• 7 •

Suffering Love
Nicholas Wilterstoif

My heart grew sombre with grief and wherever I looked I saw only death.
My own country became a torment and my own home a grotesque abode
of misery. All that we had done together was now a grim ordeal without
him. My eyes searched everywhere for lilm,but he was not there to be sec.
I hated all the places we had known together, because he was not in them
and they could no longer whisper to rne."Heie he comes“ as rhey would
have done had he been alive but absent for a while .... My soul was a bur—
den, bruised and bleeding. Ir was tired of the man who carried it, but I
found no place no seer it down or rest. (Augustine, Coithssimrr Il/I 4; IVZ 7)*
Z4 is iu passages such as this, where he exposes to full view the grief which
— overwhelmed him upon the death of his dear iriend fromLhasate, that Augus
,» tine is at his most appealing to us in the twentieth century We are attracted
I both by the intensity of his love and grief, and why his willingness to expose that
grief to his iii-ends and the readers office Cousins. To any who may have ex
preened torments similar to those Augustine here describes, the passage also
has the mysteriously baleen quality of expressing with delicate precision the
grief they themselves have felt. All the places and all the objects than once whizz
peered "icier he corner" or "icier she comes" have lost their voice and fallen
achingly mute.
It is a rough jolt, to discover that at those very points in his life where we
Gnu Augustine most appealing, he, from the time of his conversion onward,
found himself thoroughly disgusting. His reason for exposing his grief was to
share with his readers his confession to God of the senselessness and sinfulness
oaf love so intense for a being so fragile that its destruction could cause such
grie£ "Why do Ialk ofrhese things?" he asks. And he answers. "Ir is time to
confess, not to question" (Cary%sissies IV 6),

Len the years between hrs death of his &ind and the death of his mother.
Augustine embraced the Christian faith. Ha: embrace made his response cu
his moocher death very different from than or his &ic¤dʼs. "I closed her eycsf`
he says,
and a gm; wave of sorrow surged Mia my hem. Iz would have uvcrduwed
in rem if I had no: made a moon; eftbn of will and seemed an Hmm us
cha: mho: rem dried in my eyes, Wham a zmible snuggle in was ox hold hem
back! As she bmrhed lm man, me boy Adeodazus Ben us wail aloud and
only ceased his cries when we aLl checked him. I, woo, fell: ha: I waned no
cry like ¤ child, bu: ¤ momamamm mice wizhin me, me voice of my hem,
bad me keep my mob; in check, and I remained Salem. (Cavymiam LX, 12)
On theca earlier occasion, tears and Wears alone were sweet to him, for in his
hank desire they had taken the place of his &i<:Ned" (Confessions N 4). In his
reminiscences he asked why that was so, "why tears are sweet to the sorrow
ful.""1-[ow . . . can it be than Cherie is sweetness in he EO: we pluck from the
birch crop of life, in he numbing and the mars, he wailing and he sighs?"
(Cuvyissium I\L 5). Bu: new on the occasion nfhis mooches death, he "{ughr
against the wave formw" Cushions IX, 12).
His snuggle bf: selfrcontml was not successful. He rap char attire the
burial, as he lay in bed thinking of his devoted mother, "de tears which I had
been holding back streamed down, and I El: ahem How as Elec. as they would,
making of them a pillow for my hem, On them it rested" (Cor¢.isn: IX,12).
S0 now he says to God, "I make you my confession .... Le: any man read it
who will .... And if he finds that I sinned by weeping for my mother, even if
ugly for a Fraction of an hour,et him no: mock at me . . . but weep himsel£
ifs charily is Mac. Le: him weep for my sins to you" (Cmg”mim¤ IX, 12).
The sin for which Augustine wants the person of charity to weep, however, is
no: so much the sin of weeping of: the death of his mother as the sin of
which that weeping was a sign. "I was," says Augustine, "gui1ry ugh much
worldly ai`i`eccion.ʼ
Obviously rehire is a memaliry coming to expression here which is p.m.
fondly foreign no us. In our Nan day Cherie are still those who hold back
tears-usually because l-my rhino in unbecoming to cry; seldom because hey
think in sinful. Bu; me is he person who believes [ha even rope! grief upon
the death of a friend or une’s mother is co have bumogulcy of mu much
worldly aH`ecricm4 The msnmlicy expressed nurd only shapes Auguscinek view of
the proper place of m-mw and suH`m-img in human life; ice also contributes to
his conviction rear in God there is no sorrow or suffering. God life is a life
Rec. of sorrow——indeed, a lFefiee of upsetting emotions in gencn1-,a lif: {ree
ugh passions, a life of apathy untouched by suffering, chamcrerizsd only by
swam Lmm 109
steady bliss. In thus thinking of God, Augustine was by no means alone. In—
deed, the view than Gcdk if; is that ugh bliss61l u0nsuH`cring apathy enjoyed
near coca] consensus until hrs twentieth century Among he church fathers,
only Origin and Lacrimal thought ditTex·enrly—aud Origeu, only inconsis—
trembly so.
Bu: why would anyone who placed himself in the Christian tradition
think of Gads life as that of nonsuffering apathy? The identity of cha:madi—
tin is determined (in part) by the adherence: of ins members, in one way or
a11uther>t0 the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. And even those who
read while running cannot Fail or notice that God is there pictured as one who
us{Tearing]y experiences his world and therefore gricvcs. What was is, can, [lm:
led the tradition m "bmckc:" this dimension oft biblical picture of God?
Many of our modern theologians reject the proposition that Gad .OCRs mime
lousily in history; if they rcmaxin within the Christian tmdition, they "bracket"
that p.m. of hrs biblical narrative and picky:. But "bracketing" did not begin
with the Enlightenment. Ir was practiced apically by he church hthcrs, on all
the passages which spoke: of the passions and the suffering of God. In this par
per I wish roc dig down to the roots of this practice; and having um: rim. to
go on to ask; Were they right in this claim of chairs, that God does not us[I`¤r»
jingly experience hrs world?
We cannot do bearer than begin with Augustine. But we would bcd ill—
advised to move at once to what Augustine said about emotions and suftéring
in the life of God, For it was true of Augustine, as Ir. was of most othcxs in the
tradiri0n,Th.:1r his reflections urn the p1uce§fe1u0ci¤ns and suflkring in Godk
life were merely a component within his more compmhcusivc reflections on
the place of emotions and suffering in theca ideal life of persons geuemlIy—
divine and human mgerher. We muss: try then, m grasp chat mcalicy Lc ns h::—
gin with what Augustine says about the pfbpcr place of emotions and suffer
ing in human experience.
Augusrinc thrones his thought within roc cudaeumnistic cmdizion ¤i` :111
tiquity We an: all in search of lumpiness—l¤y which Augustine and the other
ancients did not mean a life in which happiness outweighs gricfand coon but
a life from which grinfand mum have been as: ¤uc—a life ot'unincm·rupred
bliss. Furthermore, Augusriue aligns himself with hrs Platonic tradition in his
conviction that once love, 0ne’seems, is theundoneml determinant oFeck
hznppinssc. Augusrinc never imagined that a human being could root out OEMs
from his existence} Incomplete beings that we are, we inescapably long tar full
Llmcm. The challenge, accordingly is m choose objects for 011:% lcv: such
that happiness ensues.
Now Ir. was as obvious m Augustine as it is to all of us that gxinf Cummins
when that which wc love is destroyed or dies, or is altered in such a way hat
110 Mzluulus I/Mnlrcrsmjf
wc no longer find it lovable. Says hc, in reflecting on his grief upon the dash
of his friend, "[ lived in misery like every man whose soul is tethered by the
love of change; ha: cannon las: and hen is agmuized co lose hem 4..4 The grief
I felt for the loss of my friend had struck so easily into my inmost hear: sim
ply because I had poured cur my sou] upon him,1ikc wane: upon sand, laving
a man who was mortal as though he were never to die" (Cargfecsions HL 6; HL
8). The cure is to detach ¤nc’s1¤vs Eom such nlgjccts and to attach it to some
thing immutable and indestructible. Fox Augustine. the only candidate was
God. "Blessed are those who love you, O God ..,. No one can lose you . .
unless he forsakes you" (Curpxsiunu HL 9).
Ha: might be called Augnszinek "evangelics srmegy" follows might
forwardly If Ir. is happiness and res: for your soul that you desire—and who
does Nat?—th:n fix yum- love on the eternal inwnumhle God. Addressing his
Nan soul and thereby all others as well Augustine says: "[In God] is the place
ofpcacc that cannot bcd disturbed, and he will cut withhold himself&¤1·n your
love unless you withhold your love from him .4., Make your dwelling in him,
my soul. Ernest or him wlmrever you have. , . . A11 rah is withered in you will
be made to thrive again, All your sickness will bcd eh]Ed" (Confusion: IV] 11).
