imroduclion to lhe second of lhc QurwslitHws (lt
lniroduction 7 I energies to bringing home the Church's teaching on the grace of Christ to the bishops and faithful of IUs time. he did so because he was convinced that anyone who "makes poin Ucss the cross of Christ" is thereby auacking the ...,ry dignity of God. His entire religious thought stood under the sign of the tension between faith in the one mediator. Jesus Christ. the source of truth and gmce. and the deep insight that God is the beginning and the end.
aa) Scholarship before 1950
In 18117. in a ,.,,ork which I cited earlier. A. von Hamack. still a young man. <uggt:sted a distinction between the Augustine who wrote IUs Confessio11s when already a Christian bishop and the Augu;tine wbo at the time of his conversion wrote dialogues that continued I(> be entirely shaped by Neoplatooism.'0
Following von Haroack, F. Loofs in his manu:~ I on the history of dogma and W. Thimme in a monograph on the intcllecl Ual development of Augustine during the years 386 to 391 emphasi1.cd the p1·edominance of Ncoplatonic thought over the ecclesial thought or the convert of Casl)icia<.:um. 11 This approach to
therefore. who take up the question of God in Augustine are not simply tackling :1 quc>lion that has acquired a centml place in modern scholarship on Augustine. Even more, Lhcy arc Slriking 10 che heart of Augustine's own religious thinking and feeling. They have in 1nind Augusline's perhaps most frcquemly cited words, "You stir humanity to take pleasure in pleasing you, because you have made us for yourself. and our heurl is restless until it resls in you.'~
1he biography of Augustine found its keenest expression in 1'. Alfaric's l./4volwiou iule/lecruelle de Saiw Attgusliu, published in 1918. According to Alfaric. Augustit1e wt!S converted first Lo Ncoplatonism and only later on,
to the philosophical ·'conversion,'' did he become "Catholic." For this rea>on (Aifaric argues). tbe account of his conversion in the Confessions is Lo be regarded as tendentious; in other words, it reflects Augustine's later situation in the Church.
2. A Century of Scholarship
The •harp response from C. Boyer, who in his study Chri>1ianisme erlltioplarunisme d1111s la fonnarion de saint Augustin ( 1920) emphasized the influence of Monica and Ambrose. did liulc to change the critical approach to the
Here again. a Sur'OCy of m<Kiern scholarship would be helpful in getting a clearer grasp of the state of the question. Such a sur'OCy. however. would be a difficult. almost impossible undenaking. Moreover, there ;, no point in attempting n complete review of the immense literature on the subject. We must be sntislied from the outset witll a somewhat arbitrary selection of representative studies. At the same time. it is only with difficulty that the numerous studies of the God question in Augustine can be grouped according 10 their historical value of the Co11Jessimu. All the same. some writers. such as K. Holl (1922) and J. Norrcgard (1923), did tone down the imponance of Ncoplmonism in Lhc corwersion of Augustine, glving greater attention once again to his Christian parentage and his ideas on authority.
main lypcs. An illlroduction to tltis literature rnusl lhet-cfore alwnys remain provisionnl. 7 bh) 'lhe New Approach of P. Coun•elle
1950. 1'. Courcelle published his /(ecllerclles sur les Confessions de raim Augu.win." In this book, he took the results of previous smdy and developed them further. He wa.~ able to show that during the period of Augustine's cotwersion, there was a group of Neoplatonic philosophers in Milan. among whom Ambrose may be numbered. Although nOt all the details of Courcelle 's thesis won agreement, its sub.>tance wns accepted. According to this, it is meaningless to distinguish between n Ncoplatonic and n properly Christian phase in the life of Augustine. We may assume rnther a meeting and even a partial identification of Neoplatonic and Christian idea.~.
a) Philosophically Oriented Stud ic.~
Augustine hn.~ always been a subject of great interest even in philosophical circles. lt may. in fact. be 11.'\:Serted that the philosophical n.~pecL< of his concept of God are the ones that have been discussed the most. This is already evident from the many studies of the proofs for God's cxi<tence in Augustine.•
of Augustine and the ·'God of the philosophers" have to a great extent been connected with the broader problem of the Uellenitation of Christianity. In the case of Augustine, this has meant in particular the question of his Ncoplatonbrn as well as the more specialized quc.<.tion of I he historicity of his Confe.v.rilms. The year 1950 may be taken as marking a turning point in the investig:ttion of this set of que.<tions9 lt seems reasonable. therefore, to deal tirs1 with the litemture published before thlll date, then with works published afccr il, :tnd only I hen to ghmce at presenta tion~ of Augusline's teaching on God.
Positions sim Har to those of Courcelle were >ubsequenlly adopted by J. J. O'Meara in various smdies. 11 by R. Hohc in his \'<lluable book Bealiflule e1 Sogessc.''' and by other authors. On the other h:tnd. there are still differences or opinion on tl1e extent to which the Neoplmonic philosophy of Plotinus tcached Augustine through Poq>hyry.'' In I'CCCIII years. however. there has been stiJI c.mo llu~ r shift. Scholars nrc agnin l:'lking much more seriously the i n ~ nuence of the faitll which Monica and his Clu·isti:m environment passed on to
lmroduction 73
12 ThP (;mce of God the young Augustine: thi. is true c;pc:ciully of 0. M:~dec in his various studies of 1hc Conjf!ss;on.t nnd Augusrine's cal'ly wri1ing~.
