
yet this, if St. Austin says true, is to be performed by offering
the Material according to our Lord's OAvn Ordinance; and we
cannot be sure that we offer the one aright without the celebra
tion of the other. What God has joined let not Man separate.
He has pointed out the most acceptable Way of offering our
spiritual Sacrifices, and that is by offering him, as frequently as
we can, the instituted Symbols of them.
But now to argue a little from the preceding Passages:
Nothing can be plainer from St. Austin, than that the Evangelical
Sacrifice is visible and material, as well as the Jewish. It is
granted indeed they both are Types, the one promissive, the
other commemorating and representing. But surely the latter
are much more noble and efficacious than the former, not such

Melchisedec, cum in omni loco a solis ortu ad occasum jam videamus offerri,
sacrificium autem Judaeorum — cessasse negare non possunt, quid adhuc
expectant alium Christum — ? De Civ. Dei, Lib. XVIII. c. 35.
' Hujus autem praeclarissimum atque optimum sacrificium nos ipsi
Bumus, hoo est civitas ejus, cujus rei mysterium celebramus oblationibus
nostris, qua fidelibus notsB sunt — Cessaturas enim victimas, quas in umbra
futuri offerebant Judssi, & unum sacrificium gentes a solis ortu usque ad
occasum, sicut jam fieri cernimus, oblaturas, per prophetas Hebneos oracula
increpuere divina. lb. Lib. XIX. c. 23.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 229
mere Shadows, not such obscure Similitudes. And this holy
Father affirming that this material Evangelical Sacrifice was to
be everywhere and always oft'ered, that it is properly a Part of
divine Christian Worship, that it is the one Christian Sacrifice
offered according to the Rite prescribed in the New Testament,
the Sacrifice by Avhich we both commemorate the grand one of the
Cross, and make the most excellent Oblation of our selves ; it is
utterly impossible he should teach that this was not Evangelical,
but Jewish; and was among the symbolical, typical, umbratil
Sacrifices which were to cease as unnecessary upon the Manifest
ation of the Gospel, and that God had rejected it upon that 40.
Account. To assert this, as wDr. Waterland seems to do, is to
make him, who in his Time Avas famed for having a clear Head,
and being an exact Reasoner, the most absurd and inconsistent
Writer possible. 'Tis agreed the typical Sacrifices of the JeAvs
were rejected, yet not barely because they were typical, but for
that they were only Shadows of what Avas to come, and in their
own Nature ceas'd of Course. It therefore does not foUow, that
because the symbolical Worship of the Jews was laid aside, for
that Reason there could be no symbolical Worship under the
Gospel, whereby we might continue a perpetual Memory of the
Sacrifice of Christ's Death until his coming again. St. Austin
never asserted any Thing like this, but the quite contrary in
innumerable Places. He never oppos'd this Kind of symbolical
or typical Sacrifice to real and true, but believed it real, true and
substantial, because Christian and Evangelical Worship. He
never could have so Ioav and degrading a Thought as to maintain
this was only the Shadow, not the Substance, who undoubtedly
believed it the most acceptable external Sacrifice we can possibly
make to God, and the most useful and efficacious Man can
partake of. 'Tis confessed he distinguishes between external and
internal Sacrifices, both which he affirms over and over to be
Parts of true Christian Worship, and he justly prefers the latter
before the former. He likewise says the latter are true ones, by
which he does not mean to exclude visible Sacrifice from the Idea
of true Sacrifice, but to affirm that one as well as the other is
true, altho' the internal, which are the more valuable, are not
" Charge, p. 11.

230 S. AUSTIN.
commonly called by that Name, and the external ale only the
41. Signs of the other, and are not required by God upon their oavii,
but upon the others Account. And this is St. Austin's Method
of solving the Difficulty of God's choosing internal Sacrifice
rather than the outward, and not that which Dr. Waterland
speaks of, viz. that the one is Legal, the other Evangelical, to
Avhich Pretence St. Austin does not give the least Countenance.
As to the Charge of Judaism, which is objected to a material
Sacrifice in the Eucharist, it is enough to reply almost in Dr.
Waterland 's own Words : He forgets that it is offer d in Christ's
Name. My next Remark shall be, that according to St. Austin, St.
Paul 1 Cor. x. 16, intended to intimate, that the Cup which we
bless, and the Bread which we break, is a Sacrifice offer'd to and
accepted by God, before it is eaten and drank by the Communi
cants, in like Manner as the Jewish and Heathen Sacrifices were
offered, the first to the true God, the other to Daemons before
they were feasted on by the People. " He shews, xsays the holy
" Father, to which Sacrifice they ought to belong, saying, — The
" Cup of Blessing which we bless &c. And upon this Account he
42. "subjoined: Behold Israel after the Flesh, are not they who eat
" of the Sacrifices Partakers of the Altar? That they might
" understand they are now so Partakers of the Body of Christ, as
"those are Partakers of the Altar. — The Church offers to God
" the Sacrifice of Praise in the Body of Christ, ever since God
" spake and called the Earth from the rising of the Sun unto the
x — ostendit, ad quod sacrificium jam debeant pertinere, dicens, — Calix
benedictionis &c. — Et propter hoc subjunxit, Videte Israel secundum carnem :
nonue qui de sacrificiis manducant, socii sunt altaris ? Ut intelligerent ita se
jam socios esse corporis Christi, quemadmodum illi socii sunt altaris. — immolat
Deo in corpore Christi sacrificium laudis, ex quo Deus deorum locutus vocavit
terram a solis ortu usque ad occasum. Hoac quippe Ecclesia est Israel
secundum carnem, qui serviebat in umbris sacrificiorum, quibus significa-
batur singulare sacrificium quod nunc offert Israel secundum Spiritum — De
hujus enim domo non accipit vitulos, neque de gregibus ejus hircos. Iste
immolat Deo sacrificium laudis, non secundum ordinem Aaron, sed secun
dum ordinem Melchisedec. — Noverunt qui legunt quid protulerit Melchisedec,
quando benedixit Abraham : & si jam sunt participes ejus, vident tale
sacrificium nunc offerri Deo toto orbe terrarum. Contra Advcrs. Leg. &
l'roph. lib. i. § 38, 39.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 231
" going down thereof. For this Church is Israel after the Spirit ;
"from which is distinguished that Israel after the Flesh, which
" served in the Shadows of the Sacrifices, by Avhich was signified
" the singular Sacrifice, which Israel according to the Spirit now
" offers. — For out of his House he takes not Calves nor Goats out
" of his Flocks. He sacrifices to God the Sacrifice of Praise not
" after the Order of Aaron, but after the Order of Melchisedech. —
" They know who read what Melchisedech brought forth, when
"he blessed Abraham; and if they now are Partakers of it, they
"see such a Sacrifice is noAv offer'd to God throughout the
" World." Hence it is mighty clear it was St. Austin's Opinion,
that St. Paul designed the Eucharistick Elements should be
look'd upon as a Sacrifice, by his comparing them to those Things
wliich really were so : And that therefore there is not only a bare
vocal Sacrifice of Praise in the Eucharist, but also a visible
Sacrifice of Praise in the Body of Christ, or which is the same
Tiling, in the material Symbols of it. This cannot be better
expressed than in the most exceUent and remarkable y Words of
his present Grace of Canterbury: "the Elements were not his
" real Body and Blood, nor understood to be so by the Apostles
" or any primitive Father, but they were the Symbols of his Body
" and Blood ; the partaking whereof is aU one to the Receivers, 43.
" as if they should eat the Body and Blood of Christ offered upon
" the Cross. To this Purpose is the following Discourse of St.
"Paul, The Cup of Blessing, &c. 1 Cor. x., 16, 21. Where it
" may be observed, 1. That eating the Lord's Supper is the same
" Rite in the Christian Church with eating the Things offered in
" Sacrifice among the JeAvs and Gentiles. 2. That it is an Act of
" Communion and FeUowship with God, at whose Table we are
"said to be entertained, and therefore it is declared to be incon-
"sistent wdth eating the Gentile-Sacrifices, which is an Act. of
" Communion with Devils, to Avhom those Sacrifices are offered.
" 3. That it is an Act of Communion among Christians, who eat
" at the same Table, and by that Means are OAvned to be Members
" of the same evangelical Covenant under Christ. Whence the
"Apostle declares in another Place, that the Jews, who are not
"Avithin the Christian Covenant, and consequently not in Com-
' Discourse of Church Government, cap. v.

232 S. AUSTIN.
" munion with Christ and his Church, have no Right to partake of
"the Christian Altar: We have an Altar, says he, whereof they
" have no Right to partake, who serve the Tabernacle. Hence it
" is manifest, that to partake of the Lord's Supper is to partake
"of the Sacrifice of Christ, which is there commemorated and
"represented. For which Reason the most primitive Fathers
" speak of eating at the Christian Altar. He that is not within
" the Altar, says Ignatius, is deprived of the Bread of God.
" Where by the Bread of God he means the Sacrament, which
" God imparts to Christians from his oavu Table, which this
"Father calls the Altar. And the Lord's Supper is called an
" Oblation, a Sacrifice, and a Gift. Thus in Clemens of Rome: It
" is no small Crime, if we depose them from their Episcopal office,
44. '• who have unblameably and holily offered the Gifts. Where he
"manifestly takes this Phrase of offering Gifts in the Sense
" wherein the Jews and our Lord used it : "If thou bring thy
" Gift to the Altar, &c. where Gift is put for Sacrifice. Justin
" Martyr in several Places of his Dialogue Avith Trypho the Jew
" calls the Eucharist a Sacrifice : Having cited the Passage of
" Malachi, where God tells the Jews : / have no Pleasure in you
" — in every Place Incense shall be offered up in my Name and a
"pure Offering, &c. He makes this Comment upon it : He, that
" is God, then foretold the Sacrifices, which are offered to him by
"us Gentiles, namely, the Eucharist of Bread and Wine, whereby
" lie saith we glorify his Name, but ye Jews profane it. After-
" wards he hath these Words ; We Christians are the true Nation
" of God's Priests, as God himself witnesseth, whttn he saith, that
" in every Place among the Gentiles they shall offer unto him pure
" and acceptable Sacrifices : For God accepts Sacrifices from no
" Man, but his own Priests. And therefore he foretells, that all
" those shall be acceptable to him who shall offer in this (Jesus's)
"Name the Sacrifices, which Jesus Christ directed to be made,
" namely those which are made by the Christians in the Eucharist
" of Bread and Wine. Irenwus calls the Eucharist the Oblation
" of the Church, Avhich our Lord directed us to offer through the
" World, which he says is accounted by God a pure Sacrifice, and
"is acceptable to him. In another Place, Avhere he speaks of
"our Lord's instituting the Eucharist he hath these Words: He
"taught the new Oblation of the New Testament which the

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 233
" Church hath received from the Apostles, and offers through the
" whole World. And in the Fathers of the next Age, to con-
"secrate the Lord's Supper is so constantly called irpo<;<pepeiv in 45,
" Greek and offerre in Latin, that it is needless to cite any Testi-
" monies from them. So that it is plain both from the Design
"and Nature of the Lord's Supper, and from the concurrent
" Testimony of the most primitive Fathers, who conversed Avith
" the Apostles or their Disciples, that it was reckoned through
"the Avhole World to be a commemorative Sacrifice, or the
" Memorial of our Lord offered upon the Cross ; Avhich being first
" dedicated to God by Prayer and Thanksgiving, and afterwards
" eaten by the Faithful, was to aU Intents the same to them, as if
" they had really eaten the natural Body and Blood of Christ
"which are thereby represented." The great Prelate has said
somewhat more upon the Subject ; but his whole Doctrine may be
resolved into these Propositions. 1. That the Eucharist is the
Sacrifice or Oblation of the Christian Church, which our Lord
directed to be offered through the whole World ; and that this
Sacrifice was always believed to succeed in the Place of all other
Sacrifices. 2. That it is plain from the Nature and Design of
the Lord's Supper, and from the concurrent Testimony of the most
primitive Fathers, who conversed with the Apostles or their
Disciples, that the Lord's Supper was reckon'd through the
whole World to be a commemorative Sacrifice. 3. That Bread
and Wine, the Materials of this commemorative Sacrifice, are the
Representatives of Christ's Body and Blood, and that partaking
of them is all one to the Receivers, as if they had received the
Body and Blood of Christ wliich are thereby represented. 4.
That these Representatives of the Body and Blood of Christ are
first dedicated to God by Prayer and Thanksgiving, and after
wards eaten by the Faithful. 5. That therefore this Sacrifice
cannot be the one proper Sacrifice, which our Lord offered upon
the Cross, because we cannot partake of it in a literal and strict 46.
sense without allowing Transubstantiation. 6. That Bishops
and Priests who consecrate this Sacrament or offer this com
memorative Sacrifice, are Priests in the Christian Sense of that
Name, and the true and pious Sense of the Fathers, tho' not in the
unchristian, false and impious Sense of the Papists, which makes
them transubstantiating Priests, avIio offer the same Sacrifice in

234 S. AUSTIN.
the literal and strict Sense, that Christ offered upon the Cross.
And thus you see these tAvo great Men, the ancient Bishop of
Hippo, and the present Archbishop of Canterbury concurring in
their Judgments, that the Bread Avhich we break, and the Wine
which we bless is a Sacrifice first offered and dedicated to God,
and then distributed to be eaten by the People.
According to their Interpretation of this Text St. Paul's
Meaning is plainly2 this : "The Bread and Wine which we, who
'are Christ's Ministers or Priests, offer, bless, and consecrate by
' Thanksgiving and Prayer ; and wliich Ave break and put separate
'in a Cup, so making a Representation of Christ's Body broken
'and Blood shed upon the Cross ; and lastly which Ave distribute ;
'are to those who jointly and in a Body communicate and par-
47. "take of them in Construction and Virtue the Body and Blood of
' Christ, according as he ordained they should be at the Institu
tion of this blessed Sacrament. 'Tis the Sacrifice of Bread and
'Wine, in its natural Substance; 'tis the Sacrifice of the Body
and Blood, not corporally, but spirituaUy, and by Christ's
'divine Appointment and Power. And thus the Communion or
'joint Participation of the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine, which is
,aseen, is also the Communication of the Sacrifice of the Body and
'Blood, Avhich is understood and believed. Thus also by par-
' taking of this one Bread, or by eating it in common or in Society,
Sve are Socii or Communicants of the Body of our Lord : In the
'same Manner as the Jews by eating of the Tilings offered to
'God, for Instance a Lamb, ot a Goat considered in a physical
'View, are joint Partakers of the Altar-Sacrifices considered in a
'sacramental Respect, as they convey the Blessings of their
'Religion : In the same Manner likeAvise as the Gentiles, by
'feasting upon what seem'd not at aU different from ordinary
'Food, did at the same Time reaUy feast upon diabolical
' Sacrifices, it being offered to Idols and Devils ; by eating
z Una eademque res secundum aliud species panis & vim consistit,
secundum aliud autem corpus est & sanguis Christi. Secundum, namque quod
utrumque corporaliter contingitur, species sunt creaturas corporeae ; secundum
potentiam vero, quod spiritualiter facta? sunt, mysteria sunt corporis &
sanguinis Christi. Batramnus de Corp. ct Sang. Dom. § xvi.
1 Ideo dicuntur sacramenta, quia in eis aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur.
Serin, ad infantes apud Bedam in I Cor. 10.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 235
"of wliich abominable and sacriligious Victims they were the
" Devil's Socii or Communicants ; or did join in doing Service to
"them, as Christians and Jews by receiving their respective
"Sacrifices were the Communicants of Christ and of the true
"God." Thus do the three Sorts of Sacrifice illustrate each
other. I have no Occasion to interpret the Context any farther,
the rest is easily made out.
Having now sufficiently clear'd this Point from St. Austin,
that the Eucharist, as to its Substance, is a material Sacrifice of
Bread and Wine ; and also that, as to its spiritual Signification
and Use, it is the Sacrifice or Sacrament (for it is indifferent by
Avhich Name it is call'd) of Clirist's Body and Blood ; and farther, 48.
that this Sacrifice is offered by the Rite, which Christ ordained
in the Gospel : Let us then consider the Particulars of that
Rite ; that we may have a distinct View in what Manner the
Sacrifice is offered, and by what Degrees it comes to be made so
subhme a Mystery. The first Step thereto which our Lord made,
was to take Bread into his Hands, and separate them to be
made use of in the Worship of God, or in other Words, to
present them to God for that Purpose. Just so did St. Austin
and the A\hole Church in his Time, which is so notorious that
I need bring no b Proof for it here : And indeed the Passages
already produced are a Demonstration of it. Those Priests
therefore, that do not perform this Part of the Rite instituted by
our blessed Saviour, but suffer the Clerk or the Sexton to place
the Elements upon the holy Table, altho' that is also contrary to
the Rubrick of our Church, cannot be said to pay any great
Regard to our Lord's Command in this Particular : But I hope
none of you, my Brethren, are guilty of such a slovenly Practice,
but do agree in Judgment Avith, and practice after the Example of
your worthy Archdeacon, who I do not question, being so great an
Admirer and Patron of Antiquity, solemnly offers up the Bread
and Wine to God, according to the Pattern of the primitive
Priests. The second Thing set down in the Gospel Rite is Thanksgiving ;
b In Sacramentis corporis & sanguinis Domini nihil amplius offeratur,
quam ipse Dominus tradidit, hoc est panis & vinum aqua mixtum. Cone.
Carth. III. can. 24.

236 S. AUSTIN.
which being said over the Elements, explains in some Degree the
Nature and End of the Oblation or Sacrifice, and denotes that it
is the Memorial or Sacrifice commemorative of Christ's Passion.
49. For in that Thanksgiving a peculiar Mention and Commemoration
is made of the full, perfect and sufficient Sacrifice of the Death of
Christ, and of the Redemption wrought by it. And this is clear
from all the ancient Fathers and Liturgies, and from St. Austin
among the rest, as several Passages above cited, Avhich speak
of celebrating the Memorial of Christ's Passion, sufficiently shew.
To these let me b annex what foUows : "What Sacrifice of Praise
"is there more sacred, than in the Eucharist or Celebration of the
"Eucharist? And for Avhat should we give greater Thanks to
" God, than for his Grace by our Lord Jesus Christ ? Wliich
"the Faithful are well acquainted -with in the Sacrifice of the
"Church, whose Shadows all the former Sacrifices were." The
Sacrifice of Praise in the Eucharist is more sacred than at any
other Time, because it is the most solemn Act of Worship in the
Christian Church, and is not only a bare vocal Sacrifice of
Thanksgiving, which may be made Avithout the Eucharist, but is
also a visible one or sacred Sign of our Thankfulness to God
ordained by Christ for that very purpose. It is best therefore
when these two Sacrifices are united, and when the material
Sacrifice is offered and dedicated by the other, as it is in Part :
But 3. It is according to St. Austin completely made the
representative and efficacious Sacrifice or sacred Sign of the
Body and Blood of Christ once offer' d, by Prayer and the Word
of God. And this is the Way by which our blessed Saviour
himself completed the Eucharistick Sacrifice at the first Institu-
50. tion. He blessed the Elements and declar'd them in a most
solemn Manner his Body to be given for us and his Blood to be
shed upon the Cross for the Remission of our Sins. So also St.
Austin and the Church in his Time did apply the Words of the
Institution to the Bread and Wine, and did also sanctify them
b Quod est autem sacratius laudis sacrificium, quam in actione gratiarum?
& unde maj ores agendas sunt Deo gratiae, quam pro ipsius gratia, per Jesum
Christum Dominum nostrum? Quod totum fideles in ecclesiae sacrificio
sciunt, cujus umbrae fuerunt omnia priorum genera sacrificiorum. Cont.
Adv. Legis & Proph. § 37.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 237
by a Prayer, Avherein they did desire God's Acceptance of the
Gifts by beseeching him to bless and consecrate them, and in
the highest Sense make them the visible Sacrifice, or the holy and
effectual Signs of the Body and Blood of Christ : That so 1.
putting on this high and noble Relation to our blessed Saviour,
and lying in open VieAV upon God's Altar, they might be
tendered to divine Consideration, and in a most sensible and
distinct Manner represent and inculcate our Lord's blessed
Passion to his Father, to the End that he might for Christ's sake,
according to the Tenor of his Covenant, in him be favourable and
propitious to us miserable Sinners ; and that 2. the Sacrifice
might he useful also and beneficial to the Partakers thereof for
the Pardon of their Sins, Increase of Grace, and the giving them
upon their Repentance a firm and undoubted Assurance of ever
lasting Life.
And thus St. A ustin was not a mere Vocalist, but a Materialist
as well as we, as I shall now particularly show. And 1. that he
applied the Words of the Institution to the Elements, in order to
the Consecration or most perfect Oblation of them, is plain
enough from that trite c Saying of his, The Word is applied to the
Element and it is made a Sacrament. And din a Sermon of his :
"That Bread which you see on the Altar, being sanctified by the
"Word of God, is the Body of Christ ; that Cup, or what the Cup 51.
"contains, being sanctified by the Word of God, is the Blood of
"Christ." e Again : "Our (Eucharistick) Bread and Cup is made
"mystical to us by a certain Consecration, and is not naturally
"so." This indeed may relate to Consecration by Prayer as well
as by the Words of Christ. For
2. St. Austin affirms they were also sanctified by Prayer.
For in his Epistle to Paulinus explaining the Words of the
Apostle, 1 Tim. ii. he 'thus delivers his Mind : " By Prayers we
c Accedit verbum ad elementum & fit Sacramentum.
" Panis ille, quem videtis in Altari, sanctificatus per verbum Dei, corpus
est Christi. Calix ille, imo quod habet calix, sanctificatum per verbum Dei,
sanguis est Christi. Serm. 227.
6 Noster panis & calix, non quodlibet, — sed certa consecratione mysticus
fit nobis, non nascitur. Cont. Faust. XX. 13.
' Orationes, cum [quod est in mensa Domini] benedicitur & sanctifi-
catur —

238 S. AUSTIN.
"understand that Part of the Service, Avherein that which is
"upon the Table of the Lord is blessed and sanctified." But
what he gsays, Lib. III. § 10 de Trinitate, will yet give farther
Light in this Affair : " We caU that only the Body and Blood of
" Christ, which, being taken out of the Fruits of the Earth
"and consecrated by mystical Prayer, we duly receive to our
" Salvation in Memory of our Lord's Passion for us." Again in
his Confutation of the Donatist Opinion, that the sacramental
Consecrations and Administrations of Sinners were invalid, he
hsays, "How then does God hear the Prayers of the Murderer,
" which he makes over the baptismal Water, over the Oil, or over
"the Eucharist?" Where he plainly speaks of the Consecration
52. of the sacramental Signs. And against Parmenianus, who
affirmed that the Sacrifices of wicked Men will do those harm
Avho receive the Sacrifice from them, he 'declares, that " One
" and the same Sacrifice, because of the Name of the Lord which
" is invoked, is always holy, and becomes to every one according
" to the Heart with which he comes to receive it." Where it is
plainly implied, that the Sacrifice is made holy by a Prayer of
Invocation. And thus it is demonstrated, that the material Oblation of
Praise, and the Sacrifice commemorative and representative of
our Lord's one all-sufficient Sacrifice, is offered to God by pre
senting the Bread and Cup upon the holy Table or Altar, and by
giving Thanks over them and consecrating them into the divine
Memorial, whereby God is as it were put in Mind of us, and
rendered gracious to us through the Atonement made for us by
the Sacrifice of the Cross. And this is farther confirmed by St.
Austin's declaring, that God is pleased to confer his favours
upon us by our offering it to him, and tendering it to the divine

s Corpus Christi Si sanguinem dicimus illud tantum, quod ex fructibus
terra? acceptum & prece mystica consecratum rite sumimus ad salutem
spiritualem in memoriam pro nobis Dominica? passionis.
h Quomodo exaudit homicidam deprecantem, vel super aquam baptismi,
vel super oleum, vel super eucharistiam ? De bapt. Lib. V. § 28.
1 Unum atque idem sacrificium, propter nomen Domini quod invocatur,
& semper sanctum est, & tale cuique fit, quali corde ad accipiendum accesserit.
Cont. Ep. Parmen. Lib. II. § 11.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 23«.)
Consideration. For he k informs us, that Avhen evil Spirits had
afflicted the Cattle and Servants of one Hesperhts, a Man of
Quality, one of St. A ustin's Priests went and offered the Sacrifice
of the Body of Christ, praying that the Calamity might cease, and
through the Mercy of God it accordingly did so. And it was the
common Practice of the Church at that Time, as it is now of ours,
to join Prayers for all Men to the Sacrifice ; which shews that
they believed their Prayers were likely to be most effectual, 53.
when they were presented along Avith it ; the verbal Offering
being then most prevailing, when annexed to the visible One.
For by Facts as weU as Words, by Rites as weU as Prayers, the
Affections and Desires of our Hearts may be signified. For this
Reason they offered their Petitions, not only for the Living, but
for the Dead, that God would be pleased to hasten his Kingdom,
and finally acquitting them at the last Day, grant them their
perfect Consummation and Bliss both in Body and Soul in his
everlasting Glory. " For, 'says he, it is not to be denied, that
" the Souls of the Dead are helped by the Piety of the Living,
" when the Sacrifice of the Mediator is offered, or Alms are given
" in the Church for them." In short, it was looked upon by St.
Austin as a sensible Rite of Prayer ; and the laying the Monu
ments or Symbols of Christ's Propitiation in View before the
Divine Majesty, was considered as a most powerful Means of
bringing do-wn God's Blessings both upon the Offerers and Par
takers of it, and upon those for whom it was offered : The Priest
offering it both for the present Communicants, and also for all the
absent Members of the Church.
Having thus endeavoured to explain St. Austin's Doctrine
concerning the external Oblation of the Sacrifice according to the
Rite set down in the Gospel ; I come now to consider the internal
and invisible Sanctification of the Sacrament. For the Priest's
external Actions over the Symbols would be of little Significancy,
if God did not concur Avith the outward Celebration. All the
Priest can do is to execute Christ's Commission, and to perform
k Perrexit unus, obtulit ibi sacrificium corporis Christi, orans quantum
potuit, ut cessaret ilia vexatio ; Deo protinus miserante cessavit.
Neque negandum est defunctorum animas pietate suorum viventium
relevari, cum pro illis sacrificium Mediatoris offertur, vel eleemosynte in
Ecclesia fiunt. Enchirid. de fide, spe & caritate, § 29.