Par: ofwhsc nbsrruccs our detachment from the world and accachmen: roc
Gnu is illusion as to where lumpiness can be found. Much 0i`Augustiue`s can
dcavor iu his early writings was devoted co pmetmring his readersʼ veil ¤(i1lu—
sions. Bu: z striking fiancee ofAugusrineʼs rh¤ughr—hcra he departs decisively
Ohm he Plane :midin——ishis ernvierion dm illumination isnourishiciem
co redirect love. Though we may knave that only in loving God is abiding hap
pines an be f`¤und,ycc the beauties of the world sink theirradons so deep into
our souls cha: only by he glom ugh God and the moss: agonizing of struggles
can we break loose, Nowhere is this anti—Plat¤nic point made more vividly in
Augustness writings than in the brilliant description of his experience in the
gardcnjusc before his conversion:
I new [fund myself driven by the roomily m my broncos: m cake remming in his
garden, where no one could inzenupz char Ecru: snug. in which I was
my own conresxam, until in canes cc ics conclusion .... I was franc, over
come by violent anger wire xnyselffox nor accepzmg your will and ember
ing in your cavean:.Ye: in my bones I knewarhs: chis was what I ought
no doll In my hem of-hems I poised in no me skies. And cc mach chis goal
I needed no charm: or ship. I need nor even walk as far as I had come from
hrs house no he place where I Saar, for no make the journey and no arrive:
sa1'ely,n¤ume was requiredhan an ac: of will. Bur irums: be a zesclurc
and wholchcm-nad zoo: ho: will .... I core my hair and hammered my i'cr¤—
head which my Hz; I lacked my Engross and hugged my knees; and I did all
this because I made an ac: cfwill m do in 4... Your I did ncc do can one change
s·@·rz»_q LM 111
which I should have been [err, fur bcvccr pleased us do ran all Hz: res: and
could have don: as once .... My lower inscincks, which had zakcn Gnu hold
office, were manger can rah: higher, which were umricd. And rah: close I
um: or roc mumcnr which was so mark ch: gram clung: in me, hrs more
I shank from my purpose; in nuxcly Itch me hanging in suspense, (Caught
xim VIII, $:VIII, 11)
I sees no reason or interpret Augusdne as opposed to all enjoyment of
earthly things: of {cod, of drink, of conversation, o{nrt.WarygYes; opposed, N0.
What he says is only rah we should mar nu: Que. lug: ugh such rhinos—moc our
§ all muclmzem no ahem suchhanrheardeem§:i¤n would cause us gviei "Ler
my soul praise you for these thugs," he says, "O God, creator of them all; but
i he love of them, which we feel, rhmugh the senses of the body, muss: roc be
like glue co bind my soul rue [hem" (Cw;kiss{1.< N 10). To exogamy he mare of
kiwi Rue: is acceptable provided that ouch enjoyment is not such hrs: if ice
proves unacmimble, one griaves.'1'huugl1 we must roc love the world, we may
enjoy the w¤r1d.Admi1rcdly Augustine sayslirac by way of grounding the le
` grimily of such snjoymem, Fm- example, he [hem ofrhe things ofrhe wm-ld
. ccmsriruring Gcdk blessing extended or us is subdued in him. In the Famous
passage in Book X of the Cuqt2·sions where the things of creation speakjʼ
. what l-my say is not "Receive us with enjoyment as God'; blessing" but "TL1rn
amy Qom us cu our maker? Nonetheless I think we muss: allow (lm for Au
gusting, the detached life need not be ajuylcss life?
world and turned unueselfrc loving G¤d—detached oucse1f&¤n1 world and at
' tacked oneself to God. Has Augustine roc overlooked he fan: dm {his is or
, open oneself to a new mode of grief? \X/m Augustine mcomnmnds m us the
· love of God as the only source ofabiding happiness, he is not recomnxeuding
rear wc {Md. delight in our own acts of devotion. He is not an :u*cl1—Calvinst
urging rah wc delight in our acts of social obedience nor an arch-Orthodox
urging that we delight in our celebmrion of ha liturgy He is urging rlmr wc
delight in the experience of he presence n/f God. It was [hc prcscncc of his
l`riex1d,he says, that "was sweeter to me than all the joys of life as I loved Ir.
ruche“ (Cnoyiwsiuns l\L 44). This sweetness was m be replaced by the sweemess
¤f`Godʼ: presence. Augustine knew ofchat swccmess. Looking out Rum zu win
dow into the courtyard of a house in Oust, he was discoursing with his
mother, shortly before her death,about G0d,"And while we spoke oft enter
al YX/isdcm,” hc says,Ioniang for it and strqiniug for it with all ah-: strength
of our hearts, for one fleeting iusram we recalled out and routed Ir." (Cmgfes»
xiuns IX, 10). I-In imagines hat hlissfhl cxpcriénce prolonged.
But in ncvcr is prolonged, not in our w0{1d.The experience of the saints
through the ages is he experience of the swécc presence of God ixuerrupmd
112 Nialwlm Mlrmauqf
with long aching memos n/f his absence. They zxperieme the dark night of
the soul, and in that niglnc, they grieve. God "wig not withhold himself EOM
your love unless you wichlmld your love from lm," says Augustine (Confusions
N 11). Many of he Mac mystics would disagree. But in any case, if human
icy`s greatest lovers of God find their love plunging hem Mia grief (hen one
mmm recommend turning came love m God as he way rue eliminate grief
Qom one experience.
In {ac: Augusrinaby the mime ofwririug his Myeskiom,agrced char co re»
orient oneself toward loving God is no open oneself to a new mode of grief
Bu; the grief he had in mind is nor that of which I have us: spoken, that of
me lover of Gnu grieving because Gnu hides himse1£ Ic was cha: of the lover
of God grieving because her own love proves weak and inczmscanz. The ex
spoons Augustine urged roc the grief which ensues upon change and decay in
he abject; we love is char we demch ourselves Gum such nhjeeus and mach
ourselves to God in whom there is no shadow of numbing, Bur this newly or
enter self never wholly wins our over he ¤1d.And over that repeciciouscrap·
pence oft old scam the new now grieve:. The pismire grief ofnepccd Al
{cation is replaced by the naive grief of Xamenring over the faults of one
religious character—¤var these pm-sisnenc habirs ofthe asn that one nowrec
cgmzes as sm.
Pronxinem in the ethical philosophy of middle and late antiquity were
discussions over the proper place of emotions in life. In chose discussions, the
Same view was famous. Augustine, in The City JCM, panicipaces in chose ids»
cushions by srzking our his own position on he proper place of emotions in
[he life of the godly person in opposition to the Stoic position,
Now he Scions did not say char in he ideal life (here would be no me
tonal coloring cu one experience. They incised, on the conn-r; than in such
a life there would he various no11»p¤ruu*bing emotions which they called eu
pmhciai. They regularly cited three of rhesezjoy wishfulness, and caution. Their
though: was near he ideal fife,:he happy fife,is he life of he wise poem—¤f
the person who, by virtue of directing his life by reason, is a person whose
character and imcmicm are morally vinous. To make Ir. clear char, in due
judgment, hrs any thing good in itself is normal good, they typically refused
even to call anything else "gc¤d,"Cramn other things are, at best, prgémble.
The wise person, hen, will rejoice over the mm-al sums he has engined, will
wish for the ccnrinuarion of that status, and will he watchful for what threat
en is.
The Smiles am on co say though, rah he sage would be wittier
palm, Winton passion. Ha would he apishs,apachen. His condition would
be that of apathzia——apatlm impassibilim passionlsssness. What did they
mean?
In the interpretation which Hz offers 0{rehire position, Augustine cakes u
penthouse to biz: simply a perturbing, upsetting emotion such as {ear, grief] and cc
sassy. He does not incorporate into his concept cfpnilws any theory as to the
rightness or xvrongness of such emurions. And he was ugh hrs opinion than, in
spice offal the verbal difkmxnccs between the way in which ch: Pcriparerics cx
E pressed their view as or the place of the passions, thus undimmed, in the life
Y of the moral person, and hrs way in which he Scions expressed theirs, there
was no suhsmmive diflércnce betweencluem."
The Peripatetics said than though passions may beeline the Naomi person as
well as he mm-mum], they will no: ovenluow the rule of reason in his life;
while the Simps said rear "he wise man is nor subject co these pem¤rbu1·1ons"
I (City J God IX, 4).5 To illusmre why in his judgmem, there was no substance
tie difference Berwyn chew two positions, Augusrimi_ cited an anecdote Room
` Lulus Gullies. Galls was once err sac wire a famous Stoic when a storm came
up and the Stoic became pale wilt {car ugh slnipwmék. Aéerathc storm had
passed, Gullies courteously asked the Stoic why he h;u§ become: fczwlhl. There
upon he Scion pulled our n book of Epiczems and,P¤iured co a passage in
which the pioneer was made that
When these impressions are mud: by alarming and fm·mie|alsl¤ nbjeeu, ir
muss needs be dour [hey move me soul even niche wise um, San lm for n
Id he zombies wish {hue, or is depressed by sadness, rheas impressions Nan
ricipmng he work oh-e.1s¤u md selflmnrrol; bur [his dues not implylmr
he mind cmceprs rheas evil impressions, or approves or cunscms m rhyme.
For chis consume xs, rlncy chick. in a m¤n’s power; rhcrc being rhis diffcrcncc
bczwccn rah: mind oft wise man and dm oft fool, du: due [ays mind
yields to rocs passions and consents or them, while lm of [he wise man,
though ice cannot help being invaded by them, yen mains wire unshaken
Ernmcss a true and steady persuasion of those things which is eagle n—
roundly nc desire cr. avoid. (City Ay' Cm! DL 4)
In short, whuvever emotions be&ll the wise person, his will and judgment rs
main nxomlly inracr.
Augusnirm goes on to specular: dm perhaps the Simps mean: to assert that
"the wisdom which chamcxcrizes the wise man is clothed by no error and soul—
lied by no aim,bur, with this reservadonu rear his wisdom reunions umlistu1·\>ed,
’ he is cxpuscd to th: impressions which the goods and ills cfchis life (or, as they
j prefer to call them, the advantages or disadvantages) make upon hem? And hc
goes on or remark, somewhat wryly than even clmugh the Sic refused or cull
his bodily safety a "god," pmferring some other such word as rhinog pre
Q ferried" or "a<|damage," his turning pals which {ca: indimrud char he screamed
his bodily safety rather highly—:¤s high]y, indeed, as the Pcripatecic, who was
114 Mphaia: l»V¤l:mm@`
quits willing to call bodily safety a "g¤¤d" and in che same situation would
probably also have turned pals EOM fear over he threat co ice.
