Get Augustine's early theology of image : a study in the development of pro-nicene theology 1st edit
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/augustines-early-theology-of-image-a-study-in-the-de velopment-of-pro-nicene-theology-1st-edition-boersma/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Augustine s Theology of Angels 1st Edition Elizabeth Klein
Gerhard Sauter, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
Susan E. Schreiner, University of Chicago
John Van Engen, University of Notre Dame
Geoffrey Wainwright, Duke University
Robert L. Wilken, University of Virginia
EMPIRE OF SOULS
Robert Bellarmine and the Christian Commonwealth
Stefania Tutino
MARTIN BUCER’S DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
Reformation Theology and Early Modern Irenicism
Brian Lugioyo
CHRISTIAN GRACE AND PAGAN VIRTUE
The Theological Foundation of Ambrose’s Ethics
J. Warren Smith
KARLSTADT AND THE ORIGINS OF THE EUCHARISTIC CONTROVERSY
A Study in the Circulation of Ideas
Amy Nelson Burnett
READING AUGUSTINE IN THE REFORMATION
The Flexibility of Intellectual Authority in Europe, 1500-1620
Arnoud S. Q. Visser
SHAPERS OF ENGLISH CALVINISM, 1660-1714
Variety, Persistence, and Transformation
Dewey D. Wallace, Jr.
THE BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION OF WILLIAM OF ALTON
Timothy Bellamah, OP MIRACLES AND THE PROTESTANT IMAGINATION
The Evangelical Wonder Book in Reformation
Germany
Philip M. Soergel
THE REFORMATION OF SUFFERING
Pastoral Theology and Lay Piety in Late Medieval and Early Modern Germany
Ronald K. Rittgers
CHRIST MEETS ME EVERYWHERE
Augustine’s Early Figurative Exegesis
Michael Cameron
MYSTERY UNVEILED
The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England
Paul C. H. Lim
GOING DUTCH IN THE MODERN AGE
Abraham Kuyper’s Struggle for a Free Church in the Netherlands
John Halsey Wood Jr.
CALVIN’S COMPANY OF PASTORS
Pastoral Care and the Emerging Reformed Church, 1536-1609
Scott M. Manetsch
THE SOTERIOLOGY OF JAMES USSHER
The Act and Object of Saving Faith
Richard Snoddy
HARTFORD PURITANISM
Thomas Hooker, Samuel Stone, and Their Terrifying God
Baird Tipson
AUGUSTINE, THE TRINITY, AND THE CHURCH
A Reading of the Anti-Donatist Sermons
Adam Ployd
AUGUSTINE’S EARLY THEOLOGY OF IMAGE
A Study in the Development of Pro-Nicene Theology
Gerald P. Boersma
Augustine’s Early Theology of Image
A Study in the Development of Pro-Nicene Theology
GERALD P. BOERSMA
1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Boersma, Gerald P. Augustine’s early theology of image : a study in the development of pro-Nicene theology / Gerald P. Boersma. p. cm
Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978–0–19–025136–9 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Augustine, Saint, Bishop of Hippo. 2. Image of God—History of doctrines—Early church, ca. 30-600. I. Title. BR65.A9B593 2015 231—dc23
2015012842
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed by Sheridan, USA
To Mom and Dad
Quella circulazion che sì concetta pareva in te come lume reflesso, da li occhi miei alquanto circunspetta,
dentro da sé, del suo colore stesso, mi parve pinta de la nostra effige: per che ’l mio viso in lei tutto era messo.
Qual è ’l geomètra che tutto s’ affige per misurar lo cerchio, e non ritrova, pensando, quel principio ond’ elli indige,
tal era io a quella vista nova: veder voleva come si convenne l’ imago al cerchio e come vi s’ indova;
Dante Alighieri, Paradiso XXXIII
That circle-which, begotten so, appeared in You as light reflected-when my eyes had watched it with attention for some time,
within itself and colored like itself, to me seemed painted with our effigy, so that my sight was set on it completely.
As the geometer intently seeks to square the circle, but he cannot reach, through thought on thought, the principle he needs,
so I searched that strange sight: I wished to see the way in which our human effigy suited the circle and found place in it-
—Trans. Allen Mandelbaum
Contents
Preface xi
Abbreviations xv
Introduction 1
PART ONE
I. Hilary of Poitiers 19
Image in the Anti-Monarchian Writings 20
I. Tertullian 20
II. Novatian 27
Hilary’s Development of Anti-Monarchian Image
Theology 31
Hilary’s Image Theology in the Nicene Context 36
Image as a Christological Term (Col. 1:15) 39
Image as an Anthropological Term (Gen. 1:26) 46
II. Marius Victorinus 51
Substance and Image: Aristotle’s Legacy 52
I. Form and Matter 54
II. Act and Potency 58
III. The Cipher of Appropriation 60
Christ as Imago Dei 64
The Human Person Secundum Imaginem 72
I. Human Psychology 75
II. The Participatory Image 81
III. Ambrose of Milan 87
The Imago Dei as a Spiritual Reality 89
I. Image Christology 90
II. Image Anthropology 95
The Embodied Imago 102
I. Paul and the Body 105
II. Plotinus and the Body 108
The Moral Imperative of the Imago Dei 112
I. Sequi Naturam 114
II. Apatheia 116
III. Cosmetics and Virginity 118
IV. Transvalued Desires in De officiis 124
Conclusion 129
PART TWO
IV. The Plotinian Image 135
Participatio, Imago, Similitudo 136
Interlude: Plotinus, Porphyry, and Augustine’s Platonic Sources 141
The Plotinian Image 144
The Challenge of Emanation 153
The Philosophy of Image in the Soliloquia 159
V. Proteus and Participation 165
The Preface to Book II (Contra Academicos 2.1–2.3) 166
I. Wisdom 167
II. Truth 169
III. Philosophy 173
Proteus (Contra Academicos 3.5.11–3.6.13) 176
The Platonic Image and the Incarnation (Contra Academicos 3.17.37–3.20.45) 183
VI. The Analogical and Embodied Imago Dei 189
Analogia, Aequalitas, and the Imago 191
Aequalitas in Victorinus and Augustine 203
The Body and the Imago Dei 207
I. Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 2:7 209
II. “Male and Female He Created Them” 213
III. The Inner and Outer Man 217
Conclusion 221
VII. The Ascent of the Image in De vera religione 224
The Plotinian Metaphysic of Image 228
Intellectual and Moral Obstacles to the Ascent of the Image 234
The Necessity of Grace in the Ascent 243
Ascent to the Holy Trinity 247
Conclusion 252
Epilogue: The Imago Dei in De Trinitate 254
Image as Dynamic Relationality 255
The Body and the Imago Dei 257
In the Image and Likeness of God 259
Conclusion 263
Preface
i vividly recall nervously walking up the steps of the Theology Department next to Durham Cathedral to meet Professor Lewis Ayres for the first time, late in the summer of 2009. “Ahhhh, you must be Gerald,” he commented. So began three wonderful years of dissertation research and writing under Professor Ayres’s direction. This book—despite the many twists and turns it has taken over time—is the outworking of that initial meeting. It is not possible to express in writing all that I have received from Lewis. He taught me the mechanics of writing a dissertation— how to conduct research, which sources to consult, and how better to develop and defend an argument. I owe a great debt of gratitude for the abundance of time, wisdom, and direction Lewis offered; above all, he urged me to be a careful reader of Augustine. I hope this book is at least a step in that direction.
