485. Once it qualifies the virtue of patience; see De patientia XVII, 14:

485. Once it qualifies the virtue of patience; see De patientia XVII, 14:

Augustine's Epistula X: Another Look at "Deificari in otio"

called a wise man. Nebridius will not dare to claim that this state ever comes about except when he is living among his friends. Hence, one course of action remains for Nebridius: that he too plan for the common good of their living together. Augustine closes with the suggestion that Nebridius' brother will certainly not abandon their mother and the promise that he will write more later.

Apart from the reference to those who are specially gifted so that they become familiar with death while governing churches, there is nothing specifically Christian in the language of the letter. Stoic and Neoplatonic themes, such as the attainment of a state of freedom from fear and cares, of withdrawal from the body and bodily loves, of entering into one's mind, of the contemplation and desire of death, and of worshipping God in the recesses of the mind, dominate the letter. The life which Augustine and his friends have determined to live together in Thagaste and to which Augustine invites Nebridius indicate a commitment to common life that, on the basis of other sources, one can recognize as the beginnings of monastic life.

19 But apart from such other sources, one would not, on the basis of Epistula X alone, find much reason to suppose that Augustine is speaking of a specifically Christian way of life, much less of a form of Christian monasticism.

II. The Meaning of "Deificari " Neither the adjective "deificus" nor the verb "deificare" occur with any great frequency in Augustine's works.

20 The adjective "deificus" is found there seven times; in each case the term seems synonymous with "divine."

21 In every case, save one, the term is used by a Manichee or a

18 Epistula X, 3: CSEL 34, 24–25. 19 See Mandouze, p. 209. 20 L. Cilleruelo notes that the term "deificare" has a "carácter mistérico y neoplatónico" and suggests the "unión tranformante" of Neoplatonism so that "Agustín no volvió a utilizarlo" (Obras completas de San Agustín VIII [Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1986], p. 59, n. 1. 21 Three times it qualifies the Scriptures; see Contra Felicem I, 13: CSEL 25/2, 815; Contra Crescentium III, 70: CSEL 52, 485. De baptismo VI, 15: CSEL 51, 313. Twice it qualifies the message (sermo) of Christ; see Contra Faustum XXXII, 7 and 19: CSEL 25/1, 766 and 780. Once it modifies sacred vessels (instrumentorum); see Contra Crescentium III, 70: CSEL 52, 485. Once it qualifies the virtue of patience; see De patientia XVII, 14: CSEL 41, 679.

102 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

22 only once is it found in the words of Augustine. 23 There, in contrast with a false patience which he calls diabolica, he speaks of true patience as deifica.

Donatist;

Aside from Epistula X, Augustine uses forms of the verb "deificare" seven times, including instances of the perfect passive participle. In commenting on Psalm 49 he uses the verb three times:

It is clear, then, that he called men gods who were made gods by grace, not born from his substance. For he who is just through himself and not from another makes men just, and he who is God through himself and not by participating in another makes men gods. He who makes them just makes them gods, because by making them just, he makes them sons of God.

Augustine uses the verb "deificare" once in commenting on Ps 117:16.

The right hand of the Lord has acted with power." What power? "The right hand," he says, "of the Lord has raised me up." It takes great power to raise up the lowly, to make a mortal a god, to draw perfection from weakness, glory from subjection, victory from suffering, to provide help from tribulation. ...

Twice Augustine uses the passive participle "deificatus." In Sermo CXXVI he contrasts human eyes which saw Christ in the form of the ser-

22 The term was also used by previous Christian authors though there is no reason to suppose Augustine knew this. The fact that he found it in the works of the Manichees may partially explain his not using the term more frequently. 23 De patientia XVII, 14: CSEL 41, 679. 24 Though the context would certainly admit the sense that true patience renders one godlike, the parallel with "diabolica" indicates that it should be translated simply as "divine." 25 Enarratio in Psalmum XLIX, 2: CCL XXXVIII, 575–576: "Manifestum est ergo, quia homines dixit deos, ex gratia deificatos, non de substantia sua natos. Ille enim iustificat, qui per semetipsum non ex alio iustus est; et ille deificat, qui per seipsum non alterius participatione Deus est. Qui autem iustificat, ipse deificat, quia iustificando, filios Dei facit." 26 Enarratio in Psalmum CXVII, 11: CCL XL, 1661: Dextra Domini fecit uirtutem. Quam uirtutem? Dextra, inquit, Domini exaltauit me. Magna uirtus exaltare humilem, deificare mortalem, praebere de infirmitate perfectionem, de subiectione gloriam, de passione uictoriam, dare auxilium de tribulatione...."

27 In Sermo CLXVI Augustine speaks of the state of man after resurrection, "when the whole man, having been divinised, will cling to the everlasting and immutable truth."

vant with the divinised eyes which will see him in the form of God.

Augustine once uses the verb "deificare," while quoting from Porphyry.

God, who is the father of all, has need of no one. But we are well off, when we worship him through justice and chastity and the other virtues, making our life a prayer to him by imitating and seeking him. For seeking purifies us, he says; imitation divinises us, by producing love for him.

Every instance in which Augustine himself uses the verb "deificare," apart from Epistula X, clearly refers to the change that God produces in human beings by the justifying them and making them children of God or by transforming their mortal bodies into risen bodies. The philosophical tenor of Epistula X with its treatment of the double theme of the soul's withdrawal from the world and purification through the virtues leads Folliet to see Neoplatonism, especially that of Porphyry, in the background of the letter.

30 Folliet concludes, "Augustine's saying, deficari in otio, seems to me to take on its full meaning once it is situated in this [Porphyrian] context. It is the Platonic omoiôsis theô that Augustin found in Porphyry who is not content to repeat the words of Plotinus, but makes this ideal into a mysticism."

31 He suggests that

27 Sermo CXXVI, 14: RB 69 (1959), 190: "Et ille stans ante oculos serui, in forma serui, seruans oculis deificatis formam dei, ait illi: Tantum tempore uobiscum sum, et non cognouistis me? Qui me uidet, uidet et patrem" (Jn 14:9). 28 Sermo CLXVI, 4: SPM 62–63: "Deponentes ergo mendacium, loquimini ueritatem (Eph 4:25), ut et caro ista mortalis quam adhuc habetis de Adam, praecedente nouitate spiritus, mereatur et ipsa innouationem et commutationem tempore resurrectionis suae: ac sic totus homo deificatus inhaereat perpetuae ac incommutabili ueritatae." 29 De civitate dei XIX, 23: CCL XLVIII, 693: "Nam Deus quidem, utpote omnium pater, nullius indiget; sed nobis est bene, cum eum per iustitiam et castitatem aliasque uirtutes adoramus, ipsam uitam precem ad ipsum facientes per imitationem et inquisitionem de ipso. Inquisitio enim purgat, inquit; imitatio deificat affectionem ad ipsum operando." 30 Folliet, pp. 229–231. 31 Folliet, p. 234.

104 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

Augustine derived the word "deificari" from the Latin translations of Porphyry and argues that in the last clause of text from De civitate dei we find the specific sense of the word deificari: "It is by his actions, by the exercise of the virtues that the wise man makes himself like God. That is the sense that Augustine gives to deficari in otio. "

Folliet claims that at the time of Epistula X, "Augustine has not yet discovered the richness of the grace of Christ; purification, assimilation to God by the virtues, without the help of grace, are something possible in his eyes."

33 A. Mandouze, on the other hand, has pointed to the tenuous character of Folliet's inference tying Epistula X to Porphyry.

Furthermore, in the citation from Porphyry in De civitate dei, our becoming gods results from our love for God—a view that Augustine learned early and never gave up. Nor need that view imply that we make ourselves gods. Even before his ordination Augustine wrote, "Since that which is loved necessarily transforms its lover out of itself, it happens that when what we love is eternal, it makes the soul eternal."

35 And much later he wrote in commenting on the Letter of John,

Each one is the sort of person that his love is. Do you love the earth? You will be earth. Do you love God? What shall I say? You will be a god? I do not dare to say it on my own. Let us listen to the Scriptures: "I said, you are gods and children of the Most High. ..."

Hence, even if there is the Porphyrian influence for which Folliet argues, there is no need to take Augustine's use of Porphyry as denying the influence of and the need for grace. Regardless of whether or not Porphyry was the source behind Augustine's phrase "deificari in otio," there does not seem to be any grounds

32 Folliet, p. 235. 33 Folliet, pp. 235–236. 34 See Mandouze, p. 208, note 1. 35 De diuersis quaestionibus octoginta tribus XXXV, 2: CCL XLIV/A, 52: "Et quoniam id quod amatur afficiat ex se amantem necesse est, fit ut sic amatum quod aeternum est aeternitate animum afficiat." 36 In epistolam Ioannis ad Parthos II, 14: PL XXXV, 1997: "quia talis est quisque qualis eius dilectio est. Terram diligis? terra eris. Deum diligis? quid dicam? deus eris? Non audeo dicere ex me, Scripturas audiamus: 'Ego dixi, Dii estis, et filii Altissimi'. ..."

for interpreting the verb as reflexive, e.g., to make onself divine" or "to make oneself like God" ("se diviniser" or "se rendre sembable á Dieu").

37 The Latin verb is passive and might better be translated "to be made a god" or "to be made godlike." Like the passive infinitive, concedi, found shortly before it, deificari can surely be taken as a "theological passive." Augustine has stated that "God has given (dedit quidem Deus)" to some the ability to govern churches while meditating on and desiring death. He goes on to say that he thinks "this great good is granted" to neither of the other two classes of men when they are lacking leisure. Surely, then, if this great good is granted them in leisure, it is God who grants it; similarly, it is God who makes them divine or godlike in leisure. The other occurrences of "deificare" found in Augustine surely provide reason to question Folliet's claim that the phrase in Epistula X "cannot be understood here of the elevation to the supernatural order by grace."

38 In fact, Epistula X would be the only instance in which Augustine himself used the verb and did not refer to God's justification and divinisation of human beings. On the other hand, the language of Epistula X is philosophical and lacking in specifically Christian elements. How then can one determine the specific sense of "deificari" in Epistula X?

III. "In otio": The Leisure of Thagaste Perhaps the answer can be found in what Augustine understood by leisure or repose (otium) during the time he spent at Thagaste. George Lawless has pointed to De vera religione, which was written during this period, as indicating "the profoundly contemplative and decidedly Christian character" of the otium desired—an otium which "is a far cry from the leisure of the philosophers."

39 The passage in De vera religione XXXV, 65 not merely throws light upon the otium of Thagaste, but on the sense of deificari. There Augustine urges one who sees the true light to be still and to struggle only with the habit of bodies. "Con-

37 Mandouze has pointed out (p. 208) that there is no reason to take deificari in the letter to Nebridius as reflexive: "se diviniser." Folliet's claim that the verb is reflexive seems to be the basis for Van der Meer's charge that Augustine's enterprise at Thagaste is selflish and presumptuous. 38 See Folliet, p. 226. 39 Lawless, p. 51.

106 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

40 Our quest is for the One, than which nothing is more simple. In the simplicity of our heart, then, let us seek Him. He quotes the Psalmist, "Be still (agite otium), and you will recognize that I am the Lord" (Ps 45:11). He urges us to be still, not with a stillness of inactivity (otium desidiae), but with a stillness of thought (otium cogitationis), so that we might be free from times and places. "The phantasms of swollen and fleeting things do not allow one to see the unity that abides. Places present something to love; times snatch away what we love. ..."

quer that, and everything will be conquered."

41 Such phantasms rouse desires, and the soul becomes restless. We are called to leisure, that is, we are called not to love those things which cannot be loved without toil.

42 If one does not love such things, he will hold them subject and not be held subject to them. Christ's yoke is light; one who is subject to it holds all else subject and will not have to labor, because what is subject will not resist. The lovers of this world fear to be separated from the love of these things, but they will become masters of this world if they are willing to become children of God, for "he has given them the power to become children of God" (Jn 1:12). Here Augustine links becoming children of God with being subject to the yoke of Christ and holding all other things subject to oneself by not loving bodily and temporal things, which the lovers of this world fear to lose. We see the themes of withdrawal from the world and from worldy fears linked with becoming children of God, just as in Epistula X they were linked with becoming godlike. Here the same themes are developed in a conscious dependence upon the Scriptures, while in Epistula X such biblical allusions are absent. Instead of supposing that the goal of becoming godlike in leisure that Augustine desired at Thagaste was philosophical, merely natural, and even selfish and pre-

40 De Vera Religione XXXV, 65: CCL XXXII, 229: "Ipsam uincite, uicta erunt omnia." 41 Ibid., 230: "Haec enim phantasmata tumoris et uolubilitatis constantem unitatem uidere non sinunt. Loca offerunt quod amemus, tempora surripiunt quod amamus. ..." 42 Lawless (p. 51) says that "Augustine defines [otium] as 'love for those realities which can only be loved with toil'"—a translation which simply reverses the sense of the Latin: "Vocatur ergo ad otium, id est ut ista non diligat, quae diligi sine labore non possunt" (De uera religione XXXV, 65: CCL XXXII, 230). That is, "otium" involves not loving the sort of thing that can only be loved with toil, but loving eternal things.

sumptuous, one would surely do better to read Epistula X in the light of the clearly Christian ideal of becoming children of God in leisure (otium), as it is found in the contemporary text, De vera religione.

IV. Concluding Reflections G. Folliet characterized Augustine's ideal at Thagaste of deificari in otio as purely philosophical, as a goal that is natural and attainable without grace.

43 In this paper I have shown that such a conclusion is reasonable if one looks only at the text of Epistula X. However, every other time Augustine uses the verb "deificare" in his own person, he uses it to speak of God's justification and divinisation of human beings. Hence, to interpret "deificari" in Epistula X exclusively in the sense of the citation of Porphyry in De civitate dei—and in the sense in which Porphyry might have meant it—seems unwarranted. Others have pointed to the difference between the philosophical otium of Cassiciacum and the Christian otium of Thagaste.

44 The comparison of Epistula X with the contemporary De vera religione reveals not merely a different sort of leisure, but shows that Augustine linked the "philosophical" themes of withdrawal from the world and its fears with explicitly Scriptural themes and with our becoming sons of God in the sense of Jn 1:12. Hence, there is very good reason to interpret not merely the otium, but the deificari of Epistula X as thoroughly Christian and as referring to what later theologians would call elevation to the supernatural order. Why, then, one might ask is the tenor of Epistula X so "philosophical"? Two answers suggest themselves. One, a personal letter, unlike a treatise such as De vera religione, is naturally tailored to the mind and heart of the addressee. From the rest of the correspondence with Nebridius one can see that Nebridius' interests leaned to what we would call more philosophical rather than theological questions. Two, where we see a sharp difference between philosophy and Christianity, Augustine and Nebridius—at least at this point—saw continuity. Thus, Augustine could maintain in De vera religione that "we believe and teach as an essential point of human salvation that philosophy, that is, the pursuit of wisdom, is not one thing and religion another. ..."

45 So too,

43 Folliet, p. 226. 44 See Lawless, p. 51 and Mandouze, pp. 207–208. 45 De Vera Religione V, 9: CCL XXXII, 193: "Sic enim creditur et docetur, quod est humanae salutis caput, non aliam esse philosophiam, id est sapi-

108 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

Nebridius, filled with delight over Augustine's letters, could say, "For me your letters resound with Christ, with Plato, with Plotinus."

entiae studium, et aliam religionem...." 46 Epistula IX, 1: CSEL 34, 12: "illae mihi Christum, illae Platonem, illae Plotinum sonabunt."

augustine as exegete

Augustine, the Manichees, and the Bible A ugustine engaged in polemics with many heretical groups, such as the Donatists, the Pelagians, and the Arians, but his confrontation with the Manichees is unique in so far as he himself had been a member of that sect for some nine years as a "hearer," or layman, as opposed to one of the "elect," or priestly class.

1 This essay will deal with the role the Bible played in Augustine's conversion to Manichaeism, with the Bible that he knew as a Manichee, and with his use of the Bible against the Manichees after his baptism.

I. The Bible and Augustine's Conversion to Manichaeism In his nineteenth year Augustine read the Hortensius of Cicero, a work now lost save for some fragments. This work contained an exhortation to the life of philosophy and set the young Augustine aflame with the love for wisdom.

2 One thing, he tells us, held him back: "the name of Christ was absent and whatever was without that name, no matter how literary and polished and true, could not completely carry me off."

3 Hence, Augustine turned to a study of the Scriptures, but he found them unworthy of comparison with the lofty style of Cicero. The style of the Old Latin version was indeed barbarous, but Augustine found the content objectionable as well.

4 For this reason Augustine fell in with the Manichees, from whose lips the names of the Father and of the Lord, Jesus Christ, and of the Paraclete, our comforter, the Holy Spirit, were never absent.

5 The Hortensius set Augustine aflame with

1 See Contra Faustum XXX,1: CSEL 25/1,748, where Faustus speaks of the Elect as a sacerdotal rank as opposed to the Hearers; see also XXX,5: CSEL 25/1,753. 2 See Confessions III, iv, 7–8: CCL XXVII, 29–30 3 Confessions III, iv, 8: CCL XXVII, 30. 4 See H. Chadwick, Augustine (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 11. 5 See Confessions III, vi, 10: CCL XXVII,31.

112 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian the love of truth, and the Manichees unceasingly spoke of the Truth which they promised to teach without first imposing the burden of believing. In The Usefulness of Believing Augustine writes to his friend, Honoratus, whom he had converted to Manichaeism and would now draw back to Catholicism, that we fell in with such men for no other reason than that they kept saying that, apart from the terror of authority, they would, by pure and simple reason, lead to God and free from all error those who were willing to be their hearers.

The African church seems to have preserved the anti-intellectual spirit of Tertullian famous for his claim to believe precisely because it is absurd.

7 Reflections of such anti-intellectualism are found in Augustine's warning that there were within the Church bishops and priests who, "content with simple faith, have no concern for a deeper knowledge."

8 Similarly, Augustine mentions, in dealing with the Manichaean question about what God was doing before he created the world, that he will not give the answer that some give, namely, that God was preparing hell for those who ask such profound questions.

The heart of Augustine's intellectual problems centered, as he later realized, around his inability to conceive of God and the soul as incor-

6 De utilitate credendi I, 2: CSEL 25/1, 4. 7 Tertullian asked, in De praescriptione haereticorum VII, 9: CCL I, 193, what Athens has to do with Jerusalem and what the Academy has to do with the Church. In De carne Christi V, 4: CCL II, 881, he stated that he believed in the death of the Son of God because it is absurd (ineptum) and in his resurrection because it is impossible. 8 De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus Manichaeorum I, 1, l: PL XXXII,1311; see also the Manichaean claim that Catholics say that "one should not inquire into anything with curiosity, because Christian belief is simple and absolute" (Contra Faustum XII, l: CSEL 25/1,329), which echoes Tertullian's claim that "we have no need for curiosity after Christ Jesus, or of inquiry after the Gospel" (De praescriptione haereticorum VII,12: CCL II,193. 9 See Confessiones IX, xii, 14: CC XXVII, 201. See also E. Peters, "What was God doing before He created the Heavens and the Earth?" Augustiniana 34 (1984): 53–74; Peters traces the question back to the Epicureans, who suggested that the gods were sleeping, and to the Gnostics who gave the question the above formulation.

Augustine, the Manichees, and the Bible

10 Like the rest of the Western world apart from a few Neoplatonists, Augustine shared the implicit corporealist metaphysics typified by Tertullian's insistence that, if it is not a body, it is not real.

poreal.

11 Such a corporealism resulted in serious metaphysical problems.

12 But such a corporealism also resulted in serious problems for a literal interpretation of the Bible. For example, given such a corporealism, God and the soul must be bodily, and the Manichees, themselves corporealists in this sense, could use the claim in Genesis that man was made in God's image to argue that the Catholics thought of God as having human form and bodily parts.

13 If, after all, God is bodily, as humans obviously are, then human beings can hardly be the image of God unless God has a human body with hair and nails. In On Genesis against the Manichees Augustine points out that it was this question in particular that the Manichees used to raise against us because we believe that man was made to the image and likeness of God. For they attend to the shape of our body and ask in their unfortunate way whether God has a nose, teeth, a beard, interior organs and the other things we need.

Another serious problem with the Old Testament for the young Augstine of 373 was the immoral lives of the Patriarchs. Augustine

10 See Confessions V, x, 19–20: CCL XXVII, 68. 11 For example, in De carne Christi XI, 4: CCL II, 895, he says, "Omne, quod est, corpus est sui generis. Nihil incorporale nisi quod non est," and in De anima VII, 3: CCL II, 790, he says, "Nihil enim, si non corpus." On the Stoic position that whatever is is a body, see E. Weil, "Remarques sur le 'materialisme' des Stoiciens," in Melanges Alexandre Koyre. II. L'aventure de 1'esprit (Paris: Hermann, 1964), pp. 556-572. See Confessions V, x, 19: CCL XXVII, 68-69: "cogitare nisi moles corporum non noveram—neque enim uidebatur mihi esse quicquam quod tale non esset." 12 For some of the metaphysical implications, see my "The Aim of Augustine's Proof that God Truly Is," International Philosophical Quarterly 26 (1986): 253–268. 13 See Confessions III, vii, 12: CCL XXVII, 33. 14 See Confessiones V, x, 19 and VI, xi, 18: CC XXVII, 68–69 and 86, where Augustine obviously finds such an anthropomorphic view of God quite disgusting. He had, nonetheless, been convinced that the Catholic Church held such a view. See Confessions VI, iv, 5 and VI, xi, 18: CCL XXVII, 76– 77 and 86, for his joy at finding that the spiritual believers in the Catholic Church did not hold such a view.

114 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian has preserved for us the objections raised by Faustus, the Manichaean bishop. Faustus accuses Abraham of "burning with an insane desire for offspring, not believing God who had promised him a child from Sarah, and having intercourse with a servant with—what is more shameful—his wife's knowledge." He accuses Abraham of lying to Abimelech and Pharaoh, claiming that Sarah was his sister and selling her into concubinage. He mentions Lot's incest with his daughters. And he becomes most indignant over Jacob's bigamous marriages to Rachel and Lia along with his relations with two servants, claiming that, "as the husband of four wives, he wandered among them like a goat," while they fought over who would have him each day as he returned from the field.

15 Secundinus, the Manichee, in writing to Augustine and inviting him to return to Manichaeism, lists such contents of the Old Testament and adds, "I know you always hated these things; I know you always loved great things that would leave the earth behind and seek the heavens, that would put the body to death and bring life to souls."

16 Even Gospels presented serious problems. For example, the genealogies of Christ in Matthew and Luke seem to contradict each other. Hence, both cannot be true. In fact, Augustine suggests that it was precisely the contradictions between the two genealogies that led him to abandon the Catholics for the Manichees.

II. The Bible Augusti Knew as a Manichee The Manichees not merely claimed to be Christian, but regarded the Catholics as only semi-Christian, largely because the Catholics retained the Jewish Scriptures.

18 In becoming a Manichee, Augustine would not have thought of himself as abandoning Christianity, but as becoming a member of Christianity's intellectual elite. Peter Brown compares Manichaeism to British Communism during the 30s and claims that the Manichaeism of Augustine was that "of the cultivated intelligentsia."

19 Though we now think of Manichaeism as a distinct

15 See Contra Faustum XXII, 5: CSEL 25/1, 594. 16 Secundini Manichaei ad sanctum Augustinum epistula 3: CSEL 25/2, 897. 17 See Sermo LI, 6: PL XXXVIII, 336–337. 18 Contra Faustum I, 2: CSEL25/1, 251. 19 Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), p. 54.

world religion, like Islam, Augustine viewed it, after his baptism in the Catholic Church, as a Christian heresy.

20 But as a Manichee, Augustine would have thought of Manichaeism as the true and full Christianity, and he would have read or heard the Gospels and St. Paul.

21 Johannes Van Oort claims that "Manichaeism was so much imbued with Christianity and specifically with Pauline teachings that O'Meara could write ...: "In a sense it might seem that to become a Manichee was to depart little, if at all, from being a Christian."

22 Within the Manichaean community the New Testament held a place roughly analogous to that of the Old Testament within the Catholic Church, while the Manichaean scriptures held a position like that of the New Testament in the Catholic community.

23 The Manichees rejected the Old Testament almost in its entirety, but they certainly were familiar with it and used it to undermine the faith of the uneducated Catholics and to lure them into their communion.

F. Decret has summed up the Manichaean arguments against the Old Testament under three headings: 1) The Manichees argue that the Old Testament is its own undoing, since its prophecies have not been fulfilled, its Law is immoral and grotesque, and its principal personages led immoral and disgusting lives; 2) They argue that Christ himself rejected the Old Testament, and 3) They argue that in the

20 See De haeresibus XLVI, l–19: CCL XLVI, 312–320. 21 See P. Brown, Augustine of Hippo, pp. 370–371, where he discusses the "Letter to Menoch," attributed to Mani by some scholars, which contains a fragment of a Manichaean commentary on Paul. 22 J. Van Oort, Jerusalem and Babylon. A Study of St. Augustine's City of God and the Sources of His Doctrine of the Two Cities (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991), p. 208. Van Oort cites J. J. O'Meara' The Young Augustine. The Growth of St. Augustine's Mind up to his Conversion (New York: Longmans, 1954), p. 79, where O'Meara is speaking specifically of one becoming a Hearer. 23 Van Oort and other recent scholars argue that the Christian elements in Manichaeism were present from the beginning and not simply syncretistic additions to African Manichaeism, as had previously been thought. See Van Oort, Jerusalem and Babylon, pp. 229–231. See also F. Decret, Aspects du Manicheisme dans l'Afrique romaine (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1970), pp. 11–12. 24 See De Genesi contra Manlchaeos I, I, 2: PL XXXIV, 173. Van Oort claims that Manichees did not reject the Old Testament completely, since there is some good mixed with the bad; see Jerusalem and Babylon, p. 35, n. 104.

116 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian name of the New Testament, Christians reject the Law, and they point out that even the Catholics, who claim to retain the Old Testament, do not observe its Law.

Moreover, the Manichees rejected from the New Testament the Acts of the Apostles. In fact, they were reluctant even to mention it, because this book reported the coming of the Paraclete, whom the Manicheans held to be Mani himself.

26 They even rejected parts of the Gospels and of the Letters of Paul, claiming that they had been interpolated by someone else who introduced Jewish elements into the Christian Bible. Hence, for all practical purposes the Bible for the Manichees was the Gospel and the Apostle, though without the passages they rejected as interpolations.

For the Manichees the Gospel meant in essence the moral teaching of Christ. When asked whether he accepts the Gospel, Faustus replies that he certainly does, but insists that "the Gospel began to be and received its name from the preaching of Christ."

28 Faustus thus excludes the genealogies and infancy narratives from the Gospel, rejecting the claim that Christ was the son of David and born of a human mother. "The Gospel is not genealogy," he tells us; it is rather "the preaching of Christ" or "of the Son of God."

29 Again, asked whether he accepts the Gospel, Faustus insists that he does accept it, namely, "the preaching and command of Christ."

30 He points to the life of the beatitudes he himself is living and to the fact that Christ promised the kingdom of heaven to those who do his Father's will and who keep his commands. He adds, "Nowhere did he say, 'Blessed are those who confess that I

25 See F. Decret, Aspects du Manicheisme, pp. 146–149. 26 For the rejection of Acts, see Contra Adimantum XVII, 5, CSEL 25/1, 169–170; Contra epistulam quam vocant Fundamenti 5: CSEL 25/1, 198– 199; De utilitate credendi 111, 7: CSEL 25/1, 9–10; Contra Faustum XIX, 31 and XXXII, 15: CSEL 25/1, 534–535 and 774–775. 27 F. Decret's study of Augustine's works, Contra Fortunatum, Contra Faustum, and Contra Felicem, has shown that these Manichees referred most frequently to Matthew (58 references to 42 passages). Next came John's Gospel with 30 references to 23 passages, followed by the Pauline Letters. See F. Decret, Aspects du Manicheisme, pp. 169–173. 28 Contra Faustum 11, 1: CSEL 25/1, 253. 29 See Contra Faustum 11, 1: CSEL 25/1, 254. 30 Contra Faustum V, l: CSEL 25/1, 271.

31 Given their rejection of the genealogies and the birth of Christ from Mary, the Manichees had to deny the reality of Christ's death and his resurrection. The wounds he showed to the doubting Thomas had, accordingly, to be merely simulated.

was born.'"

Even in the Letters of Paul there are passages that Faustus has to reject as falsified, for example, that "the Son of God was born according to the flesh of the seed of David" (Rm 1:3). He claims this reflects "an old and former opinion of Paul concerning Jesus, when he considered him the son of David, as the rest did." As proof of his claim, he invokes the text, "If we once knew Christ according to the flesh, we do not now know him" (2 Cor 5:16), to show that Paul later corrected his earlier belief.

33 On the other hand, the Manichees accepted various apocryphal books, such as The Acts of Thomas, as well as those of Peter, John, Andrew and those written by a certain Leutius.

Augustine later recounts how he used to enjoy his victories over the uneducated Catholics, which suggests that he had once used against them some of the same arguments from the Old Testament that he later answered in his writings against the Manichees.

35 Moreover, he mentions that the Manichaeans praised Mani, especially because "he spoke the bare and proper truth with all the wrappings of figures removed."

36 Later Augustine would hold them in turn to a literal interpretation of one of their own writings that described God as "a scepter-bearing king crowned with garlands of flowers."

37 But the fact that the Manichees boasted that their books presented the bare and proper truth without figures also indicates the typically Manichaean demand for the literal interpretation of the Catholic Scriptures. Au-

31 Contra Faustum V, 3: CSEL 25/1, 273. 32 See Contra Faustum XV, 10 and XVI, 11: CSEL 25/1, 437 and 450, where Augustine accuses Faustus of preaching a Christ with false or pretended wounds. 33 Contra Faustum XI, 1: CSEL 25/1, 313. 34 See Contra Adimantum XVII, 2 and 5: CSEL 25/1, 166 and 170; Contra Faustum XXII, 79 and XXX, 4: CSEL 25/1, 681 and 751–752; and Contra Felicem 11, 6: CSEL 25/2, 833. 35 See De duabus animabus XI: CSEL 25/1, 65–66. 36 Contra Faustum XV, 5: CSEL 25/1, 425. 37 Contra Faustum XV,5–6: CSEL 25/1, 425–426.

118 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian gustine would come to learn that such a literal interpretation was fatal: "The letter kills" (2 Cor 3:6).

III. The Use of the Bible against the Manichees Augustine's use of the Bible in controversy with the Manichees can be conveniently examined under three headings: one, the canon of the Scriptures, two, the proper approach to the Bible, and three, the interpretation of the biblical text.

(a) The Canonical Scriptures The Manichees, as we have seen, rejected the Old Testament, as well as the Acts of the Apostles and various passages from the Gospels and Paul which they claimed had been added later. Augustine, on the other hand, insisted upon the canonical Scriptures, appealing to the authority of those books.

38 Thus Augustine holds the authority of those Scriptures are preeminent, which from the time of Christ's presence have come down to our times, preserved, recommended and rendered illustrious in the whole world through the ministry of the Apostles and the certain succession of bishops in their sees.

Similarly, he tells the Manichees "that the authority of our books, strengthened by the assent of so many nations through the successions of apostles, bishops, and councils, is against you."

40 The credibility even of the Gospel rests upon the authority of the Church. In his Reply to the Letter called "The Foundation," Augustine states, "I would not believe the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me."

Against the Manichaean claims that the New Testament contains passages added by later writers who interjected elements from the

38 One must bear in mind that there was not at this time an official Catholic canon of Scripture and that Augustine himself contributed to its formation at the first Council of Hippo in 393. See Breviarium Hipponense 36: CCL CXLIX, 43. 39 Contra Faustum XXXIII, 9: CSEL 25/1, 796. 40 Contra Faustum XIII, 5: CSEL 25/1, 382. 41 Contra epistulam quam vocant Fundamenti 5: CSEL 25/1, 197.

Jewish Scriptures, Augustine insists upon the integrity of the Scriptures handed down in the Church. He mentions that, even while he was a Manichee, he had regarded as feeble the Manichaean claim "that the New Testament writings were falsified by some unknown persons who wished to implant the law of the Jews in the Christian faith."

Augustine points out that, though the Manichees accept the authority of Paul's Letters as the work of a holy man who speaks the truth, they claim that certain passages are not his. When challenged, they cannot produce better exemplars from more manuscripts or more ancient ones or from those in the original language. Rather they accept one passage as Paul's because it supports them and reject another because it is against them. To this Augustine retorts, "Are you then the standard of truth (regula ueritatis)?"

43 The Manichaean selectivity amounts to the destruction of all the authority of Scripture and makes each one his own authority.

44 But this means that the Manichee "is not subject to the authority of the Scriptures in faith, but subjects the Scriptures to himself ... so that he views something in Scripture as correct, because he finds it congenial."

45 Hence, Augustine insists upon the canonical Scriptures handed down in the Church from apostolic times and insists that whatever is stated in the Bible is true, though one may very well not understand how it is true.

(b) Humble Belief before Understanding In approaching the Bible Augustine insists, first of all, that one accept as true what is stated there. It is this humble act of believing before understanding that is the key to the Catholic Augustine's approach to the Bible. Whereas the Manichees constantly repeated Mt 7:7: "Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and it will be opened," and Mt 10:26, "There is nothing hidden that will not

42 Confessions V, xi, 21:CCL XXVII, 69; see also De utilitate credendi 111, 7: CSEL 25/1, 9–10. 43 Contra Faustum XI, 2: CSEL 25/1, 315. 44 See Contra Faustum XXXII, 19: CSEL 25/1, 780: "You see, then, that your action removes all authority and each mind becomes an authority unto itself for what it approves or disapproves in any Scripture." So too, he claims, "You who believe what you will and do not believe what you will in the Gospel believe yourselves rather than the Gospel " (Contra Faustum XVII, 3: CSEL 25/1, 486). 45 Contra Faustum XXXII, 19: CSEL 25/1, 780.

120 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian be revealed," they refused to believe, that is, to accept as true, any passage of the Bible before they understood it.

46 From Is 7:9, which in Augustine's Old Latin read, "Unless you believe, you will not understand," Augustine argued for the need for humble intellectual submission to the word of God as the first step toward understanding. He tells Faustus, "The Catholic discipline teaches that the Christian mind should first be nourished by simple faith so that such faith may render it able to understand lofty and eternal things."

47 Thus when confronted with the apparent contradiction between the two genealogies, one must read the Gospels with piety and investigate diligently rather than condemn them rashly.

48 In preaching to his own flock Augustine presented the Manichaean argument and insisted upon the need for "simple and certain faith" until the Lord grants understanding.

49 When Augustine first confronted the difficulties with the Bible that lead him into the company of the Manichees, he had, he later reports, "disdained to be a little beginner. Puffed up with pride" he considered himself "a mature adult." He had not realized that "the Bible was composed in such a way that as beginners mature, its meaning grows with them."

(c) The Interpretation of Scripture It is sometimes assumed that Augustine set aside the Bible in 373 when he became a Manichee and did not return to it until after his ordination in 391 when he asked his bishop, Valerius, for time to study

46 See De moribus ecclesiae cathollcae et de moribus Manichaeorum I, xvii, 31: PL XXXII, 1324. 47 Contra Faustum XII,46: CSEL 25/1,374–375. 48 Contra Faustum III,2: CSEL 25/1, 262. 49 See Sermo LI, 5: PL XXXVIII, 336. In Contra Faustum III, 3: CSEL 25/1, 263, Augustine argues that the two fathers of Joseph can be readily explained by one being his natural father and the other his father by adoption. 50 Confessiones III, v, 9: CCL XXVII, 31. I have here followed H. Chadwick's new translation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). For the role of the little ones or beginners as opposed to the adults or spirituals, see my "A Decisive Admonition for Augustine," Augustinian Studies 19 (1988): 85–92.

51 Augustine did ask Valerius for time to study the Scriptures.

the Scriptures.

52 But it was not that Augustine was unfamiliar with the Bible; he had, after all, been acquainted with the Gospel and the Apostle during his Manichaean years. He certainly knew the Manichaean complaints about the Old Testament. Indeed, he had already written his first commentary on the Bible, On Genesis against the Manichees, in 388–389 At this point Augustine accepted the whole of the canonical Scriptures. He needed time, not for a better acquaintance with the Bible, but for the diligent and pious study that would lead to a Catholic understanding of what he now believed to be true. In other words, having come to a Manichaean understanding of the Bible during his nine years as a "hearer," Augustine now needed time to come to a new understanding of the Bible in accord with the rule of faith in the Catholic Church. Well before his baptism Augustine was influenced by the preaching of Ambrose who interpreted the Bible spiritually. As a result of first hearing Ambrose preach, probably late in 384, Augustine began to think that the Catholic faith could be defended against the Manichaean attacks, "especially after I had often heard [Ambrose] resolve one or another puzzle (aenigmate) from the Old Testament, where I was being killed, when I understood it literally."

53 Ambrose gave a spiritual interpretation of many passages from those books, and Augustine came to see that the Law and the Prophets could be defended. The Confessions record a second influence of Ambrose's preaching, which probably dates from late in 385. At this point Augustine discovered that the spiritual sons of God did not interpret man's being made in God's image and likeness so that it implied that God himself had the shape and members of a human body, though Augustine still had no idea of what a spiritual substance was. In his sermons Ambrose taught that "'the letter kills, but that the spirit gives life,' when he removed the

51 See V. Bourke, Augustine's Quest for Wisdom. Life and Philosophy of the Bishop of Hippo (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1944), p. 125, where Bourke says that "he simply had not had time since his conversion to become well acquainted with the Bible." 52 Epistula XXI 3–4 (ad Valerium): CSEL XXXIV, 49–54. 53 Confessiones V, xiv, 24: CCL XXVII, 71.