Bur if hi; is what he Scones em, hen, says Augustine, all parties agree
that though the wise person may well experience such passions as fear and
grief he will not allow hem co of;-Chmn he rule of reason in his life-will
not :¤ll<>w them ro damage his virtue. Though the wiseemun may no: be free
qfpnssions, he will be Gem chem. Though hey may bow}! him, he will not
be mlyect roc them; they will not indigence his intentions and judgments. Ic is in
than sense them: he sage is characterized by apn1hai¤—by apathy; passionlessnsss,
in1passibi1icyʻ*
Since our conc. here is with Auguscinek formulation of his own view .
in comma: no than ofrhe Smiles, what is dimmed relevant is Nam what he Sm
ics actually said can the proper place of enmticms in life but ha; Augustine
inrerprecsd hem as saying. Nonetheless Ir. is worth observing that probably
Augustine has described a lace, nonstandard vcxsion of Sminism.’ For it is
clear that he founding fathers ofSroicism, Zen and Chrysippus, said that a
pathos is "an excessive impulse? "a ‘diseass’ which affects our basic impuIs¤s,"
"an irrational movement of the souk," "a¤ unnatural movement ofc.h.e soul
which is mnnmy co :Esc>n," etc. And by such sayings they mean: co imply
among other changes, char a yazlm is based ow, or is even no be idencmed with,
a judgment which is false and contrary to reason. Passions are based on (or
idemical which) ermneousjudgmcms ofevaluaved fact that lead to (cr. are) Ir.
rational feelings and excessive impulses. Bm if his is one`s understanding of
a pathos, hen obviously one will hold char passions will in no form wham
ever appear in the life oft Hilly wise person. And that in fact is what the
mainline Stoics claimed when they said char the wise person will be champ
coursed by apazhzia.
In principle he question remains open, however, whether all emotional
disrurbancewxvith Fear, grief] and ecstasy as prime cx;¤mp1es—¤ze passion: on
this concept ¤(passon. Ir is clear cha: che classic Sroics though: [heyewxc. One
grieves, they would have said, only over what one evaluates as evil; beau: the sage,
finding no am ofmcral evil in himseltj has nothing over which to grieve, S0
too, one fears ha: one evaluates as an evil chrcamning but for he sage, who
is steady in virtue,rl-mrc narc no threatening evils. And one goes into ecstasy over
something cha: happens no came one way which one cvaluanls as gouda. Bu:
for the sage, l-mm are no good; which just happen so come his way; char which
is the only change good for him, namely his own Ronal chazacrer, is entirely of
his own making. Ir was, chess, he conrencion ugh classic Swiss than as a mac
et: of face: he upsetting emotions are all passions, and will, on char account,
have no place in he life oft wise pcrs¤n.The cruz sage experiences noemo—
tonal disturbances.“
The dispute bcnwccu the classic Stoics and the elm: Gcllius-type Simps was
j (hL|$ Z! Subtlé GDC; DOES OIIC b€CO|1)€ CIIXOUOHIIQY \.lp5€( Only OVEI Wh&\{ 0116
; judges as eve] or also over what one judges ashxnnupwfernble? Can rehire be
cmurional disturbances not based on hlsc evaluations? That dispute we need
g not enter. However, a decision on fremninology js necessary Ir will be Car and
S away muss: convenient for our purposes here rag use the word "poems" in in
uncurl sense. A pmlxnx, in he reminder of mysdiscussicm, will simply bcd an
Q ennorioual upset, an cnmcioual disturbance. (And probably most of us would
. not seen speak of those phenomena which the Simps called cupmlmeini, and
which were rlmughz m lack any clmmm of disturbance, as manuring.)
His own position, says Augustine, is that the Scions and Peripatetics were
coercer in their Conrad mncemion: A life 6-a "t'rom Rhode emotions which are
country or reason and disturb he mind ,... is obviously a good and muss: de
{ simile qualify" (Cry gf Gnu XM 9). The commix: makes clear [ha Augustine
j renews m say something much stronger: A life Emily free n/f passions (enema
tonal upset) is to bcd desired, For ideal existence is incompatible wire being
; "¤vcrcome" inc.h.e way in whichurnc is overcome by emotions. And beyond
I lm, ice is ineomparibh: with roc suffering, the "vsxarion," which is u comp
net in such "x1egarive" emotions as than- and grief
mince between himself and he Simps. Ir falls instead on his insistence that iu
; link prcxcnr IW a person who desires to live in my godly Entice will Nam try or
live a life devoid ofpmhus, of-passion, ofemoriayial upset. She will ounce be pa
theatric: If "same, with a vanity nmnsrrcus in propurrim to its rarity have be
§ ccmcDunmored ofthemselvess becausehey can be srinuulared and excited by
I no ennociou, moved or hem by no afthcrion, such persons rather loss all lm
mainly than obtain um: zraxxquilliytf says Augustine (Chilly q/'Gurl XIV 9).
The reason is than none onus avoids sin. And the godly person will grieve
over the sins Imo which she has {allen as well as {cur falling into new ones. She
will grieve over he Mr. nfhcr soul. If apalhéfll be understood as "a condition
.. . in which no fear rcrrifics not any pain annoy, we muss in this life renounce
such a scare if would live according m G0d3`wiH" (City gf Gnu XIV 9). An
_ chic for he perfect sage is not an ethic for the imperfect lover of God. Such
1 :4 person will not just Las: the emotions of {cafe and grief cake their name
course in her li{e,mcxc1y seeing to it that Lycheeo uoc lead to bad intentions
Q and false judgments, Nor will she cry to mo.: rhém our entirely She willmLi
{ Wm.- fear and s0rn>w——f`car andsnrm.nvcr theiriglu things, however; nanncly
over sin. The decisive point in Augusrinck departure from the classic Stoics lies
in his conviction [hat some that and some sorrow is hoaxed cm Marci evaluation.
é The issue, he says, is Nant so much . . .wl1erhcr :4 pious soul is angry as why
he is angry; not whether he is sad, but what is he: course of his sadness; not
116 Num. mmmdi
whether he {em, but Ha; he {cm" (guy q{GU,1 [X_ 5; cg xm g)_ The emu. over he nigh: things, be ice added; namely; over the scare of our souls. I am m
daanmniscic ideal of antiquity begins to crake and crack before our eyes. rejoice and grieve over [he religious condition of my soul and,in the vex same
Though we me to lung fm- eudaenmnia, says Augustine, it would be wrong in xray to rejoice and grieve nacre the condition of yours. In the most sorrier of
this life to pursue Ir.
Now moss: certainly Hz Stoics did not recommend the culcivarion ufpas
sion in the life of the non-sage, nor even in he life oft person a>vnnzirzz·d to
becoming a sage who falls prey every now and then co weakness or rcmpra»
rimx.Ye: in is hard so see how they could object in principle co adopting in rhea
own way what Augustine here h¤1ds.Augusine has argued that eros must be
zoomed away &<>m [he rhino ofrhis world to Gad, on he ground elm we muss;
abolish cha; grief which follows upon the change or destruction cnf objects of
em:.Your this does not mean for him he elimination of grief and {ear from 1i&.
We struggle now or neoxienr our love rue God. Bu: he sclfdoes no: mm easely
on ics axis. And so we grieve&—grieve overanar being able toatum right mund.
We grieve over our pmsiscenr failure ca achieve he project ofreoriencating our
love? Now roc Scions said that the sage would both rejoice over his mml pep
faction and be wary of he ccnxpmrions than lie in way:. But, having said char, it
is hard to see what grounds racy could have for resisting admiring he proper
et ot`rqriq‘¤ver muralpilurc by cha person struggling to become a sage. For such
an en-notional upset would be based on a [rue, nor a false, evaluation. In the class—
sic Stoic sense of "p¤rhns," it would not be apaths. It is true that Augustine
stood in the Plasmic carrion of seeing happiness as lying in the sarisihcrion
users while the Stoics saw happiness as lying in the elirnination office: and the
achievement oft pmjecz offing a fully narwal ssl£Yec grief overen’s moral
Failure seems as appropriate in the Scion universe as dues grief over came reel
pious failure in he Augustinian.
I: is in what Augustine wen: on co say next that he burst outside not only
what any Stoic said but what any Sic mulled possibly have said—indccd, what
any ancicnr pagan stickers could have said. Auhuxninn says that we are not only
Nan grieve over our awn sins and be fearful offending Imo new ones. We are also
to grieve over Lc sins ofcrhnxs and to rejoice in their repentance (City J Cad
XM 9). And, modvarczd by pima we are co work for zheiz deliverance. We are
to be nuemiful.