A distinct pleasure at Durham University was meeting so many different people studying theology. One important hub for me was the Centre for Catholic Studies. I benefited immensely from the frequent seminars, public lectures, and social events that the Centre puts on. The Centre provided me with an academic and social home in Durham among a closeknit community of friends. I am especially grateful to Professor Paul Murray, Director of the Centre for Catholic Studies, for warmly inviting me to become a part of the Centre. I am also profoundly grateful for the generous financial support that the Centre for Catholic Studies provided during my time of studying at Durham.
I look back with particular fondness to the second year I was living in Durham at the Catholic Chaplaincy, among a wonderful community of friends. The hospitality and friendship shown by Fr. Tony Currer, who headed up our communal life of cooking, eating, discussing, and praying together, was marvelous. It was wonderful to share this time with Professor Paul Lakeland, the visiting scholar at the Centre for Catholic
Studies, as well as with fellow students Gino Jeyanayagam and Dennis Walton. The seeds of this book began to germinate in the context of the support, discussion, and encouragement among friends at the Durham Chaplaincy.
I am grateful to the many people who have shared with me their learning, expertise, and encouragement: I have benefited enormously from the hours of theological conversation I had with Professor Matthew Levering. It is in large part due to his encouragement and support that I chose to do further studies in the field of Augustine. I have also profited immensely (and in ways that perhaps I still do not fully realize) from many other wise theology professors over the years: at Trinity Western University, especially Professors Craig Allert, Kent Clarke, Christopher Morrissey, and Robert Stackpole; at Ave Maria University, especially Professors Marc Guerra, Fr. Matthew Lamb, Steve Long, and Roger Nutt. These thoughtful scholars urged me to see both the academic and the spiritual nature of theology as anchored in St. Paul’s summons to “be transformed by the renewal of your mind.”
Four years ago I joined the Theology Department at St. Bonaventure University. I am grateful to my colleagues who have welcomed me into their midst with hospitality and generosity: Oleg Bychkov, Chris Stanley, and K. R. Sundararajan. I am especially grateful to the Chair of our Department, Jim Fodor, and to the former Chair, Fr. Terrance Klein, who have both done so much to ensure that my family and I were comfortably established in a new town and position. They have patiently shown me the ropes of teaching and research at St. Bonaventure. I am also grateful for the warm friendship of the Franciscan Friars at St. Bonaventure; I think especially of Fr. Francis DiSpigno and Fr. Kyle Haden. I am thankful to the students I have had at St. Bonaventure, especially in Theology Department. I have come to know our small cohort of theology majors well and appreciate their diligence in class and shared excitement in theological exploration.
It has been a privilege to present some of the material that has gone into this book while it was still “in progress”: at The British Patristics Conference, The Patristics Seminar at Durham University, The Oxford Patristics Conference, The Centre for Catholic Studies at Durham University, The North American Patristics Society, The Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology in Berkeley, California, and The American Academy of Religion. I profited enormously from the feedback, questions, and engagement that numerous colleagues have generously offered. I am grateful for research grants from St. Bonaventure University, particularly
the Martine Endowment, which made travel to some of these conferences possible.
Some of the material in this book has been published before (largely in a different form). I appreciate the permission to republish material from the following journals: Augustiniana, Augustinianum, Heythrop Journal, Journal of Early Christian Studies, Nova et Vetera, and Studia Patristica. My articles in these journals are listed in the bibliography. I am thankful for the careful reading, thoughtful comments, and helpful suggestions offered by my dissertation examiners, Gillian Clark and Carol Harrison. The anonymous reviewers of my book manuscript went far beyond the call of duty with their many invaluable insights and judicious recommendations. The suggestions of my dissertation examiners and manuscript reviewers helped to avoid many infelicitous errors and oversights. Faults of “commission” and “omission” are, of course, my own. The patience and expertise of the wonderful people at Oxford University Press, especially Cynthia Read and Gina Chung, have made the publishing process a distinct pleasure.
A small note about translations: I have typically used English translations when available. I have noted where I have altered the translation or given my own. I have usually provided the source text in the original language in the footnote. The translations and critical editions used are listed in the bibliography.
Above all, I am thankful to my dear wife Maria de los Angeles; her steadfast friendship and love have supported me throughout this long writing process on both sides of the Atlantic. Our first home together was in Durham, and we share many fond memories of our first years together there. In completing this book I am closing the chapter on a project that has been a constant part of our life together, even from the time when we first started dating. Through it all Maria has been an amazing source of strength, support, and solace. I am blessed that Maria’s Mom and Dad and brothers have welcomed me into their family with love. Many hours working on this book were spent in the company of Maria’s family in Florida, Brian and Francis Waite, who have opened their home to us many times and showered us with love. The image of God in the human person is first and foremost a reflection of divine love. I am grateful that each day I witness God’s image radiating in the love that Maria has for me and for our little boy, John Augustine.
It is difficult to know where to begin in expressing thanks to the people who gave me life. My parents, Hans and Linda Boersma, not only brought
me into the world but also raised me with love, care, and devotion. They handed on the faith to me and encouraged my early interest in theology. A line from the Lutheran hymn, “Nun danket alle Gott,” springs to mind:
Who from our mothers’ arms has blessed us on our way, With countless gifts of love, and still is ours today.
“Countless gifts of love” have indeed been given me all my life through my parents, not least in their ongoing support of my research and writing. It is to my parents that I dedicate this book. They encouraged me—even when I was unsure—to pursue a Ph.D.; they gave me advise and direction in the process, motivated me to persevere when I wanted to stop, and encouraged me to “just get the thing done” when I could no longer stomach looking at my dissertation. My Mom’s wisdom and vision reminded me to keep things in perspective, and my Dad’s theological expertise offered me pointers, tactics, and indefatigable editing. From as early as I can remember I have always looked up to my Dad and have admired what he does as a theologian; I do not doubt that it is on account of his example that I decided to pursue theology. I am also blessed with an amazing family that is a wellspring of joy. I am privileged to be part of the care, camaraderie, and love of my siblings, John and his wife Jennifer, Corine and her husband John, Pete and his wife Rachel, and Meghan.