122 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian mystical veil and uncovered the spiritual sense of those things which in their literal meaning seemed to contain a perverse doctrine.

Augustine was then no longer offended by what Ambrose said, but he still did not know whether what he said was true. What Augustine still needed was the philosophical concept of a non-bodily or spiritual substance which he was to get from "the books of the Platonists," which he read in late spring or summer of 386.

55 Ambrose himself was a student of Neoplatonic thought, along with a group of Milanese intellectuals, so that the sermons of Ambrose that Augustine heard were deeply imbued with Neoplatonic spiritualism.

56 As long as Augustine was unable to conceive of an incorporeal substance, he was unable to interpret the anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the Bible as metaphors for a spiritual reality. That is, what Augustine needed was precisely the philosophical concept of a non-bodily reality, and that he got from the books of the Platonists.

Thus in On Genesis against the Manichees, Augustine's first attempt at biblical interpretation, he speaks of literal interpretation as taking the text "just as the letter sounds."

58 On the other hand, "all those who understand the Scriptures spiritually have learned to understand by those terms [God's eyes, ears, feet, and other parts] not as bodily members, but as spiritual powers. ..."

59 Thus "spiritual interpretation"

54 Confessions VI, iv, 6: CCL XXVII, 77. 55 See Confessions VII, ix, 13: CCL XXVII, 101. The Platonists in question were certainly Plotinus and possibly Porphyry, Plotinus's student and editor. Precisely which of Plotinus's Enneads and which works of Porphyry Augustine read is debated. As an example of this debate, see the articles by Frederick Van Fleteren and Robert O'Connell in Augustinian Studies 21 (1990): 83–152. 56 See the studies by Courcelle, which have shown that Augustine's conversion to Neoplatonism was not a conversion to a non-Christian philosophy. Rather he learned his Platonism within the Church of Milan; see P. Courcelle's Recherches sur les Confessions de saint Augustin (Paris: de Boccard, 1950), especially chapter III. 57 See my "Spirituals and Spiritual Interpretation in Augustine,"Augustinian Studies 15 (1984): 65–81. 58 De Genesi contra Manichaeos II, ii, 3. Here literal interpretation excludes even such common figures of speech as metaphor and metonymy; it is not coincident with what the human author intended. 59 De Genesi contra Manichaeos I, xvii, 27: PL XXXIV, 186.

presupposes some grasp of a spiritualist metaphysics, for unless one can conceive of incorporeal realities, one cannot interpret a text that uses bodily images as referring to non-bodily realities. In two of his early attempts at biblical exegesis, Augustine mentions four ways of interpreting the Old Testament for those who diligently desire to know it: as history, as etiology, as analogy, and as allegory.

60 In The Usefulness of Believing, Augustine explains that a text is presented "as history, when it teaches what was written or what was done, or what was not done, but is only written as if it were done." Thus something is presented as history as long as it is in narrative form, whether the events occurred or not. The text is presented "as etiology, when we are shown the reason why something was said or done," and the text is presented "as analogy, when it is shown that the two Testaments, the New and the Old, are not opposed to each other." Finally, the text is presented "as allegory, when one is taught that certain things which are written there are not to be interpreted literally, but should be understood as figurative."

61 Augustine shows that Christ and the Apostles used these ways of understanding the Law and the Prophets. For example, Jesus recalled as history how David and his men had eaten loaves from the Temple (Mt 12:3–4) and explained as etiology why Moses had permitted divorce (Mt 19:8).

62 Augustine does not here give a concrete example of understanding the text by analogy, but Augustine's work, Against Adminantus, written in 33 or 394 against a disciple of Mani, a man regarded as a great teacher in that sect and as second in learning only to Mani himself, provides twenty nine cases of alleged conflict between the two Testaments and Augustine's replies.

63 With regard to allegory Augustine points out that "our liberator" used it in appealing to the sign of Jonah (Mt 12:39–40) and that Paul used it in 1 Cor 10:1–10, where Paul says, "These things were figures of us," and, "All these thing happened to [the fathers in the desert] in figures."

60 See De utilitate credendi 111, 5: CSEL 25/1, 7–8 and De Genesi ad litteram liber imperfectus 11, 5: CSEL 28/1, 461. 61 De utilitate credendi 111, 6: CSEL 25/1, 8. 62 De utilitate credendi 111, 6: CSEL 25/1, 8. 63 On Adimantus, see Contra Faustum 1, 2: CSEL 25/1, 252 and Contra Adimantum xii, 2: CSEL 25/1, 139.

124 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

So too, he appeals to Gal 4:22–26, where Paul, speaking of the two sons of Abraham, says, "These things were said in allegory."

The thirty three books of Augustine's Contra Faustum provide a wealth of examples of Augustine's interpretation of Scripture in controversy with the Manichees. Augustine states several general principles that he invokes in answering Faustus. For instance, when Faustus is asked whether he accepts the Old Testament, he answers, "How can I, when I do not observe its commandments?" and adds, "I don't think you do either."

65 He is referring to the Sabbath, circumcision, the sacrifices, abstinence from pork, and the observances of feasts, for he regards the moral precepts of the Decalogue as the law of the nations.

66 Augustine distinguishes between "commandments for living life" and "commandments for signifying life" and claims that "You shall not covet" is a commandment for living life, while the commandment to circumcise the male child is a commandment signifying life. The Manichees, he argues, fail to see that the practice of latter commandments were signs or shadows of what was to come about and that, once the reality foreshadowed has come about, the signs signifying its coming need no longer be observed.

67 The Catholics observe everything in the Old Testament, "not now in figures, but in the reality which those figures foretold by what they signified."

68 Thus Augustine can maintain that the Catholics hold that "everything written in the Old Testament is true and commanded by God and adapted to those times."

69 The teaching of both Testaments is found in both the Old and the New, "there in figures, here revealed, there in prophecy, here rendered present.

Secondly, the Manichees denied that the Old Testament spoke of Christ at all, whether by foreshadowing him or by prophesying about

64 De utilitate credendi 111, 6-8: CSEL 25/1, 10-12. 65 Contra Faustum VI, 1: CSEL 25/1, 284. 66 In Contra Faustum XIX, 2: CSEL 25/1, 497, Faustus distinguished "three kinds of law: one is that of the Hebrews which Paul calls the law of sin and death, the second is that of the nations, which he calls natural ... and third kind of law is the truth. ..." 67 Contra Faustum VI, 2: CSEL 25/1, 285--286. 68 Contra Faustum XVI, 32: CSEL 25/1, 481. 69 Contra Faustum X, 3: CSEL 25/1, 311. 70 Contra Faustum XVI, 32: CSEL 25/1, 481.

him. Augustine, on the other hand, makes the rather bold claim that "everything that Moses wrote is about Christ, that is, pertains to Christ completely, either because it foretells him by figures of things done or said, or because it recommends his grace and glory."

71 Or, still more generally, he says, "The Old Testament is for those who understand correctly a prophecy of the New Testament."

72 Speaking of the Prophets, Augustine says "everything contained in those books was said about [Christ] or on account of him. But in order to incite the seeker and to delight the finder, many more things are taught there in allegories and enigmas, in part by words alone, in part by the narration of events."

73 Hence, Augustine charges the Manichees with abusing the marvelous work of the Holy Spirit in those books, in which many things are stated simply and in a way suited to those souls that creep on the ground so that they may rise up through human things to things divine, and many things are stated there in figures so that the studious mind may be more profitably exercised in its inquiries and may rejoice more richly in its discoveries.

71 Contra Faustum XVI, 9: CSEL 25/1, 447. 72 Contra Faustum XV, 2: CSEL 25/1, 419. 73 Contra Faustum XII, 7: CSEL 25/1, 335--336. 74 De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus Manichaeorum I, xvii, 30: PL XXXII, 1324.

Criteria for Figurative Interpretation in St. Augustine

I. The Different Criteria W hen making a translation of De Genesi contra Manichaeos, I had to deal with Augustine's exegetical principles as they were embodied in that work, his first written attempt at Scriptural interpretation.

1 Augustine wrote this work in 388 or 389, soon after his conversion and his return to Africa from Italy, but prior to his ordination.

2 His principal audiences were the Manichees, especially those whom he himself had led into that sect, such as Honoratus and Romanianus, and the uneducated, "little ones" of the Catholica who were easy prey for the Manichean objections to the Old Testament.

3 Especially in the second book, the work presents a highly figurative interpretation of the Genesis narrative—so much so that Agaësse and Solignac suggest that in this earliest commentary on Genesis Augustine regarded the Paradise story as a parable without historical basis or as allegory in the modern sense, which denies or excludes rather than presupposes a literal and historical sense.

4 Nonetheless, the reasons that Augustine gives for providing a figurative interpretation of the text in this work always center around the impossibility of taking the text in its proper sense and, at the same time, avoiding blasphemy, impiety or absurdity in speaking about God. That is, his stated reasons for having recourse to a figurative interpretation of the text were those

1 See Saint Augustine on Genesis: Two Books on Genesis against the Manichees and On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis: An Unfinished Book. Translated by Roland J. Teske. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1991. 2 See De Genesi ad litteram VIII, ii, 5: BA 49, 14, and Retractationes I, x, l: CCL LVII, 29. 3 See Saint Augustine on Genesis, pp. 6–15. 4 See their introduction to De Genesi ad litteram in BA 48, pp. 33–34 and 38.

128 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian which Jean Pépin pointed out in his article, "A propros de l'histoire de l'exégèse allégorique: l'absurdité, signe de l'allégorie."

found that among Christians of the first centuries, such as Origen and Augustine that "the principal indication that a biblical text had been written with an allegorical intent and ought to be understood as such is the absurdity of the text as long as one sticks to the literal sense."

6 He maintains that this absurdity criterion is the same one that found among pagan authors in their interpretation of classical literature. Given the sober reasonableness of this criterion, which is the one Augustine claims to use in the De Genesi contra Manichaeos, I was quite startled to find that Augustine stated in the later De doctrina christiana another criterion for figurative interpretation that clearly goes far beyond this early and more sober one. There he writes, "You should know that whatever in the word of God cannot in the proper sense be referred to the goodness of morals or the truth of the faith is figurative."

Marrou refers to this rule as Augustine's fundamental law of spiritual interpretation: "We find the theory formulated in the De doctrina christiana: it is summed up in a fundamental law: everything in Scripture that does not directly refer to faith and morals must be regarded as figurative."

8 Marrou asks his readers to weigh the import of this fundamental law and points out that "Saint Augustine does not merely say that we must take as figurative everything in Scripture that is contrary to faith and morals, but also everything that

5 Studia Patristica in Texte and Untersuchungen 63 (1955): 395–413. 6 "La réponse des chrétiens des premiers siècles est claire: le principal indice qu'un texte biblique a été écrit dans un dessein allégorique et doit être entendu comme tel, c'est son absurdité aussi longtemps que l'on s'en tient au sens littéral" (Pepin, p. 397). 7 De doctrina christiana III, x, l4: CCL XXXII, 86; see the following note for the Latin. 8 "Nous en trouvons la théorie formulée dans le de doctrina christiana: elle se résume en une loi fondamentale: tout ce qui dans l'Ecriture ne se rapporte pas directement à la foi et aux moeurs doit être tenu pour figuré, quidquid in sermone divino neque ad morum honestatem, neque ad fidei veritatem proprie referri potest, figuratum est cognoscas" (Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique [Paris: de Boccard, 1938], p. 478).

Criteria for Figurative Interpretation in St. Augustine

9 Obviously, this fundamental law maximizes the amount of Scripture that has a figurative sense, for there is a vast amount of Scripture that does not in its proper or literal sense deal directly with matters of faith or of moral conduct. One need only think of Augustine's treatment the miraculous catch of fish in John 21, where he finds a figurative meaning in the number of disciples engaged in the fishing expedition, in the 153 fishes that were caught, in the lowering of the nets on the right side of the boat, in the fact that Jesus was standing on the shore, in the fact that the nets did not break, etc.

is not directly related to them."

10 That is, given this fundamental law none of these things could have been mentioned pointlessly. Since in their proper sense such a passage does not present us with things we are to believe or with moral precepts, it must be taken as figurative of something else or of many other things. Thus, while the criterion for figurative interpretation that Augustine claimed to be using in De Genesi contra Manichaeos is that comparatively sober and limited one which I have, following Pépin's lead, suggested, the criterion stated less than ten years later in De doctrina christiana is anything but sober and limited.

11 I began this paper convinced that there were in Augustine these two, quite different criteria for figurative interpretation, and the question I set out to answer was this: Why did Augustine move from the sober and reasonable criterion that Pépin pointed out to that criterion found in the De doctrina christiana which maximized the amount of the text that is taken as figurative? The conclusion I have come to is that my initial conviction was mistaken and my question misguided. The remainder of this paper will explain what had led me to my original hypothesis and why I now believe it to have been incorrect.

9 "Saint Augustin ne dit pas seulement qu'il faut dans l'Écriture prendre au figuré tout ce qui est contre la foi et les moeurs, mais bien tout ce qui ne s'y rapporte pas directement" (Ibid, p. 479). 10 See In Ioannis euangelium CXXII,5–9: CCL XXXVI, 670–675. 11 Though Augustine completed the third book and added the fourth at the time of his writing the Retractationes, he completed the third book up to the point at which he broke off writing, i.e., at III, xxv, 35, ll. 9–11, no earlier than the end of 397. See the preface to CCL XXXII, vii–xi. 12 Apart from Marrou I have not found anyone else who has discussed these two criteria or who has dealt with the relations between them. In her Saint Augustin exégète du quatrième évangile (Paris: Beauchesne, 1930), M.

130 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian II. The Case for the Absurdity Criterion It is well known that Augustine found serious difficulties with the Scriptures that contributed to his leaving the faith of Monica and becoming a Manichee.

13 It is also well known that it was the preaching of Ambrose that led him to see, first, that the Catholic faith could be defended and, later, that the spiritual men of the Catholica did not believe the "infantile nonsense" that he had thought they did.

14 Hence, it is reasonable to suppose that Augustine's account of the influence of Ambrose will throw light upon the criterion for figurative interpretation that played a decisive role in his own return to the faith of the Catholic Church and that he used in his first venture at Scriptural interpretation. In the Confessions Augustine reports two occasions on which Ambrose's preaching had significantly influenced his understanding of the Scriptures. In the first passage, which marks an early contact with Ambrose probably dating from late 384, Augustine tells us that he began to think that the Catholic faith could be defended against the attacks of the Manichees, especially after having often heard [Ambrose] resolve one or more of the enigmas from the Old Testament, where I was being killed,

Comeau, for example, simply passes over my concern. Madeleine Moreau, in her "Lecture du De doctrina christiana" in Saint Augustin et la Bible, ed. Anne-Marie La Bonnardière (Paris: Beauchesne, 1986), pp. 253–285, simply notes, "Il importe tout d'abord d'éviter absolument tant la confusion entre valeur métaphorique et valeur propre d'une expression que la confusion inverse. Le critère à appliquer relève de la foi et des moeurs: tout ce qui, dans le texte biblique, est, dans sa littéralité, étranger à la morale ou à la vérité de la foi requiert une interprétation figurée" (p. 267). Marrou speaks of the twofold function of recourse to a mystical sense: "le recours au sens mystique a chez lui, comme première fonction, celle qu'il avait deja chez Origène: c'est un moyen d'expliquer tous les passages choquants de l'Ancien Testament, anthropomorphisme divin, immoralité de certaines prescriptions ou de certain récits, contradictions entre l'ancienne et la nouvelle loi" (Marrou, p. 478). But then he points out that the fundamental law goes way beyond this function in terms of what I have called the maximizing criterion. 13 See Confessions III, v, 9: BA 13, 376, and III, vii, 12–x, 18: BA 13, 384– 398. 14 Confessions VI, iv, 5: BA 13, 526: "ecclesia unica ... non saperet infantiles nugas. ..."

when I understood it according to the letter. When he had spiritually explained many passages from those books, I blamed that despair of mine, at least insofar as I believed that the Law and the Prophets could in no way stand up against those who hated and mocked them.

As a result of this first influence of Ambrose Augustine came to see that the Catholic way was undefeated, but not so undefeated that it had won the victory.

Augustine later mentions the second influence of Ambrose's preaching, which probably dates from late in 385. At that point, he tells us, he was overjoyed to discover that the spiritual sons of God did not hold that man's being made to God's image and likeness entailed that God himself was confined to the shape of the human body. Even though Augustine himself still had no suspicion of what a spiritual substance was, he rejoiced that he had so long been opposed, not to the Catholic faith, but to the figments of a carnal imagination.

17 Augustine tells us that, in his sermons to the people, Ambrose taught that

"the letter kills, but that the spirit gives life," when he removed the mystical veil and uncovered the spiritual sense of those things that in their literal meaning seemed to contain a perverse doctrine. He did not say anything that offended me, though I still did not know whether what he said was true.

Given the importance of Ambrose's spiritual interpretation of the Old Testament for Augustine's subsequent conversion, it is not surprising

15 Confessions V, xiv, 24: BA 13, 508–510: "maxime audito uno atque altero et saepius aenigmate soluto de scriptis ueteribus, ubi, cum ad litteram acciperem occidebar, spiritaliter itaque plerisque illorum librorum locis expositis iam reprehenderam desperationem meam illam dumtaxat, qua credideram legem et prophetas destestantibus atque irridentibus resisti omnino non posse." 16 Ibid.: BA 13, 510: "ita enim catholica non mihi uicta uidebatur, ut nondum etiam uictrix appareret." 17 In De beata vita I, 4: CCL XXIX, 67, Augustine describes hearing Ambrose and Theodorus speak as though one should not think of a body, when one thinks of God or the soul. 18 Confessions VI, iv, 6: BA 13, 528: "'littera occidit, spiritus autem uiuificat,' cum ea, quae ad litteram peruersitatem docere uidebantur, remoto mystico velamento spiritaliter aperiret, non dicens quod me offenderet, quamvis ea diceret, quae utrum uera essent adhuc ignorarem."

132 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian to find that in his first attempt at scriptural exegesis he has recourse to the criterion for figurative and spiritual interpretation that he had found most helpful in the sermons of the bishop of Milan.

If we turn to De Genesi contra Manichaeos, we find that he explicitly appeals to the absurdity criterion. In De Genesi contra Manichaeos II, i, 1, Augustine announces that in Genesis 2 "the whole narrative unfolds not openly, but in figures, in order to exercise the minds of those seeking the truth and to call them away from carnal concerns to a spiritual concern."

20 Then after presenting the account of the creation and sin in Genesis 2 and 3 and after admonishing the Manichees that they should rather seek to understand the secrets of the text rather than find fault with it, he proposes to examine the whole account first as history and then as prophecy, that is, first as narrating the facts and then as foretelling the future. Then he says,

Of course, if anyone wanted to take everything that was said according to the letter, that is, to understand it exactly as the letter sounds, and could avoid blasphemies and explain everything in harmony with the Catholic faith, we should not only not envy him, but regard him as a leading and highly praiseworthy interpreter. But if there is no way in which we can understand what has been written in a manner that is pious and worthy of God without believing that these things have been set before us in figures and enigmas, we have the apostolic authority by which so many enigmas from the books of the Old Testament are solved.

19 I stress Augustine's recourse to the criterion for figurative interpretation he found most helpful, since Ambrose's use of figurative interpretation certainly tends to be far less restrained than Augustine's. That is, there is good reason to suppose that Augustine also derived from Ambrose's preaching the grounds for maximizing the figurative interpretation. 20 De Genesi contra Manichaeos II, i, l: PL XXXIV, 195: "Quae omnis narratio non aperte, sed figurate explicatur, ut exerceat mentes quaerentium veritatem, et spiritali negotio a negotiis carnalibus avocet." 21 Ibid. II, ii, 3: PL XXXIV, 197: "Sane quisquis voluerit omnia quae dicta sunt, secundum litteram accipere, id est non aliter intelligere quam littera sonat, et potuerit evitare blasphemias, et omnia congruentia fidei catholicae praedicare, non solum ei non est invidendum, sed praecipuus multumque laudabilis intellector habendus est. Si autem nullus exitus datur, ut pie et digne Deo quae scripta sunt intelligantur, nisi figurate et in aenigmatibus proposita ista credamus; habentes auctoritatem apostolicam a quibus tam multa de libris Veteris Testamenti solvuntur aenigmata. ..."

That is, Augustine admits that he himself cannot interpret the text of Genesis 2 and 3 "exactly as the letter sounds," but that he would welcome the interpretation of someone else who could do so. The grounds for resorting to figurative interpretation lie in his inability to "avoid blasphemies and explain everything in harmony with the Catholic faith." He cannot understand the text "in a manner that is pious and worthy of God" unless he believes that Genesis presents us with events "in figures and enigmas." That is, the only reason for believing that the text contains figures and enigmas is that such a belief provides the only escape (exitus) from understanding the text in a manner that is blasphemous, lacking in piety, and unworthy of God. Much later in De Genesi ad litteram, Augustine reports that, when he came to deal in his first commentary on Genesis with the narrative of chapters 2 and 3:

It did not then occur to me how I could interpret everything in the proper sense, and I thought that everything could not, or was hardly able, or was able only with difficulty to be so interpreted. Hence, in order to avoid delay, I explained as briefly and as clearly as possible the figurative meaning of those things for which I could not find a literal interpretation. ..."

That is, Augustine reports that he had recourse to a figurative interpretation of the text only because of his inability or great difficulty in interpreting everything in the text in its proper sense. But he went on to tell us that in the later work he "thought that it could be shown even by him that these things [i.e., the creation narrative in Genesis 2 and 3] were written in a proper, not in anallegorical mode of expression. ..."

22 De Genesi ad litteram VIII, ii, 5: BA 49, 14: "Et quia non mihi tunc occurrebant omnia quemadmodum proprie possent accipi magisque non posse uidebantur aut uix posse atque difficile, ne retardarer, quid figurate significarent, ea quae ad litteram inuenire non potui, quanta valui brevitate ac perspicuitate explicaui." 23 Ibid. IX, ii, 5: BA 49, 16: "extimarem etiam per me posse secundum propriam, non secundum allegoricam locutionem haec scripta esse monstrari. ..." In the intervening years Augustine had attempted another literal interpretation of Genesis, namely, De Genesi ad litteram liber imperfectus. Of this work he tells us, "in scripturis exponendis tirocinium meum sub tanta sarcinae mole succubuit, et nondum perfecto uno libro ab eo quem sustinere non poteram labore conquieui" (Retractationes I, xviii: CCL LVII, 54).

134 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

The criterion for a figurative interpretation of a Scriptural text that, according to the Confessions, Augustine learned from Ambrose's preaching and that played a decisive role in his conversion was the more limited and sober one. In De Genesi contra Manichaeos he explicitly tells us that he used this criterion in his first venture at an interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis. Furthermore, in retrospect he tells us in De Genesi ad litteram that he had recourse to figurative interpretation in De Genesi contra Manichaeos, only because he could not then interpret the text in its proper sense. Hence, I said of Augustine's practice in De Genesi contra Manichaeos that "he almost always resorts to regarding the text as figurative only if he cannot take it literally without blasphemy or having it say something unworthy of God."

There is, however, at least one passage in De Genesi contra Manichaeos where Augustine's theory of figurative interpretation goes beyond the absurdity criterion. In speaking of Eve's being made from Adam's rib, Augustine explicitly distinguishes between a proper and a figurative expression. He says,

For a proper expression is one thing; quite another is a figurative expression, such as we are dealing with here. Hence, even if in terms of history a visible woman was first made from the body of the man by the Lord God, she was certainly not made in this way without a reason, but to convey some secret.

Augustine points out that there was plenty of mud available for God to make the woman as he had made the man and that he could have taken the rib from the man painlessly while he was awake.

Whether, then, these things were said figuratively, or whether they were also done figuratively, they were not said or done in this way to no point. Rather they are clearly mysteries and sacraments, whether they are to be interpreted and understood in the way our modest

24 Saint Augustine on Genesis, p. 27, n. 54. 25 De Genesi contra Manichaeos II, xii, 17: PL XXXIV, 205: "Aliud est quippe propria locutio, aliud figurata, qualis ista est quam tractamus modo. Quapropter etsi visibilis femina secundum historiam de corpore viri primo facta est a Domino Deo, non utique sine causa ita facta est, nisi ut aliquod secretum imtimaret."

talent is trying or in some better way, though in accord with sound faith.

In this one passage in De Genesi contra Manichaeos, Augustine offers a criterion for figurative interpretation that goes beyond his more modest criterion, namely, that the impossibility of taking the text in the proper sense without absurdity or impiety. Here he claims that the making of Eve could not be done or described as it was to no point (frustra) and that the events reported are mysteries and sacraments. However, there is on the basis of this text no reason to suppose that all the events reported in Genesis are mysteries and sacraments or that all the events reported either teach matters of faith and morals or are figurative of something else. It is important to see what Augustine means by the text being figurative. He speaks of "figures of speech" and "figures of things."

27 By "figures of speech" he means such figures as metonymy, amphiboly, and metaphor.

28 By "figures of things" he means something that either symbolizes or prefigures something else. Thus, days of the Genesis narrative prefigure the six ages in the history of salvation and and the six stages in the life of every person.

29 As a narrative of past events Genesis is history; as prefiguring what is to come it is prophecy. Augustine treats the text of Genesis in each book of De Genesi contra Manichaeos first as history and then as prophecy. But "figures of things" not merely prefigure what is to come; they also symbolize or are signs of other things, often of spiritual or incorporeal things.

30 Thus in Genesis 2 where we are told that everything unfolds in figures, Augustine understands by "the green of the field" an invisible creature such as the soul, and by

26 Ibid. : PL XXXIV, 205–206: "Sive ergo ista figurate dicta sint, sive etiam figurate facta sint, non frustra hoc modo dicta vel facta sunt; sed sunt plane mysteria et sacramenta, sive hoc modo quo tenuitas nostra conatur, sive aliquo alio meliore, secundum sanam tamen fidem sunt interpretanda et intellegenda." 27 See De Genesi contra Manichaeos I, xxii, 34: PL XXXIV, 189, and II, ii, 3: PL XXXIV, 197. 28 See Augustine on Genesis, pp. 21–24 29 See De Genesi contra Manichaeos I, xxiii, 35–xxv,43: PL XXXIV, 190– 194. 30 See De Genesi ad litteram VIII, i, 4: BA 49, 14. Augustine speaks of what the text teaches "figurata significatione ... sive ipsarum spiritalium naturarum vel affectionum sive rerum etiam futurarum."

136 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian the spring that watered the whole earth he understands the fountain of truth from which souls drank before the fall. So too by the tunics of skin he understands the mortal bodies the first couple received after their sin. Clearly in these cases the text contains figures that are enigmas or allegories.

31 When Augustine says of Genesis 2 and 3 that "the whole narrative unfolds in figures," he is primarily speaking of the text as history, for even Genesis 1 prefigures the future ages of each person and of human history. That is, he is stating that the whole narrative is expressed by words not used in their proper sense, but in a transferred or figurative sense. And his reason for recourse to such a figurative sense lies, he claims, with the absurdity criterion.

III. The De doctrina christiana Criterion The fundamental law for figurative interpretation from De doctrina christiana is precisely a criterion for distinguishing between cases when terms used in their proper sense and cases in which they are used in a transferred or figurative sense. At the beginning of Book Three of De doctrina christiana, Augustine points out that the ambiguity of Scripture lies in words used either properly or metaphorically.

32 Earlier he distinguished proper and metaphorical signs:

[Signs] are called proper when they are used to signify these things on account of which they were instituted, just as we say "ox" when we understand the animal that all who speak the Latin language call by this name along with us. They are metaphorical, when the things themselves to which we refer by the proper terms, are used to refer to something else, just as we say "ox" and by that one syllable understand the animal that is usually called by this name, but again by it we understand an evangelist to whom Scripture referred, as the Apostle has shown, "You shall not muzzle the ox that treads the grain."

31 In De Genesi ad litteram liber imperfectus II, 5: CSEL XXVIII, 461, Augustine says that to understand a text as allegory is to understand it as presenting something in figures. An enigma simply means a riddle or puzzle. In De Genesi contra Manichaeos Augustine seems to use "allegory" as synonymous with "enigma." 32 De doctrina christiana III, i, l: CCL XXXII, 77: "sciat ambiguitatem scripturae aut in uerbis propriis aut in translatis. ..." 33 Ibid. II, x, 15: CCL XXXII, 41: "Propria dicuntur, cum his rebus significandis adhibentur, propter quas sunt instituta, sicut dicimus bouem,

Augustine first deals with ambiguity in words used in their proper sense, pointing out that here ambiguity may arise from dividing a sentence incorrectly, from mispronouncing a word, or from the similarity of the forms for different Latin cases.

34 But ambiguities of terms used in their proper senses rarely present problems that cannot readily be solved. Ambiguities in metaphorical terms, on the other hand, demand considerable care and hard work. One must, first of all, avoid taking a figurative expression literally. Augustine points out that the Apostle's words, "The letter kills, but the spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6), are pertinent here.

For when one takes what was said figuratively as if it were said in the proper sense, one thinks in carnal terms. For one who follows the letter regards metaphorical terms as proper and does not refer that which is signified by the proper sense of the word to another signification.

As examples of such carnal thinking, Augustine points to understanding of Sabbath as merely referring to one of the seven days of the week or understanding sacrifice as only referring to the sacrifices of animals cum intellegimus pecus, quod omnes nobiscum latinae linguae homines hoc nomine uocant. Translata sunt, cum et ipsae res, quas propriis uerbis significamus, ad aliquid aliud significandum usurpantur, sicut dicimus bouem et per has duas syllabas intellegimus pecus, quod isto nomine appellari solet, sed rursus per illud pecus intellegimus euangelistam, quem significauit scriptura interpretante apostolo dicens: 'bouem triturantem non infrenabis.'" 34 As an example of the first, Augustine gives the Arian division of Jn 1:1: "In principio erat uerbum et uerbum erat apud deum et deus erat; uerbum hoc erat in principio apud deum" (De doctrina christiana III, ii, 3: CCL XXXII, 78). As an example of the second he uses "os" which can mean either mouth or bone, depending upon whether the vowel long or short. As an example of an ambiguity of the Latin case, he cites 1 Thes 3:7, where "fratres" might be either accusative or vocative. See De doctrina christiana III, iii, 7–iv,8: CCL XXXII, 81–82. 35 De doctrina christiana III, v, 9: CCL XXXII, 82–83: "Cum enim figurate dictum sic accipitur, tamquam proprie dictum sit, carnaliter sapitur. ... Qui enim sequitur litteram, translata uerba sicut propria tenet neque illud, quod proprio uerbo significatur, refert ad aliam significationem. ..."

138 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian or of the fruits of the earth. Such understanding mistakes signs for things, and that is "a wretched slavery of the mind."

Augustine also warns against a second danger, namely, of taking a proper expression as if it were figurative.

37 Obviously there is need of a way to discover whether an expression is proper or figurative. He then states the general criterion by which one can determine this. And in general the method is that you should know that whatever in the word of God cannot in the proper sense be referred to goodness of morals or to the truth of the faith is figurative.

Augustine explains that goodness of conduct has to do with loving God and the neighbor, while the truth of faith has to do with knowing God and the neighbor. But, if that is the case, then any passage of Scripture that cannot in its proper sense be understood as either a matter of faith or of morals is to be understood as figurative. Here we have what I have referred to as Augustine's maximizing rule for figurative interpretation.

IV. The Different Criteria Reexamined Up to this point I have indicated the two criteria that Augustine articulated for having recourse to a figurative interpretation of Scripture. In his earliest commentary on Genesis Augustine both articulates and employs the absurdity criterion. According to the Confessions it was this same criterion that Augustine learned from the preaching of Ambrose and found most helpful toward his own conversion. The second criterion articulated in De doctrina christiana and used in much of Augustine's Scriptural exegesis goes far beyond the absurdity criterion and claims that whatever is not related to faith and morals is figurative. I mentioned earlier that I now regard my initial question, namely, why Augustine moved from the absurdity criterion to the maximizing criterion of De doctrina christiana, as mistaken. Let me sketch my reasons for changing my initial hypothesis. When writing the introduction to the translation of De Genesi contra Manichaeos, I focused too much upon what Augustine said was the

36 Ibid.: CCL XXXII, 83: "miserabilis animi seruitus. ..." 37 Ibid. III, x, 14: CCL XXXII, 86. 38 Ibid.: "Et iste omnino modus est, ut quidquid in sermone diuino neque ad morum honestatem neque ad fidei ueritatem proprie referri potest, figuratum esse cognoscas."

criterion for figurative interpretation rather than the interpretation that Augustine actually gave of the text. Years ago Henri de Lubac said that "it is of prime importance to observe Origen at work rather than to stick to some abstract explanation of his method,

39 even though the abstract explanation was given by Origen himself. Similarly, it is of prime importance to observe Augustine at work rather than to take at face value his stated criteria for figurative interpretation. In focusing upon the criterion that Augustine stated in De Genesi contra Manichaeos, I overlooked the criterion that he actually used, which in fact goes far beyond the absurdity criterion. Hence, I do not now believe that Augustine moved from the absurdity criterion to the maximizing criterion of De doctrina christiana. The criterion of De doctrina christiana does, nonetheless, represent an advance over that found in Augustine's earlier works, but it represents not so much an advance in practice as in the articulation of Augustine's exegetical principles. The difference in the articulation of the criteria for recourse to figurative interpretation should not come as a surpise. For De Genesi contra Manichaeos is, after all, directed to the Manichees, and in justifying his use of figurative interpretation Augustine makes explicit appeal to the criterion that he found most helpful in his own conversion and that he might reasonably hope would be most of help to his readers, especially his Manichean friends and "the little ones" of the Catholica. The criterion articulated in De doctrina christiana, on the other hand, was intended for believers who were ready, able, and eager to understand the hidden richness of the word of God. One should not after all attempt to teach the deeper and figurative meaining to those unwilling to learn.

Furthermore, it may well be that the sharpness of the distinction I drew between the criteria should be blurred or that one would speak

39 "[I]l importe avant tout de voir Origène à l'oeuvre plutôt que de se tenir à quelque exposé méthodique abstrait ..." (H. de Lubac, Histoire et esprit. L'intelligence de l'Ecriture d'apres Origène. Theologie 16 (Paris: Aubier, 1950), p. 34. 40 For example, in the late work, Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum I, xvi, 31: CCL XLIX, 59, Augustine says, "Verum quid opus est de mysticis significationibus sacrificiorum uestisque nuptialis inconuenientem carnalibus sensibus uelle inculcare sermonem?" That is, it is pointless to teach to carnal minds mystical meanings. So too, it was pointless to disclose the richness of the word of God to the Manichees.

140 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian more correctly of a single criterion with two functions or emphases. For example, Marrou ties the criterion found in De doctrina christiana with another that Augustine states in De Genesi ad litteram IX, xii, 22. 41 Augustine there says that he undertook the exposition of Genesis with two goals in mind, first, "to show that what some superficial or unbelieving readers might think impossible or contrary to the authority of Holy Scripture ... was neither impossible nor contrary to it." Secondly, he would show that what appears possible and has no semblance of contradictoriness, but could seem to certain people to be either superfluous or lacking sense, was not something produced in the natural or ordinary course of events. Thus we might believe that it has a mystical meaning, since nothing can be found there that is lacking sense."

That is, though it was not Augustine's aim in that work to examine the hidden prophetic meaning (prophetica aenigmata perscrutari), he still would show that things that might seem superfluous or pointless were not simply natural events, but ones that we should believe have a mystical or hidden meaning.

43 The sense of the passage will depend upon

41 H.–I. Marrou, p. 479. 42 De Genesi ad litteram IX, xii, 22: BA 49, 120–122: "ut quod impossible uideri uanis atque incredulis potest aut ipsi auctoritati sanctae scripturae uelut testificatione contraria repugnare ... demonstrem neque inpossibile esse neque contrarium; quod autem possible quidem adparet nec habet ullam speciem repugnantiae, sed tamen quasi superfluum uel etiam stultum quibusdam uideri potest, hoc ipsum disputando demonstrem, quod ideo non tamquam rerum gestarum naturali uel usitato ordine factum est, ut ... quia stultum esse non potest, mysticum esse credatur. ..." 43 Marrou also points to the Preface to Speculum, where Augustine says that in the Scriptures "quaedam sic esse posita, ut tantum scirentur et crederentur ... et quaedam facta divina vel humana tantummodo cognoscenda narrantur: quaedam vero sic esse jussa, ut observarentur et fierent, vel prohibita, ne fierent. ... Horum autem quae jubendo et vetando scripta sunt, alia sunt sacramentorum velata mysteriis, quae multa Veteris Testamenti populo illa facienda mandata sunt, neque a populo christiano nunc fiunt. ... sed aliquid significare intelliguntur. Alia vero etiam nunc facienda sunt ..." (Speculum, praef.: PL XXXIV, 887–889). This position does not have the force of the criterion in De doctrina christiana since it admits reports of human and divine actions as matters merely to be known and since it seems to limit figurative interpretations to the area of Old Testament commands and prohibitions.

the force one gives to superfluum and stultum. For if one takes stultum as "foolish" or "fatuous," one comes close to the "absurdity" criterion for taking a text as figurative. Much the same thing occurs, if one takes superfluum in the sense of otiosum (see Mt 12:36).

44 This passage from De Genesi ad litteram is, in any case, merely a generalization of the criterion we saw in De Genesi contra Manichaeos for interpreting the creation of Eve as figurative. Marrou suggests two reasons for Augustine's having adopted what I have called his maximizing criterion for figurative interpretation. One, he suggests that Augustine took very literally the text from Timothy: "omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis est." Given those words, Augustine said, "We have then to seek a hidden meaning for all those passages whose usefulness is not apparent in the literal sense.

45 Marrou points to the fundamental idea underlying this position: "Nothing in the Bible is useless, not even less useful; it is in its entirety inspired, and the inspiration is equally portioned out, and has everywhere the same density."