We muss: understand Augustine Zurich: here. He is not suddenly bringing
eros back iu. He is nor saying that our lives are incomplete unless hey are ac
cached by em: so our fellows. Em; is co remain Exude on God. Ye: we are to
grieve over he religious condition oft sunless offal humanity~—or, more con
cornily, offal rl-msc whom we know
What is Auguscinck though: hem? He never quite spells Ir. out. I see no
a1mmacive,however,buck no inspirer it along he following ins;Ea¤hoofus is
to be joined in a solidarity of-joy and grief with all hurnanicy·Aoy andGuccif
shell7%ri·w I-M 117
senses, I am m love my neighbor as 1nysclP—:ns if he wmMylesI£ The idea is
nc: that I am to recognize some value in you which {ulmls mc; that would he
the snake of earthly OEMs slinking hack iu. Rarer, I am no live in embalm sol
idarity which you. insured of my project being simply to achieve my own mm
` happiness, my project must be co achieve our men Impinges. My lumpiness is
not ran he achieved wirhouc yours being achieved.Oren [hissolidery will
; consist in bearing your gricfaud sharing your-joy Bm the identihcatiou Au»
gusting has in mind Gucci: beyond even such sympathy For it nay be that you
re not grieving over your soul when you should bcd. Then I will grieve on
your behalf grieving even over your nor grieving.
Implicit in this vision is a recognition oft worth ofcach human scl£
If one aims exclusively nt. happiness for one'; own self] rah: tacit attribution
ugh zoo certain kind of worth to ouch self which {his project pmsupposes l
scarcely comes co ligluc. Bur if one exists iu solidarity of grieving and re—
jciciug which all humnnirzyg then it is clear xhac use is thereby ascribing a cir
; rain worthiness so each and every human being which one is not ascribing,
say; or any maiml.ʻ" Human beings are wm-rlgy of being caught up in oneʼs
solidarity of grieving and rejoicing. One is td honor every human soul why
grieving and rejoicing over its religious successes and failures just as one
i lumbers oueʻs own soul hy grieving and rejoicing overbirs successes and {ML
‘ ures. The worthiness rhcrcby Lacidy ascribed au each and every human soul
is Nam char wuzrlxiness which consists in a pcrson`s degree of-godliness; after
all, one grieves Morse intensely over chose who narc least gc>dly.R;1rher, if Ir.
be asked why it is appropriate to exist in this mysterious honoring slidv—
it wire all human beings, the answer Augustine gave, all too cryptically is
this: Because we are all icons of G0d."
awning modes ofworrh and valuing, God has one mode ¤f`worrh; we express
I our recognition of rl-mc wnnh by loving him and him alone. Human beings as
icons of God have another kind ofwm·Ll1; we exhibit our recognition of that
mode of worth by re<>iciug and grieving over the religious health of their
souls. The morally admirable person has another mode ugh wm-rh, one which
the morally despicable person lacks.And the things oft-lm world have yqt.1 dii`—
ferret kind of worth; wc value hem as usehnl dh, perhaps, as enjoyable.
The Scion universe was profoundly diff`efem—atalesr as inmrprcrcd by
§ that Hue scholaroffals antiquity;]. M. Rise. TheScotc, saysIRSc, regarded only
human being; as of value, and regarded the value of human beings as derer·
mined entirely by their mol Mts. The Augusriniam split between 1/1uir wm-rh
H8 Mchnlas Wrzlterslugf
umps, and {heir mum] ;;Nam;_ has no pqumgypm-; in the swig; Marcus Ma, V ofvaluc for that person. And second, theca assun1ption of self-reliance must be
12uS, observes Nam, wax; us Nam mho mm as Wm. as much as what Nam as man. 1 rcplmd by ¤ d<>¤¤i¤= <>f ¤¤-¤¤=¤¤¤¤ibi¤iw» W¤ =r= S¤¤i¤i ¤·‘¢¤¤¤¥¤¤ ¤¤P¤b*¢ ¤F
Chemed which ..,_ The implication ig glgay; {hose Whose character js preoccupied inxdusncing nacho other; it is on that account that wc arc responsible for the re—
with right reason and virtue are ofvaluc, tams whose tastes are Iowcr can be l ligneous condition of others as well as for that ofoursclvss. Religious clxaractcr
graded accordingly, Some people are presumably worth nothing an all; and
these should be treated ace:dingly."‘2 And Epictcnus remarked thatneigher
he Ms. nor the eyes are succinct m make a man, beau: he is a man who makes
properly human judgmems. l-[ere is someone who does not listen to reason
he is an ass. Here is one whose sense of-self-respect has become numbed: he is
useless, a sheep, anything rather than a man.""
It Ls true that such Stoics as Epic's and Marcus praised philuszurgiu,
benevolence.
Yu along wire [heir emphasis ¤n philmuugiunoeserims aniclmcd no
panic uu: ha: dm wise man is no: uncombed over hrs death ctn. child, , ,
Marcus expressly puma our bah lm me wise man is b¤n¤v¤1¤m (philasm
gm) and dm he is me Macs devoid nfpminns mummy so menu .... Hence
we awe co conclude mlm p/mil¤:z¤»gi¤ nuizher conFersrnm mcugnius value in
in object, no: does Ir. chink ugh ins ubjecu as unique and ¤p1¤b1e,¤¤x
does u demand any overwhelming emocioml cnmmiuuem in um who
m»abs¤1¤.'*
"lr is clearly iucumlmu on each man Lo bcd emotionally committed to
one human being, or mlm one human phenomenon alone, namely one own
moral character and mom} dignity"" For theca only good is moral character.
And he only moral character any of us can be responsible for is our own.
Hence if I come across another moral character I can respect ice; but it cannot
be for me a gouda. The sole good for me is my own moral character. "Each man
has one cmd only one object of-value zoo be clmrish¤:dmae1;q his own higher
;¤l£ By a law of nacure he is nor able ro love uchers as he loveshimmiesli Only
another individual can love hinmzyfjusr as only I can love mycelia There is only
one canon by which (he wise mamma is able no judge his own behavior: Is it con—
decide can my own virtue, or does in risk comprising the moral self which is
is my unique prerogative to preservee?"'°
A Stoic, then, would put :0 Augustine this fundamental ¤l1al1engc:" You:
recenannendud solidarity ofgriafand joy is incuherem. You canonic be: m the
religious character of others the relation you bear co your own. It makes no
sense to grieve and rejoice over theirs as you do over yours. To this deep cal
ledge Augustine 1-nigh: well have made two xuspunsesz Even if it is true that I
cam: consumer anyone; ¤1s¤’s religious characterin nhe same way nba: I can
consrimrc my own, ice does not follow than he only change goad in my universe
is my own chzmem. For ice is Nam [rue rear only what is in a pumice z;¤m-ml is
Snaring Lmm 119
Q is not formed by isolated self-deccm1i11ing individuals.
I would be doing a disservice no Augusrinlie if! did not nnenriuu, before
Q concluding this section of our discussion, cha: new and then he indic>aces that
I if is 3150 applbpfialé [0gibeB OVSYhlé illI'IOC€lTiSf0¥{\.l!1€S that 4301116 Out
way—¤ver things like hunger and physical pain} "Wl1at is c01upassiou,“ he asks
iu one passage, "but a fclloxv-feeling for anorl1ey’s misery which prompts us ro
help him ifwc can? And this enuoriou is obedient or reason, when con1passion
is shown without violating right, ns when the poor are relieved, or [hc pun
2 rem forgiven" (City <J Gnu IX, 5), Bur us: as it would have been a disservice
uu: to have nusnrioned his p<>im·, so also it would be a disservice m give ir any
more emphasis than Augustine hinualfgave Ir.—which is, very Iitclc,
We have been speaking oft place of the passions in the life of Hz Imo—
pufccnly godly person in this inuperfccc world of ours. But, we must bcd re
minded char Augusdnc also points us away from life in his world to a pen-{cared
Q life in a perfected world-a life not earned or achieved but granted. In that life
there will be no such embryonal disrurbauces as griefaud fear. For mlm: will he
a life of uuimerrupted bliss; and "wh¤ chat is affected by fear or gricfcan be
j called absolutely b1csscd?“ Evenwhocn these afiéctions are well regulated, and
according w God‘s will, they are peculiar co this life, uc: to that fumrc life we
E. look for" (City gf God XM 9). Auguscinek nrgumcm, as we have scan, is Nam
the Scion argument that the passions are alxwxys based on false cvahmrions; they
are nc:. His argument is that having emotion; always involves Brice uvurmmc,
and cha: the pain embedded within such emotions as grief and fear is income
€ pariblc with 11111 happiness. Grief and (caranrc nm as such incompatible with
reason. They are as such incompatible with cudncrnunizr. Hence the abolition of
j Rhode passions EOM our lives will nor occur by way of illumination as m he
· true nature of ming:. lc will occur by way of removalHom our existence uf
that which Ir. is appmpriare or fear or grieve over.
So our perfected existence will exhibit nor only woo: attached cnthrly to
* God, bur apathy. For auaclunuenr to Gad and derachnuam film world, we
snuggle here and now. For apathy, we merely long, in the mcamvhilc fearing
» and grieving over the evil worth fearing and grieving over. Struggle and long
ing, aiming and hoping, pull apnea in the Aiugusceinimm universe. lr is nor,
g nh0ugh—~let ic be repe¤r:d—~.1 Fcclinglnss apathy for which we lung. We lang
g for a life of joy and bliss. lf npnrlwin be undersrcbd as the coudirion "where the
{ mind is the subject of no commotion says Augustincfthen who would not con
sider this insensibility to be worse than all vices? lr ma); indeed, reasonably be
120 Nicholas Mlwrsray
maintained that he perfect blessedness we hope for shall be he Room all ming
of {mr or sadness; but who that is not quite Los: or truth would say cha: en
three love norjny hall be experienced :here?" (City q' Cad XIY 9)}*
And now the eternal life of God, as undimmed by Augusziue, can be very
simply described: God life satisfies the eudaenmniscic ideal implicit in all that
has preceded. G¤d’s life is mhrough and nhrough blisséml. Thus God mo is free
of negative paths. Of M'rluIden with those who are su8`ering, God feels not
ing, as also he feels no pain mer he shortfall of guidelines in his errant crier
ruers. His snare is ¤p¤zhei¤—an npmheia cl1mcmized pusirively bychessceady
mn-perturbiug scare nfjoy. God dwells sccmnlly in blissful nonsufering up
Archie, Nothing than happens in hrs wm-ld lm-s his blissful unperturbed serene
it Certainly God is no: oblivious to the world, There is in him a scraggy dis·
position of benevolence coward his human creatures, Bur this disposition rue act
benevolemly proceeds on is uninterrupted successful course whenever mm
spires in the world.