Loeb The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press, 1912–)
NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
PG Patrologiae, Series Graeca
PL Patrologiae, Series Latina
SC Sources Chrétiennes
TLG Thesaurus Linguae Graecae
WSA The Works of Saint Augustine
Augustine’s Early Theology of Image
Introduction
image theology takes on particular significance in the wake of the reception of the Council of Nicaea. What does it mean for Christ to be the “image of God”? And, if Christ is the “image of God,” can the human person also unequivocally be understood as the “image of God”? Augustine’s early theology of the imago dei, prior to his ordination, is a significant departure from Latin pro-Nicene theologies only a generation earlier. My argument is that, although Augustine’s early theology of image builds on that of Hilary of Poitiers, Marius Victorinus, and Ambrose of Milan, Augustine was able to affirm, in ways that his predecessors were not, that both Christ and the human person are the imago dei.
Questions surrounding what it means for Christ to be the “image of God” lie at the heart of the Christological debates of the fourth century. Is the image a derivation from its source? Does the image serve to reveal its source? Would a positive answer to these two questions imply that the image is ontologically inferior to its source? What is the relation between the image and its source? Are they two separate substances? New Testament descriptions of Christ as “image of God” were ambiguous and were claimed as proof texts by all parties involved in the post-Nicene debates. The letter to the Hebrews describes Christ as the “brightness of God’s glory” (ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης) and the “image of his substance” (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως) (Heb. 1:3). In the same vein, the Apostle Paul describes Christ as the “image of God” (εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ) (2 Cor. 4:4). The “image passage” that appeared most frequently in Christological controversy is Colossians 1:15–20:
15 He is the image of the invisible God (εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου), the first-born of all creation; 16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or
augustine’s early theology of image principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning (ἀρχή), the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (RSV)
Paul’s description of Christ as “image” is the first term in a series of cascading Christological descriptors. The Apostle first notes the relation of the eternal image to the “invisible God” and the radical transcendence of the image from all created things. Paul then shifts to articulate the work of the image in reconciling creation. The Fathers saw in this two-step Christological articulation of Colossians 1 a distinction between the theologia of the image and the oikonomia of the Son.
Naturally, this passage in Colossians 1 served as fertile ground for all parties to the Nicene debates and raised a variety of questions. Is the image also invisible? Or is the image the visible manifestation of an invisible substance? The image is the author of all creation—of all creation, visible and invisible, material and spiritual. The image, then, is not a creature but is distinct from all things; indeed, all created things (τὰ πάντα) exist in him. However, what is his relation to the invisible God? All the parties involved in the debate noted that in the oikonomia or dispensatio, the image is the archetype and fulfillment of humanity. He is the head (κεφαλή) of the church—that is to say, the beginning (ἀρχή) of restored humanity, because he is firstborn (πρωτότοκος) of the dead. As head of reconciled humanity, the image assumes “preeminence” (πρωτεύων) in everything. In interpreting Colossians 1, the Fathers attempted to make a distinction that Paul does not explicitly make, between Christ as the image of the invisible God (theologia) and his role as head of reconciled humanity (oikonomia). Indeed, it is the same subject—the image of the invisible God—that Paul fluidly describes as image, firstborn, creator, beginning, and reconciler. What, then, did it mean to say that in the image “the fullness of God was pleased to dwell”?
The first three chapters of this study present three Western pro-Nicene theologies of the imago dei. They face, I suggest, common problems and questions in attempting to articulate what it means to say that Christ is the image of God. Hilary of Poitiers, Marius Victorinus, and Ambrose of Milan are all insistent that the imago dei is principally a Christological term. As
such, it designates a unity of divine substance. No inferiority is to be predicated of the image vis-à-vis its source; rather, the entire being, life, and essence of the Father is received in the eternal image. A difficulty that confronts all three theologians is the interpretation of Genesis 1:26. If Christ is “image of God,” how is the human person also an “image of God”? Given the loaded theological import that the imago dei garnered in the Nicene controversy, the term clearly could not be transferred from Christ to the creature in a straightforward sense. Hilary, Victorinus, and Ambrose take differing approaches to the problematic as they struggle to preserve the unique Christological character of “image” language while still attempting to do justice to the unambiguous language of Genesis 1:26.
The second half of my study turns to Augustine’s early theology of the imago dei. I argue that Augustine’s philosophical immersion in a Plotinian account of image allows him to affirm the imago dei of both Christ and the human person in a way that his predecessors had been unable to do. As such, I am focusing on two streams of influence that shaped Augustine’s early theology of image: Nicene Christologies and a Plotinian philosophy of image.
In using the term “pro-Nicene” I am attempting to frame three Western theologians—Hilary, Ambrose, and Victorinus—within the broader theological zeitgeist of the mid- to late fourth century (c. 360–380). I adopt this term from Lewis Ayres’s book, Nicaea and its Legacy 1 In chapters 11–13 of this work, Ayres presents a unifying set of doctrinal “strategies” applied by diverse “pro-Nicene” authors defending the teachings of Nicaea. Ayres intends the aggregate term “pro-Nicene” to overcome an unhelpful “Eastern” and “Western” theological binary, which, he maintains, obfuscates more than it clarifies. In this regard, Ayres champions “an account of proNicene trinitarianism in which Greek, Latin and Syriac speakers shared a set of fundamental ‘strategies’ in their Trinitarian theologies.”2
1. Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
2. Lewis Ayres, “Nicaea and Its Legacy : An Introduction,” Harvard Theological Review 100 (2007): 141. For Ayres, there are “three central principles to identify a theology as fully proNicene”: (1) “a clear version of the person and nature distinction,” (2) a “clear expression that the eternal generation of the Son occurs within the . . . divine being,” and (3) a “clear expression of the doctrine that the persons work inseparably.” Ayres, Nicaea, 236. See also Michel Barnes, “De Régnon Reconsidered,” Augustinian Studies 26 (1995): 51–79; Michel Barnes, “‘One Nature, One Power’: Consensus Doctrine in Pro-Nicene Polemic,” Studia Patristica 29 (1997): 205–223; Michel Barnes, “The Fourth Century as Trinitarian Canon,” in Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric and Community, edited by L. Ayres and G. Jones (London: Routledge, 1998), 47–67; Michel Barnes, The Power of God: Dunamis in Gregory of Nyssa’s Trinitarian Theology (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press,
It is not my intention to advocate for the historical or doctrinal appropriateness of the category “pro-Nicene.” For my purposes, this term provides helpful cohesion and analytical clarity to three Latin theologians whose writings in the mid- to late fourth century are clearly intended to defend Nicene Christology. The danger of overgeneralization and simplification is, no doubt, present in the adoption of any unifying descriptor. Nevertheless, with appropriate nuance and distinction, this book seeks to demonstrate that the value of the term can be substantiated in at least one instance: the theology of the image of God. Hilary, Ambrose, and Victorinus display common uses, as well as common challenges, in articulating a theology of the imago dei, which is intelligible in light of their shared context as pro-Nicene theologians.
