IV. On the Doctrine of St. Ambrose.
There is a very complete agreement on the part of
St. Ambrose with the Catholic teaching of the universal Church.
St. Augustine speaks of him as “a faithful teacher of the Church,
and even at the risk of his life a most strenuous defender of Catholic
truth,”2
| 2 Cont. Jul. Pelag.
II. 32. |
“whose skill,
constancy, labours, and perils, both on account of what he did and what
he wrote, the Roman world unhesitatingly proclaims.”3
| 3 Cont. Jul. Pelag.
I. 40. |
In matters both of faith and morals by
his words and writings he greatly benefited the Church and was called
by St. Jerome “a pillar of the Church.”4
In his dogmatic treatises, more particularly in
his books on the Faith, he shows great skill and penetration, and his
reasoning is full and clear, meeting the most subtle objections with
patient industry. Scarcely any ancient writer has treated the
mystery of the Holy Trinity and the theological difficulties connected
with it more clearly and convincingly than St. Ambrose in his De
Fide and De Spiritu Sancto.
In his expositions of Holy Scripture he treats of
the threefold sense, the literal, the moral, and the mystical, devoting
more pains, however, and time to the latter than to the former.
He gives special consideration to the mystical interpretation of such
passages as may seem to contain in a literal sense anything diverging
from sound morality. Many of his other mystical interpretations
of plain, simple matters of fact have much beauty, as in his treatment
of the story of the building of the ark, the marriage of Isaac, and the
blessings of the Patriarchs. The literal sense is followed
specially in the Hexaëmeron, the treatise on Paradise, Noah
and the Ark, and the Exposition of the Gospel according to St.
Luke. The moral sense, though referred to throughout his
writings, is more particularly sought out in the Expositions of the
Psalms.
St. Ambrose was a diligent student of the Greek writers,
whom he often follows largely, especially Origen and Didymus, as also
St. Basil the Great and St. Athanasius, and he has also adapted many
points of allegorical interpretation from Philo. He is fond of
alleging scriptural proofs, and when he argues from reason often
confirms his argument by some quotation or reference, a task easy for
him who, from his consecration, was so diligent a student of holy
Scripture.
As to justification, St. Ambrose ascribes the
whole work to the Holy Spirit, Who seals us in our hearts, as we
receive the outward sign in our bodies. Through the Holy Spirit
we receive a share of the grace of adoption. Christ was perfect
according to the fulness of His Majesty; we are perfected by a
continual progress in virtue.5
| 5 De Sp. S. I.
79, 80; De Fide, V. 91. |
With regard to baptism, he taught in accordance
with the received belief of his day that it is the sacrament of
adoption and regeneration, wherein sin is forgiven,6
and
the Holy Spirit confers new life upon the soul and joins it mystically
to Christ. As to the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the
Eucharist, his doctrine is no less definite. In his treatise on
the Faith he says of the elements that they “are transfigured
[transfigurantur]7
| 7 For the force of the
word transfigurantur in early ecclesiastical Latin, compare
Tertullian, adv. Praxeam, c. 27: “Transfiguratio
interremptio est pristini. Omne enim, quodcunque transfiguratur
in aliud desinit esse quod fuerat, et incipit esse quod non
erat.” |
by the mystery of the
sacred prayer into flesh and blood.”8
He
interprets various texts, also, in many places in the same sense.
In a like spirit he maintains that the power of forgiving sins on
repentance is vested in the ministry of the Church.9
The intercession of the saints, and up to a certain point their
invocation, is likewise upheld.10
| 10 Ep. 22 De ob.
Theod. 41–51; De Viduis., 55. |
There was a Latin version made from the
Septuagint, including the Apocrypha, in Africa, and in use there at the
end of the second century, very barbarous, and copying even Greek
constructions. Of this text SS. Ambrose and Augustine used a
recension. But our author seems to have been very independent,
and to have made use of several different versions of holy Scripture,
translating, as it would seem, often for himself from the Septuagint,
referring also to Symmachus, Theodotion, and Aquila, though thinking
less of the latter. When the prophets, he says, were moved by the
Holy Spirit, they were troubled and darkened with their own
ignorance.11
Prayer, he
asserts, is necessary for understanding holy Scripture.12
Each Testament is not equally easy, and
we are not to criticise what
we do not understand.13
| 13 Ep. 63–78,
De Parad. II. 7. |
He speaks of the Hebrew as the
truth,14
| 14 De Noe et Arca,
XII. 60. |
but states that the Septuagint added much
that is useful.15
The Arians are repeatedly charged by St. Ambrose
with falsifying and manipulating Scripture for their own ends, not
always, it would seem, very justly, but the same charge is a common one
against all heretical bodies in early days. As to the Canon, he
would seem to have no very definite rule. He admits Tobit as
prophetic, Judith as canonical, nor does he distinguish between
canonical and deuterocanonical, while the sapiential books are all
attributed to Solomon. He quotes Baruch as Jeremiah, and refers
to the History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and other apocryphal
works as “Scripture.” Ezra, he says, re-established
holy Scripture by memory,16
and he quotes the
fourth book of Esdras.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