240 S. AUSTIN.
54. the Rite according to his Command. But then, since we have
our Saviour's Promise, that he wUl be with his Ministers by
his divine Presence and by his holy Spirit to the End of the
World, to confirm and make authentick all they act by Virtue of
his Commission, we may be sure he is as good as his Word.
Whenever then the Minister, being authorized by our blessed
Saviour, offers the Sacrifice to the divine Acceptance, by doing
the several Acts by him prescribed, and desires God to bless it
and consecrate it, that it may be the Body and Blood of Christ ;
Ave need not doubt, but God by his holy Spirit does actually
make it so, and by so doing graciously accepts the Sacrifice.
For as God accepted of the Patriarchal and Jewish Sacrifices by
their being consum'd, either in whole or in part, by a celestial or
sacred Fire, which was an Emblem of the Holy Ghost ; so he
now accepts the Christian Sacrifice without any such significant
Ceremony immediately by sending the Holy Ghost to sanctify it.
This is now the holy Flame which descends from Heaven. For
as mSt. Chrysostome strongly expresses it, Not by Smoke and sweet
Savour, not by Blood, but by the Grace of the Spirit the Sacrifice
is offered. nSt. Cyprian likewise has something to this Purpose :
" The Holy Ghost frequently appeared in Fire — In the Sacrifices
"which God accepted, Fire descended from Heaven to consume
"the Sacrifices." Where it is plainly intimated, that the Chris
tian Oblation is accepted and perfected by the Holy Ghost :
55. EspeciaUy if this Place be compared with another, where he
directly affirms the "Oblation is sanctified try the Holy Ghost.
And to this St Austin fully agrees. For in many Places he
" Non per fumum & nidorem, non per sanguinem — sed per Spiritus
gratiam offertur. Horn. adv. Jud. V. Tom. i. p. 617. Ed. Ben.
" Spiritum sanctum in igne frequenter apparuisse — In sacrificiis quaecun-
que accepta habebat Deus, descendebat ignis de coelo, qui sacrificata
consumeret. Testim. Lib. HI. § 101.
0 Quando nee oblatio sanctificari illic possit, ubi Spiritus sanctus non fit.
Ep. 65. It was St. Cyprian's opinion that the Holy Ghost was not present
with laps'd, heretical or schismatical Bishops to sanctify their Sacraments,
which proves clearly he believed, and it was the universal Opinion in his
Time, that he sanctified the Catholick Oblation. Dr. Waterland has given a
wrong Turn to this Passage in his Beview, p. 39, by translating it, where the
Holy Ghost is not given; It is not, detur, but, fit, which are quite difforent
Things.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 241
pleads, that there is a certain Sanctity or divine Virtue, which
rests upon the Sacraments themselves. I shall only mention a
few of them out of a Number almost infinite. I have cited one
already where he says, the Sacrifice is always holy, whatsoever
the Receivers be. And speaking of the Baptism and Ordination
of Schismaticks, he "affirms: "Both Sacraments are given to Man
" by a certain Consecration ; and as the Baptism remains intire
" in Schismaticks, so does their Ordination : For the Fault lyes in
"their Schism, which is corrected by Unity, not in the Sacra-
"ments, which, wherever they are, are the same." The like
must by Parity of Reason be said of the Eucharist which is
offered by Schismaticks. A little qafter : "Injury is to be done
"to neither Sacrament — the Perverseness of Man is to be cor- 56.
" rected, but the Sanctity of the Sacraments is to be violated in no
" perverse Person. It remains in wicked Men, whether within or
"without the Church, unpoUuted and inviolable ; but in wicked
" Men the Sacraments remain to their Condemnation." There
is no rDifference then in the Sacraments or Sacrifices themselves
administered whether by the Schismaticks or Catholicks, but
only in the Effects : To the one they are the Means of their
Salvation, to the other of their eternal Destruction. He fre
quently talks of the holy Force of Baptism, and assures us, that
its "Sanctity cannot be polluted by Avhomsoever administered, and
that a divine Virtue adheres to the Sacrament, whether to the
Salvation of those who use it well, or to the Damnation of those
v Utrumque enim sacramentum est, & quadam consecratione utrumque
homini detur — sicut baptismus in eis, ita ordinatio mansit integra : quia in
praecisione fuerat vitium, quod mutatis pace correctum est, non in sacra
mentis quae ubicunque sunt ipsa sunt. Contra Ep. Parm. Lib. II. § 28.
i Neutri sacramento injuria facienda est — intelligitur perversitatem
hominum esse corrigendam, sanctitatem autem sacramentorum in nullo
perverso esse violandam. Constat enim earn in perversis & sceleratis
hominibus, sive in eis qui intus sunt, sive in eis qui foris sunt, impol-
lutam atque inviolabilem permanere — in malis permanent ad judicium.
lb. § 30.
r Sacramenta si eadem sunt, ubique integra sunt, etiamsi prave intelli
guntur & discordiose tractantur. De Bapt. Lib. III. § 20.
" Ipsa ejus sanctitas pollui non potest, & sacramento suo divina virtus
adsistit, sive ad salutem bene utentium, sive ad perniciem male utentium.
lb. Lib. 3, § 15.
C. 16

242 S. AUSTIN.
who use it ill: 'And "That God is present with his Sacraments
" and Words, by whomsoever administered, and the Sacraments
"of God are every where right." TAnd, God sanctifies his own
Sacrament. wAnd, The Holy Ghost avoided the Deceit of the
Man, not the Truth of the Sacrament. The Holy Ghost therefore
sanctifies the Sacrament, and for that Reason %the Sacraments
57. are true and holy in themselves upon Account of the holy and
true God whose Sacraments they are. As to the Eucharist in
particular, St. Austin "allows, that schismatick Bishops can offer
or consecrate the Eucharist ; Hhey presented the Gifts to God,
and others received 'em from them in their Hands ; which Gifts
when consecrated cwere the Body and Blood of Christ notwith
standing their sacrilegious Schism. Now all this makes it evident,
that the Holy Ghost imparts a divine Virtue and Energy to the
Elements themselves to make them fit Instruments of conferring
his Graces, and all the Fruits of Christ's Death upon the Souls of
Men. For if according to St. Austin's Doctrine in almost every
Page of his Books against the Donatists the Sacraments are not
beneficial, but hurtful to Schismaticks, then the Sanctity or
divine Virtue imparted by the Holy Ghost, when they celebrate
the Eucharist, cannot be communicated to the Receivers, but
must necessarily rest upon the Elements ; upon which Account
they are in God's Intention the Body and Blood of Christ in
Power and Effect, or the Sacraments thereof in themselves holy
and full of Force and Virtue, and they are so both to the Worthy
' Si autem Deus adest saoramentis & verbis suis, per qualescunque
administrentur & sacramenta Dei ubique recta sunt. lb. Lib. V. § 27.
v Deus ipse sanctificat sacramentum suum. lb. Lib. VI. § 47.
w Spiritus sanctus hominis fallaciam, non veritatem sacramenti fugiebat.
Cont. lit. Petil. Lib. II. § 61.
* Ilia namque per se ipsa vera & sancta sunt propter Deum verum &
sanctum cujus sunt. Cont. Crescon. Lib. IV. § 24.
1 Compare Lib. VI. § 11, 12, de bapt.
b Cui ergo aecedebat dona offerre Deo, ab eo caeteri conjunctis manibus
accipiebant. Cont. Ep. Parm. Lib. H. § 13.
0 — indigne quisque sumens Dominicum sacramentum non efficit, ut quia
ipse malus est, malum sit, aut quia non ad salutem aceipit, nihil acceperit.
Corpus enim Domini & sanguis Domini nihilo minus erat etiam illis, quibus
dicebat Apostolus, Qui manducat indigne, judicium sibi manduoat & bibit.
Non ergo quadrant in Catholica haaretici quod habent — De bapt. Lib. V. § 9.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 243
and Unworthy, for the Salvation of the one, and the Condemna
tion of the other. This is the Doctrine St. Austin gathers from
St. Paul, and it is a certain and indisputable Truth. It is
therefore a great Mistake to say with Dr. Waterland, that the
primitive Church, by praying for the Descent of the Holy Ghost 58.
upon the Elements, did not intend the Words should be under
stood in a proper Sense, but her Meaning was only to express the
Operation of the holy Spirit in the Persons receiving the Sacra
ment, and not in the Sacrament itself. For the Elements are in
themselves and absolutely the blessed Sacrament of the Body and
Blood of Christ, and are so both to the Holy and Unholy ; and
this they could not be but by the invisible Operation of the
divine Spirit, as St. Austin sufficiently instructs us in the foUow
ing Words, where speaking of the Eucharistical Bread he dsays,
"When by the Hands of Men it is wrought into that visible
"Shape, it is not sanctified into so great a Sacrament, but by
" the invisible Operation of the holy Spirit." And whereas it is
pretended by some, that the Holy Ghost could not operate upon
inanimate or irrational Things, which Avas supposed to be, tho' it
was not indeed, Origen s Opinion ; St. Austin not only in the
preceding Passages, but most especially in one other particular
Place, does expressly contradict this Notion. For the Author of
an Arian Sermon haAring "affirmed, that " it is the Work and
" Care of the holy Spirit to sanctify and keep the Saints, and not
"only to sanctify rational Things, as some think, but several
"irrational." St. Austin acknowledges this Truth: "The holy 59.
" Spirit does indeed do these Things, but not without the Son, —
" We confess those Things are done by the Holy Ghost, which
"they have mentioned to be done by him." This is home to the
Point and cannot admit either of Answer or Evasion. And here
d Quod cum per manus hominum ad illam visibilem speciem perducatur,
non sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum sacramentum, nisi operante invisibiliter
Spiritu Dei. De Trin. Lib. HI. § 10.
0 Spiritus sancti opus & diligentia est sanctificare & sanctos custodire,
& non solum rationabilia, ut quidam putant, sed irrationabilia plura
sanctificare— Facit haec quidem Spiritus sanctus, sed absit ut sine Filio
faciat — Cum itaque fateamur fieri ab Spiritu sancto, quas ab illo fieri com-
memoraverunt — Contra Serm. Arian. §30, 31. He no doubt has a Respect
here to the baptismal Water, the Chrism, and the Euoharist.
16—2

244 S. AUSTIN.
it is said, that some think that only rational Creatures can he
sanctified : I suppose some of the Arian Communion, or some
few other condemn'd Hereticks : But St. Austin and the Catho-
lick Church in his Time were of a contrary Judgment.
This holy Father's Doctrine will receive considerable Light
from the Explanation of it by Ratramnus, an ancient Writer in
the Ninth Century of great Authority, to whom our worthy
Reformers shew'd such high Regard, that we may very justly
esteem his Doctrine to be the same with that of our excellent
Church. Now Ratramnus professes to follow the Steps of St.
Austin and other holy Fathers ; I wiU therefore take the Pains to
transcribe some Passages out of him, for the most Part making
use of the learned Dr. William Hopkins's accurate Translation.
fAs for that Bread, "which by the Ministry of the Priest is
"made Christ's Body, it sheweth one Thing outwardly to the
"Senses, and inwardly proclaims quite another Thing to the
"Minds of the Faithful. That which outwardly appears is
" Bread, as it was before in Form, Colour, and Taste ; but
" inwardly there is quite another Tiling presented to us, and that
" much more precious and exceUent, because it is heavenly and
" divine, that is, Christ's Body is declared, which is beheld,
" received and eaten not by our carnal Senses, but by the Sight
60. "of the believing Mind. Likewise the Wine, which by the
" Priest's Consecration is made the Sacrament of Christ's Blood,
" appears one Thing outwardly, and inwardly contains another.
" What doth outwardly appear but the Substance of Wine — But
" if you consider it inwardly, then not the Liquor of Wine, but
"the Liquor of Clirist's Blood is by the Minds of the Faithful
"both relish'd while it is tasted, and acknowledged while it is
" seen, and approved Avhile it is smelt. Since these Things are
"undeniable, 'tis evident that the Bread and Wine are figura-
" tively the Body and Blood of Christ — How can that be styled
" Clirist's Body and Blood, in which there is not any Change to
"be made — In this Sacrament if the Thing be considered in
"Simplicity and Verity, and nothing else believ'd but what is
"seen, Ave know of no Change at all made. For there is no
"Change from not being to Being, as in the Production of
! §IX. &c.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 245
"Things. Since such did not exist before, but pass'd from a
" State of Nonentity to Being. Whereas here Bread and Wine
" were real Beings before they became the Sacrament of Christ's
"Body and Blood. Nor is here a Passage from Being to not
" being, as in Things decayed or corrupted : — Now it is certain
" there is no Change of this Kind made ; for it is AveU known, that
" the Nature of the Creatures remains in Truth the very same
"they were before. And as for that sort of Change, whereby
" one Thing is rendered another, which is seen in Things liable
" to vary in their Qualities — it is plain this Change is not made
" here. For we can perceive no Alteration either as to Touch,
"Colour or Taste. Therefore if nothing be changed the
"Elements are nothing but what they Avere before. And yet
" they are another Thing ; for the Bread is made the Body, and
"the Wine is made the Blood of Christ. — eIf they noAv are other 61
" than what they were before, they have admitted some Change.
" This being undeniable, let them now teU in what Respect they
" are changed ? For we see nothing corporally changed in them.
"Therefore they must needs acknowledge either that they are
" changed in some other Respect than that of their Bodies, and
" in this Respect they are what we see they are not in Truth, but
" somewhat else which we discern them not to be in their proper
" Essence ; or if they wiU not acknowledge this, they will be
" compeUed to deny they are Christ's Body and Blood ; which is
"abominable not only to speak, but even to think. But since
"they do confess them to be the Body and Blood of Christ,
" which they could not have been but by a Change for the better,
" nor is this Change -wrought corporally, but spiritually ; it must
" necessarily be said to be wrought figuratively. Because under
"the Vail of material Bread and material Wine, the Spiritual
" Body and Spiritual Blood do exist : Not that there are together
" existing two Natures so different, as a Body and a Spirit ; But
"one and the same Thing in one Respect has the Nature of
"Bread and Wine, and in another Respect is the Body and
" Blood of Christ. For both as they are corporally handled are
" in their Nature corporeal Creatures ; but according to their
" Virtue, and what they are spirituaUy made, they are Mysteries
K §XV.

246 S. AUSTIN.
' of the Body and Blood of Christ. — hIf in the Font you consider
'nothing but what the bodily Sense beholdeth, you see a fluid
'Element of a corruptible Nature, and capable of washing the
' Body only. But the Power of the Holy Ghost came upon it by
' the Priest's Consecration, and it obtained thereby an Efficacy to
' wash not the Bodies only, but also the Souls of Men ; and by a
'spiritual Virtue to take away their spiritual Filth. — sIf you
' require what washes the Outside, it is the Element ; but if you
' consider what purgeth internally, it is a quickening Power, a
'sanctifying Power, a Power conferring Immortahty. — kThus
' also the Body and Blood of Christ considered as to the Outside
' only, is a Creature subject to Change and Corruption. But if
'you ponder the Virtue of the Mystery, it is Life conferring
' Immortality on such as partake thereof. — 'He noAv in the
' Church doth by his Almighty Power spirituaUy change Bread
' and Wine into the Flesh of his OAvn Body and the Liquor of
'his OAvn Blood. — mThe Bread Avhich is offered, tho' made of the
'Fruits of the Earth, while it is consecrated is changed into
' Christ's Body ; as also the Wine, which flowed from the Vine, is
'by sacramental Consecration made the Blood of Christ, not
' visibly indeed, but by the invisible Operation of the Spirit of
' God. — nBy all that hath been hitherto said it appears, that the
' Body and Blood of Christ, which are received by the Mouths of
' the Faithful in the Church, are Figures in Respect of their visible
' Nature ; but in Respect of the invisible Substance, that is, the
' Power of the Word of God, they are truly Clirist's Body and
' Blood. Wherefore as they are visible Creatures they feed the
' Body, but as they have a Virtue of a more powerful Substance,
'they both feed and sanctify the Souls of the Faithful. — "In this
'Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ there is a Change
'made, and wonderfuUy, because it is Divine, ineffable and
' incomprehensible ; I desire to know of them, who will not
' admit of an inward secret Virtue, but will judge of the whole
' Matter, as it appears to outward Sense, in what Respect this
' Change is made ? As for the Substance of the Creatures, what
they were before Consecration, the same they remain after it. — So
h§XVll. ¦ §vm. * §xix. '§XXV.
m §XLII. " §XLIX. » LIV.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 247
"that it is changed internally by the mighty Power of the Holy
"Ghost. — pIt is the Body of Christ indeed, yet not corporal, but
" spiritual. — qHe plainly shews, in what Respect it is accounted
"Christ's Body, to wit, in as much as the Spirit of Christ is
"therein, that is to say, the Power of the divine Word, which
"doth not only feed, but also purifies the Soul. — rThat, whatever
"it is, which gives the Substance of Life, is the Efficacy of a
"spiritual Power, of an invisible and divine Virtue."
Thus this ancient Writer expounds the Sentiments of St.
Austin and of the other primitive Fathers, concerning the
Change that is made by Consecration, and most accurately and
clearly sheAvs, there is no physical Conversion, neither Genera
tion, nor Corruption, nor Alteration in the Substance of the
Creatures : And he affirms, that it is not a corporal, but a
spiritual Conversion, the Elements being raised to a Dignity
above their Nature, and being made in an ineffable Manner,
mystically and spiritually, not substantiaUy, the Body and Blood
of Christ by the divine Power of the Word of God and of the
Holy Ghost ; by whose Almighty Influence they are indued Avith
a spiritual and internal Efficacy and Virtue. This is the Change
the primitive Fathers unanimously taught ; and to deny that the
Elements are thus made the blessed Body and Blood, Ratramnus 64.
and in him aU the primitive Saints declare to be an abominable
Impiety. Let us not then be afraid to believe and confess, that
the Bread by Consecration is sacramentally and in Power and
Virtue Christ's Body ; but rather let us abhor to reduce it to a
bare empty Memorial, to an unsanctified Figure, and an insigni
ficant Shadow ; which is a Rock we shaU be in great Hazard of
sphtting upon, if we deny they have any Virtue in them, any Efficacy
annexed to them by the invisible Operation of the Holy Ghost.
They are the Body of Christ which was given for us, and the
Blood of Christ which was shed for us ; let us never forget, that
our blessed Saviour has said it, and he is able to make it good.
'Tis a Figure of it indeed, but such a one as is in Effect the Thing
itself ; 'tis a most powerful and prevalent Representation of it in
the Sight of God, and 'tis a Sacrament thereof containing in it
the sanctifying Power of the divine Spirit, which doth in a sure,
p §LX. i §LXIV. ' §LXXII.

248 S. AUSTIN.
tho' invisible Manner, nourish and quicken the Souls of those
who worthily partake of it.
But it seems this Change from common Bread to consecrated,
indued with a Power and Virtue to represent and apply the
Merits of Christ's Death, sis Sound without Meaning, or Words
Avithout Ideas : And it is hard to say what that inward
Change means, or Avhat Idea it carries Avith it. Now I am of a
quite contrary Opinion, and to me there seems no Difficulty at aU
in conceiving, that tho' the Change is not in any physical
Quality, and consequently is not a physical Change, yet God can
bestow upon the Element a supernatural Quality over and above
the natural, and so exalt it from the Condition of mere Corporal
65. Food into a spiritual Sacrament, having a Force annexed to it to
confer Holiness upon those who with Faith and Thanksgiving
feed upon it. This is the inward Change, the inhering, intrinsick
Holiness ; and Dr. Waterland Avill please to think again, whether
this wiU not very well comport both Avith true Philosophy and
sound Theology. Not that we are to reject every Thing that we
cannot explain in a philosophical Way, and which our short
Understandings cannot fathom. If we were, the Pains which the
worthy Archdeacon has taken to so good Purpose in explaining
the Doctrine of the Trinity, not according to the rules of
Philosophy, but according to Scripture and Antiquity, are
absolutely lost. It is enough, if a Christian Mystery is not
contrary to Reason and true Philosophy, altho' it be incom
prehensible : And I think it cannot be made appear this inward
Change contradicts true Philosophy. It is very agreeable to
true Philosophy, that God by his Appointment should give our
Food a Power of nourishing our Bodies, and our Medicines a
Power of purging and healing them in a natural Way. I cannot
see then, why Christ by his Institution and divine Concurrence
may not give the Elements a Power or Quality of strengthening
and refreshing the Soul in a supernatural. We know God gave
the River Jordan a Virtue to heal Naaman's Leprosy, and
Christ the Clay to cure Blindness, and to the Hem of his
Garment to cure another Distemper, insomuch that he said,
I rirtue had gone out of him : Why then cannot Christ give to
• Append, p. 15.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 249
the Bread and Wine a spiritual Virtue to impart Sanctification
and Salvation to the Communicants? The King can make a
Piece of Parchment stand for his Pardon, and yet God cannot
make the Eucharist stand for his. Indeed we cannot comprehend
how this is ; but we know there are a great many Things in
Nature as well as Religion, the Manner of Avhich we cannot 66.
comprehend ; therefore this Consideration need not trouble us.
But this Ave can very well judge of, that it does not contradict
any Principles of true Philosophy, and that I hope is abundantly
sufficient. It likewise comports very well with true Theology, if
the Church of England may be Judge, who in her 26th Article
determines in this manner : " For as much as evil Ministers do
" not administer the Word and Sacraments in their own Name,
"but in Christ's, and do minister by his Commission and
" Authority ; Ave may use their Ministry both in hearing the
" Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. "Neither is the
" Effect of Christ's Ordinance taken away by their Wickedness ;
" nor the Grace of God's Gifts diminished from such as by Faith
"and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered to them,
" which be effectual because of Christ's Institution and Promise,
"although they be ministered by evil Men." Here it is asserted,
that even evil Ministers have Christ's Commission and Authority :
He with respect to the Eucharist ordered the Apostles, and in
them all the Christian Clergy, to do this, that is, perform the
sacrificial Ministration according to the Rite just before pre
scribed : He breathed on them, saying, Receive ye the Holy
Ghost, by which he declared that whatever they did in the
Church, was likewise the Act of the Holy Ghost ; therefore what
they consecrate by Prayer, the Holy Ghost really consecrates and
gives it a Power or Grace to make it effectual for the Purposes
intended by the Institution. With just Reason therefore doth 67.
the Church affirm likeAvise, that there is a divine Grace annexed
to the Sacraments, and that they be effectual not only by
Christ's Institution, but Promise. He promised to be with them
1 It runs thus in the Latin Original: Neque per illorum malitiam,
effectus institutorum Christi tollitur, aut gratia donorum Dei minuitur, quoad
eos qui fide & rite sibi oblata percipiunt, quae propter institutionem Christi &
promissionem efficacia sunt —

250 S. AUSTIN.
always by his Spirit, whom he told them he would send for that
Purpose. Therefore St Paul calls the Offices of the Church the
Gifts of the Holy Ghost. God hath set some in the Church, 1"
Apostles, dr. and their Administrations, or sacramental Per
formances, the Administrations of the Spirit. Accordingly by
the Virtue and Efficacy of the one Spirit working in and by the
baptismal Water we are all baptized into one Body, and we are
all made to drink into one Spirit, by drinking of the spiritual
and life-giving Cup, sanctified by the Spirit of God. This then
is notoriously the Doctrine of our Church, That tho' the
Substance of the Creatures is not chang'd, yet the sacred Signs
could not justly bear the Names of the Things themselves,
except the Virtue, Power and Effect of Christ's Flesh and Blood
were adjoined to them and united with them after a secret and
ineffable Manner by the working of the Holy Ghost. I hope this
Doctrine of our Church is very agreeable to sound Theology. I
am sure it comports exactly with the Theology of St. Austin and
all the primitive Fathers, who, if Dr. b Waterland himself say
true, were at least as sound Divines, and as good Interpreters of
Scripture as any Moderns whatsoever. If indeed it could be
shevm, either that I have misrepresented St. Austin's opinion, or
that he contradicts the common Doctrine of the Church in his
68. Time or before it, then I freely oato myself under a Mistake in
this Matter, and would frankly submit to a Recantation of it :
But if this cannot be proved, as I with Great Humility, tho' with
all Christian Confidence, affirm it cannot, then I must think it
my Duty to exhort all Persons to reject aU novel Constructions
of Scripture, and stand firmly by those of the primitive Fathers :
For it is an undoubted Truth, to use Dr. ° Waterland" s excellent
Expressions, " That the Sense of the Ancients once Known, is a
" useful check upon any new Interpretations of Scripture affecting
" the main Doctrines. It has a negative Voice, if I may so caU
" it, in such a Case. And it is Reason sufficient for throAving off
" any such novel Expositions, that they cross upon the undoubted
b See his Importance of the Doctrine of the holy Trinity, Chap, vii, where
he shews with great Strength of Reason, and Clearness of Expression, the
Use and Value of Ecclesiastical Antiquity with Bespect to Controversies of
Faith. 0 lb. p. 385.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 251
"Faith of all the ancient Churches, or contain some Doctrine, as
"of moment to be received, which the Ancients universally
"rejected or never admitted." 'Tis true Dr. Waterland has
endeavoured to obscure this Truth in his Review, but whoever
reads Avith Attention even those very Passages from Fathers and
Liturgies which he has cited, will be easily convinced, that they
believed a sanctifying Virtue rested in the Elements, as well as
that a sanctifying Grace Avas by their Means conferred upon the
Receivers. There is none but Origen can be suspected of the
contrary Opinion, and that without any good Grounds : For we
are not to take his Sentiments from his Enemies, who endeavoured
to make him as odious as they could, but from his oato Writings,
where he clearly delivers his Mind in a catholick Manner, in a
Marnier that I have shewed St. Austin did, who only spoke the
Sense of all the Churches before him. But to return.
Outward Relations, adventitious Uses, or Offices it seems are 69.
easily understood, and relative Holiness carries some Sense in it.
Very well. But let me ask, Can Man appoint any Thing to be
so much of an outward Figure of the Body and Blood of our
Redeemer, or appropriate it to spiritual and salutary Uses and
Offices, to be a Means and Instrument of conveying heavenly
Blessings ? Can Man imprint such a relative Holiness upon it,
and make it bear such a near Relation to the Body and Blood of
Christ, as that it should be a Means of our receiving it, and a
Pledge to assure us thereof? No certainly, nothing of this can
be done but by Christ's sanctifying his own Ordinance, and
making it effectual to the procuring of those inestimable Benefits,
for which he was pleased to ordain it. Man may pray for the
Consecration of the Elements, but that Avould effect nothing,
unless God answered his Prayer and actuaUy made them, what
the Saviour assures us he will make them, if the Rite he
instituted be duly executed. If then God himself blesses the
Elements and makes them, not corporally, but spiritually the
Body and Blood of Christ ; then certainly God's Blessing rests
upon the Elements, and unless it can be truly said, that God's
Blessing operates nothing at all, it must necessarily be confessed
that thereby some extraordinary Efficacy and gracious Virtue is
infused into them ; otherwise let us give them what outward
Relations we please, and set them aside to what adventitious

252 S. AUSTIN.
Uses and Offices we may invent for them or appoint them to, and
suppose them vested -with all the relative Holiness we can
imagine, it is all to no Purpose ; this AviU never make them
Means of Grace, they AviU be unprofitable and lifeless Things
without the divine Blessing to invigorate them. The Doctor
himself is sensible of this in his a Review, and oatos, that
70. whatever Consecration, or Benediction, or Sanctification is
imparted to Things as weU as Persons it is all God's doing;
which makes me admire, why he should quite exclude from the
sacred Signs, which are to be considered also as Means of
sanctifying the Receivers, any inherent Virtue for that Purpose,
and only allow them a bare relative Holiness, as Things to which
we owe a Respect as bearing a certain Relation to God. They
have certainly more than a bare relative Holiness belonging to
them : For relative Holiness does not imply in the Idea of it,
that those Things which are vested -with it are in any Sense
Means of Grace. Means of Grace bear indeed a very high
Relation to God, and therefore are relatively holy ; but that is
not all, they are by God's Blessing indued Avith a more
substantial Sanctity than that, even with an holy and divine
Power of answering the Ends of their Institution ; and this
Things, that are only relatively holy, have not. We may
illustrate this by a familiar Example of the relative Sacredness
accruing to Things by the Relation they bear to earthly Majesty.
The Crowns and Scepters of Princes are relatively sacred in this
lower Sense, and so is their Money too : But the latter has in it
more than a bare Relation to the King, it has likeAvise an
intrinsick Value. But we wiU put the Case of Paper-Money,
which is a Thing of no Value, but what it derives from pubhck
Authority : This has Relation to the King too, but if it had not
likewise an inherent Power or PriArilege of being exchanged for
Money, the Relation to the King would signify little. Shut up
the Bank or the Exchequer, and then a Man wiU be little better
for haAdng in his Pocket a Piece of Paper that bears a Relation
to the King. Just so it is Avith Regard to the Eucharistick
Elements : They are Things of very small Value in themselves,
71. but by the Institution of Christ's and God's Blessing, being raised
a Review, p. 120.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 253
to the Dignity of Sacraments, and to the Usefulness of Means of
Grace, an holy or sacred Relation is conveyed to them : But if
this were all, they would be of little or no Service to us, they
might deserve our Reverence on Account of their Relation to
the Deity, but they Avould not come up to the Intent of
conferring Benefits upon us. Therefore there must necessarily
something more inhere in them by the divine Sanctification, they
must by God be dignified Avith a PoAver of conferring Blessings,
or else undoubtedly they will confer nothing. They may possibly
rise as high as Figures or Memorials, but they never can be
Means of Grace, never can by any Construction in the World be
accounted Christ's blessed Body and Blood for the Salvation of
the worthy Receiver. From whence it may fairly be concluded,
that the divine Sanctification by the Prayer of the Priest is
derived upon the Elements as weU as upon the Persons tho' in a
different Sense ; that there is an inherent Virtue residing in
them, whereby they become powerful Means and effectual
Instruments in God's Hand to convey sanctifying Graces to the
Communicants : Not that Remission of Sins, or sanctifying
Graces, or any other Benefits of Christ's Passion reside in them,
but a Virtue and Power to confer Remission of Sins and so forth,
and apply them to the Souls of Men. And I hope this is very
intelligible, and wiU at length be thought very well to comport
with sound Theology. I am sure it is absolutely impossible to
understand how mere outward Relations and relative Holiness
can be of any Value or Significancy to work any Spiritual Effect.
Having thus proved, that a divine Virtue is imparted to the
Elements by the Holy Ghost, I come now to shew, how it makes
the Eucharist a valuable Sacrifice. And this is very easy to do, 72.
if it be considered, that the Holy Ghost's imparting this Power to it
makes it completely the Representative of Christ's Body and Blood,
and is the Act of God's accepting the Sacrifice, while the Priest is
offering it by performing the Evangelical Rite. We know that
in the Patriarchal and Jewish Sacrifices, when the Priest had
finished the Sacrificial Rites and done his Part in the Oblation ;
either a Fire from Heaven, or one that was kindled by it, did
either in whole or in Part consume what was sacrificed, and this
was a Token of God's accepting thereof, and made the Oblation
fit to convey the Blessings they hoped to obtain by the Means of

254 S. AUSTIN.
it. In hke Manner God by a more sacred and celestial Flame, by
the Sanctification of the Holy Ghost himself does actuaUy accept
the Christian Sacrifice, and make it completely what Christ
designed it should be by his Institution. Now Christ designed it
should be his Body and Blood in Power and Virtue : The Priest
performs the sacrificial Rite, and desires of God that he AviU
make it so and accept it ; and this we are assured God im-isibly
does, while the Priest is visibly executing the Rite. By the
Power therefore of the Holy Ghost the Oblation offered and
consecrated by the Prayer of the Priest is made the Body and
Blood of Christ in Virtue, I. With Regard to God, who by
blessing it accepts it as such ; and in this View it represents
to God in the most perfect Manner, and pleads in our Behalf the
Sacrifice of Christ's Death, and God respects it upon this
Account. 2. With Regard to the Communicants, that they
partaking of the Sacrifice may be fulfiUed -with God's Grace and
heavenly Benediction. The short of the Matter is this : We
offer, God blesses and accepts, and then by the Hand of his
Minister he communicates the Sacrifice so accepted to the
Receivers, and with and by it aU the Benefits of this represented
grand Sacrifice, if they are worthy of them, an heaA-enly and
divine Force being adjoined to it for that salutary Effect.
This then shews the Value of the Sacrifice, which we present
to God, and which God gives to us. Dr. ir«rt;rZ<r«(7eacknowledg-es,
that this divine Influence may make it a valuable Sacrament,
and may shew the Value of what God gives to us, but not the
Value of what we give to him. But the Ancients made no
Distinction, as I have proved above, between the Sacrifice and
Sacrament ; this is only a modern Notion invented by the
Papists to perplex the Doctrine of the Eucharist. The Sacrament
according to St. Austin is a sacred Sign of an invisible Sacrifice,
and therefore is a visible Sacrifice, first presented to God by Way
of Worship and then participated by us. If then the Sacrament
enriched with a divine Power is receiA'ed by us as a valuable
Sacrifice before offered to God, it must also be a valuable
Sacrifice for the same Reason when offered to God, because
in a most authentick Manner it represents to God the meritorious
0 Append, p. 13.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 255
Sacrifice of Christ, and is accepted by him as such. For the
divine Power united vrith the Elements has a two-fold Effect : It
both makes them an efficacious, commemorative and representative
Sacrifice, whereby thro' Christ Ave address God to give us all
the Benefits of Christ's Passion, and it also makes them an
appUcative Sacrifice, Avhereby all those Benefits are made over
to us. But it is 'objected that the Notion of the Spirit's coming
upon the Elements to make them absolutely the Body is a gross
Notion, arising only from a popular Form of Speech. If by
absolutely, is meant, corporally, I allow it is a gross Notion ;
but if by, absolutely, is meant, spiritually, mystically, or vir- 74.
tuaUy and efficaciously the Body ; then I say, this is not a gross,
but a very clear and intelligible Notion. And in this Sense they
are absolutely and in themselves the Body, or the sacred and
efficacious Signs and Sacraments of it, replenished Avith the
divine Power of the Word and his holy Spirit. And I cannot
beheve, that this should arise from a popular Form of Speech.
For this Form of Speech is in aU the ancient Liturgies as weU
as in the Writings of the primitive Fathers ; and methinks
it is very odd, that the Bishops and Priests of the primitive
Church should suffer the People to be poison'd with gross
Notions, nay, that they should not purge these gross Notions
out of their Forms of publick Worship, and should mean quite
another Thing than what they prayed for. I cannot make such a
gross Reflection upon such exceUent Men. This therefore must
stand for a more certain and just Notion, and is far from being
inconsistent with the true and ancient Doctrine, that the
Unworthy eat not the Body, nor drink the Blood of Christ in the
Eucharist, or when they partake of the Eucharist. For they may
partake of the visible Sacrifice, which is the sacramental and
virtual Body of Christ, and yet not spirituaUy partake of the real
Body, or rather of the Benefits and spiritual Fruits of it. St.
Austin, as I have shewn above, is very clear that all partake
of the Body and Blood of Christ sacramentally, to which the
Holy Ghost has annexed a divine Virtue : " It is the Body and
"Blood of Christ, gsays he, even to them, who eat and drink
f Ibid. b De Bapt. Lib. V. § 9.