It is helpful here to provide a liminal sketch noting certain highlights in the development of the theology of the image of God from its fledgling use in the New Testament to its articulation in Western pro-Nicene theology.3 Among the Apostolic Fathers, the Epistle of Barnabas contains a striking passage. 4 The renewal of the human image was already anticipated in the words of Genesis 1:26, maintains the author of the Epistle of Barnabas: “Because He renewed us by the remission of sins, he made us into a completely different type (ἄλλον τύπον). . . . He had created us once again. For it is concerning us that Scripture maintains that [the Father] says to his Son, ‘Let us make man in our own image and likeness.’” In Genesis, the author
2001). There is certainly no unanimity regarding the acceptability of the term “proNicene,” as is clear in the special issue devoted to Nicaea and Its Legacy in the Harvard Theological Review 100 (2007): 125–175. Engagement and critique of the term “pro-Nicene” was offered in this issue by Sarah Coakley, John Behr, and Khaled Anatolios. Also, Volker Henning Drecoll has recently questioned the viability of the label “pro-Nicene.” Volker Henning Drecoll, “Lewis Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity,” Scottish Journal of Theology 66 (2013): 88–98.
3. For a more detailed discussion of this trajectory see John Sullivan, The Image of God (Dubuque, IA: Priory Press, 1963).
4. It is difficult to date the Epistle of Barnabas. The author references the destruction of the temple, which helps only marginally in dating the text after a.d. 70. Equally inconclusive are attempts to ascertain what occasioned the writing or for whom it was intended. Cf. Leslie Barnard, Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and their Background (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966); Robert Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache, vol. 3 of The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary (New York: Nelson, 1965); James Carleton Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background (Philadelphia: Coronet Books, 1994); Pierre Prigent, L’Épître de Barnabe Ι–XVI et ses sources (Paris: Gabalda, 1961); and also his edition (with Robert Kraft) of Barnabas, Sources Chrétiennes, 172 (Paris: Cerf, 1971), which contains a rich bibliography; Ferdinand Prostmeier, Der Barnabasbrief. Übersetzt und erklärt, Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vätern, 8 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999).
continues, the Father was speaking to his Son, but God spoke in a fashion that finds its fullest intelligibility only after the coming of Christ, who “made a second Creation in these last days” (δευτέραν
ἐποίησεν).5 For the author of the Epistle of Barnabas there is a continuity of agency and principle in both creation and recreation; formation and reformation of the image are carried out by the same Word, who fashions and refashions the image according to himself. Here, we find the seeds of a theology of image that will become normative in later Christian theology, as, for example, in Athanasius’s treatise On the Incarnation.
Justin Martyr (c. 100–165) makes reference to Genesis 1:26 in the context of an exegetical dispute. In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin pushes his Jewish interlocutor about the correct interpretation of Genesis 1:26. To whom, asks Justin, is God speaking when he states, “Let us make man in our image and likeness”? Is he speaking to himself? Is he speaking to the elements out of which he will form the human person? Or is it, in fact, the case that he was speaking to one numerically distinct from himself, with whom he shares a rational nature (καὶ
)?6 In Justin Martyr there are anticipations of the language of a “common image,” which will become an interpretive hallmark of pro-Nicene interpretations of Genesis 1:26. Another touchstone in the development of the theology of the image of God is found in Theophilus of Antioch (d. c. 181).7 In his Hexameron —a
5. Epistle of Barnabas 6.11–13 (PG 2:742) trans. mine: ἐπεὶ
6. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 62 (PG 6:619).
7. We know very little about Theophilus of Antioch as only his Apology to Autolycus is extant. Cf. Eusebius, Church History 4.20.24; Eusebius of Caesarea, HE. Historia ecclesiastica. SC 31, 41, 55, 73; FC 19, 29. Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men 25. Also, Richard Anderson, “Theophilus: A Proposal,” Evangelical Quarterly 69 (1997): 195–215.; J. Bentivegna, “A Christianity without Christ by Theophilus of Antioch,” Studia Patristica 13 (1975): 107–130; Carl Curry, “The Theogony of Theophilus,” Vigiliae Christianae 42 (1988): 318–326; R. M. Grant, “Theophilus of Antioch to Ad Autolycus,” Harvard Theological Review 40 (1947): 227–256; R. M. Grant, “The Problem of Theophilus,” Harvard Theological Review 43 (1950): 179–196; R. M. Grant, Theophilus of Antioch: Ad Autolycum (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970); W. R. Schoedel, “Theophilus of Antioch: Jewish Christian?” Illinois Classical Studies 18 (1993): 279–297; Nicole Zeegers-van der Vorst, “La Création de l’homme (Gn 1:23) chez Théophile d’Antioche,” Vigiliae Christianae 30 (1976): 258–267.
augustine’s early theology of image
letter of three books penned to an educated pagan named Autolycus— Theophilus explains that created heavenly bodies (like the other created works) are to be understood as teaching in “pattern and type” (δεῖγμα καὶ τύπον) “a great mystery” (μεγάλου μυστηρίου).8 The sun is a type of God, while the moon is a type of the human person.9 This is clear because the sun is much greater and never ceases to radiate light, whereas the moon wanes and waxes, signifying the mortality of the human condition and also setting forth a pattern (δεῖγμα) of the resurrection of the body. Theophilus continues by explaining that the three days before the creation of the heavenly bodies are types of the Trinity—that is, of God, his Word, and his Wisdom (
).10 The analogy of the sun and the moon suggests that the human person, as image of God, is a reflection of the entire Trinity (if we can use this term of Theophilus) without distinction of the persons. The unity of the divine persons in image theology becomes an important element in the anti-Monarchian theology of Novatian and Tertullian (chapter I) and is sustained also in pro-Nicene understandings of the imago dei.
A full account of Irenaeus’s theology of the imago dei would be the subject of a book-length study. Indeed, it is fair to say that his entire “systematic” recapitulatory theology of creation and recreation is undergirded by an account of the image of God.11 I want briefly to touch on two ways in which his theology of the image of God anticipates that of the pro-Nicenes
8. Theophilus, Ad Auto., 2.15; TLG 1725. I have used the translation of Theophilus’s To Autolycus from A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989). The Greek text is from the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG
9. Theophilus, Ad Auto., 2.15; TLG 1725: ὁ
10. Theophilus, Ad Auto., 2.15; TLG 1725. There is debate as to whether τριάδος is correctly translated as “Trinity” or better rendered as “triad.” Cf. G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London: SPCK, 1959), 90–91.
