The Grace of Christ and the Grace of God in Augustine of Hippo (continued)
viii Cont('t11~t
Chapter 3. God in the Chri>tian Program of Life
I. TI.e Vi>ion of the Omnipresent God
125 125 125 127 129 130 130 132 135 136 137 138 140 143 a. Introductory Remarks on Letters 147 and 187 b. Tile Treatise on the Vision of God (Lener 1~7) c. Tile Treathc on the Presence of God (Leuer 187) cl. Concluding Assessment 2. God Merciful ancJ Just
(1, TI1c ldeo of God in the Anti-Pelagian Writings before 418 b. Tho ldc11 of God in tlte Later Anti-Pelnginn Writings 3. 'l11c God of All the Faithl'ul a. The Unfathomable Mystct)' of God b. Prnise of the 1'ranscendem God c. '11•c Indescribable Greatness of God d. Tite Cod of the Baptismal Catcchescs c. God in the Eucharistic Prayer
Preface
"Books too have their history." This rather trite 'aying applies to the present study of Tile Grace of Cilrisr ond rh~ Grace of God in Augusrine of lfipJJ{). Eight years ago,l wa< invited by the editors of theA11gustimts-Lexikon to collaborate on the article.< "Christ" and "God." lt was finally agreed that 1 olone should write the first of these two anicle.; and be the principal writer of the •econd. With a view to the dischruge of this by no means easy tas~. I deVOied a major pan of my scholarly work 10 Augustine's Cbristology and his teaching about God. For reasons that I need not go imo here, but to my own regret. the two contribmions, which were substantially finished by the fall of
Chapter~- The Principal Features of Augustine's Picture of God
145 146
I. A Double Perspective 2. The Tension betw<'Cn God in the Divine Self (Deus in s~l and Cod in Relation to Us (D~11.r ad nos) 3. The Idea of God and Religious Knowledge
150 151
Summary
1990. could not appear in the Le.<ikon. I mention all this because it largely cxpl(lins. and perhaps excuses, the special character of the present work. To begin with, it renders intelligible what
Abbn.!viations
Notes
at first sight appear to be unconventional limits pl~cccl on the study of the two themes. The study of Christ. which fonns the first pan of the present book, is conccmed chiefly, although not exclusively, wilh pas:sagcs in which the word "Christ" occurs. The second smdy. which provides the substance of tbe second part of the book. does not deal with the whole of Augustine's teaching about God but is limited to the concept of "Cod." In panicular, Augustine's teaching on the Trinity is taken up only 10 the extent that it deals with "God the Father" and "one God."
Bibliography
Indexes
I. Scripture Texts 2. Persons 3. Subjects and Concepts
256 257 259
In addition. traces naturally remain of my original purpose, which was to write two articles for a lexicon. I have, howe,.,r, tr•nslmcd the lengthier passages of Augustine and ha\'C allowed only shorter. more stereotyped citations to be given in Latin. Furthermore. I took the two themes as the subjects of my lectures in the flfSt semester of the academic years 19901991 and 1991-1992 at the Augustinian PatTistic Institute in Rome. My presentation may therefore smack somewhat of the classroom.
But the concrete circumstances that led to the preseut book in its tinal I01"1n have had their <1dvant.::tge as well. Despite t·he limitations set on them. lJle two studies combined here bring tO lisht a tension that dominates the entire
2 p.._/flte theological thinking of Augustine. l1le title I have chosen for !he book mnkes the problem clear, namely, !he relationship between !he orders of creation and redempuon. In addition. the subtitle specifies the question: Is Augustine's theology 10 be viewed as Christocenlric or theocemric"? In this connection. 1 intr Oduce some secondary 1. hcmcs lhnt in my opio.ion deserve to 00 looked a1 more closely. Finally, ct1e fact that I was able to present my intcrprctntion of Augustine fi1·st to my students was of no liule profit to the present book.