hl any case. it is rcmlll'ka))lc dtut Augustine was for nine years a member of the Manichcan \Cet in Afric:t:11 that during the li"l years of his pastoral activity he had 10 engage u1 disputation with tllc Manichees: Md finaUy, thut his Pelagian adversaries represented him as being a Manichee. We may therefore e>epecl that his properly thoologocal tlunkrng will take on sharper contours for us when we take Maouchcan in Ouencc~ into accounL even if these were only such as are felt in any respon:.c to a different rntellectual movement. Thi;, will be made clearer below. in the chapter on UlC que.<rion of God in Augustine's anti-Manichean writcc} 7'he Srudy of AugusTine '.f Teaching on God
The divergent judgments of the Ncoplalonic influences on the imellcctual devel Opment of the young Augu,tine nre reflected in >tudies of his teaching on God and 111 presentation, of it in histories of dogma. As early as I 873. A. Domer strongly emphasized these philosophical influence.•. Von Harnack and Loofs ing~. For the lll OfllCIII let one ,imply point out that there i;, quite a oonsider:lble body of literature on tlti\ quc.uon. mcluding some thut is 'cry recent."'
fo Uowed the same line. as I mentioned earlier. Seeberg. ho"cver, showed hinlself much more reserved on thi' point. h "''" chiefly R. Jolivct and E. Konig
Abo wonhy of note b the way in "hich E. Przywam in his incomparable book on Augustine. Dt~ G~Mlllt <1/s Gefiige. compares the Ncoplatonic and Manichcan <~pproachcs rn Augustine\ teaching on God. In bis Neoplatonic vision of thing.' (Pnywara "'Y~). Augu>tine conceived of God as ''the Light of the universe." When :odopting uoc Manichean and, e,·en more. the anti-Pelagian perspective, he experienced God as impenetrable darkness. Yet precisely for this n:ason he came 10 realize that it i~ only io the extreme abasement of the Son that God nnally rcv.:als the dtvine self as love."
who n.-act,-d against the exaggcmted estimate> of Ncoplatonic influence.
In addition, during the la>t fony year;, thi& opposite view ha> been sttong.ly supponed by the in,'CsLigmions of P. Hutlot, J. P.!pin. G. Madec. and otl•crs into the sources of the philos Ophical thought of Augu.;tinc and other Christian writers of his time." h is n01 'urprising therefore that in more recent studies of AugU$tine's teaching on God. its Ncoplutonic background should be taken into account in a eahn and i mpanial wny and be cri Lically evaluate(!. 11 This does not meM that the question of Lhc ~lcllcni1mion of Christian theology and in par Licular of the theological thought of Augustine b thereby excluded. We arc lar from having re;lchcd complete clarity on the extent to which the biblical message concerning the one Lord and God. the God of Israel and the Father of c) Monograph' of a Neoschol:t'tic Kind
The majol"ity of' books th:U deal with Augustine's teaching on God. either exclusively or in combination with other themes. delve into the philosophical
Jcsu~ Christ, was rethought in the light nf Greek philosophy."
K. Flasch, in his quite t·cccnt Lo!;ik des Sclrreckm s, has taken a unique position of his own. Accot~ling to his exposition of thb in his penetnttiog aspect noel arc thcrefot·c obliged to deal also with the intluencc of the philosophic:d traditions or antiquity, especially the Platonic. Not all of tl1ese stud· ics. however. arc affected by the. dcbalc ove1· the Hcllenizatjon of Christianity. On the comrmy, they have in common that they proceed systematically rather thnn historically. They care little. therefore. about the chronology of Augusline·s works or his iluerio1· development Rather. they present Augustine's teaching on God in the setting of modes of thoug)Htakcn over from medieval Scholasticism. CtlnsC<IliCillly. they speak to such questions as the possibility of knowing God and proving God's cxi~tcncc; lhe divine nature: 1he most important anribute' of Gocl nnd their imerconnection; as well as the relationship of God to the world and 10 human beings. that is. divine providence and preimroduclion to lhe second of lhc QurwslitHws (lt/ Slmpficianum. in 396-397 Augustine rclinquishccl his Neoplatonic approach h> the doctrine of God and developed a new picture or Gt>d by rclcrence to the ab,olutc gratuity of grace. which he had discovered ac lhilllim~.ln b) The Study or Mnnichenn Influences on the Theology of Augustioe
In his well-known book on the intcllc<tual development of Augustine, Alfaric took ur-n• the subtitle of the work promisednot only Augustine's Neoplatonism but nlso tloc quc~tion of hb Manicheism." Ac<:ording to A. Schindler, Alfaric's observations on thi' ...:cond 'ubject :ue still wonh considering.» In • >hon note, G. Qui,pel goc• even l'unhcr: in hi< view. we are now sufficiently familiar with the NCOpl:otonic bac~ground oi'Augusrine's thought: it is all the more urgent, thcrel(ore, to <hed more light on his relations with Mruoichcism."' Others are more rcSCr\"Cd on this point. btrt they do speak or a basic ~1anichean mood. of some common tcndcncie.. that in Ouenced especially the composition of nte Cuy <J/ GtJd and Augu>tinc·, teaching oo grace.1" de ~tin;uion .14 ·nli~ kind of ~pproach is to be round especially in the anicles in 1he f)irrit Jmwire tie slrfoiORie ('01/w/ique. !<1 to some extent even in E. Gilsoo 's cla~sical introduction to Augu>tine's thought."' but :llso in more recent monographs."
d) Studic;, of Augu<tinc ·, Exege'i' and l'rcuching
In addition U> hi,torical and ~y,tematic >tudics of Augustine's teaching on God. there arc notewonhy inve,tig:uiort\ of his interpretations of the Bible and