In sum, he Augustinian God Mts our co be nznmknbly like he Sic
sage: devoid ofpassious, unfamiliar with longing, foreign roc suffering, dwelling
in steady bliss, exhibiting co criers only benevolence. Augustine fought: free of
the Stoic (and neo-Plamnic) vision when is came no humanity; when it came
m God, he succumbed,
The result, as one would expect, was unresolved tension in his rhaught.
What diilkrence is there between God and us which bring it about char, for
us, authentic existence in the presence of-evil is a suE`cring awareness whereas,
for God, ice is a nunsutfering, perpetually blissful, awareness? Augusdne never
says. Sometimes hc suggests that when reality is sec whole as God sees it, hen
nothing appears evil but evezyching is seen or make is concriburiou me he
goodness of the whole. Thus God has no s¤&'m-ing awareness of evil because
there is no evil of which or be aware. But if this were Auguscinek steady cow
vamp, mer. he would seek mu".-.»1¤¤¤e us as [0 the auumanEPSsonvu umm lris ¤ssi\>1e, lwwever, =¤ he ¤¤¤¤1< by quire ¤idffercnr ¤sp<=¤¢ ¤F¤h¤ 1>i¤
[Hanna urging Us to Cmvm sugcmg we, w;1_ _ mm; namely; God remains blissfully unpcrrurbed while lmmamzy drowns an
Augustine does indeed make clear mat in one importargt respect G0d’s life
is not m bcd identified with Om sudacmonisric adam. In humanity perfected
existence was is fagged 5(Emily on GOd_ Gad_ in m.,t,m_ has no Em Since them
is goo mm no 1a¤k_ he dm nm md, Om to what wouldyoum]; hjm_ Godmugm,
Om exclusively in the mode of bcncvclcncc, Mx in the mode 0{OEMs, Bur [ms
difference, rhcugh rcnl, docs nothing so relieve the tension.
Am we to Mx mom hag in his picture (,{ God as dwelling in buggy.,] mm.
suffering apathy Augustine shows that, whatever be the quziificztiqpg he wishes
to nuke for human beings, he stem embraces the me antique, $[0;,; man of
Wm. constitutes perfect existence? Is that the bottom line?Yes,I think wc mm
mama say Mts—m; only fgAgueng but fg; me mdmon ;n gmm1_
Sqybrhw Law 121
Shaped as they were by he plxilosophical traditions uflarc nmiquiay in was in—
conceivable or he church Enrichers that God exisreucc should be auycluing
other tlmn perfect and rah: ideal existence should be nnyrlmiug other can bliss—
full. Bur though this nuns: be said, perhaps ohm: or two mum things muss: be said
> as well.
live in this present fallen condition of ours, Augustine not only departed EOM
, rhu Steins bum even drove a spluttering wedge into rah: endaemouisric t}mane
work of anriquicy, Though we long for eudaemonia, we are nor, while sm.-
mounded by evil,m pmsuc in. So long as evil is prism among us we are so culler
river mdkrinng over evil. I suggest rah, in addition no he grip on him of he
late antique picture of ideal existence, two additional comidemiuns prevented
Augusriue from saying a sirnilar thing about God. For one thing,Augustine and
Q the church fathers in general believed dm: the longing of our beam for cu»
} daemonic will be satisfied by sharing in the life of God—<a conviction which
lies err me hear: of hum log—endm·ing rmdixicm of comcmplarive Chn·isr.i;mi:y
to which Augustine helped give birth. Bur if the goal of our sxisrcnce is hap»
pines, and iffier Elmer lumpiness consists in sharing in the life of God, than
that life muss: irselfbc u life ofpcznce and joy IiZ_upon entering Imo the ilk of
God, we [here find vexaciou and disturbance arid stuttering,clue our own us
daemmxia mains unarmincd. And second, Ir. was agreed by almost everyone
F in the tradition that God is in1mumblc. Thus izywas impossible for [hem to say
; than he divine joy; in the sharing of which liaéjour own eudaemonia, is an joy
which Gnu himself does not Gully enjoy unreel (he coming of his perfected
Kingdom. I suggest, in short, ha: what leaped no Augusninek eye when he snare
vexed the picture he had drawn was this Feature offer In God eternal life is to
be found the guy and peace in the slumming of which lies our own crook aud. Tc
char fearer of Hz picture, he was deeply mashed,
¤¤i¤=¤1- WM-- 1<>¤k¢d atin mis ww dw vi¤¤·v¤‘S 1¤¤k is ¤¤¤=|i¤z¤v ¤vv·=r¤¤d,
_ ¢*¤¤¤ ¤h¤ ¤<>¤¤p=11i¤g ¤¤ the zr<>¤¤¤qIr. is rhis g¤¤¤¤¤q¤¤ i<><>k <>Fr\¤¢ picwre
2 which has forcefully been called tic cm- memnm by various mmempomy
{ thinkers as they have launched an Armco on me mdizioml icmvc oft pa
¤h¤¤i¤ G¤d·wi=h me f<>v¤¤¤¤S¤ <h¤¤]¤gi=¤¤,¤¤`¤¤¤¤¤¤ v¤¤¤.b¤i¤¤x:Jiirg¢·¤ M<>1r—
mann-m
One of he arguments, more purely rheological than the ushers and de—
eloped Morse elaborately by Mormon, is dm icon grams both rhacjesus sour?
tired and tharjcsus is the second person oft Trinity; hen one cannon avoid
¤¤¤¤l··di¤; rim i¤ ]=>=¤=` S¤@¤i¤g· God M5 $¤9'¢¤i¤g·¤¤ ¤¤ 5F··==k ¤¤¤¥¤ amr
ply ha: the second person ¤£ the Gédhcad wd; suf`f`cring,M0]rma1m mviews
122 Nicholas V1/I>Izerx1u;@"
the struggles of the church fathers and the early church councils to avoid this
conclusion and judges [hem all to be f`:blures.“" In my discussion I shall have to
neglect entirely chi; theological argument for the sheering of Gnu.
Far ad away the moss; commonly used argument in the comemporary
discussion is that if God truly loves his us&axing children, hen he himself will
Feel their missy which them. God love must include than mode oflovc which
is sympathy It/Mlcidcn. Perhaps the most vivid statement of His argument was
composed by an English writ:,Ma1dwyn Hughes, early in the century in his
book, VI/ha: Is Atune»nm:.ʼA Study in the Pmsium qf Christ. Hughes says:
We muss: choose wlmher or nu: we wall accept zhc Chzisrian revelation MHz:
"God is love? If we do, [hen we muss: accept ti: implications of he reeve
Latin .,.. Ic is an entire misuse ugh words Lu call God our loving Fachcr, if
He is able rue view mho: waywardness and revulsion of His children Wilbur
being moved by grief-and pi . . , ix is ho: v:wry nature of-love to us&`¢r
when its ubjcc: suffers loss, whccher intlicned by itself or inheres. Ifmhc suit
faxing of God be denied, then Chrisuaniny muss: discover a new :¢rmiu¤l—
orgy and muss: ublircmze me semen: "God is 1ave"t'rumics Scriptures?
In is clear rah between this view oft life fogd andHze Augusrinian
view there is a deep clash of id-cab: The ideal divine life for Augustine was that
of uninterrupted suEE`eri11g—fres bliss; che ideal divine life for the modems is a
life ofsympazheric love. In efface: nhs modems insist rah the snlidarizy nfgriev
ing and rejoicing which Augustine recommends for humanity on this earth is
to embrace God as well. I-low can we adjudicate between chess profoundly deify
ferret visions?
Little will be gained by the mc>deems' simply citing biblical passages about
Gad as loving. For Augustine and the other church fathers who defended the
nunsu&'m-ing apathy of God had nu: nvulookedc.h.e fact cha: the Bible speaks
of God loving. And they too were combusted ran the teaching of the pmphccs
and apostles. Ir was their couvicciou, however, that all he srazenwms about
Gcdk love could be, and should be, interpreted in a manner consistent with
God apathy and his ikcedom Gam suffering.
Auguscinck proposal bccarne classic? Scripture everywhere whimsies
cha: God is pitiful, he says. Bu: he icy of God differs &¤m humanpiy Hu
man pity brings "misery of ham"; whereas "who can smelly say that God is
touched by any misery?" "will regard to pity if you take away the compass
sion which involves a sharing of misery with whom you pima sc. [ha there re
mains the peaceful gondncss ofhzlping and Eying from misery, Mts kind of
knowledge of the divine pity is suggested."“ In short: The love that we are to
am-ibucs no God is not the love of-sympathy of Mizleidm, in which one shares
dmc feelings oft other; Ir. is {he love ofwellrdoing, of benevolence, of agape,
And in general, as Lo theca predication oft language of theca emotions to
s God: This muss: all be imerpzered as amibucing w God those @.::s of his
agency which are similar to the cfccts of the percuvbing cnmcicms in us:
God mpenranee does nurd hallow upon em, me auger fog¤| carries wizh
Ir. no [race ugh: disturbed mind, nor his pry the wretched hem nh feelw—
sufferer .... Nauru His jealousy my envy of mind. Bun by he rcpcnunce of
God is mann: he change: efrhing which lie within His pawn, mmxpeemd
by man; roc anger of God is His vengeance: upon sinwlne pry of God is the
goodness of His help; he jealousy of God is rhino providence xvlmreby He
docs uc: allow rhesus whom He has in subjection cc Himself so l¤v¤w.i.ch
impunity what He forbids?