Be nil that as it may. it has been n source of great joy to me to be able to devote myself for several years to the Church Father who is dearer to me thM all the others. For this very reason. I feel obliged to expre.'iS my sincere thanks to those who have made it pos.,ible for me to bring this work to a happy conclusion. First and foremost. I thank !he editors of the Studia Ephcmcridis "Augustinianum": Father Vit1orino Crossi, lhe generous director. and Father Jose M. Cuirau, the tireless secretary. who declared their willingness ro make
General Introduction
Is it Christ or Cod who is at the ccnter of St. Augustine's theological thought? The question cannot be evaded if we be:tr in mind, tirst, how atcached the Bishop of ~lippo was to the fonnula "through Christ as human being to Christ as God" (per Chrismm hominem ad Chri.ssum Deum) and, second, how often. especially in his later years. he repeated the words of tl1e Apostle Paul: ''The grace of God tbrougb Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom 7:25).
my book on Augustine a pan of their series. I also thank Mrs. Uta K1·ewel (Bollrop). Dr. Hildegard Kiinig (TUbingcn). :md my young colleuguc, Rohcrt Dodaro. nil of whom conu"ibutcd with commendable devotion 10 rhe improvement of the book's language and to the clearer presentation of my thought.
The question or whether we should spenk or ChriStocenlrism or of lhe<>- centrism in connection with Augustine is in any case a very complex one. This
In grateful remembrance of the pMttwenry years, during which my teach· ing and scholarly research have been dcVOied for the most pan to the Augustinian Pnlristic lnstirute, I wish to dedicate this study of a subject that was ccnainly a favoritc of Augustine himself ro the professo!l> and students of the Institute. I include in my grateful remembrance all those-men and women, can be easily shown from a discussion that went on in the recent pa.sL About ten years ago, Barbnm A land published a very wonhwhile anicle on "Cogitare Deum il1 den Confusiones Augustins.'"' As she explains in her introduction. two things •timulntcd hel" interest in what at first glance seems to be a quite nanow subject.' On the one hand, she could not allow E. Jungel to go near and far-whose sympathy and interest helped me to lind meaning in the part I hnve played in research imo a long past age and at the same time not ro fol"gct the people of t(lday.
unchnllen2ed when, in his book Gott tds Gelteiu111is tier Welt, he appeals to Aug11srin; as supposedly the classical representative of the tradition of a completely incomprehensible Cod. On the other, she felt obliged to challenge R.
Basil Studcr San Anselmo, Rome. November 1992
claim that AuguStine had not succeeded in overcoming a "certain an1bivalence in the mancr of grace and knowledge'' and '"therewith, the dan· ger of confusing nature and grace."
She. herself thinks that the positions of these two writers are mutually c<>- hereut. to the extent 1h<1t the "monistic metaphysics;· to which Lorenz attributes tbe ambiguity in Augustine's teaching about grace and knowledge. and rhe tradition of "the unerly transcendent God," which Jllngel claims to find in
Augustine, ru·e very sim Bnr. Al bottom, both posi(ions :.1-:.:mmc, each in its own way. that there is but a single order of knowledge. As Aland poims out futther on, behind the problem just indicated lurks the question of how "creatcduess for God" is related to the grace which is given to us through the incarnation of !he Son.' lo other words. according to Aland, we may ask wbether !here is a difference in principle or only a gradation between the creative action of God and God's action in grace or between nature and grace.'
• Gmwmllutroduclion 5
4 c~nun/lmrr'){/u('/i()lt lation and seek to understand with their reasoning powers. Thus in his 77oe Trinit••. be presupposes a coocept of God that can he attained wilh lhe help of reason and that one must bave in mind "hen one seeks 10 reflect on the IIIOroughly theological question of the unity in the Trinity''
On the ba.,is of the Confessions. to which she deliberately limils her si Udy. A land anemp!S 10 answer !he question in the following way.• "There is a difference he!ween !he knowledge of God tha1 rea~oo can :111ain and the knowledge of God 1ha1 is ob1aincd wilh !he help of gmce. In the fom1er kind of knowledge. i1 i' po;sible for human beings, ar leas! for a brief. though blessed,
AI !he le,el of tbe rational understonding of !he f:ulll. Augustine distinguish<> both materially and formally between two orders, which however are closely interconnected. He assumes u~ objective ur ontological rca1ities an order of creation and an order of redemption. By this I mean £hat iu various
10 touch. al the apex of their souls. the God who rran,ccnds them.