Marrou's second reason for Augustine's having adopted this maximizing criterion is that his training in rhetoric taught him to study a text verse by verse and word by word rather than sentence by sentence. "The tendency is reenforced by the habit inherited from the profane grammarian that consists in reading the text verse by verse, in commenting on it word by word, in breaking it down into isolated fragments which are examined each separately in the utmost detail.

47 Similarly, Joseph Lienhard has said quite well, "The ancients' first unit

44 In his De trinitate, c. 19, when arguing that the Father could only speak one Word, William of Auvergne argues that he who has forbidden that we speak an idle word, would certainly not do so himself. So too, one might argue that God could hardly have uttered an idle word in Scripture. 45 "Or saint Paul nous dit (2 Tim. 3, 16) que toute l'Ecriture est divinement inspirée et utile. ... Il faut donc chercher un sens caché à tous les passages dont l'utilité n'apparait pas au sens litteral" (Marrou, p. 479). 46 "[R]ien dans la Bible n'est inutile, ni même moins utile; elle est tout entière inspirée, et l'inspiration y est également repartie, à partout la même densité" (Marrou, p. 480). 47 "Tendance que renforce l'habitude, heritée du grammairien profane, qui consiste à lire le texte verset par verset, à le commenter mot par mot, à le décomposer en fragments isolés qu'on examine chacun séparément avec la plus stricte minutie" (Marrou, p.480).

142 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian of understanding was not the pericope, or the sentence, but the single word. The word as a the starting point for understanding was an assumption of ancient education in poetics and rhetoric."

48 Coupled with Marrou's first reason, this second reason means that divine inspiration bears upon individual words and phrases rather than upon larger units of meaning. Another reason for Augustine's having recourse to the more ample criterion for figurative interpretation is tied to his conviction that Scripture contains only a few truths to be believed and a few moral precepts to be followed. After stating his fundamental law, he points out that "good moral conduct has to do with loving God and the neighbor, and the truth of the faith has to do with knowing God and the neighbor.

49 Furthermore, our hope lies in our consciousness of progressing in the knowledge and love of God.

50 The truths to be believed and the moral precepts to be followed are comparatively few in number. Scripture "merely states the Catholic faith in things past, present and future ... but all of these serve to nourish and strengthen charity and to conquer and extinguish cupidity."

51 The whole of Christian morality is summed up in fostering charity and conquering its opposite, cupidity.

52 Then Augustine makes the startling claim: "One supported by faith, hope and charity and firmly holding unto them has no need of the Scriptures save for teaching others."

53 And he appeals to the example of Christian hermits who have lived without

48 J. Lienhard, "'The Glue Itself is Charity': Ps 62:9 in Augustine's Thought," in Collectanea Augustiniana: Presbuter Factus Summa, ed. by J. Lienhard, E. Muller, and R. Teske (New York: Peter Lang, 1993), pp. 375–384. 49 De doctrina christiana III, x, 14: CCL XXXII, 86: "Morum honestas ad diligendum deum et proximum, fidei ueritas ad cognoscendum deum et proximum pertinet." 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid. III, x, 15: CCL XXXII, 87: "Non autem adserit nisi catholicam fidem rebus praeteritis et futuris et praesentibus. ... sed omnia haec ad eandem caritatem nutriendam atque roborandam et cupiditatem uincendam atque exstinguendam ualent." 52 Ibid.: "Non autem praecipit scriptura nisi caritatem nec culpat nisi cupiditatem et eo modo informat mores hominum." 53 Ibid. I, xxxiv, 43: CCL XXXII, 31: "Homo itaque fide et spe et caritate subnixus eaque inconcusse retinens non indiget scripturis nisi ad alios instruendos."

54 Given Augustine's view that the essence of Scripture is contained in the Creed and the commandments to love God and neighbor, the vast majority of the Bible would be "superfluum" and "stultum" unless it contained hidden meanings, enigmata and figures to be understood by those who would seek to understand the word of God. Hence, most of the Bible would be pointless and senseless if we were not to take it as figurative. One final thought: In De doctrina christiana Augustine says that Scripture teaches us the historical events in which we must believe and that the purpose of this faith is to nourish and strengthen charity. Had I not earlier read De Genesi contra Manichaeos with almost exclusive attention to the absurdity criterion, I might have noticed that the Cherubim and the flaming sword set to guard Paradise were interpreted by Augustine as signifying that we can return to the tree of life only through the flaming sword, i.e., through tribulations, and through the Cherubim, i.e., the fullness of knowledge, as he assures us the term means in Hebrew. But the fullness of knowledge is the fullness of the Law, that is, the full content of Scripture. And Paul has assured us that the fullness of the Law is charity (Rom 13:10). Hence, with a bit of Augustinian exegesis of Augustine, one might argue that the core of the De doctrina christiana criterion was already present in his earliest work on Genesis, where "the whole narrative unfolds, not openly, but in figures, to exercise the minds of those seeking the truth."

the Scriptures.

54 Ibid. 55 De Genesi contra Manichaeos II, i, l: PL XXXIV, 195.

St. Augustine and the Vision of God I n his classic study of western mysticism, Dom Cuthbert Butler says of Augustine of Hippo:

Augustine is for me the Prince of Mystics, uniting in himself, in a manner I do not find in any other, the two elements of mystical experience, viz. the most penetrating intellectual vision into things divine, and a love of God that was a consuming passion.

This paper will deal with the first of the two elements of mystical experience in St. Augustine, namely, the "intellectual vision into things divine." Butler sums up Augustine's teaching on the nature of such intellectual vision or contemplation in two theses: one, "[t]he Contemplation of God is the lot of the Blessed in heaven; in it consists their eternal happiness," and, two, "[t]hough Contemplation really belongs to the next life, in this life some beginnings of it are possible, some passing glimpses or intuitions of divine things."

2 That is, contemplation or intellectual vision of God, though properly the reward of the saints in heaven, is anticipated to some degree by some persons in this life. This paper will deal with some of the things that Augustine has to say about the second thesis, that is, about the intellectual vision of God attained by some in this life. Butler refers to such a vision of God as "the fundamental Postulate of Mysticism: that it is possible in this life to see somewhat of God—to have an experimental perception of him."

One might approach this topic through an examination of texts in which Augustine describes a contemplation that he himself attained.

1 Cuthbert Butler, Western Mysticism: The Teaching of Augustine, Gregory and Bernard on Contemplation and the Contemplative Life. 2nd ed., with Afterthoughts (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), p.20. 2 Ibid., pp. 26 and 27. 3 Ibid., p. 25. 4 That is, one might deal with the ascents to God in Confessions VII, x, 16– xi,17 BA 13, 614-618), VII, xvii, 23 (BA 13, 626–630), and VII, xx, 26 (BA 13, 634), as well as with the vision at Ostia in Confessions IX, x, 23–26 (BA 14, 114–120). See F. Van Fleteren, "The Early Works of Augustine and his Ascents at Milan," Studies in Medieval Culture X, ed. John R. Som-

146 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

However, one can also approach the topic through an examination of texts that describe mystical experience of God in an objective rather than an autobiographical mode. Among the latter sort of texts there are, in the works of St. Augustine, at least two that have been regarded as treatises on mystical theology. Butler says that De quantitate animae XXX,73–76 is, among all of Augustine's utterances, "the nearest approach to a formulation of Mystical Theology."

5 And Matthias Korger calls De Genesi ad litteram XII, in which Augustine deals with Paul's being taken up to the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2-4), "the first systematic writing on mysticism."

6 This paper, then, will examine what Augustine says about the possibility of an intellectual vision of God in this life by studying these two basic texts on Augustinian mysticism, along with Epistola CXLVII, De videndo Deo liber, which is closely related to the De Genesi ad litteram text and clarifies some points key to this topic.

I. De quantitate animae XXX,70–76. In De quantitate animae XXX, 70 Augustine begins to speak of the power of the human soul and describes seven steps or levels in the soul's ascent toward God. At the first level the soul vivifies, unifies and preserves the body—all those functions that we have in common with plants. At the second level there is the life of sensation, which we have in common with the other animals. The third level is proper to mankind and involves all those things we owe to reason. Here we have great human achievements, but no differentiation between the learned and unlearned or between morally good and evil souls.

merfelt and Thomas Seiler (Kalamazoo: The Medieval Institute, 1977), pp. 19–23, as well as his "Augustine's Ascent of the Soul in Book VII of the Confessions: A Reconsideration," Augustinian Studies 5 (1974): 29–72, for such an approach. 5 lbid., p. 48. 6 "So wird der Paulustext zum Auggangspunkt jener grundsetzlichen Besinnung über das Wesen mystischer Phänomene überhaupt, die man mit Recht die erste systematische Schrift über Mystik nennen konnte" (Matthias E. Korger, "Grundprobleme der augustinischen Erkenntnislehre Erläutert am beispiel von de genesi ad litteram XII," Recherches Augustiniennes 2 [1962]: 33–57, here 34). 7 "Magna haec et omnino humana. Sed est adhuc ista partim doctis atque indoctis, partim bonis ac malis animis copia communis" (De quantitate animae XXX, 72; CSEL LXXXIX, 220).

St. Augustine and the Vision of God

At the fourth level we have the beginning of moral goodness; here the soul dares to assert its superiority not only to its own body, but to the whole corporeal universe.

8 At this level the soul takes up the task of its purification amid the fear of death, but at the fifth stage the soul emerges free from all impurity. "Then it possesses itself most happily in itself and does not fear anything for itself or suffer anything on its own account."

9 Augustine adds,

At this level the soul grasps every sort of greatness it has, and when it has grasped this, it then advances with a great and incredibile trust toward God, that is, toward the contemplation of the truth and that most high and most hidden reward on account of which it has toiled so much.

Augustine's sixth step, then, involves the movement "toward God, that is, toward the contemplation of the truth." The soul's action by which it seeks to know those things that exist truly and in the highest manner is the highest gaze of the soul; it has none more perfect, better or more correct.

11 While the fourth step involves cleansing the soul's eye so that it does not look in vain or rashly and see poorly and the fifth step involves protecting and preserving its healthy condition, the sixth step involves "directing the calm and correct gaze toward what is to be seen (iam serenum atque rectum aspectum in id quod videndum est, dirigere)."

8 De quantitate animae XXX, 73; CSEL LXXXIX, 220–221. 9 "Tum se denique in seipsa laetissime tenet nec omnino aliquid metuit sibi aut ulla sua causa quidquam angitur" (De quantitate animae XXX, 74; CSEL LXXXIX, 222). The translations of Augustine are my own. 10 "In hoc gradu omnifariam concipit, quanta sit: quod cum conceperit, tunc vero ingenti quadam et incredibili fiducia pergit in Deum, id est in ipsam contemplationem veritatis, et illud, propter quod tantum laboratum est, altissimum et secretissimum praemium" (De quantitate animae XXX, 74; CSEL LXXXIX, 222). 11 See De quantitate animae XXX, 75; CSEL LXXXIX, 222. 12 De quantitate animae XXX, 75; CSEL LXXXIX, 223. Butler (p.26) takes this phrase as a definition of contemplation, but directing one's gaze toward what is to be seen is not the same thing as seeing. See Soliloquia I, vi, 13; CSEL LXXXIX, 21. At this sixth level there is "actio, id est, appetitio, intelligendi ea quae vere summeque sunt" (De quantitate animae XXX, 75; CSEL LXXXIX, 222). Contemplation, that is, the vision of the truth is the seventh and last step of the soul, not the sixth.

148 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

The seventh step is not so much a step (gradus) as an abode (mansio) at which one arrives by these steps. Augustine finds it difficult to express "the joys, the fruition of the highest and true good, and the breathe of peacefulness and of eternity" found at this level.

13 But he adds, "We believe that certain great and peerless souls have also seen and do see these things, and they have expressed these things to the extent that they judged that they should be expressed."

14 The identity of these souls is left unspecified, though the evidence indicates that Augustine meant to include among them Plato, some Neoplatonists and, possibly, St. Paul.

15 In any case Augustine says,

This I venture to tell you quite plainly: if we follow the course that God commands us and we have undertaken to follow, we shall arrive by the power and wisdom of God at that highest cause, or highest author, or highest principle of all things, or whatever other name is more suitable for so great a reality.

13 "Quae sint gaudia, quae perfruitio summi et veri boni, cuius serenitatis atque aeternitatis adflatus" (De quantitate animae XXX, 76; CSEL LXXXIX, 223). 14 "Dixerunt haec, quantum dicenda esse iudicaverunt, magnae quaedam et incomparabiles animae, quas etiam vidisse ac videre ista credimus" (De quantitate animae XXX, 76; CSEL LXXXIX, 223). 15 See J. Maréchal, SJ, "La vision de Dieu au sommet de la contemplation d'après saint Augustin," Nouvelle Revue Théologique 58 (1930): 89–109 and 191–214, here 97. Maréchal bases this identification on a comparison with De ordine II, x, 28 (CCL XXIX, 123), where Augustine refers to the works of the Neoplatonists as "magnorum hominum et paene diuinorum libri plenissimi," as well as on "le chevauchement qui règne encore, dans cet ouvrage, entre le plan de la foi et celui de la philosophie" (p. 97). See also Butler's statement: "The reference to the experience of 'certain great and incomparable souls' is without doubt to the ecstasies of Plotinus and Porphyry" (p. 43). Butler cites in an appendix (pp. 232–236) the relevant texts from Plotinus and appeals to De quantitate animae 33, 76 as evidence that "St Augustine accepted them as fully religious mystical experiences" (p. 236). Even Charles Boyer, in L'idee de vérité dans la philosophie de saint Augustin (Paris: Beauchesne, 1940), p. 215, who sees here a reference to St. Paul "entre autres," admits that Plato and Plotinus have employed the same language and that the whole purpose of the Enneads "est de réveler les étapes par lesquelles on arrive progressivement à la contemplation de 1'Intelligence et à la fusion avec 1'Un" (p. 217). 16 "Illud plane nunc ego audeo tibi dicere, nos si cursum, quem nobis deus imperat et quem tenendum suscepimus, constantissime tenuerimus, per-

That is, Augustine is at this point confident that he and his friends will attain in this life to the vision of God that the great and peerless souls he has mentioned have described, provided that they persevere in the path they have taken. Though it is not clear from this passage that the vision that was attained by these souls and that Augustine hopes to attain with his friends is the sort of vision of God that the blessed souls will enjoy in heaven, other texts from this early period do make that clear. Perhaps the clearest indication that Augustine did hold that such a vision of God was attainable in this life is found in the second book of De ordine, where Augustine begins to set forth the program of studies for those resolved to seek God with all their strength.

17 He points out that we are led to learn in two ways: by authority and by reason. While authority is temporally prior, reason is prior by its nature as the more valuable. Though authority is more beneficial for the unlearned multitude, reason is better suited to the learned. Yet, since we only become learned from a state in which we lack learning, we ought to present ourselves to our teachers as docile so that authority can open the door for us who desire to come to know the great and hidden goods. Once one has become docile through following the precepts of the best life, he will learn with what reason those precepts were endowed which he followed prior to reason. He will learn what reason itself is which he follows and comprehends, now strong and suited there to, after the cradle of authority. He will learn what the intellect is in which all things are—or rather it itself is all things—and what is the principle beyond all things.

Thus one who begins in faith and follows the precepts of the best life and pursues the disciplines of the intellect comes to a knowledge of venturos per virtutem dei atque sapientiam ad summam illam causam vel summum auctorem vel summum principium rerum omnium vel si quo alio modo res tanta congruentius adpellari potest." (De quantitate animae XXX,76; CSEL LXXXIX, 223–224). 17 De ordine II, ix, 26; CCL XXIX, 122. 18 "Discet et quanta ratione praedita sint ea ipsa, quae secutus est ante rationem, et quid sit ipsa ratio, quam post auctoritatis cunabula firmus et idoneus iam sequitur atque comprehendit, et quid intellectus, in quo uniuersa sunt—uel ipse potius uniuersa—et quid praeter uniuersa uniuersorum principium" (De ordine II, ix, 26; CCL XXIX, 122).

150 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

19 Of such knowledge Augustine says, the Trinity: reason, intellect and principle.

In this life a few arrive at this knowledge, but beyond this knowledge no one can advance even after this life. There are men content with authority alone, who devote themselves to fine conduct and correct desires, either contemning or refusing education in the finest and liberal disciplines. I do not know how I could call them happy as long as they live this human life; still I firmly believe that, as soon as they have left this body, they are set free with greater ease or difficulty in accord with whether they lived more or less well.

Though the above passage from De ordine is perhaps the clearest statement that through intellectual training some few men can attain a knowledge in this life that cannot be surpassed even after this life, there are other texts that imply this same position. For example, in De beata vita, Augustine draws the conclusion,

No one doubts that everyone in need is unhappy, and the bodily needs of wise men do not shake our position. For the mind itself, in which is found the happy life, does not need these things. The mind itself is perfect, and nothing perfect needs anything. It will take what seems necessary for the body if it is available, and if it is not, the lack of such things will not crush it.

19 In Neoplatonic terms he comes to know logos, nous and arche; in Christian terms the Spirit, Word and Father. See Olivier du Roy, L'intelligencede la foi en la trinité selon saint Augustin (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1966), pp. 125–128. Du Roy notes the parallel between De ordine II, ix, 26 and Enneads I, 8, 2 and V, 3, 5. 20 "Ad quam cognitionemin hac uita peruenire pauci, ultra quam uero etiam post hanc uitam nemo progredi potest. Qui autem sola auctoritate contenti bonis tantum moribus rectisque uotis constanter operam dederint aut contemnentes aut non ualentes disciplinis liberalibus atque optimis erudiri, beatos eos quidem, cum inter homines uiuunt, nescio quo modo appellem, tamen inconcusse credo, mox ut hoc corpus reliquerint, eos, quo magis minusue uiverunt, eo facilius aut difficilius liberari" (De ordine II, ix, 26: CCL XXIX, 122). See also De moribus ecclesiae I, I, l (PL XXXII, 1311), where Augustine speaks of bishops and priests "contenti simplici fide" and warns those desirous of knowledge of the truth not to despair of finding it in the Catholic Church because of them. 21 "Ergo, inquam, miserum esse omnem qui egeat, dubitat nemo nec nos terrent quaedam sapientium corpori necessaria. Non enim eis eget ipse animus, in quo posita est beata uita. Ipse enim perfectus est: nullus autem

Earlier Augustine had said in his dedication that Theodorus was already clinging to the happy life—perhaps a reason for his regretting his fulsome praise for Theodorus.

22 In any case, when reviewing his works, Augustine comments on this passage and says that he was displeased by his having said, that in this lifetime the happy life abides in the mind alone of the wise man, regardless of the condition of the body. For the Apostle hoped for the perfect knowledge of God in the life to come (1 Cor 13:12). A man cannot possess a greater knowledge than that, and we should speak of the happy life only when the incorruptible and immortal body will be subjected to the spirit without any difficulty or reluctance (1 Cor 15:44ff).

Even in the Retractationes Augustine does not, one should note, deny to those in this life every sort of vision of God. What he explicitly rejects is the view that the happy life can in this life be found in the mind alone, and he claims that we will enjoy a perfect knowledge of God only when the immortal body is completely subject to the spirit. In a similar vein, Augustine recalls, in the second book of De libero arbitrio, the text of Isaiah, "Unless you believe, you will not understand," and goes on to point out how the Lord exhorted those he called to salvation to believe first.

But afterwards when he spoke of the gift he would give to those who believe, he did not say, "This is eternal life that they believe," but "This is eternal life that they know you the only true God and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ" (Jn 17:3). Then he said to those who believe, "Seek and you shall find" (Mt 7:7). For what one believes without knowing cannot be said to have been found, nor does perfectus aliquo eget et, quod uidetur corpori necessarium, sumet, si adfuerit, si non adfuerit, non eum istarum rerum franget inopia" (De beata vita IV, 25; CCL XXIX, 78). 22 See De beata vita I, 5 (CCL XXIX, 68) and Retractationes I, 2; (CCL LVII, 11). 23 "Quod tempore uitae huius in solo animo sapientis dixi habitare beatam uitam, quomodolibet se habeat corpus eius, cum perfectam cognitionem dei, hoc est qua homini maior esse non possit, in futura uita speret apostolus, quae sola beata uita dicenda est, ubi et corpus incorruptibile atque inmortale spiritui suo sine ulla molestia uel reluctatione subdetur" (Retractationes I, 2; CCL LVII, 11). 24 Isaiah 7:9 LXX.

152 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian anyone become fit to find God unless he first believes what he afterwards will know.

Hence, we should seek with diligence. And what we seek with his encouragement, we will find under his instruction, to the extent that it can be found in this life and by such as we are. For we must believe that these things can be seen and possessed more clearly and more perfectly by better men even while they inhabit this earth and certainly by all good and pious men after this life. ...

Even some eight years after his conversion, in De duabus animabus, while arguing against the Manichean defenders of a principle that is pure evil, Augustine asks whether the evil souls knew the good principle that they wanted to harm. For, if they knew it, their mind was a great good.

Is there any other goal toward which good men direct their intention with great labor than the goal of understanding that highest and pure good? Will that unadulterated evil, then, have been able to attain, without the help of any good, what is granted now to only a few good men? If those souls governed bodies and saw that with their eyes, how many tongues and hearts and minds are enough to praise and extol those eyes, which the minds of the just can scarcely equal? What great goods we find in the highest evil! For, if to see God is bad, God is not the good. But God is the good. Hence, it is good to see God, and I know of no good that can be compared to this good.

25 "Sed postea cum de ipso dono loqueretur quod daturus credentibus non ait: 'Haec est autem uita aeterna ut credant,' sed: Haec est, inquit, uita aeterna ut cognoscant te uerum deum et quem misisti Iesum Christum. Denique iam credentibus dicit: Quaerite et inuenietis; nam neque inuentum dici potest quod incognitum creditur neque quisquam inueniendo deo fit idoneus, nisi ante crediderit quod postea cogniturus:" (De libero arbitrio II, ii, 6; CCL XXIX, 239). 26 "Quantum in hac uita et a nobis talibus inueniri queunt. Nam et a melioribus, etiam dum has terras incolunt, et certe a bonis et piis omnibus post hanc uitam euidentius atque perfectius ista cerni obtinerique credendum est. ..." (De libero arbitrio II, ii, 6; CCL XXIX, 239). 27 "An quicquam est aliud, quo magnis laboribus omnis bonorum porrigatur intentio, nisi ut summum illud et sincerum bonum intelligatur? quod ergo nunc uix paucis bonis iustisque conceditur, id tunc illud merum malum

Furthermore, the highest evil was, according to the Manichean myth, not merely something that can be made to see the divine substance, but was capable of this vision by itself from eternity. "Difficile," Augustine notes ironically, "hoc malo quicquam melius inuenitur."

28 For our purposes it is crucial to note that Augustine clearly implies that in this life at least a few good men see the divine substance, the highest good. So too, in De moribus ecclesiae, Augustine mentions the hermits who have withdrawn to the desert and live on bread and water, while "enjoying converse with God to whom they cling with pure minds, most happy in the contemplation of that beauty that can be perceived only by the intellect of the saints."

29 The apostles also attained such a vision of God. In his commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Augustine explains each of the Beatitudes, including, "Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God." Augustine says that the pure of heart will be given the ability to see God, like a clear eye to perceive eternal realities. But then he adds, "These things can be fully attained even in this life, as we believe the apostles fully attained them."

30 Much later Augustine warns that we should not understand this last statement to mean that the apostles experienced in this life no rebellion of the flesh against the spirit. He says,

I did not say: "These things can be fully realized in this life, because the apostles fully attained them." I said, "As we believe that the apostles fully attained them," so that they are attained in that fullness with which the apostles attained them, that is, with the perfection that is possible in this life, not as they are to be attained in the pernullo bono adiuuante iam poterat? si autem illae animae corpora gerebant et id oculis uiderant, quot linguae, quot pectora, quae ingenia laudandis istis oculis praedicandisque sufficiunt, quibus uix possunt mentes iustorum adaequari? quanta bona inuenimus in summo malo? si enim uidere deum malum est, non est bonum deus; bonum est autem deus: bonum est igitur deum uidere et nescio quid huic bono conparari queat" (De duabus animabus 16; CSEL XXV, 72–73). 28 De duabus animabus16; CSEL XXV, 73. 29 "Perfruentes colloquio Dei, cui puris mentibus inhaeserunt, et ejus pulchritudinis contemplatione beatissimi, quae nisi sanctorum intellectu percipi non potest" (De moribus ecclesiae I, xxxi, 66; PL XXXII, 1338). 30 "Et ista quidem in hac uita conpleri possunt, sicut conpleta esse in apostolis credimus" (De sermone Domini in monte I, iv, 12; CCL XXXV, 12).

154 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian fect peace we hope for, when we shall say, "Where, O death, is your sting?"

That is, Augustine does come up with an ingenious interpretation of what he had said that "saves" the literal meaning of the words. But in the light of the other texts we have seen, it seems most likely that he thought at the time he wrote De sermone Domini in monte that holy souls could through intellectual training and moral purification come even in this life to the vision of God in which happiness consists.

32 The texts I cite do, I submit, make it very probable that Augustine thought, at least early in his career, that the wise man could attain a happiness in this life that could not be surpassed even hereafter. Furthermore, it is reasonably clear that he thought that among the great and incomparable souls who attained such a vision of God there were to be found Plato and some of the great Neoplatonists.

33 From the texts that we have seen so far it might seem that Augustine had in his early writings thought—perhaps under the influence of his discovery of the libri

31 "Non enim dictum est: ista in hac uita compleri possunt, nam completa esse in apostolis credimus, sed dictum est: sicut conpleta esse in apostolis credimus, ut ita compleantur sicut in illis completa sunt, id est quadam perfectione, cuius capax est ista uita, non sicut complenda sunt in illa quam speramus pace plenissima, quando dicetur: Vbi est, mors, contentio tua?" (Retractationes I, xix, 2; CCL LVII, 56). 32 Thus far I am in basic agreement with F. Van Fleteren's claim that "Augustine was firmly convinced in 386, the time of his conversion, and for at leat eight years thereafter, that man, with God's help, could attain the vision of God for a protracted period in this life" ("The Early Works," p. 19). Gilson, on the other hand, says, "we know of no single instance where Augustine ... believed that reason attained its goal before the sight of God in the kingdom of heaven" (The Christian Philosophy of St. Augustine [New York: Random House, 1960] p. 34.) 33 I do not mean to claim that Augustine did not hold an immediate vision of God in his later writings. Indeed, De trinitate VIII, iii, 4 (CCL L, 272), though hypothetically expressed, seem to presuppose that one can attain an intellectual vision of the Good itself that, when loved, is beatifying: "Cum itaque audis bonum hoc et bonum illud, quae possunt alias dici etiam non bona, si potueris sine illis quae participatione boni bona sunt, perspicere ipsum bonum cujus participatione bona sunt: simul enim et ipsum intelligis, cum audis hoc aut illud bonum: si ergo potueris illis detractis per se ipsum perspicere bonum, perspexeris Deum. Et si amore inhaeseris, continuo beatificaberis."

Platonicorum—that some great souls attained a beatifying vision of God in this life, but that in his later works he completely abandoned this view.

34 An examination of De Genesi ad litteram XII, however, will show that such is not a correct description how Augustine's thought changed on this point.

II. De Genesi ad litteram XII In the final book of his twelve books on the literal interpretation of Genesis, Augustine turns to the topic of paradise and puzzles over the various references to paradise in the Scriptures—not merely the paradise in which Adam and Eve were placed, but the paradise promised to the good thief and the paradise to which Paul was snatched up. The central problem of the book arises from Paul's statement that he knew that he was taken up to the third heaven, but did not know whether or not he was in the body. In working out a solution to the problem posed by what Paul claimed to know and not to know, Augustine distinguishes three kinds of vision: corporeal, spiritual and intellectual. He illustrates the three by means of the commandment to love one's neighbor. There are three kinds of vision: one through the eyes by which the letters [of the written commandment] are seen, the second through the spirit of man by which we think of the neighbor, though he is absent, and the third through the intuition of the mind by which love itself is seen when it is known.

34 Such seems to be Courcelle's view; he concludes regarding the ascents in Confessions VII, "Le rhéteur milanais, lorsque il lut avec enthousiasme et présomption les libri Platonicorum, se crut capable de parvenir à l'henosis, comme Plotin et Porphyre. Devant 1'échec de cette expérience, il prit conscience de son impuissance, de son impureté, fut humilié, demoralisé. Il devait apprendre avant Ostie ... qu'un tel échec était le lot commun de bien des contemplatifs, mais que la jouissance de Dieu est promise par saint Paul aux chétiens ressuscités" (Pierre Courcelle, "La première experience augustinienne de 1'extase," Augustinus Magister [Paris, 1954] I, 57). 35 "Unum per oculos, quibus ipsae litterae uidentur, alterum per spiritum hominis, quo proximus et absens cogitatur, tertium per contuitum mentis, quo ipsa dilectio intellecta conspicitur" (De Genesi ad litteram XII, vi, 15; BA 49, 348). I have used the text edited by J. Zycha in CSEL 28/1, pp. 1–435 as emended in La Genèse au Sens Litteral, BA 49 (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1972), by P. Agaësse and A. Solignac, who have incorporated various corrections to the Zycha text, especially from J. H. Taylor ("The

156 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

The meanings of corporeal and spiritual vision are relatively unproblematic, but intellectual vision requires more explanation.

36 Spiritual vision in this text involves a special meaning for "spirit" and "spiritual."

37 After listing five meanings of "spirit" and "spiritual" that he found in the Scriptures, Augustine points to another meaning that is relevant here. He appeals to 1 Cor 14:14, where Paul says, "If I pray with the tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind draws no fruit."

38 In this passage "spirit" means "a certain power of the soul inferior to mind in which there are impressed likenesses of bodily things."

39 The vast majority of the twelfth book deals with this spiritual vision, which is distinct from corporeal vision and from intellectual vision.

This spiritual nature, then, in which there are impressed not bodies, but the likenesses of bodies, has visions of a kind inferior to that

Text of Augustine's De Genesi ad litteram," Speculum 25 [1950]: 87–93). I have also followed the numbering of BA edition which indicates book, chapter, and paragraph. 36 "In his tribus generibus illud primum manifestum est omnibus; ... Nec alterum, quo absentia corpora corporalia cogitantur, insinuare difficile est. ... Tertium uero illud, quo dilectio intellecta conspicitur, eas res continet, quae non habent imagines sui similes, quae non sunt quod ipsae" (De Genesi ad litteram XII, vi, 15; BA 49, 348). 37 De Genesi ad litteram XII, vii, 16; BA 49, 350. 38 The five uses of "spirit" and/or "spiritual" that Augustine points to are: (1) the spiritual body at the resurrection, (2) the wind or its blowing, (3) the soul of an animal or of man, (4) the rational mind, and (5) God. See De Genesi ad litteram Xll, vii, 18; BA 49, 352–354. 39 "Vis animae quaedam mente inferior, ubi corporalium rerum similitudines exprimuntur" (De Genesi ad litteramXII, ix, 20; BA 49, 358). 40 A great deal has been written on this sense of "spiritual" which marks a departure from what Augustine usually means by the term, namely, what is neither bodily nor like a body, e.g., God and the soul. See the note, "'Spiritus' dans le livre XII du De Genesi," by P. Agaësse and A. Solignac, in BA 49,559-566, for an ample survey of the literature. See also J. H. Taylor's annotated translation, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41 and 42 (New York: Newman, 1982). Despite the interesting character of this spiritual vision, it is of concern to the thrust of this paper only insofar as one needs to be clear about the difference between spiritual vision of God and intellectual vision of God before one can understand what Augustine meant by the claim that at least some persons attain before death an intellectual vision of the divine substance.

light of the mind and the intelligence by which these inferior things are discerned and by which are seen those things which are not bodies and do not have forms like bodies, such as the mind itself and every good affection of the soul ... and God himself .

There are then three kinds of vision in the soul, and they have an order of excellence. "For spiritual vision is more excellent than corporeal, and intellectual vision is more excellent than spiritual vision."

Augustine finds in Scripture passages in which God is seen in all three kinds of vision. For example, he finds a corporeal vision of God in Exodus 19 when God came down upon Sinai in fire and the whole mountain was covered with smoke and in Exodus 33 when God appeared in a pillar of cloud. He speaks of such corporeal vision of God mainly by way of contrast with other visions. Thus he says that the third heaven to which St. Paul was taken up was not some corporeal sign like that shown to Moses who was so well aware of the difference between the very substance of God and the visible creature in which God made himself present to the corporeal senses that he said, "Show me yourself " (Ex 33:13 LXX).

Later Augustine again speaks of this vision by way of contrast with an intellectual vision of God; unlike the vision at Sinai or in the tent the intellectual vision of God occurs "without assuming a corporeal creature which is presented to the senses of the mortal flesh."

41 "Haec igitur natura spiritalis, in qua non corpora, sed corporum similitudines exprimuntur, inferioris generis uisiones habet quam illud mentis atque intellegentiae lumen, quo et ista inferiora diiudicantur et ea cernuntur, quae neque sunt corpora nec ullas gerunt formas similes corporum, velut ipsa mens et omnis animae adfectio bona ... et ipse Deus. ..." (De Genesi ad litteram XII, xxiv, 50; BA 49, 414). 42 "Praestantior est enim uisio spiritalis quam corporalis et rursus praestantior intellectualis quam spiritalis"(De Genesi ad litteram XII, xxiv, 51; BA 49, 414–416). 43 "Non signum aliquod corporale, quod cum ostenderetur Moysi, usque adeo sentiebat aliud esse ipsam Dei substantiam, aliud uisibilem creaturam, in qua se Deus humanis et corporalibus sensibus praesentabat, ut diceret: ostende mihi temet ipsum" (De Genesi ad litteram XII, iv, 9; BA 49, 338–340). 44 "Nulla assumpta corporeali creatura, quae mortalis carnis sensibus praesentetur"(De Genesi ad litteram XII, xxvii, 55; BA 49, 424).

158 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

Augustine finds examples of spiritual vision of God in Isaiah 6:1–7 or in Revelation 1:13–20. There Isaiah saw God seated with the Seraphim as well as the altar and the coal that cleansed his lips, and John saw one like the Son of Man amid the seven lampstands.

45 In such cases of spiritual vision what Isaiah or John saw was not something presented to the senses of the body; what they saw "in the spirit" were likenesses of bodies or images of bodies though these visions were signs or figurative. Unlike what is seen by corporeal vision the objects of spiritual vision are not publicly visible by others who might be present.

According to Augustine we have spiritual vision whenever we have images or likenesses of bodily things before our mind. We have such vision when we are awake and picture absent persons or things and when we are asleep and dream. Spiritual vision can involve having images of things we have previously had presented to our senses or images of things we have made up from what we have previously had presented to our senses.

47 Augustine speaks of sleep as involving an alienation from the senses insofar as, while asleep, we do not attend to what is presented to the senses, and during sleep we can have spiritual vision in dreams.

Such cases of spiritual vision are, I suspect, fairly normal. But Augustine also allows for a spiritual vision in an ecstasy when one is awake. He reports that he knew a person who had, while awake, a spiritual vision of something not present to his senses that he claimed his soul saw.

49 In both dreams and ecstasy images of corporeal things are present to the mind, but one is not awake while dreaming and usually recognizes only upon awaking that he was seeing images and not real objects. But in ecstasy one is awake and knows that he is; he also knows that he sees something, though he does not see it by the eyes of the body. Moreover, in ecstacy he does not generally see things that are bodily present.

50 As Scriptural examples of such vision Augustine

45 De Genesi ad litteram XII, ii, 5; BA 49, 334. 46 De Genesi ad litteram XII, xxvii, 55; BA 49, 424. 47 De Genesi ad litteram XII, vi, 15; BA 49, 348. 48 See De Genesi ad litteram XII, xxvi, 53; BA 49, 420. 49 De Genesi ad litteram XII, ii, 4; BA 49, 334. 50 See De Genesi ad litteram XII, xii ,25; BA 49, 368. In De Genesi ad litteram XII, xxiii, 49; BA 49, 410–414, Augustine presents a summary of the varigives Peter's vision of the vessel lowered from heaven (Acts 10:11), John's vision of the Son of Man (Rev 1:13-20), Ezechiel's vision of the plain covered with bones (Ezk 37:1–10), and Isaiah's vision of God (Is 6:1–7).

At times what is seen in spiritual vision may be without any significance or meaning, but at other times what is seen in the spirit has significance or meaning.

52 One can, however, have a spiritual vision that has meaning without understanding what one sees. For example, Baltasar saw by corporeal vision the hand as it wrote on the wall; by spiritual vision he retained the image of the hand and the writing after the hand and the writing disappeared. He could not, however, understand what the writing signified until Daniel interpreted the dream (Dn 5:5–28).

53 So too Pharaoh saw by spiritual vision the cattle and ears of grain, but Joseph was able to interpret the significance of the vision (Gn 41:1-32). One is more a prophet, according to Augustine, if one can interpret the spiritual vision than if one merely has such a vision, and one is most a prophet if he both has the spiritual vision and can interpret its significance.

When one has spiritual vision while awake or while asleep or even while in ecstasy, one's soul is still in the body, even if the mind is withdrawn or alienated from the senses of the body in sleep and, more so, in ecstasy.

55 But Augustine envisages the possibility not merely that the soul might have been alienated from the senses in ecstasy, but also that it has completely left the body so that the body is dead, even though the person comes back to life.

Finally, there is intellectual vision of God. Just as one can be alienated from the senses of the body so that he sees likenesses of bodies in the spirit, one can also be removed from these likenesses of bodies so that he is also taken up from them and carried into that region, as it were, of intellectual or intelligible realities where the clear truth ous sorts of spiritual vision discussed earlier in the book. 51 De Genesi ad litteram XII, ii, 5; BA 49, 334. 52 De Genesi ad litteram XII, xxii, 45; BA 49, 406. 53 De Genesi ad litteram XII, xi, 23; BA 49, 362–364. 54 De Genesi ad litteram XII, ix, 20; BA 49, 356–358. 55 See De Genesi ad litteram XII, xxvi, 53–54; BA 49, 420–422. 56 De Genesi ad litteram XII, v, 14; BA 49, 344–346.