256 S. AUSTIN.
"Damnation to themselves." And yet he likewise hsays that a
75. wicked Man, tho' he eats the Body and Blood sacramentaUy, yet he
does not eat it really or beneficiaUy : For this is to remain in Christ,
that Christ also may remain in him. This only proves, that People
may eat the blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood instituted by
Christ, and yet not eat the Flesh spoken of in John vi. 'Tis best to
be sure, when both spiritual and sacramental Manducation go
together : Indeed the one is hurtful and destructive Avithout the
other. To prove that the unworthy eat not the Body of Christ
in the Eucharist, the learned Doctor cites a Passage out of
St. Cyprian, the Occasion of which was, that one who had
sacrificed to Idols had without being discovered taken a Part
of the Sacrament, but he could make no use of it, for when
he opened his Hands he found it turned into Ashes : "Hence by
"this Example we may learn, says he, that the Lord departs, Avhen
"he is denied; nor does that which is received tend to the
"Salvation of the unworthy, since the salutary Grace is changed
"into Ashes, the Sanctity or Virtue flying from it." Now this
proves the contrary to what he intended : For according to St.
Cyprian the Sacrifice is a salutary Grace and has a real
Sanctity or Virtue inherent in it, and therefore is not only
relatively holy. Indeed when the salutary Grace or the
Sacrament is changed into Ashes, and, ceasing to be what it was,
loses its Virtue, it is impossible for any Body to receive it : But
so long as it preserves its true Substance, so long its Virtue
76. continues with it. From this Passage indeed we may learn, that
the Sacrament's being turn'd into Ashes was an Emblem of
Christ's leaving the Wicked ; and as in this Case the Sanctity
fled from the Sacrament, so the Lord flies from ill Men ; and
that the Lord departs from the Wicked, altho' even they should
receive what has not only a relative Holiness, but a real Virtue in
itself, and therefore the uiiAvorthy Partaker is not profited by it.
For tho' he receives Sanctum Domini, as St. Cyprian calls it, the
h Ipse dicens, Qui manducat carnem meam, &c. ostendit quid sit non
sacramento tenus, sed revera corpus Christi manducare— hoc est enim in
Christo manere, ut in illo maneat & Christus. Sic enim hoc dixit, tanquam
diceret, Qui non in me manet, & in quo ego non maneo, non se dicat aut
existimet manducare corpus meum, aut bibere sanguinem meum. De Civ
Dei, Lib. XXI. c. 25.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 257
Holy of the Lord, or as St. Austin, Panem Domini, the Bread of
the Lord ; yet it is agreed on all Hands, he eats not Panem
Dominicum the true Bread Avhich came down from Heaven.
This Passage then is not in the least to the Doctor's Purpose ;
but much to the contrary : Because the Wicked may eat the
blessed Sacrament, which is in itself a salutary Grace, and has a
spiritual Sanctity or Power in it to work a saving Effect, if their
own Unworthiness did not hinder it. So then they may eat the
sacramental Body vested Avith a spiritual Energy, and yet have no
FeUowship with Christ, no Communion of the holy Spirit. This
Ave very readily grant. For the sanctifying Power in the
Sacrament operates only to the Salvation of the Worthy, but it
works to the Condemnation of the Unworthy. And therefore,
tho' these receive it with the Elements, it is as a Fire to consume
them, and not as a comfortable Flame to cherish and refresh
them. St. Austin admirably clears this Point, Avhere speaking of
the Sacrament of Baptism he has these very remarkable Words :
'"The Baptism of Christ consecrated by the Evangelical Words, 7/
"tho' administer'd by Adulterers and to Adulterers is holy,
"altho' they are unchaste and unclean : For its Sanctity can't be
"poUuted, and a divine Virtue adheres to the Sacrament, whether
"to the Salvation of those who use it well, or to the Destruction
"of those that abuse it. Does the Light of the Sun or a Candle,
"when diffused thro' dirty Places, contract no Filth from thence,
"and can the Baptism of Christ be poUuted thro' the Wickedness
"of any?" The like may be said by Parity of Reason of the
Eucharist, its Sanctity cannot be poUuted, and its holy and
divine Virtue will stick to it even in the Unworthy, and will be a
sharp Sword piercing the very Soul, and a Flame which cannot be
extinguished without a severe Repentance. This Virtue no more
than the holy Spirit who is the Author of it can be quenched ;
the Wicked indeed do all that in them lyes to quench it by
' Baptismus Christi verbis Evangelicis consecratus, & per adulteros & in
adulteris sanctus est, quamvis illi sint impudici et immundi : quia ipsa ejus
sanctitas pollui non potest, & sacramento suo divina virtus adsistit, sive ad
salutem bene utentium, sive ad perniciem male utentium. An vero solis vel
etiam lucerna? lux, cum per ceenosa diffunditur, nihil inde sordium contrahit,
& baptismus Christi potest cujusquam sceleribus inquinari ? De Bapt. Lib.
III. § 15.
C, 17

258 S. AUSTIN.
hindering it from answering God's Design in bestowing it, but it
cannot be violated, and its Activity wiU have its Course one Way
or other : If it cannot save, it wiU punish ; for God wiU revenge
the Contempt of his Gift.
But it is kalleged the Spirit deserts ill Men in their sinful
Acts ; therefore the Unworthy do not receive the Spirit, but the
Elements only. 'Tis granted the Spirit deserts iU Men in their
sinful Acts, that is, he disallows their sinful Acts, is grieved and
displeased at them for doing them, and will, if they do not
repent, condemn them for it. But does it from hence foUow,
78. that the Virtue derived from the Spirit deserts the Sacrament,
when received by wicked Men ? I trow not ; I hope the
Wickedness of Man does not poUute the Sacraments, so as to
make the salutary Grace of God's Gifts desert them. And if not,
it is easy to conceive how the sublime Virtue may adhere to the
Sacraments, and yet how the Spirit deserts the unworthy
Receivers, even for the very receiving this salutary Grace, and
condemns them for it. The Sacrament therefore, being in itself
a salutary Grace appointed instrumentally to convey the Evan
gelical Promises, is consequently that Body wliich our Lord
instituted to be received for that Purpose. Even the Unworthy
receive it as weU as the Worthy, but to their Condemnation.
Therefore they do not only receive bare Elements, having a
relative Holiness and that is all, but they receive Elements made
so great a Sacrament by the invisible Operation of the Holy
Ghost, as St. Austin assures us. And surely this means much
more than only a relative Holiness, of wliich Ave can have no
other Idea than this, that thereby a Thing is holy merely by
having a Relation to the Deity, which a Thing may have, and
yet not at aU contribute towards the Salvation of Man. By
Consecration therefore the Elements are not only made relatively
holy, and Ave not only pray that Bread and Wine may have a
Relation to the Body and Blood, but that by partaking of the one
outwardly or physically, we may partake of the other sacrament
aUy and spiritually according to our Lord's Institution; or as the
primitive Church used to Avord it, that the Bread may be made
to us Christ's Body, and the Wine his Blood by the invisible
k Append, p. 14.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 259
PoAver of the Holy Ghost. And this tho' they are not the
Body and Blood in Substance, yet they are in spiritual Virtue
and Power, and consequently are authentick Substitutes and
Representatives of Clirist's personal Sacrifice ; not so as to be 79.
exclusively an Equivalent for it, or to supersede it : God forbid :
No Body I believe ever dreamt of any such Thing : But to be
offered to God through Christ to represent that Sacrifice, and to
apply the Benefits of it to us. Now it is very odd any Body
should suppose, that Persons of Learning and Sense, professing to
beheve a Sacrifice representative and applicative of another
Sacrifice and of the Mercies of it, should yet intend to exclude
and supersede it. We are so far from any such Impieties, as that
we beheve and confess, that our Saviour's personal Sacrifice is
that from Avhich aU other Sacrifices derive their Value ; and we
think it is absolutely a Contradiction to affirm, that a Person can
maintain the Eucharist is only a Sacrifice representative of the
grand One, and yet at the same Time intend to exclude and
supersede it. For how can we be said to exclude that, whose
Merits we plead by setting the holy Tokens of that Sacrifice
before God, and by addressing him in a visible Manner to bestow
upon us those Benefits we there commemorate ? To be brief,
unless commemorating, representing and applying, can be proved
to be superseding and excluding, there is no Room at all for this
Objection. It is likeAvise strange this learned Divine should imagine,
that by offering the Eucharistick Sacrifice we design to supply
the Want of Christ's personal one. For we gratefuUy acknow
ledge that was once offered, and cannot be repeated. The Atone
ment was once made for the Sins of the whole World : But the
Merits of it will not be conferred upon us, unless we carefully
perform the Duties which are commanded in the Gospel. Now
one of these conditional Duties is to commemorate with aU
Gratitude, and to represent with all Humility to God that Atone
ment by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist instituted by Christ
himself for that End, and thereby also to entreat him to apply 80.
the Merits of it to us. We cannot therefore be said to want that
Atonement, which was actually made for us upon the Cross, and
by which Christ our High-Priest is perpetually interceding for us
in Heaven : But we may be truly said to have a continual Want
17—2

260 S. AUSTIN.
of God's Pardon and assisting Grace, that we may be enabled to
perform our Duty, and have an Interest in the Atonement and
Sacrifice made and offered by our Saviour; and the offering and
receiving the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is the Method appointed
to supply this Want. We therefore are far from supposing, that
the Eucharist was instituted to supply the Want of Christ's
Sacrifice; but, we say, it was ordained to supply its Place, and
to supply our own spiritual Wants, and to be a potent Means of
bestoAving the Blessings purchased for us by the Sacrifice of the
Cross, which whUe we are in this defective and imperfect State
we stand continuaUy in need of.
The Sacrifice of the Eucharist then is not in itself an Equiva
lent for, or of equal Value Avith Christ's personal one. For it is
not the real Body and Blood hypostatically united with the
Person of the Son or of the holy Spirit. But it being blessed
by the holy Spirit of Christ, and consequently by Christ himself,
and indued Avith a divine Virtue to be the instituted Body and
Blood, and accepted by God as such; tho' it is not in its own
Nature and Oblation equivalent vrith Christ's oavu ; yet by God's
gracious Acceptance and Blessing it is in a lower Sense equivalent,
and the same Thing as to Virtue and Effect, both with Respect
to God and the Receiver. And to compare great Things -with
smaU, as a Ring, or Parchment, or Staff, tho' insignificant Things
in themselves, are by Law vested with a Power to convey the
81. Rights, Privileges and Profits of Honours, Offices, or Estates,
and so stand in construction of Law for the Things they repre
sent : So the Eucharistick Elements, tho' naturaUy common and
mean Things, are by the Institution and divine Power of Christ
and his Spirit clothed with an heavenly Virtue or Force, both to
render God propitious and gracious to us, and to deliver over to
the Receivers the great and inestimable Benefits our Lord
purchased for them ; and so they are likewise in Effect the
Things they represent, even the Body and Blood of Christ. But
Dr. ° Waterland and I are perfectly agreed in this Point. For
he is pleased to acknowledge, they may in a qualified Sense be
understood to be Equivalents and Substitutes of Christ's Body
and Blood (not exclusively of and to supersede the great Atone-
* Append, p. 18.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 261
ment, which I do not know any Body affirms) but because in
Conjunction Avith and in Dependance on it they make over to us
the Benefits of Christ's crucified Body and Blood shed, of which
it is not possible for us to partake by receiving the natural Body
and Blood, as the Papists fondly maintain ; that being but once
offered and once shed, and not capable now of being actuaUy
offered again and participated. It is enough that they are
sacred Instruments of appeasing God by commemorating the
Atonement, and of conveying it, or which is aU one, the Benefits
thereof, and bringing them in Effect to us. And I presume at
length it AviU be no such important Paradox, that the consecrated
Elements are the Substitutes of the Body and Blood.
bDr. Waterland observes, that if the Eucharist is made our
Lord's Body absolutely by an Union Avith the Spirit, it would be
more properly the Body of the Spirit, than our Lord's Body,
from which it is supposed distinct. I answer, we do not suppose 82.
it is made absolutely, that is corporally, our Lord's Body, but
sacramentaUy. And in this Sense indeed, I grant it absolutely
and strictly is so, that is, absolutely the Sacrament of our Lord's
Body. Neither is it sacramentaUy so by a hypostatical Union
with the Spirit, but an Union Avith a Grace or Virtue com
municated to it by the Spirit. It is made this Body of Christ
by the Operation of, not by a strict and personal Union vrith the
Spirit of Christ. Now I hope the Sacrament can no more in
strict Propriety he called the Body of the Spirit, merely because
of its being consecrated by the Spirit, than our Saviour's real
Body is caUed the Body of the Spirit, because it was conceived
by him. Both Bodies are sanctified by the Holy Ghost, and yet
who ever denominated them properly speaking the Bodies of the
Spirit? I need not inform this learned Gentleman, that the holy
Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, &c. his invisible Proxy or Repre
sentative in the Church : Therefore aU his Actions and Operations
are also the operations of the Son of God. Hence it is, that to
say the Elements are made the Body and Blood by the Power of
the Spirit, is the same Thing as to say they are made so by the
Power of the Divine Word. So that Christ makes them his
Body and Blood by the sanctifying Power of the Spirit, therefore
b Vb. p. 17, at the Bottom.

262 S. AUSTIN.
they are properly called his Body and Blood. Christ sanctifies
every Thing in his Church by the working of the Spirit. Thus
the Water wherein a Person is baptized is consecrated by the
Spirit, and yet it is truly Christ's Baptism. The Clergy are also
set apart by the Holy Ghost for the Work of the Ministry, and
yet they are the Ministers of Christ. And the Faithful are
regenerated by the Holy Ghost, and yet they are the Members of
Christ. Our very Bodies are the Temples of the Holy Ghost, and
yet they are a part of the mystical Body of Christ. If then aU
83. these are properly Christ's by the operation of the Holy Ghost,
what should hinder but that the Elements are properly and
absolutely Christ's sacramental Body upon the same Account?
In some Sense it may be called a spiritual Body, or the Body of
the Spirit, as being consecrated by him. But since it is the
Design of the Spirit to make it Christ's Body, who can rightly
affirm the contrary? The Thing is so plain, there needs no
Words about it. WeU, but the sacramental Body is supposed
distinct from our Lord's Body. And so it is no doubt. I
imagine Dr. Waterland does not believe the Sacrament of Christ's
Body and the natural Body are the same. But it is objected
that in our Way the very Idea of our mystical Union with
Christ's glorified Body would be obscured or lost, and we should
be but as Aliens from the proper Body. But how can this be,
when the sacramental Body, clothed Avith the spiritual Virtue in
order to make us holy and pure, and cleanse our Souls from aU
sinful Defilements, is the best Means imaginable to unite us to
Christ our Head, and closely to link and cement us to him. But
it seems by this Account of the Matter, that absolutely two
Bodies are given at once in the Eucharist, the sacramental, and I
suppose, the natural. But pray who says the natural is given in
the Eucharist? I am sure Dr. Waterland does not. He only
informs us, we in the Eucharist partake of the Atonement made
by Christ's natural Body crucified, and Blood shed, and thereby
have a Right to be Fellow-Heirs with his glorified Body, and on
this is founded our mystical Union with Christ's glorified Body.
We say the very same. But this is not partaking of the natural
Body, but only of the Atonement made by it, or of the spiritual
and salutary Fruits of that Atonement. Therefore the natural
Body itself is not given at all in the Eucharist, but only the

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 263
Fruits of the grand Sacrifice are conveyed to us thereby. And 84.
this is done by partaking of the sacramental Body. Consequently
there is but one Body, viz. the sacramental, strictly and properly
speaking given in the Eucharist. This to me is very evident ;
and I cannot but be of Opinion, when this Avorthy Person re-con
siders the Matter, he will perceive there is little Difference in this
Point between us.
But to return : The Elements being supposed and proved to
be Substitutes of the Body and Blood, it is mighty easy to
explain how they are a Sacrifice to God. For if they infallibly
signify and have a divine Property of representing the Sacrifice
of Christ, then by offering them by Way of sensible Worship to
God we present to God's View the Death, Passion or Sacrifice of
Christ, and plead the Merit of it in Behalf of ourselves and
others. This Dr. Waterland must confess ; for it is indeed the
very same Doctrine in Sense vrith what he himself laid down in
his Summary View at the cEnd of the Appendix. For there is
no Difference but in the Mode of Expression, between offering to
the View of God, under certain representing Symbols, the Death,
Passion and Sacrifice of Christ ; and pleading the Merit of it in
Behalf of ourselves and others ; and offering to the View of God
or to divine Consideration, certain Symbols to commemorate and
represent the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ, and to plead the
Merit of it in Behalf of ourselves and others. Therefore as far as
I can perceive we are in the main agreed.
Bur he endeavours to argue against the Sacrifice athus: "The
" Elements are not conceived Substitutes of the Body and Blood
" any othenvise than by the Power and Presence of the Spirit."
If he means by the Word Presence not local, but gracious 85.
Presence, this is very true; but he goes on: "If the Elements
" with the Spirit, not separate from the Spirit, are the sacrificed
"Substitutes, then the Spirit is sacrificed along with the
"Elements, which is absurd." This is as good an Argument as
the folio-wing : " It is not easy to explain how ourselves can be
"any Sacrifice at aU to God. Ourselves are not conceived a
"Matter fit for or valuable enough for Sacrifice any otherwise
"than by the Power and Presence of the Spirit. Ourselves with
« p. 59. '' Append, p. l'J.

264 S. AUSTIN.
"the Spirit, not separate from the Spirit, which alone renders
"us so valuable, are supposed to be so. Is the Spirit then
"sacrificed along with ourselves? That is absurd." But how
can it be absurd, if it is very certain from holy Scripture, that
while we are actually offering ourselves, our Souls and Bodies as
a reasonable, holy and lively Sacrifice unto God, our Bodies are
the Temples of the Holy Ghost, and he is therefore inhabiting
and residing in us ? If then it is not absurd to say, the Spirit is
sic sacrificed along without ourselves; neither can it be absurd to
say, the Spirit is sacrificed along with the Elements. We do not
mean, as I said before, that the Spirit is present with the
Elements in a local Manner, but that only a Gift of the Spirit, a
divine spiritual Property, Faculty or Virtue is annexed to the
Elements, whereby they are made proper Substitutes of the Body
and Blood both -with Regard to God and Man, both to represent
to God and exhibit to us the meritorious Sacrifice of Christ.
Pray where then is the Absurdity of saying, that the Elements
replenish'd with this divine Virtue are a Sacrifice to God? I
hope there is no Absurdity in Sacrificing to God his o-wn Gifts.
But it is objected, that " if Grace or Virtue accompanies the
" Elements in the presenting them to God, like as in the pre
senting the same Elements to Man, this is perfectly un-
86. " intelligible. We can understand that Pardon and Sanctifi-
" cation are presented to the Communicants along Avith the
" Symbols : But how Pardon and Sanctification should be pre-
" sented in the Way of Sacrifice to God, is not easy to explain."
To this I reply, that Grace and Virtue are ambiguous Words,
and require a Distinction: 1. Grace or Virtue as it is a Gift
imparted to the Elements by the Holy Ghost, means no more
than a Faculty or Power given to them to make them a fit
Instrument whereby to commemorate and represent Christ's
Passion, and to convey Pardon of Sin and Sanctification to the
Participants. And Avith this Power nothing can invest them,
but only the Omnipotence of God, Avho as he created aU Things
out of nothing, so he can elevate mean Things to a Dignity and
heavenly Use far beyond the Powers of their Nature. 2. Grace
or Virtue as it is a Gift imparted to the Communicants, means
such good Things and Favours bestowed by God upon Men, as
tend to make them inwardly holy and pure, and in the End

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 265
to bring them to everlasting Life, such as Pardon, and personal
Sanctification, and the like. There is then a two-fold Grace or
Virtue, the one proper only to the Elements, the other only to
the Communicants. Now Grace understood in the first Sense is
only proper to the Elements ; and certainly it is very easy to
explain and conceive how the Elements accompanied or enriched
with such a divine Power may be both presented to God first and
Man afterwards, not only without any Absurdity, but also with
great Propriety and Usefulness. If indeed any Body should affirm,
tho' I do not know any one so weals, that Pardon of Sin, and a
Sanctity proper only to Persons are in the Elements, and so
accompany them in their being presented to God ; I grant this is
neither practicable, nor conceivable, it is mere Confusion. But it
must be noted, we are not justly chargeable with it : And for our 87.
Parts we think we can distinguish very well between the sacra
mental View of the Eucharist, and the sacrificial, or rather
between the Sacrifice as offered to God, and the same Sacrifice as
given to Men. For as the Eucharist in the former View is a
Representation and Commemoration and Pleading of Christ's
Sacrifice, and the Merits of it to God ; so it is in the latter View
a bestowing of the Fruits, Benefits, and Privileges of it upon Man.
Therefore the Elements are in Effect the Body both with Regard
to God and Man.
It is further to be considered, that in the Eucharist not only
the Body of Christ, but also the Body of the People believing in
him, is figured ; and therefore it is made of many Grains of
Wheat, because the Body of faithful People is made up of many
Believers. St. Austin often speaks of this symbolical Sacrifice of
ourselves, and most especially in the follovring Words : "If you
" have a Mind to understand the Body of Christ, hearken to the
" Apostle Avho saith, Ye are the Body of Christ and his Members ;
" and if ye are the Body of Christ and his Members, then there is
" a Mystical Representation of yourselves set on the Lord's Table.
"You receive the Mystery of yourselves, and answer, Amen; and
" by that Answer subscribe to what you are. Thou hearest the
"Body of Christ named and answerest, Amen; become thou a
" Member of Christ, that thy Amen may be true. But why in
"the Bread? I shall offer nothing of my own ; but let us hear
"what the Apostle himself speaks of this Sacrament ; who saith,

266 S. AUSTIN.
" And we being many are one Bread, and one Body in Christ."
Thus St. Austin sufficiently teacheth us, that as in the Bread set
upon the Altar, the Body of Christ is represented, so is likewise
the Body of the People who receive it. In that Body which is
celebrated in a Mystery, there is a Figuration not only of the
88. proper Body of Christ, but also of the Society of the Faithful who
believe in Christ. It is a Figure representing both Bodies, to wit,
that of Christ, in which he died and rose again, and that of the
People which are regenerated, and raised from the Dead by
Baptism into Christ. And thus as it is a visible Sacrifice of
Christ's Passion, so it is also a visible Sacrifice of ourselves, our
Souls and Bodies, and symbolically our reasonable and spiritual
Service. To this is to be referred what St. Fulgentius has said upon
the Prayer for the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Elements,
to consecrate them and make them the Body and Blood of Christ
in Power and Effect. "Monimus asked him, if the Sacrifice of
the Body and Blood of Christ be offered to the whole Trinity,
why the Mission of the Holy Ghost was only prayed for to
sanctify the Gift of our Oblation? His Answer is to this
Effect: That this Prayer is not only to be understood in a
literal, but in a moral Sense. And the Design of it is not only
to pray for the Consecration of the Elements, that they may be
in themselves the instituted Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of
Christ : But since they are made so by the Power of the holy
Spirit, not upon their own Account, but for the Benefit and
Salvation of the Church, which is likewise represented in the
Sacrifice as weU as Christ her Head : We must therefore believe,
that the Intent of the Prayer is to sanctify also the Faithful who
are in the Communion of the Church, and are figuratively offered
or sacrificed in the Oblation, and to confer upon them by the
Reception of the Sacrament some principal Gift of the holy
Spirit. Now Charity, as St. Fulgentius observes, being the
principal Gift of the Holy Ghost, when the Holy Ghost is
89. desired to descend to sanctify the Sacrifice of the whole Church,
which represents the Body mystical as well as the natural,
nothing else or no other Gift sanctifying the Persons of the
0 Ad Monimum, Lib. II.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 267
Faithful, as it seems to St. Fulgentius, can be prayed for, but
this Gift of Charity ; that by the Grace of the Spirit Charity
may be preserved inviolate in the Body of Christ which is the
Church ; and that while the external Sacrifice of themselves is
offering, the Faithful may internally offer spiritual Sacrifices
acceptable to God, and be as living Stones in the spiritual
Building. Which Edification is never more seasonably requested,
than when by the Body of Christ itself, which is the Church, the
very Body and Blood of Christ is representatively offered in the
Sacrament of the Bread and Cup : For so both the sacramental
and mystical Body are upon the Prayer of the Priest, tho' in a
different Sense, sanctified by the Grace of the Spirit. Now this
being the Design of the Invocation to pray not oidy for the
Consecration of the Elements themselves, but also for the
Edification of the Church by Charity : Hence it is, that tho'
Hereticks and Schismaticks may have true, valid and con
secrated Sacraments, and other Gifts of the Spirit, which cannot
in themselves be polluted by being possessed by wicked Men, yet
these Gifts profit them nothing without Charity ; and the
Sacrifice, however acceptable in itself, yet so far forth as it is
offered by bad Men utterly void of this most principal Grace of
the Spirit, is not weU-pleasing to God, and no spiritual Grace
sanctifying the Receivers is conveyed by it. And this is
perfectly agreeable to the Sentiments of St. Fulgentius s great
Master St. Austin, who in a thousand Places affirms, that the
holy Sacraments administered by Hereticks and Schismaticks,
tho' in themselves sanctified by the Holy Ghost, do not profit
the Receivers out of the Unity of the Church, according to a 90.
noted "Maxim of his, that the Sacrifice is such to every one, as
he is when he offers it, and when he receives it. If a Schismatick
offers and receives it, it is unprofitable to him ; if a good Man in
the Unity of the Church, he offers and receives it to his Salvation.
This Doctrine of St. Fulgentius we very readily subscribe to.
But I must beg leave to observe, Dr. Waterland is under some
* Nos dicemus tale cuique sacrificium fieri, qualis accedit qui offert, &
qualis accedit ut sumat. Contra litt. Petiliani, Lib. II. § 120. Quilibet
ubilibet offert sacrificium tali corde vel factis, haic ut audire mereatur,
perniciem sibi infert — Cont. Ep. Parm. Lib. II. § 10.

268 S. AUSTIN.
Mistake, when he notes, that the Church alone and not the Body
and Blood of Christ is the Sacrifice offered according to
Fulgentius, and that he interprets the Ulapse of the Spirit only
of Christ's sanctifying the mystical Body. It is certain, and wiU
be evident to any Person carefully attending to St. Fulgentius s
Meaning, that he believed the Sacrifice of the Church is the
Sacrifice both of his mystical and natural Body, and that both
are sanctified by the IUapse of the Spirit. And to this we fully
agree, being satisfied it is the Doctrine of Scripture and Antiquity,
from which by the Grace of God we will never swerve.
The Eucharist then being representative both of Christ's
natural and mystical Body, it is a blessed and effectual Instrument
to reach to the everlasting Sacrifice, and so set it out solemnly
before the Eyes of God ; it is the most powerful means the Church
hath to strengthen their Supplications, to open the Gates of Heaven,
and to force in a Manner God and his Christ to have Compassion
on us : It is likewise an exceUent Medium, whereby to offer up the
inward Sacrifice of ourselves, as lively Members of his Body, and
to present our Resolutions and Vows of holy Obedience both in
our Actions and Sufferings too, if there be Occasion, and to
91. declare we are ready to follow and imitate our divine Head in aU
the holy Actions of his Life, and even to take up his Cross, when
he calls us to it. This corporal or material b Sacrifice or
Sacrament therefore is nothing else but as it were a certain
visible and holy Word, by wliich we shew forth to God our
Lord's Death and our Union with one another and Avith him ;
and it being accompanied with vocal and manual Services more
fuUy to express the Design of it, it is thereby rendered a most
effectual Mean to attain all the Ends of its Institution.
Ir vocal and manual then be spiritual Service, there can be no
Reason in the World assigned, why the Verba visibilia, the
visible Words, the material Sacrifice, should not at least be
equally so. All three are designed by Christ to complete the
memorial Service. The vocal Commemoration would be lame
and defective without the symbolical ; and the holy Prayers
would want great Part of their Force and Prevalency without the
b Quid enim sunt aliud quaeque corporalia sacramenta, nisi quosdam
quasi verba visibilia, sacrosancta quidem— Contra Faustum, Lib. XIX. c. 16.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 269
holy Signs to make the Commemoration more sensible and more
affecting. This is most evidently the Truth of the Case. Let
us therefore offer the vocal and material Sacrifice together, and
then Ave shall rightly according to Christ's- holy Institution
perform the one external Sacrifice of the Church. And that we
may not offer it unprofitably, let us every one join the internal
Sacrifices, the strictly speaking spiritual Sacrifices thereto ; and
then we may through the Merits of Christ's eternal Oblation
expect God will pour doAvn aU his Mercies and Graces upon us.
And thus the Offering of our visible Sacrifice will answer fully to
St. Austin's Definition : It AviU be indeed a Work done in order to
keep up our Covenant and Communion with God, to the End that 92,
we may be everlastingly happy. Let us not then think of offering
any supposed spiritual Sacrifices, or even real ones, without taking
in the material into our pure Offering. For unless we offer up
our Devotions in the Way Christ has appointed, it is much to be
feared they -will be of little or no Value. The Way truly to offer
up our Worship and Sacrifices in Christ's Name, is to stick close
to his Commands and Ordinances ; and so shall Ave be sure to
adhere to God and Christ, and keep up a League of Amity and
Friendship with them. To do otherwise is to set them at
Variance with us, and make them abhor both us and our
Sacrifices. I think I have noAv answered every Objection of Moment
against a material or symbolical Sacrifice, except Avhat we meet
with in Charge, p. 39. It is there observed, that there are two
fundamental FlaAVS in Mr. Mede's System. 1. One in his endea
vouring to fix the Notion or Definition of a Christian Sacrifice by
the Rules of the Levitical ; as if typical and true were the same
Thing. To this I answer, that an Oblation typical of another
Oblation, Avhich is the Archetype, is equally as to Truth of
Propriety a true Sacrifice Avith the Archetype, tho' not as typical,
yet as a Thing offered to God. No Wonder therefore Mr. Mede
took the Jewish Sacrifices, tho' Types, for true Sacrifices or
Sacraments ; St. Austin, as I have sheAvn above, did the same,
declaring that they were visible Sacrifices or sacred Signs of the
invisible Sacrifice of Christ which Avas to come. St. Austin
likeAvise took the Eucharist for a true Sacrifice, tho' the Antitype
of the Passion Avere already past. Well therefore might Mr.