11. I have used the translation of Irenaeus’s Adversus Haereses in A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989). Studies that include discussion of Irenaeus’s theology of image include John Behr, Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); John Behr, Irenaeus of Lyons: Identifying Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013); Anthony Briggman, Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); J. Fantino, L’Homme, image de Dieu chez saint Irénée de Lyon (Paris: Cerf, 1984); Dennis Minns, Irenaeus (London: Chapman, 1994); Eric Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001); J. G. M. Purves, “The Spirit and the Imago Dei: Reviewing the Anthropology of Irenaeus of Lyons,” Evangelical Quarterly, 68 (1996): 99–120; Thomas Weinandy, “St. Irenaeus and the Imago Dei: The Importance of Being Human,” Logos 6 (2003): 15–34.
and Augustine. First, Irenaeus is explicit that Christ, the Son of God, is the perfect image and likeness of God. The eternal generation of the divine image is the model and prototype of created human images. While the Son is the primary image after which the human image is fashioned, the Triune God creates after his own perfect unity. The Son and the Spirit are “the hands of the Father” through which (and after which) the human person is constituted as image.12 Irenaeus writes, “For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, Let Us make man after Our image and likeness.”13 Thomas Weinandy rightly speaks of a “Christian personalism” as lying at the heart of Irenaeus’s theology of the image of God.14 Participation in the community of Triune love in eternity is teleologically inscribed in the very nature of the human person as imago dei. This “both-and” theology of image—that the human person is both image of the Son and of the Holy Trinity—will be echoed by much of later Latin pro-Nicene theology and will also be important to Augustine’s articulation of the imago dei.
The second element in Irenaeus’s thought that is significant for our study is his insistence that the human person is, also in his body, created in the image and likeness of God. No doubt, this emphasis stems from Irenaeus’s robust affirmation of the goodness of the material order against his Gnostic antagonists. It will become clear that in this regard Irenaeus strikes a unique note in the Patristic tradition; Eastern and Western theologies of the imago dei affirm nearly unanimously that the imago dei is a spiritual reality proper to the human person’s rational nature, which distinguishes him from all other material bodies. While the imago dei remains for Augustine, principally, an immaterial and spiritual reality, he will nonetheless give a hedged acknowledgment that the body, too, participates in the image God. Irenaeus insists that “the visible appearance too should be godlike.”15 For Irenaeus the starting point for a theology of
12. A.H., 5.6.1: “Now God shall be glorified in His handiwork, fitting it so as to be conformable to, and modeled after, His own Son. For by the hands of the Father, that is by the Son and the Holy Spirit, man, and not [merely] a part of man, was made in the likeness of God.”
13. Ireanaeus, A.H., 4.20.1
14. Weinandy, “St. Irenaeus and the Imago Dei,” 19–20.
15. Epid., 11: “But man He fashioned with His own hands, taking of the purest and finest of earth, in measured wise mingling with the earth His own power; for He gave his frame the outline of His own form, that the visible appearance too should be godlike—for it was
the imago dei is the Incarnation, in which we visibly and materially see and touch the perfect image of God. Famously, Irenaeus maintains that the human race was created to mature and grow into the image of God.16 For this reason the Word of God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden, teaching them justice and preparing them for them the time in which he would come to be incarnated among them.17 However, precisely because Adam and Eve were still like children, because the Word had not yet come in the flesh, they were easily susceptible to the Devil’s wiles. After all, Adam and Eve did not yet have a visible, embodied model to follow.18 Only in the Incarnation, then, does creation according to the image of God become fully manifest:
For in times long past, it was said that man was created after the image of God, but it was not [actually] shown; for the Word was as yet invisible, after whose image man was created. Wherefore also he did easily lose the similitude. When, however, the Word of God became flesh, He confirmed both these: for He both showed forth the image truly, since He became Himself what was His image; and He re-established the similitude after a sure manner, by assimilating man to the invisible Father through means of the visible Word.19
The Son entered each stage of human life, “recapitulating” in his own person the drama of human existence and, thereby, restoring the human image according to the divine image.20
as an image of God that man was fashioned and set on earth—and that he might come to life, He breathed into his face the breath of life, so that the man became like God in inspiration as well as in frame.” The translation of the Epideixis is taken from Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 16, trans. by J. P. Smith (New York: Paulist Press, 1952).
16. Cf. R. F. Brown, “On the Necessary Imperfection of Creation: Irenaeus Adversus Haereses IV.38,” Scottish Journal of Theology 28 (1975): 17–25.
17. Epid., 12: “And so fair and goodly was the Garden, the Word of God was constantly walking in it; He would walk round and talk with the man, prefiguring what was to come to pass in the future, how He would become man’s fellow, and talk with him, and come among mankind, teaching them justice.”
18. Thomas Weinandy writes, “We perceive, already at the dawn of creation, how our creation in the Son’s image and likeness is intertwined with the Son’s own incarnation.” Weinandy, “St. Irenaeus and the Imago Dei,” 25.
A detailed survey of the concept of the image of God leading up to its pro-Nicene articulation would engage Eastern exponents of the fourth century, especially the Alexandrian school (the disciples of Origen, particularly Athanasius and Didymus the Blind) and the Cappadocian Fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Basil of Caesarea, and Gregory of Nazianzus). However, as I am tracing Latin pro-Nicene image theology, I will limit my survey to this brief reel of patristic highlights in the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus. This brief overview may suffice to provide a “pre-history” to the anti-Monarchian theology of Tertullian and Novatian considered in chapter I. I choose Hilary of Poitiers, Marius Victorinus, and Ambrose of Milan as “representatives” of a common Western pro-Nicene theology of image because among the generation immediately preceding Augustine (c. 360–380) their voices remain the most significant, and no other Latin writers of this period have as much influence on Augustine’s early theology of image.