160 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian is seen without any likeness of the body, where it is not obscured by any clouds of false opinions.

When one reaches this point the life of virtue is no longer a matter of toil or effort.

There the whole of virtue is to love what you see and the supreme happiness is to have what you love. For there the happy life is drunk at its source from which this human life is sprinkled so that we might live temperately, bravely, justly and prudently amid the temptations of this life.

There we will have secure rest and the ineffable vision of the truth. There the brightness of the Lord is seen not by a vision in signs, whether bodily as it was seen on Mount Sinai, or spiritual as Isaiah saw it or John in Revelation saw it, but by sight, not in obscure images, insofar as the human mind can grasp it in accord with the grace of God raising one up so that God speaks to him whom he has made worthy of such converse, mouth to mouth, not the mouth of the body, but of the mind. ...

57 "Ita et ab ipsis rapiatur in illam quasi regionem intellectualium uel intellegibilium subuehatur, ubi sine ulla corporis similitudine perspicua ueritas cernitur, nullis opinionum falsarum nebulis obfuscatur" (De Genesi ad litteram XII, xxvi, 54; BA 49, 422). 58 "Una ibi et tota uirtus est amare quod uideas et summa felicitas habere quod amas. ibi enim beata vita in fonte suo bibitur, unde aspergitur aliquid huic humanae uitae, ut in tentationibus huius saeculi temperanter, fortiter, iuste prudenterque uivatur" (De Genesi ad litteram XII, xxvi, 54; BA 49, 422). 59 "Secura quies ... et ineffabilis uisio ueritatis. Ibi uidetur claritas domini non per uisionem significantem siue corporalem, sicut uisa est in monte Sina, siue spiritalem, sicut uidet Esaias uel Iohannes in Apocalypsi, sed per speciem non per aenigmata, quantum eam capere humana mens potest, secundum assumentis Dei gratiam, ut os ad os loquatur Deus ei quem dignum tali conloquio fecerit, non os corporis, sed mentis ..." (De Genesi ad litteram XII, xxvi, 54; BA 49, 422–424). Butler says of this passage that "it is impossible to read the account of the highest intellectual vision ... without the conviction that it describes a personal experience, wherein Augustine believed had been seen the Brightness of the Lord by 'species', not by enigma, in the same manner as Moses had seen it" (p. 61).

Augustine adds that it is in this sense that we should understand what the Scripture says about Moses who desired to see God—not as he had seen him on Sinai and not as he saw him in the tent, but in that substance by which he is God, without assuming a corporeal creature which is presented to the senses of the mortal flesh, and not in the spirit by figurative likenesses of bodies, but by a vision of him to the extent that the rational and intellectual creature is able to attain it, once it is removed from every sense of the body, from every image of the spirit in signs.

Augustine held that Moses desired to see the very substance of God in an intellectual vision apart from any bodily sense and from any imaginative vision in the spirit. And he argued that Moses did see God as he had desired to see him. For in Ex 11:17 we read, "God spoke to Moses face to face, as a friend speaks to a friend." Yet in Ex 33:13 LXX Moses pleaded with God, "If I have found favor in your eyes, show yourself clearly to me so that I can see you." Shortly thereafter God said to him, "You have found favor in my sight, and I know you in preference to all others" (Ex 33:17 LXX). And Moses said, "Show me your glory" (Ex 33:18). To this request, Augustine tells us, Moses received a figurative response which would require a lengthy interpretation.

61 The words of Ex 33:20, however, seem clear, "For a man will not see my face and live." However, despite this text Augustine maintains that Moses did merit to see the glory of God that he desired to see. He does so on the basis of Nm 12:6-8, where God says to Aaron and Miriam,

Hear my words: If you have a prophet, I the Lord will make myself known to him in a vision, and I will speak to him in a dream. But not such is my servant, Moses, who is a faithful man in all my house. I will speak to him mouth to mouth by sight and not by obscure images, and he has seen the glory of the Lord.

60 "In ea substantia, qua Deus est, nulla adsumpta corporali creatura, quae mortalis carnis sensibus praesentetur, neque in spiritu figuratis similitudinibus corporum, sed per speciem suam, quantum eam capere creatura rationalis et intellectualis potest seuocata ab omni corporis sensu, ab omni significatiuo aenigmate spiritus" (De Genesi ad litteram XII, xxvii, 55; BA 49, 424). 61 Augustine interprets Ex 33:21–23 as referring to the Church since it is the place close to the Lord and built upon rock (De Genesi ad litteram XII, xxvii, 55; BA 49, 426).

162 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

Augustine argues that this vision of the Lord's glory was not a bodily vision of the sort Moses enjoyed when he asked to see the glory of the Lord. God then spoke to Moses by means of a bodily creature presented to the senses of the flesh.

In this way, then, he speaks in that form by which he is God, ineffably, far more hidden and yet more present. No one sees this vision, when living this life by which we live subject to death in these senses of the body, but only one who dies to this life in a certain sense, either entirely leaving the body or so turned away and alienated from the carnal senses that he truly does not know, as the Apostle says, whether he is in the body or outside the body, when he is taken up and carried off to that vision.

The vision, then, that Moses had of the glory of God was a vision of that form by which he is God. No one living in this life that we live subject to death in these bodily senses can attain such a vision, but Augustine allows for the possibility that one might undergo some sort of death (quodammodo moriatur), whether one's soul leaves his body or is simply so alienated from the bodily senses that one does not know whether one is in the body or not. That is, the soul might leave the body temporarily so that the resulting state differs from death only in being temporary, or the soul, while remaining in the body, might be alienated from the bodily senses in a manner similar to sleep or ecstasy, though more completely removed from the senses and also from spiritual vision. Augustine concludes that the Apostle called this third kind of vision the third heaven. In it the glory of God is seen by the clean of heart; he interprets the Beatitude to mean that the clean of heart will see God face to face, as was said of Moses, "mouth to mouth," namely, through that form (speciem) by which God is whatever he is, insofar as the mind, which is not what God is, even when cleansed from all

62 "Illo ergo modo in specie, qua Deus est, longe ineffabiliter secretius et praesentius loquitur locutione ineffabili, ubi eum nemo uiuens uidet uita ista, qua mortaliter uiuitur in istis sensibus corporis, sed nisi ab hac uita quisque quodammodo moriatur siue omnino exiens de corpore siue ita auersus et alienatus a carnalibus sensibus, ut merito nesciat, sicut apostolus ait, utrum in corpore an extra corpus sit, cum in illam rapitur et subuehitur uisionem" (De Genesi ad litteram XII, xxvii, 55; BA 49, 426–428).

earthly stain, can grasp it, when alienated and removed from every body and likeness of body.

Lest there be any doubt about the fact that Augustine claimed that Moses saw God with the sort of face-to-face vision of his substance that will be the joy of eternal life, he adds the same sort of claim regarding Paul.

Why should we not believe that God wanted to show to so great an apostle, the teacher of the nations, when he was taken up to this most excellent vision, the life in which we are to live eternally after this life?

That is, both Moses and Paul saw God with an intellectual vision, a vision of the substance by which God is God, a vision which is the eternal life we are to live after this life. In Epistola CXLVII, Augustine also argues that Moses and Paul were able to see the divine substance in this life, "only because the human mind can to be taken up by God from this life to the life of the angels, before it is freed from the flesh by this common death."

65 In Paul's rapture there is such an aversion of the mind's intention from the bodily senses that it is not clear "whether the bond of the body remains or it is completely resolved as happens in full death."

66 That is, Augustine believed that it was possible that such a vision was granted

63 "Facie ad faciem, quod de Moyse dictum est 'os ad os', per speciem scilicet, qua Deus est quidquid est, quantulumcumque eum mens quae non est quod ipse, etiam ab omni terrena labe mundata, ab omni corpore et similitudine corporeis alienata et abrepta capere potest" (De Genesi ad litteram XII, xxviii, 56; BA 49, 428). 64 "Cur autem non credamus, quod tanto apostolo gentium doctori rapto usque ad istam excellentissimam uisionem, uoluerit Deus demonstrare uitam, in qua post hanc uitam uiuendum est in aeternum" (De Genesi ad litteram XII, xxviii,56; BA 49, 428–430). 65 "Nisi quia potest humana mens diuinitus rapi ex hac uita ad angelicam uitam, antequam per istam communem mortem carne soluatur" (Epistola CXLVII, xiii, 31; CSEL XLIV, 305). 66 "Manente corporis uinculo, an omnino resolutio, facta fuerit qualis in plena morte" (Epistola CXLVII, xiii, 31; CSEL XLIV, 305).

164 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian to "some of the saints who were not dead in such a fashion that their corpses remained behind for burial."

67 In De Genesi ad litteram XII and Epistola CXLVII, Augustine clearly claims that both Moses and Paul enjoyed prior to death, though in a state like death, a vision of the divine substance and of the glory of God. That such a vision was granted to two great leaders of the people of God in the Old and the New Testament is perhaps not surprising, since their important missions were fittingly accompanied by extraordinary graces.

68 Was such vision of God restricted to these two principal personages in salvation history, or did Augustine regard such vision as something shared more widely by other mystics? In the text we have just seen from Epistola CXLVII, Augustine seems to extend the possibility of such a vision of God to "certain of the saints," and he also points out that Ambrose, upon whose text he is commenting, did not say that the apostles did not see Christ, but that not all the apostles saw Christ.

69 Ambrose, he suggests, believed that "to certain of them the vision of the divinity of which he was speaking could also have been given even then" and that "perhaps some of them even at that time saw in accord with what I have said."

70 Certainly St. John would seem to be a plausible candidate for having received such vision.

67 "Quibusdam sanctis nondum ita defunctis, ut sepelienda cadavera remanerent" (Epistola CXLVII, xiii, 31; CSEL XLIV, 305). 68 In their note on "Les trois genres de visions" (BA 49, 575–585), Agaësse and Solignac agree with H. U. von Balthasar and M. E. Korger that for Augustine "la connaissance de Dieu n'a jamais pour fin l'illumination d'une âme individuelle, mais une fonction charismatique au service du peuple de Dieu; c'est pourquoi, d'après Augustin, les seuls bénéficiaires d'une vision plenière de Dieu, dans un état d'extase parfaite, ont été Moise, le prophète de l'ancienne Alliance, et Paul, l'apôtre de la Nouvelle ... (p. 580). See also M. E. Korger, "Grundprobleme," pp. 50–51, and H. U. von Balthasar and M. E. Korger, Aurelius Augustinus, Psychologie und Mystik. De Genesi ad litteram 12, coll. Sigillum 18 (Einsiedeln: Johannes, 1960), pp. 13ff. 69 Epistola CXLVII, xiii, 31; CSEL XLIV, 305. The fact that Augustine uses Ambrose's Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam I, 24-27 (CSEL XXXII, 25–28) as an authoritative text for dealing with the question strikes me as quite unusual; it may be that he felt the need for such an authority in his corner on a question which he found highly problematic and on which he was being quite venturesome. 70 "Quibusdam eorum divinitatis quoque ipsius visionem de qua loquebatur, etiam tunc potuisse donari ... forte aliqui eorum etiam ipso tempore vid-

"There remains the eagle; he is John who preached things sublime and contemplated with steady eyes the internal and eternal truth."

71 Augustine's language is tentative and guarded with regard to the extension of such a vision of the divinity beyond Moses and Paul and some of the apostles. If one agrees, however, with Butler that it is impossible to read De Genesi ad litteram XII, xxvi, 54 without being convinced that it describes Augustine's personal experience, then one also has to grant that Augustine himself enjoyed such a vision of God.

III. Conclusion I began work on this paper because I had long found troubling some of the passages in the earlier writings in which Augustine spoke of certain men attaining in this life a vision of God beyond which we cannot go even in the hereafter. I had expected to find that such statements were the result of Augustine's early and excessive enthusiasm for Neoplatonism and that in his later writings he abandoned any claim to a vision of the divine substance in this life. An investigation, however, of the two texts that have been taken as the beginnings of mystical theology has shown that, far from abandoning the claim that some attain an intellectual vision of God in this life, in both De Genesi ad litteram XII and Epistola CXLVII Augustine has spelled out in greater clarity the psychology and theology of such a vision of the divine substance in itself. Even such a text as Ex 33:20, despite its seemingly clear exclusion in this life of a vision of God himself, is not taken as decisive against a vision of the divine substance. Rather Augustine explains it in terms of a temporary separation of the mind from the body that differs from death only insofar as it is temporary. No one can see God erunt, secundum ista quae dixi" (Epistola CXLVII, xiii, 31 and xiv, 33; CSEL XLIV, 305 and 307). 71 "Restat aquila: ipse est Ioannes, sublimium praedicator, et lucis internae atque aeternae fixis oculis contemplator" (In Ioannis evangelum tractatus XXXVI, 5; CCL XXXVI, 327). 72 See Butler, pp. 59–60. Maréchal finds "raisons de convenance" to extend the privilege of such a vision of God to Mary, to founders of religious orders and other mystics (See Maréchal, p. 205). On the other hand, M. Comeau, in S. Augustin exégète du quatrième évangile (Paris: Beauchesne, 1930), p. 376, regards the passage from De Genesi ad litteram XII as an isolated text and insists that "rien n''autorise à étendre ... cette possibilité d'une vision de l'essence divine à d'autres personnes."

166 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian and live is interpreted to mean that one who sees God undergoes a temporary death. There are, of course, clear differences between the De quantitate animae text and De Genesi ad litteram XII. In the earlier text the "magnae et incomparabiles animae" who attained the vision of God seem to be the Platonists rather than saintly men of the Scriptures, and in the earlier text the vision of God is seen more as the hoped for goal of a program of studies and a life of virtue than as the gracious act of God raising the mind up to a vision of himself. So too, in the earlier text there are comparatively few references to Scripture, while in the later text it is Scripture that poses the question and that sets the parameters of the solution. But in both De quantitate animae XXX and De Genesi ad litteram XII, Augustine held that the mind of at least a few men can come in this life to a vision of God, which is not merely a dim foreshadowing of the life of heaven, but a genuine anticipation of the eternal life of the saints. Far from abandoning in his later writings the position that the vision of God himself is attainable in this life at least by a few, Augustine has come to see the occurrence of such a vision as attested to in both the Old and New Testaments, as supported by writings of St. Ambrose, and as very probably grounded in his own experience of God.

St. Augustine on the

Good Samaritan O ver thirty-five years ago, Jean Daniélou complained that modern exegetes have all but unanimously interpreted the parable of the Good Samaritan as providing a concrete example of a moral lesson about the identity of our neighbor and the way we are to love that neighbor.

1 The consensus among contemporary exegetes is much the same. One highly respected work says of the parable, "The passage is two-pronged. While providing a powerful lesson about mercy toward those in need, it also proclaims that non Jews can observe the law and thus enter into eternal life."

2 A recent annotated Bible states, "In response to a question from a Jewish legal expert about inheriting eternal life, Jesus illustrates the superiority of love over legalism through the story of the good Samaritan."

3 In the Anchor Bible, Joseph Fitzmyer states, "The point of the story is summed up in the lawyer's reaction, that a 'neighbor' is anyone in need with whom one comes into contact and to whom one can show pity and kindness, even beyond the bounds of one's own ethnic or religious group."

4 Fitzmyer mentions other quite different interpretations, for example, a Christological, an ecclesiological, a sacramental, or a so-

1 J. Daniélou cites the interpretation of M. Hermaniuck (in La parabole évangélique [Bruges and Paris; Desclée de Brouwer, 1947], p. 252) that the parable of the Samaritan is "une illustration par un exemple concrèt d'une vérité générale" and adds, "Cette interprétation est celle de la totalité des exégètes modernes, à la seule exception d'Edwyn Hoskyns" (J. Daniélou, "Le Bon Samaritan," in Mélanges bibliques rédigés en honneur de André Robert [Paris: Travaux de l'Institut Catholique, 1956], pp. 457–465, here 457; he refers to Hoskyns' The Fourth Gospel [London: Faber and Faber, 1947], p. 377). 2 The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer, and R. E. Murphy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990), p. 702. 3 The Catholic Study Bible, ed. D. Senior et al. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), "The New Testament," p. 120. 4 The Gospel accoring to Luke X-XXIV. Introduction, translation and notes by J. A. Fitzmyer (New York: Doubleday, 1985), p. 884.

168 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian teriological interpretation. But he dismisses them as "allegorical and extrinsic" or "far-fetched."

Augustine of Hippo, on the other hand, following Ambrose of Milan, Origen, and Irenaeus, most often interprets the Samaritan as Christ who in his mercy came down from heaven, became our neighbor, and healed the wounds of our race that were inflicted by sin.

6 Given this interpretation of the Samaritan, the parable becomes, as Dominique Sanchis has well put it, "une des plus admirables expressions de l'économie du salut, une révélation des secrets du Royaume."

7 Similarly, Henri de Lubac says of this interpretation of the parable that it "lends itself to a full statement of our collective history" and that "it presented an epitome of the whole mystery of our redemption."

8 Moreover, as de Lubac notes, the fact that Origen attributes this interpretation to one of the "elders" indicates that "it must have been current by the end of the second century."

It has been some thirty years since Sanchis wrote his splendid study of St. Augustine's exegesis of the parable of the Good Samaritan. In a volume dedicated to the exegesis of the bishop of Hippo, it seems fitting to return to this parable in order to see whether Augustine cannot speak to us today and enrich our understanding of this passage of the Gospel of Luke.

I. The "Literal" or Moral Interpretation of the Parable Though Augustine most frequently interprets the parable in a Christological sense, he also several times offers a purely moral interpre-

5 Ibid., p. 885. Fitzmyer here seems to equate "extrinsic" with "far-fetched," though he does at least acknowledge the existence of such modern interpretations of the parable. 6 For Irenaeus's, Origen's, and Ambrose's treatments of the parable, see Adverus haereses III, 17, 2: Sources Chrétiennes 34, 307–8, Homilia in Lucam XXXIV: Sources Chrétiennes 87,400–411, and Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam VII,71–84: CCL XIV, 237–241. 7 D. Sanchis, "Samaritanus ille: L'exégèse augustinienne de la parabole du bon Samaritain," Recherches de science religieuse 40 (1961): 406–425, here 406. 8 H. de Lubac, Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man. Tr. by L. C. Shepherd and E. England (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 204. 9 H. de Lubac, Catholicism, pp. 204–205.

St. Augustine on the Good Samaritan

tation of it that is quite in accord with what contemporary exegetes call the "literal" interpretation.

10 For example, in Enarratio in Psalmum CXVIII, Augustine appeals to the parable to show the universality of Christian love. He says that in comparision with knowledge of God, knowledge of the neighbor is easier. Augustine explains, "Every human being is a neighbor to every other human being. Nor should we suppose any distance in the human race, where there is a common nature." Then after appealing to the parable, Augustine concludes, "The man who asked the question judged that only the one who showed him mercy was a neighbor to him, and it was made clear that in doing acts of mercy no one is to be considered a stranger by one who loves the neighbor."

Again, in Sermo CCXCIXD, Augustine, speaking of the man who asked who his neighbor was, said, "He thought that the Lord would say, 'Your father and your mother, your wife, your children, your brothers, your sisters.' This was not his answer; rather, he wanted to teach that every human being was a neighbor to every other human being and began a story." Then after a summary of the parable, he says,

This man from Jerusalem considered the priests and Levites as neighbors and the Samaritans as strangers. His neighbors passed him by, and a stranger became his neighbor. Who then was neighbor to this man? ... What did he say? "I believe, the one who showed mercy." And the Lord said to him, "Go and do likewise."

10 Contemporary exegetes understand by the "literal" sense of a passage the sense that was intended by the human author. When Augustine speaks of a "literal" interpretation of a text, he means something quite different, as becomes immediately apparent to anyone who reads his De Genesi ad litteram. Later in this paper, we will return to the question of the "literal" sense. Until then my use of quotation marks is meant to warn the reader that one should not assume that it should be taken in the contemporary sense. 11 Enarratio in Psalmum CXVIII, Sermo VIII, 2: CCL XL, 1686: "Omnis quippe homo est omni homini proximus, nec ulla cogitanda est longinquitas generis, ubi est natura communis. ... cui proximum non fuisse, nisi qui cum illo fecit misericordiam, ipse qui interrogauerat iudicauit; patuitque in facienda misericordia neminem alienum esse deputandum ab eo qui diligit proximum." 12 Sermo CCXCIXD 2: MA I, 76: "Et ille, qui hoc audivit, ait: Et quis est mihi proximus? Putabat dicturum dominum: Pater tuus et mater tua, coniux tua, filii tui, fratres tui, sorores tuae. Non hoc respondit, sed qui volebat commendare omnem hominem omni homini proximum, instituit

170 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

So too, in Contra mendacium, Augustine is commenting on St. Paul's command in Eph 4:25, "Put aside lying, and speak the truth, each of you, with your neighbor." He warns that this does not mean that we may lie to those who are not members of Christ's body.

Rather, this was stated in that way, because each of us ought to regard persons as what we want them to become, even if they have not yet become such. So too, the Lord showed that the Samaritan foreigner was the neighbor of the one to whom he showed mercy. We should then regard as neighbors, not as strangers, those with whom we should act this way, lest they remain strangers.

In one passage Augustine presents a "literal" interpretation, but points out that the text has a hidden meaning. Commenting on Ps 48:11, which states that the wicked die and leave their wealth to strangers, Augustine is faced with a puzzle, since many children of the wicked inherit from their parents. He asks,

How are one's children strangers? The children of the wicked are strangers. We find that a certain foreigner became a neighbor, because he was the source of benefit. If your children are no benefit to you, they are strangers. Where do we find a foreigner who became a neighbor, because he was the source of benefit? In the Gospel. A certain man lay wounded on the road.

narrationem. ... Iste enim homo Hierosolymitanus proximos habebat sacerdotes et leuitas, samaritanos alienigenas. Transierunt proximi, et extraneus factus est proximus. Quis ergo erat huic homini proximus? ... Quid ergo ait? Credo, qui cum illo fecit misericordiam. et dominus ad illum: uade, et tu fac similiter." 13 Contra mendacium VI, 15: CSEL XLI, 486–487: "sed ideo dictum est, quia unusquisque nostrum hoc debet quemque deputare, quod eum uult fieri, etiam si nondum factus est. sicut dominus alienigenam Samaritanum proximum eius ostendit, cum quo misericordiam fecit. proximus ergo habendus est, non alienus, cum quo id agendum est, ne remaneat alienus. ..." 14 Enarratio in Psalmum XLVIII, Sermo I, 14: CCL XXXVIII, 561–562: "Sed tamen ait mihi aliquis: Ecce quos maledictos dixit scriptura, quos dixit perire et relinquere alienis diuitias suas. ... Quomodo alieni sunt filii? Iniquorum filii alieni sunt; nam inuenimus quemdam extraneum propinquum factum, quia profuit. Si quis tuorum tibi nihil prodest, alienus est. Ubi inuenimus nescio quem exterum propinquum factum, quia profuit? In euangelio. Iacebat quidam uulneratus a latronibus."

After a summary of the parable, Augustine concludes, "One to whom you show mercy is your neighbor. If then the foreign Samaritan became a neighbor by showing mercy and giving help, then those who cannot give you help in tribulation have become strangers to you."

15 Here those who cannot help one in tribulation are exemplified in the Lukan parable by the five brothers of the rich man who has died.

16 Despite this moral interpretation of the parable, Augustine, nonetheless, adds, as soon as he has finished recounting the facts of parable, "These things were stated as a mystery and seem too lengthy to be discussed at the moment."

17 Similarly, in De doctrina christiana, Augustine appeals to the parable of the Samaritan when discussing whether a Christian's love should extend even to the angels. He states that it clearly excludes no human beings and argues that it also includes the angels.

Both the Lord in the Gospel and the apostle Paul showed that he who commanded that we love the neighbor excluded no human being. For that man, to whom he had presented these two commandments and to whom he said that the whole law and the prophets depended upon them, asked, "Who is my neighbor?" The Lord told him of a certain man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. ... The Lord said to him, "Go and do likewise," obviously, so that we might understand that our neighbor is the person to whom we have the duty to show mercy, if there is need, or to whom we would have this duty, if there were need. From this it also follows that the person who in turn has this duty toward us is our neighbor. For

15 Enarratio in Psalmum XLVIII, Sermo I, 14: CCL XXXVIII, 562: "Cui misericordiam facis, proximus tibi est. Si ergo extraneus Samaritanus faciendo misericordiam et subueniendo proximus factus est; quicumque tibi in tribulatione subuenire non possunt, alieni a te facti sunt." 16 Enarratio in Psalmum XLVIII, Sermo I, 14: CCL XXXVIII, 562: "Sed forte non habuit qui illi succederent, et alieni possederunt diuitias ipsius? Inuenimus in ipso euangelio quia habuit; ait enim: Habeo quinque fratres. Fratres ipsius subuenire illi ardenti in flamma non potuerunt." 17 Enarratio in Psalmum XLVIII, Sermo I, 14: CCL XXXVIII, 562: "Quae in mysterio dicta sunt, et ad discutiendum nunc prolixiora uidentur. ..." For something to be stated "in mysterio" means that it was stated in a hidden manner, though it has been now revealed. Thus Augustine says in In Iohannis Euangelium tractatus XLIII, 2: CCL XXXVI, 374: "Denique ut plenius noueritis mysterium quare se Samaritanum negare non debuit, parabolam illam notissimam adtendite. ..."

172 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian the term "neighbor" is relative, and one can only be a neighbor to a neighbor. Who can fail to see that no one is excluded so as to be denied the duty of mercy, since it extends even to enemies? For the same Lord says, "Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you."

Since the angels show mercy toward us, they are clearly included in the commandment enjoining love of the neighbor. But then Augustine adds, "For this reason even our God and Lord willed that he be called our neighbor. After all, the Lord Jesus Christ signified that it was he himself who had helped the man lying in the road attacked and left half-dead by robbers."

Hence, we come to the more typically Augustinian interpretation of the parable in which the facts are reported "in mysterio" and in accord with which the Samaritan is Christ.

II. The Christological Interpretation of the Parable From his earliest commentary on Scripture, Augustine viewed the parable of the descent from Jerusalem to Jericho as requiring a spiritual interpretation. Though Jerusalem and Jericho are the names of real cities, "That man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, as the Lord says, and was wounded and left by robbers injured and half-dead on

18 De doctrina christiana I, xxx, 31: CCL XXXII, 24: "Nam quod nullum hominum exceperit, qui praecepit, ut proximum diligamus, et ipse in euangelio dominus ostendit et apostolus Paulus. Namque ille, cui duo ipsa praecepta protulerat atque in eis pendere totam legem prophetasque dixerat, cum interrogaret eum dicens: Et quis est mihi proximus? Hominem quendam proposuit descendentem ab Hierusalem ad Hierichum. ... Cui dominus ait: Vade et tu fac similiter, ut uidelicet esse eum proximum intellegamus, cui uel exhibendum est officium misericordiae, si indiget, uel exhibendum esset, si indigeret. Ex quo iam est consequens, ut etiam ille, a quo nobis hoc uicissim exhibendum est, proximus sit noster. Proximi enim nomen ad aliquid est nec quisquam esse proximus nisi proximo potest. Nullum autem exceptum esse, cui misericordiae denegetur officium, quis non uideat, quando usque ad inimicos etiam porrectum est, eodem domino dicente: Diligite inimicos uestros, benefacite eis, qui uos oderunt?" 19 De doctrina christiana I, xxx, 33: CCL XXXII, 25: "Ex quo et ipse deus et dominus noster proximum se nostrum dici uoluit. Nam et se ipsum significat dominus Iesus Christus opitulatum esse semiuiuo iacenti in uia afflicto et relicto a latronibus."

the road clearly demands that those places of the earth be understood spiritually. ..."

20 Immediately prior to this citation, Augustine explains that "in the allegories of Scripture" Jerusalem and Sion are often used to signify spiritual realities.

21 Here it is important to remember that "allegoria" in Augustine does not have its modern meaning of an extended metaphor; rather, it simply means that a term that signifies one thing in its proper sense is used to signify something else.

22 In the parable both "Jerusalem" and "Jericho," which are names of earthly cities, are used to signify something else. "Jerusalem is that heavenly city of peace from the beatitude of which [Adam] has fallen. Jericho means 'the moon' and signifies our mortality, because it is born, becomes larger, grows old, and dies."

20 De Genesi contra Manichaeos II, x, 13: PL XXXIV, 203: "Et ille qui descendebat ab Jerusalem in Jericho, sicut Dominus dicit, et in via vulneratus, saucius et semivivus relictus est a latronibus, utique locos istos terrarum, quamvis secundum historiam in terra inveniantur, spiritualiter cogit intelligi." 21 De Genesi contra Manichaeos II, x, 13: PL XXXIV, 203: "Sicut Jerusalem quamvis sit visibilis et terrenus locus, significat tamen civitatem pacis spiritualiter: et Sion quamvis sit mons in terra, speculationem tamen significat; et hoc nomen in Scripturarum allegoriis ad spiritualia intelligenda saepe transfertur. ..." 22 See, for example, Quintillian, Institutio oratoria IX, 2, 92: "Totum allegoriae simile est aliud dicere, aliud intelligi velle." Augustine defines and provides examples of the trope in Ena0rratio in Psalmum CIII, Sermo I, 13: CCL XL, 1486: "allegoria dicitur, cum aliquid aliud uidetur sonare in uerbis, et aliud in intellectu significare. quomodo dicitur agnus christus: numquid pecus? leo christus: numquid bestia? petra christus: numquid duritia? mons christus: numquid tumor terrae? et sic multa aliud uidentur sonare, aliud significare; et uocatur allegoria. ... ergo quod dicimus allegoriam figuram esse, sacramentum figuratum allegoria est." For more on "allegoria" in Augustine, see Augustinus-Lexikon, ed. C. Mayer (Basel-Stuttgart: Schwabe, 1986) I, 1/2, pp. 234–239. 23 Quaestiones euvangeliorum II, xix: CCL XLIV/B, 62: "Ierusalem, ciuitas pacis illa coelestis, a cuius beatitudine lapsus est, Iericho, luna interpretatur, et significat mortalitatem nostram, propter quod nascitur, crescit, senescit, et occidit." See also Enarratio in Psalmum LXXXVIII, Sermo II, 5: CCL XXXIX, 1236: "Per lunam solent significare scripturae mortalitatem carnis huius, propter augmenta et decrementa, propter transitoriam speciem. Denique et Iericho luna interpretatur; et utique quidam qui descendebat ab Ierusalem in Iericho, incidit in latrones; descendebat

174 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

Augustine consistently identifies the Samaritan (Samaritanus ille) with Christ. He again and again appeals to an etymological interpretation of the term "Samaritan" as "guardian" or "protector" and interprets the guardian or protector as the Lord.

24 Given the etymological interpretation of "Samaritan" as "guardian" or "protector," Augustine uses Ps 120:4 to justify his identification of the Samaritan with the risen Christ. "But who is the guardian if not the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ? Since he has risen from the dead and will die no more, 'he who guards Israel does not slumber nor will he fall asleep.'"

25 In fact, Auenim ab immortalitate ad mortalitatem. Similis est ergo caro ista lunae, quae omni tempore et omni mense patitur augmenta et decrementa; sed erit caro ista nostra in resurrectione perfecta; et testis in caelo fidelis." See also Enarratio in Psalmum CXXI, 7: CCL XL, 1807: "Quo adscenderunt tribus? In ciuitatem cuius participatio eius in idipsum. Ergo illuc adscenditur, in Ierusalem. Homo autem qui descendebat de Ierusalem in Iericho, incidit in latrones. Non descenderet, et non incideret in latrones. Quia uero descendendo incidit in latrones, adscendendo ueniat ad angelos." See also Enarratio in Psalmum CXVIII, Sermo XV, 6: CCL XL, 1713: "Ipsa est illa humilitas in loco mortalitatis peregrinantis hominis de paradiso et de illa superna ierusalem, unde quidam descendens in Iericho incidit in latrones; sed propter misericordiam quae per illum Samaritanum cum illo facta est, cantabiles illi erant iustificationes dei in loco peregrinationis suae. ..." 24 Quaestiones euangeliorum II, xix: CCL XLIV/B, 62–63: "Samaritanus custos interpretatur, et ideo ipse dominus significatur hoc nomine"; Quaestiones euangeliorum II, xl: CCL XLIV/B, 101: "iste uero qui erat Samaritanus, quod interpretatur custos. ..."; In Iohannis Euangelium tractatus XLIII, 2: CCL XXXVI, 374: "Samaritanus enim interpretatur custos"; Sermo CXXXI VI, 6: PL XXXVIII, 732: "in iumentum suum levavit eum transiens Samaritanus, quod interpretatur custos. ...; Sermo CLXXI II, 2: PL XXXVIII, 934: "In quo Samaritano se voluit intelligi Dominus Iesus Christus. Samaritanus enim Custos interpretatur"; Enarratio in Psalmum XXX, Enarratio II, Sermo I, 8: CCL XXXVIII, 197: "transiens Samaritanus misertus est, id est ipse Dominus. ... Samarites custos interpretatur"; Enarratio in Psalmum LXVIII, Sermo II, 11: CCL XXXIX,925: Samarites latine custos interpretatur; quis autem custos, nisi Saluator Dominus noster Iesus Christus?"; Enarratio in Psalmum CXXV, 15: CCL XL, 1855–56: "Transit Samaritanus quidem, id est Dominus noster Iesus Christus ... Samarites enim interpretatur, custos"; Enarratio in Psalmum CXXXVI, 7: CCL XL, 1968: "Hunc ille custos noster, id est Samaritanus (Samaritanus enim custos interpretatur). ..." 25 Enarratio in Psalmum LXVIII, Sermo II, 11: CCL XXXIX, 925–926: "quis autem custos, nisi Saluator Dominus noster Iesus Christus? Qui gustine argues that Jesus implicitly claimed that he was a Samaritan. He says,

Who will protect us if he abandons us? When the Jews accused him and said, "Do we not speak the truth that you are a Samaritan and have a devil?" he rightly rejected the one, but accepted the other. He said, "I do not have a devil." He did not say, "I am not a Samaritan." Thus he wanted us to understand that he is our guardian.

After all, Augustine points out, "If he had said, 'I am not a Samaritan,' he would be saying, 'I am not a guardian.'"

27 But, according to Augustine, Jesus is not merely claiming to be a Samaritan; rather, he is claiming to be the Samaritan of the parable. Though the priest ignored the man wounded by robbers and the Levite too passed him by, "there came along a certain Samaritan; he is our guardian. He approached the quoniam surrexit a mortuis iam non moriturus, non dormit neque obdormiet qui custodit israel." See also Sermo CLXXI II, 2: PL XXXVIII, 933: "Samaritanus enim Custos interpretatur. Ideo surgens a mortuis, iam non moritur, et mors ei ultra non dominabitur: quia non dormit, neque dormitat qui custodit Israel." 26 Enarratio in Psalmum XXX, Enarratio II, Sermo I, 8: CCL XXXVIII, 197: "Et quis nos custodit, si ille deserit? Merito, cum Iudaei conuiciantes dicerent: Nonne uerum dicimus, quia Samaritanus es, et daemonium habes, unum respuit, alterum amplexus est; Ego, inquit, daemonium non habeo; non dixit: Non sum samaritanus; sic intellegi uolens nostrum se esse custodem." See also Enarratio in Psalmum CXXXVI, 7: CCL XL, 1968: "Hunc ille custos noster, id est samaritanus ... cui obiectum est a iudaeis et dictum: nonne uerum dicimus quia samaritanus es, et daemonium habes?" See also Sermo CLXXI II, 2: PL XXXVIII, 934: "Denique quando conviciis tantis blasphemabant Iudaei, dixerunt illi: Nonne verum dicimus, quia Samaritanus es, et daemonium habes? Cum ergo duo essent verba conviciosa obiecta domino, dictumque illi esset, Nonne verum dicimus, quia Samaritanus es, et daemonium habes? poterat respondere: Nec samaritanus sum, nec daemonium habeo: respondit autem, Ego daemonium non habeo. Quod respondit, refutavit: quod tacuit, confirmavit. Negavit se habere daemonium, qui se noverat daemoniorum exclusorem: non se negauit infirmi custodem." 27 Enarratio in Psalmum CXXV, 15: CCL XL, 1856: "Si diceret: Non sum Samaritanus, diceret: Non sum custos."

176 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian wounded man; he showed mercy, and he offered himself as a neighbor to him whom he did not regard as a stranger."

Once Augustine develops the idea of the Samaritan becoming our neighbor into a whole theology of incarnation and redemption. He begins with the Old Latin version of Phil 4:5: "Dominus in proximo est" and explains that the Lord is "near because he has come to be near."

29 He stresses the remoteness of God from human beings. "What is so distant, what is so remote, as God from human beings, the immortal from the mortal, the righteous from sinners? Not distant by reason of place, but by reason of unlikeness."

30 Augustine points out that we often speak of human beings as distant from one another because of their moral conduct, "even if they are standing next to each other, even if they live near each other, even if they are chained together."

31 The immortal and righteous God, then, came down to us mortal sinners in order to become near to us. "And what did he do? ... If he assumed both of our evil states, he would have become our equal and would have needed along with us someone to set him free. What then did he do in order to be someone near to us."