270 S. AUSTIN.
Mede do so too, especially considering the Nature of those
Things, they being all reducible to one common Genus. For
both the Jewish and Christian Sacrifices, considered as Services,
93. may very properly be defined in general to be an Oblation of a
material Thing made in order to keep up our Covenant and
Communion with God ; and considered as a Gift, they are a
Thing offered to God for that Purpose. And this is perfectly
conformable to St. Austin's Definition of Sacrifice, they being
Works or Services performed Avith a material Thing offered to
God for the End abovementioned. Mr. Mede therefore and St.
Austin agree mighty weU with each other. To this it is no
d Answer to say, that the Circumstances are different ; for that in
the legal Sacrifices either the Whole or some Part of the Offering
was supposed to be directly given to God, and either consumed
by Fire or poured forth never returning to the Use of Man. For
this only proves that the legal Sacrifices were Works and Services
performed in a different Manner and Avith other Rites than the
Christian ; but they Avere Works and Services still, and if their
being so makes them spiritual Sacrifices, then they were spiritual
Sacrifices as well as the Christian. They were Works and
Services performed by offering material Things Avith various
Rules and Ceremonies both vocal and manual, one of which was
to burn them either in whole or in part on the Fire, or to pour
out their Blood : In like Manner the Christian Sacrifice is a
Work performed by offering a material Symbol wdth other Rites
both vocal and manual. Both the one and the other therefore
agree in the Genus of material Sacrifice, and are only specifically
different from each other. And both come under St. Austin's
Definition : For the Legal Avere formerly such Works or Services,
as he defines, as the Christian now is so. This therefore is a
clear Confutation of Dr. Waterland 's Notion, that St. Austin and
the Ancients did not allow a material Sacrifice, and needs no
very subtle Head or profound Understanding to apprehend it.
94. The second Flaw in Mr. Mede's System according to Dr.
Waterland is, in not being able to make out the Sacrifice he
aimed at by the very Rules which himself had fixed for it. Yes
he has made it out very AveU ; for he has sufficiently proved, that
a Revieiv, p. 489.

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 271
both the Jewish and the Christian come under the Definition of
material Sacrifice, tho' offered in a different Manner, and that is
enough. Indeed in the Levitical Peace-offerings God had as it
were his OAvn Mess assigned in the Sacrifice or Feast, and was
considered not merely as Convivator, but as Conviva also : But in
the Eucharist God has no Portion, and we receive all ourselves.
Now this proves no more than that the Modus in offering and
feasting upon the Christian Sacrifice is different from that of the
Jeicish Sacrifice and Feast ; and that we Christians have not
that gross Notion complained of as entertained by the Jews, as
if the Deity had Need of such Things or took Delight in them.
Upon this Account therefore, because we have no gross Notion of
God, the Modus varies, but the generical Essence both of the
Jeicish and Christian Sacrifices is the same. But it is farther
objected, that since the Manner is so different, why should a
Christian Sacrifice be made material by Jewish Rules, or why is
the Definition of Sacrifice measured by the same? Now if by
Jewish Rules are meant Rules about the Manner of offering, we
deny that Ave make a Christian Sacrifice material, or measure the
Definition of Sacrifice by them. But if by Jewish Rules are to
be understood Jewish Notions of the Essence of material Sacrifice,
I cannot see, why we may not very well have some Regard to
them Avithout any Offence, unless it can be said, the Books of the
Old Testament are so strangely penned, that it is not possible to
find out the Nature of a material Sacrifice from them. Mr. Mede
has found the true Nature of it there, and given a very good
Definition of it in this Manner : "An offering unto the Divine 95.
" Majesty of that which is given for the Food of Man ; that the
"Offerer partaking thereof might, as by Way of Pledge, be
" certified of his Acceptation into Covenant and FeUowship with
"his God by eating and drinking at his Table." Which is the
very same Avith what we may justly believe to be St. Austin's
Sense of a material Sacrifice : viz. That it is a Thing offered to
God, for this End, that we may have an holy Fellowship and
Society with him, by partaking of it at his Table. Now this is a
Definition exactly agreeable to the Jewish Notion of the Essence
of a material Sacrifice ; and since it likewise perfectly agrees
with the true Notion of it, we have all the Reason imaginable to
adhere to it. It is not at all a necessary Circumstance to

272 S. AUSTIN.
complete the federal Oblation and federal Feast, that God
should be the Guest as weU as the Entertainer. For it is a gross
Notion to say God is a Guest, and the Sacrifice is neither offered
nor received upon God's Account, but ours, that we may honour,
worship and pray to him thereby, and that by eating his Enter
tainment, which becomes his by our presenting it to him and his
accepting it, we may receive the Benefits we request at his Hand.
It is very true, we give up to God as his Tribute, our Thanks,
our Praises, our Acknowledgements, our Homage, our very selves,
but Ave do this not only vocally, but visibly by the Eucharistick
Elements, which being blessed God returns them to us by the
Hands of his own Minister, and thereby delivers over to us the
inestimable Mercies contained in the Covenant made between
him and us through the Sacrifice and Mediation of Christ. We
must not therefore say, we take aU this blessed Food to ourselves,
but that God by his commission'd Officer imparts it to us as his
96. Entertainment. We must not look upon it as a common and
ordinary Repast, but as a holy and spiritual Feast upon a Thing-
sacrificed, because consecrated by God himself, and bestowed
upon us to communicate the highest spiritual Benefits. It is a
low and mean and unprimitive Notion of it to consider it as bare
Bread and Wine, and to talk of it as if it were reaUy nothing
else : 'Tis the one external Sacrifice of the Church, by which Ave
pay to God the sublimest Honour and Worship ; for it is offered
to him as the first Cause of our Being, and our last and principal
End, by Way of Confession of his infinite ExceUency, Dominion
and Majesty, of our Dependence on him, and of our Service and
Subjection to Him : It is likewise offered for a Sacrifice of
Thanksgiving for all the Benefits of Nature, Grace and Glory
conferred and to be conferred upon us by God as our chief
Benefactor : It is offered also to render God propitious to us
through the Atonement made by Christ's Sacrifice, and to
beseech him to pardon us, and to give us all sorts of spiritual
Blessings, and to apply to all those, for whom it is offered and
who receive it, the Force and Virtue of the Sacrifice of the Cross.
Lastly therefore tho' in Substance it be only a Loaf of Bread and
a Cup of Wine, yet it being offered and received for the Ends
just now specified, in that View, it is a spiritual Sacrifice of
inestimable Value, whereby Ave covenant with God to pay him

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 273
Honour and Obedience, and he makes over to us what he has
covenanted to grant to all the Faithful Disciples of Christ. We
must remember, that God wants nothing from us, not even the
best Service we can do him. He expects we should do our Duty
for our own Sakes, not his. Since therefore he really receives
nothing from us, upon his oato Account, but we all from him, he
has no Occasion to have any Portion or Mess assigned him ; and
he therefore assigns all the Sacrifice to be received by us, that
we may receive aU his Blessings along Avith it. It is consequently 97.
a manifest Mistake, that the Analogy betAveen other material
Sacrifices and the Eucharist fails in the main Thing belonging to
aU material Sacrifices : For assigning God a Portion does not
enter into the Essence of them. On the contrary such material
Sacrifices as want this Circumstance are more rational and more
answerable to the infinitely perfect Nature of God, than those
who have it. Besides, God has no Need to have a Part assigned
him, because it being a Thing offered to him, and consecrated to
his Honour and Service, to be spent in an Act of Religion, it is
aU his Sacrifice, both when we offer and when Ave receive it. 'Tis
a spiritual Sacrifice and spiritual Food, and consequently not ours
properly, but God's, being employed and consumed in his imme
diate Worship. And thus I humbly apprehend I have vindicated
Mr. Mede to the full, and have evinced that there is no Flaw at
ah in his System : Which by the bye is not at aU inconsistent
with Dr. Cudworth's, but rather includes it. For do but offer
and feast upon the symbolical Sacrifice worthily, and then you
will be sure to feed reaUy upon the Sacrifice of the Cross, or upon
the Fruits and Benefits of it.
Dr. Waterland has given us a kind of historical Account of
the Sentiments of our Divines, to which I could make very just
Exceptions, and shew that several of them were entirely on our
Side of the Question. I shall instance in one, and that is Dr.
Bkevixt, who in the sixth Section of his excellent little Book,
entitled, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice, explains the
Doctrine of the Sacrifice exactly as we do ; and therefore I do
not wonder Dr. Hickes should recommend it. As to others, in
their Disputes with the Papists, they asserted the Eucharist Avas
a commemorative and representative Sacrifice, as we do, and they
only differed from us in Sound, not in Sense, when they called 98.
c. 18

274 S. AUSTIN.
this an improper, which Ave truly denominate a proper and true
Sacrifice. They allowed only the Sacrifice of the Cross to be a
proper Sacrifice, as that which was alone truly and properly in its
Nature meritorious. And in this Sense we also acknowledge it
to be so. But this is taking the Word proper in too strict and
limited a Meaning. For as Dr. Waterland very rightly 'observes,
where there is properly a Gift to God by Way of Worship, to
honour or to please him, there is the formal Reason of a Sacrifice.
But while these Divines called the Eucharist only an improper
Sacrifice, they did not totally exclude the Symbols from their
pure Offering, as Dr. Waterland seems to do. So that the Differ
ence between us and them is next to nothing. There are other
Divines, as great, as learned, as well versed in Ecclesiastical
Antiquity, as ever adorned the Church of England, or any other
Church whatsoever, that speak our Sentiments entirely. Dr.
Hides was not the first after Mr. Mede, as the learned Arch
deacon would insinuate, that maintained the Doctrine of the
Sacrifice. Archbishop Laud, Dr. Heylin, Archbishop Bramhall,
Mr. Thorndike, Bishop Fell, Dr. Grabe, Bishop Beverege, Bishop
Bull, Bishop Cosins and many others have done it before him
without Offence or Censure, I may rather say Avith Approbation.
But Dr. BHickes being a Person disliked by many upon Account of
f Charge, p. 37, at the bottom.
- Dr. Waterland observes, (Charge, p. 43) " that this learned Writer first
took material Thing into the very Definition of Sacrifice : but upon the latest
Correction he struck it out again, putting Gift instead of it, thereby leaving
Boom for spiritual Sacrifice, (which undoubtedly is a Gift) to be as proper
a Sacrifice as any." Now I question not but Dr. Hickes did always believe
that spiritual Sacrifice was true, and better than the material. But let me
observe, that Dr. Hickes does not intend to define a Sacrifice in the most
general Notion, containing Sacrifices of all sorts both spiritual and material :
But he purposes only to define a material Sacrifice in general, for that is the
Thing he is treating about. By a Gift therefore he can mean nothing else
but a material Thing, and therefore the Alteration he made in his Definition
was no more than verbal. It is much the same Definition with J. Saubertus's,
who in his Book de Sacrifices, cap. i. p. 13, thus defines a Sacrifice. " Sic
" definio sacrificium, sacram & externam actionem, qua, res quaepiam externa
" a certis persoms, loco, ritibusque certis ad finem certum Diis aut Deorum
"loco habitis consecrabatur & obserebatur." Dr. Hickes himself tells us
(Vol. I. p. 42, of his Christian Priesthood) what he means by the Word Gift.
"The original Word for Gift, says he, is a sacrificial Term of a general

EPISTOLARY DISSERTATION. 275
his State-Principles, when it came to be treated of by him, it was
presently looked upon with an ill Eye, as if broached with a
Design to pave the Way to Popery ; which certainly was as idle 99.
an Imagination as could enter into the Heads of Men of Sense.
And to shew that it was only opposed upon a Party- Account, let
me observe, that the whole Pack of Adversaries fell with great
Cry and Fury upon Dr. Hickes, but said not a Word to his Friend
Dr. Potter, who now adorns the metropolitical Chair, Avho wrote
the very same Doctrine at the same Time. This shews the sad
Effect of Party-Prejudice. Afterwards Mr. Johnson, who was a
beneficed Clergyman, undertook Dr. Hickes's Defence against the
unreasonable Clamours and feeble Arguments of his Opponents,
and performed it Avith great strength of . Argument as well as
Variety of Learning, insomuch that I daresay his Book will be
looked upon by Posterity as an excellent Performance, and in the
main unanswerable : I say in the main, for I must confess he has 100.
advanced some Things, which need Correction ; which it seems
he had not done, if he had submitted to the Advice and followed
the Judgment of Dr. Hickes, whose System is not embarrassed with
those Difficulties Dr. Waterland mentions. You, my Brethren,
wiU find none of those Particularities in these Papers, little
else but the Opinion of St. Austin, but in him the genuine Sense
of aU Antiquity. WhUe we adhere to this, we need not fear but
our Cause AviU have a good Exit, and we shall be at length able to
remove the Confusion and Perplexity our Adversaries Cause is
involved in : Nothing being really more obvious and intelligible
than our System, nothing more dark and inconsistent than their's.
For they do not distinguish sufficiently between the several sorts
of Sacrifices, but make a Jumble of them all together : And while
with Might and Main they oppose the material Sacrifice, yet at
the Bottom they maintain it, and only express themselves in a
" Signification, and denotes a material Sacrifice or Offering of any sort." As
to Dr. Hickes's two Discourses, my Bookseller cannot furnish me with them :
But I do not find by Dr. Waterland's Account of them, that there is any Thing
there advanced contrary to his other Writings, which will, I believe, always
be read with Satisfaction by those who set a Value upon primitive Truths.
For the Prejudices which stuck to his Person are now removed from his
Books. And Men of Understanding will judge with less Partiality than
formerly.

276 S. AUSTIN.
different Manner from what Ave do : Which shews their Ideas are
not altogether so clear and distinct as could be wished. Whether
what I have advanced wiU contribute to remove the Cloud, I
cannot tell : However I hope I have said nothing which can give
your worthy Archdeacon, whose uncommon Learning and Merit I
highly reverence, any reasonable offence : And if this Controversy
is to be continued, I hope it will be carried on in a friendly and
Christian Manner. If I find this is kindly received by you, I
intend, God wiUing, to examine into the Sense of the Fathers of
the more early Ages ; which I perceive is a Subject not yet quite
exhausted. I shaU add no more at present, but that I am,
Reverend Sirs, Your Affectionate Brother in Christ Jesus, To
whom be Gloiy for ever and ever. Amen.

FINIS

277

EXCURSUS H.
Table of approximate Dates.

A.D.
354. Born at Thagaste.
5.6. 7.8. 9.
360. 1.

i.5.6. 7.

9. Visit to Madura.
370. Studies at Carthage.
1 . Death of Patricius.
2. Birth of Adeodatus.
3. Beads Cicero's Horteiuius.
i. Beads Aristotle's Categories.
5.6. Becomes an Auditor among the Manichaaans, Teaches Grammar at
Thagaste.
7. Teaches Bhetoric at Carthage.
8.9.
380. Writes De Pulchro et Apto.
1.2.
3. Journey to Bome.
4. Appointed Professor at Milan.
5. Reads translations of Plato's Dialogues.
6. Beads 5. Paul's Epistles. Betreat to Cassiciacum. Contra Academicos.
De Beata Vita, De Ordine.
7. Soliloquiorum Libri. Baptism. Death of S. Monica.
8. De Quantitate Animte, De Moribus Manichccorum, De Div. Qucest.
LXXXIII. and De Lib. Arb. (begun).
9. De Musica, De Magistro.

278 S. AUSTIN.
390. De Vera Religione.
1. Ordination. De Utilitate Credendi. De duabus Animabus.
2. Debate with Fortunatus.
3.
4. Contra Faustum Manichceum, Expositio quarumdam Prop, ex Epistola
ad Romanos.
5. De Libero Arbitrio (completed). Consecration. De Continentia.
6. De Agone Christ.
7. De Doctrina Christiana (begun). De Div. Qucest. ad Simplic. Contra
Epist. Manich.
8.
9.
400. De Consensu Evang., Confessionum Libri, De Baptismo, De Trinitate
(begun). De Catechiz. Rudibus.
1. De Bono Conjugali. De Gen. ad Lit. (begun).
2.
3. 4. De Actis cum Eel.
5. 6.
7.

410. Fail or Bome.
1.
2. Edict of Honorius against Donatists. De Peccat. Meritis, De Spiritu
et Lit.
3. De Civitate Dei (begun).
4. Enarrationes in Psalmos (in progress).
5. De Perf. Just. Horn., De Genesi ad Literam xn (completed).
6. In Johan. Evang. Tractatus, De Trinitate (completed).
7.8. De Gratia Christi.
9. De Nuptiis, De Anima.
420. Contra Adv. Leg. et Proph.
1. Enchiridion, De Cura pro Mortuis Gerenda.
2.3.
4. 5.6. De Doctrina Christiana (completed), De Civitate Dei (completed).
7. Retractationum Libri, De Gratia et Lib. Arb,, De Correptione et
Gratia.
8. De Predestinatione Ss., De Dono Perseverantice.
9. Imp. Op. contra Jul.
430. Death.

INDEX.
Names of Authors referred to are printed in small capitals, and
titles of works in italics.

Academics 19 f., 45, 162
Adam 56n., 170
Adeodatus 15 n.
Alaric 111
Alexandria 111
Alfred, Kino 177
S. Ambrose 3, 5, 56, 57, 149, 167
S. Anselm 35 n., 178, 150, Cur Deus
Homo 9 n., 150, 152, Monologion 150,
Proslogion 150, 158
Antinomianism 127
Antioch 111
Antipodes 140, 162
Aquinas, S. Thomas 153
Arians 12, 243
Aristotle 38, 153
Arminians i6, 176
Articles, The XXXIX 107, 123, 129 n.,
130, 182, 249
Astronomy 140, 143
S. Athanasius 51 n.
Atonement 152, 259, 262
Auditores 9 n.
S. Austin, and Calvin 82 f., 90, 98 n„
104, 187, 197; asserted changes
29 n., 36 n., 90, 140, 175; as an
example 8, 73; form of his writings
14, 46, 78, 120; influence of 15
142 f., 177 f.; interpretation of
Scripture 57, 69, 156; habits of
life 66 n. ; charged with Manichas-
ism 65 ; personal characteristics
10, 80, 137 ; philosophical doc
trines 19 f., 49 f., 53 n., 72 n., 114,
171 ; unique position 35, 36, 150
Life, baptism 12 n., 14, 42, 45, eons-e-
crationl4, 175; illness at Eome20,
ordination 45
Works, lost 12n.; supposititious, 195,

225 n. ; Contra Academicos 15 n.,
21nn., 26nn., 145, 127; Contra
Adv. Leg. et Proph. 63 n., 230 n.,
237 ; De Actis cum Fel. Man. 172 ;
DeAgoneChristianoddn.; De Ani
ma et Origine Ejus 138 ; De Bap-
ti'smo 118 n., 119 n., 121 n., 122,123,
160 n., 205 n., 238, 241, 255, 257;
De Beata Vita 14 n., 21 n., 25 n. ;
De Bono Conjugali 168, 169, 170,
193; De Catechizandis Rudibus
99 n., 120 n.; De Civitate Dei
21 n., 22 n., 28 n., 30 n., 33 n.,
35 n., 38 n., 40 n., 50 nn., 51 n.,
52 n., 53 n., 55 n., 61 n., 62 n.,
66 n., 67 n., 68 nn., 69 n., 83 n.,
92n.,94nn., 99 n., 103nn., 112nn.,
113 nn., 114 n., 137 n., 157 n.,
166 nn., 174, 193, 194, 196, 203,
207, 208, 209 n., 214, 218 n., 219,
227, 256 ; Confessionum Libri XIII.
11, 12, 15, 20 n., 33 nn., 37, 38 n.,
40 n. , 41 n., 52 n., 61 n., 66 n., 77,
139, 154, 155, 187 n., 196; De Con
sensu Evangelistarum 163 n. ; De
Continentia 98 n., 103nn. ; DeCor-
reptione et Gratia 95 n., 172 ; Con
tra Cresconium 242 ; De Cura pro
Mortuis Gerenda 187 n., 188 n. ;
De Diversis Qucestionibus ad Sim-
plicianem 71 n., 91n. ; DeDiversis
Qucestionibus LXXXIII 9n. , 29 n.,
34 nn., 50 n., 51 n., 72 n., 98 n.,
138, 221 n. ; De Doctrina Christi
ana 58 n., 139, 141 nn., 156,
166 nn., 167 ; De Dono Perseeeran-
tice 77 n., 80 n., 91 n., 127; De
Duabus Animabus 60 n., 85 n., 172 ;
Enarrationes in Psalmos 63 n.,

280

S. AUSTIN.

09 n., 187 n., 188 n.; Enchiridion
25 n., 52 nn., 54 nn., 55 n., 93 n.,
139 n., 173, 187 n., 188 n., 238
Epistola 15 n., 17 n., 21 n., 26 n.
31 n., 93 n., Ill n., 112 n., 137
155, 159, 162, 164 n., 181, 225
Contra Epistolam Manichcei 60
138, 163 n., 167; Contra Epist
Parmeniani 238, 241, 242, 268
Contra Faustum 199, 216, 223, 224,
238 n., 268; Contra Fortunatum
Disput. 172 ; De Genesi ad Literam
11, 32n., 69 n., 138, 150; DeGra
tia Christi 128 n. ; De Gratia c
Libero Arbitrio 86 n., 90 n., 104n.
De Hceresibus 216 ; In Joan. Evan
gel. Tractatus 160 n., 190 n., 198
De Libero Arbitrio 9n., 24n., 27,
28 n., 32 n, 51 n., 63 n., 83 nn.'
89 nn., 92 n., 145, 151 n., 193, 194
Contra Lit. Petilian 242, 268; De
Magistro 31 n. ; De Moribus Eccle
sice 49, 50, 144 n. ; De Moribus
Manicliceorum 52 n., 53 n., 54 n.
98n. ; De Musiea 63 n., 72 n., 145
De Nuptiis 66 n. 124 n., 169, 170
De Ordine 15 n., 26 n., 28 n., 53 n.
99 n., 137, 143, 144, 145, 158n.
Operis imperfecti contra Jidianum
Libri VI. 58 n., 63 nn., 90n., 174
De Peccat. Meritis 124n. ; De Pec
cato Originali 124 n. ; De Perf.
Just. Horn. 95 n. 173 ; De Prcedes-
tinatione Ss. 127 n., 175 ; De Quan
titate Animce 30 n., 72 n., 137;
Quarumdam Prop, in Ep. ad Rom.
Expos. 194; Retractationum Libri
VI. 13 n., 14, 30 n., 37 nn., 45 n.,
85 n., 176; Sermones 58 n., 151,
187 n., 218,221,238; Contra Senn.
Arian. 243; De Spiritu et Litera
84n., 92n.; Soliloquiorum Libri II.
15, 24n.,31nn., 37, 177 ; Tract. adv.
Judceos 223 ; De Trinitate 8 n., 9n.,
10, 19 n., 21 n., 22 n., 23 n., 24 n.,
25 n., 26 n., 30 n., 31 n., 38 n., 39,
40n., 53 n., 55 n., 59 n., 61 n.,
96n.,97nn.,124n.,137, 138, 151,
155, 156, 157 n., 163 n., 173, 192,
209 n., 213 n., 238, 243; De Urbis
Excidio 113 n. ; De Utilitate Cre-
dendi 9 n., 19. n, 22 n., 157, 160 n.,
161, 164 n., 168 n.; De Utilitate
Jejuni i 63 n. ; De Vera Relii/ione
(In., 22 nn., 27 n., 34 n., 51 n.,
61 n„ 72 n., 84 n., 94 n., 137, 145,
157 n., 162, 163 n.

Authority 10 n., 11, 144, 157 f.
Bacon, Boger 153
Bain, Mental and Moral Science 171
Baptism 118, 121 f., 129 f., 209, 241,
246
Baur, Das manichdische Religions-
system 47 n., 48 n., 57 n. Die christ
liche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit 146
Bayle, Peter, Commentaire philoso-
phique 191
Beausobre, Histoire critique 46 n.
Beauty 29
Bede 170
Berkeley 14 n., 197
Bethlehem 3
Beverege 274
Bible 4, 167, 195, as actual history 55 f.
See Scripture.
Bindemann, Der h. Augustinus 21 n.,
46 nn. 120 n.
Bradley 62 n., 84 n
Bradwardine 153, 177, 178, De Cama
Dei 105 n., 106, 107
Bramhall 274
Breerely, S. Austin's Religion 179
Brevint 273
Bright, Anti-Pelagian Treatises 78 n.,
175
Brownists 182
Brucker 143
Buddhism 9n., 47 f., esoteric 49
Bull 274
Butler 35
Caird, Philos. of Religion 151 n.
Calvin 82 f., 90, 104, 127, 179 ; Insti
tutes 82n.,83 n., 85 nn., 86 n., 90 n.,
98 n., 104 n., 116 n., 167, 187
Calvinists 16, 103, 107, 117 n„ 176,
177, 180, 182, 198
Campbell, Hon. Arch., Doctrines of
Middle State 188 n.
Carthage 19
Celibacy 66, 170
Ceylon 48
Chaucer 106
Cheistlieb, Leben und Lehre des J. S.
Erigena 150
S. Chrysostom 240
Church, disorder in 17, judgment of 78,
121, authority of 159, 166 ; Faith in
the 114, 167, Calvinistic view of 115 ;
Mediaeval 15, 66, 178, Gallican 10,
177, Fifth Century 17, 117. See
English
Cicero 19, 80, 161

INDEX.

281

Classics 141
Clausen, A. A. Hippo 155
Collette, Saint Augwstine 180 n.
Collier, Ecclesiastical History 106 n
Consciousness 22, moral, 60
Constantinople 111
Continence 45, 64, 168
Cornelius 130, 132
Cosins 274
Councils 160
Cranmer 177, 180
Creation 56, 165, 175
Credulity 9 n., 104 n.
Crompton, Saint Austin's Religion 179
Cudworth 273
S. Cyprian 121, 216, 240, 256
Dead, Prayers for 187 n.
Death 58f., 164, its sting 60
Deism 104 n., 196.
Descartes 16, 25, 39 f., 105, 126,. 150
Determinism 96, 172
Dialectic 26, 143, 152
Digitus Dei 196
Dionysius 146, 150
Discussions, pubhc 12, 46, 120
Dissenters 190
Dogma 5, 6
Dollinger 180 n.
Dominion 153, 193
Donatists 77, 120 f., 160, 163, 183
Dorneb, Augustinus 14, 124 n.
Dubief, Les idies politiques 116 n., 195
Edwards, President 196
Elect 10 n., 48
Empirical knowledge 137, 161
Endert, C. Van, Gottesbeweis 38 n., 151
n., 153 n.
English Church, revived life 3, 16,
Mediaeval 105, 170, 175, S. Austin
and 177, and Calvinism 182 f.
Erigena 6n., 10 n., 35 n., 69 n., 70,
143 f., 158, 166, De Predestinations
146 n., De Divisione Natures 144 n.,
146, 147, 149, 158
Essays and Reviews 4
S. Etheldreda 170
Eucharist 117 n., 154, 198 f., for the
Dead 187 n., 215
Evangelicalism 117 n., 131
Evil 51, 87, 97, its nature, 51, 71, its
origin 54, 82, permission of 97
Faith, and knowledge 9, 73, 101, 114,
158, 163, 175, Christian 17, 41, 157,
temporal 163
Fall of man 56 f., 149, 175

Fatherhood of God 125
Faustus 46
Fell 274
Filmer, Sir B. 193
Fogg, God's infinite Grace 182
Fonteau 82 n.
Foreknowledge 88, 97, 126, 133
Fortunatus 46
Free Choice 95, 172, 182
Free Will 79, 91 f., 104, 171, 182, 187,
196, Pelagian 93
Friends, Society of 134
S. Fulgentius 224, 266 f.
Fuller, Church History 106 n.
Gale, T. True idea of Jansenisme 179
Gangauf, Metaphysische Psychologie 9
n., 35 n., 36 n., 37 n., 82 n., 171;
Speculative Lehre 93 n., 103 n., 105 n.,
151 n., 176
Geometry 28, 143
Goodness, of God 99 f .
Gotteschalk 146
Grace 56 n., its power 71, 72, 93 u.,
means of 123, 133, its conditions
126
Greek 41 n. , 154
S. Gregory 149
S. Gregory of Nyssa 51 n.
Grosseteste, Bobert 153
Gyffard, George, Plaine Declaration
183
Hamilton, Bp. 198
Hasse, Anselm 150
Haureau, Philosophie scolastique 142
n., 143
Heathenism 47, 57, 79
Hebrews, Epistle to 72, 80 n.
Hegel 7 n., 37 n., 115, 151 n.
Heredity 81
Hermann, Archbishop, Consultatio 182
Hermetic doctrine 9 n.
Hewit, Studies in S.. Augustine 82 n.,
180 n.
Heylin 274
Hickes, Dean 188 n., 201, 209, n., 213
n., 273, 274
Hippo 3, 45, 111, 142
History, Philosophy of 114
Homilies 182
Hopkins 214
Hume 164
Immortality, minor 58
Incontinence 64, 168
Independents 117 n.
India 41 19

282

S. AUSTIN.

Intellect 27 f.
Irving, Edward 117 n.
Isidore of Seville 213
Jains 48
Jansenists 16, 176
S. Jerome 3, 112
Jesuits 176, 179, 192, 196
John of Salisbury 152
Johnson 213 n., 226, 275
Jonah 166
Judgment of the Learned and Pious
S. Augustine 191
Kant 7, 105
Knowledge, kinds of 25, 157, elements
of 26, limitations of 37, 99, 101
Lactantius 140 n.
Laud, Archbishop 177, 274
Law 158
Lechler.Dc ThomaBradwardino 107 n.
Leibnitz 35
Locke 180, Reasonableness of Chris
tianity 167, Toleration 191
Luther 16^179
Magicians 138
Manornmedanism 87
Malthusians 86
Mani 45
Manichaeans 12, 19, 45 f., 54, 57, 71,
77, 80, 120, 160, 167
Manichasism 53, 65, 66, 71, 81, 170
Marriage 65, 168 f. 182
Matthew, Sir J. 179 n.
Maurice, F. D. 4, 122, The Old Testa
ment 11 n.
Mede 213, 226, 269 f.
Memory 137
Methodists 130, 197
Middle Ages 15, 66, 105, 142, 166
Milan 3, 12 n.
Milman 65 n., 170
Miracles 160, 163
Molina 179
Monarchy 193
S. Monica 187 n.
Mozley, 107
Muller, Julius 180 n.
Mysticism 33, 35, 150
Nature, study of 10, 141, observation
of 157, philosophy of, 52 n.
Neander 65 n., 80 n., 91 n., 171, 175
Nebridius21n. Neo-Platonism 37, 61
Nitzsoh 163 n.