A significant catalyst for Latin pro-Nicene theology was the explicitly subordinationist creed known as the “Blasphemy of Sirmium” (357), which was the most notorious among a series of Western councils advanced by Emperor Constantius in the late 350s.21 Further, a number of influential Western bishops—Hilary of Poitiers, Eusebius of Vercelli, and Lucifer of Cagliari—spent considerable time exiled in the East, where undoubtedly they came in contact with Greek pro-Nicene theology. Other Western theologians, such as Ambrose of Milan, Rufinus of Aquileia, and Niceta of Remesiana, knew and were influenced by Greek theology. A common element in the Latin response to imperial Western subordinationist Christology was an emphasis on the unity of power, which the three divine persons share in their inseparable activity. Lewis Ayres traces this theme in Optatus, Ambrose, and Hilary, noting that Latin pro-Nicene theologians who advance the claim “that the exercise of identical power indicates unity of substance” frequently employ the language of inseparable operations.22
In chapter I, I suggest that Hilary builds his image Christology on the foundation of the anti-Monarchian theology of Tertullian and Novatian. Important to these early Latin theologians is the distinction between the eternal unity of Father and Son and the dispensatio of the Son in time. The
21. For a discussion of Latin pro-Nicene theology, see Lewis Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 43–51.
22. Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity, 51.
augustine’s early theology of image
eternal image is, like its source, invisible, immaterial, and eternal. However, “for us men and for our salvation,” the invisible image becomes visible. Thus, a theology of the dispensatio initiates a Logos -sarx theology that distinguishes between the eternal Logos, who is the invisible image, and Christ, who takes on flesh. Colossians 1:15, for Tertullian and Novatian, does not refer to the sarx, but to the Logos. The theophanies of the Old Testament, on the other hand, especially to Hagar and Abraham, are linked in anticipation to the Incarnation. They are manifestations of Christ, not as the invisible image but as the visible flesh. Hilary reworks this antiMonarchian Logos -sarx theology. The bishop of Poitiers sustains a developed trope based on Philippians 2, distinguishing between the forma dei and the forma servi. Like the Logos -sarx theology of Tertullian and Novatian, this distinction preserves the nature of the invisible image, in whom there is “no diversity of substance,” from the Father, while allowing for the visible manifestation in time.
Given that the “image of God” refers to the forma dei, Hilary does not speak of the human person as created in the image of God but as created ad imaginem dei— that is to say, the human person is created after the exemplum of the eternal image. However, as the eternal image is one with its source, having no diversity of substance, the image after which the human person is created is a “common image.” The unity of divine substance entails, for Hilary, that there is no “likeness” (similitudo) in the eternal image. The human person is, in turn, created in the likeness of a common image—that is, of the one image who said “Let us make man in our image and likeness.” Thus, for Hilary, Christ as forma dei is the image of God who in the economy becomes visible (as forma servi). The human person, on the other hand, is created ad imaginem dei— that is, according to the likeness of the consubstantial unity of the divine persons.
Embroiled in the same controversies as Hilary, but much more comfortable deploying philosophical distinctions in the Nicene cause, Marius Victorinus insisted against his imagined Arian opponent Candidus that the divine image could in no way be of a different substance from his source. While other images are, philosophically speaking, different from the substance they image—that is, they have a borrowed, derived, and secondary character—divine simplicity entails that in God image and source are one. Victorinus articulates this simplicity and unity of image and source with the language of potency and act. To distinguish between potency and act in God is only to maintain a logical distinction; ultimately, the revelation of God in act cannot be separated from who God remains in
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Plain tales, chiefly intended for the use of charity schools
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
Title: Plain tales, chiefly intended for the use of charity schools
Author: Anonymous
Release date: September 4, 2023 [eBook #71559]
Language: English
Original publication: London: Vernor and Hood, 1799
Credits: Carol Brown, Charlene Taylor and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PLAIN TALES, CHIEFLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF CHARITY SCHOOLS ***
Plain Tales, Printed for Vernor & Hood, 31 Poultry, April 1799.
P L A I N T A L E S ,
CHIEFLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF
C H A R I T Y S C H O O L S .
L O N D O N :
Printed for VERNOR and HOOD, N . 31, P . 1799.
Plain Tales.
TALE I.
D and Polly Wood had been some time in the charity-school. They had behaved very well, and could do a good deal of work: they were regular in going at the exact time, and so soon as school hours were over, they went strait home to see what they could do to assist their mothers. As they were diligent, they sometimes got a spare half hour to take a walk in the fields. This was of great service to their health, and helped to make them strong, active, and cheerful. One evening, after they had been working very hard, their mothers gave them leave to go. Out they set, as brisk as larks; they tripped over the stile very nimbly, and had soon gathered a handful of primroses and violets. Presently they heard a loud noise at a little distance, and away they ran to find out what it was. In a wood, not far off, they observed a man felling a large tree, and around lay a great number of chips. I wonder, said Sukey Dawkins, if any body makes use of these: how glad my mother would be to have some to light her fires with; let us ask the carpenter. Pray, said she, do you think the person who owns these, would give me leave to take a few home to my mother?—Yes, said the man, I think he
would: they belong to Mr Ownoak, who is walking in the next field, and you may ask him, if you will. O, said Polly Wood, do not let us go, I cannot abide to ask: her companion replied, what is there to be ashamed of, I am not a going to do any thing wrong; and, unless I was, I do not see what reason I have to be ashamed. These chips are of no use to this gentleman, and, perhaps, he does not think how useful they might be to others. Come, let us make haste: so she went up to Mr. Ownoak, and said—Pray, Sir, will you give me leave to take a few of those chips home to light my mammy’s fire? Who is your mammy, my little girl, said he? Widow Dawkins, sir Where does she live? In the Well-yard. How many children has she? Four, sir. I am the oldest: I strive to do a little, but we are very poor, and my mother has hard work to get cloaths, food, and firing; so that a few chips would be very useful to us. You may take as many as you can carry, my child, said he; and you may come again to-morrow, and the next day, and, if your companion wants any, let her have some too. Away they ran, and told the carpenter that Mr. Ownoak had given them leave to take some. Sukey Dawkins had on a good strong woollen apron, which she had made of one of her mother’s, so she began filling it with chips; but Polly Wood’s apron was an old ragged checked one. Sukey had often begged her companion to endeavour to mend her cloths; but this she had too much neglected, and was now very sorry she had. However, Sukey helped her to pin it together as well as she could; and, after filling them as fully as they would hold, and wishing the carpenter a good night, away they set off towards home. As they were getting over the last stile, Polly’s tattered apron gave way, and down fell all the chips. This was a sad disaster, and she began to cry; but her companion asked her if crying could possibly remedy the misfortune, and begged her not to do what a little baby would. Let us think what is best to be done, that is all we ought to do when any accident happens. Let us see: well, your gown is whole, that is a good thing; suppose you take it up, and put the chips in that, and, if you like, I will help you to mend your apron to-morrow. So they picked up the chips again as fast as they could, and made haste to get home. Mother, said Sukey, I am afraid you thought me long; but these will make amends for staying. She then threw down the chips under the coal-shed, and told her mother
how she came by them. Her mother thanked her very kindly for her attention to the comfort of the family, and told her she believed, that, if she had not been so good a girl, and often contrived, in some way to help her, they must all have gone to the workhouse. Sukey was much more satisfied with herself that evening, than if she had been romping with the girls in the street, and went to bed thankful that she had been useful.