The conclusion is ha: "who God rcpcnrs He is Nat changed bur He bring
about change; when Hs is angry He is not moved but He avenges; when He
pities Hz: docs not gri•:ve but He Iibcmtcs; when H: is jealous Hz: is not pained
but He causes pain."‘
crashing down simply by observing that the Scriptures speak 0`Gd as loving
Y and then adding rah if-God loves his suffering Hunan crc`mwes,Lee muss: him
self sulfur. The rmdicion interpreted the biblical passages in question as speak
` ing of God nousuflbring benevolence. We seem to he nor an impasse.
Perhaps some advance can be made ifwc pause roc reelect a bit on the u.¤»
Q true of he emotions; for chess, attire al}, are central in the discussion:. Lc me
§ here make useofte resultsoffsetc probing discussions on the natureoffendr
»itn to be found inc.h.ephilosophiclfirearmm of the pasticen years or so,
results skillfully pulled together and amplified by William Lyons in his recent
bunk, Eumrimn.2" The pusher oft philosophical discussions is decisively in ti
or oft so-called Azqqninbe cheery ugh enmriun—.1 cheury already pmmineur,
in is essemials, among he ancients and the medievals.
The cognitive cheery Im1ds,in the Hrs: place, hat every episode ofcmo»
tin incorporates a bcliqftlxat such and such a stare affairs has occurred or
is occurring or may well occur, along wire an eualna/inn of dm sm. of aB
Q fairs (proposition). Every emotion has, in that way u doxnsric/cvnlmxzivc
* conzponem, and cheery a propusidonal commence. Occurs the belief which
the emotion incorpomres may we}l be misxalcenz Enmrions may be either
veridical or n¤nvmidical, Suppose, for example (roomlce one ot`Lyonsʼ illus
V mucus), than I am amid can me large dog appmaqhing will mack me. The
proposition (scare of fathers) that the large dog v~Fiji mack me is men he
· pmpusiniuml cement ofraheemceeu; and a nenrml cmupnnenc nfrhec.m.u
5 don will be my believing and evaluating, be ice negatively or positively that
sm. of aflhirs.

The reference co cvaluacion is inuporcmnr Md. muss: no: be las: EOM view
The pmposicional content cf.; cnmaion is nor only believed but evaluated. If
I were indifferent or being attacked by the large dog, usher than evaluating
such an mack which distinct negativity I would feel no emotion in than regard,
Or if I evaluated (his sm. of aflkirs positively our of nxhibicionism or a desire
for nmryxdom, I would {eel not {ear but exhilaration.
The pmposicinnal content of an emotion, along which one negative or
positive evaluation of that count, plays a central lm in Hz idemiécacion of
an unwire. Bu: in is nurd the whole oft emotion. There is no emotion urn
less he belief and evaluation cause a physiological disturbance in he person
(the sympathetic nervous system being central here), along with certain char·
acreriscic feelings which arc, in pan, awareness of neck physiological disbar
bank. Whack proves no he the as: is ha; the physiological disturbance and the
accompanying feelings diecr remarkably Iicnle from one kind ofemocion rovanr
other. One cannon, for example, diffcrenniane anger 6-m fear on his basis.
Lastly many if nor all emotions incorporate a chazacceriszic appecicivc
couxponen:—-—a desire co do something or other so as, for example,nobeliuminam
he scare ofaifaixs in question our or continue ix, eke. The person amid that the
large approaching dog will amok him is strongly desirous of doing something
to aver: the Armco-—rhough ic may happen cha: his physiological dismrbanec
becomes so severe tl1ar,instead 0f`ru1mi11g1ikc a gazelle so as or implement his
desire no avoid mack, he sinks down helpless as a JCL'sh. Ir is the appcritive
component in emotions than assumes for the face: dm embody can function
as motives [or intentionally undertaken actions: a person may run away our of
em-, may send a blistering Werner out of anger, arc.
Now if this schematic analysis ugh he nature ofenqcions is cancer in Imo
main outlines, in follows directly rear God has no exorcism: No grief no
anger, no fear, and us forth. Fm a person can have an emotion only if rah
person is capable cfbcing physiologically upset. And God, having no physic
logy is no: so capable. I am nor aware rah: Augustine ever used this argue
mecum fm- G¤dʼs apathcmz 1-Ic had other arguments. Bu: Aquinas, for example,
makes explicit use office in Summa Thenlugiae,Book I, 20, err:. 1; and in Summa
mmm Gcmiles 1,89,34 In the sense ofpathvx which we have been using in our
discussion. we can conclude that God is lacking in pathos. The tradition was
right: God is apathetic. l-In dues not grieve, neiclmr in sympathy Nam, as it
were, on his own.
Bu: we muss: nor conclude 6-m this that the comes: is over and that the
ancients are victorious in their combat with the modems. For though he is—
sue ofwhecher God sugars is regularly blurred withc.h.e issue ofwhether God
has passions, I suggest that suffering is in OCR a disrincr phenomenon EOM grief
and hrs ocher "negativee" emotions, and thatc.h.e conclusion dm God has no
Su]/in-law Lm- 125
passions snail leaves open the question whcthcr God suffers. lc remains an open
qucsmiun whether Gcdk apathy is a uyjériygq apathy
A person grieving over some loss is snfkkriug. gc will be recalled than xhc
rcccguimion cha: grief has a cmmpnnem of suflbriug is what led Augustine to
conclude that God does not experience the passion ofgrdiei Bur human Sufi
ferrying is by no memos confide to emotional smirks. There is also the sulfuring
caused by physical pain, the Sufi<-zing caused by Michael depression, the suffer
ing caused by the dcspcmtz: wish that ¤ns`s sexual lwienrnriou were diftbrent
Bum what it is, and so forth. Furrhcrmme, Ir. is often the case that even when
the enmriaml snare of gricfsubsidcs, the suffering continues.
Ha: then me the connections among the belief mlm some loss has ¤c—
cured, the comical stare of grieving over rear loss, and rhino suffering com
priced in char grieving? Well, clearly {hc cause of the suffering that one expo»
rinks in grieving is not the physiological disturbance or the accompanying
ke1ings.Thesc arc not or be thought of as one ofrhe sources of suffering in
our existence, ow a p.m.: with physical pain and mental depression. For as we
have seen, the actual feelings involved in grief-arc IE diflkrenr from those in
gzearjoy T hex are tears of joy as well as tears of gricfj And it is worth recall
ing Augusrimfs observation that the grieving person may even find sweetness
in the tears office grid
One is tempted to cc11clude,then,¤:h:•t the causetoffthe snillzring that one
experiences when grieving is the event over which one is grieving:tl1e death,
he maiming, the defeat, whatever. But this mo. cannot be correct. For rasher
may be no such evener! One may Lmlicvc that hrs depth, the m;\i1uing,tl1e dc
Fet, occurred when in did n0t.Thc1·c may inthct Be no event such cha: one
grieves over it and it caused CNN's grief And c0nve1·selygit'son1e cvcm occurred
but one does roc believe it did, he even: muses no grid
The conclusion must be, I think, that the cause of cne’s suffering, when
grieving over loss, is simply ounce? bellowing that a loss occurred, For whether our
not a loss oft sm.-: in question occurred, the bclievirqq definitely exists. V/hen
someone sulfursSom physical pain, eliminatingrahs pain elimimrcs theusf}b1·—
ing. \X/hen someone sifters overmcml deprcssi0n¢"getting rid of (hc depres
sion gm rid ufthc sulfuring. S0 to, the suffering cnc experiences when grieve
ing over loss is eliminated by elimination of the belief char theca loss occurred.
When he prodigal sou, thought w be dead, returns hmm: alive, ha: Either
tears of grief am transmuted into tears ofjuy But
Physic?1 pain
sion and unsatisfied desire cause suffering. so a so doand mental
certain depress
of our ways
of representing rea1iry.Aud Ir. makes no difference whether [hose ways bcd faith
full to racily or unfaithful—vcridical or non-vcridical.
We speak naturally of the suffering caused by pain, of he suffering
mused by mental depression, cm. Bur we must nut think oft connection
126 Nicholas Vlhlzerswj J Su jb zirw Lv c 1 2 7

beuvm Wm. {am of our ¢xp¤¤1e¤c¤,¤¤ me one mud, and joy orusm- _i¤j<>vf¤11y UnleSAsir be rhe we rim ¢v¢w¤1¤i¤g in ¤hi= w<>rid is g¤<>d ¤¤ rim we
ing, on he other, as the connection of efficient causality, The suffering ? OI GOd Ot &V€fY[hI1lg bad, \VhIlI€VdT be the a11S\•V€r WB glvtb [0 ORC OI [DESC
mated by pain is not some distinct sensation caused by the pain sensation. Q questions muss: also be the answer we give to the other.