Non-conformists 190
Numbers 27, 28, 143
Obedience, civil 192 f.
Olympius 111 n.
Omnipotence 102, 133
Ontological Proof 150
Orange, Council of 78
Ordination 241
Origen 6, 51 n., 56, 69 n., 243, 251
Owen, Bobert 168
Oxford 16, 179, 196, 198
Parsis 48
Pattison, Mark Sermons 6
S. Paul 58, 59, 71, 119, 126, 231, 234,
250
Pelagianism 105, 106, 126, 132, 178
Pelagius 77, 80, 93, 105 n., 174
Penal Laws 190 f .
Penalty of sin 59, 90
Perfectionism 81, 87 n.
Persia 41, 47
Pessimism 87
Philosophy, Christian 6, no finality in
7, Academic 21 ; Greek 6, 79, 41 n.,
49, 154, 174; Scholastic 35, 142.
Physics 10, 138
Pilate 19
Plato 14n., 20 n., 29n., 33n., 34 n., 36,
41, 51, 155, 197, Theology of 37
Pliny 58, 140 n.
Plotinus 33 n.
Poole, B. L. Illustrations 152
Possidius 66 n.
Potter, Achbp. 231
Prayer 127, 134, 204, for dead 187
Prayer Book 135, 169, 181 f.
Preaching 120 n., 128
Predestination 90, 126, 145, 182, 196
Prescience 90, 126 n., 145, 182
Prudentius, De Predestinatione 145,
146
Punishment 61f., 84, proportion in,
67 f., deliverance from 70; correct
ive 86, foreknown 146, physical
69, 146
Purgatory 187
Puritans 182 f., 192
Pusey, E. B. 16
Pythagoras 28 n.
Quadrivium 143
Banke, History of England 190 n.
Batramnus 225, 244
Bavenna 111
Beason 10 n., 144, 157 f.

INDEX.

283

Begeneration IIS
Beinkens, Die Geschichtsphilosophie
des h. A. 115 nn.
Beminiscence, doctrine of 29 n.
Bepentanee 130
Besponsibility 84
Beuter, Geschichte der rei. Aufkldruna
144
Bhetoric 143
Bitter, Geschichte der Philosophie 36
n., 37 n., 139, 151 n.
Bome 19, 45, 47, 111, 113
Bousselot, Pliilosophie dans le moyen
age 144
Sacraments 117 n., 129 f. , 202, 239 f. ;
see Baptism, Eucharist, Ordination
Sacrifice 201 f.
Satisfaction 151
Schelling 14 n.
Schism 117, 118, 121
Scholastics 16, 35, 38, 142, 152
Science 10, 141
Scipio, Des A. A. Metaphysik 53 n., 72
n.
Scotists 178
Scotland 117, 192
Scripture, Authority of 11, 104 n., 159 f.,
interpretation of 28 n., 56, 69, 157 f.,
165
Scrivener 196
Secularists 57
Senses, Evidence of 21, 40, 162
Shirley 153
Sin 164, 175, Original 82, Penalty of
59, 90 n.
Smith, George 198
Spelman, Sir H. 195
Statistical Society's Journal 87 n.
Stillingfleet 196
Stoics 82 n., 175

Storz, Philosophie des h. Augustinus
25 n., 36 n.
Suffering 50, 70, 99 f., 112 f.
Sutcliffe, Unmasking of a Masse
Monger 179
Teetotalism 66 n.
TertuUian 9 n. , 188
Theosophy 9 n., 49
Thomists 153, 178
Thorndike, Epilogue 182, 274
Time 56, 70, 157
Transubstantiation 198
Trent, Council of 78, 178
Trivium, 152
Truth 7, 37, 157, love of, 10, search
for, 19, and light, 29
Usher 226
Vandals 112 n.
Vegetarianism 66 n.
Waldensis, Thomas 153 n., 154 n.
Waterland 198, 206, 208, 222, 229,
248, 250, 261
Wesley, John 131 n., 177, 196, 198
Wheatley 201 -
Whitfield, The New Birth 130 n.
Wiggers, Augustinismus und Pelagian-
ismus 35 n., 171
Will, defect of 55, arbitrary 103, of
God 93 f., 96, 103, 165, 194, human
91, 98 ; see Free Will
Wyclif 153, 177, 193, 195
Zeller , Stoics, Epicureans , and Seep tics
21 n.
Zoroaster 47, 48
Zosimus 111 n.
Zwinglian doctrine 117 n.

CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. & SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

THE INFLUENCE OF DESCARTES ON METAPHYSI
CAL SPECULATION IN ENGLAND. Eoyal 8vo., pp. xlviii + 188. [Out
of Print.]
A DISSERTATION ON THE EPISTLE OF S. BARNABAS.
To this are added a Greek Text, the Latin Version, with a new English
Translation and Commentary by G. H. Bendall, M.A., Fellow of Trinity
College. Crown 8vo. , pp. cxvii + 130. 7s. 6d.
THE CHURCHES OF ASIA, A METHODICAL SKETCH
OF THE SECOND CENTURY. Crown 8vo., pp. xvi +299. 6s.
CHRISTIAN CIVILISATION WITH SPECIAL REFER
ENCE to INDIA. Crown 8vo., pp. vi + 152. 5s.
CHRISTIAN OPINION ON USURY WITH SPECIAL
EEFEBENCE TO ENGLAND. Crown 8vo„ pp. x + 84. [Out of Print.]
Macmillan and Co.

POLITICS AND ECONOMICS, AN ESSAY ON THE
PBINCIPLES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, TOGETHEB WITH A
SUBVEY OF EECENT LEGISLATION. Crown 8vo., pp. xvi + 275. 5s.
Kegan Paul, Trench and Co.

THE GROWTH OF ENGLISH INDUSTRY AND
COMMEBCE. Crown 8vo., pp. xiv + 492. 12s.
Cambridge University Press.

University Press, Cambridge.
September, 1886.

CATALOGUE OF
WORKS
PUBLISHED FOR THE SYNDICS
OF THE

Hon&on : c. j. clay and sons,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.
GLASGOW: 263, Argyle Street.

Csmtortoge : DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO.
ILeipjis: F. A. BROCKHAUS.

1/9/86

PUBLICATIONS OF
Cfte Camferttijr* ©nibersittp press,

THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, &c.
THE CAMBRIDGE PARAGRAPH BIBLE of the Au
thorized English Version, with the Text Revised by a Collation of its
Early and other Principal Editions, the Use of the Italic Type made
uniform, the Marginal References remodelled, and a Critical Intro
duction prefixed, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., LL.D., Editor of
the Greek Testament, Codex Augiensis, &c, and one of the Revisers
of the Authorized Version. Crown 4to. gilt. 21s.
From the Times. Syndics of the Cambridge University Press,
"Students of the Bible should be particu- an edition of the English Bible, according to
larly grateful (to the Cambridge University the text of 1611, revised by a comparison with
Press) for having produced, with the able as- later issues on principles stated by him inhis
sistance of Dr Scrivener, a complete critical Introduction. Here he enters at length into
edition of the Authorized Version of the Eng- the history of the chief editions of the version,
lish Bible, an edition such as, to use the words and of such features as the marginal notes, the
of the Editor, 'would have been executed long use of italic type, and the changes of ortho-
ago had this version been nothing more than graphy, as well as into the most interesting
the greatest and best known of English clas- question as to the original texts from which
sics.' Falling at a time when the formal revi- our translation is produced."
sion of this version has been undertaken by a From h Methodist Recorder.
distinguished company of scholars and divines, ., Th; u f ;s in
the publication of this edition must be con- fe ^ of e(j;tor ^nd ^fblishers
sidered most opportune nk > T£e name of'the Cambridge University
..a pom the Athenarum. Press is guarantee enough for its perfection in
F„l ur'nihlH A' £^ZV wS W' W °<"ward form, the name of the editor is equal
English Bible has the glory which but few ntee for' the worth and accuracy of4its
sister versions indeed can claim, oi being the & . . „,.., , .. ¦*.•*£ u «.
chief classic of the language, of having, in ™°tents Without question it is the best
conjunction with Shakspearl, and in an im- Paragraph Bible ever published, and its re-
measurable degree more than he, fixed the d"ce,d Pnce of a g>™« Wf >t within reach
language beyond any possibility of important of a larSe number of students-
change. Thus the recent contributions to the From the London Quarterly Review.
literature of the subject, by such workers as "The work is worthy in every respect of the
Mr Francis Fry and CanonWestcott, appeal editor's fame, and of the Cambridge University
to a wide range of sympathies; and to these Press. The noble English Version, to which
may now be added Dr Scrivener, well known our country and religion owe so much, was
for his labours in the cause of the Greek Testa- probably never presented before in so perfect a
ment criticism, who has brought out, for the form."
THE CAMBRIDGE PARAGRAPH BIBLE. Student's
Edition, on good writing paper, with one column of print and wide
margin to each page for MS. notes. This edition will be found of
great use to those who are engaged in the task of Biblical criticism.
Two Vols. Crown 4to. gilt. 31J. 6d.
THE AUTHORIZED EDITION OF THE ENGLISH
BIBLE (1611), ITS SUBSEQUENT REPRINTS AND MO
DERN REPRESENTATIVES. Being the Introduction to the
Cambridge Paragraph Bible (1873), re-edited with corrections and
additions. By F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Pre
bendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
THE LECTIONARY BIBLE, WITH APOCRYPHA,
divided into Sections adapted to the Calendar and Tables of
Lessons of 1871. Crown 8vo. $s. 6d.
London : C. J. Cla y &* Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS BOOKS.

BR?7iTA-RIUM AD USUM INSIGNIS ECCLESIAE
SARUM. Juxta Editionem maximam pro Claudio Chevallon
et Francisco Regnault a.d. mdxxxi. in Alma Parisiorum
Academia impressam : labore ac studio Francisci Procter,
A.M., et Christophori Wordsworth, A.M.
Fasciculus I. In quo continentur Kalendarium. et Ordo
Temporalis sive Proprium de Tempore totius anni, una cum
ordinali suo quod usitato vocabulo dicitur Pica sive Directorium
Sacerdotum. Demy 8vo. i8j.
"The value of this reprint is considerable to cost prohibitory to all but a few . Messrs
liturgical students, who will now be able to con- Procter and Wordsworth have discharged their
suit in their own libraries a work absolutely in- editorial task with much care and judgment,
dispensable to a right understanding of the his- though the conditions under which they have
tory of the Prayer-Book, but which till now been working are such as to hide that fact from
usually necessitated a visit to some public all but experts."— Literary Churchman.
library, since the rarity of the volume made its
Fasciculus II. In quo continentur Psalterium, cum ordinario
Officii totius hebdomadae juxta Horas Canonicas, et proprio Com-
pletorii, Litania, Commune Sanctorum, Ordinarium Missae
cum Canone et xiii Missis, &c. &c. Demy 8vo. \is.
" Not only experts in liturgiology, but all For all persons of religious tastes the Breviary,
persons interested in the history of the Anglican with its mixture of Psalm and Anthem and
Book of Common Prayer, will be grateful to the Prayer and Hymn, all hanging one on the
Syndicate of the Cambridge University Press other, and connected into a harmonious whole,
for forwarding the publication of the volume must be deeply interesting." — Church Quar-
which bears the above title, and which has terly Review.
recently appeared under their auspices." — "The editors have done their work excel-
Notes and Queries. lently, and deserve all praise for their labours
"Cambridge has worthily taken the lead in rendering what they justly call 'this most
with the Breviary, which is of especial value interesting Service-book ' more readily access-
for that part of the reform of the Prayer-Book ible to historical and liturgical students." —
which will fit it for the wants of our time . . . Saturday Review.
Fasciculus III. In quo continetur Proprium Sanctorum
quod et sanctorale dicitur, una cum accentuario. {Nearly ready.
GREEK AND ENGLISH TESTAMENT, in parallel
Columns on the same page. Edited by J. Scholefield, M.A. late
Regius Professor of Greek in the University. Small Octavo. New
Edition, with the Marginal References as arranged and revised by
Dr Scrivener. Cloth, red edges, ys. 6d.
GREEK AND ENGLISH TESTAMENT. The Stu-
dent's Edition of the above, on large writing paper. 4to. \is.
GREEK TESTAMENT, ex editione Stephani tertia, 1550.
Small 8vo. 3J. 6d.
THE NEW TESTAMENT IN GREEK according to the
text followed in the Authorised Version, with the Variations adopted
in the Revised Version. Edited by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A.,
D.C.L., LL.D. Crown 8vo. 6s. Morocco boards or limp. 12s.
THE PARALLEL NEW TESTAMENT GREEK AND
ENGLISH, being the Authorised Version set forth in 1611 Arranged
in Parallel Columns with the Revised Version of 1881, and with the
original Greek, as edited by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L.,
LL.D. Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Crown 8vo.
1 2 j. 6d. The Revised Version is the Joint Property of the Universi
ties of Cambridge and Oxford.

London : C. J. Cla y £-» Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

PUBLICATIONS OF

THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES, with Notes and In
troduction. By the Very Rev. E. H. Plumptre, D.D., Dean of
Wells. Large Paper Edition. Demy 8vo. ?s. 6d.
" No one can say that the Old Testament is point in English exegesis of the Old Testa-
a dull or wom-out subject after reading this ment; indeed, even Delitzsch, whose pride it
singularly attractive and also instructive com- is to leave no source of illustration unexplored,
mentary. Its wealth of literary and historical is far inferior on this head to Dr Plumptre." —
illustration surpasses anything to which we can Academy, Sept. 10, i88r.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST MATTHEW in
Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Versions, synoptically arranged:
with Collations of the best Manuscripts. By J. M. Kemble, M.A.
and Archdeacon HARDWICK. Demy 4to. io.f.
New Edition. By the Rev. Professor Skeat. [In the Press.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST MARK in Anglo-
Saxon and Northumbrian Versions, synoptically arranged : with Col
lations exhibiting all the Readings of all the MSS. Edited by the
Rev. W. W. Skeat, Litt.D., Elrington and Bosworth Professor of
Anglo-Saxon. Demy 4to. lay.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST LUKE, uniform
with the preceding, by the same Editor. Demy 4to. icr.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN, uniform
with the preceding, by the same Editor. Demy 4to. 10s.
" The Gospel according- to St John, in Kemble, some forty years ago. Of the par-
Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Versions'. ticular volume now before us, we can only say
Edited for the Syndics of the University it is worthy of its two predecessors. We repeat
Press, by the Rev. Walter W. Skeat, M.A., that the service rendered to the study of Anglo-
completes an undertaking designed and. com- Saxon by this Synoptic collection cannot easily
menced by that distinguished scholar, J. M. be overstated." — Contemporary Review.
THE POINTED PRAYER BOOK, being the Book of
Common Prayer with the Psalter or Psalms of David, pointed as
they are to be sung or said in Churches. Royal 241110. u. 6d.
The same in square 32mo. cloth. %d.
THE CAMBRIDGE PSALTER, for the .use of Choirs and
Organists. Specially adapted for Congregations in which the " Cam
bridge Pointed Prayer Book" is used. Demy 8vo. cloth extra, y. 6d.
cloth limp, cut flush. 2s. 6d.
THE PARAGRAPH PSALTER, arranged for the use of
Choirs by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., Regius Professor of
Divinity in the University of Cambridge. Fcap. 4to. $s.
The same in royal 32mo. Cloth Is. Leather Is. 6d.
"The Paragraph Psalter exhibits all the and there is not a clergyman or organist in
care, thought, and learning that those acquaint- England who should be without this Psalter
ed with the works of the Regius Professor of as a work of reference."— Morning Post.
Divinity at Cambridge would expect to find,
THE MISSING FRAGMENT OF THE LATIN TRANS
LATION OF THE FOURTH BOOK OF EZRA, discovered,
and edited with an Introduction and Notes, and a facsimile of the
MS., by Robert L. Bensly, M.A., Reader in Hebrew, Gonville and
Caius College, Cambridge. Demy 4to. 10s.
"It has been said of this book that it has Bible we understand that of the larger size
added a new chapter to the Bible, and, startling which contains the Apocrypha, and if the
as the statement may at first sight appear, it is Second Book of Esdras can be fairly called a
no exaggeration of the actual fact, if by the part of the Apocrypha."— Saturday Review.
GOSPEL DIFFICULTIES, or the Displaced Section of
S. Luke. By the Rev. J. J. Halcombe, Rector of Balsham and
Rural Dean of North Camps, formerly Reader and Librarian at the
Charterhouse. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.

London : C. J. Cla y &* Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

THEOLOGY— (ANCIENT).
THE GREEK LITURGIES. Chiefly from original Autho
rities. By C. A. Swainson, D.D., Master of Christ's College, Cam
bridge. Crown 4to. Paper covers. \t,s.
"Jeder folgende Forscher wird dankbar Griechischen Liturgien sicher gelegt hat."—
anerkennen, dass Swainson das Fundament zu Adolph Harnack, Theologische Literatur-
einer histonscn-kntischen Geschichte der Zeitung.
THE PALESTINIAN MISHNA. By W. H. Lowe, M.A.,
Lecturer in Hebrew at Christ's College, Cambridge. Royal 8vo. 21s.
SAYINGS OF THE JEWISH FATHERS, comprising
Pirqe Aboth and Pereq R. Meir in Hebrew and English, with Cri
tical and Illustrative Notes. By Charles Taylor, D.D. Master
of St John's College, Cambridge, and Honorary Fellow of King's
College, London. Demy 8vo. 10s. 1 ' A careful and thorough edition which does
credit to English scholarship, of a short treatise
from the Mishna, containing a series of sen
tences or maxims ascribed mostly to Jewish
teachers immediately preceding, or immediately
following the Christian era. . ." — Contempo
rary Review.

"The 'Masseketh Aboth' stands at the
head of Hebrew non-canonical writings. It is
of ancient date, claiming to contain the dicta
of teachers who flourished from B.C. 200 to the
same year of our era. The precise time of its
compilation in its present form is, of course, in
doubt. Mr Taylor's explanatory and illustra
tive commentary is very full and satisfactory."
— Spectator.
THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA'S COMMENTARY
ON THE MINOR EPISTLES OF S. PAUL. The Latin Ver
sion with the Greek Fragments, edited from the MSS. with Notes
and an Introduction, by H. B. Swete, D.D., Rector of Ashdon,
Essex, and late Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.
In Two Volumes. Vol. I., containing the Introduction, with Fac
similes of the MSS., and the Commentary upon Galatians — Colos-
sians. Demy 8vo. ins.

"In dem oben verzeichneten Euche Hegt
uns die erste Halfte einer vollstandigen, ebenso
sorgfaltig gearbeiteten wie schon ausgestat-
teten Ausgabe des Commentars mit ausfiihr-
lichen Prolegomena und reichhaltigen kritis-
chen und erlauternden Anmerkungen vor." —
Literarisches Centralblatt.
" It is the result of thorough, careful, and
patient investigation of all the points bearing
on the subject, and the results are presented
with admirable good sense and modesty." —
Guardian. "Auf Grand dieser Quellen ist der Text
bei Swete mit musterhafter Akribie herge-
stellt. Aber auch sonst hat der Herausgeber
mit unermudlichem Fleisse und eingehend-
ster Sachkenntniss sein "Werk mit alien den-
jenigen Zugaben ausgerustet, welche bei einer
solchen Text-Ausgabe nur irgend _ erwartet
werden konnen. . . . Von den drei Haupt-

handschriften . . . sind vortreffliche photo-
graphische Facsimile's beigegeben, wie uber-
haupt das ganze Werk von der University
Press zu Cambridge mit bekannter Eleganz
ausgestattet ist. *J '—Theologische Literaturzei
iung. "It is a hopeful sign, amid forebodings
which arise about the theological learning of
the Universities, that we have before us the
first instalment of a thoroughly scientific and
painstaking work, commenced at Cambridge
and completed at a country rectory."— Church
Quarterly Review (Jan. 1881).
" Hernn Swete's Leistung ist eine so
tiichtige dass wir das Werk in keinen besseren
Handen wissen mochten, und mit den sich-
ersten Erwartungen auf das Gelingen der
Fortsetzung entgegen sehen." — Gottitigische
gelehrte Atizeigen (Sept. 1881).

Volume IL, containing the Commentary on i Thessalonians —
Philemon, Appendices and Indices. 12s.

"Eine Ausgabe . . . fur welche alle zugang-
lichen Hulfsmittel in musterhafter Weise be-
niitzt wurden . . . eine reife Frucht siebenjahri-
gen Fleisses."— Theologische Literaturzeiiung
(Sept. 23, 1882).
"Mit deiselben Sorgfalt bearbeitet die wir
bei dem ersten Theile geruhmt haben." —
Literarisches Centralblatt (July 29, 1882).
"M. Jacobi. ..commenca.. .une Edition du
texte. Ce travail a e'te' repris en Angleterre et

mene" a bien dans les deux volumes que je
signale en ce moment.. .Elle est accompagnee
de notes erudites, suivie de divers appendices,
parmi lesquels on appre'oiera surtout un recueil
des fragmenLs des oeuvres dogmatiques de
Theodore, et pre'ce'de'e d'une introduction ou
sont traite'es a fond toutes les questions d'his-
toire litteraire qui se rattachent soit au com-
mentaire lui-m§me, soit a sa version Latine." —
Bulletin Critique^ 1885.

London ; C. J. Cla y 6° Sows, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

PUBLICATIONS OF

SANCTI IREN^I EPISCOPI LUGDUNENSIS libros
quinque adversus Hsereses, versione Latina cum Codicibus Claro-
montano ac Arundeliano denuo collata, praemissa de placitis Gnos-
ticorum prolusione, fragmenta necnon Graece, Syriace, Armeniace,
commentatione perpetua et indicibus variis edidit W. Wigan
Harvey, S.T.B. Collegii Regalis olim Socius. 2 Vols. 8vo. 18s.
M. MINUCII FELICIS OCTAVIUS. The text newly
revised from the original MS., with an English Commentary,
Analysis, Introduction, and Copious Indices. Edited by H. A.
Holden, LL.D. Examiner in Greek to the University of London.
Crown 8vo. js. 6d.
THEOPHILI EPISCOPI ANTIOCHENSIS LIBRI
TRES AD AUTOLYCUM edidit, Prolegomenis Versione Notulis
Indicibus instruxit Gulielmus Gilson Humphry, S.T.B. Collegii
Sanctiss. Trin. apud Cantabrigienses quondam Socius. Post 8vo. 5J.
THEOPHYLACTI IN EVANGELIUM S. MATTH^EI
COMMENTARIUS, edited by W. G. Humphry, B.D. Prebendary
of St Paul's, late Fellow of Trinity College. Demy 8vo. "js. 6d.
TERTULLIANUS DE CORONA MILITIS, DE SPEC-
TACULIS, DE IDOLOLATRIA, with Analysis and English Notes,
by George Currey, D.D. Preacher at the Charter House, late
Fellow and Tutor of St John's College. Crown 8vo. 5j.
FRAGMENTS OF PHILO AND JOSEPHUS. Newly
edited by J. Rendel Harris, M.A., Fellow of Clare College,
Cambridge. With two Facsimiles. Demy 4to. 12s. 6d.
THEOLOGY— (ENGLISH).
WORKS OF ISAAC BARROW, compared with the Ori
ginal MSS., enlarged with Materials hitherto unpublished. A new
Edition, by A. Napier, M.A. of Trinity College, Vicar of Holkham,
Norfolk. 9 Vols. Demy 8vo. ^3. 3^.
TREATISE OF THE POPE'S SUPREMACY, and a
Discourse concerning the Unity of the Church, by Isaac Barrow.
Demy 8vo. Js. 6d.
PEARSON'S EXPOSITION OF THE CREED, edited
by Temple Chevallier, B.D. late Fellow and Tutor of St Catha
rine's College, Cambridge. New Edition. Revised by R. Sinker,
B.D., Librarian of Trinity College. Demy 8vo. 12s.
" Anew edition of Bishop Pearson's famous places, and the citations themselves have been
work Ok the Creed has just been issued by the adapted to the best and newest texts of the
Cambridge University Press. It is the well- several authors— texts which have undergone
known edition of iemple Chevallier, thoroughly vast improvements within the last two centu-
overhauled I by the Rev. R. Sinker, of Trinity ries. The Indices have also been revised and
College. The whole text and notes have been enlarged  Altogether this appears to be the
most carefully examined and corrected, and most complete and convenient edition as yet
special pains have been taken to verify the al- published of a work which has lone been re-
most innumerable references. These have been cognised in all quarters as a standard one."-
more clearly and accurately given in very many Guardian.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE EXPOSITION OF THE
CREED written by the Right Rev. John Pearson, D.D. late Lord
Bishop of Chester, by W. H. Mill, D.D. late Regius Professor of
Hebrew m the University of Cambridge. Demy 8vo is
WHEATLY ON THE COMMON PRAYER, edited by
G. E. Corrie, D.D. late Master of Jesus College. Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d.
London: C. J. Clay &° Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 7
TWO FORMS OF PRAYER OF THE TIME OF QUEEN
ELIZABETH. Now First Reprinted. Demy 8vo. 6d.
"From * Collections and Notes' 1867—1876, ker Society's volume of Occasional Forms of
by W. Carew Hazlitt (p. 340), we learn that — Prayer, but it had been lost sight of for 200
'A very remarkable volume, in the original years.' By the kindness of the present pos-
vellum cover, and containing 25 Forms of sessor of this valuable volume, containing in all
Prayer of the reign of Elizabeth, each with the 25 distinct publications, I am enabled to re-
autograph of Humphrey Dyson, has lately fallen print in the following pages the two Forms
into the hands of my friend Mr H. Pyne. It is of Prayer supposed to have been lost." — Ex-
mentioned specially in the Preface to the Par- tract from the Preface.
CAESAR MORGAN'S INVESTIGATION OF THE
TRINITY OF PLATO, and of Philo Judaeus, and of the eneAs
which an attachment to their writings had upon the principles and
reasonings of the Fathers of the Christian Church. Revised by H. A.
Holden, LL.D., formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Crown 8vo. 4J.
SELECT DISCOURSES, by John Smith, late Fellow of
Queens' College, Cambridge. Edited by H. G. Williams, B.D. late
Professor of Arabic. Royal 8vo. 7-r. 6d.
"The 'Select Discourses' of John Smith, with the richest lights of meditative genius...
collected and published from his papers after He was one of those rare thinkers in whom
his death are, in my opinion, much the most largeness of view, and depth, and wealth ot
considerable work left to us by this Cambridge poetic and speculative insight, only served to
School [the Cambridge Platonists]. They have evoke more fully the religious spirit, and while
a rieht to a place in English literary history." he drewthe mouldof his thought from Hotinus,
—Mr Matthew Arnold, in the Contemto- he vivified the substance of it frornbt Paul. —
rary Review Principal Tulloch, Rational Theology in
"Of all the products of the Cambridge England in the 17th Century.
School the 'Select Discourses" are perhaps "We may instance Mr Henry Griffin Wil-
the hiehest, as they are the most accessible liamss revised edition of Mr John Smiths
aid th! most widel/appreciated...and indeed 'Select Discourses,' which have won Mr
no spiritually thoughtful mind can read them Matthew Arnold's admiration, as an example
unmoved They carry us so directly into an of worthy work for an University Press to
atmosphere of divine philosophy, luminous undertake."— Times.
THE HOMILIES, with Various Readings, and the Quo
tations from the Fathers given at length in the Original Languages.
Edited by G. E. Corrie, D.D. late Master of Jesus College. Demy
8vo. 7s. 6d.
DE OBLIGATIONE CONSCIENTIA PRALECTIONES
decern Oxonii in Schola Theologica habitas a Roberto Sanderson,
SS Theologia ibidem Professore Regio. With English Notes,
including an abridged Translation, by W. Whewell, D.D. late
Master of Trinity College. Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d.
ARCHBISHOP USHER'S ANSWER TO A JESUIT,
with other Tradls on Popery. Edited by J. Scholefield, M.A. late
Regius Professor of Greek in the University. Demy 8vo. 7s. od.
WILSON'S ILLUSTRATION OF THE METHOD OF
explaining the New Testament, by the early opinions of Jews and
Christiani concerning Christ. 'Edited by T. TuKTON, D.D. late
Lord Bishop of Ely. Demy 8vo. 5*.
LECTURES ON DIVINITY delivered in the University
of Cambridge, by John Hey, D.D. Third Edition, revised by T.
TURTON d!d. late Lord Bishop of Ely. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. 15*.
S AUSTIN AND HIS PLACE IN THE HISTORY
OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT. Being the Hulsean Lectures for
188; By W. Cunningham, B.D., Chaplain and Birkbeck Lecturer,
Trinity College, Cambridge. Demy 8vo.
London: C. 7. Clay &> Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