32 Augustine explains that our neighbor is not the same as we are, but close to us.

28 In Iohannis Euangelium tractatus XLIII, 2: CCL XXXVI, 374: "Transiit sacerdos, neglexit eum; transiit Leuites, et ipse praeteriit; transiit quidam Samaritanus, ipse est custos noster; ipse accessit ad saucium, ipse impendit misericordiam, eique se praestitit proximum, quem non deputauit alienum." 29 Sermo CLXXI II, 2: PL XXXVIII, 934: "Ergo Dominus in proximo est; quia Dominus nobis factus est in proximo." The Vulgate has: "Dominus prope est." Paul seems clearly to refer to the imminent coming of the Lord, but in the context of his comments on the parable of the Samaritan Augustine interprets the verse in terms of the incarnation. 30 Sermo CLXXI III, 3: PL XXXVIII, 934: "Quid tam longinquum, quid tam remotum, quam Deus ab hominibus, immortalis a mortalibus, iustus a peccatoribus? Non loco longe, sed dissimilitudine." 31 Sermo CLXXI III, 3: PL XXXVIII, 934: "Nam solemus etiam ita loqui, cum de duobus hominibus dicimus, quando diversi sunt mores: Iste longe est ab illo. Etiamsi iuxta steterint, etiamsi vicinius inhabitent, etiamsi una catena colligentur; longe est pius ab impio, longe est innocens a reo, longe est iustus ab iniusto." 32 Sermo CLXXI III, 3: PL XXXVIII, 934: " Et quid fecit? ... si utrumque malum nostrum suscepisset, par noster factus esset, et liberatore nobiscum opus haberet. Quid ergo fecit, ut esset proximus nobis?"

In order to become a neighbor, he assumed your punishment; he did not assume your sin, and if he did assume it, he assumed it to destroy it, not to commit it. As righteous and immortal, he was far from sinners who are not righteous. As a mortal sinner, you were far from the righteous and immortal one. He did not become a sinner like you, but became mortal like you. By assuming the punishment and not assuming the sin, he destroyed both the sin and the punishment.

Given this basic identification of the Samaritan as Christ, the other elements of the parable do not constitute other distinct interpretations, but rather complement the Christological interpretation.

34 For instance, the man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho is Adam. "A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho; he is understood to be Adam in the human race."

35 But the Adam who went down from Jerusalem was not a single individual. "He who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho fell among robbers. ... It was Adam then who went down and fell among robbers, for we are all Adam."

36 Or, as Augustine puts it elsewhere, "The whole human race, after all, is that man who was lying in the road, left half-dead by robbers."

37 Again, Augustine says that Adam "received a deadly wound, and all the human race would have perished in him, if that Samaritan had not come down and

33 Sermo CLXXI III, 3: PL XXXVIII, 934: "Proximus non hoc quod nos, sed prope nos. ... Ille ut esset proximus, suscepit poenam tuam, non suscepit culpam tuam: et si suscepit, delendam suscepit, non faciendam. Iustus et immortalis, longe ab iniustis et mortalibus. Peccator mortalis, longe eras a iusto immortali. Non est factus ille peccator, quod tu: sed factus est mortalis, quod tu. Manens iustus, factus est mortalis. Suscipiendo poenam et non suscipiendo culpam, et culpam delevit et poenam." 34 Fitzmyer's claim that there have been soteriological, ecclesial, and sacramental interpretations besides the Christological interpretation makes these multiple interpretations seem much more far-fetched than they are in Augustine. 35 Quaestiones euangeliorum II, xix: CCL XLIV/B, 62: "Homo quidam descendebat ab Ierusalem in Iericho; ipse Adam intelligitur in genere humano." 36 Enarratio in Psalmum CXXV, 15: CCL XL, 1855: "qui descendebat ab Ierusalem in Iericho, incidit in latrones. ... iam ergo Adam descendit, et incidit in latrones; omnes enim nos Adam sumus." 37 Sermo CLXXI II, 2: PL XXXVIII, 933: "Totum enim genus humanum est homo ille qui jacebat in via semivivus a latronibus relictus."

178 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

38 Accordingly, "the Samaritan passing by showed mercy, that is, the Lord himself who had mercy on the human race."

healed its grievous wounds."

39 Augustine states that we or his congregation were the man left half-dead on the road. "Remember that, though you were weak and were lying half-dead in the road, you have been lifted upon the beast and brought into the inn."

Augustine interprets the robbers as "the devil and his angels who stripped him of immortality and, by the blows they inflicted through persuading him to sin, left him half-dead."

41 So too, we have been redeemed by Christ from the devil. "Who has redeemed us? Christ. From whom has he redeemed us? From the devil. The devil and his angels, then, took us captive. . . . They are also the robbers who wounded that traveler who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and left him wounded and half-dead on the road."

42 Once Augustine explains why the man was half-dead: "inasmuch as he can understand and know God, the man is living; inasmuch as he is wasting away and pressed down by sins, he is dead, and thus he is said to be half-dead."

43 The priest and the Levite who passed the wounded man by "signify the

38 Contra Iulianum I, iii, 10: PL XLIV, 646: "Et sic lethale vulnus accepit, in quo omne genus occidisset humanum, nisi Samaritanus ille descendens vulnera eius acerba curasset." 39 Enarratio in Psalmum XXX, Enarratio II, Sermo I, 8: CCL XXXVIII, 197: "Quem ... transiens Samaritanus miseratus est, id est ipse dominus, qui miseratus est genus humanum." 40 Enarratio in Psalmum XXXI, Enarratio II, 7: CCL XXXVIII, 230: "memento quia etsi languebas, et in uia semiuiuus iacebas, leuatus es in iumentum, et perductus in stabulum." See also Enarratio in Psalmum CXXV 15: CCL XL, 1856: "Transiens Samaritanus non nos contemsit: curauit nos. ..." 41 Quaestiones euangeliorum II, xix: CCL XLIV/B, 62: "Latrones, diabolus et angeli eius; qui eum spoliauerunt immortalitate: et plagis impositis, peccata suadendo: reliquerunt eum semiuiuum. ..." 42 Enarratio in Psalmum CXXXVI, 7: CCL XL, 1968: "Quis nos redemit? Christus. A quo nos redemit? A diabolo. Diabolus ergo et angeli eius captiuos nos duxerunt. ... Ipsi sunt etiam latrones uulnerantes illum uiatorem qui descendit ab ierusalem in iericho, quem sauciatum semiuiuum reliquerunt." 43 Quaestiones euangeliorum II, xix: CCL XLIV/B, 62: "quia ex parte qua potest intelligere et cognoscere Deum, uiuus est homo; ex parte quo peccatis contabescit et premitur, mortuus est, et ideo semiuiuus dicitur."

priesthood and ministry of the Old Testament, which was unable to restore him to health."

44 So too, the Samaritan's return on the next day signifies "after the resurrection of the Lord."

45 The inn (stabulum) to which the Samaritan brings the wounded man is the Church. "The inn is the Church in which travelers are refreshed from the pilgrimage as they return to the eternal fatherland."

46 Thus Augustine can say to his own soul, "You recognize that you are certainly in that inn to which that Samaritan brought the man he found half-dead from the many wounds inflicted by robbers."

47 We who are wounded should beg the physician that we may be carried to the inn to be cared for.

48 Though human beings were originally created in sound health, without sin, and with free choice and the power to live lives of righteousness, "we are now," Augustine points out, "dealing with that man whom robbers left half-dead on the road. Injured and suffering from serious wounds, he cannot rise to the peak of righteousness, as he was able to come down from there. If he is now in the inn, he is

44 Quaestiones euangeliorum II, xix: CCL XLIV/B, 62: "Sacerdos autem et leuita qui eo uiso praeterierunt sacerdotium et ministerium ueteris testamenti significant, quod non poterat prodesse ad salutem." See Enarratio in Psalmum LXVIII, Sermo II, 11: CCL XXXIX, 925: "quem sacerdos et Leuites transeuntes inuenerant et contemserant a quibus curari non potuit. ..." and Enarratio in Psalmum CXXV, 15: CCL XL, 1855: "Sed transit sacerdos, et contempsit; transit Leuita, et contempsit, quia lex sanare non potuit." 45 Quaestiones euangeliorum II, xix: CCL XLIV/B, 63: "Altera dies est post resurrectionem Domini." 46 Quaestiones euangeliorum II, xix: CCL XLIV/B, 63: "Stabulum est ecclesia, ubi reficiantur viatores de peregrinatione in aeternam patriam redeuntes." See also Sermo CLXXI VI, 6: PL XXXVIII, 732: "Stabulum si agnoscitis, ecclesia est"; In Iohannis Euangelium tractatus XLI, 13: CCL XXXVI, 365: "Ergo, fratres, et ecclesia hoc tempore in qua saucius sanatur, stabulum est uiatoris; sed ipsi ecclesiae sursum est hereditas possessoris"; and Enarratio in Psalmum CXXV, 15: CCL XL, 1856: "perduxit ad stabulum, id est ad ecclesiam." 47 De trinitate XV, xxvii, 50: CCL L/A, 532: "Agnoscis te certe in illo esse stabulo quo Samaritanus ille perduxit eum quem reperit multis a latronibus inflictis uulneribus semiuium." 48 See In Iohannis Euangelium tractatus XLI, 13: CCL XXXVI, 365: "Precemur medicum saucii, portemur in stabulum curandi."

180 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

49 So too, Augustine argues that Pelagius must grant that human nature was corrupted in those who have not been baptized, "if, now as one of the baptized, that wounded man has emerged from the inn in good health or is in good health in the inn where the merciful Samaritan brought him to be healed."

still being healed."

50 The beast of the Samaritan onto which he lifted the wounded man is the flesh of Christ. "As he passed by," Augustine says, "the Samaritan did not look upon us with contempt; he healed us, raised us up onto his beast, on his own flesh."

51 Augustine explains, "His beast is the flesh in which he deigned to come to us. To be placed upon his beast is to believe in the incarnation of Christ."

52 Again he says, "Robbers have left you half-dead in the road, but you have already been found lying there by the Samaritan who passed by and was merciful. ... You have been lifted upon his beast; you have believed that Christ has become incarnate."

53 Once Augustine comments on Christ's words, "I will show myself to him" (Jn 14:21).

49 De natura et gratia XLIII, 50: CSEL LX, 270: "Sed nunc de illo agitur, quem semiuiuum latrones in uia relinquerunt, qui grauibus saucius confossusque uulneribus non ita potest ad iustitiae culmen ascendere, sicut potuit inde descendere, qui etiam si iam in stabulo est adhuc curatur." 50 De natura et gratia LII, 60: CSEL LX, 277: "Certe uel in eis concedit esse uitiatam, si iam in baptizatis ille saucius sanus de stabulo egressus est, aut sanus in stabulo est, quo eum curandum misericors Samaritanus aduexit." 51 Enarratio in Psalmum CXXV, 15: CCL XL, 1856: "Transiens Samaritanus non nos contempsit: curauit nos, leuauit in iumentum, in carne sua. ..." See also Augustine's use of "iumentum," along with "vehiculum," "vestis," and "templum," for the body of Christ in Sermo CXIX VII, 7: PL XXXVIII, 675: "Ille carnem suam non solum tenuit, ut nasceretur, viveret, ageret; sed etiam mortuam suscitauit, et vehiculum quoddam in quo processit ad nos, ad patrem levavit. Vestem dicas carnem Christi, vehiculum dicas, et quomodo forte ipse significare dignatus est, iumentum ipsius dicas; quia in ipso iumento levauit eum qui fuerat a latronibus sauciatus: postremo, quod ipse apertius dixit, templum dicas. ..." 52 Quaestiones euangeliorum II, xix: CCL XLIV/B, 63: "Iumentum eius est caro in qua ad nos uenire dignatus est. Inponi iumento est in ipsam incarnationem Christi credere." 53 Sermo CLXXIXA, 7: PLS II, 714–715: "Semivivum te latrones in via dimiserunt, sed iam a transeunte et misericordii Samaritano iacens inuentus est; ... levatus es in iumentum eius, incarnatum Christum credidisti. ..."

He was present to those to whom he was speaking. They saw the form of the servant; they did not see the form of God. They were being brought by the beast to the inn in order to be healed, but once they have been made healthy, they will see.

In one text Augustine offers two interpretations of the two denarii that the Samaritan gives to the innkeeper. They either signify the two commandments of love or the promises for the present life and the life to come.

55 In other texts he offers only the first interpretation: "He gave two denarii for his care, love of God and love of the neighbor, for on these two commandments depend the law and the prophets."

57 Elsewhere Augustine tentatively identifies the apostle as Paul, "To which innkeeper? Perhaps to him who said, 'We serve as ambassadors of Christ'"

The inn-keeper of the parable is the apostle.

58 But the role of innkeeper is not exclusively Paul's. "I too do this," Augustine

54 In Iohannis Euangelium tractatus XIX, 18: CCL XXXVI, 201: "Quibus loquebatur, praesens eis erat; sed formam serui uidebant; formam autem dei non uidebant. Per iumentum ad stabulum ducebantur curandi, sed sanati uidebunt. ..." 55 Quaestiones euangelium II, xix: CCL XLIV/B, 63: "Duo denarii sunt uel duo praecepta charitatis, quam per spiritum sanctum acceperunt apostoli ad euangelizandum ceteris, uel promissio vitae praesentis et futurae, secundum enim duas promissiones dictum est: accipiet in hoc saeculo septies tantum, et in futuro saeculo uitam aeternam consequetur." 56 Enarratio in Psalmum CXXV, 15: CCL XL, 1856: "dedit duos denarios unde curaretur, caritatem dei et caritatem proximi: in his duobus enim praeceptis tota lex pendet et prophetae." See also In Iohannis Euangelium tractatus XLI, 13: CCL XXXVI, 365: "Dedit etiam duos nummos, qui impenderentur saucio curando; forte ipsa sunt duo praecepta, in quibus tota lex pendet et prophetae" and In Iohannis Euangelium tractatus XVII, 6: CCL XXXVI, 173: "In his duobus praeceptis tota lex pendet et prophetae. Merito et illa uidua omnes facultates suas, duo minuta misit in dono dei; merito et pro illo languido a latronibus sauciato, stabularius duos nummos accepit unde sanaretur. ..." 57 Quaestiones euangeliorum II, xix: CCL XLIV/B, 63: "Stabularius ergo est apostolus." See also Enarratio in Psalmum CXXV, 15: CCL XL, 1856: "commendauit stabulario, id est apostolo. ..." 58 In Iohannis Euangelium tractatus XLI, 13: CCL XXXVI, 365: "Cui stabulario? Forte illi qui dixit: Pro Christo legatione fungimur."

182 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

59 Once Augustine identifies the preachers of the Gospel as "the physicians who heal the man wounded by robbers, but it was the Lord who brought him to the inn."

says; "we all do this; we serve in the role of the innkeeper."

Augustine explains binding of the wounds and the wine and oil which the Samaritan poured on the wounds of the man left on the road. "The binding of the wounds signifies the curtailing of sins; the oil is the consolation of good hope on account of the forgiveness received toward peaceful reconciliation; the wine is an exhortation to act with a fervent spirit."

61 Once he interprets the wine and the oil as "the sacrament of the Only-Begotten."

62 And once he explicitly identifies them as Baptism,

All sins were wiped away by the sacrament of Baptism. ... But this is the wine and the oil that were administered on the road. Recall, my friends, how that man, wounded by robbers and half-dead on the road, was consoled, when he received wine and oil for his wounds. He has now been forgiven his error, and his weakness is still being healed in the inn.

In a series of texts Augustine focuses upon the Samaritan's words to the innkeeper, "If you spend something more, I will repay you when I return" (Lk 10:35). He offers two explanations of the extra expenditure on the part of the innkeeper.

59 Sermo CLXXIXA, 8: PLS II, 715: "hoc etiam ego, hoc nos omnes agimus; stabularii fungimur munere." 60 Enarratio in Psalmum LXXXVII, 13: CCL XXXIX, 1218: "Ipsi sunt medici curantes a latronibus sauciatum; sed Dominus eum perduxit ad stabulum. ..." 61 Quaestiones euangeliorum II, xix: CCL XLIV/B, 63: "Alligatio uulnerum est cohibitio peccatorum; oleum consolatio spei bonae propter indulgentiam datam ad reconciliationem pacis; uinum est exhortatio ad operandum feruentissimo spiritu." 62 Sermo CLXXIXA, 7: PLS II, 715: "infusum est tibi vinum et oleum, sacramentum Unigeniti percepisti. ..." 63 Sermo CXXXI VI, 6: PL XXXVIII, 732: "Deleta sunt cuncta peccata in sacramento baptismatis. ... Sed hoc est quod infusum est in via, oleum et vinum. Retinetis, charissimi, semivivus ille in via a latronibus sauciatus, quomodo sit consolatus, accipiens oleum et vinum uulneribus suis. iam utique errori eius indultum fuit, et tamen sanatur languor in stabulo."

The extra money that he spent is either that counsel which [Paul] gives, "With regard to virgins I have no commandment from the Lord, but I offer a counsel" or the fact that he worked with his own hands so that he was not a burden to one of the weak when the Gospel was first preached, though he was permitted to live from the Gospel.

In accord with the first interpretation, Augustine says that the extra expenditures of the innkeeper are matters that do not fall under the commandment of the law, but the counsel of love. "These are the further things which are given to the wounded man who was brought to the inn to be healed by the pity of that Samaritan. And thus they are not said to be commanded by the Lord, though we are advised to offer them to the Lord. ..."

65 In accord with the second interpretation, given the identification of the innkeeper as the apostle Paul, Augustine claims that he "spent something more who, as he himself testifies, served at his own expense."

66 Once, after stating that we all function as the innkeeper, he adds, "Would that we would at least spend what

64 Quaestiones euangeliorum II, xix: CCL XLIV/B, 63: "Quod supererogat aut illud consilium est quod ait: de uirginibus autem praeceptum domini non habeo, consilium autem do, aut quod etiam manibus suis operatus est, ne infirmorum aliquem in nouitate euangelii grauaret, cum ei liceret pasci ex euangelio." Here the verb "supererogat" replaces the "amplius erogat." which is found in the other citations of the parable in Augustine. 65 De adulterinis coniugiis I, xiv, 15: CSEL XLI, 364: "Ita ostendit ea quae licita sunt, id est nullo praecepto domini prohibentur, sicut expedit, potius esse tractanda non praescripto legis, sed consilio caritatis. Haec sunt, quae amplius erogantur saucio, qui curandus ad stabulum Samaritani illius miseratione perductus est. Et ideo dicuntur non a domino praecipi, quamuis domino moneantur offerri. ..." 66 De opere monachorum V, 6: CSEL XLI, 540: "Amplius ergo erogabat apostolus Paulus, qui suis, ut ipse testatur, stipendiis militabat." In the same vein, see Enarratio in Psalmum CXXV, 15: CCL XL, 1856: "Amplius erogauit apostolus; quia cum omnibus apostolis permissum esset ut acciperent tamquam milites christi stipendia a prouincialibus christi, ille manibus suis laborauit, et annonas suas prouincialibus donauit," and Sermo XLVI, 4: CCL XLI, 531: "et dicit alios coapostolos suos usos fuisse hac potestate non usurpata sed data. plus ille fecit ut nec quod debebatur acciperet. ipse ergo donauit et debitum, sed alius non exegit indebitum: ille plus fecit. fortassis enim ipsum significabat, qui aegrum cum adduceret ad stabulum dixit: si quid amplius erogaueris, in redeundo reddam tibi."

184 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian we have received! But whatever we spend, brothers, the money is the Lord's."

67 Hence, Augustine presents a Christological interpretation of the parable whose central feature is the identification of Christ as the Good Samaritan. Can such a reading of the parable be regarded as viable and legitimate today? How might Augustine defend his interpretation of this parable of the Samaritan?

III. A Viable Interpretation for Today? If Augustine were to agree that the Christological interpretation was allegorical in the modern sense and was not the meaning of the parable that Luke intended, the question would be by and large settled, since such an allegorical interpretation can be dismissed as far-fetched and extrinsic. Augustine, however, makes it quite clear that he holds that Jesus himself taught in the Gospel of Luke that he was the Good Samaritan.

68 Hence, Augustine clearly held that the Christological sense of the parable is not merely one possible, albeit extrinsic and far-fetched, meaning of the parable, but the meaning which Christ himself intended. If Augustine had the opportunity to confront modern exegetes and argue the point with them, what might he say in defense of his Christological interpretation of the parable? There are at least three lines of argument that might be drawn from his works, the first based on his confrontation with exegetes of his own day concerning the first verses of Genesis, the second based on some of the principles of exegesis that he stated, and the third based upon what he took to be the goal of scriptural exegesis. In Confessions XII, first of all, Augustine describes how he would respond to some unnamed contemporaries who disagreed with him on the meaning of the beginning of the Book of Genesis. Augustine's interlocutors admitted the truth of what he says, but denied that what

67 Sermo CLXXIXA, 8: PLS II, 715: "Illi dictum: si quid amplius erogaveris, in redeundo reddam tibi. Utinam nos hoc saltem erogemus, quod accepimus! Sed quantumqueque erogemus, fratres, pecunia dominica est." 68 See De doctrina christiana I, xxx, 33: CCL XIV, 25: "Ex quo et ipse deus et dominus noster proximum se nostrum dici uoluit. Nam et se ipsum significat dominus Iesus Christus opitulatum esse semiuiuo iacenti in uia afflicto et relicto a latronibus." See also above note 26.

69 So too, contemporary exegetes grant that, in becoming man, Christ showed mercy to the whole human race that lay wounded by sins and brought at least many human beings into the Church where they can receive further healing from the wounds of sin. But while they grant that Augustinian interpretation of the parable is in full accord with the mission of Christ, they claim that Luke did not intend such a Christological sense in writing the parable. Against the unnamed exegetes of Genesis, Augustine argues that no harm results, if, while trying to determine what the author of the Scripture intended, one does not arrive at that truth, but comes to some other truth that God, the light of our minds, shows to be true.

he says was the intention of the author of Genesis.

70 He points out that two sorts of disagreement can arise when truthful messengers report something through the use of signs. The dispute can be about the truth of what is reported, or the dispute can be about the intention of those who reported it.

71 For it is one thing to inquire into what is true about the creation of the world; it is something quite different to inquire into what Moses ... intended the reader and the hearer to understand by these words.

69 See Confessions XII, xvi, 23–xvii, 24: CCL XXVII, 227–8: "Cum his enim uolo coram te aliquid conloqui, deus meus, qui haec omnia, quae intus in mente mea non tacet ueritas tua, uera esse concedunt. ... Dicunt enim: 'Quamuis uera sint haec, non ea tamen duo Moyses intuebatur, cum reuelante spiritu diceret: In principio fecit deus caelum et terram.'" 70 See Confessions XII, xviii, 27: CCL XXVII, 229–230: "Dum ergo quisque conatur id sentire in scripturis sanctis, quod in eis sensit ille qui scripsit, quid mali est, si hoc sentiat, quod tu, lux omnium ueridicarum mentium, ostendis uerum esse, etiamsi non hoc sensit ille, quem legit, cum et ille uerum nec tamen hoc senserit?" 71 See Confessions XII, xxiii, 32: CCL XXVII, 233: "duo uideo dissensionum genera oboriri posse, cum aliquid a nuntiis ueracibus per signa enuntiatur, unum si de ueritate rerum, alterum, si de ipsius qui enuntiat uoluntate dissensio est." 72 Confessions XII, xxiii, 32: CCL XXVII, 233: "Aliter enim quaerimus de creature conditione, quid uerum sit, aliter autem quid in his uerbis Moyses, egregius domesticus fidei tuae, intellegere lectorem auditoremque uoluerit." Here one should recall that for Augustine all human language and, therefore, the language of scripture is a matter of using signs—a mode of communication that was not needed in paradise and that depends upon divine illumination if our minds are to grasp the truth. See De Genesi contra

186 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

Augustine says that "many truths occur to those who investigate" the first verses of Genesis "as those words are understood in different senses."

73 His language reflects the loose connection between the words of the text and the truths that "occur" to its students as they understand those words in different senses. Augustine prays,

May I be joined, O Lord, to them in you, and may I find delight in you with those who feed upon your truth in the love's broad scope. May we together approach the words of your book and search out in them your intention through the intention of your servant, by whose pen you have given them to us.

But no one can be as confident of having grasped the meaning that the author had, or intended that we should understand, as one can be of having grasped a truth.

75 Indeed, "amid such an abundance of true opinions that can be drawn from these words" it is foolish "rashly to affirm which of these opinions Moses especially held. ..."

76 Moreover, Augustine claims that, if he were Moses and were given the task of writing the Book of Genesis, he would want to have such an ability to write that the less intelligent readers would not reject his words as beyond them and that the more intelligent "would not find in the few

Manichaeos II, iv, 5: PL XXXIV, 199, as well as my "St. Augustine's View of the Original Human Condition in De Genesi contra Manichaeos," AS 22 (1991): 141–155. In that sense Christ is the only teacher. As the Wisdom of God, he teaches, while as incarnate, he merely admonishes us by human words. See De libero arbitrio II, xiv, 38: CCL XXIX, 263: "foris admonet intus docet. ..." 73 Confessions XII, xxiv, 33: CCL XXVII, 233–234: "multa uera, quae in illis uerbis aliter atque aliter intellectis occurrunt quaerentibus. ..." 74 Confessions XII, xxiii, 32: CCL XXVII, 233: "Coniungar autem illis, domine, in te et delecter cum eis in te, qui ueritate tua pascuntur in latitudine caritatis, et accedamus simul ad uerba libri tui et quaeramus in eis uoluntatem tuam per uoluntatem famuli tui, cuius calamo dispensasti ea." 75 Confessions XII, xxiv, 33: CCL XXVII, 233–234: "Sed quis nostrum sic inuenit eam" [i.e., the intention of the author] "inter tam multa uera ... ut tam fidenter dicat hoc sensisse Moyen atque hoc in illa narratione uoluisse intelligi, quam fidenter dicit hoc uerum esse, siue ille hoc senserit siue aliud?" 76 Confessions XII, xxv, 35: CCL XXVII, 236: "Iam vide, quam stultum sit in tanta copia uerissimarum sentiarum, quae de illis uerbis erui possunt, temere adfirmare, quam earum Moyses potissimum senserit. ..."

words of your servant that any true opinion to which they had come by their own reflection had been omitted, and if someone else saw another truth in the light of the truth, it too could be understood from those words."

77 Hence, Augustine states that, if I were writing something with the highest authority, I would prefer to write so that whatever truth anyone might grasp in these matters would find their echo in my words rather than that I should state a single true view with greater clarity in such a way that I would exclude others that could not offend me by their falsity.

Hence, along the lines of the argument in Confessions XII, Augustine might argue that the content of his interpretation of the parable is true, that what Luke intended is less certain than the truth of the Christological interpretation, that Luke surely would have intended us to be able to find in what he wrote other truths, even if he did not have them in mind, and that "latitudo caritatis" should be able to embrace all true interpretations. Second, in several other works Augustine states more formally various principles of exegesis that might provide another line of argumentation in defense of his interpretation of the parable. Augustine, first of all, gives a special preference for the sense of a passage that the author certainly intended. At the end of the first book of De Genesi ad litteram, Augustine sets forth the ideal goal of the exegete.

And when we read the divine books, amid such a great number of true interpretations that are drawn from a few words and are defended by the soundness of the Catholic faith, we should preferably choose that interpretation which it appears certain that the author we are reading held.

77 Confessions XII, xxvi, 36: CCL XXVII, 236: "in quamlibet ueram sententiam cogitando uenissent, eam non praetermissam in paucis uerbis tui famuli reperirent, et si alius aliam uidisset in luce ueritatis, nec ipsa in eisdem uerbis intelligenda deesset." 78 Confessions XII, xxxi, 42: CCL XXVII, 240: "Ego certe ... si ad culmen auctoritatis aliquid scriberem, sic mallem scribere, ut, quod ueri quisque de his rebus capere posset, mea uerba resonarent, quam ut unam ueram sententiam ad hoc apertius ponerem, ut excluderem ceteras, quarum falsitas me non posset offendere." 79 De Genesi ad litteram I, xxi, 41: CSEL XXVIII, 31: "Et cum diuinos libros legimus in tanta multitudine uerorum intellectuum qui de paucis uerbis

188 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

However, the ideal is not always attainable. Hence, Augustine immediately adds the following:

But if that interpretation remains hidden, we should certainly choose one that is not ruled out by the context of Scripture and that agrees with sound faith. If, however, the context of Scripture cannot be examined and discussed, we should at least choose only that interpretation which sound faith prescribes.

Augustine could certainly maintain that his Christological interpretation of the parable agrees with sound faith and that the context of Scripture does not rule it out. He explains,

It is, after all, one thing to fail to discern the interpretation that the author held in preference to all others; it is something else to depart from the rule of piety. If one avoids both of these, the reader has the full benefit, but even if the intention of author is uncertain, it is not without value to attain a view in accord with sound faith.

But he is equally clear that there are, if not always, at least often, many true interpretations of a passage of Scripture.

82 Furthermore, even if the sense intended by the human author remains hidden, there need not be any danger, "provided that each of [these interpretations] can be shown from other passages of the holy Scriptures to be congruous with the truth."

83 The exegete should, nonetheless, eruuntur et sanitate catholicae fidei muniuntur, id potissimum deligamus quod certum apparuerit eum sensisse quem legimus. ..." 80 De Genesi ad litteram I, xxi, 41: CSEL XXVIII, 31: "si autem hoc latet, id certe, quod circumstantia scripturae non inpedit et cum sana fide concordat; si autem et scripturae circumstantia pertractari ac discuti non potest, saltem id solum, quod fides sana praescibit." 81 De Genesi ad litteram I, xxi, 41: CSEL XXVIII, 31: "Aliud est enim, quid potissimum scriptor senserit, non dinoscere, aliud autem a regula pietatis errare. Si utrumque uitetur, perfecte se habet fructus legentis; si uero utrumque uitari non potest, etiam si uoluntas scriptoris incerta sit, sanae fidei congruam non inutile est eruisse sententiam." 82 See above notes 73 and 76. 83 De doctrina christiana III, xxvii, 38: CCL XXXII, 99–100: "Quando autem ex eisdem scripturae uerbis non unum aliquid, sed duo uel plura sentiuntur, etiam si latet, quid senserit ille, qui scripsit, nihil periculi est, si quodlibet eorum congruere ueritati ex aliis locis sanctarum scripturarum doceri potest. ..."

try to determine the intention of the author through whom the Holy Spirit produced the passage, whether he attains this or culls from those words some other meaning that is not opposed to the correct faith, by relying on testimony from some other passage of God's word.

Augustine suggests that the human author of the passage may have seen that meaning. But he is, in any case, convinced that "the Spirit of God who produced the passage through him certainly foresaw that this meaning too would undoubtedly occur to the reader or hearer; indeed, he providentially arranged that it would occur, because it too rests upon the truth."

85 Indeed, the generosity and richness of divine providence in the divine Scriptures is shown by the fact that "the same passage is understood in many ways, and other passages, no less the word of God, lead us to give them our approval by reason of their support."

Hence, Augustine would at very least argue that the Christological sense of the parable of the Good Samaritan was providentially intended by God under whose inspiration Luke wrote his Gospel. Moreover, he would argue that the content of the parable interpreted in the Christological sense is true, even if Luke did not intend that sense. In any case, Augustine is quite convinced that Jesus Christ taught us that he was that Samaritan. And if one takes the Good Samaritan as Christ and the wounded man as the human race, the punch line of the parable, "Go and do likewise" (Lk 10:37) is really equivalent to the words of Christ, "Love one another as I have loved you" (Jn 15:12). That is,

84 De doctrina christiana III, xxvii, 38: CCL XXXII, 100: "id tamen eo conante, qui diuina scrutatur eloquia, ut ad uoluntatem perueniatur auctoris, per quem scripturam illam sanctus operatus est spiritus; siue hoc assequatur siue aliam sententiam de illis uerbis, quae fidei rectae non refragatur, exsculpat, testimonium habens a quocumque alio loco diuinorum eloquiorum." 85 De doctrina christiana III, xxvii, 38: CCL XXXII, 100: "Ille quippe auctor in eisdem uerbis, quae intellegere uolumus, et ipsam sententiam forsitan uidit et certe dei spiritus, qui per eum haec operatus est, etiam ipsam occursuram lectori uel auditori sine dubitatione praeuidit, immo ut occurreret, quia et ipsa est ueritate subnixa, prouidit." 86 De doctrina christiana III, xxvii, 38: CCL XXXII, 100: "Nam quid in diuinis eloquiis largius et uberius potuit diuinitus prouideri, quam ut eadem uerba pluribus intellegantur modis, quos alia non minus diuina contestantia faciant adprobari?"

190 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian even if it is not what Luke intended, Augustine's Christological interpretation of the parable is in full accord with the Christian faith and also makes most effectively the point which John clearly taught in his Gospel. Hence, the Christological interpretation of the parable is at least a canonical interpretation.

87 But for Augustine that Christological interpretation of the parable is considerably more than that, and this brings us to the third line of argumentation Augustine might take in defending his interpretation of the parable. It conforms to what he sees as the beginning and end of all exegesis. In De doctrina christiana Augustine makes the strong claim, in summing up what he has said in the first book: "The sum of all we have said ... comes to this: the fullness and the end of the law and of all the divine scriptures is the love of that Being whom we are to enjoy and of that being who can enjoy him along with us." So too, he says that at the level of knowledge, every student of the divine scriptures trains himself and will find in them nothing other than that we are to love God on account of God and the neighbor on account of God, and that we are to love God with our whole heart, our whole soul, and our whole mind and the neighbor as ourselves, that is, so that our whole love of the neighbor is referred to God.

James J. O'Donnell has pointed out that for Augustine the beginning and end of all of exegesis is practical: the love of God and of neighbor. He has well put it,

What is important, then, is that this deeper message be uncovered. This approach imputes a fundamentally instrumental quality to scriptural texts: God works on the individual soul through scripture, and however God works is good. Having a correct opinion about the meaning of an obscure word in scripture is a good thing,

87 I owe the expression "canonical interpretation" to my colleague, William Kurz, S.J., who has written extensively on Luke. See also Gerald T. Sheppard, "Canonical Criticism," in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David. N. Freedman. 6 vols (New York: Doubleday, 1992), I, 861–866. 88 De doctrina christiana II, vii, 10: CCL XXXII, 37: "Nam in eo se exercet omnis diuinarum scripturarum studiosus, nihil in eis aliud inuenturus quam diligendum esse deum propter deum et proximum propter deum, et illum quidem ex toto corde, ex tota anima, ex tota mente, proximum uero tamquam se ipsum, id est, ut tota proximi, sicut etiam nostri dilectio referatur in deum."

but ultimately irrelevant; but having a correct opinion about the need to love God and reform one's life is not only a good thing, but ultimately the only thing to be expected from scripture.

The merely instrumental character of scripture for Augustine is perhaps most evident in his claim that "one who is supported by faith, hope, and charity and holds on to them firmly does not need the scriptures except for teaching others."

90 Hence, Augustine is convinced that anyone whose interpretation of scripture does not build up the this twofold love of God and neighbor has not yet understood them. But anyone who has drawn from them an interpretation that is useful for building up love, even though he does not say the same thing that the author he is reading is shown to have thought in that passage, is mistaken, but suffers no harm, and is guilt of no untruth.

Since Augustine's Christological interpretation of the parable of the Good Samaritan certainly is useful for building up the love of God and of neighbor, and useful for this in a way that a merely moral interpretation of the parable is not, it conforms to what Augustine taught was the beginning and end of all exegesis. And, even if this interpretation does not represent what Luke thought, the mistake is not harmful, since if one errs with an interpretation that builds up charity, which is the goal of the commandment, one errs like one who leaves the road by mistake and crosses through the countryside to the very spot to which the road leads.

89 James J. O'Donnell, Augustine (Boston: Twayne, 1985), p. 25. O'Donnell's discussion of Augustine's exegetical principles in De doctrina christiana is, I believe, a splendid introduction to the topic. 90 De doctrina christiana I, xxxix, 43: CCL XXXII, 31: "Homo itaque fide et spe et caritate subnixus eaque inconcusse retinens non indiget scripturis nisi ad alios instruendos." 91 De doctrina christiana I, xxxvi, 40: CCL XXXII, 29: "Quisquis igitur scripturas diuinas uel quamlibet earum partem intellexisse sibi uidetur, ita ut eo intellectu non aedificet istam geminam caritatem dei et proximi, nondum intellexit. Quisquis uero talem inde sententiam duxerit, ut huic aedificandae caritati sit utilis, nec tamen hoc dixerit, quod ille quem legit eo loco sensisse probabitur, non perniciose fallitur nec omnino mentitur." 92 De doctriana christiana I, xxxvi, 41: CCL XXXII, 30: "Sed quisquis in scripturis aliud sentit quam ille, qui scripsit, illis non mentientibus fallitur,

192 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

For such a person attains the ultimate goal of scriptural exegesis, even if he is mistaken about the sense intended by the human author. Hence, I believe that Augustine himself provides us with good grounds for maintaining that the Christological and soteriological interpretation of the parable is not quite so far-fetched and extrinsic as most contemporary exegetes seem to hold. Just as we do not interpret the parable of the Good Shepherd as merely providing us with a moral example of what a good pastor ought to be, but as a revelation of Christ's love and concern for his people, so Augustine—along with Ambrose, Origen, and Irenaeus—would have us understand the parable of the Good Samaritan as revealing Christ's loving mercy toward our fallen race and as teaching us that his love for us provides the standard and model of how we should love one another.

sed tamen, ut dicere coeperam, si ea sententia fallitur, qua aedificet caritatem, quae finis praecepti est, ita fallitur, ac si quisquam errore deserens uiam eo tamen per agrum pergat, quo etiam uia illa perducit."

St. Augustine's Use of "Manens in Se" I n the central seventh book of the Confessions, Augustine claims that he read in the libri Platonicorum that the only-begotten Son of God remains unchangeably before and above all times and that souls receive from his fullness so that they might be happy and are renewed by sharing in the wisdom that remains in itself so that they might be wise.