for th~ir part. a~h ieve the same experience of God in theu· prayer: but whole th~~· hkc the pbolosoph.ers, fall back again into the hard reatity of the present hie, they renwon sub Jeet to God through their anitudc of fi1.i1h. Moreover, they hope for the everlasting vision of God, with !he confidence con1cx1~ he :-;peaks of God who crcmcd us and 0f.ld who (even more wonde,·- l'ully) redeemed us. l\.lorc than anything else. il was the controversy with Pelagius. Juliau of Eclanum~ and Olhcn), in which his leaching on grace was chollcngcd, Lh:Jt compelled him 1.() di l"l'CJ'Cnlialc bclwecn ''the gifl that .is nature gov~n ~~ t h~ o11 by their faith in the truth !aught 1heou by the "weakness of Chnst, wh1ch has become lhe way for Lhern., ilself' (gratia naturae) and "the grncc by which we are made believers" (graTi(l .flllelium). 15
Thus. wi1h hi!.J' eye ou the views concerning grace ::uld knowledge that Lorcnz po-oposc_~. Aland rejects a knowledge <>f God that is limiled in a one Sided way to !he possibilitic.< of the human mind: in addition, she traces Lorenz's way of undcrswoding !he knowledge of God in Augustine to a failure I<> dis_tingu~•h betwe~n nalure and grace. If •he had taken other pa5sages onto con.<oder:uooo. ~pec•ally from lite Expositions of tile t'salms. she could have found even <trongcr support for ber intcrpretnliOn (she did not appeal to the.'><! other pas;ages because she wanted to limit her study).•
11liS tension bclwccn "Lhe gift or creation .. (gratia c:reationis) and "'!he gif!lgraee of redemption" (gr(ltia reclemptionis) brings willl it the problem of the<)Centrism and Christocentrism in Augustinian thought. As I mentiooed earlier. lite Doctor of grace undoubtedly cite' again and again these words from the Leuer to the Romans. ·1'be grace of God 1hrough Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom 7:25). In this context. Christ is consi,tently seen as mediator bel\veen Goc.l and humanity. But Augustine can also be c.:orucnl with the other fonnula mentioned earlier, "Through Clttist as humnn being 10 Christ as God." Or be will speak of "Christ the way" and "Christ the homeland." The importance of tht.l)e Christoccntric-sounding formulas is clear fi'Om lhe fact that G. Madcc has been able 10 write a book Oil Christ in Ausustine wilh the title: La [>atrie ctltl vola (Tiw Homeland mu/ rhe ~lkly). 11' Although the conlexts in which such formulas as these arc used make it clear that God is the beginning and the end, they also show how concerned Augustine is to make Christ tbe cemer of the ll Ctivily of salvation.
In the final analy<is. Lorcnz stands in the lone of those modern scholars who hove taken th~ir cue from a famous essay of A. von Hnmack and have seen Augustine as primarily a Neoplatonic philosopher.• 1t should be rcrnemb~r~d. howcve1\ lhal the dean of histol'ians of dogmc.l la1e1' nunnccd .somewhat hos JUdgn~cnt _on ':"&u•tine's theological thought. In doing so. he continued to see a. tcnsaon m th1s thought between a more J'cligio·philosophical doclri ne 00 the ... g~·ncc of God'' and a more e-ecles i~1.~tic-a l tenching on the .. grace of Chnst.
116 Sornclhing of thi~ dialectic can be seen in Pascal, who. ns a reminder of a mcmo:able night in llis life, sewed into his clothing a paper thal contained the followong words among others. '·'God of Abraham. God of lsnnc. God of Jacob.' no_t of philosophers and scholars:'" He thus di~tinguished between lite God of fnuh and the God of the philosophers.