Suffering and joy arc, as Ir. were, adverbial modify}crass oft stares and events Om- answer must be postponed for a few pages, however, San as to intro
of consciousness. Pain and depmssimm and the belief than someone we love I due Imo the discussion ca new and distinct line ut`clmughc,als¤ embmccd with
has died are episodes of consciousness cha: occur sufferingly The experience near umminuicy by he pucriscics and medicwxls, leading co the same conclusion
of an and Hz: ask of good food and the belief-char one of our pxojeers has as the perfection argument which we have thus Far couzsidncd. This Admiral
succeeded are episodes of consciousness that occur-joyfully A fundanmnml argument for the couclusicm that God experiences neither passions nor Sufi%r·
face: of-consciousness is than the eve:-ns cfconsciousness do nor all occur in ing may be called the mmvlqqiml uxgunuenr. The NCR the: the perfection urge»
differemly. Some occur unplezsamly on a enncinuum all he way co su¢'far» em and the ontological argumem join so yieldirlue sauna result is ha: made
ing; some occur pleasantly on zoo communism all he way toy; and some, in» E hrs midair of God n¤usufYering apathy so criomwusly poxverllnl. There is
deed, occur in neither made, more lm divides he modems Tom he ancients than a clash nfnmul ideals
Suffering, when veridical, is an cxisremial Nuqzying emu meeting in ex though rue this "more," the modems rarely give guy extenuation.
Alice With :me’s very existence one says “N¤" to the pain,"N0" to the men Suppose than God sulfured on account of he pain experienced by the
cal depression. Bm when cha: scare of consciousness which causes he grief is people in S:aliuʼs gulag camps and nfchc evil in the Iuearc of Stalin who put
one which has a pmposicional comma, hen ha: no which use exisrenrially says [hem there. Then in would be the case them ha: one lemma being did, and
"No" pulls apart from he cause of he sheering. One exisremially says "No" what lmppeucd no other human beings, would determine hrs quality m`G0d’s
to the loss, not to the believing; "No" ran the discern being unfulE1Ied, nor or € lifeSmilenk nczing as he did would bring about God’s suftkriug axvavencss ofthe
the desiring, (The sheering may of-course lead one to say "No" to he desire 5 evil in Stalin`; hear:. The victims` experience of pain would bring about G¤dʼs
ileum) snflkx-ing knowledge of rehire pain. Or m cake auorhcr example; If-God suftkred
Earlier we spoke of e1u0ri<ms as including an evaluative component. But J on account of humanicy’s destructive irnpau upon his earth, [hen again what
quite clearly (here is no emotion if us: coolly evaluate something as meet transpires in the world would determine he quality of his life.
ing or not meeting some criterion than we happen to cn1brace, The evaluation
muss: be an exiscencial valuing ufwhinh we have us: new been speaking. Ac the
core ugh an emotion will be our valuing of the facts and supposed am n/f the § since Plncinus, has been deeper than any other in classical Christian theology;
ma. And that mug may Connie even though the emotion subsides. » Q, ·¤·¤¢!% =|·= ¤$¤¤·¤p¤i<>¤ dm God is ¤¤¢¤¤di¤i¤¤¤d·"Th¤ $¤1=r=¤¤=!' ¤¤·v¤ PM
One mm observation is relevant: The fm Mt suffering consists of me ·¤¤$» "¢¤¤ ¤¤i¤h¤¤derive irs bMs.r ¤*¤= q¤¤1i5v of irs l¤¤i·¤.~:· God Himseii
(inzenscly) we occurrence ofsomc state or Wm.: ofccnsciousncss is com- L ¤h¤¤¤f¤r¤. is wm H= is. ¤¤1f—r¤1¤¤¢¤L ¤¢1P¤¤¤di¤z: orhenvise He b¤¤¤m=¤ ' '""
parable with the me char ¤&cn wecamse m do what we anticipate will cause ¤¤¤~¤¤i-¤¢¤di¤z. ¤¤h=r—5¤¤ki¤s-He wh¤ ¤¤¤¤<>¤ bur be wh¤Uy =¤k-¤¤i$¢d·
us suffering. We choose the surgery knowing chg.; pa., Wm follow [U this them On mm Chmeian rheclngim this deliverance of Plaines has had me
is nothing complex or myszex-ions. To understand i.e., we need only remand Qu;. grip of obvious and Lmd;·mem¤1- muh. From im has been extracted A zmly as
salves that, as means co achieving what one desires. one may do [ha; which (as Y V rcnishiug Lisa of conclusions: lm Gnu is simple, thus having no nature as we "
such) one docs um desn·e4Tm1y mysregiougyHowelli is [hg {act that one may ‘ would nowadays 1mdc1·stand"havi¤g a nntur¢;tlmrheis in1111uAbu]e;dmt he is
Gucci jay nut qf :u_§‘2ring—as, for example,the msq.£jmeme wrgggosgty who » eremal; than he is emirely lacking in porenrializies, thus beinagpure acem; dm hc ’
shares in the sufferings of Christ and "mums it a11_jay" In such a Case, the Pc,. exists necessarily since his essence and his cxistcrgcc are identical; what no red- ‘ `
son joyfully experiences his sufferingly experiencing pain. g care correctly predicated of something other rah Gnu can with the same
And new back or the issue: Le; ugh suppose that God know; what mm. sense be correctly predicated of God; and-to break off the lisping—clm God
Sparks in this world, The question before us then is whgyhey some of ha; I has passions.“ Ofcoursaglxese conclusions wen: nut all derived dirunly from `
knowledge is sufferingly experienced and some ugh in joyfully And Home mg; ' Gads status asuncnnditionucd. Chains ofargumsur were used.c.h.n otDmu.¤s
the imc cf. whether God sufferingly experiences some of what mmim in / cuss, [or example, cakes Ir. that God is "wirhour flux because He is passionless "
ams world dues indeed join hands with whether he also expmences some of , =·¤d i¤¢¤r1><>r¤¤i3' ¤¤<i HMO h¤ is bv ¤¤=¤r¤ P¤$$*¤¤lSSAi¤¤¤ he is $imPl° MM
128 Mzhulm Whlrmzod
unccn1pou¤d,"” Bu: the classic argument for God`s simphciryg in cum, came
Ohm Palominos, whose key premise was than reality must comprise a being
which is entirely unconditioned.
Beyond a doubt it was Aquinas who, a&re Pluckiness, worked out most pro
fondly he implications oft assun1pcion than God is the unconditioned con
dittoing of everything not identical with himself No doubt he saw Ir. as render
ing the biblical teaching of Gcdk sovereignty. At the same Lime it was he who
mugged moss: intensely co construe rah: reaching oft Scriptures as a whole
in the light of this assumption undo its implicates. Len us, then, i`nl]c>w him in
his clmughc.
In Summa cnnlm Gentiles I, 89. 9,Aquinas says char the passion ufsumzw or
pain has for its "subject he already present evil,just as the abject ofjny is the
good present and possessed. Sorrow and pain, nlm-efore, of their cry nature
cannot be found in God."”" No doubt in [his pmicuhr formulation Aquinas
is alluding to the perfection argument? Bur what has already brought him to
this conclusion is an elaborate development of hrs: ontological argument and
its ramifications.
Aquinas has-just argued that God has no passions at all. And in addition
to offering as ground for this conclusion that God lacks he "sensitive pa
pcti•:cs" anDKrhs bodily physiology necessary for experiencing passions (1,89,
2-3), he argued, more relevantly to our purposes ham, cha: "i¤vexy passion
of the appetite theca patient is somehow drawn out of his usual, calm, or con
natural disposition ..,. Bu: ice is nu: possible for God co be somehow drawn
outside His natural ccndizicm, since He is absolutely immutable, as has been
Shawn" (1. B9, 4). This argument, of-course, militates as much against Gcdk sf—
faxing as against his passion.
But if God cannot be "Dawn outside his natural condition" of unalloyed
abiding bliss, does it nor follow that God is either ignorant oft suffering and
evil chat nmnspim in dm life of his human creatures, or is India&`errant to their
plight? Your he forms: is incompatible with God omniscience. And as to the
larder, how would indifference no the plight of humanity be compatible with
the love of God?
Though he does not sorrow over evil,yet God knows evil, says Aquinas.
Tn understand in what way Aquinas thinks this co be true, we must Bm urn
derstand in what way, as he sees Ir., God knows anything at all other than
himsnli
It must be granted, says Aquinas, "chic primely and esscmially God
knows only HMO, For this Conclusion Aquinas gives Several m_gummed’ i and pcrf`cchicn” God "wiIlls rhs mulricdu0frilli11g;j· Iffve look atTh.e muh?. Z
. _. . . . . . . {id- V ·, rude ofbegs other thanGund and ask,hac ns thelemure ground of chew "?°" ʻ?f "¥“F" °°“"" '“ʻP"“““g “ʻ';ʻ°jʻPlʻ“““ʻ°ʻTʻ °"ʻʻ1°?°ʼ“°»
ft.;;§ };§ texamsmm, ourI;answer
§§¤;E;§h;§;;d§;;m;h;;;:;§;I; isirms
die: di ) =j pair
mg, mh in ¤{ph¢¤¤¤]em}_;Th¤¤ mas whole
an wm way and degree rcscmblixfg
Sqmrilw Lm 129
amercing order than Himself as the principal object, Hc will have several in—
cllcmml operaa:ious.Tl1eref¤rc einher I-iis essence will be divided into several
pans, or He will have an in:cIl¤cr.u;¤l uperqziuurahar is nor his subsmnce. Both
ofrhcse posicious have been proved co be impassible" (I, 48, 4).