Augustine clearly alludes to Wis 7:27b: in seipsa manens innouat omnia, though his words are less than a quotation. A few chapters later in the seventh book, Augustine explicitly cites Wis 7:27b, when he says,

But it is good for me to cling to God, because, if I do not remain in him, I will not be able to remain in myself. He, while remaining in himself, renews all things, and you are my lord, because you have no need of my goods.

The purpose of this paper is to examine Augustine's use of the phrase "manens in se" and its variations in order to discover what it is precisely that he means by the phrase. In her study of Augustine's use of the Book of Wisdom, A.-M. La Bonnardière says with regard to Augustine's use of Wis 7:27b, "C'est le verset qui exprime le mieux l'immutabilité divine, qu'il s'agisse de l'éternité de Dieu ou de son être. Mais le verset s'applique surtout au Fils de Dieu, en tant qu'il est Verbe."

3 She has pointed out that Augus-

1 Confessiones VII, ix, 14: CCL XXVII, 102: "Quod enim ante omnia tempora et supra omnia tempora incommutabiliter manet unigenitus filius tuus coaeternus tibi et quia de plenitudine eius accipiunt animae, ut beatae sint, et quia participatione manentis in se sapientiae renouantur, ut sapientes sit, est ibi." 2 Confessiones VII, xi, 17: CCL XXVII, 104: "Mihi autem inhaerere deo bonum est, quia, si non manebo in illo, nec in me potero. Ille autem in se manens innouat omnia; et dominus meus es, quoniam bonorum meorum non eges." 3 See A.-M. La Bonardière, Le livre de la Sagesse, pp. 157–158.

194 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

4 The text is, however, also cited, at times with slight variations, in at least five other passages, e.g., in Sermo CXVII, II, 3: "manens in se, innouans omnia," in Sermo CLXXXVII, II, 2: "in se manens innouat omnia," in Sermo CCCLXI, XVI, 16: "in se ipsa manens, innouans omnia," and In Iohannis euangelium tractatus XXXVIII, 11: "in se manet, et innouat omnia." Finally, Sermo LII, II, 2: "diuinitatem apud se ipsam manentem, omnia innouantem," which is closer to being a citation than Confessiones I, iv, 4 or VII, ix, 14. There are, moreover, many other instances in which Augustine uses the phrase, "manens in se," or a variation of it, particularly in regard to the immutable Word of God. Hence, there is reason to take another look at Augustine's use of the phrase "manens in se." At least from the time of De immortalitate animae, written while he was still in Rome, Augustine was concerned with the problem of how something unchanging could, nonetheless, be the source of change in other things. It would, for example, seem that the doctrine of temporal creation implies a change in the Creator, and Augustine met such a challenge both from the Manichees and from philosophers.

tine cited Wis 7:27b fifteen times.

5 Very ear-

4 Cf. A.-M. La Bonnardière, Biblia Augustiniana. A.T. Le livre de la Sagesse (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1970), pp. 157 and 283–284. The fifteen citations she points to are: De libero arbitrio II, 17, l. 15; De fide et symbolo III, 3; Sermo XII, 10; Confessiones I, iv, 4; VII, ix, 14; and VII, xi, 17; De natura boni XXIV, 24; De trinitate II, 8; Enarrationes in Psalmos CIX, 12; CXXXVI, 7; and CXXXVIII, 8; Epistulae CXLVII, 19 and CCXXXVIII, 4; Quaestiones euangeliorum I, 28; and De octo quaestionibus ex ueteri testamento II. With regard to these, it should be noted that the text is cited twice in De trinitate II, 8 and twice in Enarrationes in Psalmos CIX, 12. On the other hand, Confessiones I, iv, 4 has only "innouans omnia" and VII, ix, 14 is an allusion rather than a citation, as we have seen. Other variations in the fifteen passages are slight, e.g., "in se" or "in seipsa" for "in se ipsa." 5 See T. J. Van Bavel, "The Creator and the Integrity of Creation in the Fathers of the Church especially in Saint Augustine," Augustinian Studies 21 (1990): 1–33, esp. pp. 5-6, where he points out that pagan authors found a god who acts at a certain moment ridiculous. In Confessiones XI, x, 12-xii, 14: CCL XXVII, 200-201, Augustine faced the Manichean question as to what God was doing before he created the world. In De ciuitate Dei XII, 18: CCL 373–374, he faces a similar objection from philosophers who claimed, "bonitas autem eius numquam uacua fuisse credenda est, ne sit temporalis eius operatio, cuius retro fuerit aeterna cessatio, quasi paenituerit eum prioris sine initio uacationis ac propterea sit operis adgressus initium. ..." In response to such a view, he says, "Nobis autem fas non est credere, aliter affici

St. Augustine's Use of "Manens in se"

ly in his works, Augustine argued against such a view, using an analogy with the will of a human artist,

From this we conclude that there can exist something that is not changed when it moves changeable things. For there is no change in mover's intention of bringing the body he moves to the end he wants, while that body in which the change takes place is changed from moment to moment by the same motion, and it is clear that the intention of accomplishing this remains utterly unchanged, while it moves the limbs of the artist and the wood or stone subject to the artist. Who, then, has any doubt that the conclusion we stated follows?

I. Early Citations of an Allusions to Wis 7:27b As early as the Cassiciacum dialogues, Augustine uses the phrase "apud eum ... manens" to illustrate how divine law is unchanged, despite its being imprinted upon the souls of the wise. He says,

This doctrine is the very law of God. While always remaining fixed and unshaken with him, it is, as it were, transcribed into wise souls so that they know that they live better and more sublimely to the extent that they contemplate it more perfectly with their intellect and keep it more diligently in their lives.

Once Licentius uses "in se manens" of the wise man who embraces and enjoys God. "Though immoble and remaining in himself, the wise man

Deum cum uacat, aliter cum operatur; quia nec affici dicendus est, tamquam in eius natura fiat aliquid, quod ante non fuerit. ... Potest ad opus nouum non nouum, sed sempiternum adhibere consilium. ..." 6 De immortalitate animae III, 4: CSEL LXXXIX, 105: "Hinc iam colligimus, posse esse quiddam quod cum mouet mutabilia, non mutatur. Cum enim non mutetur mouentis intentio perducendi ad finem quem uolet corpus quod mouet, illudque corpus de quo aliquid fit eodem motu per momenta mutetur, atque illa intentio perficiendi quam immutatam manere manifestum est, et ipsa membra artificis, et lignum aut lapidem artifici subiectum moueat, quis dubitet consequens esse quod dictum est?" 7 De ordine II, viii, 25: CCL XXIX, 121: "Haec autem disciplina ipsa dei lex est, quae apud eum fixa et inconcussa semper manens in sapientes animas quasi transcribitur, ut tanto se sciant uiuere melius tantoque sublimius, quanto perfectius eam contemplantur intellegendo et uiuendo custodiunt diligentius."

196 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian cares for the private goods of his slave so that as a diligent servant he uses him as valuable and guards him with thriftiness."

In De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et Manichaeorum, Augustine once speaks of the highest Good as that which is most truly; he adds in explanation of its meaning. "For it is that which is said to be most truly. After all, this word signifies a nature that remains in itself and exists immutably. We can call it nothing other than God. ..."

Augustine alludes to Wis 7:27b once in De musica in an exercise in versification, where he again emphasizes that the truth remains unchanged though it is the source of change other things. You see all things made by the truth are set in order, The truth remains; making new, it moves what is renewed.

The first citation of Wis 7:27b in Augustine's works is found in the second book of De libero arbitrio, where he speaks of the form by which bodies and souls are formed,

To that Form Scripture says, "You will change them, and they will be changed, but you are the Selfsame, and your years will not fail" (Ps 101:27–28). The prophetic language uses "years without fail" in place of "eternity." Of this Form Scripture likewise says that, "while remaining in itself, it renews all things."

Earlier in the same book, Augustine contrasted our mutable minds with the immutable Truth: "At times our minds see it less, at times more, and by this very fact they acknowledge that they are mutable, while, remaining in itself, it neither increases when it is seen by us

8 De ordine II, ii, 6: CCL XXIX, 110: "Curat autem immobilis et in se manens serui sui quodam modo peculium, ut eo tamquam frugi et diligens famulus bene utatur parceque custodiat." 9 De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et Manichaeorum II, i, 1: PL XXXII, 1346: "Id enim est quod esse uerissime dicitur. Subest enim huic uerbo manentis in se atque incommutabiliter sese habentis naturae significatio. Hanc nihil aliud quam Deum possumus dicere. ..." 10 De musica IV, PL XXXII, 1132: "ueritate facta cuncta cernis ordinata, / ueritas manet, nouans mouet quod innouatur." 11 De libero arbitrio II, xvii, 45: CCL XXVII, 267: "Cui formae dictum est: mutabis ea et mutabuntur; tu autem idem ipse es, et anni tui non deficient. Annos sine defectu, pro aeternitate posuit prophetica locutio. De hac item forma dictum est, quod in seipsa manens innouat omnia."

12 Once Augustine alludes to the verse in De uera religione where he speaks of the incorruptible truths that reasoning does not produce, but discovers. "Therefore, before they are discovered, they remain in themselves, and when they are discovered, they renew us."

more, nor decreases when it is seen by us less."

In De fide et symbolo, Augustine contrasts the Word of God with our words which pass away. "After all, that Word remains immutably. For Scripture spoke of it, when it said of wisdom: 'While remaining in itself, it renews all things.'"

14 Similarly, the verse is cited in De natura boni, where Augustine applies the verse to God. "Thus Scripture says that God is immutable in the Psalms: 'You will change them, and they will be changed, but you are the Selfsame,' and in the Book of Wisdom it says of wisdom: 'While remaining in itself, it renews all things.'"

II. Wis 7:27b in De trinitate There are two citations of Wis 7:27b in De trinitate, as well as eight allusions to the phrase. Referring to the Arians, Augustine says, that he will pass over "those who have thought in an excessively carnal manner that the nature of the Word of God and the Wisdom, which, 'remaining in itself, renews all things,' whom we call the only Son of God, is not only subject to change, but also visible."

16 A few lines later, he explains that it is the immutability of the Word which is expressed in

12 De libero arbitio II, xii, 34: CCL XXVII, 260: "Mentes enim nostrae aliquando eam minus aliquando eam plus uident et ex hoc fatentur se esse mutabiles, cum illa in se manens nec proficiat cum plus a nobis uidetur nec deficiat cum minus. ..." 13 De uera religione XXXIX, 73: CCL XXXII, 235: "Ergo antequam inueniantur, in se manent, et cum inueniantur, nos innouant." 14 De fide et symbolo III, 3: CSEL XLI, 6–7: "Manet enim illud uerbum incommutabiliter. Nam de ipso dictum est, cum de sapientia diceretur: in se ipsa manens innouat omnia." 15 De natura boni XXIV: CSEL XXV, 866: "Itaque Deum esse incommutabilem sic scriptum est in psalmis: mutablis ea, et mutabuntur; tu autem idem ipse es; et in libro sapientiae de ipsa sapientia: in se ipsa manens innouat omnia." 16 De trinitate II, viii, 14: CCL L, 98: "Omittamus igitur eos qui nimis carnaliter naturam verbi dei atque sapientiam quae in se ipsa manens innouat omnia, quem unicum filium dei dicimus, non solum mutabilem uerum etiam uisibilem esse putauerunt."

198 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

17 Later in the same book Augustine speaks of the Father as appearing to Adam and the Patriarchs through a visible creature, "though he remains in himself and in his substance by which he is immutable and invisible."

Wis 7:27b.

18 In the fourth book, speaking of the Platonists, Augustine says that they refused to consider how it could be that the Word of God, while remaining in himself and not subject to change through himself in any respect, was able to suffer something more lowly through the assumption of a lower nature— something that an unclean demon could not suffer, because it does not have an earthly body.

Augustine alludes to Wis 7:27b twice in book five, while arguing that the Holy Spirit is a principle along with the Father and the Son.

If whatever remains in itself and gives birth to something or produces something is a principle for that thing to which he gives birth or which it produces, we cannot deny that the Holy Spirit is rightly called a principle, since we cannot deprive him of the title of "creator." And Scripture says that he produces things, and he, of course, produces them, while remaining in himself. After all, he is not changed and transformed into any of those things which he produces.

Here the Holy Spirit is said to remain in himself, precisely because he is a principle for creatures without himself being changed into that of which he is the principle. In the seventh book Augustine again describes wisdom as remaining in itself, even though a soul which participates in wisdom loses its

17 De trinitate II, viii, 14: CCL L, 99: "Eadem quippe incommutabilitas eius commemorata est ut diceretur: in se ipsa manens innouat omnia." 18 De trinitate II, x. 17: CCL L, 103: "cum ipse in se ipso atque in substantia sua qua est incommutabilis atque inuisibilis maneat." 19 De trinitate IV, xiii, 18: CCL L, 185: "Nec sic uolunt considerare quae fieri potuerit ut in se manens nec per se ipsum ex ulla parte mutabile uerbum dei per inferioris tamen naturae susceptionem aliquid inferius pati posset quod immundus daemon quia terrenum corpus non habet, pati non possit." 20 De trinitate V, xiii, 13: CCL L, 221: "Si autem quidquid in se manet et gignit aliquid uel operatur principium est ei rei quam gignit uel ei quem operatur, non possumus negare etiam spiritum sanctum recte dici principium quia non eum separamus ab appelatione creatoris. Et scriptum est de illo quod operetur, et utique in se manens operatur; non enim in aliquid eorum quae operatur ipse mutatur et uertitur."

wisdom. "Wisdom remains in itself, nor is it changed when a soul has changed to folly."

21 Furthermore, Augustine points out that the case with wisdom is not like that of whiteness, since, when a white body has been changed to another color, the whiteness does not remain, but simply ceases to be.

22 Hence, wisdom remains in itself, because it is not dependent upon those things that participate in it, as an accidental form, such as whiteness, is dependent for its continued existence upon the subject which has it. In book eight, Augustine expresses much the same idea with regard to the Good which remains in itself, even though the soul, which is good by conversion toward it, loses its goodness by turning away.

23 Finally, in book ten Augustine says that "the immutably good Son of God, remaining in himself what he was and receiving on our behalf what he was not, without loss to his nature, deigned to share in ours. ..."

III. Wis 7:27b in the Homilies and Sermons There is one citation of Wis 7:27b in In Iohannis euangelium tractatus. When asked who he is, Jesus answers, "'The principle.' Behold, what it means to be. The principle cannot be changed; the principle remains in itself and renews all things; the principle is he to whom it was said, 'You are the Selfsame, and your years will not fail.'"

25 One other time, in speaking of the forms of the dove and of the fire in which the Holy

21 De trinitate VII, i, 2: CCL L, 248: "Et quoniam quaecumque anima participatione sapientiae fit sapiens, si rursus desipiat, manet tamen in se sapientia; nec cum fuerit anima in stultitiam commutata, illa mutatur." 22 De trinitate VII, i, 2: CCL L, 248: "Non ita est in eo qui ex ea fit sapiens quemadmodum candor in corpore quod ex illo candidum est; cum enim corpus in alium colorem fuerit commutatum, non manebit candor ille atque omnino esse desinet." 23 De trinitate VIII, iii, 4: CCL L, 273: "Unde se si rursus auertat fiatque non bonus, hoc ipso quod se auertit a bono, nisi maneat in se illud bonum unde se auertit, non est quo se iterum si uoluerit emendare conuertat." 24 De trinitate XIII, x, 13: CCL L/A, 400: "dei filius immutabiliter bonus in se manens quod erat et accipiens quod non erat praeter suae naturae detrimentum nostrae dignatus inire consortium. ..." 25 In Iohannis euangelium tractatus XXXVIII, 11: CCL XXXVI, 344: "Et ille: Principium. Ecce quod est esse. Principium mutari non potest; principium in se manet, et innouat omnia; principium est, cui dictum est: Tu autem idem ipse es, et anni tui non deficient."

200 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

Spirit appeared, Augustine says that these forms "were made by God for a time from a creature in his service, not from that ruling nature which, while remaining in itself, moves what it wills and changes what it wills, while remaining immutable."

Augustine cites Wis 7:27b for the first time in his Sermones in 394 or 395, arguing against the Manichees that the substance of the Lord underwent no change at the Incarnation. He points out that the Manichees do not want to read or understand Ps 101:27–28 and "what is written in the words of divine wisdom concerning wisdom: 'remaining in itself, it renews all things.'"

27 However, he alludes to Wis 7:27b in an earlier Sermon where he says of God,

For he is not increased in time, or stretched out in place, or enclosed or bounded by some matter, but he remains with himself and in himself full and perfect eternity, which human thought cannot comprehend nor the human tongue express.

In the years 410 to 412 Augustine cited Wis 7:27b once and alluded to it twice. In Sermo LII he speaks of "this ineffable divinity remaining with itself, while renewing all things, creating, recreating, sending, recalling, judging, setting free. ..."

29 In Sermo CCCLXI he poses the rhetorical question:

Could there die even that divinity, the Word equal to the Father, the art of the omnipotent artist, through whom all things were made, the immutable wisdom, remaining in itself, renewing all things,

26 In Iohannis euangelium tractatus IC, 2: CCL XXXVI, 583: "Ista ... ad horam diuinitus facta sunt de creatura seruiente, non de ipsa dominante natura, quae in se manens quod uult movet, et quod uult immutabilis mutat." 27 Sermo XII, 10: CCL XLI, 172: "Et quod diuinae in sapientiae litteris de ipsa sapientia scriptum est: in seipsa manens innouat omnia." 28 Sermo CCXV, 2: RB 68 (1958), 19: "Non enim tempore augetur, aut loco distenditur, aut aliqua materia concluditur aut terminatur: sed manet apud se et in se ipso plena et perfecta aeternitas, quae nec comprehendere humana cogitatio potest, nec lingua narrare." 29 Sermo LII II, 2: PL XXXVIII, 355: "hanc ineffabilem diuinitatem apud se ipsam manentem, omnia innouantem, creantem, recreantem, mittentem, reuocantem, iudicantem, liberantem. ..."

stretching from end to end with strength, arranging all things with gentleness?

In another text from this period, Augustine says of the Word by way of contrast with human words,

How much the more could the Word of God, through which all things were made and which, while remaining in itself, renews all things, which is not enclosed in places, nor stretched out by times, nor changed by short or long pauses, nor formed by sounds, nor ended by silence—how much the more could this so great a Word make the womb of his mother fruitful when he assumed a body, without leaving the bosom of the Father?"

Some years later, in 418, Augustine says of the incomprehensible Word, "the Word does not benefit or increase as a knower approaches, but it is whole if you remain, whole if you depart, whole when you return; remaining in itself and renewing all things. Hence, it is the form of all things, the form that is not made. ..."

32 In the undated Sermo CCCLXXVII Augustine expresses much the same idea: "He is not distended by places nor changed by times, nor does he have increase and decrease. Remaining in himself, as a whole he is everywhere. What spaces are there that are without the Omnipotent. ..?"

33 Finally, in contrast with us who fall if we do not remain in him, Christ is not home-

30 Sermo CCCLXI XVI, 16: PL XXXIX, 1607: "Illa etiam diuinitas uerbum aequale patri, ars omnipotentis artificis, per quem facta sunt omnia, incommutabilis sapientia, in se ipsa manens, innouans omnia, attingens a fine usque ad finem fortiter et disponens omnia suaviter, mori potuit?" 31 Sermo CLXXXVII II, 2: PL XXXVIII, 1001: "Quanto magis Verbum Dei, per quod facta sunt omnia, et quod in se manens innovat omnia; quod nec locis concluditur, nec temporibus tenditur, nec morulis brevibus longisque uariatur, nec vocibus texitur, nec silentio terminatur; quanto magis hoc tantum et tale uerbum potuit matris uterum assumpto corpore fecundare, et de sinu patris non emigrare." 32 Sermo CXVII II, 3: PL XXXVIII, 663: "Non enim Verbum proficit aut crescit accedente cognitore: sed integrum, si permanseris; integrum, si recesseris; integrum, cum redieris; manens in se, et innouvans omnia. Ergo est forma omnium rerum, forma infabricata. ..." 33 Sermo CCCLXXVII, 1: PL XXXIX, 1672: "Locis non distenditur, neque temporibus uariatur, neque habet accessus et recessus: in se manens, ubique circuit totus. quae sunt spatia quae non habent omnipotentem. ... ?"

202 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian less if he does not remain in us. "After all, he knows how to remain in himself, who has never abandoned himself."

IV. Wis 7:27b in Enarrationes in Psalmos Augustine cites Wis 7:27b twice in the Enarrationes, once in Enarratio in Psalmum CXXXVI, where he says that "we do not now breathe the air of that liberty; we do not enjoy the purity of the truth and that wisdom, which, while remaining in itself, renews all things."

35 Again speaking of the immutable wisdom of God, in a passage where he makes the interesting distinction between immutability and immobility, Augustine says after citing Ps 101:27–28,

And in another place when Scripture was speaking of wisdom, it says, "While remaining in itself, it renews all things." That wisdom, then, standing—if one should say "standing," for it is immutability, not immobility that is meant—and always existing in the same way, changed by no place, by no time, nowhere different whether here or there, never different whether now or before, is the very speech of God.

He cites the verse with slight variations twice in Enarratio in Psalmum CIX 12. In comparison with the form of the servant, he says,

The immutable Truth, which is the Word of God, God with God, through whom all things were made, while remaining in himself, renews all things. In order that we might see it, there is needed great and perfect purity of heart, which comes about through faith.

34 Sermo CXXXIV, I, 1: PL XXXVIII, 743: "Nouit enim ille manere in se, qui nunquam deserit se." 35 Enarratio in Psalmum CXXXVI, 7: CCL XL, 1968: "Non enim respiramus iam in auras illius liberatits; non enim fruimur puritate ueritatis, et illa sapientia quae in seipsa manens innouat omnia." 36 Enarratio in Psalmum CXXXVIII, 8: CCL XL, 1994–1995: "Et alio loco de sapientia cum scriptura diceret: in seipsa manens, ait, innouat omnia. Illa ergo sapientia stans (si dici debet vel stans: dicitur autem propter incommutabilitatem, non propter immobilitatem) et eodem modo se semper habens, nullo loco, nullo tempore uariata, nusquam aliter quam hic aut ibi, numquam aliter quam nunc aut antea, ipsa est locutio Dei." 37 Enarratio in Psalmum CIX, 12: CCL XL, 1612: "Veritas enim incommutabilis quod est Verbum Dei, Deus apud Deum, per quem facta sunt omnia, in se manens innouat omnia. hanc ut uideamus, magna et perfecta cordis munditia necessaria est, quae fit per fidem."

Later in the same paragraph he says, "The brightness of God is ineffable light, the source of light without any mutability, the truth without defect, wisdom remaining in itself, renewing all things; this is the substance of God."

Augustine speaks of God as "remaining in himself " twice. Once, while warning against our thinking of God as in place, he says,

Think nothing of the sort about God, who is contained by no place and who dwells in the mind of the pious. And God dwells in the hearts of men in such a way that, if man falls away from God, God remains in himself, not as if he would fall because he does not find a place to be.

In a similar vein, he says that one should not think that one is a temple that supports God so that God would fall if one withdrew. "If God should withdraw, woe to that man, because it is he who falls, for God always remains in himself."

40 Three times Augustine speaks of the Word "remaining in himself " in contrast to what he has become for us. Having cited Jn 1:14, he says, "He has come down to you in such a way that he remains in himself: he came down to you to become your valley of tears; he remained in himself to be your mountain of ascent."

41 In the following paragraph he says that John speaks to spiritual persons on heights, but that he descends to speak to the carnal ones. "In order that you might know that, when he comes down, he speaks of him who came down, see, John speaks of him who remains in himself: 'In the beginning was the Word. ...'"

42 Again, after citing Jn 1:14, he says, 38 Enarratio in Psalmum CIX, 12: CCL XL, 1612: "Haec claritas Dei est ineffabilis lux, fons lucis sine commutabilitate, ueritas sine defectu, sapientia in seipsa manens, innouvans omnia: haec substantia Dei est." 39 Enarratio in Psalmum XLV 9: CCL XXXVIII, 523: "Nihil tale cogitetis de Deo, qui nullo capitur loco, cui sedes est conscientia piorum; et ita sedes Dei est in cordibus hominum, ut si homo cecederit a Deo, Deus in se manet, non quasi cadat, non inueniendo ubi sit." 40 Enarratio in Psalmum CXXII, 4: CCL XL, 1817: "Vae illi si se subtraxerit Deus, quia ipse cadit; nam Deus in se semper manet." 41 Enarratio in Psalmum CXIX, 1: CCL XL, 1777: "Sic descendit ad te, ut maneret in se: descendit ad te, ut fieret tibi conuallis plorationis; mansit in se, ut esset tibi mons adscensionis." 42 Enarratio in Psalmum CXIX, 2: CCL XL, 1778: "Nam ut sciatis quia dum descendit, de illo qui descendit loquitur; ecce Iohannes manentem in se

204 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

The Word remains in himself; that is, he is the truth to which we come and which sets us free. But that he is preached as the word of faith in which the Lord wants us to remain in order that we might know the truth; that means, "The Word was made flesh and dwelled among us."

Once Augustine contrasted those who remain in temporal pleasure with "eternal life" which "remains in itself."

V. Wis 7:27b in the Letters Augustine cites and alludes to Wis 7:27b several times in Epistula CXLVII. First, in discussing the theophanies of the Old Testament, he speaks of the nature of God as "remaining immutable with itself," though some persons who are not clean of heart might see God in the form which his will produced.

45 Secondly, he points out that "God produces these [visions] for those to whom he appears as he wills, for whom he wills, when he wills, while his substance is hidden and remains immutably in itself."

46 Immediately thereafter he uses almost the same phrase with reference to the human will's ability to reveal itself to God through speech, "while remaining with itself and hidden without any change in itself." He goes on to ask,

How much more easily can almighty God, while his nature is hidden and remains unchangeably, appear in whatever form he wills loquitur: in principio erat uerbum. ..." 43 Enarratio in Psalmum CXXIII, 2: CCL XL, 1826: "Quod ergo manet Verbum in se, ueritas est ad quam uenimus, et quae nos liberat; quod autem praedicatur uerbum fidei, in quo nos uult Dominus permanere, ut cognoscamus ueritatem, hoc est: Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis." 44 Enarratio in Psalmum CXXXVI, 15: CCL XL, 1974: "Vita enim aeterna manet in se; illi remanent in delectatione temporali." 45 Epistula CXLVII, XV, 37: CSEL XLIV, 310: "Verum tamen non esse mirandum, si aliqui etiam non mundi corde uident deum in specie, quam uoluntas eius fecerit, latente inuisibili et apud se incommutabili manente natura." 46 Epistula CXLVII, XIX, 47: CSEL XLIV, 322–323: "Facit enim istas [uisiones] deus, quibus, ut uult, cui uult, quando uult, appareat sua latente atque in se incommutabiliter manente substantia."

to whomever he wills, since he created all things from nothing and, while remaining in himself, he renews all things.

In Epistula CLXX, he says of the Father that he "did not lessen himself in order that he might have the Son from himself, but he begot from himself an other than himself so that he might remain whole in himself and might be in the Son as great as he is alone."

48 In Epistula CLXXXVII, Augustine states that God, "while remaining in himself by his eternal stability, is able to be present whole to all things and whole to each of them, although those in whom he dwells have him, some more than others in accord with their different capacities. ..."

49 Finally, Augustine says against the Arians,

If that wisdom of which Scripture said, "it reaches everywhere because of its purity" and "nothing impure enters it" and "while remaining in itself, it renews all things" ... is corruptible, I do not know what to say except that I grieve over man's presumption and that I am amazed at God's patience.

VI. Other Occurrences of Wis 7:27b Augustine alludes to Wis 7:27b three times in De Genesi ad litteram. He says that the intellectual creature is formed when it is converted to its principle, the light of wisdom.

47 Epistula CXLVII, XIX, 47: CSEL XLIV, 323: "Si enim uoluntas nostra apud se manens et latens sine ulla sui commutatione, per quas se utcumque ostendat, exprimit uoces, quanto facilius deus omnipotens sua latente et incommutabiliter manente natura, in qua uoluerit specie, potest, cui uoluerit, apparere, qui ex nihilo creauit omnia atque in se manens innouat omnia." 48 Epistula CLXX, 5: CSEL XLIV, 625: "Neque enim Pater, ut haberet filium de se ipso, minuit se ipsum, sed ita genuit de se alterum se, ut totus maneret in se et esset in filio tantus quantus est solus." 49 Epistula CLXXXVII, VI, 19: CSEL LVII, 98: "Sed aeterna stabilitate in se ipso manens totus adesse rebus omnibus potest et singulis totus, quamuis, in quibus habitat, habeant eum pro suae capacitatis diuersitate alii amplius alii minus. ..." 50 Epistula CCXXXVIII, IV, 23: CSEL LVII, 551–552: "Iam uero sapientia illa, de qua dictum est: adtingit ubique propter munditiam et: nihil inquinatum in eam incurrit et: in se ipsa manens innouat omnia ... si corruptibilis est, nescio quid dicam, nisi ut doleam praesumptionem humanam et mirer patientiam diuinam."

206 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

The principle of the intellectual creature is, of course, eternal wisdom, and that principle, remaining in itself immutably, never ceases to speak by the hidden inspiration of his call to that creature whose principle it is in order that it might be converted to that from which it has its being. Otherwise, it could not be formed and perfect.

Once he says that the whole of creation "does not remain in itself, but in him of whom Scripture says, 'In him we live and move and have our being.'"

52 Augustine adds in explanation that, though each part of creation is in the whole, the whole exists only in him by whom it was created. Again in the context of the angelic creature's conversion to its God, Augustine says, "And thus, while [God] remains in himself, he turns back toward himself whatever has its origin from him so that every creature might have in him the limit of its nature where it is not what he is, but has that place of rest in where it preserves what it is."

53 Once in De ciuitate dei Augustine uses the phrase "in se incommutabiliter manens" of the Son. "The grace of God could not be more graciously presented than that the only Son of God, while remaining in himself immutably, put on a man and gave the Spirit of his love to men by the mediation of a man. ..."

54 In De diuersis quaestionibus octoginta tribus, while commenting on the Pauline phrase "et habitu inuentus ut homo," Augustine explains his comparison of the assumed human nature to a garment. He points out that there are four kinds of "habitus." First, some things which come to us and produce a habit "are

51 De Genesi ad litteram I, v, 10: BA 48, 94: "Principium quippe creaturae intellectualis est aeterna sapientia: quod principium manens in se incommutabiliter nullo modo cessaret occulta inspiratione uocationis loqui ei creaturae, cui principium est, ut conuerteretur ad id, ex quo esset, quo aliter formata et perfecta esse non posset." 52 De Genesi ad litteram IV, xviii, 32: BA 48, 322: "Neque enim caelum et terra et omnia, quae in eis sunt, uniuersa scilicet spiritalis corporalisque creatura in se ipsa manet, sed utique in illo, de quo dictum est: in illo enim uiuimus et mouemur et sumus. ..." 53 De Genesi ad litteram IV, xviii, 34: BA 48, 326: "Et ideo, dum ipse manet in se, quidquid ex illo est retorquet ad se, ut omnis creatura in se habeat naturae suae terminum, quo non sit, quod ipse est, in illo autem quietis locum, quo servet, quod ipsa est." 54 De ciuitate Dei X, 29: CCL XLVII, 305: "Gratia Dei non potuit gratius commendari, quam ut ipse unicus Dei Filius in se incommutabiliter manens indueretur hominem et spiritum dilectionis suae daret hominibus homine medio. ..."

not changed by us, but change us into themselves, while they remain whole and unaffected, as wisdom itself is not changed when it comes to someone, but changes the person from foolish to wise."

55 Second, there are things which both change the things to which they come and are changed by them, such as the food we eat. Third, there are those things which are changed by the things to which they come, but do not change them. For example, a robe's shape is changed when we put it on or take it off, without our being changed. Fourth, some things neither change the things to which they come nor are changed by them, such as a ring put on a finger.

56 The "habit" in question is not one of the first kind, "for the nature of man, while remaining in itself, did not change the nature of God."

57 It is not one of the second kind, since the man did not change God, while being also changed by him. Nor is it an example of the fourth kind, since in that case the man would not have been assumed by the Word. Hence, the "habit" in question is the third sort. While the Word remains unchanged in himself, the human nature "is assumed so that it is changed for the better and is formed by [the Word] with inexpressably more excellence and greater unity than a garment when one puts it on."

Augustine cites Wis 7:27b in De octo quaestionibus ex ueteri testamento, in explaining that all of creation eternally existed in the divine art, though it unfolds gradually through time.

Thus every creature, even that man who was going to receive in an inexpressible manner and bear mystically the person of the same Wisdom, always existed in that wisdom as if in the eternal art of

55 De diuersis quaestionibus octoginta tribus, qu. 73, 1: CCL XLIV/A, 209– 210: "Verumtamen hoc interest, quod quaedam eorum quae accidunt nobis ut habitum faciant non mutantur a nobis, sed ipsa nos mutant in se, ipsa integra et inconcussa manentia, sicuti sapientia cum accidit homini non ipsa mutatur, sed hominem mutat, quem de stulto sapientem facit." 56 Augustine confesses that this fourth kind really does not exist, if one looks at the matter with care. 57 De diuersis quaestionibus octoginta tribus, qu. 73, 2: CCL XLIV/A, 211: "Iste autem habitus non est ex primo genere, non enim manens in se natura hominis naturam dei commutauit." 58 De diuersis quaestionibus octoginta tribus, qu. 73, 2: CCL XLIV/A. 211: "sic enim assumtus est, ut commutaretur in melius, et ab eo formaretur ineffabiliter excellentius atque coniunctius quam uestis ab homine cum induitur."

208 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

God, though it brings about individual things in their own times. It stretches from end to end with power and arranges all things graciously; while remaining in itself, it renews all things.

In Contra Faustum Augustine explains that, because the Manichees can only think with bodily images, they "do not at all grasp how the Word of God, the power and wisdom of God, while both remaining in himself and with the Father and ruling all of creation, stretches from end to end mightily and arranges all things graciously."

In De doctrina christiana Augustine compares the vocal expression of our mental word to the incarnation of the Word of God.

The word which we bear in the heart becomes a sound and is called speech, and yet our thought is not transformed into that sound. Rather, while remaining whole with itself, it assumes the form of the spoken word by which it is conveyed to our ears without any taint of change. So the Word of God, without being changed, nonetheless became flesh. . . .

Augustine cites Wis 7:27b once in Quaestiones euangeliorum. He contrasts the temporal economy with "the eternity of the Word, which, while remaining in itself, renews all things."

62 Once he says that, though numbers can vary due to the lack or presence of one, "the

59 De octo quaestionibus ex ueteri testamento l. 25: "Sic omnis creatura et ipse homo qui eiusdem sapientiae personam mystice et inenarrabili susceptione gestaturus erat, in ipsa sapientia tamquam dei arte sempiterna semper erat, quamuis suis quaeque temporibus efficiat, quae pertendit a fine usque ad finem fortiter et disponit omnia suaviter, quae in se manens innouat omnia." 60 Contra Faustum XXIII, 10: CSEL XXV/2, 716: "Ista omnino non capitis, quomodo dei uerbum, dei uirtus et sapientia et in se manens et apud patrem et uniuersam creaturam regens pertendat a fine usque ad finem fortiter et disponat omnia suaviter." 61 De doctrina christiana I, xiii, 12: CCL XXXII, 13: "fit sonus verbum quod corde gestamus, et locutio uocatur, nec tamen in eundem sonum cogitatio nostra conuertitur, sed apud se manens integra, formam uocis qua se insinuet auribus, sine aliqua labe suae mutationis adsumit: ita uerbum dei non commutatum caro tamen factum est. ..." 62 Quaestiones euangeliorum I, 28: CCL XLIV/B, 23: "Non enim sicut illa dispensatio temporalis ita etiam uerbi aeternitas transit, quae in se ipsa manens innouat omnia."

One itself, remaining in itself without any variation, perfects, when it approaches."

63 Augustine clearly makes use of the phrase "manens in se" in its various forms chiefly in reference to the Word of God, often under the title of Wisdom or Truth, though he also uses the phrase in reference to God or the divine nature and a few times in explicit reference to the Father or in reference to the Holy Spirit. There are several times that he uses the expression of the human mind which need not be changed, though it produces change. At least once the phrase is used of the human nature of Christ assumed in the incarnation. Nonetheless, Augustine uses the phrase most often in reference to God and especially in reference to the Word. Though the phrase connotes immutability—or at least the absence of change—in that of which it is predicated, it is almost always used in a context where absence of change is asserted, despite what might seem grounds for its subject being changed. Augustine, that is, tends to use the phrase, as well as the verse from the Book of Wisdom in which it occurs, in contexts where he not merely affirms the immutability of God or of the Word or lack of change in a creature, but does so despite the fact that God or the Word or the human mind is the source of change in other things.

VII. Sources of the Phrase "manens in se" The frequent citation of Wis 7:27b is strong evidence that the principal source of the expression "manens in se" is the Book of Wisdom. There is, however, Augustine's explicit statement in Confessions VII, ix, 14 that he found this doctrine in the libri Platonicorum that he read in those momentous months prior to his baptism at Easter in 387. In his recent commentary on this passage in the Confessions, James J. O'Donnell has pointed out that "[t]he text of Wisd. is similar to Plot. 6.5.10.1, mevnei ou\n ejn eJautw`/ swfronou`n, a passage with numerous parallels to the part of lib. arb. just cited (i.e., II, xii, 24)."

64 There are in fact a number of texts in Plotinus in which Augustine could have found this phrase and this idea. Scholars remain quite di-

63 Quaestiones euvangeliorum II, 32: CCL XLVI/B, 73: "ipsum uero unum sine uarietate in se manens cum accesserit perficit. ..." 64 J. J. O'Donnell, Augustine: Confessions: Volume II: Commentary Books 1–7 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), p. 447, where he refers to R. J. O'Connell, "Ennead VI, 4-5 in the Works of St. Augustine," Revue des études augustiniennes 9 (1963), 22.