Children, in many a different way, Can give their friends delight; Nor will she pass a useless day, Who brings home chips at night.
TALE II.
, said Nancy Bennet, I wish you would let us have tea to breakfast: there are neighbour Spendalls and their children drinking tea every morning when I go by to school, and we never have it but on Sunday afternoons. My dear, said her mother, every thing which is good for you, that I can buy, I wish you to have; but there are many reasons which would make it improper for us to drink much tea: One is, that it is very dear, and affords but little nourishment: Another, that it is neither pleasant nor wholesome without cream and sugar. Two pounds of the coarsest sugar I could buy, would cost eighteen pence. With that eighteen pence I could buy you a new shift; the sugar, you know, would be soon gone and forgotten; the shift will help to keep you warm and comfortable for years. Which would you rather have? O the shift, said she to be sure. Well, my dear, said her mother, it is by denying ourselves tea that we are able to get a comfortable change of shirts and shifts; and another advantage is, that I believe we have better health than many people who live a good deal on tea. Your father finds himself more able to work after bread and cheese and a pint of beer, than he would after tea: And a bason of milk-porridge is a much more satisfying meal for us; and, it is a very happy thing, that the most wholesome food is generally the cheapest. Ploughmen and milkmaids, who look so ruddy, and are the most healthy people in the kingdom, seldom taste tea. Part of their health and strength, it is true, is owing to their rising early, going to bed early, and living a good deal out of doors: but we, who are obliged to do our work more in the house, ought to get the most wholesome food we can; and, spending our money in tea and sugar, would deprive us of many more useful things. I have heard my mother say, that tea was very little drank when she was young; and, I believe, people were quite as healthy and as happy then. For one quarter of a year, I laid by, every
week, just as much as I should have laid out had we drank tea. This, at the least I could reckon it, was one shilling and sixpence a week. As there are twelve weeks in a quarter of a year, this, you know, came to eighteen shillings; and, with that money, I bought myself and you, these good stuff gowns, which have kept us so warm all the winter, and a pair of sheets for your bed: Would you rather have been starved in rags, and drank tea; or, comfortably clad, and had milk-porridge? O, I have heard enough about tea, said Nancy, give me milk-porridge, a stuff gown, and new sheets.
If comfort round a cottage fire, The poor desire to see, Let them to useful things aspire, And learn to banish tea.
TALE III.
B sometimes did an errand for her schoolmistress: sometimes she took her mother’s work to the warehouse, and was often employed to go on other errands, because she was very quick, never loitering on the road. She was also careful to remember what was told her, and carry a proper message. She had a sufficient pleasure in being useful, and finding herself trusted, and did not wish for any other reward; however, the people where she went, were very kind, and would sometimes give her a halfpenny. There was a woman lived very near where she did, who sold apples and gingerbread, &c. these she thought looked very nice, and sometimes she would buy a halfpenny-worth, but there was very little for money; she had soon eaten it, and found herself not at all satisfied. What a foolish thing, said she to herself, will it be to spend all my money in this way, and have nothing useful for it. I will lay by the halfpence I get till I can buy something useful, and then I shall find which affords me the most satisfaction. She observed, that her mother had long worked very hard to get food and cloaths for her children, and that she hardly ever bought anything for herself. Her caps were almost worn out, and Jenny knew that she did not know how to get any new ones: so she asked her mistress, at the school, to be so good as to tell her how much would buy her mother two caps. Her mistress told her she thought she could buy her two for ten pence: so she saved all the halfpence she got, and very anxious she was till the number was compleated: then, the next time she went to school, she gave it to her mistress to lay it out. The following morning the caps were bought, and ready for her to make. She worked hard, and, at night, had hemmed the border, set it on neatly, and finished one cap! The second day her task was compleated, and the caps carried home. If she had had a dozen given to herself, I do not think her joy would have been half so great as that she had, in
the thought of giving these to her mother. As soon as she got into the house, she ran up to her and said, mother, I have got a little present for you, if you please to accept it. A present, said she! what is it? Jenny then pulled out the caps, and put one on her mother’s head, and the other in her lap. How came you by these, said she? Who sent them? Mother, said Jenny, I have bought and made them myself: You do a great deal for me, and I am sorry that I can help you no more; however, I feel more glad that I could buy you these, than if any body else had given you them. My dear, said her mother, where could you get the money? O, said she, you know that I had many odd half-pence given me, these I kept till I got enough to buy you two caps, as I thought it would give me more pleasure than laying it out in any thing else. Her mother almost cried for joy, to find she had so good a child, and told her she should value the caps more than if any fine lady had given her them. Young, as you are, you now find how much you can do to render your parents comfortable; and I rejoice, that poor as we are, you will never want pleasure, since you have learned that you need only try to be useful.
When gingerbread and apples lure, I’ll think on Jenny Bunney: Rememb’ring pleasures that endure, Are better worth my money.
TALE IV.
to Jenny Bunney lived Nancy Thoughtless. She too, sometimes, had halfpence given her; but they soon went at the apple-woman’s in cakes, gingerbread, nuts, &c. Sometimes she would save several in her little box; but she did not think of laying them out in any thing useful, and they soon followed the rest. One very sharp winter, in which they found it hard work to get victuals, her father had a very long illness: this was a great trial; however, the poor woman, his wife, kept up her spirits pretty well. All worked who were able, and they just managed to live, every day hoping the father would get better. One day, said her mother to Nancy, my dear, I wish I had a little wine to give your father, he is very weak, and I think it might do him good; but it is dear, and I have no money to buy any with. You know that I never go, nor send you a begging, for it is generally the idle and wasteful who beg; and, as I am not one of them, I do not choose to follow their example. I think I have seen you take the halfpence which were given you to your little box. Perhaps you have as much as six-pence, this would buy a little wine for your poor father; and, I dare say, you will be glad to put it to such a use. Money, my dear child, is of no more value than stones or dirt, any further than as it is useful; and, it is every body’s duty to make the best use he can of all he has. I dare say you feel that you can do nothing better with yours, than buy your father a little wine. I need say no more, you will run up stairs and fetch it. Nancy hung down her head, and did not stir. Her mother waited: at last she burst out a crying, O, mother, said she, I have no six-pence, I have not even a half-penny. How have you laid it out, said her mother? O I have wasted it all in gingerbread and nuts, and now I have none to buy my poor father a drop of wine with. What shall I do! What shall I do! Her mother told her, as crying could not bring back her money, she had better give over. I am very sorry, said she, you have lost all the
pleasure you would now have had in doing good to your father, and helping the family; but, perhaps, you like the remembrance of your nuts and your gingerbread better. O, mother, do not say so; I would rather have never tasted them if I could but now buy the wine. My dear, said she, I hope you will be wiser then for the future, and always remember, that those things which please the longest, are the best.