PUBLICATIONS OF

ARABIC, SANSKRIT, SYRIAC, &c.
THE DIVYAVADANA, a Collection of Early Buddhist
Legends, now first edited from the Nepalese Sanskrit MSS. in
Cambridge and Paris. By E. B. CowELL, M.A., Professor of
Sanskrit in the University of Cambridge, and R. A. NEIL, M.A.,
Fellow and Lecturer of Pembroke College. Demy 8vo. i8.r.
POEMS OF BEHA ED DIN ZOHEIR OF EGYPT.
With a Metrical Translation, Notes and Introduction, by E. H.
Palmer, M.A., Barrister-at-Law of the Middle Temple, late Lord
Almoner's Professor of Arabic, formerly Fellow of St John's College,
Cambridge. 2 vols. Crown 4to.
Vol. I. The Arabic Text. 10s. 6d. ; cloth extra. 15J.
Vol. II. English Translation. 10s. 6d. ; cloth extra. 15J.
"We have no hesitation in saying that in remarked, by not unskilful imitations of the
both Prof. Palmer has made an addition to Ori- styles of several of our own favourite poets,
ental literature for which scholars should be living and dead." — Saturday Review.
grateful ; and that, while his knowledge of " This sumptuous edition of the poems of
Arabic is a sufficient guarantee for his mastery Beha-ed-din Zoheir is a very welcome addition
of the original, his English compositions are to the small series of Eastern poets accessible
distinguished by versatility, command of Ian- to readers who are not Orientalists."— Aca-
guage, rhythmical cadence, and, as we have demy.
THE CHRONICLE OF JOSHUA THE STYLITE, com
posed in Syriac A.D. 507 with an English translation and notes, by
W. Wright, LL.D., Professor of Arabic. Demy 8vo. 10s. 6d.
" Die lehrreiche kleine Chronik Josuas hat ein Lehrmittel fur den syrischen Unterricht ¦ es
nach Assemani und Martin in Wright einen erscheint auch gerade zur rechten Zeit, da die
dntten Bearbeiter gefunden, der sich um die zweite Ausgabe von Roedigers syrischer Chres-
Emendation des Textes wie um die Erklarung tomathie im Buchhandel vollstandig vergriffen
der Reahen wesenthch yerdient gemacht hat und diejenige von Kirsch-Bernstein nur noch
. . . Ws. Josua-Ausgabe 1st eine sehr dankens- in wenigen Exemplaren vorhanden ist."—
werte Gabe und besonders empfehlenswert als Deutsche Litteraturzeitung.
KALlLAH AND DIMNAH, OR, THE FABLES OF
BIDPAI ; being an account of their literary history, together with
an English Translation of the same, with Notes, by I. G. N Keith-
Falconer, M.A., Trinity College. Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d.
nalopAkhyAnam, or, THE TALE OF NALA;
containing the Sanskrit Text in Roman Characters, followed by a
Vocabulary and a sketch of Sanskrit Grammar. By the late
Rev. Thomas Jarrett, M.A. Trinity College, Regius Professor
of Hebrew. Demy 8vo. 10s.
NOTES ON THE TALE OF NALA, for the use of
Classical Students, by J. Peile, Litt.D., Fellow and Tutor of
Christ's College. Demy 8vo. 12s.
CATALOGUE OF THE BUDDHIST SANSKRIT
MANUSCRIPTS in the University Library, Cambridge. Edited
by C. Bendall, M.A., Fellow of Gonville and Caius College. Demy
8V0. 1 2 S. a j
•1 '.'-1' is/n,ne«ssary to state how the com- those concerned in it on the result ... Mr Ben-
it^Tw f-^%PI7T <iataj,«u,e came to °e dall has entitled himself to the thanks of all
placed in Mr Bendall s hands ; from the cha- Oriental scholars, and we hope he may have
racter of his work it is evident the selection before him a long course of successful labour in
was judicious, and we may fairly congratulate the field he has chosen."— A thenaum.
London: C. 7. Clay &> Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

GREEK AND LATIN CLASSICS, &c.
SOPHOCLES: The Plays and Fragments, with Critical
Notes, Commentary, and Translation in English Prose, by R. C
JEBB, Litt.D., LL.D., Professor of Greek in the University of Glasgow
Part I. Oedipus Tyrannus. Demy 8vo. i$s.
Part II. Oedipus Coloneus. Demy 8vo. 12s 6d.
„ „, v.Par* m- T^. Antigone. f/„ the Press.
Of his explanatory and critical notes we vivacity. In fact, one might take this edition
can only speak with admiration. Thorough with him on a journey, and, without anv other
scholarship combines with taste, erudition, and help whatever, acquire with comfort and de-
boundless industry to make this first volume a light a thorough acquaintance with the noblest
pattern of editing. The work is made com- production of, perhaps, the most difficult of all
plete by a prose translation, upon pages alter- Greek poets— the most difficult, yet possessed
nating with the text, of which we may say at the same time of an immortal charm for one
shortly that it displays sound judgment and who has mastered him, as Mr Jebb has and
taste, without sacrificing precision to poetry of can feel so subtly perfection of form and' lan-
expression."— The Times. guage...We await with lively expectation the
"This larger edition he has deferred these continuation, and completion of Mr Jebb's
many years for reasons which he has given in great task, and it is a fortunate thing that his
his preface, and which we accept with entire power of work seems to be as great as the style
satisfaction, as we have now the first portion is happy in which the work is done." — The
of awork composed in the fulness of his powers AtJienceum.
and with all the resources of fine erudition and "An edition which marks a definite ad-
laboriously earned experience. ..We will confi- vance, which is whole in itself, and brings a
dently aver, then, that the edition is neither mass of solid and well-wrought material such
tedious nor long ; for we get in one compact as future constructors will desire to adapt, is
volume such a cyclopaedia of instruction, such definitive in the only applicable sense of the
a variety of helps to the full comprehension of term, and such is the edition of Professor Jebb.
the poet, as not so many years ago would have No man is better fitted to express in relation to
needed a small library, and all this instruction Sophocles the mind of the present generation."
and assistance given, not in a dull and pedantic — The Saturday Review.
way, but in a style of singular clearness and
AESCHYLI FABULAE.— IKETIAES XOH<K)POI IN
LIBRO MEDICEO MENDOSE SCRIPTAE EX VV. DD.
CONIECTURIS EMENDATIUS EDITAE cum Scholiis Graecis
et brevi adnotatione critica, curante F. A. Paley, M.A., LL.D.
Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d.
THE AGAMEMNON OF AESCHYLUS. With a Trans
lation in English Rhythm, and Notes Critical and Explanatory.
New Edition Revised. By Benjamin Hall Kennedy, D.D.,
Regius Professor of Greek. Crown 8vo. 6s.
" One of the best editions of the masterpiece of Greek tragedy." — A thencsum.
THE THEAETETUS OF PLATO with a Translation and
Notes by the same Editor. Crown 8vo. ys. 6d.
ARISTOTLE.— nEPI ^TXHS. ARISTOTLE'S PSY
CHOLOGY, in Greek and English, with Introduction and Notes,
by Edwin Wallace, M.A., late Fellow and Tutor of Worcester
College, Oxford. Demy 8vo. 18s.
"The notes are exactly what such notes "Wallace's Bearbeitung der Aristotelischen
ought to be, — helps to the student, not mere Psychologie ist das Werk eines denkenden und
displays of learning. By far the more valuable in alien Schriften des Aristoteles und grossten-
parts of the notes are neither critical nor lite- teils auch in der neueren Litteratur zu densel-
rary, but philosophical and expository of the ben belesenen Mannes . . . Der schwachste
thought, and of the connection of thought, in Teil der Arbeit ist der kritische . . . Aber in
the treatise itself. In this relation the notes are alien diesen Dingen Iiegt auch nach der Ab-
invaluable. Of the translation, it may be said sicht des Verfassers nicht der Schwerpunkt
that an English reader may fairly master by seiner Arbeit, sondern." — Prof. Susemihl in
means of it this great treatise of Aristotle." — Philologische Wochenschrift.
Spectator.
ARISTOTLE.— nEPI AIKAIOSTNH2. THE FIFTH
BOOK OF THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS OF ARISTOTLE.
Edited by Henry Jackson, Litt.D., Fellow of Trinity College,
Cambridge. Demy 8vo. 6s.
" It is not too much to say that some of the will hope that this is not the only portion of
points he discusses have never had so much the Aristotelian writings which he is likely to
light thrown upon them before. . . . Scholars edit." — Athenteum.
London : C. J. Cla y &* Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane,

io PUBLICATIONS OF
ARISTOTLE. THE RHETORIC. With a Commentary
by the late E. M. Cope, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, re
vised and edited by J. E. Sandys, Litt.D. With a biographical
Memoir by the late H. A. J. Munro, Litt.D. 3 Vols., Demy 8vo.
Now reduced to 21j. {originally published at 31J. 6d.)
"This work is in manyways creditable to the "Mr Sandys has performed his arduous
University of Cambridge. If an English student duties with marked ability and admirable tact.
wishes to have a full conception of what is con-  In every part of his work — revising
tainedin theRketoric of Aristotle, to Mr Cope's supplementing, and completing — he has done
edition he must go." — Academy. exceedingly well." — Examiner.
PINDAR. OLYMPIAN AND PYTHIAN ODES. With
Notes Explanatory and Critical, Introductions and Introductory
Essays. Edited by C. A. M. Fennell, Litt. D., late Fellow of
Jesus College. Crown 8vo. gs.
' ' Mr Fennell deserves the thanks of all clas- in comparative philology. " — A ihenceum.
sical students for his careful and scholarly edi- ' ' Considered simply as a contribution to the
tion of the Olympian and Pythian odes. He study and criticism of Pindar, Mr Fennell's
brings to his task the necessary enthusiasm for edition is a work of great merit."— Saturday
his author, great industry, a sound judgment, 'Review.
and, in particular, copious and minute learning
 THE ISTHMIAN AND NEMEAN ODES. By the same
Editor. Crown 8vo. gs.
"... As a handy and instructive edition of valuable help to the study of the most difficult
a difficult classic no work of recent years sur- of Greek authors, and is enriched with notes
passes Mr Fennell's 'Pindar.'"— Athenaum. on points of scholarship and etymology which
' This work is in no way inferior to could only have been written by a scholar of
the previous volume. The commentary affords very high attainments."— Saturday Review
PRIVATE ORATIONS OF DEMOSTHENES, with In
troductions and English Notes, by F. A. Paley, M.A. Editor of
Aeschylus, etc. and J. E. Sandys, Litt.D. Fellow and Tutor of St
John's College, and Public Orator in the University of Cambridge.
Part I. Contra Phormionem, Lacritum, Pantaenetum, Boeotum
de Nomine, Boeotum de Dote, Dionysodorum. Crown 8vo. 6s.
[New Edition. Nearly ready.
Mr Paley's scholarship is sound and literature which bears upon his author and
accurate, his experience of editing wide, and the elucidation of matters of daily life in the
", .,.e. ls content to devote his learning and delineation of which Demosthenes is so rich
abilities to the production of such manuals obtains full justice at his hands . We
as these, they will be received with gratitude hope this edition may lead the way to a more
throughout the higher schools of the country. general study of these speeches in schools
Mr Sandys is deeply read in the German than has hitherto been possible "—Academy
Part II. Pro Phormione, Contra Stephanum I. II.; Nicostra-
tum, Cononem, Calliclem. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
„ T . , [New Edition. In the Press.
It is long since we have come upon a work mosthenes '." — Saturday Review
evincing more pains, scholarship, and varied "  the edition reflects credit on
research and illustration than Mr Sandys's Cambridge scholarship, and ought to be ex-
contnbution to the 'Private Orations of De- tensively used."— Atlumaum
DEMOSTHENES AGAINST ANDROTION AND
AGAINST TIMOCRATES, with Introductions and English Com
mentary, by William Wayte, M.A., late Professor of Greek, Uni
versity College, London. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
"These speeches are highly interesting, as prehended subject matter  Besides a most
illustrating Attic Law, as that law was in- lucid and interesting introduction, Mr Wayte
£^,\ V the1exlS?'1«s of politics . . As has given the student effective help in his
Xf?, ™ e*a™Ple%of the great orator's style, running commentary. We may note, as being
W^ % ? ? °f aU ad.miratl?»i ?"d t,W =0 well managed as to form a very valuable
thTa^.afer,rf^n°V,S,COnSlderable uhe,n part °f the exeSesis' the summaries given with
bovare rLS^ ff the averaSe., 5ch°o1' every two or three sections throughout the
boy are considered— of having an easily com- speech. —Spectator.
PLATO'S PHAEDO, literally translated, by the late E. M.
COPE, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, revised by Henry
JACKSON, Litt. D., Fellow of Trinity College. Demy 8vo. 5*.
London: C. J. Clay & Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

THE BACCHAE OF EURIPIDES. With Introduction,
Critical Notes, and Archaeological Illustrations, by J. E. Sandys,
LittD., Fellow and Tutor of St John's College, Cambridge, and Public
Orator. New and Enlarged Edition. Crown 8vo. i2j. 6d.
"Of the present edition of the Bacclue by Mr able advance in freedom and lightness of style
Sandys we may safely say that never before has ... Under such circumstances it is superfluous
a Greek play, in England at least, had fuller to say that for the purposes of teachers and ad-
jusace done to its criticism, interpretation, vanced students this handsome edition far sur-
and archaeological illustration, whether for the passes all its predecessors."— Athenieum.
young student or the more advanced scholar. "It has not, like so many such books, been
The Cambridge Public Orator may be said to hastily produced to meet the momentary need
have taken the lead in issuing a complete edi- of some particular examination ; but it has on.
tion of a Greek play, which is destined perhaps ployed for some years the labour and thought
to gain redoubled favour now that the study of of a highly finished scholar, whose aim seems
ancient monuments has been applied to its il- to have been that his book should go forth totus
lustration." — Saturday^ Review. teres atque rotundus, armed at all points with
"The volume is interspersed with well- all that may throw light upon its subject. The
executed woodcuts, and its general attractive- result is a work which will not only assist the
ness of form reflects great credit on the Uni- schoolboy or undergraduate in his tasks, but
versity Press. In the notes Mr Sandys has more will adorn the library of the scholar." — The
than sustained his well-earned reputation as a Guardian.
careful and learned editor, and shows consider-
THE TYPES OF GREEK COINS. By Percy Gardner,
Litt. D., F.S.A., Disney Professor of Archaeology. With 16 Autotype
plates, containing photographs of Coins of all parts of the Greek World.
Impl. 4to. Cloth extra, £i. i is. 6d; Roxburgh (Morocco back), £2. 2s.
"Professor Gardner's book is written with is less purely and dryly scientific. Neverthe-
such lucidity and in a manner so straightfor- less, it takes high rank as proceeding upon a
ward that it may well win converts, and it may truly scientific basis at the same time that it
be distinctly recommended to that omnivorous treats the subject of numismatics in an attrac-
class of readers — 'men in the schools'." — Sa~ tive style and is elegant enough to justify its ap-
turday Review. pearance in the drawing-room." — A thenceum.
" ' The Types of Greek Coins ' is a work which
A SELECTION OF GREEK INSCRIPTIONS, with
Introductions and Annotations by E. S. ROBERTS, M.A., Fellow
and Tutor of Gonville and Caius College. [Nearly ready.
ESSAYS ON THE ART OF PHEIDIAS. By C. Wald-
STEIN, M.A., Phil. D., Reader in Classical Archaeology in the
University of Cambridge. Royal 8vo. With numerous Illustrations.
16 Plates. Buckram, 30J.
" I acknowledge expressly the warm enthu- very valuable contribution towards a more
siasm. for ideal art which pervades the whole thorough knowledge of the style of Pheidias." —
volume, and the sharp eye Dr Waldstein has The Academy.
proved himself to possess in his special line of " ( Essays on the Art of Pheidias* form an
study, namely, stylistic analysis, which has led extremely valuable and important piece of
him to several happy and important discoveries. work. . . . Taking it for the illustrations alone,
His book will be universally welcomed as a it is an exceedingly fascinating book." — Times.
M. TULLI CICERONIS AD. M. BRUTUM ORATOR.
A revised text edited with Introductory Essays and with critical
and explanatory notes, by J. E. Sandys, Litt.D., Fellow and Tutor of
St John's College, and Public Orator. Demy 8vo. 16s.
M. TULLI CICERONIS DE FINIBUS BONORUM
ET MALORUM LIBRI QUINQUE. The text revised and
explained ; With a Translation by James S. Reid, Litt. D., Fellow
and Tutor of Gonville and Caius College. 3 Vols. [In the Press.
Vol. III. Containing the Translation. Demy 8vo. 8s.
M. T. CICERONIS DE OFFICIIS LIBRI TRES,
with Marginal Analysis, an English Commentary, and copious
Indices, by H. A. Holden, LL.D., Examiner in Greek to the
University of London. Sixth Edition, Revised and Enlarged. Crown
8vo. gs.
"Dr Holden has issued an edition of what assumed after two most thorough revisions,
is perhaps the easiest and most popular of leaves little or nothing to be desired in the full-
Cicero's philosophical works, the de Officiis, ness and accuracy of its treatment alike of the
which, especially in the form which it has now matter and the language."— Academy.
London : C. J. Cla y &> Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane. 1—6

PUBLICATIONS OF

M. TVLLI CICERONIS PRO C RABIRIO [PERDVEL-
LIONIS REO] ORATIO AD QVIRITES With Notes Introduc
tion and Appendices by W. E. Heitland, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of
St John's College, Cambridge. Demy 8vo. Js. 6d.
M. TULLII CICERONIS DE NATURA DEORUM
Libri Tres, with Introduction and Commentary by JOSEPH B.
Mayor, M.A., late Professor of Moral Philosophy at King's Col
lege, London, together with a new collation of several of the English
MSS. by J. H. Swainson, M.A.
Vol. I. Demy 8vo. ioj. 6d. Vol. II. 12s. 6d. Vol. III. 10s.
" Such editions as that of which Prof. Mayor jetzt, nachdem der grSsste Theil erschienen
has given us the first instalment will doubtless ist, sagen, dass niemand, welcher sich sachlich
do much to remedy this undeserved neglect. It oder kritisch mit der Schrift De Nat. Deor.
is one on which great pains and much learning beschaftigt, die neue Ausgabe wird ignoriren
have evidently been expended, and is in every durfen." — P. Schwencke in JB. f. cl. Alt.
way admirably suited to meet the needs of the vol. 35, p. 90 foil.
student . . . The notes of the editor are all that " Nell' edizione sua e piu compiuto, che in
could be expected from his well-known learn- qualunque altra edizione anteriore, e in parte
ing and scholarship." — Academy. nuove, non meno 1* apparato critico dal testo
"Der vorliegende zweite Band entha.lt che 1' esame ed il commento del contenuto del
N. D. u. und zeigt ebenso wie der erste einen libro." — R. Bonghi in Nuova Antologia% Oct.
erheblichen Fortschritt gegen die bisher vor- 1881, pp. 717—731.
handenen commentirten Ausgaben. Man darf
P. VERGILI MARONIS OPERA cum Prolegomenis
et Commentario Critico edidit B. H. Kennedy, S.T.P., Graecae
Linguae Prof. Regius. Extra Fcap. 8vo. $s.
See also Pitt Press Series, pp. 24 — 27.

MATHEMATICS, PHYSICAL SCIENCE, ftc.
MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL PAPERS. By
Sir W. Thomson, LL.D., D.C.L., F.R.S., Professor of Natural Phi
losophy in the University of Glasgow. Collected from different
Scientific Periodicals from May 1841, to the present time. Vol. I.
Demy 8vo. iSs. Vol. II. 15s. [Volume III. In the Press.
"Wherever exact science has found a fol- age of 17, before the author had commenced
lower Sir William Thomson's name is known as residence as an undergraduate in Cambridge."
a leader and a master. For a space of 40 years — Tlie Times.
each of his successive contributions to know- "We are convinced that nothing has had a
ledge in the domain of experimental and mathe- greater effect on the progress of the theories of
matical physics has been recognized as marking electricity and magnetism during the last ten
a stage in the progress of the subject. But, un- years than the publication of Sir W. Thomson's
happily for the mere learner, he is no writer of reprint of papers on electrostatics and magnet-
text-books. His eager fertility overflows into ism, and we believe that the present volume is
the nearest available journal . . . The papers in destined in no less degree to further the ad-
this volume deal largely with the subject of the vancement of physical science."— Glasgow
dynamics of heat. They begin with two or Herald.
three articles which were in part written at the
MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL PAPERS, by
George Gabriel Stokes, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S., Fellow of
Pembroke College, and Lucasian Professor of Mathematics in the
University of Cambridge. Reprinted from the Original Journals and
Transactions, with Additional Notes by the Author. Vol. I. Demy
8vo. 15s. Vol. II. 15s. [Volume III. In the Press.
...The same spirit pervades the papers on which well befits the subtle nature of the sub-
pure mathematics which are included in the jects, and inspires the completest confidence in
volume. They have a severe accuracy of style their author."— The Times
A HISTORY OF THE THEORY OF ELASTICITY
AND OF THE STRENGTH OF MATERIALS, from Galilei to
the present time. Vol. I. Galilei to Saint-Venant, 1639-1850.
By the late I. Todhunter, D. Sc, F.R.S., edited and completed
by Karl Pearson, M.A. Demy 8vo. 25J.
London: C. J. Clay &> Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

 THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 13
THE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OF THE LATE PROF
J. CLERK MAXWELL. Edited by W. D. Niven, M.A. In 2 vols
Royal 4to. rr- tjle Press
A TREATISE ON NATURAL PHILOSOPHY. By
Sir W. THOMSON, LL.D., D.C.L., F.R.S., Professor of Natural
Philosophy in the University of Glasgow, and P. G. Tait, M.A.,
Professor of Natural Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh.
Part I. Demy 8vo. i6j. Part II. Demy 8vo. i8j.
ELEMENTS OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY. By Pro
fessors Sir W. Thomson and P. G. Tait. Demy 8vo. Second
Edition, gs.
AN ATTEMPT TO TEST THE THEORIES OF
CAPILLARY ACTION by Francis Bashforth, B.D., and
J. C Adams, M.A., F.R.S. Demy 4to. £1. is.
A TREATISE ON THE THEORY OF DETERMI-
nants and their applications in Analysis and Geometry, by R. F.
Scott, M.A., Fellow of St John's College. Demy 8vo. 12s.
HYDRODYNAMICS, a Treatise on the Mathematical
Theory of the Motion of Fluids, by Horace Lamb, M.A., formerly
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Demy 8vo. 12s.
THE ANALYTICAL THEORY OF HEAT, by Joseph
Fourier. Translated, with Notes, by A. Freeman, M.A., Fellow
of St John's College, Cambridge. Demy 8vo. 16s.
THE ELECTRICAL RESEARCHES OF THE Hon. H.
Cavendish, F.R.S. Written between 1771 and 1781. Edited from
the original MSS. in the possession of the Duke of Devonshire, K. G.,
by the late J. Clerk Maxwell, F.R.S. Demy 8vo. i8j.
"Every department of editorial duty ap- faction to Prof. Maxwell to see this goodly
pears to have been most conscientiously per- volume completed before his life's work was
formed ; and it must have been no small satis- done." — Athen&um.
An ELEMENTARY TREATISE on QUATERNIONS.
By P. G. Tait, M.A., Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Uni
versity of Edinburgh. Second Edition. Demy 8vo. 14^.
THE MATHEMATICAL WORKS OF ISAAC BAR
ROW, D.D. Edited by W. Whewell, D.D. Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d.
COUNTERPOINT. A Practical Course of Study, by Pro
fessor Sir G. A. Macfarren, M.A., Mus. Doc. New Edition,
revised. Crown 4to. ys. 6d.
A TREATISE ON THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF
CHEMISTRY, by M. M. Pattison Muir, M.A., Fellow and Prse-
lector in Chemistry of Gonville and Caius College. Demy 8vo. 15J.
"The value of the book as a digest of the more comprehensive scheme, has produced a
historical developments of chemical thought systematic treatise on the principles of chemical
is immense." — Academy. philosophy which stands far in advance of any
" Theoretical Chemistry has moved so rapidly kindred work in our language. It is a treatise
of late years that most of our ordinary text that requires for its due comprehension a fair
books have been left far behind. German acquaintance with physical science, and it can
students, to be sure, possess an excellent guide hardly be placed with advantage in the hands
to the present state of the science in ' Die of any one who does not possess an extended
Modernen Theorien der Chemie' of Prof. knowledge of descriptive chemistry. But the
Lothar Meyer ; but in this country the student advanced student whose mind is well equipped
has had to content himself with such works as with an array of chemical and physical facts
Dr Tilden's ( Introduction to Chemical Philo- can turn to Mr Muir's masterly volume for
sophy', an admirable book in its way, but rather unfailing help in acquiring a knowledge of the
slender. Mr Pattison Muir having aimed at a principles of modern chemistry." — Athen&um.
NOTES ON QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS. Concise and
Explanatory. By H. J. H. FENTON, M.A., F.I.C., Demonstrator of
Chemistry in the University of Cambridge. Cr. 4to. New Edition. 6s.
London : C. J. Cla y &* Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse.
Ave Maria Lane.

14 PUBLICATIONS OF
LECTURES ON THE PHYSIOLOGY OF PLANTS,
by S. H. Vines, M.A.,D.Sc, Fellow of Christ's College. Demy 8vo.
With Illustratious. 21s.
A SHORT HISTORY OF GREEK MATHEMATICS.
By J. Gow, Litt.D., Fellow of Trinity College. Demy 8vo. 10s. 6d.
DIOPHANTOS OF ALEXANDRIA; a Study in the
History of Greek Algebra. By T. L. Heath, B.A., Fellow of
Trinity College, Cambridge. Demy 8vo. ys. 6d.
' ' This study in the history of Greek Algebra nicht an neuen Gedanken fehlt. Wir hoffen in
is an exceedingly valuable contribution to the der nicht vollstandigen Uebereinstimmung, in
history of mathematics." — Academy. welcher wir uns mit dem Verf. befinden, das
"DerVerfasserdesunsvorliegendenWerkes Lob nicht erstickt ,zu haben, welches in jener
hatdie vorhandenen SchriftenDiophants einem Anerkennung Iiegt," — M. Cantor, Berl. Phil.
genauen Studium unterworfen. Er hat die Wochenschrift.
. samtlichen erhaltenen Aufgaben nicht ihrem "The most thorough account extant of
Wortlaut nach iibersetzt, sondern in die alge- Diophantus's place, work, and critics. . . . [The
braische Zeichensprache unserer Zeit iiber- classification of Diophantus's methods of solu-
tragen, und diese moderne Darstellung hat er tion taken in conjunction with the invaluable
auf 86S.anhangsweisezumAbdruckegebracht, abstract, presents the English reader with a
wilhrend eine fast doppelt so starke Abhand- capital picture of what "Greek algebraists had
lung vorausgeht. . . . Wir haben zu zeigen ge- really accomplished.]"— A tkenceum.
sucht, dass es in dem uns vorliegenden Buche
THE FOSSILS AND PAL^EONTOLOGICAL AFFIN
ITIES OF THE NEOCOMIAN DEPOSITS OF UPWARE
AND BRICKHILL with Plates, being the Sedgwick Prize Essay
for the Year 1879. By W. Keeping, M.A., F.G.S. Demy 8vo. iar. 6d.
A CATALOGUE OF BOOKS AND PAPERS ON PRO
TOZOA, CCELENTERATES, WORMS, and certain smaUer groups
of animals, published during the years 1861 — 1883, by DArcy W.
Thompson, B.A., Professor of Biology in University College, Dundee.
Demy 8vo. 12s. 6d.
ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS made at the Obser
vatory of Cambridge by the late Rev. James Challis, M.A., F.R.S.,
F.R.A.S. For various Years, from 1846 to i860.
ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS from 1861 to 1865.
Vol. XXI. Royal 410. 15J. From 1866 to 1869. Vol. XXII.
Royal 4to. [Nearly ready.
A CATALOGUE OF THE COLLECTION OF BIRDS
formed by the late H. E. Strickland, now in the possession of the
University of Cambridge. By O. Salvin, M.A. Demy 8vo. /i. is.
A CATALOGUE OF AUSTRALIAN FOSSILS (in
cluding Tasmania and the Island of Timor), Stratigraphically and
Zoologically arranged, by R. Etheridge, Jun., F.G.S., Acting Palae
ontologist, H.M. Geol. Survey of Scotland. Demy 8vo. 10s. 6d
ILLUSTRATIONS OF COMPARATIVE ANATOMY
VERTEBRATE AND INVERTEBRATE, for the Use of Stu
dents in the Museum of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy. Second
Edition. Demy 8vo. 2s. 6d.
A SYNOPSIS OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE
BRITISH PALEOZOIC ROCKS, by the Rev. Adam Sedgwick,
M.A., F.R.S., and Frederick McCoy, F.G.S. One vol., Royal 4to.
Plates, £1. is.
A CATALOGUE OF THE COLLECTION OF CAM
BRIAN AND SILURIAN FOSSILS contained in the Geological
Museum of the University of Cambridge, by J. W. Salter F G S
With a Portrait of Professor Sedgwick. Royal 4to. 7s 6d
CATALOGUE OF OSTEOLOGICAL SPECIMENS con
tained in the Anatomical Museum of the University of Cambridge
Demy 8vo. 2s. 6d.
London : C J. Cla y <&¦» Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse
Ave Maria Lane.

 THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 15
LAW.
A SELECTION OF CASES ON THE ENGLISH LAW
OF CONTRACT. By Gerard Brown Finch, M.A, of Lincoln's
Inn, Barrister at Law ; Law Lecturer and late Fellow of Queens'
College, Cambridge. Royal 8vo. 2is.
"An invaluable guide towards the best method of legal study."— Law Ouarterlv
Review. ^ ¦*
THE INFLUENCE OF THE ROMAN LAW ON
THE LAW OF ENGLAND. Being the Yorke Prize Essay for
1884. By T. E. SCRUTTON, M.A. Demy 8vo. 10s. 6d.
"Legal work of just tbe kind that a learned University should promote by its prizes."—
Law Quarterly Review.
LAND IN FETTERS. Being the Yorke Prize Essay for
1885. By T. E. SCRUTTON, M.A. Demy 8vo.
AN ANALYSIS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY. By E. C.
Clark, LL.D., Regius Professor of Civil Law in the University of Cam
bridge, also of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
"Prof. Clark's little book is the substance Students of jurisprudence will find much to
of lectures delivered by him upon those por- interest and instruct them in the work of Prof.
tions of Austin's work on jurisprudence which Clark." — Athetueum.
deal with the "operation of sanctions" . . .
PRACTICAL JURISPRUDENCE, a Comment on Austin.
By E. C Clark, LL.D. Regius Professor of Civil Law. Crown
8vo. gs.
"Damit schliesst dieses inhaltreiche und tical Jurisprudence." — K5nig. Centralblattfilr
nach alien Seiten anregende Buch fiber Prae- Rechtswissenschaft.
A SELECTION OF THE STATE TRIALS. By J. W.
Willis-Bund, M.A., LL.B., Barrister-at-Law, Professor of Con
stitutional Law and History, University College, London. Crown
8vo. Vols. I. and II. In 3 parts. Now reduced to 30^. {originally
published at 46^.)
" This work is a very useful contribution to not without considerable value to those who
that important branch of the constitutional his- seek information with regard to procedure and
tory of England which is concerned with the the growth of the law of evidence. We should
growth and development of the law of treason, add that Mr Willis-Bund has given short pre-
as it may be gathered from trials before the faces and appendices to the trials, so as to form
ordinary courts. The author has very wisely a connected narrative of the events in history
distinguished these cases from those of im- to which they relate. We can thoroughly re-
peachment for treason before Parliament, which commend the book. " — Law Times.
he proposes to treat in a future volume under " To a large class of readers Mr Willis-
the general head 'Proceedings in Parliament.'" Bund's compilation will thus be of great as-
— The Academy. sistance, for he presents in a convenient form a
" This is a work of such obvious utility that judicious selection of the principal statutes and
the only wonder is that no one should have un- the leading cases bearing on the crime qf trea-
dertaken it before ... In many respects there- son . . . For all classes of readers these volumes
fore, although the trials are more or less possess an indirect interest, arising from the
abridged, this is for the ordinary student's pur- nature of the- cases themselves, from the men
pose not only a more handy, but a more useful who were actors in them, and from the numerous
work than Howell's." — Saturday Review. points of social life which are incidentally illus-
" But, although the book is most interesting trated in the course of the trials." — Athencsum.
to the historian of constitutional law, it is also
THE FRAGMENTS OF THE PERPETUAL EDICT
OF SALVIUS JULIANUS, collected, arranged, and annotated by
Bryan Walker, M.A., LL.D., Law Lecturer of St John's College, and
late Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Crown 8vo. 6s.
" In the present book we have the fruits of such a student will be interested as wellasper-
the same kind of thorough and well-ordered haps surprised to find how abundantly the ex-
study which was brought to bear upon the notes tant fragments illustrate and clear up points
to the Commentaries and the Institutes . . . which have attracted his attention in the Corn-
Hitherto the Edict has been almost inac- mentaries, or the Institutes, or the Digest."—
cessible to the ordinary English student, and Law Times.

London : C. J. Cla y &* Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

16 PUBLICATIONS OF
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF JUS
TINIAN'S DIGEST. Containing an account of its composition
and of the Jurists used or referred to therein. By Henry John
Roby, M.A., formerly Prof, of Jurisprudence, University College,
London. Demy 8vo. 9-y.
JUSTINIAN'S DIGEST. Lib. VII., Tit. I. De Usufructu
with a Legal and Philological Commentary. By H. J, Roby. Demy
8vo. gs.
Or the Two Parts complete in One Volume. Demy 8vo. i8j.
"Not an obscurity, philological, historical, tamed and developed. Roman law, almost
or legal, has been left unsifted. More inform- more than Roman legions, was the backbone
ing aid still has been supplied to the student of of the Roman commonwealth. Mr Roby, by
the Digest at large by a preliminary account, his careful sketch of the sages of Roman law,
covering nearly 300 pages, of the mode of from Sextus Papirius, under Tarquin the
composition of the Digest, and of the jurists Proud, to the Byzantine Bar, has contributed to
whose decisions and arguments constitute its render the tenacity and durability of the most
substance. Nowhere else can a clearer view enduring polity the world has ever experienced
be obtained of the personal succession by which somewhat more intelligible." — The Times.
the tradition of Roman legal science was sus-
THE COMMENTARIES OF GAIUS AND RULES OF
ULPIAN. With a Translation and Notes, by J. T. Abdy, LL.D.,
Judge of County Courts, late Regius Professor of Laws in the
University of Cambridge, and Bryan Walker, M.A., LL.D., Law
Lecturer of St John's College, Cambridge, formerly Law Student of
Trinity Hall and Chancellor's Medallist for Legal Studies. New
Edition by Bryan Walker. Crown 8vo. 16s.
"As scholars and as editors Messrs Abdy way of reference or necessary explanation.
and Walker have done their work well . . . For Thus the Roman jurist is allowed to speak for
one thing the editors deserve special commen- himself, and the reader feels that he is really
dation. They have presented Gaius to the studying Roman law in the original, and not a
reader with few notes and those merely by fanciful representation of it." — Athenaum.
THE INSTITUTES OF JUSTINIAN, translated with
Notes by J. T. Abdy, LL.D., and Bryan Walker, M.A., LL.D.
Crown 8vo. 16s.
"We welcome here a valuable contribution the ordinary student, whose attention is dis-
to the study of jurisprudence. The text of the tracted from the subject-matter by the dif-
Instiiutes is occasionally perplexing, even to ficulty of struggling through the language in
practised scholars, whose knowledge of clas- which it is contained, it will be almost indis-
sical models does not always avail them in pensable." — Spectator.
dealing with the technicalities of legal phrase- " The notes are learned and carefully com-
ology. Nor can the ordinary dictionaries be piled, and this edition will be found useful to
expected to furnish all the help that is wanted. students." — Law Times.
This translation will then be of great use. To
SELECTED TITLES FROM THE DIGEST, annotated
by B. Walker, M.A., LL.D. Part I. Mandati vel Contra. Digest
xvii. 1. Crown 8vo. 5s.
"This small volume is published as an ex- Mr Walker deserves credit for the way in which
periment The author proposes to publish an he has performed the task undertaken. The
annotated edition and translation of several translation, as might be expected, is scholarly."
books of the Digest if this one is received with — Law Times.
favour. We are pleased to be able to say that
 Part II. De Adquirendo rerum dominio and De Adquirenda vel
amittenda possessione. Digest XLI. i and ii. Crown 8vo. 6s.
 Part III. De Condictionibus. Digest XII. i and 4— 7 and Digest
XIII. 1 — 3. Crown 8vo. 6s.
GROTIUS DE JURE BELLI ET PACIS, with the Notes
of Barbeyrac and others ; accompanied by an abridged Translation
of the Text, by W. Whewell, D.D. late Master of Trinity College.
3 Vols. Demy 8vo. 12s. The translation separate, 6s.
London : C. J. Cla y fr Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. ly

HISTORY.
LIFE AND TIMES OF STEIN, OR GERMANY AND
PRUSSIA IN THE NAPOLEONIC AGE, by J. R. Seeley,
M.A., Regius Professor of Modern History in the University of
Cambridge, with Portraits and Maps. 3 Vols. Demy 8vo. 30s.
"DrBusch's volume has made people think are apt to shrink." — Times.
and talk even more than usual of Prince Bis- "In a notice of this kind scant justice can
marck, and .Professor Seeley*s very learned work be done to a work like the one before us; no
on Stein will turn attention to an earlier and an short risumi can give even the most meagre
almost equally eminent German statesman. It notion of the contents of these volumes, which
has been the good fortune of Prince Bismarck contain no page that is superfluous, and none
to help to raise Prussia to a position which she that is uninteresting .... To understand the
had never before attained, and to complete the Germany of to-day one must study the Ger-
work of German unification. The frustrated many of many yesterdays, and now that study
labours of Stein in the same field were also has been made easy by this work, to which no
very great, and well worthy to be taken into one can hesitate to assign a very high place
account He was one, perhaps the chief, of among those recent histories which have aimed
the illustrious group of straDgers who came to at original research." — Athen&um,
the rescue of Prussia in her darkest hour, about "We congratulate Cambridge and her Pro-
the time of the inglorious Peace of Tilsit, and fessor of History on the appearance of such a
who laboured to put life and order into her noteworthy production. And we may add that
dispirited army, her impoverished finances, and it is something upon which we may congra-
her inefficient Civil Service. Stein strove, too, tulate England that on the especial field of the
— no man more, — for the cause of unification Germans, history, on the history of their own
when it seemed almost folly to hope for sue- country, by the use of their own literary
cess. Englishmen will feel very pardonable weapons, an Englishman has produced a his-
pride at seeing one of their countrymen under- tory of Germany in the Napoleonic age far
take to write the history of a period from the superior to any that exists in German." — Ex-
investigation of which even laborious Germans aminer.
THE DESPATCHES OF EARL GOWER, English Am
bassador at the court of Versailles from June 1790 to August 1792,
to which are added the Despatches of Mr Lindsay and Mr Munro,
and the Diary of Lord Palmerston in France during July and
August 1791. Edited by Oscar Browning, M.A., Fellow of King's
College, Cambridge. Demy 8vo. 1 5 s.
THE GROWTH OF ENGLISH INDUSTRY AND
COMMERCE. By W. CUNNINGHAM, B.D., late Deputy to the
Knightbridge Professor in the University of Cambridge. With
Maps and Charts. Crown 8vo. 12s.
"Mr Cunningham is not likely to disap- merce have grown. It is with the process of
point any readers except such as begin by mis- growth that he is concerned ; and this process
taking the character of his book. He does not he traces with the philosophical insight which
promise, and does not give, an account of the distinguishes between what is important and
dimensions to which English industry and com- what is trivial." — Guardian.
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES OF GREEK HISTORY.
Accompanied by a short narrative of events, with references to the
sources of information and extracts from the ancient authorities, by
Carl Peter. Translated from the German by G. Chawner,
M.A, Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. Demy 4to. iar.
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES OF ROMAN HISTORY.
By the same. [Preparing.
KINSHIP AND MARRIAGE IN EARLY ARABIA,
by W. Robertson Smith, M.A., LL.D., Lord Almoner's Professor of
Arabic in the University of Cambridge. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
** It would be superfluous to praise a book ally throws light, not merely on the social
so learned and masterly as Professor Robertson history of Arabia, but on the earlier passages
Smith's ; it is enough to say that no student of of Old Testament history .... We must be
early history can afford to be without Kinship grateful to him for so valuable a contribution
in Early Arabia." — Nature. to the early history of social organisation.'' —
" It is clearly and vividly written, full of Scotsman.
curious and picturesque material, and incident-

London : C. J. Cla y fir* Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

PUBLICATIONS OF

TRAVELS IN NORTHERN ARABIA IN 1876 AND
1877. By Charles M. Doughty, of Gonville and Caius College.
With Illustrations. Demy 8vo. [In the Press.
HISTORY OF NEPAL, translated by MUNSHI SHEW
Shunker Singh and Pandit ShrI Gunanand; edited with an
Introductory Sketch of the Country and People by Dr D. WRIGHT,
late Residency Surgeon at Kathmandu, and with facsimiles of native
drawings, and portraits of Sir Jung Bahadur, the King of Nepal,
&c. Super-royal 8vo. 10s. 6d.
" The Cambridge University Press have Introduction is based on personal inquiry and
done well in publishing this work. Such trans- observation, is written intelligently and can-
lations are valuable not only to the historian didly, and adds much to the value of the
but also to the ethnologist ; . . . Dr Wright's volume" — Nature.
A JOURNEY OF LITERARY and ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RESEARCH IN NEPAL AND NORTHERN INDIA, during
the Winter of 1884-5. Bv Cecil Bendall, M.A., Fellow of Gonville
and Caius College, Cambridge ; Professor of Sanskrit in University-
College, London. Demy 8vo. 10s.
THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE FROM THE
EARLIEST TIMES TO THE ROYAL INJUNCTIONS OF
1535, by J. B. Mullinger, M.A., Lecturer on History and Librarian
to St John's College. Part I. Demy 8vo. (734 pp.), 12s.
Part II. From the Royal Injunctions of 1535 to the Accession of
Charles the First. Demy 8vo. iSs.
"That Mr Mullinger's work should admit "Mr Mullinger has succeeded perfectly in
of being regarded as a continuous narrative, presenting the earnest and thoughtful student
in which character it has no predecessors with a thorough and trustworthy history." —
worth mentioning, is one of the many advan- Guardian.
tages it possesses over annalistic compilations, "The entire work is a model of accurate
even so valuable as Cooper's, as well as over and industrious scholarship. The same quali-
Athenae." — Prof. A.W. Wardin iheAcademy. ties that distinguished the earlier volume are
" Mr Mullinger's narrative omits nothing again visible, and the whole is still conspi-
which is required by the fullest interpretation cuous for minuteness and fidelity of workman-
of his subject. He shews in the statutes of ship and breadth and toleration of view." —
the Colleges, the internal organization of the Notes and Queries.
University, its connection with national pro- "Mr Mullinger displays an admirable
blems, its studies, its social life, and the thoroughness in his work. Nothing could be
activity of its leading members. All this he more exhaustive and conscientious than his
combines in a form which is eminently read- method: and his style. ..is picturesque and
able."— Prof. Creighton in Cont. Review. elevated." — Times.
HISTORY OF THE COLLEGE OF ST JOHN THE
EVANGELIST, by Thomas Baker, B.D., Ejected Fellow. Edited
by John E. B. Mayor, M.A. Two Vols. Demy 8vo. 24J.
"To antiquaries the book will be a source "The work displays very wide reading, and
of almost inexhaustible amusement, by his- it will be of great use to members of the col-
torians it will be found a work of considerable lege and of the university, and, perhaps, of
service on questions respecting our social pro- still greater use to students of English his-
gressinpast times; and the care and thorough- tory, ecclesiastical, political, social, literary
ness with which Mr Mayor has discharged his and academical, who have hitherto had to be
editorial functions are creditable to his learning content with 'Dyer.'" — Academy.
and industry." — Atkenceum.
SCHOLAE ACADEMICAE: some Account of the Studies
at the English Universities in the Eighteenth Century. By Chris
topher Wordsworth, M.A., Fellow of Peterhouse. Demy 8vo.
10 s. 6d.
"Mr Wordsworth has collected a great education and learning."— Saturday Review.
quantity of minute and curious information "Of the whole volume it may be said that
about the working of Cambridge institutions in it is a genuine service rendered to the study
the last century, with an occasional comparison of University history, and that the habits of
of the corresponding state of things at Oxford. thought of any writer educated at either seat of
... To a great extent it is purely a book of re- learning in the last century will, in many cases,
ference, and as such it will be of permanent be far better understood after a consideration
value for the historical knowledge of English of the materials here collected."— Academy.

London : C. 7. Cla y &¦= Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 19
THE ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY OF THE UNI
VERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE AND OF THE COLLEGES OF
CAMBRIDGE AND ETON, by the late Robert Willis, M.A.
F.R.S., Jacksonian Professor in the University of Cambridge. Edited
with large Additions and a Continuation to the present time by
John Willis Clark, M.A., formerly Fellow of Trinity College,
Cambridge. Four Vols. Super Royal 8vo. £6. 6s.
Also a limited Edition of the same, consisting of 120 numbered
Copies only, large paper Quarto ; the woodcuts and steel engravings
mounted on India paper ; of which 100 copies are now offered for
sale, at Twenty-five Guineas net each set.

MISCELLANEOUS.
A CATALOGUE OF ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT
BRITAIN, by Prof. Adolf Michaelis. Translated by C. A. M.
Fennell, Litt. D., late Fellow of Jesus College. Royal 8vo. Rox
burgh (Morocco back), £2. 2s.
"The object of the present work of Mich- remarkable. The book is beautifully executed,
aelis is to describe and make known the vast and with its few handsome plates, and excel-
treasures of ancient sculpture now accumulated lent indexes, does much credit to the Cam-
in the galleries of Great Britain, the extent and bridge Press. It has not been printed in
value of which are scarcely appreciated, and German, but appears for the first time in the
chiefly so because there has hitherto been little English translation. All lovers of true art and
accessible information about them. To the of good work should be grateful to the Syndics
loving labours of a learned German the owners of the University Press for the liberal facilities
of art treasures in England are for the second afforded by them towards the production of
time indebted for a full description of their rich this important volume by Professor Michaelis."
possessions. Waagen gave to the private col- — Saturday Review.
lections of pictures the advantage of his in- " Professor Michaelis has achieved so high
spection and cultivated acquaintance with art, a fame as an authority in classical archaeology
and now Michaelis performs the same office that it seems unnecessary to say how good
for the still less known private hoards of an- a book this is."— The Antiquary.
tique sculptures for which our country is so
RHODES IN ANCIENT TIMES. By Cecil Torr, M.A.
With six plates. Demy 8vo. 10s. 6d.
THE WOODCUTTERS OF THE NETHERLANDS
during the last quarter of the Fifteenth Century. In three parts.
I. History of the Woodcutters. II. Catalogue of their Woodcuts.
III. List of the Books containing Woodcuts. By William Martin
Conway. Demy 8vo. 10s. 6d.
A GRAMMAR OF THE IRISH LANGUAGE. By Prof.
WlNDISCH. Translated by Dr Norman Moore. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
LECTURES ON TEACHING, delivered in the University
of Cambridge in the Lent Term, 1880. By J. G. Fitch, M.A., LL.D.
Her Majesty's Inspector of Training Colleges. Cr. 8vo. New Edit. 5 s.
"As principal of a training college and as a "Therefore, without reviewing the book for
Government inspector of schools, Mr Fitch has the second time, we are glad to avail ourselves
got at his fingers' ends the working of primary of the opportunity of calling attention to the
education, while as assistant commissioner to re-issue of the volume in the five-shilling form,
the late Endowed Schools Commission he has bringing it within the reach of the rank and
seen something of the machinery of our higher file of the profession. We cannot let the oc-
schools . . . Mr Fitch's book covers so wide a casion pass without making special reference to
field and touches on so many burning questions the excellent section on 'punishments' in the
that we must be content to recommend it as lecture on 'Discipline.'" — School Board Chron-
the best existing vade mecum for the teacher." icle.
—Pall Mall Gazette.
For other books on Education, see Pitt Press Series, pp. 30, 31.

London : C. J. Cla y ,Sr» Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

20 PUBLICATIONS OF

FROM SHAKESPEARE TO POPE: an Inquiry into
the causes and phenomena of the rise of Classical Poetry in England.
By Edmund Gosse, M.A., Clark Lecturer in English Literature at
Trinity College, Cambridge. Crown 8vo. 6s.
THE LITERATURE OF THE FRENCH RENAIS
SANCE. An Introductory Essay. By A. A. TlLLEY, M.A., Fellow
and Tutor of King's College, Cambridge. Crown 8vo. 6s.
STUDIES IN THE LITERARY RELATIONS OF
ENGLAND WITH GERMANY IN THE SIXTEENTH
CENTURY. By C H. Herford, M.A. Crown 8vo. 9-r.
CATALOGUE OF THE HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS
preserved in the University Library, Cambridge. By Dr S. M.
Schiller-Szinessy. Volume I. containing Section i. The Holy
Scriptures; Section u. Commentaries on the Bible. Demy 8vo. gs.
Volume II. In the Press.
A CATALOGUE OF THE MANUSCRIPTS preserved
in the Library of the University of Cambridge. Demy 8vo. 5 Vols.
ioj. each. INDEX TO THE CATALOGUE. Demy 8vo. 10s.
A CATALOGUE OF ADVERSARIA and printed books
containing MS. notes, preserved in the Library of the University of
Cambridge. 3s. 6d.
THE ILLUMINATED MANUSCRIPTS IN THE LL
BRARY OF THE FITZWILLIAM MUSEUM, Catalogued with
Descriptions, and an Introduction, by W. G. Searle, M.A., late
Fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d
A CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE GRACES,
Documents, and other Papers in the University Registry which
concern the University Library. Demy 8vo. 2s. 6d.
CATALOGUS BIBLIOTHEOE BURCKHARDTIAN^E.
Demy 4to. $s.
GRADUATI CANTABRIGIENSES : SIVE CATA
LOGUS exhibens nomina eorum quos ab Anno Academico Admis-
sionum MDCCC usque adoctavum diem Octobris MDCCCLXXXIV
gradu quocunque ornavit Academia Cantabrigiensis, e libris sub-
scriptionum desumptus. Cura Henrici Richards Luard S. T. P.
Coll. SS. Trin. Socii atque Academise Registrarii. Demy8vo. 12s. 6d.
STATUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
and for the Colleges therein, made published and approved (1878 —
1882) under the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act, 1877.
With an Appendix. Demy 8vo. i6j.
STATUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
With some Acts of Parliament relating to the University. Demy
8vo. 3s. 6d.
ORDINANCES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAM
BRIDGE. Demy 8vo., cloth. 7s. 6d.
TRUSTS, STATUTES AND DIRECTIONS affecting
(1) The Professorships of the University. (2) The Scholarships
and Prizes. (3) Other Gifts and Endowments. Demy 8vo. 5-r.
COMPENDIUM OF UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS,
for the use of persons in Statu Pupillari. Demy 8vo. 6d.
London : C. J. Cla y &> Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 21

%\>t Camfrrtocje Bftle for
^cjwls an* Collies.
General Editor : The Very Reverend J. J. S. Perowne, D.D.
Dean of Peterborough.

" It is difficult to commend too highly this excellent series, the volumes of which are now
becoming numerous." — Guardian.
"The modesty of the general title of this series has, we believe, led many to misunderstand
its character and underrate its value. The books are well suited for study in the upper forms of
our best schools, but not the less are they adapted to the wants of all Bible students who are not
specialists. We doubt, indeed, whether any of the numerous popular commentaries recently
issued in this country will be found more serviceable for general use." — Academy.
" Of great value. The whole series of comments for schools is highly esteemed by students
capable of forming a judgment. The books are scholarly without being pretentious : information
is so given as to be easily understood." — Sword and Trowel.
The Very Reverend J. J. S. Perowne, D.D., Dean of Peterborough, has
undertaken the general editorial supervision of the work, assisted by a staff of
eminent coadjutors. Some of the books have been already edited or undertaken
by the following gentlemen :
Rev. A. CARR, M.A., late Assistant Master at Wellington College.
Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D., late Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford.
Rev. S. Cox, Nottingham.
Rev. A. B. Davidson, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Edinburgh.
The Ven. F. W. Farrar, D.D., Archdeacon of Westminster.
Rev. C. D. Ginsburg, LL.D.
Rev. A. E. Humphreys, M.A., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Rev. A. F. K.IRKPATRICK, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Regius Professor
of Hebrew.
Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A., late Professor at St David's College, Lampeter.
Rev. J. R. Lumby, D.D., Norrisian Professor of Divinity.
Rev. G. F. Maclear, D.D., Warden of St Augustine's College, Canterbury.
Rev. H. C. G. Moule, M.A., late Fellow of Trinity College, Principal of
Ridley Hall, Cambridge.
Rev. W. F. MOULTON, D.D., Head Master of the Leys School, Cambridge.
Rev. E. H. Perowne, D.D., Master of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
The Ven. T. T. Perowne, M.A., Archdeacon of Norwich.
Rev. A. Plummer, M.A., D.D., Master of University College, Durham.
The Very Rev. E. H. Plumptre, D.D., Dean of Wells.
Rev. W. SiMCOX, M.A., Rector of Weyhill, Hants.
W. Robertson Smith, M.A., Lord Almoner's Professor of Arabic.
Rev. H. D. M. Spence, M.A., Hon. Canon of Gloucester Cathedral.
Rev. A. W. Streane, M.A., Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.

London : C. J. Cla y &» Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

22 PUBLICATIONS OF
THE CAMBRIDGE BIBLE FOR SCHOOLS & COLLEGES.
Continued.
Now Ready. Cloth, Extra Fcap. 8vo.
THE BOOK OF JOSHUA. By the Rev. G. F. Maclear, D.D.
With 2 Maps. is. 6d.
THE BOOK OF JUDGES. By the Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A.
With Map. 3 j. 6d.
THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL. By the Rev. Professor
Kirkpatrick, M.A. With Map. 3*. 6d.
THE SECOND BOOK OF SAMUEL. By the Rev. Professor
Kirkpatrick, M.A. With 2 Maps. 3*. 6d.
THE BOOK OF JOB. By the Rev. A. B. Davidson, D.D. 5s.
THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES. By the Very Rev. E. H.
Plumptre, D.D., Dean of Wells. 5*.
THE BOOK OF JEREMIAH. By the Rev. A. W. Streane,
M.A. With Map. 4s. 6d.
THE BOOK OF HOSEA. By Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D. 5s.
THE BOOKS OF OBADIAH AND JONAH. By Archdeacon
Perowne. is. 6d.
THE BOOK OF MICAH. By Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D.
is. 6d.
THE BOOKS OF HAGGAI AND ZECHARIAH. By Arch
deacon Perowne. $s.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST MATTHEW. By the
Rev. A. Carr, M.A. With 2 Maps. is. 6d.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST MARK. By the Rev.
G. F. Maclear, D.D. With 4 Maps. 2^. 6d.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST LUKE. By Archdeacon
F. W. Farrar. With 4 Maps. 4s. 6d.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. By the Rev.
A. Plummer, M.A., D.D. With 4 Maps. 4^-. 6d.
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. By the Rev. Professor
Lumby, D.D. With 4 Maps. 4^. 6d.
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. By the Rev. H. C. G.
Moule, M.A. 3.5-. 6d.
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. By the Rev.
J. J. Lias, M.A. With a Map and Plan. is.
THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. By the
Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. is.
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. By the Rev. H. C G.
Moule, M.A. is. 6d.
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. By Arch. Farrar. 3*. 6d.
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF ST JAMES. By the Very Rev.
E. H. Plumptre, D.D., Dean of Wells, is. 6d.
THE EPISTLES OF ST PETER AND ST JUDE. By the
same Editor, is. 6d.
THE EPISTLES OF ST JOHN. By the Rev. A. Plummer,
M.A., D.D. is. 6d. 
London : C. J. Cla y S-» Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

 THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 23
THE CAMBRIDGE BIBLE FOR SCHOOLS & COLLEGES.
Continued.
Preparing.
THE BOOK OF GENESIS. By the Very Rev. the Dean of
Peterborough
THE BOOKS OF EXODUS, NUMBERS AND DEUTERO
NOMY. By the Rev. C. D. Ginsburg, LL.D.
THE FIRST AND SECOND BOOKS OF KINGS. By the Rev.
Prof. Lumby, D.D.
THE BOOK OF PSALMS. By the Rev. Prof. Kirkpatrick, M.A.
THE BOOK OF ISAIAH. By Prof. W. Robertson Smith, M.A.
THE BOOK OF EZEKIEL. By the Rev. A. B. Davidson, D.D.
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. By the Rev. E. H.
Perowne, D.D.
THE EPISTLES TO THE PHILIPPIANS, COLOSSIANS
AND PHILEMON. By the Rev. H. C. G. Moule, M.A.
THE BOOK OF REVELATION. By the Rev. W. Simcox, M.A.