210 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian vided on the issue of which Enneads Augustine read and when he read them.

65 However, in Ennead I, 6 "On Beauty"—which is admitted to be one read by Augustine, even by those who would insist that Augustine read only "a very few books of Plotinus,"

66 Augustine certainly found a text similar to Wis 7:27b. There Plotinus says of absolute beauty, "If then one sees that which provides for all and, remaining by itself (ejfæ eJautou` de mevnon), gives to all but receives nothing into itself, if he abides in the contemplation of this kind of beauty and rejoices in being made like it, how can he need any other beauty?"

67 Similarly, in Ennead I, 8, which Augustine at least very probably read, Plotinus says of the Intellect that it "is the first act of the Good and the first being, while the Good remains in itself " (ejkeivnou mevnonto~ ejn eJautw/`).

68 So too, in Ennead VI, 9, Plotinus says of the One that "it is the source of the best things and the power generating beings, though

65 A. Solignac, for example, listed in his introduction to Les Confessions, BA 13, p. 110 the following Enneads as one that Augustine certainly read: I, 6 "On Beauty"; I, 8 "On the Origin of Evil"; V, 1, "The Three Principal Hypostases"; V, 2 "On the Origin and Order of Beings Following on the First"; and III, 2-3 "On Providence." He adds as ones which Augustine very probably read: V, 3 "On the Knowing Hypostases and the Transcendent"; VI, 6 "On Numbers"; VI, 9 "On the Good or the One" and IV, 7 "On the Immortality of the Soul." E. TeSelle adds to the list of those he believes that Augustine certainly read: IV, 3-4 "On the Soul" and VI, 4-5 "How That Which is One and the Same Can Be Everywhere," while dropping I, 8 to the second group and dropping V, 2 from his list entirely. To the second group TeSelle adds: I, 2 "On the Virtues"; I, 4 "On Happiness"; III, 7 "On Eternity and Time"; and V, 8 "On Intelligible Beauty" (E. Teselle, Augustine the Theologian, pp. 43–45). For the current state of the question, see the articles by R. J. O'Connell and F. Van Fleteren in Augustinian Studies 21 (1990). 66 De beata uita I, 4: CCL XXIX, 67: "Lectis autem Plotini paucissimis libris. ..." See also the reference to the Neoplatonist writings in Contra academicos II, ii, 5: CCL XXIX, 20 where Augustine speaks of unguenti guttas paucissimas that caused his love of philosophy to burst into flame. 67 Ennead I, 6, 7, ll. 25–28; the translation is mine and slightly modifies that of A. H. Armstrong in Plotinus, Ennead I (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967), p. 255. 68 Ennead I, 8, 2, ll. 21–22; the translation is mine and slightly modifies that of A. H. Armstrong, Plotinus I, p. 281.

69 Augustine could have or, in some cases, most probably did read in the Latin translations of the Enneads the phrase, "manens in se." Though Plotinus is speaking of the transcendant One, the Good, or absolute beauty, he uses the phrase in contexts where he stresses the immutable transcendence of the One, the Good, or absolute beauty, despite its bestowing beauty on all else or despite its generating beings or producing other good things which depend upon it. That is, the phrase occurs in Plotinus in contexts where he is teaching the undiminished sameness of the One, despite its activity in the world. Hence, from a sampling of texts from the Enneads which Augustine certainly or at least very probably read, it is clear that Augustine could have found—or at least could have thought that he found—in the philosophy of Plotinus much the same idea that he found in his Bible in Wis 7:27b. One must, of course, admit that Augustine—or perhaps the translator of the Enneads into Latin—had seen in the One of Plotinus the God Who Is of Exodus. But given this very basic shift in metaphysical perspective, he could have seen in both Wis 7:27b and in Plotinus the same idea, an idea that might, in almost every case, be summed up as saying that a higher reality can act upon the lower, while the higher reality remains unchanged, it remains in itself (mevnousan ejn eJauth`/) and is not diminished."

70 or that the immutable God can act in the world, while remaining in himself absolutely unchanged.

VIII. Conclusion Any philosopher or theologian in the theistic tradition is faced with the problem of reconciling the theses that God is absolutely immutable and that he is, nonetheless, active in the world at particular places and times. For the Christian theologian the Incarnation of the Word poses this problem in its sharpest possible form, for it means that the absolutely immutable Word of God, without any change to the Word, assumed into union with his person a mutable human nature at a particular time and place in human history. As early as the De immortalitate animae, Augustine was grappling with the problem of

69 Ennead VI, 9, 5, ll. 36–37; my translation. 70 The one obvious exception to this is the passage in De diuersis quaestionibus octoginta tribus, qu. 73, 2 (see note 57), where Augustine speaks of the human nature of Christ remaining in itself.

212 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian the immutable God active in human history. His frequent allusions to and citations of Wis 7:27b, at least from the time of De libero arbitrio, indicate that he found in that text of Scripture grounds for believing that Wisdom could remain immutable in itself, while making all things new. In his writings Augustine used Wis 7:27b most frequently and fruitfully, though not exclusively, in thinking of the immutability of the Word despite the Word's entrance into human history. Augustine tells us in Confessions VII, ix, 14, that he found in the libri Platonicorum that the Son remains coeternal with the Father above all time, that souls receive of his fullness, and that they are renewed by participation in wisdom, but that he did not find there that the Word became flesh, suffered, and died. Though Augustine did not find in Wis 7:27b or in Plotinus that the Word personally entered human history, he did find there that, while remaining immutable, God could act in the world. It is perhaps not unreasonable to suppose that what he believed when he read Wis 7:27b, he came to understand when he encountered it in the philosophy of Plotinus and that he was able to extend the basic insight to his thinking of the Incarnation, the mystery of the eternal Word's entrance into human time and history, while remaining immutable in himself.

augustine as theologian

St. Augustine on the Humanity of

Christ and Temptation I n the Aquinas Lecture for 1999 Marilyn McCord Adams addressed the question of what sort of human nature the Word of God assumed in the incarnation according to various medieval thinkers. Given the Chalcedonian definition, one might suppose that there would not be much difference among the views of subsequent orthodox Christian thinkers.

1 She, however, examined the understanding of Christ's human nature in six theologians of the Middle Ages, namely, Anselm, Peter Lombard, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Scotus, and Martin Luther, and showed that their conceptions of the human nature of Christ differed considerably and in interesting ways that had a significant impact on how they understood the role of Christ. This study will take Augustine of Hippo as example of another thinker with an interestingly different conception of the human nature assumed by Christ. Or, more precisely, this study will examine two aspects of Augustine's view of Christ's human nature, which, I believe, have interesting implications for our understanding of Christ's role in our redemption and salvation and as a model for our imitation, especially in enduring temptation. No one who accepts the Gospels can deny that Christ was tempted. His fast for forty days and subsequent temptation by the devil are presented in all three of the synoptic Gospels, and Augustine clearly recognized this and held that Christ's temptations were meant to teach us how we are to respond to temptation. He said, for example, in a homily on the Gospel of John that "he was tempted, but not in danger, in order that he might teach you who are in danger how to reply to the tempter and how not to follow the tempter, but to escape from the

1 Marilyn McCord Adams, What Sort of Human Nature? Medieval Philosophy and the Systematics of Christology. The Aquinas Lecture, 1999 (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1999). Adams briefly mentions Augustine's interpretation of the words of Psalm 21, which drew my attention to the topic of this paper.

216 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

2 But he also claimed that Christ would not have been tempted if he had not willed to be. "For," Augustine says, "he also deigned to be tempted by the devil, by whom he, of course, would not have been tempted if he did not will to be, just as, if he did not will it, he would not have suffered, and he replied to the devil what you ought to reply to him in temptations."

danger of temptation."

3 Augustine sees the triple temptation of Christ by the devil as exemplifying every sort of temptation that a human being can face. Speaking of the triple sin of 1 John, Augustine says, "These are three, and you find nothing by which human cupidity can be tempted except the desire of the flesh or the desire of the eyes or the ambition of the world. Through these three the Lord was tempted by the devil."

4 Similarly, in a homily on Psalm 30, Augustine interprets the Psalmist's words, "You will lead me out of the snare they have hidden for me," as referring to the suffering of Christ and to the snare that the devil lays for every human being. Of that snare he says that the devil "put in the snare error and terror: error by which he entices, terror by which breaks and snatches. Close the door of cupidity against error; close the door of fear against terror, and you will be led out of the snare. Your commander, who deigned even to be tempted on your account, revealed in himself an example of such a fight."

5 Clearly Augustine thought that Christ's temptations by the devil were meant to be a lesson for Christians in facing and overcoming temptation.

2 "Et ille quidem tentatus est, sed non periclitatus; ut doceret te in tentatione periclitantem tentatori respondere, et post tentatorem non ire, sed de periculo tentationis exire" (In Iohannis evangelium tractatus 52, 3: CCL 36, 447). 3 "Nam et tentari dignatus est a diabolo, a quo utique si nollet non tentaretur, quemadmodum si nollet non pateretur: et ea respondit diabolo, quae tu in tentationibus debeas respondere." (Ibid.) 4 "Tria sunt ista, et nihil invenis unde tentetur cupiditas humana, nisi aut desiderio carnis, aut desiderio oculorum, aut ambitione saeculi. Per ista tria tentatus est Dominus a diabolo" (In Johannis epistulam 2, 14: PL 36, 1996). 5 "Posuit in muscipula errorem et terrorem: errorem quo illiciat, terrorem quo frangat, et rapiat. Tu claude januam cupiditatis contra errorem; tu claude januam timoris contra terrorem, et educeris de muscipula. Hujusmodi pugnae exemplum ipse tibi Imperator tuus, qui propter te etiam tentari dignatus est, in se demonstravit" (Enarrationes in Psalmum XXX, Enarratio 2, Sermo 1, 10: CCL 38, 198).

St. Augustine on the Humanity of Christ and Temptation

There are, however, in Augustine limitations on the extent to which Christ was tempted. For example, the bishop of Hippo never directly cited Heb 4:15, which says, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one tempted in everything like us, but without sin. With confidence, therefore, let us approach the throne of grace in order that we may obtain mercy and find grace in timely help." The author of the Letter to the Hebrews urges us to approach with confidence the throne of grace in order to obtain mercy and to find grace in opportune help, precisely because we have a high priest who can show compassion toward our weaknesses and who was tempted in all things like us, but was without sin. Augustine, however, alludes to this passage only five times, always while quoting Ambrose of Milan as an authority against the Pelagians in order to show that Ambrose held the doctrine of original sin.

6 Each time he quotes the late bishop of Milan's words from his no longer extant commentary on Isaiah. Ambrose had said: "And so as a man, he was tempted in all things, and in the likeness of human beings he endured all things, but as one born of the Spirit, he held back from sin. For 'every human being is a liar' (Ps 115:2), and no one is without sin except the one God. It remained true, then, that from a man and a woman, that is, through that union of bodies, no one is found to be free of sin. But he who is free of sin is also free from this sort of conception."

7 The allusion to Heb 4:15, while clear enough and noted by the editors of PL, is hardly the focal point of the quotation. When, moreover, Augustine looks at certain specific instances in which Christ was, it would seem, tempted, he virtually removes him from any exposure to temptation. In the body of this paper I will look at two instances of this procedure, which throw interesting light upon

6 Augustine quotes Ambrose's Expositio in Isaiam prophetam, a work that is no longer extant, in De gratia Christi et de peccato originali II, 41, 47, in De nuptiis et concupiscentia I, 35, 40, and II, 5, 15, in Contra Julianum I, 4, 11, and in Opus imperfectum contra Julianum IV, 106, 3. 7 "Item idem ipse cum exponeret Isaiam prophetam loquens de Christo: 'Ideo,' inquit, 'et quasi homo per universa tentatus est, et in similitudine hominum cuncta sustinuit: sed quasi de Spiritu natus abstinuit a peccato. Omnis enim homo mendax (Ps 115:2); et nemo sine peccato, nisi unus Deus. Servatum est igitur, ut ex viro et muliere, id est, per illam corporum commixtionem, nemo videatur expers esse delicti. Qui autem expers est delicti, expers est etiam hujusmodi conceptionis" (De peccato originali II, 41, 47: PL 41, 410).

218 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian the sort of human nature that Christ assumed and, I believe, raise some questions about whether the bishop of Hippo accepted in its literal sense the claim that our high priest was tempted like us in all things, while remaining without sin.

I. The Temptation to Despair in the

Face of Death In speaking of the fear of death, Karl Rahner said that a Christian need not face death like a Stoic or like Socrates, but may "imitate Jesus in the Garden of Olives or pray as he did on the cross, 'God, my God, why have you abandoned me?' and then add, 'Into your hands I commend my spirit, O absolutely incomprehensible God.'"

8 That is, in the face of death a Christian might acknowledge a desperate fear and yet also confidently entrust himself to the hands of God, as Christ did in confronting his death. But if Christ on the cross is to be a model for Christians in the face of death, Christ had to say those words from Psalm 21 as an expression of his own fear and feeling of abandonment in the face of death. Augustine, however, claims that Christ's words on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" (Mt 27:46) did not express Christ's own personal fear and feeling of abandonment by God. Rather, he claims that Christ spoke those words in the person of his body, the Church. In both his Enarrationes in Psalmos and De gratia Novi Testamenti, which are the only two of his writings in which he comments extensively on the Psalm, Augustine places Christ's expression of abandonment in the mouth of the Church. In the Enarrationes in Psalmos he asks, "What did the Lord intend to say? After all, God had not abandoned him since he himself was God. Certainly, the Son of God is God; certainly, the Word of God is God."

9 In confirmation that he is God, Augustine appeals to the words of John's Prologue and says, "And since God, the Word, became flesh, he hung upon the cross and said, 'My God, my God, look at me. Why

8 Karl Rahner, Karl Rahner in Dialogue: Conversations and Interviews 1965 – 1982, ed. Paul Imhof and Hubert Biallowons, tr. Harvey Egan (New York: Crossroad, 1986), pp. 209–210. 9 "Quid voluit dicere Dominus? Non enim dereliquerat illum Deus, cum ipse esset Deus; utique Filius Dei Deus, utique Verbum Dei Deus" (Enarrationes in Psalmos XXI, enarratio 2, 3: CCL 38, 123.

10 But Augustine goes on to ask why he said this: "Why does he say this if not because we were there, if not because the Church is the body of Christ."

have you abandoned me?'" (Ps 21:2)

11 Why did he say this "if not somehow to make us attentive, saying: 'This Psalm was written about me.'"

12 Augustine seems not to think that the incarnate Word could have addressed the words of the Psalm to God the Father. But the Psalm continues: "Far from my salvation are the words of my sins" (Ps 21:2). Augustine asks, "Which sins? For it was said of him, 'He did not commit sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth'" (1 Pt 2:22).

13 Hence, Augustine asks, "How could Christ have said, 'My sins,' except because he prays for our sins and made our sins his sins in order that he might make his righteousness our righteousness."

14 Since Christ himself had no sins, he must–at least on the assumption that the whole Psalm was about him–have said, "My sins," in the person of the Church. And in the same way, he said, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" not in his own person, since he was God and could not abandon himself, but in the person of the Church. But in that case Christ the man on the cross was not tempted by thoughts of abandonment in the face of death, as other human beings might be tempted. That is, he is not himself someone who is able to sympathize with our weaknesses because he experienced them, although he was instructing us on how we might behave. Augustine is simply applying to the words of Christ on the cross the first rule of Tyconius, "On the Lord and his Body," which the bishop had found in the Donatist exegete's Liber Regularum.

15 Augustine in-

10 "Et cum Verbum Deus factum esset caro, pendebat in cruce, et dicebat: Deus meus, Deus meus, respice me: quare me dereliquisti?" (Ibid.). 11 "Quare dicitur, nisi quia nos ibi eramus, nisi quia corpus Christi Ecclesia" (Ibid.). 12 "Utquid dixit, Deus meus, Deus meus, respice me: quare me dereliquisti? nisi quodammodo intentos nos faciens et dicens, Psalmus iste de me scriptus est?" (Ibid.). 13 "Quorum delictorum, de quo dictum est: Qui peccatum non fecit, nec inventus est dolus in ore ejus?" (Ibid.). 14 "Quomodo ergo dicit delictorum meorum; nisi quia pro delictis nostris ipse precatur, et delicta nostra sua delicta fecit, ut justitiam suam nostram justitiam faceret?" (Ibid.) 15 See The Book of Rules of Tyconius, ed. F. C. Burkitt (Cambridge: University Press, 1894; repr. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus, 1967).

220 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian corporated Tyconius' seven rules in his own work on biblical interpretation, De doctrina Christiana III, 30, 42–56, 134.

16 He illustrates the first rule with a verse from Isaiah: "He placed a crown on me as on a bridegroom and adorned me with jewels as a wife" (Is 61:10). Augustine says, "One person, after all, is speaking ... and yet it is of course necessary to understand which of these two statements belongs to the head and which to the body, that is, to Christ and to the Church."

17 Similarly Tyconius interprets the stone hewn from the mountain in Dan 2:24 as referring initially to Christ the head, but then to his body when it fills the whole world. In Letter 140, which is also in the Retractationes called a work, namely, De gratia Novi Testamenti,

18 Augustine uses Psalm 21 as a framework for structuring his response to the five questions posed for him by his friend and former Manichee, Honoratus,

19 for whom he had earlier written De utilitate credendi. The first of Honoratus' five questions asked what the words of the Lord, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" meant.

20 Turning to these words, Augustine says, "Hence, Christ the man and the same Christ God, by whose most merciful humanity and in whose form of a servant we ought to learn what we should scorn in this life and what we should hope for in the next, took up in his Passion ... the voice of our weakness ... said, 'God, my God, why have you abandoned me?' (Ps 22:2).

21 Since Honoratus had asked about the meaning of these words, Augustine begins an explanation of the whole Psalm in order to distinguish the grace of the New Testament from that of the Old.

16 See Augustine: De Doctrina Christiana, ed. with an introduction, translation, and notes by R. P. H. Green, Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995). 17 Augustine, De doctrina Christiana III, 31, 44: CCL 32, 104. 18 Augustine, Retractationes II, 36: CCL 57, 119–120. 19 In Opus imperfectum contra Julianum V, 26: PL 45, 1464, Julian seems to confirm that the Manichean Honoratus was the same person as the Honoratus with whom Augustine later corresponded. 20 See Augustine, Epistula 140, 1, 2: CSEL 44. 156. 21 "Proinde homo Christus idemque Deus Christus, cujus misericordissima humanitate, atque in cujus forma servili discere deberemus quid in hac vita contemnendum, et quid in alia sperandum esset, in ipsa passione . . . suscepit vocem infirmitatis nostrae . . . et dixit: Deus meus, Deus meus, ut quid me dereliquisti?' (Epistula 140, 5, 14: CSEL 44, 165).

Christ's words on the cross, Augustine explains, show that the Psalm was a prophecy about him so that we can understand "how the grace of the New Testament did not go unmentioned even at that time when it was veiled in the Old."

22 Augustine says that the Psalm says "in the person of Christ what belongs to the form of the servant in which he bore our weakness."

23 Augustine's words need to be read with care for he distinguishes the person of Christ, the form of the servant, and our weakness. He says that Christ said the words of the Psalm "in the voice of our weakness," and adds that Paul also prayed with that voice when his prayer was not heard and he was in some sense abandoned. "In the voice of this weakness of ours, which our head transferred to himself, there is said in the Psalm, 'My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?' He is, of course, abandoned in prayer insofar as he is not heard."

24 Up to this point it is not perfectly clear whose voice it is that speaks these words. But Augustine continues, "Jesus transferred this voice to himself, namely, the voice of his body, that is, of his Church, which needs to be reformed from the old human being into the new, the voice, namely, of his human weakness, to which the goods of the Old Testament had to be denied in order that it would learn to desire and to hope for the goods of the New."

25 Among the goods of the old human being the continuation of the present life is chief. "But these words by which the human day and the length of this life are desired are words of sins and are far from that salvation of which we do not possess the reality, but for which we do already possess the hope."

22 "Quemadmodum gratia Testamenti Novi nec eo tempore tacebatur, quando in Vetere velabatur" (Epistula 140, 6, 15: CSEL 44, 166). 23 "Dicitur enim ex persona Christi, quod ad formam servi attinet, in qua portabatur nostra infirmitas" (Ibid.). 24 "Ex voce ergo hujus infirmitatis nostrae, quam in se transfiguravit caput nostrum, dicitur in hoc psalmo, Deus meus, Deus meus, respice in me; quare me dereliquisti? In eo quippe derelinquitur deprecans, in quo non exauditur" (Ibid.). 25 "Hanc in se vocem transfiguravit Jesus, vocem scilicet corporis sui, hoc est Ecclesiae suae a vetere homine in novum reformandae; vocem scilicet infirmitatis suae humanae, cui deneganda fuerant bona Veteris Testamenti, ut bona Novi Testamenti optare atque sperare jam disceret" (Ibid.). 26 "Sed haec verba, quibus humanus dies et vitae hujus prolixitas concupiscitur, verba sunt delictorum, et longe sunt ab ea salute cujus nondum rem,

222 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian explains that immediately after the words, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" the Psalm adds: "Far from my salvation are the words of my sins" (Ps 21:2). In one sense this can mean: "These are words of my sins, and they are far from that salvation of mine."

27 But the words could also be grouped in another way so that they say: "'Why have you abandoned me far from my salvation?' as if to say: 'By abandoning me, that is, by not hearing me you have become far from my salvation, that is, from the present salvation of this life,' so that the other sense is: The words of my sins, that is, these words I spoke, are words of my sins because they are the words of carnal desires."

At this point Augustine makes it clear that these are the words of the Church. "Christ says these words in the person of his body, which is the Church. He says these words in the person of the weakness of sinful flesh, which he transferred to that likeness of sinful flesh, which he assumed from the Virgin."

29 Here again it is important to see the distinction Augustine makes between sinful flesh, in the weakness of which Christ said these words, and the likeness of sinful flesh, which Christ assumed from the Virgin. He continues, "He speaks these words in the person of his spouse, because he has united her to himself in some way."

30 Augustine cites Is 61:10, which he had used in De doctrina christiana to exemplify Tyconius' first rule, and applies them to what Paul said about Christ and the Church in Eph 5:31–32. As if his readers might balk at this interpretation, Augustine asks, "Why, then, do we disdain to hear the voice of the body from the lips of the head? The Church suffered in him when he suffered for the Church, sed jam spem gerimus" (Ibid.). 27 "Haec verba delictorum meorum sunt, et longe ab illa salute mea sunt" (Epistula 140, 6, 17: CSEL 44, 167). 28 "Quare me dereliquisti longe a salute mea? tanquam diceret, Relinquendo me, hoc est, non me exaudiendo, longe factus es a salute mea, praesenti scilicet salute hujus vitae: ut alius sensus sit, verba delictorum meorum, id est, ista quae dixi, verba sunt delictorum meorum, quia verba sunt carnalium desideriorum" (Epistula 140, 6, 17: CSEL 44, 166–167). 29 "Haec ex persona sui corporis Christus dicit, quod est Ecclesia. Haec ex persona dicit infirmitatis carnis peccati, quam transfiguravit in eam quam sumpsit ex Virgine, similitudinem carnis peccati" (Epistula 140, 6, 18: CSEL 44, 168). 30 "Haec Sponsus ex persona sponsae loquitur, quia univit eam sibi quodam modo" (Ibid.).

just as he suffered in the Church when the Church suffered for him. For, just as we heard the voice of the Church suffering in Christ: 'God, my God, look,' and so on, so we also heard the voice of Christ suffering in the Church: 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?'"

31 Augustine uses his doctrine of the whole Christ (totus Christus), both head and body, in order to remove the cry of abandonment on the cross from the person of Christ the head and to apply it to Christ the body, that is, the Church. Thus on the cross Christ himself did not experience any thoughts of abandonment by God, but simply applied to himself the words of his body, the Church.

II. Christ and Sexual Temptation In the fourth book of Julian of Eclanum's Ad Florum Augustine read quite to his surprise that Julian had accused him of reviving the heresy of the Apollinarists.

32 Augustine had a right to be surprised since he was writing his reply to Julian's Ad Florum, the huge Opus imperfectum contra Iulianum, at the same time that he was writing for Quodvultdeus, a deacon and the future bishop of Carthage, De haeresibus, in which he, of course, dealt with Apollinarism, listing it as the fifty-fifth of the eighty-eight heresies that had arisen since the coming of Christ.

33 Augustine was well informed about what Apollinaris of Laodicea held according to the best sources available to him, namely, the Anaceph-

31 "Quid ergo dedignamur audire vocem corporis ex ore capitis? Ecclesia in illo patiebatur, quando pro Ecclesia patiebatur: sicut etiam in Ecclesia patiebatur ipse, quando pro illo Ecclesia patiebatur. Nam sicut audivimus Ecclesiae vocem in Christo patientis, Deus, Deus meus, respice, etc., sic etiam audivimus Christi vocem in Ecclesia patientis, Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris" (Epistula 140, 6, 18: CSEL 44, 169). 32 See Opus imperfectum contra Iulianum IV, 47: PL 45, 1365. Apollinaris of Laodicea was a prominent theologian, exegete, polemicist, and man of letters in the 4th century. He broke away from the Church in 375. See Augustine, De haeresibus 55: CCL 46, 325; for an English translation see Heresies in Arianism and Other Heresies (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1995). Or see Charles Kannengieser, "Apollinaris of Laodicea, Apollinarism,"in The Encyclopedia of the Early Church, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), I, 58-59. 33 See Epistula 224, 2: CSEL 57, 452, in which Augustine explains that he is writing his answer to Julian's Ad Florum and writing his Retractationes, but will, nonetheless, begin De haeresibus for Quodvultdeus.

224 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian alaiosis attributed to Epiphanius of Salamis and the Diversarum haeresion liber of Philaster of Brescia.

34 The accusation that Julian brought against Augustine of reviving the heresy of the Apollinarists initially stunned Augustine, but the ensuing debate presents a key for opening up the two quite different views of the humanity assumed by the Word according to the two bishops, especially with relation to Christ's experiencing sexual temptation. Both of them held that Christ, the Son of God, assumed a true human nature, like ours in all things save sin. But the nature that Christ assumed according to Julian and the nature that Christ assumed according to Augustine seem quite different and have quite different implications, not merely for the masculinity of Jesus, but also for his ability to function as a model, especially for male chastity. Hence, the difference between Augustine's view of the human nature of Christ and that of Julian is not merely speculatively interesting, though somewhat indelicate in the discussion of the body of the savior to which it leads. It is also practically of interest in terms of Christ's being a model of chastity, because, if Augustine is correct, then Jesus never experienced the sort of sexual arousal and temptations that other men experience and with which they have to struggle if they are to remain chaste. In the fourth book of Ad Florum Julian warns his reader against the teaching of Augustine.

35 He says to Augustine, "I warn the reader, then, to be fully alert at this point, for he will see that you revive the heresy of the Apollinarists with an addition from Mani,"

36 Julian goes on to explain what Apollinaris held, namely, that he "is said to have first introduced such an incarnation of Christ that he said that he as-

34 Epiphanius (315–403), bishop of Salamis on Cyprus, wrote a large work on heresies called Panarion, a "medicine chest" of antidotes for heresy. Augustine knew only the Anacephalaiosis, which he took to be a work of Epiphanius, though scholars now claim that the work was produced by someone else. Philaster of Brescia wrotes his Diversarum heresion liber between 380 and 390. For Philaster's work, see CCL 9, 207–324. 35 Julian's work is extant only in the Opus imperfectum, though because of the bitterness that had arisen over Augustine's having allegedly misquoted Julian in De nuptiis et concupiscentia, it seems certain that Augustine quoted the whole of the first six books of Ad Florum. The last two books of the work are lost, since Augustine died before responding to them. 36 "Hic igitur ut adsit toto animo lector, admoneo: videbit enim Apollinaristarum haeresim, sed cum Manichaei per te adjectione reparari" (Op. imp. IV, 49: PL 45, 1365).

sumed from the human substance only the body, while the deity itself took the place of the soul. Christ would seem to have assumed, not a man, but the cadaver of a man."

37 This first position of Apollinaris was, Julian notes, quickly and easily refuted by the words of the Lord: "I have it in my power to lay down my soul, and I have it in my power to take it up again" (Jn 10:18). But Apollinaris "thought up something else which might give birth to this heresy of his, which lasts up to the present, and he said that there was indeed a human soul in Christ, but that he did not have any senses of the body, and he declared that he was unable to suffer any sins."

Augustine appeals to the book that Epiphanius of Cyprus wrote on heresies

39 and reports what the book contained, namely, that some Apollinarists held that Christ's "body was consubstantial with the divinity," while others "denied that he assumed a human soul," and still others taught that "he did not assume flesh from created flesh, that is, of Mary, but that the Word became flesh," and still later some claimed that "he did not assume a mind."

40 Augustine insists, "I have never read, except in your book, your claim that the Apollinarists held that

37 "Apollinaris quippe primo talem incarnationem Christi induxisse fertur, ut diceret solum corpus de humana substantia assumptum videri, pro anima vero ipsam fuisse deitatem; Christusque non hominem, sed cadaver videretur hominis suscepisse" (Ibid.). 38 "Excogitavit aliud unde ejus haeresis, quae perdurat hactenus, nasceretur; et dixit, animam quidem humanam in Christo fuisse, sed sensus in eo corporis non fuisse, atque impassibilem eum pronuntiavit universis exstitisse peccatis" (Ibid.). 39 For the Anacephaiosis, see Epiphanius I: Panarion Haeres. 1–33, ed. K. Holl (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs'she Buchhandlung, 1915), 234–237, Epiphanius II: Panarion Haeres. 34–64, ed. K. Holl and J. Dummer (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1980), 1-4, 211-214, and Epiphanius III: Panarion Haeres. 65-80, ed. K. Holl and J. Dummer (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1985), or see PG 42, 853–873. 40 "Epiphanius ... dixit Apollinaristarum quosdam in Domino Jesu Christo divinitati corpus consubstantiale dixisse; alios autem negasse quod animam sumpserit; alios ... contendisse non eum carnem sumpsisse de creata carne, id est, Mariae, sed Verbum carnem factum; postea vero ... dixisse quod non sumpserit mentem" (Op. imp. IV, 49: PL 45, 1365).

226 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

Christ did not have the senses of the body and was incapable of suffering, nor have I ever heard it from anyone."

Nello Cipriani has in a recent study examined the character of the Apollinarism with which Julian charges Augustine and has pointed to its sources in the anti-Apollinarism of the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

42 Cipriani argues that Apollinaris himself did not deny the senses to Christ's body, as Julian claimed that he did.

Egli aveva semplicemente detto che i movimenti o affezioni (pathemata) della psiche animale e della carne, invece di essere guidati da un nous humano, erano guidati dal Verbo, perché questo era sufficiente a garantire la santità del Redentore. Erano stati i critici di Apollinare a dedurre dalla tesi della vivificazione della carne ad opera del Verbo, comme logica consequenza, negazione della sensibilità corporale e perfino il carattere fittizio del corpo di Christo."

Cipriani also argues that it was Theodore of Mopsuestia who was the source of the Aristotelian elements that François Refoulé had pointed out in Julian's thought.

The accusation that Augustine denied bodily sensibility or senses to Christ must have initially struck Augustine as outlandish, but Julian soon makes it clear what he has in mind. He claims that, according to Apollinaris and Augustine, "Christ did not avoid sins by virtue of his judgment, but that by the blessedness of a flesh, which was deprived of our senses, he could not experience the desire for sins."

45 Apollinaris, Julian claims, "deprived [Christ] of the fullness of our natural senses for fear that he would become lowered in dignity by sharing in our

41 "Quod ergo affirmas Apollinaristas asseverasse in Christo sensus corporis non fuisse, eumque illos pronuntiasse impassibilem; nec uspiam legi, nisi in hoc libro tuo, nec aliquando ab aliquo audivi" (Ibid.). See Augustine, De haeresibus 55,: CCL 46, 325 and Anacephalaiosis III, ii, 1: PG 42: 873. 42 See N. Cipriani, "Echi antiapollinaristici e aristotelismo nella polemica di Giuliano d'Eclano," Augustinianum 21 (1981): 373–389. 43 Cipriani, "Echi antiapollinaristici," p. 383. Cipriani cites a passage from a homily of Theodore of Mopsuestia in which he uses the same line of argument against Apollinarism. 44 See François Refoulé, "Julien d'Éclane, théologien et philosophe," Recherche de science religieuse 53 (1964): 42–84 and 233–247. 45 "Non qui virtute judicii delicta vitasset; sed qui felicitate carnis a nostris sensibus sequestratae, cupiditatem vitiorum sentire nequivisset"(Op. imp. IV, 48: PL 45, 1366).

46 Julian points out that the Catholic opposition to Apollinaris was fierce "because in accord with such a faith the mysteries of Christ would suffer a greater loss than the members of Christ."

flesh."

47 The Catholics argued, "For, if Christ ... was born a son of David ... in order that he might give us an example and that we might follow in the footsteps of him who committed no sin ... but did not, nonetheless, put on the characteristics of our substance in every respect, if he possessed either flesh without a soul or a human nature without the senses that nature gave us, we are shown that he could not have fulfilled the role of an example and of the law."

48 Julian runs through the temptations associated with the senses of sight, smell, taste, and hearing and claims that there would have been nothing praiseworthy in Christ's self-discipline if he did not have these senses. Finally, however, he asks, "But what is the glory of chastity if he lacked virility rather than had will power, and if what he was thought to accomplish by the strength of his mind came from the weakness of his members?"

49 Not merely would Christ have lost all merit for his actions and suffering, but his teaching would have been charged with fraud if he said to human beings: "By conquering the real impulses of your nature, imitate the chastity of him whose impotence made him appear chaste."

50 Then in a somewhat surprising turn, Julian acknowledges that Apollinaris did not say all these things, but he insists that they all follow from his one claim that "Christ the

46 "Ne carnis nostrae communione vilesceret, naturalium eum sensuum integritate fraudavit" (Op. imp. IV, 49: PL 45, 1367). 47 "Quia apud talem fidem majus damnum mysteria Christi, quam membra perferrent" (Ibid.). 48 "Si enim ... factus est Christus ex semine David ... ut nobis daret exemplum, et sequeremur vestigia ejus, qui peccatum non fecit, ... nec tamen per omnia substantiae nostrae induit proprietatem, si vel carnem sine anima, vel hominem sine sensibus, quibus nos imbuit natura, gestavit, exempli formam et legis non docetur implesse" (Ibid.). 49 "Quae autem gloria castitatis, si virilitas magis aberat quam voluntas, et quod putabatur fieri de vigore animi, veniebat de debilitate membrorum?" (Ibid.). 50 "Imitamini castitatem, certa naturae vestrae irritamenta vincentes, illius quem debilitas fecit pudicum videri" (Op. imp. IV, 50: PL 45, 1368).

228 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian man lacked those senses that are given by nature and that fall into sins, not by use, but by excess."

51 Julian accuses Augustine of blaming "concupiscence of the flesh in accord with the statements of his teacher, Mani."

52 He continues, "You say that the concupiscence of the senses was not present in the body of Christ, either in accord with the Manichees or in accord with the Apollinarists."

53 Then in another odd twist Julian seems to concede that Augustine really was not an Apollinarist, but was a Manichee— something that is, of course, worse. At that point Julian demands the passage of scripture where Augustine "read that Christ was naturally a eunuch."

54 He insists that Christ "did not shun the male sex, but assumed its reality, in every respect whole in his organs, whole in his body, a true human, a complete man" and that "there was in him the concupiscence of the flesh mingled with the senses of the whole body and the reality and sound condition of his members."

55 Against the docetist views of Mani and Apollinaris, by whom he means, of course, Augustine, Julian insists, "Nothing in my Lord causes me shame. I maintain the reality of the members into which he entered on account of my salvation in order that I might receive the solid support of his example."

56 The holiness of Christ was, Julian insists, due to "the

51 "Et Apollinaris omnia ista non dixerat: per illud unum quod pronuntiarat, homini Christo defuisse eos sensus, qui a natura inditi, non usu, sed excessu ad vitia labuntur; haec omnia quae a Catholicis relata sunt, praejudicio opinionis suae mutus excepit." (Ibid.). 52 "Concupiscentiam carnis accusas, juxta praeceptoris tui dicta Manichaei" (Ibid.) 53 "Dicis concupiscentiam sensuum in Christi corpore non fuisse, vel secundum Manichaeos, vel secundum Apollinaristas" (Ibid.). 54 "Illud efflagito, ubi tu legeris Christum eunuchum fuisse naturaliter" (Op. imp. IV, 52: PL 45, 1369). 55 "Et tamen ita aversatus non est sexum virilem, ut ejus susciperet veritatem, integer per omnia viscerum, integer corporis, homo verus, vir perfectus ... concupiscentiam carnis totius corporis immixtam sensibus, et veritatem ac sanitatem conditionemque membrorum fuisse in eo" (Op. imp. IV, 52: PL 45, 1369–1370). 56 "Nihil ergo me pudet in Domino meo: in quae propter salutem meam venit, teneo veritatem membrorum, ut exempli ejus soliditatem arcemque suscipiam" (Op. imp. IV, 52: PL 45, 1370).

57 He proclaims that "the faith of Christians is not embarrassed to say that Christ has sexual organs, even though we conceal these in our own case as modestly as possible."

goodness of his mind," not to "a defect of his flesh."

58 Christ lacked "nothing belonging to nature," and his "chastity was lofty in its constant integrity and was not aroused by the longing of desire because it was the virgin spouse of his holy mind."