Similar tensions are also to be seen in the order of knowledge. At the logicalle\'el. Augustine likes to appeal to the fomwla 1aken from lite Latin transl:uion of Isaiah, Nisi credid~ritis, non imflligetis ("Unless you believe, you will not undcr.ltand;' lsa 7:9). Thu.,, faith in JC>US Chri•t is in his viL·w the uncondilionally necessary basis of religious knowledge. but it is not to he forgonen that from another poinl of "iew. he gives priority to reason. Betievers not only use their minds to di'\ccm how far they rnay in g<)()d conscience rely. Augustine of Hippo was n()l in a position as yet to male ~uch a distincuon. ahltough he doe; di<tinguish between two naones in the revelation given
: the "name [of God] in God's eternity" (nom~" artemiuuis). that is.
'the _One who. is." mt<l the ~·name given in an act of mercy" (uome11 miseri· co~/w~). that. os. :'G<><I ?f !he fathers:"_' But even if we <ce in Augusline the
Oil fa11h: to >Ome extent they also use them to control th~ statemems of the
Bible. ill addition. rational knowledge based on faith is superior to simple t'uith. On the other hand, Augu')tinc link'i the .. advantage of bel.ieving" so
ol n dtstonctoon between ph Jiosophy and theology in the Scholasuc imd n~odern sense of lhese two terms. he himself alwnys me:u1~ by ''the n·uest pholosophy" a deeper understanding of the Chri<tian faith. in other words. a kind of thcoi<Jgy in the later sense of the term.'} In any ""'•· he also ?scnb.es t(.) '.'cason (ratio) possibilities of a knowledge I lUll is not idcnlicaJ in ots OhJCCt wnh whou believing Clu·istinns accept on the bnsis of biblical reve-
the purilicatory function of f'ailh that lhc question arises whether
In his view a submission of failh to the divine ~wthority serves only to cleanse the human heart for a truly spkitual knowledge of lhe tnuh. or whether, on the
COIIII'ary. human beings, due(() th~ir rnilh in l'evclwion, exptlience something
6 Gem•rallntmduciion to which even I heir pori ficd hcnns can no( give them access. 11 Thus. in an incidental way. the question of Christocentrism or theocentrism arises here once again.
In AuguMine's view. faith depends in fact primarily on "the authority of Christ." But to what extent is this authority gJ"Ounded in the authority of God1 A( lhe same time, human beings owe the ccnrunty of lhcir judgment to the presence of the interior teacher. But is not the eternal truth that enlightens the mind identical with the Word that God has spoken1
P ART I
1t is to this very complex set of problems that these two studies of Christ and God are imcnded to give an answer. or a1 least elements of an ;mswer. The two smdics at·e to a large extent indcpend Ctl\ of each other. E>tch of them tnkcs ''' its Starting point a State of the question thnt is based On n short review of
The Grace of Christ the literature. In each, this is followed by a survey of the most important of Augustine's writings in chronological order. Each end• with a more systematic overview. This procedure makes it pt>ssible to apprt>ach the problem in question from1wo vicwpoinls nnd1 using muwally comp Jemcntary results, to reach a mon;: complete general picnu·e. In addition. d1e mutcl'ial framework is relatively restricted in both studic.~. The investigation of Augustine's Christology is largely limited to passages in which the word "Christ" occurs. The study of his tl>eology is restricted to passages in which he uses the term "God" in ci Lher a specifically Christifm seose or in a broad nnd Jl(m-specific scn~c. Yet even within this limited sening, it is possible to ~ay something importnut about the question ( have raised.
In bolh investigations. the Trinity is ne' er lost sight of. For when I 3.~k what Augustine means by "God" when the tenn is used in a broad sense. the Trinity is involved even here. On the other hand. in the discussion of "Christ," we are always talking about the only Son of the Father, who as the Human One (filius hominis) communicates divine life in the Holy Spirit. I have chosen to tackle the Christological question fir.t, for this will make it clearer that for AugtJstine, both in his personal journey and in his theological thought. Christ was the way to God. the Lord and Father.