THE CAMBRIDGE GREEK TESTAMENT
FOR SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES,
with a Revised Text, based on the most recent critical authorities, and
English Notes, prepared under the direction of the General Editor,
The Very Reverend J. J. S. PEROWNE, D.D.
Now Ready.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST MATTHEW. By the
Rev. A. Carr, M.A. With 4 Maps. 4s. 6d.
" Copious illustrations, gathered from a great variety of sources, make his notes a very valu
able aid to the student. They are indeed remarkably interesting, while all explanations on
meanings, applications, and the like are distinguished by their lucidity and good sense." —
Pall Mall Gazette.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST MARK. By the Rev.
G. F. Maclear, D.D. With 3 Maps. 4s. 6d.
"The Cambridge Greek Testament, of which Dr Maclear's edition of the Gospel according to
St Mark is a volume, certainly supplies a want. Without pretending to compete with the leading
commentaries, or to embody very much original research, it forms a most satisfactory introduction
to the study of the New Testament in the original . . . Dr Maclear's introduction contains all that
is known of St Mark's life, with references to passages in the New Testament in which he is
mentioned ; an account of the circumstances in which the Gospel was composed, with an estimate
of the influence of St Peter's teaching upon St Mark ; an excellent sketch of the special character
istics of this Gospel ; an analysis, and a chapter on the text of the New Testament generally . . .
The work is completed by three good maps." — Saturday Review.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST LUKE. By Archdeacon
Farrar. With 4 Maps. 6s.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN. By the Rev. A.
Plummer, M.A., D.D. With 4 Maps. 6s.
"A valuable addition has also been made to 'The Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools,
Dr Plummer's notes on ' the Gospel according to St John ' are scholarly, concise, and instructive,
and embody the results of much thought and wide reading." — Expositor.
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. By the Rev. Prof. Lumby, D.D.,
with 4 Maps. 6s.
THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. By the
Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. y.
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. By Archdeacon Farrar.
[I11 the Press.
THE EPISTLES OF ST JOHN. By the Rev. A. Plummer,
M.A., D.D. 4s.
London: C. J. Cla y &¦= Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane,

24 PUBLICATIONS OF

THE PITT PRESS SERIES.
I. GREEK.
SOPHOCLES.— OEDIPUS TYRANNUS. School Edition,
with Introduction and Commentary, by R. C. Jebb, Litt. D. , LL.D., Professor
of Greek in the University of Glasgow. 4J. 6d.
XENOPHON.— ANABASIS, Books I. III. IV. and V.
With a Map and English Notes by Alfred Pretor, M.A., Fellow of
St Catharine's College, Cambridge, is. each.
" In Mr Pretor's edition of the Anabasis the text of Kuhner has been followed in the main,
while the exhaustive and admirable notes of the great German editor have been largely utilised.
These notes deal with the minutest as well as the most important difficulties in construction, and
all questions of history, antiquity, and geography are briefly but very effectually elucidated." — The
Examiner. " We welcome this addition to the other books of the Anabasis so ably edited by Mr Pretor.
Although originally intended for the use of candidates at the university local examinations, yet
this edition will be found adapted not only to meet the wants of the junior student, but even
advanced scholars will find much in this work that will repay its perusal." — The Schoolmaster.
"Mr Pretor's 'Anabasis of Xenophon, Book IV.' displays a union of accurate Cambridge
scholarship, with experience of what is required by learners gained in examining middle-class
schools. The text is large and clearly printed, and the notes explain all difficulties. . . . Mr
Pretor's notes seem to be all that could be wished as regards grammar, geography, and other
matters." — The Academy.
BOOKS II. VI. and VII. By the same Editor. 2s. 6d. each.
"Another Greek text, designed it would seem for students preparing for the local examinations,
ls 'Xenophon's Anabasis,' Book II., with English Notes, by Alfred Pretor, M.A. The editor has
exercised his usual discrimination in utilising the text and notes of Kuhner, with the occasional
assistance of the best hints of Schneider, VoUbrecht and Macmichael on critical matters, and of
Mr R. W. Taylor on points of history and geography. . . When Mr Pretor commits himself to
Commentator's work, he is eminently helpful. . . Had we to introduce a young Greek scholar
to Xenophon, we should esteem ourselves fortunate in having Pretor's text-book as our chart and
guide." — Contemporary Review.
XENOPHON.— ANABASIS. By A. Pretor, M.A., Text
and Notes, complete in two Volumes, 'js. 6d.
XENOPHON.— AGESILAUS. The Text revised with
Critical and Explanatory Notes, Introduction, Analysis, and Indices. By
H. Hailstone, M. A., late Scholar of Peterhouse. is. 6d.
XENOPHON.— CYROPAEDIA. With Introduction and
Notes. By Rev. Hubert A. Holden, M.A., LL.D. [Nearly ready.
ARISTOPHANES— RANAE. With English Notes and
Introduction by W. C. Green, M.A., late Assistant Master at Rugby
School. 3^. 6d.
ARISTOPHANES— A VES. By the same Editor. New
Edition, 3s. 6d.
"The notes to both plays are excellent. Much has been done in these two volumes to render
the study of Aristophanes a real treat to a boy instead of a drudgery, by helping him to under
stand the fun and to express it in his mother tongue. —The Exami7ier.
ARISTOPHANES— PLUTUS. By the same Editor. $s.6d.

London : C. 7. Cla v & Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane,

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 25
EURIPIDES. HERCULES FURENS. With Intro-
ductions, Notes and Analysis. By A. Gray, M.A., Fellow of Jesus College,
and J. T. Hutchinson, M.A., Christ's College. New Edition, with addi
tions, is.
"Messrs Hutchinson and Gray have produced a careful and useful edition." — Saturday
Review.
EURIPIDES. HERACLEID^E. With Introduction and
Critical Notes by E. A. Beck, M.A., Fellow of Trinity Hall. 3J. 6d.
LUCIANI SOMNIUM CHARON PISCATOR ET DE
LUCTU, with English Notes by W. E. Heitland, M.A., Fellow of
St John's College, Cambridge. New Edition, with Appendix. $s. 6d.
PLUTARCH'S LIVES OF THE GRACCHI. With In
troduction, Notes and Lexicon by Rev. Hubert A. Holden, M.A., LL.D.,
Examiner in Greek to the University of London. 6s.
PLUTARCH'S LIFE OF SULLA. With Introduction,
Notes and Lexicon. By the Rev. Hubert A. Holden, M.A., LL.D. 6s.
OUTLINES OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF ARISTOTLE.
Edited by E. Wallace, M.A. (See p. 31.)
II. LATIN.
M. T. CICERONIS DE AMICITIA. Edited by J. S.
Reid, Litt. D., Fellow and Tutor of Gonville and Cams College. New
Edition, with Additions. 3s. 6d. .
"Mr Reid has decidedly attained his aim, namely, 'a thorough examination of the Latinity
of the dialogue ' ... The revision of the text is most valuable, and comprehends sundry
acute corrections  This volume, like Mr Reid's other editions, is a solid gain to the scholar-
slupofthecoun^^fe^-^ ^ m RM,s thorough edition of the*.
AmkitUoi Cicero, a work of which, whether we regard the exhaustive introduction or the
tractive and most suggestive commentary, it would he difficult to speak too highly When
we come to the commentary, we are only amazed by its fulness in proportion to its bulk.
NoSSs is overlooked which can tend to enlarge the learner's general knowledge of Ciceronian
Latin or to elucidate the text. "-Saturday Review „
M. T. CICERONIS CATO MAJOR DE SENECTUTE.
Edited by J. S. Reid, Litt. D. %s. 6d.
" The notes are excellent and scholarlike, adapted for the upper forms of public schools, and
likely to be useful even to more advanced students."— Guardian.
M. T. CICERONIS ORATIO PRO ARCHIA POETA.
Edited by J. S. Reid, Litt. D. Revised Edition, is.
" It is an admirable specimen of careful editing. An Introduction tells us everything we could
wish to know about Arcbias, about Cicero's connexion with him, about the merits of the trial, and
the eenutoeness of the™ eech. The text is well and carefully printed The notes are clear and
Icno?™-luke . .No boy can master this little volume without feeling that he has advanced a long
step in scholarship."— The Academy. „ « ¦, t, ,-x ^t-.a
M T. CICERONIS PRO L. CORNELIO BALBO ORA-
TTO Fdited bv T. S. REID, Litt. D. is. 6d.
" Welxe bound to recognize the pains devoted in the annotation of these two orations to the
minutranTthorough stud| of theiAatinity, both in the ordinary notes and in the textual
appendices."— Saturday Review. „„-„,tt-tt/-v ctttt a
M T CICERONIS PRO P. CORNELIO SULLA
ORATIO. Edited by -J. £ >.J ^^"^ % «&„ that . new work from him
"Mr Reid is so well known to scholars ^* c^™*?^ ~eech P„ Sulla is fully equal in
scarcely needs any commendation^ of ours H.s edmon ot D i_ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ h
ment to the volumes which he has ' already pmmsn characteristics of
of the notes. There could be no bet l" ™yth0a'ngba'n^k;ng a caBreful study of this speech with
Cicero's style and the Latinity of h.s penod than oy maK g the minutest details of
the aid of Mr Reid's commentary . . . MrM ^fSes" point? of distinction between the
scholarship enables him to d«e.ct,Xr^tP'a™0ds S The notes are followed by a valuable
apTn^^e"-"
to a close."— Saturday Review. 
London • C 7. Clay &* Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

26 PUBLICATIONS OF

M. T. CICERONIS PRO CN. PLANCIO ORATIO.
Edited by H. A. Holden, LL.D., Examiner in Greek to the University of
London. 4s. 6d.
"As a book for students this edition can have few rivals. It is enriched by an excellent intro
duction and a chronological table of the principal events of the life of Cicero ; while in its ap
pendix, and in the notes on the text which are added, there is much of the greatest value. The
volume is neatly got up, and is in every way commendable." — The Scotsman.
M. T. CICERONIS IN Q. CAECILIUM DIVINATIO
ET IN C. VERREM ACTIO PRIMA. With Introduction and Notes
by W. E. Heitland, M.A., and Herbert Cowie, M.A., Fellows of
St John's College, Cambridge. 3^.
M. T. CICERONIS ORATIO PRO L. MURENA, with
English Introduction and Notes. By W. E. Heitland, M.A., Fellow
and Classical Lecturer of St John's College, Cambridge. Second Edition,
carefully revised. y.
" Those students are to be deemed fortunate who have to read Cicero's lively and brilliant
oration for L. Murena with Mr Heitland's handy edition, which may be pronounced ( four-square '
in point of equipment, and which has, not without good reason, attained the honours of a
second edition." — Saturday Review.
M. T. CICERONIS IN GAIUM VERREM ACTIO
PRIMA. With Introduction and Notes. By H. Cowie, M.A., Fellow
of St John's College, Cambridge, is. 6d.
M. T. CICERONIS ORATIO PRO T. A. MILONE,
with a Translation of Asconius' Introduction, Marginal Analysis and
English Notes. Edited by the Rev. John Smyth Purton, B.D., late
President and Tutor of St Catharine's College, is. 6d.
"The editorial work is excellently done." — The Academy.
M. T. CICERONIS SOMNIUM SCIPIONIS. With In-
troduction and Notes. By W. D. Pearman, M.A., Head Master of Potsdam
School, Jamaica, is.
P. OVIDII NASONIS FASTORUM Liber VI. With
a Plan of Rome and Notes by A. Sidgwick, M.A., Tutor of Corpus Christi
College, Oxford. u. 6d.
" Mr Sidgwick's editing of the Sixth Book of Ovid's Fasti furnishes a careful and serviceable
volume for average students. It eschews 'construes' which supersede the use of the dictionary,
but gives full explanation of grammatical usages and historical and mythical allusions, besides
illustrating peculiarities of style, true and false derivations, and the more remarkable variations of
the text." — Saturday Review.
" It is eminently good and useful. . . . The Introduction is singularly clear on the astronomy of
Ovid, which is properly shown to be ignorant and confused; there is an excellent little map of
Rome, giving just the places mentioned in the text and no more ; the notes are evidently written
by a practical schoolmaster." — The Academy.
M. ANNAEI LUCANI PHARSALIAE LIBER
PRIMUS, edited with English Introduction and Notes by W. E. Heitland,
M.A. and C. E. Haskins, M.A., Fellows and Lecturers of St John's Col
lege, Cambridge, is. 6d.
"A careful and scholarlike production." — Times.
" In nice parallels of Lucan from Latin poets and from Shakspeare, Mr Haskins and Mr
Heitland deserve praise." — Saturday Review.

London : C. 7- Cla y & Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

 THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 27
GAI IULI CAESARIS DE BELLO GALLIC0 COM-
?irEANTT^ n IL III' ,With MaPs and Eng^h Notes by A. G. Peskett,
M.A., Fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge. 3s.
" In an unusually succinct introduction he gives all the preliminary and collateral information
that is likely to be useful to a young student ; and, wherever we have examined his notes, we
have found them eminently practical and satisfying. . . The book may well be recommended for
careful study in school or college. — Saturday Review.
"The notes are scholarly, short, and a real help to the most elementary beginners in Latin
prose." — The Examiner.
COMMENT. IV. and V. AND COMMENT. VII. by

the same Editor. 2s. each
 COMMENT. VI. and COMMENT. VIII. by the
same Editor, is. 6d. each.
P. VERGILI MARONIS AENEIDOS Libri I., IL, III.,
IV., V., VI., VII., VIII., IX., X., XL, XII. Edited with Notes by A.
Sidgwick, M.A., Tutor of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, is. 6d. each.
"Much more attention is given to the literary aspect of the poem than is usually paid to it in
editions intended for the use of beginners. The introduction points out the distinction between
primitive and literary epics, explains the purpose of the poem, and gives an outline of tbe story."
— Saturday Revietu.
" Mr Arthur Sidgwick*s 'Vergil, Aeneid, Book XII.' is worthy of his reputation, and is dis
tinguished by the same acuteness and accuracy of knowledge, appreciation of a boy's difficulties
and ingenuity and resource in meeting them, which we have on other occasions had reason to
praise in these pages." — The Academy.
"As masterly in its clearly divided preface and appendices as in the sound and independent
character of its annotations. . . . There is a great deal more in the notes than mere compilation
and suggestion. . . . No difficulty is left unnoticed or unhandled." — Saturday Review.
BOOKS IX. X. in one volume. 3^.
BOOKS X., XL, XII. in one volume. 3* 6d.
P. VERGILI MARONIS GEORGICON LIBRI I. II.
By the same Editor, is.
QUINTUS CURTIUS. A Portion of the History.
(Alexander in India.) By W. E. Heitland, M.A., Fellow and Lecturer
of St John's College, Cambridge, and T. E. Raven, B.A., Assistant Master
in Sherborne School. $s. 6d.
"Equally commendable as a genuine addition to the existing stock of school-books is
Alexander in India, a compilation from the eighth and ninth books of Q. Curtius, edited for
the Pitt Press by Messrs Heitland and Raven. . . . The work of Curtius has merits of its
own, which, in former generations, made it a favourite with English scholars, and which still
make it a popular text-book in Continental schools  The reputation of Mr Heitland is a
sufficient guarantee for the scholarship of the notes, which are ample without being excessive,
and the book is well furnished with all that is needful in the nature of maps, indices, and
appendices." —Academy.
BEDA'S ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, BOOKS
III., IV., the Text from the very ancient MS.- in the Cambridge University
Library, collated with six other MSS. Edited, with a life from the German of
Ebert, and with Notes, &c. by J. E. B. Mayor, M.A., Professor of Latin,
and J. R. Lumby, D.D., Norrisian Professor of Divinity. Revised edition.
7*. 6d.
"To young students of English History the illustrative notes will be of great service, while
the study of the texts will be a good introduction to Mediaeval Latin."— The Nonconformist.
"In Bede's works Englishmen can go back to origines of their history, unequalled for
form and matter by any modern European nation. Prof. Mayor has done good service in ren
dering a part of Bede's greatest work accessible to those who can read Latin with ease. He
has adorned this edition of the third and fourth books of the ' Ecclesiastical History' with that
amazing erudition for which he is unrivalled among Englishmen and rarely equalled by Germans.
And however interesting and valuable the text may be, we can certainly apply to his notes
the expression, La sauce vaut mieux que le poisson. They are literally crammed with interest
ing information about early English life. For though ecclesiastical in name, Bede's history treats
of all parts of the national life, since the Church had points of contact with all."— Examiner.
BOOKS I. and II. In the Press.

London : C. J. Cla y Gr> Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

28 PUBLICATIONS OF

III. FRENCH.
JEANNE DARC by A. De Lamartine. With a Map
and Notes Historical and Philological and a. Vocabulary by Rev. A. C.
Clapin, M.A., St John's College, Cambridge, and Bachelier-es-Lettres of
the University of France, is.
LE BOURGEOIS GENTILHOMME, Comedie-Ballet en
Cinq Actes. Par J.-B. Poquelin de Moliere (1670). With a life of
Moliere and Grammatical and Philological Notes. By the same Editor. is.6d.
LA PICCIOLA. By X. B. Saintine. The Text, with
Introduction, Notes and Map, by the same Editor, is.-
LA GUERRE. By Mm. Erckmann-Chatrian. With
Map, Introduction and Commentary by the same Editor, y.
LAZARE HOCHE— PAR EMILE DE BONNECHOSE.
With Three Maps, Introduction and Commentary, by C. Colbeck, M.A.,
late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, is.
LE VERRE D'EAU. A Comedy, by SCRIBE. With a
Biographical Memoir, and Grammatical, Literary and Historical Notes. By
the same Editor, is.
" It may be national prejudice, but we consider this edition far superior to any of the series
which hitherto have been edited exclusively by foreigners. Mr Colbeck seems better to under
stand the wants and difficulties of an English boy. The etymological notes especially are admi
rable. . . . The historical notes and introduction are a piece of thorough honest work."— Journal
of Education.
HISTOIRE DU SIECLE DE LOUIS XIV PAR
VOLTAIRE. Parti. Chaps. I.— XIII. Edited with Notes Philological and
Historical, Biographical and Geographical Indices, etc. by Gustave Masson,
B.A. Univ. Gallic, Officier d'Academie, Assistant Master of Harrow School,
and G. W. Prothero, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of King's College, Cam
bridge, is. 6d.
_ "Messrs Masson and Prothero have, to judge from the first part of their work, performed
with much discretion and care the task of editing Voltaire's Steele de Louis XIV for the ' Pitt
Press Series.' Besides the usual kind of notes, the editors have in this case, influenced by Vol
taire's 'summary way of treating much of the history,' given a good deal of historical informa-
tion, in which they have, we think, done well. At the beginning of the book will be found
excellent and succinct accounts of the constitution of the French army and Parliament at the
period treated of." — Saturday Review.
Part II. Chaps. XIV.— XXIV. With Three Maps

of the Period. By the same Editors, is. 6d.
Part III. Chap. XXV. to the end. By the same

Editors, is. 6d.
M. DARU, par M. C. A. Sainte-Beuve, (Causeries du
Lundi, Vol. IX.). With Biographical Sketch of the Author, and Notes
Philological and Historical. By Gustave Masson. is.
LA SUITE DU MENTEUR. A Comedy in Five Acts,
by P. Corneille. Edited with Fontenelle's Memoir of the Author, Voltaire's
Critical Remarks, and Notes Philological and Historical. By Gustave
Masson. is.
LA JEUNE SIBERIENNE. LE LEPREUX DE LA
CITE D'AOSTE. Tales by Count Xavier de Maistre. With Bio
graphical Notice, Critical Appreciations, and Notes. By G. Masson. is.

London : C. J. Cla y &* Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

29

FxSS E tT(DIRK (Considerations sur la Revolution
3™™"^',^ p,arties-> Par Madame la Baronne de
flr£ ™H nS w , a1C"t>ca,l Notice of the Author, a Chronological
r w p™™ S18*'011^1 ^nd PMological, by G. Masson, B.A., and
G. W. Prothero M.A. Revised and enlarged Edition, is.
Prussia under Frederick the Great, and France unde? the Directorv brine us face to face
SltLtef inTh^Pit fells' ^f L^m ^cT '^^ ^^
world-known workof Madame deS^
the excellence both of its style and of its matter "— Times ' praise lor
DIX ANNEES D'EXIL. Livre II. Chapitres 1—8.
Par Madame la Baronne De Stael-Holstein. With a Biographical
Sketch of the Author, a Selection of Poetical Fragments by Madame de
StaeTs Contemporaries, and Notes Historical and Philological. By Gustave
Masson and G. W. Prothero, M.A. Revised and enlarged edition, is
FREDEGONDE ET BRUNEHAUT. A Tragedy in Five
Acts, by N. LEMERCIER. Edited with Notes, Genealogical and Chrono
logical Tables, a Critical Introduction and a Biographical Notice. By
Gustave Masson. is.
LE VIEUX CELIBATAIRE. A Comedy, by Collin
D'Harxeville. With a Biographical Memoir, and Grammatical, Literary
and Historical Notes. By the same Editor, is.
" M. Masson is doing good work in introducing learners to some of the less-known French
play-writers- The arguments are admirably clear, and the notes are not too abundant." —
Academy.
LA METROMANIE, A Comedy, by PlRON, with a Bio
graphical Memoir, and Grammatical, Literary and Historical Notes. By the
same Editor, is.
LASCARIS, OU LES GRECS DU XVE. SIECLE,
Nouvelle Historique, par A. F. Villemain, with a Biographical Sketch of
the Author, a Selection of Poems on Greece, and Notes Historical and
Philological. By the same Editor, is.
LETTRES SUR L'HISTOIRE DE FRANCE (XIII—
XXIV.). Par Augustin Thierry. By Gustave Masson, B.A. and
G. W. Prothero, M.A. With Map. is. 6d.
I V7 G ERM A N.
DIE KARA VANE von WiLHELM Hauff. Edited with
Notes by A. Schlottmann, Ph. D. y. 6d.
CULTURGESCHICHTLICHE NOVELLEN, von W. H.
Riehl, with Grammatical, Philological, and Historical Notes, and a Com
plete Index, by H. J. Wolstenholme, B.A. (Lond.). 4s. 6d.
ERNST, HERZOG VON SCHWABEN. UHLAND. With
Introduction and Notes. By H. J. Wolstenholme, B.A. (Lond.),
Lecturer in German at Newnham College, Cambridge. y. 6d.
ZOPF UND SCHWERT. Lustspiel in funf Aufzugen von
Karl Gutzkow. With a Biographical and Historical Introduction, English
Notes, and an Index. By the same Editor. 3^. 6d.
"We are glad to be able to notice a careful edition of K. Gutzkow's amusing comedy
'Zopf and Schwert' by Mr H. J. Wolstenholme. . . . These notes are abundant and contain
references to standard grammatical works." — Academy.
©oettye'g ffnabenjatyte. (1749—1759.) GOETHE'S BOY-
HOOD: being the First Three Books of his Autobiography. Arranged
and Annotated by Wilhelm Wagner, Ph. D., late Professor at the
Johanneum, Hamburg, is.
London : C. 7. Cla y <Sr» Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Matia Lane.

30 PUBLICATIONS. OF
HAUFF. DAS WIRTHSHAUS IM SPESSART. Edited
by A. Schlottmann, Ph. D., late Assistant Master at Uppingham School.
y. 6d.
DER OBERHOF. A Tale of Westphalian Life, by Karl
Immermann. With a Life of Immermann and English Notes, by Wilhelm
Wagner, Ph.D., late Professor at the Johanneum, Hamburg. 3.?.
A BOOK OF GERMAN DACTYLIC POETRY. Ar-
ranged and Annotated by the same Editor, y.
S)er erfte ffreu^ug (THE FIRST CRUSADE), by Fried-
rich von Raumer. Condensed from the Author's 'History of the Hohen
staufen', with a life of Raumer, two Plans and English Notes. By
the same Editor, is.
" Certainly no more interesting book could be made the subject of examinations. The story
of the First Crusade has an undying interest. The notes are, on the whole, good." — Educational
Times.
A BOOK OF BALLADS ON GERMAN HISTORY
Arranged and Annotated by the same Editor, is.
"It carries the reader rapidly through some of the most important incidents connected with
the German race and name, from the invasion of Italy by the Visigoths under their King Alaric,
down to the Franco-German War and the installation of the present Emperor. The notes supply
very well the connecting links between the successive periods, and exhibit in its various phases of
growth and progress, or the reverse, the vast unwieldy mass which constitutes modern Germany."
— Times.
DER STAAT FRIEDRICHS DES GROSSEN. By G.
Freytag. With Notes. By the same Editor, is.
"Prussia under Frederick the Great, and France under the Directory, bring us face to face
respectively with periods of history which it is right should be known thoroughly, and which
are well treated in the Pitt Press volumes." — Times.
GOETHE'S HERMANN AND DOROTHEA. With
an Introduction and Notes. By the same Editor. Revised edition by J. W.
Cartmell, M.A. y. 6d.
"The notes are among the best that we know, with the reservation that they are often too
abundant." — Academy.
DaS 3af)t 18 13 (The Year 1813), by F. Kohlrausch.
With English Notes. By W. Wagner, is.

V. ENGLISH.
COWLEY'S ESSAYS. With Introduction and Notes. By
the Rev. J. Rawson Lumby, D.D., Norrisian Professor of Divinity; late
Fellow of St Catharine's College. [Nearly ready.
SIR THOMAS MORE'S UTOPIA. With Notes by the
Rev< J. Rawson Lumby, D.D. y. 6d.
"To Dr Lumby we must give praise unqualified and unstinted. He has done his work
admirably  Every student of history, every politician, every social reformer, every one
interested in literary curiosities, every lover of English should buy and carefully read Dr
Lumby's edition of the ' Utopia.' We are afraid to say more lest we should be thought ex
travagant, and our recommendation accordingly lose part of its force." — The Teacher.
" It was originally written in Latin and does not find a place on ordinary bookshelves. A very
great boon has therefore been conferred on the general English reader by the managers of the
Pitt Press Series, in the issue of a convenient little volume of Af ore's Utopia not in the original
Latin, but in the quaint English Translation thereof made by Raphe Robynson, which adds a
linguistic interest to the intrinsic merit of the work. ... All this has been edited in a most com
plete and scholarly fashion by Dr J. R. Lumby, the Norrisian Professor of Divinity, whose name
alone is a sufficient warrant for its accuracy. It is a real addition to the modern stock of classical
English literature." — Guardian.
BACON'S HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF KING
HENRY VII. With Notes by the Rev. J. Rawson Lumby, D.D. y.
London: C. J. Clay & Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 31
MORE'S HISTORY OF KING RICHARD III. Edited
with Notes, Glossary and Index of Names. By J. Rawson Lumby, D.D.
rT5^" ¦Profes/?/.°f divinity, Cambridge; to which is added the conclusion
of the History of King Richard III. as given in the continuation of Hardyng's
Chronicle, London, 1543. y. 6d.
THE TWO NOBLE KINSMEN, edited with Intro
duction and Notes by the Rev. Professor Skeat, Litt.D., formerly Fellow
of Christ's College, Cambridge. 3J. 6d.
"This edition of a play that is well worth study, for more reasons than one, by so carefu a
scholar as Mr Skeat, deserves a hearty welcome."— A thentzum.
"Mr Skeat is a conscientious editor, and has left no difficulty unexplained."— Times
LOCKE ON EDUCATION. With Introduction and Notes
by the Rev. R. H. Quick, M.A. y. 6d.
"The work before us leaves nothing to be desired. It is of convenient form and reasonable
price, accurately printed, and accompanied by notes which are admirable. There is no teacher
too young to find this book interesting; there is no teacher too old to find it profitable." — The
School Bulletin, New York.
MILTON'S TRACTATE ON EDUCATION. A fac-
simile reprint from the Edition of 1673. Edited, with Introduction and
Notes, by Oscar Browning, M.A., Senior Fellow of King's College,
Cambridge, and University Lecturer, is.
"A separate reprint of Milton's famous letter to Master Samuel Hartlib was a desideratum,
and we are grateful to Mr Browning for his elegant and scholarly edition, to which is prefixed the
careful risumi of the work given in his 'History of Educational Theories.'" — Journal of
Education.
THEORY AND PRACTICE OF TEACHING. By the
Rev. Edward Thring, M.A., Head Master of Uppingham School, late
Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. New Edition. 4^. 6d.
"Any attempt to summarize the contents of the volume would fail to give our readers a
taste of the pleasure that its perusal has given us." — Journal of Education.
GENERAL AIMS OF THE TEACHER, AND FORM
MANAGEMENT. Two Lectures delivered in the University of Cambridge
in the Lent Term, 1883, by F. W. Farrar, D.D. Archdeacon of West
minster, and R. B. Poole, B.D. Head Master of Bedford Modern School.
is. 6d.
THREE LECTURES ON THE PRACTICE OF EDU-
CATION. Delivered in the University of Cambridge in the Easter Term,
1882, under the direction of the Teachers' Training Syndicate, is.
JOHN AMOS COMENIUS, Bishop of the Moravians. His
Life and Educational Works, by S. S. Laurie, A.M., F.R.S. E., Professor of
the Institutes and History of Education in the University of Edinburgh.
Second Edition, revised. y. 6d.
OUTLINES OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF ARISTOTLE.
Compiled by Edwin Wallace, M.A., LL.D. (St Andrews), late Fellow
of Worcester College, Oxford. Third Edition Enlarged. 4s. 6d.
"A judicious selection of characteristic passages, arranged in paragraphs, each of which is
preceded by a masterly and perspicuous English analysis." — Scotsman.
"Gives in a comparatively small compass a very good sketch of Aristotle's teaching." — Sat.
Review.
A SKETCH OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY FROM
THALES TO CICERO, by Joseph B. Mayor, M.A., late Professor of
Moral Philosophy at King's College, London. y. 6d.
' Professor Mayor contributes to the Pitt Press Series A Sketch of Ancient Philosophy in
which he has endeavoured to give a general view of the philosophical systems illustrated by the
genius of the masters of metaphysical and ethical science from Thales to Cicero. In the course
of his sketch he takes occasion to give concise analyses of Plato's Republic, and of the Ethics and
Politics of Aristotle ; and these abstracts will be to some readers not the least useful portions of
the book." — The Guardian. {Other Volumes are in preparation.]
London : C. J. Cla y &¦= Sons, Cambridge University Press Warehouse,
Ave Maria Lane.

fflnftmfftp of ©ambrttige.

LOCAL EXAMINATIONS.
Examination Papers, for various years, with the Regulations for the
Examination. Demy 8vo. 2s. each, or by Post, 2s. 2d.
Class Lists, for various years, Boys is., Girls 6d.
Annual Reports of the Syndicate, with Supplementary Tables showing
the success and failure of the Candidates. 2s. each, by Post 2s. $d.

HIGHER LOCAL EXAMINATIONS.
Examination Papers for various years, to which are added the Regu
lations for the Examination. Demy 8vo. 2s. each, by Post 2s. 2d.
Class Lists, for various years, is. By post, is. 2d.
Reports of the Syndicate. Demy 8vo. is., by Post is. 2d.
LOCAL LECTURES SYNDICATE.
Calendar for the years 1875—80. Fcap. 8vo. cloth. 2s.; for 1880—81. is.
TEACHERS' TRAINING SYNDICATE.
Examination Papers for various years, to which are added the Regu
lations for the Examination. Demy 8vo. 6d., by Post yd.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY REPORTER.
Published by Authority.
Containing all the Official Notices of the University, Reports of
Discussions in the Schools, and Proceedings of the Cambridge
Philosophical, Antiquarian, and Philological Societies, id. weekly.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY EXAMINATION PAPERS.
These Papers are published in occasional numbers every Term, and in
volumes for the Academical year.
Vol. XIII. Parts 177 to 195. Papers for the Year 1883— 84, i$s. cloth.
Vol. XIV. „ 1 to 20. „ „ 1884—85, 15J. cloth.
Vol. XV. „ 21 to 43. „ „ 1885 — 86, it>s. cloth.

Oxford and Cambridge Schools Examinations.
Papers set in the Examination for Certificates, July, 1885. 2s. 6d.
List of Candidates who obtained Certificates at the Examinations
held in 1885 and 1886 ; and Supplementary Tables. 6d.
Regulations of the Board for 1887. 9^.
Report of the Board for the year ending Oct. 31, 1885. is.
Studies from the Morphological Laboratory in the Uni
versity of Cambridge. Edited by Adam Sedgwick, M.A., Fellow and
Lecturer of Trinity College, Cambridge. Vol. II. Part I. Royal 8vo. 10s.
Ionium : c. j. clay and sons,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE.
GLASGOW: 263, ARGYLE STREET.
Cambridge: printed bv c. j. clay, m.a. and sons, at the university press.