59 Julian argues that, even if Christ had not assumed concupiscence of the flesh—for once using Augustine's biblical terminology—he would not have condemned it by not assuming it, just as he did not condemn marriage by choosing the higher good of chastity. He "would not have condemned the sense of the genital flesh, even if he had chosen not to have the capacity for it in his substance."

60 Augustine, on the other hand, insists that Christ did not have sinful flesh, but only the likeness of sinful flesh and that he, therefore, did not have concupiscence of the flesh that resists the spirit.

61 He accused Julian of not even sparing Christ's dreams. Augustine regularly personifies "concupiscence of the flesh" in arguing against Julian and speaks of it as Julian's "darling" or "favorite." He says, "We know that Christ did, of course, sleep, and if your darling ("suscepta") was present in him, she at times surely deluded his sleeping senses by such dreams that it seemed to him that he was even having intercourse, and so his flesh

57 "Praedico omnem in eo sanctitatem beneficio animi, non carnis stetisse praejudicio" (Op. imp. IV, 54: 1371). 58 "Non erubescit fides Christianorum, dicere Christum habuisse genitalia; cum tamen ea in nobis, quam honestissime possumus, occultamus" (Ibid.). 59 "Castitasque ejus continua integritate celsa, nullo permota libidinis appetitu, quae virgo sanctae mentis exstiterat (Op. imp. IV, 57: PL 45, 1373). 60 "Ita nec sensum carnis genitalis damnasset, si ejus possibilitatem nec in substantia sua habere voluisset" (Op. imp. IV, 58: PL 45, 1374). 61 On the distinction between "sinful flesh" (caro peccati) and "the likeness of sinful flesh" (similitudo carnis peccati), which is based on Rom 8:3, see Thomas Weinandy, In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh: An Essay on the Humanity of Christ (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993). Weinandy argues strongly that Christ assumed "our own sinful humanity" although "he never sinned personally, or ... had an inner propensity to sin (concupiscence) ..." (p. 18).

230 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian aroused by the stimulus of this good of yours would make his genitals uselessly erect and pour forth useless seed."

62 Again Julian argues that, even if Christ did not include in his own members "the sense of the sexual organs," he surely did not make something evil when he formed the members of the patriarchs and gave them "sex and its sense."

63 For Julian the body of the savior lacked nothing of the nature of human beings. Augustine, on the other hand, says to Julian, "You blaspheme enormously when you make the flesh of Christ equal to the flesh of other human beings. You do not see that he came, not in sinful flesh, but in the likeness of sinful flesh."

64 Augustine argues that "Christ abstained from sin in such a way that he abstained from every desire for sin, not so that he resisted a desire he had, but so that the desire never existed at all. It was not that he could not have had it, if he had willed to, but he would not have rightly willed to have what sinful flesh, which he did not have, would not have forced him to have even against his will."

The two bishops used a different language in referring to what one says Christ had and the other says he did not have. For Julian it is a natural sense of the body; more specifically it is the sense of the sexual organs, which for Julian includes a natural concupiscence or desire. At times he calls it simply virility.

66 Julian almost always avoids using

62 "Dormisse quippe novimus Christum, in quo si erat ista tua suscepta, profecto sopitos ejus sensus aliquando per talia somnia deludebat, ut sibi etiam concumbere videretur, atque ita caro ejus isto tuo bono stimulante commota, et in irritum extenderet genitalia et irrita effunderet semina. (Ibid.). 63 "Fac ergo, quoniam Christus, cum sua membra formaret, noluerit eis sensum admiscere genitalium, quo usurus non erat: num ideo cum Isaac, Jacob, et omnium membra fingebat, eisque et sexum dabat et sensum, malum aliquid faciebat? (Op. imp. IV, 59: PL 45, 1375). 64 "Immaniter, Juliane, blasphemas, coaequans carnem Christi caeterorum hominum carni; nec videns illum venisse non in carne peccati, sed in similitudine carnis peccati, quod nullo modo verum esset, nisi caeterorum esset caro peccati" (Op. imp. IV, 60: PL 45, 1375). 65 "Christus abstinuit a peccato, ut abstineret etiam ab omni cupiditate peccati: non ut ei existenti resisteret, sed ut illa nunquam prorsus existeret; non quod eam non posset habere si vellet, sed non recte vellet, quod eum caro peccati quam non gerebat, etiam invitum habere non cogeret (Op. imp. IV, 58: PL 45, 1374). 66 See above note 49.

the words "concupiscence of the flesh," by which Paul says the flesh lusts against the spirit (Gal 5:17) and which John says does not come from the Father (1 Jn 2:16). He prefers to speak of a "natural concupiscence," which he holds is not blameworthy in its genus, species, or moderate use, but only in its excess.

67 For Julian sexual desire is as natural and good as the desire for food and drink, provided, of course, it is not excessive. Without it Christ was, according to Julian, impotent, a eunuch, not a real man. As Julian sees the Augustine's position, Christ's discipline with regard to food, drink, and sex was due to a lack of human senses and their corresponding desires, not to the strength of his will. Just as he cannot serve as a model for temperance regarding food or drink, since he did not have the sense of taste and the desire for food and drink, so he cannot, in Julian's view, serve as a model of chastity, since he did not have any sensation in his sexual organs or any sexual desires. So too, for Julian his status as a teacher is undermined, since he could not know what he was talking about if he simply lacked the desires, urges, and longings of the rest of mankind. For Augustine, on the other hand, what Christ lacked was not something natural, but a defect in human nature stemming from original sin and inclining one to sin. Christ had a human soul and a human, male body; what he lacked was "sinful flesh," the injured or damaged human nature the rest of us have inherited from Adam. He lacked the desire or longing of the flesh that rebels against the mind, but he had the full range of human senses and the male sexual organs, which he could have used if he had wanted to. What he lacked was any desire or longing that he had to fight against or resist in order to be temperate or chaste. For such a desire, which would have to be resisted, is for Augustine a sinful desire. For Julian human nature is much closer to the sort of human nature of which Aristotle writes, namely, the specific essence as a source of activities, including natural desires. Refoulé argues that Julian derived his concept of nature along with numerous other features of his thought from the Aristotelian philosophy of the period.

68 In fact, he concludes, "Julien fut sans nul doute l'un des premiers à tenter une

67 "Clarebit ... concupiscentiae naturalis non genus, non speciem, non modum, sed excessum tantum in culpam venire" (Op. imp. IV, 25: PL 45, 1351. 68 Though others limit the influence of Aristotle to the categories and dialectic, Refoulé points to the Aristotelian influence on Julian's concepts of justice, of the virtues, and of nature. See Refoulé, pp. 233-244.

232 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian synthèse entre les principes de la philosophie aristotélienne et les données de la Révélation."

69 He even likens Julian to Thomas Aquinas! 70 Such an Aristotelian human nature contains only good characteristics, which for a Christian Aristotelian are God-given. For Augustine, on the other hand, "human nature," as it has existed, not as it will exist in the future life, means either that state in which Adam and Eve were created by God, a state in which there was nothing but good, or that state in which we humans are now born with the damage inherited from Adam's sin.

71 Sexual desire (libido) can be called natural, "because every human being is born with it,"

72 but in itself it is something evil. "It is not our nature, but a defect against which we must fight by means of virtue. For we do not conquer something good by a good, but something evil by a good"

73 For Augustine the human nature assumed by the Word is like the human nature with which Adam and Eve were created, not like the fallen human nature with which each of us is now born.

74 As Adam and Eve were not created with sinful flesh and its disorderly desires, so the human nature Christ assumed was not sinful flesh, but the likeness of sinful flesh, and had no such disorderly desires or concupiscence of the flesh. Given Augustine's conviction rooted in the Letters of Paul and of John that concupiscence of the flesh is a disordered desire that is not

69 Refoulé, p. 245. 70 Refoulé, p. 44. 71 Augustine stated such a definition of "nature" in De libero arbitrio III, 19, 54: CCL 29, 307: "Sic etiam ipsam naturam aliter dicimus cum proprie loquimur naturam hominis in qua primum in suo genere inculpabilis factus est, aliter istam in qua ex illius damnati poena et mortales et ignari et carni subditi nascimur, iuxta quem modum dicit Apostolus: Fuimus enim et nos naturaliter filii irae sicut et ceteri." 72 "Quod autem nunc agitur, naturalem esse libidinem et ego dico, quia cum illa nascitur omnis homo ..." (Contra Iulianum V, 7, 27: PL 44, 801). 73 "Adhuc non euigilas, ut intelligas nostram naturam non esse, sed uitium, contra quod uirtute pugnamus? Neque enim bono bonum, sed bono utique malum uincimus" (Contra Iulianum V, 7, 28: PL 44, 801). 74 This is especially apparent from Augustine's claim in De civitate Dei XIV, 23 that, if Adam and Eve had not sinned, they would have given birth to children in paradise without an lust and that their sexual organs would have obeyed their will in the same way as our hands and feet now are moved in obedience to our will.

merely the result of Adam's sin, but also an evil in itself, though an evil of which one can make good use within marriage, it is understandable why he denies its presence in Christ. The human Christ could not, according to Augustine, be subject to such disordered longings and desires, sexual or otherwise. Christ's sexuality was completely under the control of his will so that he experienced no rebellion of the flesh; he had no sexual desire since he did not will to. Otherwise, he would have had sinful flesh like ours rather than the likeness of sinful flesh. On the other hand, Julian certainly seems to have a strong argument when he claims that the Augustinian Christ cannot be a credible teacher or model of chastity if he had none of the urges and inclinations of other males. Hence, Julian presents us with a Christ who is, in some ways, is a much more attractive teacher and example of the virtues, and especially of chastity, than the Christ of Augustine. The problem is a knotty one, and the heart of the problem lies in the different concepts of nature and their implications–an issue that will surface in different forms later in the history of theology at the time of Baius and Jansenius, especially in the latter's battle against the Jesuit defenders of the so-called "pure nature."

75 But that is another story for another time. For the present let it suffice that this paper has shown that the sort of human nature that Christ assumed according to Augustine, that is, the likeness of sinful flesh, is significantly different from the sort of human nature we have, that is, sinful flesh, so that the temptations that the Augustinian Christ faced seem quite different from the temptations that the rest of the human race encounters.

75 See my "Augustine, Jansenius, and the State of Pure Nature," in Augustinus in der Neuzeit, ed. Kurt Flasch and Dominique de Courcelles (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), pp. 161–174.

Augustine, Maximinus, and

Imagination I n a paper presented at the 11th Oxford Patristics Conference, I pointed out that Augustine accuses all heretics of being carnal persons, that is, the sort of persons who can think of God only as in bodily terms.

1 I showed that Augustine specifically accuses the Arians of thinking of God in a carnal or bodily fashion and even claims that their heresy arises from an image-controlled interpretation of Jn 5:19, "The Son cannot do anything of himself, except what he sees the Father doing."

2 To illustrate his point, Augustine reconstructs the logic of the Arians in thinking about Jn 5:19 as follows:

As far as I can see, you understand that the Father makes some things, but the Son watches how the Father makes them so that he too can make what he has seen the Father making. You have set up two carpenters, as it were, thinking of the Father and the Son like a master and his apprentice, in the way that fathers who are carpenters teach their sons their craft. See, I come down to your carnal mind; I think the same way you do. ...

1 "Heresy and Imagination in St. Augustine," Studia Patristica 11. vol. 23, pp. 400– 404. For Augustine's understanding of the Pauline terms "carnal," "animal," and "spiritual," see my "Spirituals and Spiritual Sense in St. Augustine," Augustinian Studies 15 (1984): 65–81; "Homo spiritalis in St. Augustine's De Genesi contra Manichaeos," Studia Patristica 10, vol. 22, pp. 351–355; "A Decisive Admonition for St. Augustine?" Augustinian Studies 19 (1988): 85–92, and "Homo spiritalis in St. Augustine's Confessions," in Augustine: From Rhetor to Theologian, ed. Joanne McWilliam (Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1992), pp. 67–76. 2 See Tractatus in Iohannis Euangelium XVIII, 3: CCL XXXVI,181: "Ariani quidem haeretici ... capiunt ex his uerbis ansam calumniae. ..." See also Sermo CXXVI, 8: RB 69 (1959): 186-187: "Non potest filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod uiderit patrem facientem (Io 5,19). Hic arrianorum error exsurgit. ..." 3 Tractatus in Iohannis Euangelium XVIII, 5: CCL XXXVI, 182: "sic, quantum opinor, intelligis, quoniam quaedam facit Pater, Filius autem attendit quemadmodum faciat Pater, ut possit et ipse ea facere quae uiderit Patrem facientem. Duos quasi fabros constituisti: ita Patrem et Filium, ut etiam

236 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

In this paper I shall first show that Augustine explicitly accuses the Arians in general and Maximinus in particular of thinking of God in a carnal or bodily fashion. Then I will try to determine from what Maximinus himself said in the debate with Augustine whether or not Augustine's accusations are justified.

4 In conclusion, I shall suggest some reflections on the charges that Augustine is guilty of Hellenizing the biblical doctrine of God.

I. The Accusation against the Arians Augustine's anti-Arian writings are relatively late and few in number. In 418 Augustine received a copy of an anonymous Arian tract, Sermo Arianorum, in response to which he wrote his Contra sermonem Arianorum.

5 There are also an number of anti-Arian passages in the Tractatus in Iohannis Euangelium, dating from the years 413–418, and in a number of Augustine's Sermones.

6 Finally, there is the Collatio cum Maximino, a verbatim record of the debate between Augustine and Maximinus held in Hippo in 427 or 428, and the two books of the Contra Maximinum Arianum, which Augustine wrote after the debate, because Maximinus's filibuster had deprived him of a chance to answer on the day of the debate.

magistrum et discipulum, quomodo solent patres fabri docere filios suos artem suam. Ecce descendo ad carnalem sensum tuum, ita interim cogito ut tu. ..." See also Sermo CXXVI, 9: RB 69 (1959): 187. 4 Augustine denounces the Arian use of image-thinking, but he himself frequently uses images to illustrate Trinitarian doctrine. See especially Sermo CXVII, VI, 10–IX,12: PL XXXVIII, 666–668, where he uses images of the brightness of light and of a reflection of a reed in water to illustrate how the Father is not temporally subsequent to the Son. The difference is that, while Augustine uses images to aid in understanding the rule of faith, the Arians allow images to determine what the rule of faith is. 5 See Epistula XXIII*A: CSEL LXXXVIII, 122, where Augustine says, "dictaui contra Arrianos ad illud quod Dionysius noster de Vico Iuliano miserat. ..." 6 Of the Homilies on the Gospel of John, the most important in terms of their anti-Arian doctrine are XVIII and XX, which date from 413, and XXVI and LXXI, which are dated after 418. The principal anti-Arian Sermones are Sermo CXVII [418], Sermo CXXXV [417], Sermo CXXXIX [416– 418], Sermo CXL [427 or 428], Sermo XLXXXIII [after 416], Sermo CCXXVI [416-417], Sermo CCCXLI [418], Sermo CCCXXX [417], and Sermo Guelferbytanus XVII [421–423].

Augustine, Maximinus, and Imagination

Maximinus, the Arian bishop, came to Africa in 427 or 428 with Count Sigisvult, a Goth, who was sent to suppress the rebellion of Bonafacius. The fact that he accompanied Sigisvult suggests that he was a Goth, though Meslin has argued that he was a Roman by birth.

7 In any case, Maximinus took as his rule of faith the Council of Ariminum (386) which espoused the Homoian Arianism of Ulfila, the apostle of the Goths.

8 Maximinus began the debate with Heraclius, the priest whom Augustine had appointed to take over the administration of his diocese, but when Heraclius found himself in trouble, Augustine was summoned to his aid.

9 This paper will focus upon the accusations of carnal thinking that Augustine raised against the Arians first in his earlier Contra sermonem Arianorum and then in his writings against Maximinus.

10 In the third chapter of his Contra sermonem Arianorum, Augustine takes issue with the Arian claim that the Son created all things at the command of the Father. He asks, "What do they mean when they say that the Son created everything at the bidding of the Father, as if the Father did not create, but commanded that everything be created by the Son?"

11 Augustine suggests that such people "who are wise in a carnal manner should ask themselves by what other words the Father com-

7 See M. Meslin, Les ariens d'Occident (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1967). 8 See R. Gryson, Scolies ariennes sur le councile d'Aquilée. Sources chrétiennes 167 (Paris: du Cerf, 1980), pp. 250–263, for the Creed of Ulfila and Maximinus' commentary on it. See R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), pp. 557–597, for an account of the Homoian Arianism and its principal representatives. For an excellent account of the Homoian Arian theology, see R. Gryson, Les scolies ariennes, pp. 171–200. 9 From Possidius's Vita Augustini VIII, vi, 3: PL XXXII, 543–544, we learn that it was the same Heraclius who was administering the affairs of the diocese who initially debated Maximinus. 10 M. Simonetti has argued that the author of the anonymous Sermo Arianorum represents the same sort of Arianism as is found in the writings of Maximinus. See his "Agustin e gli Ariani," Revue des études augustiniennes 13 (1967): 55–84, here 72. Hence, what is said in Sermo Arianorum may be counted as evidence, if not explicitly against Maximinus, at least against the Homoian Arianism that he represented. 11 Contra sermonem Arianorum III, 4: PL XLII, 685: "quid est quod dicunt, jubente Patre creasse omnia Filium, tamquam Pater non creaverit, sed a Filio creari jusserit?"

238 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

12 Then, he explicitly accuses them of forming a phantasm, that is, a false image, in their heart of two people, the one commanding and the other obeying.

manded the only Word."

They form for themselves in a phantasm of their heart two people, as it were, though next to each other, still set in their own places, the one commanding, the other obeying. Nor do they understand that the command of the Father that all things be made is none other than the Word of the Father by whom all things were made.

In the Contra sermonem Arianorum XII, Augustine cites a text from the Arian sermon, "He heard from the Father, 'Sit at my right hand,' and thus he sat at the Father's right hand." He comments, "as if he did this at the Father's bidding, not by his own power as well."

14 Augustine says, "Unless this is interpreted spiritually, the Father will be on the Son's left."

15 He warns that one should not think of the hand of God "in terms of the dimensions of the body, which do not exist in God, but in terms of the power to act."

16 Augustine at least implies that the Arians interpret Christ's being seated at the right hand of the Father in a bodily manner.

12 Contra sermonem Arianorum III,4: PL XLII, 685: "Cogitent qui carnaliter sapiunt, quibus aliis verbis jusserit Pater unico Verbo." 13 Contra sermonem Arianorum III,4: PL XLII, 685: "Formant enim sibi in phantasmate cordis sui quasi duos aliquos, etsi juxta invicem, in suis tamen locis constitutos, unum jubentem, alteram obtemperantem. Nec intelligunt ipsam jussionem Patris ut fierent omnia, non esse nisi Verbum Patris per quod facta sunt omnia." Here Augustine explicitly points out that the Arians think in phantasms and do not understand (intelligunt) the Father's command. 14 Contra sermonem Arianorum XII: PL XLII, 692: "Audivit, inquiunt, a Patre, 'Sede ad dexteram meam,' et ideo sedit ad dexteram Patris, tanquam paterna jussione, non etiam sua id fecerit potestate." See Sermo Arianorum 9: PL XLII, 680: "Is qui voluntate Patris descendit et ascendit, voluntate et praecepto Patris sedet ad dexteram ejus, audiens Patrem sibi dicentem: 'Sede ad dexteram meam, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum'" (Ps 109:1). 15 Contra sermonem Arianorum XII: PL XLII, 692: "Hoc quidem nisi spiritualiter acceptum fuerit, Filio Pater ad sinistram erit." 16 Contra sermonem Arianorum XII: PL XLII, 692: "non secundum lineamenta corporis quae in Deo non sunt, sed secundum effectivam virtutem. ..."

Later, Augustine deals with the text from John, "As I hear, so I judge" (Jn 5:30), which the Arians understood as indicating the subjection of the Son. He cites the text, "The Son cannot of himself do anything except what he has seen the Father doing" (Jn 5:19). After warning that Jn 5:30 is more difficult to understand than the Arians suppose, he cites John's words, "The Father does not judge anyone, but has given all judgment to the Son" (Jn 6:22). Then he asks, "How is it that 'the Son cannot of himself do anything except what he has seen the Father doing' (Jn 5:19), though he judges and does not see the Father judging?"

17 While the Arians, Augustine would contend, have tried to imagine the Son observing the Father in action so that he could do what he sees the Father doing, Augustine insists that, if one takes all the texts together, one is forced to transcend the imagination. He says,

Let them attend to these things; let them think of them; let them ponder them, and in some way let their intention as far as possible become removed from the flesh (excarnetur). For by their carnal thought they strive to separate the one and identical nature of the Trinity in a distinction of substances and to arrange it in degrees of power.

Still later, in dealing once again with Jn 5:30, which the Arians took as evidence of the subordination of the Son, Augustine says, "If they would think [of what Augustine has just said], they would not in their carnal thoughts arrange the powers or functions of the Trinity in unequal degrees, making the Father the emperor, the Son the judge, and the Holy Spirit the advocate like three men of unequal and unlike

17 Contra sermonem Arianorum XIV: PL XLII, 693: "Quomodo igitur 'non potest Filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem,' cum judicet, nec Patrem videat judicantem?" 18 Contra sermonem Arianorum XIV: PL XLII, 693: "In ista intendant, ista cogitent, ista considerent; et eorum quodam modo, quantum fieri potest, excarnetur intentio, qui carnalibus cogitationibus moliuntur unam Trinitatis eamdemque naturam et substantiarum separare distantia, et potestatum gradibus ordinare." The verb "excarnare" is used by Augustine only one other time; in Sermo CXL 6: PL XXXVIII, 775, he says, "Exercet mentis Evangelium Ioannis, limat et excarnat, ut de Deo non carnaliter, sed spiritualiter sapiamus."

240 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

19 On the other hand, Augustine turns back upon them their own argument and explains that dignity."

even by such carnal thinking they cannot demonstrate a diversity of natures—which is the main point at issue between them and us. They compare these things to human practices and do not withdraw from things familiar to the human race that they can grasp in thinking. For the animal person does not perceive what belongs to the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:14).

After all, Augustine insists that, in the Arian comparison of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with the emperor, judge, and advocate, the latter three are all humans with the same nature, despite their different powers and functions.

Later Augustine again accuses the Arians of carnal thinking. He first cites the Arian text, "The Father begot the Son, willing this without change or passion; the Son made the Holy Spirit without labor or exhaustion by his own power alone."

22 Among other things, Augustine states that the Arians should attend to their claim that the Son made

19 Contra sermonem Arianorum XVIII: PL XLII, 696: "Haec isti si cogitarent, non carnalibus cogitationibus sic Trinitatis potestates vel officia gradibus imparibus ordinarent, ut tamquam tres homines inaequalis ac dissimilis dignitatis facerent, tanquam imperatorem Patrem, judicem Filium, advocatum Spiritum sanctum." In Sermo Arianorum 9: PL XLII, 680, the relationship is stated less bluntly. After citing Jn 5:30, it says of Christ, "Unde et in judicando Patris praesentiam praeponit, dicens: 'Venite, benedicti Patris mei' (Mt 25:34). Ergo justus judex est Filius; judicantis vero honor et auctoritas, Patris imperiales leges; sicuti et Spiritus sancti officiosa advocatio et consolatio." 20 Contra sermonem Arianorum XVIII: PL XLII, 696–697: "Qua sua cogitatione carnali, tamen naturae diversitatem, de qua inter nos et ipsos maxima quaestio est, in his tribus personis demonstrare non possunt. Cum enim ad humanos mores ista referunt, et ab humani generis consuetudine quam cogitando possunt capere non recedunt (animalis enim homo non percipit quae sunt Spiritus Dei (1 Cor 2:14). ..." 21 Contra sermonem Arianorum XVIII: PL XLII, 697: "quid aliud nos admonent, nisi quia et imperator, et judex et advocatus, homines sunt? Proinde judex imperatore etiamsi potestate minor est, non minus homo est." 22 Contra sermonem Arianorum XXVIII, 26: PL XLII, 702: "Pater, inquiunt, immobiliter et impassibiliter volens Filium genuit: Filius sine labore et fatigatione sola virtute sua spiritum fecit." See Sermo Arianorum 26: PL XLII, 681.

the Holy Spirit by his own power, for "in that way they are forced to say that the Son did something that he did not see the Father doing."

23 Augustine continues to press them, asking whether the Father also made the Holy Spirit, for, if he did, then the Son did not make him by his own power alone.

24 Worse yet, did the Father perhaps first make another Holy Spirit so that the Son could make the one he made? After all, the Son cannot do anything that he has not seen the Father doing.

25 However, the second hypothesis runs directly counter to Jesus' words, "Whatever the Father does, those same things the Son does in a like manner" (Jn 5:19). Hence, Augustine adds, "If they would try to think of these things, all those things that they make up for themselves in their carnal thought would assuredly be thrown into confusion."

26 Augustine elsewhere explains that such confusion is not meant to be the goal, but should rather be the path that leads to healing. In Sermo CXXVI, he points to the confusion that results from imagining that the Son watches what the Father does and then does the same thing, if one adds to such imagining of John 5:19 the content of John 1:3, namely, that all things were done through the Word. Here Augustine points out that the remedy for this carnal thinking lies in the confusion.

Certainly you are confused, you heretic; certainly you are confused. But like one who has taken hellebore, you are confused in order to be healed. Now you are no longer yourself; you too condemn, as far as I can see, your carnal opinion and your carnal view.

23 Contra sermonem Arianorum XXVIII, 26: PL XLII, 703: "Isto enim modo coguntur fateri, aliquid fecisse Filium quod non viderit Patrem facientem." 24 Contra sermonem Arianorum XXVIII, 26: PL XLII,703: "An placet eis dicere, quod etiam Pater fecerit Spiritum sanctum? Non ergo eum sola virtute sua fecerit Filius." 25 Contra sermonem Arianorum XXVIII, 26: PL XLII, 703: "An alterum fecit prior Pater, ut posset Filius facere quem fecit, qui non potest facere nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem?" 26 Contra sermonem Arianorum XXVIII, 26: PL XLII, 703: "Si haec cogitare conentur, procul dubio turbabuntur eis omnia quae sibi carnali cogitatione componunt." 27 Sermo CXXVI,10: RB 69 (1959), 188: "Certe turbaris, haeretice, certe turbaris; sed tamquam helleboro accepto turbaris, ut saneris. Iam te non inuenis, sententiam tuam et carnalem intuitum tuum, quantum arbitror, etiam ipse condemnas." Though hellebore (helleborum) was a drug used to

242 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

That is, the image of the Father and of the Son, the one unable to do anything by himself and watching the other's activity, like the apprentice observing the master carpenter, is shattered by the image of the Father doing all things by his Word so that one is forced to transcend thinking in images and arrive at understanding.

28 Hence, Augustine tells the Arians to place the eyes of the flesh behind them, raise up their heart, and gaze upon things divine.

29 If they do this, then their carnal intention is confused, hidden, destroyed.

In his Contra Maximinum Arianum, Augustine frequently accuses the Arian bishop of thinking of God in carnal or imaginative terms. In the first book, Augustine twice accuses Maximinus of such carnal thinking. First, when Maximinus appealed to the ineffable groans of the Holy Spirit to prove that the Holy Spirit adores the Father,

31 Augustine interprets these groans as the prayers of the saints and says of the Arian interpretation, "No one thinks of the Holy Spirit in that way unless he thinks of him in terms of the flesh and not in terms of spirit."

32 Later Augustine accuses Maximinus of believing that the Son is mutable.

Of course, you would not believe this, if as a Catholic you believed that the form of the servant was assumed by the form of God and not that the form of God was changed into the form of the servant. Then you would think—not in a carnal, but in a spiritual manner— cure mental diseases, its cognate verb (helleboro) means "to purge." Either sense (or both) could be applicable here. 28 In the Oxford paper I suggested that Augustine was using against the Arians the Plotinian technique of correcting one image by another or of shattering one image against another in order to move beyond imagery to understanding. See Robert J. O'Connell, St. Augustine's Early Theory of Man, A.D. 386-391 (Harvard: Belknap Press, 1986), p. 58, for a description of Plotinus's use of images to transcend the corporeal realm. 29 See Sermo CXXVI, 10: RB 69 (1959), 188: "Repone oculos carnis post te, erige si aliquid habes in corde, diuina intuere." 30 See Sermo CXXVI, 12: RB 69 (1959), 189: "Ubi est ergo intentio ista carnalis? Confundatur, abscondatur, perimatur." 31 See Rom 8:26. 32 Contra Maximinum I, ix: PL XLII, 750– 51: "Nemo enim sic de Spiritu sancto sapit, nisi qui secundum carnem, non secundum spiritum sapit."

that he remained the invisible God after having assumed the visible man. ...

In the second book Augustine deals with a number of texts from the debate in which he points to carnal thinking as the source of the Arian position. At one point Maximinus stated that the Son "sees the Father, but he sees the incomprehensible. The Father, on the other hand, sees the Son as one who holds and has the Son in his embrace. ..."

34 Augustine replies that only the carnal-minded think that way and accuses him of imagining to himself "an embrace, that is, some capacity of the greater Father by which he grasps and contains the smaller Son, as a home holds a human being in a bodily fashion or as a nurse's bosom holds an infant."

35 Augustine continues to jab away at his opponent, adding with irony that this way of thinking leads one to include among the marvelous things about Christ that "he grew in the form of the servant and became larger than he had been in the form of God so that, though he was first carried in his Father's embrace, he now sits at the Father's right hand."

36 Hence, he cries out, "Cast such childish or old womanish phantasms from your heart. ..."

37 Later Augustine accuses Maximinus of thinking of the Son's being born from the

33 Contra Maximinum I, xix: PL XLII, 758: "Quod utique non crederes, si formam servi a forma Dei esse susceptam, non formam Dei in formam servi esse mutatam, tanquam catholicus crederes; et visibili homine assumpto, permansisse invisibilem Deum, non carnaliter, sed spiritualiter cogitares. ..." 34 Collatio cum Maximino II, 9: PL XLII, 728: "Vidit ergo Patrem sed vidit incapabilem. Pater autem sic vidit Filium, ut tenens in sinu suo et habens. ..." Maximinus had conflated Jn 6:46: "Not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father" and Jn 1:18: "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God who is in the Father's embrace, he has revealed him." 35 Contra Maximinum II, ix, 2: PL XLII, 764: "Sic non sapiunt, nisi qui carnaliter sapiunt. Sinum quippe tibi fingis, ut video, aliquam capacitatem majoris Patris, qua Filium minorem capiat atque contineat: sicut hominem corporaliter capit domus, aut sicut sinus nutricis capit infantem." 36 Contra Maximinum II, ix, 2: PL XLII, 764: "Ergo inter mirabilia Christi et hoc deputabitur, quia in forma servi crevit, et major est factus quam in forma Dei fuerat, ut cum prius portaretur in sinu Patris, nunc sedeat ad dextram Patris." 37 Contra Maximinum II, ix, 2: PL XLII, 764: "Abjice ista puerilia vel anicularia phantasmata de corde tuo. ..."

244 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

Father in a carnal manner and of rejecting, for this reason, the Son's generation from the Father. "Filled with carnal thoughts, you think that the substance of the Father could not beget the Son out of itself without undergoing what the substance of the flesh undergoes when it begets."

38 Shortly thereafter, he urges the Arian, "Remove the corruption; cast aside from the light of the mind any carnal passions and see the invisible reality of God that is known through what has been made."

39 That is, as God gave to human parents the ability to generate offspring of the same substance as themselves, so the Father has from his substance begotten a Son of the same substance. One must "purify" the concept of generation of any corruption and carnal passion; once one has done so, one "will not fail to believe out of contentiousness, but see as a result of understanding."

Once Augustine uses a human analogy precisely "on account of the weakness of the carnal ones."

41 He asks us to think of a human child who obeys his parent, asks his parent for something, thanks the parent, is sent somewhere by the parent where the child states that he has come to do the parent's will. Then he asks, "Does this show that the child is not of the same substance as the parent?"

42 So too, Augustine accuses Maximinus of thinking in carnal terms of the Son's veneration and worship of the Father.

43 Later Augustine, arguing that the Holy Spirit is seated with the Father and the Son, warns that we should not think of their being seated in a carnal fashion. Otherwise, we would think that the Father is seated in the less honorable position at the Son's left or that the Holy Spirit is denied what Scripture promises to

38 Contra Maximinum II, xiv, 2: PL XLII, 771: "Carnalibus quippe cogitationibus pleni substantiam Dei de se ipsa gignere posse Filium non putatis, nisi hoc patiatur quod substantia quando gignit patitur carnis." 39 Contra Maximinum II, xiv, 3: PL XLII, 772: "Corruptionem de medio tollite, passiones carnales a lumine mentis adjicite, et invisibilia Dei, per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspicite" (Rom 1:20). 40 Contra Maximinum II, xiv, 3: PL XLII, 772: "non contendendo diffideres, sed intellegendo conspiceres." 41 Contra Maximinum II, xiv, 8: PL XL, 776: "Ut enim humanum aliquid dicam propter infirmitatem carnalium. ..." 42 Contra Maximinum II, xiv, 8: PL XLII, 776: "numquid hinc ostenditur non ejusdem cujus pater est esse substantiae?" 43 Contra Maximinum II, xviii, 3: PL XLII, 786: "Quodlibet de veneratione et obsequio Filii erga Patrem carnaliter sentias. ..."

44 Finally, Augustine accuses the Arians of not hearing with faith Dt 6:4: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is your God, the Lord is one," and, thus, of being Israel carnally, like the Jews, and not spiritually, like Christians.

the saints.

Hence, there is ample evidence that Augustine accused the Arians not merely of thinking of the Father and the Son in terms of images, but also of falling into their error because of such image-thinking. However, he also points out that, if they accepted as true not merely that the Son cannot do anything by himself that he does not see the Father doing, but also that the Father does everything through his Son, the Word, they would be forced to transcend their image-thinking and would come to understand what one must first accept as true in faith. There remains the more difficult question of whether the Arians did indeed allow such image-thinking to control their theology.

II. Maximinus as an Image-Thinker In the first part of this paper, I have shown that Augustine accused the Arians in general and Maximinus in particular of being "carnal" in their thinking about God. Augustine did not, of course, think that one became a heretic simply because one thought of God as bodily or by imagining him. The little ones in the Church also think of God in terms of bodily images, but they humbly believe what they do not understand. The Arians, Augustine claims, were too proud merely to remain at the level of faith and thought that they understood when they did not understand.

44 Contra Maximinum II, xxi, 3: PL XLII, 792: "Cum ipsa sessio non sit utique cogitanda carnaliter: alioquin opinaturi sumus honorabilius Filium sedere quam Patrem; honorabilius quippe sedetur ad dexteram: et videbitur esse consequens ut Pater sedeat ad sinistrum. Postremo qualis vobis persuaserit spiritus, ut sancto Spiritui denegetis quod sanctis hominibus sancta Scriptura concedit, vos videritis." 45 Contra Maximinum II, xxiii, 1: PL XLII, 796: "Quod et vos utique audiretis, si Israel esse velletis, non carnaliter ut Judaei, sed spiritualiter ut Christiani." 46 See Enarratio in Psalmum CXXX 9: CCL XL, 1905: "uolunt se extendere ad id quod capere non possunt; et si aliquid utcumque ceperint, aut uisi sibi fuerunt capere quod non ceperunt, extolluntur inde. et superbiunt inde; uidentur sibi quasi sapientes."

246 Augustine Of Hippo: Philosopher, Exegete & Theologian

It is more difficult to show that Maximinus did in fact think of God in a carnal fashion as Augustine claims. Yet, there are, I believe, indications in the Collatio cum Maximino that Augustine's accusation was well grounded. There is, first of all, some indirect evidence that Maximinus thought of God as bodily and as able to be pictured in the imagination. The Homoian Arianism that Maximinus espoused shunned any philosophical learning and insisted upon a fidelity to the Scriptures and to the Scriptures alone.

47 When Maximinus stated for Augustine what he believed, he immediately added, "I state this on the basis of the Scriptures."

48 He not merely accepted the authority of the Scriptures, but refused to accept "those words which are not found in the Scriptures."

49 Maximinus surely intended to exclude the nonbiblical language of the Council of Nicaea, but his claim clearly goes beyond that. In fact, he claims that to use words not contained in the Scriptures is to fall into the wordiness condemned by the Scriptures.

50 He insists that the use of testimonies from the Scriptures is the only admissible form of proof. "The truth is not attained by argumentation, but is proved by certain testimonies."

Though Maximinus appeals to the Council of Ariminum, the authority of that Council stems from the fact that the fathers gathered there declared "in accord with the divine Scriptures the faith that they learned from the divine Scriptures."

52 So too, Maximinus points out

47 See R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. The Arian Controversy 318-311 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), 557–558. 48 Collatio cum Maximino 4: PL XLII, 711: "Et hoc de divinis Scripturis assero." 49 Collatio cum Maximino 1: PL XLII, 709: "eae vero voces quae extra Scripturam sunt, nullo casu a nobis suscipiuntur. ..." 50 See Prv 10:19 and Mt 12:36, as well as Collatio cum Maximino 13: PL XLII, 718: "Quamvis etiam etsi per totum diem quisque de divinis Scripturis proferat testimonia, non in verbositate illi imputabitur revera: quod si aut litteraria arte usus, aut expressione spiritus sui quisquis concinnet verba quae non continent sanctae Scripturae; et otiosa sunt et superflua." 51 Collatio cum Maximino 15, 21: PL XLII, 736: "Veritas non ex argumento colligitur, sed certis testimoniis comprobatur." 52 Collatio cum Maximino 4: PL XLII, 711: "Non ad excusandum me Ariminensis concilii decretum interesse volui, sed ut ostendam auctoritatem Patrum, qui secundum divinas Scripturas fidem nobis tradiderunt illam quam a divinis Scripturis didicerunt."

↑ Back to top