Introduction
J. Augustine's Picture of Christ: An Unrccogni7.ed Problem
At lim glance. the cln.,;ical hi,torics of dogma by Hamack. Loofs, and Seeberr; seem to neglect Augu>tine's Christology1 And in fact, these authors say liulc or nothing about the constitution of the per.on of Christ. However, they are very much interested in redemption through Cbxist. This is especially t111e of liarnnck, who presents Augustine as ''refo1mer of Christian piety" and ns n thinker for whom the ''humility ol' Chrbf' is central.' If these three schol· ars 1·eg:.wd Augus1inc's Christology, in the strict seose of this tenn, as onimponam for the history of dogma (as they understand this discipline),' the reason i~ fina nnd fOI'Cil'IOSl lheir focu~ on "Christ for us:· a focus that goes back to A. Ritschl.' But their rc.1crvc is also explained by the judgment passed by 0 . Schccl, wlu> in h i~ comp•·ehensive work on Die Auschawmg Augustins ii/)cr Clirisii Per.wm uutl Werk ( 1901) had de-scribed Augustine's Christology as possessing very liule originality,$ ln any case. lbe negalive asscssmem made at thnt time of' Augustine's contdbotionto the Church>s teaching on the ouc Christ~ ti'Uc Gt)d and U1H~ humnn being, has cominued to exen an influ .. .:nee down to very recent times. Even Mlihlenberg jn his norable c..">say un Augustine has only a few passing references to the latter'• conception of Clll'lst.•
And even thc leading Catholic histories of dogma do not have very much to say about Augustine's Chri>toh>gy in the mmow sense of the te~m7 But when they limilthem ... clvcs lO this and do not expand 1heir \fision to encompass 1he ~aint"' entire. picwre of Christ. other reasons are at \\'Ork lhan in the ca•c of the Prote<tant schol:~rs. TI>e approach of Catholic scholars is due chieOy to the 0\'erly >h:lrp diMinction between ~..., person and the work of Christ thm had developed in UJC Catholic tradition.
lt \\':1~ impo,~ible. l'tO\\e,·er. for Cath<.>lics to continue overlooking the extent to which Cl~n<tology and >otcriolugy go together in Augustine: W. Geer· lings. in pan,cular. made thb point in his Clrrisms E.xemplum.• ao; I myself did in my patri<ric Smrriologi~.· Other prejodices have likewise been overcome in
' lmrodttcsimr l l
10 Th(• Gran· of Clui.~J b:tscd on the receptiviry of 1he human soul to the "action of God."" Through hts own fidelity to God, the human bcmg Je''" leads his brothers and sisters to the gracious Father of them all. In thi' interpretation. tllC "humility of ChrbC recovers its unique meaning . .u At the ~me rime. the suffering of modern re<earch Scholar.. no longer accept the one->idcd and. in panicular. the o' crly ncguth c view of the tlellenization of Chrhtianity that i> to be seen in the da"ical ht,torie' of dogma.10Tbey have abo 1\.'Cognitcd that they must not linm thcm\CI\'eS to the principal works of Augu,tinc but mu\! take his. or her "riling' into :t(-coum. especially lhe sc.nnon.s. The imponance of this ,hift <·an he .een clearly m the most recent comprehensive presentation of Augustine's Chri,tulogy by G. Madec.11 But in order to boner understand the change thnt ha\ taken place between the beginning of the century and today,
Christ is emphasized." As a result. other soteriological thcmcs-tltc forgi\'enes' of 'in, reconciliation with God. victory -.wcr the devil-recover Lheir irn· portance.u.
Sceberg, who attached much more impon:utce than Hurnack anJ Loofs did 1<1 Lhc tradition of the Church, put himself on Schecl's side 10 the extent
11 will be helpful to look more closely at the factors operating in this development. •1 th:tt he agreed witlt him on the signilknncc of the Logos for salvat·i<)n and cxp1·essly disagreed wilh Hamack 011 the role which the latter ~~..'>s igned to the S(lul or Jesus in the salvation of humanity,l$ At the·. same lime. bowever, he as ~ serted lhttt ,.the religious inlcrcSl or Lhc great Father of I he Church is nOl oncsidcdly in the divinity of Jesus. but rather in this no less dtan in the
2. A Hundred Ycm·s of Study of Augustine's Picture of Cht·ist humanity."lfi In addition. Seeberg plnccd u very heavy emphasis on the \Vestern. voluntaristjc element in AuguMinc·s texhing on redemption.r.
a) The I ntluence of llnmack ·, Views on Helleniz;uion
In the subsequent period. Scheel'< approach wa.< inlluemial fot a long time: it can be seen. for example. in 0. Du Roy·, tmcstigation into the beginnings of Augustine's teaching on the Trinny."'