She, who in trifles, spends her gain, Will lose all lasting pleasure; And when she would do good, in vain Laments her wasted treasure.
TALE
V.
M A was one day going to fetch some turnips for dinner, she saw, at the corner of Poverty Lane, a second-hand shop, at the door of which hung a great deal of ragged finery. There was a tawdry flowered gown: to be sure, it had some holes in it, but it was well starched, and made a show: there was, likewise, an old muslin cap, with a pleated border, and a fine red ribband round it. Mary went home, and told her mother she wished her to go with her to Povertylane, to buy something at the second-hand shop, for she had seen some very pretty things there; and Sally Idle had bought a white apron for six-pence, and a muslin handkerchief for two-pence. My dear, said her mother, there is not a place in the town I have so great a dislike to as a rag-shop, for such it may properly be called; and, it is one great cause of the ruin of poor people, that they lay out their money at these shops. The apron and handkerchief which Sally Idle bought, would, probably, be in rags the first time they were washed, and she would then find that she had laid out her money in a very wrong manner. The pleated bordered cap you saw, was, I dare say, already in holes; and, perhaps, after once washing it, could be pleated no more: besides, such a thing would take a great deal of time, which poor people have not to spare. I would rather see a plain cloth cap, with a strong lawn border, set strait on, which would wear well for years, than such fine ones which would not last a month. The cotton gown, perhaps, I could buy for half what I gave for my new stuff one; but it would often want washing, and that would take a great deal of time, which would very much hinder my work at the wheel. Soap too, is very dear, so that it would soon cost me more than that I have: besides, I think it very untidy to see a poor woman with a dirty bit of a cotton gown all in rags, when she might, by a little contrivance, have a comfortable stuff one. Poor people, in general, find it difficult to raise money enough at a time to go to the shops and
buy a new garment: but my way is to put by, weekly, a little out of what every one gets. You know you have each a place to put your own in, and, by many a little being often put together, it soon becomes a good deal. When I want a new garment for any of us, I go and see how much is in the drawer, and if there is not enough, your father and I endeavour to make it up out of our own earnings. I should think it a shameful waste, indeed, to spend my money and my children’s at a rag shop. I never have done it, nor do I ever mean to do it; but, if you think it a better way, you are very welcome to try. But, as I think it a disgrace for an industrious woman to be seen there, you will excuse my going with you. O, said Mary, I will not go, I am convinced that your way is best; and, now I think of it, Sally Idle had a great many rents in the linen gown, which I know she bought there but a little time since, and it looked very dirty and untidy too. Some people, said her mother, may laugh at my putting by the sixpences and the penny’s every week, but I am sure we have a great deal of comfort from it; and, it matters not who laughs, so long as we are certain that we are doing right. I do not think that I should hoard up a great many shillings and guineas as if I could get them, for they are only desirable to make use of; but I know it to be my duty to do the best I can with my little, and, while I do that, you may be sure I shall not go to the rag-shop.
Ruin within the rag-shop stands, And all who dare to enter,
With tattered bargains in their hands, Repent so rash a venture.
TALE VI.
B went one day to carry her grandmam a little broth, for the poor can do good to others as well as the rich. Her mother desired her to go carefully, not to stay by the way, and to come strait back: she said she would. As she was going, she met Sukey Playful and Dolly Careless: where are you going? said they. To take my grandmam some broth. Come, said they, set it down a little while, and have a run with us. O no, said she, I cannot now, my mammy desired I would make haste; beside, the broth will be cold. When a little girl knows what is right, she ought to listen to no persuasions to do wrong. They told her, her mammy would never know anything about it: that they were going to buy a half-penny worth of apples, and would give her one if she would go with them. Come, said they, you may set down the jug in this snug place, and we shall soon be back again. At last she consented; but she had no comfort as she went, nor when she had got her apple; for she thought, if the jug should be thrown down, what should she do. They made haste, but when they came back to the place, a dog had thrown down the jug, and spilt all the broth. Polly began to cry most terribly, and scolded Sukey and Dolly for persuading her to go, when she might have recollected that it was her own fault for not minding her duty. They were a good deal frightened: however, they said, never mind it, as the jug is not broke, you can go home and tell your mammy you took the broth, and, perhaps, she will never know any thing about it. Polly dried her eyes, took up the jug, and went home; but she was very uneasy, and felt that she did not like her playfellows half so well as she had done before, for they had now taught her to do wrong. When she got home, well, said her mother, how does your grandmam do, my dear, and how did she like the broth; for I dare say she was hungry enough, poor soul, and would eat them directly? Polly said, she was much as usual, and liked them very
well. All the day she was very dull, and found she could not work with half so much pleasure as she used to do. At night, when she went to bed, she was very uncomfortable indeed; she had been taught always to tell the truth, as the only way to be happy herself, or of any use to others. She now felt that she had deceived her mother, and therefore did not deserve to be trusted by her. Thus she continued very uneasy all the week: On Saturday night, when her mother had done all her work, and washed the young children and put them to bed, Polly, said she, I think I will just step and see how your grandmother does: you, my dear, will take care of the house; and mend a hole in your father’s stocking for to-morrow. You begin to be a great help to me now, and I thank God that I have one child to depend upon for a little comfort and assistance: be sure to take care against the fire and candle, I shall soon be back again. She then went out, but Polly’s heart was ready to break: she had always, before, deserved her mother’s praise, and it was the next comfort she had to the satisfaction of her own mind. But now she had deceived her; she was miserable; she was going to be found out; and she could no more expect to be trusted. The grandmother was very glad to see her daughter, and began to enquire after all the children, and particularly Polly, who, she said, was now a notable little maid, and would soon, she hoped, be a great comfort to them all. But child, said she, I am afraid you have raised no broth lately, for you used to be so good as to send me some, and it is now many a long day since I have had any. Mother, said she, you forget, we made broth on Monday, and Polly brought you some then. Well, said she, I believe my memory fails me, but I thought it had been longer. Here is my neighbour Green, who brings in her wheel sometimes, she has sat with me a good deal this week, it may be that she can tell. Monday, Monday, let me see, said Betty Green; no, neighbour, I am sure Polly brought none on Monday, for that was the day we made some at our house, and I brought you a little of mine. Well, said Polly’s mother, I do not know how it could be, but I will enquire when I get home. I must now wish you a good night, for my husband will want his supper. You have a shift here over the line that wants mending I see: Polly is now very ready with her needle, they have taught her so well in the charity-school. I am sure she will be glad to