In 1901. 0 . Scheel published a comprehenshe pre.entation of Augustinian Chri>tology thm is qiiJ useful today because of the wealth of material it provide<. In hi' work. he follows the line taken by contempomry historians of dogma, e'pecially Loofs. a.< he expressly says." but he cmph.1sizes more tbao tlte laucr doe.< Augusune's dependence on the philoSOilhy of late antiquity. In Scheel's vtcw. the Christology which the young Augu<tine had worked out prior to 39 1 formed the nucleus of all that came later."
b) The Reaction to the One-sidedly l~ellcni< tic Undcrsl:lnding of Augustine's Christology
Aficr 1945. the study of the histvry of dogntf< was increasingly ca.tTied on in the light of ecclesial dogma and its connection wi1 h sacred Sclipturc. There was also ~~ shi fl away ftom an overly pe.\si mist ic view or the Hellenization of Christianiry (the beginnjng of which was, in addition. dated much enrl.ier). In particular. the Neoplatonisrn or Milancsc d 1·cles ond of Augustine hi 1n~clf was seen in n much more positive light.29
According tu Sehcel. si nee Augustine had, in the course of hi' conversion, adopted the Platonic tradition and since, on the other hand. he hnd only vague.
ideas ab<JIIt Chl'i<tinnity, he simply identified the biblical "Sun of God" with the Neopl:llottic llfiiiS (''mind").'6 The divinity of Christ, ddincd in cosmological and mclaphysicHIIenns, was m lhe cerncr of hi:) thinking: Ctt the same time. while he vCI'bnlly accepted the humanity of Chri't as understood by the lt wa.; in this new setting lhat T. van Bavcl produced his grouod-breaking study of Augustine's Chri>tology."' Although his perspective was still thal of
Bible. it played no decisive role in his thittking. Seen '" thb context. the salvation of the human person could consist only in a comntunion or life with the Lugoo;..
1 ~ "Bicssednc\s·· nowcd from 1be vision of "trulh." 1hat is. of the divine idea> conwined in the Logos. In this approach. Chri>t t< 'ecn simply as a teacher and :t nt(tdcl. Through his "instruction." he libemte' rca"m for its union "!th the truth th:u i< the Word.'' Consequently, Chri<t's death nnd n.osurrection take "-'COnd place I<> the incarnation of the Word. After 391 (Scheel says). tltb entire doctrine of redemption, which is focused on the sclf-re\'ealing l...ogos. i~ mc.Jccd 0\Upplcmemed at certain points (for example. in connection with humility and Christ's medi:norial role}. chicOy from l'<tul, bm i~ not c.,. semi<-1lly t:hnn1~ed.
Neoscholastic dogmalics. his considernble powcl" of historical criticism en- <lbled him to do more justice to Augustine'< contrihutionto Christology in the narrow sense of tbe teml. He wa.' able c~pc..-cially 10 Sho\\1 that Augustine·~ teaching on the communication of tdt Oill' h:td to a great extent anticipated tlJe £/(r/resis. or credal statemem. of Cbalcedon." Abo\'c all, van Ba,•el's study of the em()lional life'> and human knowledge ol Chrht" showed rbat the hum:tnit}' of Jesus was of much grcah.:r imponnoce 10 Augustine than earlier scholars were prepared ro allow. \l
The interest in ecclesiology that had been llrowittg since 1920 likewise led w a broader understanding of Chri:-:lology. 'lb some extent before the Second World War, but especially allcr it. studks :tttd colleclions of texts were publi<hcclthat shed a bright liglll on the doclrinc or the ·'whole Christ .' '~ wltich
A Christology interpreted in such radically Hellenistic terms cnuld not go unchallenged. Humaek cri1icized it severely20'1(> it he opposed a Chriswlogy in which the ccntrnl place helongs to the mcdimurship of Christ, which is