From his argument Ir. would seem or follow not merely that God "pri·
nimbly and essemia11y" knows only himself bur char, um/rum q:m1y7m1inn, he
knows only l1imself.Yer Aquinas immediately goes on m Argue rah "God
undcmauds things other than Himsel£"1-lis reason is char "¤n eflécr isade
qnmely known when is cause is known. Sc ‘wa me said ro know each thing
when we know the muse' [Arisrocle], Bur God Himself is tlxmugh His
essence the cause offing for mI1ercl1ings.Since He has a moss: hull knoll
edge o{His essence, we must posit ha: God awe knows other change? (I, 49,
2). Thus ice is simply in knowing his own simple undik`zhrcmiamd self rear
God knows all other rhinos—¤n rhs [wo principles rlmr God is the cause of
all things other than l1imscl€ and that in knowlng u ching’s cause one knows I
me rhino.?
And how is God ch: muse of when- things? He is the cause by virus of
his will, says Aquinas. Your it must be gunned rear "he principal object oft
divine will is he divine essence." For if wc allowed that God directly willed
thing other clam himscltj the principle of-divine simplicity would again be vi
orated?] "lf` . . . God should principally will something other can Himself is
will folloxv that somexhciug other is {hc cause of His willing. Bur His willing is
His being, as has been sI1own.Hencc, something other will be Hz cause of His
being-which is company co the nature of he Hm heir" (1,74, 4).*
Bu: if he divine self is he principal object of he divine will, how docs
God cause other things? In Smug mmm Grilles I, 74, 4, Aquinas says that in
every case of willing scmetluing "theca principle object“ is just the ulrlmnw md
fm- which he thing is wi1led.Buc that is misleading for the case before us. We
are not no think of God as willing other chugs as means to the and oflnimself.
Radar,Aquinasʼ though: is this: "God wills and loves His essence fur im own
sake? Now "he rlmings [hat we love for their own sake we w:u1r to be most
perfect, and always co become BMOCs, and be multiplied as much as possible}
Bur "he divine essence cannot be increased or` multiplied in i¤elf." Them is
only one way in which he divine self can be enriched or enhanced, nmuelyq
by way ofrhere being other emirs which resemble ice,Theca divine essence "gnu
be mulciplicd solely nccnmiing to its likeness, which is parricipnrcd by aun)g"
nays Aquinas,1s,Ir is in than way,r|en,1hac in "will|ing and lnvinp; His own essence
errray
God of bc.their
(including `ʻʼ°ʻ;ʻ*°ʻ*
being

130 Mzlxnlm I/Iézlzeu/uf
mama m cod as mm cum) as 3 Mt or enhancement umm diving puree- i ` ¥¤ ¤v1>¤¤¤¤ that Aquims hitself¤s¤¤rd¤d ¤h<= p¤i··¤ ¤¤ Whi¢h I have <>b~ $ d h
tin; ad that God wills the euhancemem of his own seem jeered as one of he weak points in his theory; for when he mulct et
We have been looking at Aqua$' wnmual Ofgodg kmwgng and Wm. ; ' topic of God's knowledge in his lace: work, Samna Tlxeolqqine, hc reworked his "
ing of change order can himself Before we move on wc should auk Cnnsgdm _ i rhaughc on the topic of whether God knows rhinos mincer than himself by`
his censorial of he love of God for change other ran himself, since all he reel
event phenomena are already before us. Gad wills himself Now no will some—
thing is perfume co regard Ir. as good; "roc understood guide is he pamper Bo
jet oft will. the understood good is, as such, willed" (I, 72, 2). And in cum,
ice "b¤I¤ngs properly ro/che namre oflcverahar cha lover willsache good of the
one he1oves" (1,91,2)Burr we have also found it appmpriace, says Aquinas, co
speak of God as willing ache: things. New we have us: seen that iris a necks
say much about willing than one wills what one judges guide. Su God wills the
good cfthcse other things. And since, as we have also seen, co love something
is co will [hc guide oft :hinge——Aquinas, be it noted, construe; love simply as
benevolence—ir follows straighrforwardly that God loves things other Lhan
himsel£”
Bur now is in not meshing ch: sense of the words beyond their breaking
poi or cal1"knowlcdge of ache: :hinge" chose phenomena in he Ploeinian
God to which Aquinas applies Thai! phrase; and so, sivnilaxlyq for "wi11ing of
urhsr rhinos" and "l¤viug of other thing"? Consider: God knows himself and
God is he cause of all change other than himself This pair of phenomena is
what Aquinas calls Cud knowing y` Lhiqqs nzhcr than himself on he principle
ha: co know he cause oaf thing is to know he change. And consider; G¤d wills
his perfection, and he ensemble of things acl-ner {Hanna God enhances his per
faction by resembling him: This pair ofphenumena Aquinas calls God willing
mfzhings other San hinxseyf He Hmhsrnmors proposes calling chis las: pair off
num., Gad lug q` things other 1/n himsey€ on the grounds cha: one only
wills what one regards as good, and that to love something is w will is good.
Bur is no: the former cf. chess so distant film the knowledge of things as not
or deserve the title? And is nc: the latter so disarm: from the imemional ma
ing and he loving ¤£ ching; as also non no deserve those cicles? Wha: is missing
throughout is any awareness 0E any acquaintance with, change other than him
self by God. God has no concept nor anything like a concept ofanyrhing ocher
than hinuslf "Ou: imellecn knows singular things through singular species [ha
arc proper and divers," says Aquinas. By acquiring such "signalize species? we
acmalize our pencils for knowledge. No: so for hrs divine inceueez. "l{Ir.
knew something through a species that is not Israeli it would necessarily follow
char its pmporrion co [ha species would be as the proportion afpotency to act,
God muss: therefore understand solely rah;-ugh the species that is his own
essence" (I, 71, 11-12). (Aquinas might, of-course, have reached the same con
cloisonnéfilmm the premise: of Gcdk simplicity)
Szgyhrinyg Lug: 131
i pamper km>wedge?" (S11, 14, a. eve) He mu nos,o1 course, marumuans n
pamper and roc merely a general knowledge of things other than himself`, his
mason being chat "w know a rhino in general and pot in pmiculnr, is to have
an imperfect knmvlcdge ot'i¢" roesp.) Buranw he astcxxxprs in a somewhatdittol
' ferric way than beef no meet the challenge cfexplaiuing l-mw in can be char
the Plotiniau God has a proper knowledge of thing other than l1imscl£
McAllen or mscmblancc with respect co is; perfections. Nc: only do human bcd
Q ins, for example, resemble God with respect :0 rewire perfection; in a way if
j {even: &¤mhems;huec also Socrates resembles Godwickhrepsc: ce hisperfumec
, tins in a way distinct from P1aro.Furzhermore,a things unique resemblance
to God can bcd thought ugh as the nature oft rl1ing."Tl1c nnmure pamper no
each change mnsisrs in some: dcgzce of parricipaciou in the divine pcrE`ecti¤n"
(ibid.), Bur the mulripliciry of ways in which God gin be resembled is, in rum,
a necessary and roc an accidental feature of l1im."‘yl-lis essence contains the
similitude ofzhing usher than Himself " (a. 5. reps.) But ifs, than "G¤d could
i nor be said co know Himself perfectly unless He lgnsw all he ways in which
Z His own perfection can be shared by ocher-s" (a. 6. {esp.). Hence, says Aquinas,
"Ian is manifest than God chums all change which proper knowledge, in their ids—
; tincrion Gum each other" (ibid.).
I think ice is clear, however, char this argument: will Nam do,Aquinas assumes
Q that to know the "proper nature" of a thing is to know the thing, Pcrlmps we
Can grant (hat 2SS\.\1l1pKi0n·*Ih0L\gh, Of COUKSE, its tY\1Il\Depewds OI] h0\V WC
construe "pamper noe." He also assumes than athingk pmieular way of ne
smelling God consnimces he namer nfxhc thing. Ha: seems more conrrovsp
sin; beau: El: us nc: comes: the nearer, He further assumes, in classic Chain of
Being Fashion, xlm for every possible mode ugh rcscmhlance to God, {here is (or
i was, or will be) smmnhing which actually bears chat mode of resemblance or
Gnu. There assumption is even more commercial; bum lc: us still nor boggle. lr
is because of these l-nee nssunnprions than Aquinas can say than in God`s know
ing of all he particular ways in which his perfection can be shared, he knows
. all he particular ways in which Ir. nk i11_fhc1sl1arc¤|;:md in his knowing nfall due
` panicle ways in which ice is in fact shared, he knows all he particular things
? cf. he world. Let us, on this occasicm, content omsclves wire questioning
Aquinas on who move that he makes before these gore: the move Ohm God';
knowledge of his essence to his knowledge of hrs distinct and multiple ways
1 in which things can resemble his essence.

Now it is indeed cure that the ways in which a thing can be resembled
belong or ics essence. But it is Nan: sufficient for Aquinas’ purposes to hold that
a perfect knowledge of God‘s essence implies a knowledge of all the ways in
which hen can be rcscmbledl The demands of the simplicity docrrinc are such
cha: he muss: say that God knowing ¤f his essencedus: is his knowing ofc.h.e
various ways in which he can beau resembled. Perhaps, indeed, the demands of
the simplicity doctrine are coven more stringent can ha:. For someone might
€<>¤¤¢¤d fha! ¤¤<=’¤ knowledge of x may be idmecal wm; Omg knqwkdge of i Sa weare faced wich a choice. lf one adopts the Plorinian concept of
y even though x is no: idemieal with y. Bu: if rim is indeed me, then war
muss: be said is them: he doctrine of Divine Simplicity requixcs Nam only rear
Gads knowing is single bu; that what he knows is single.
Bur now consider some one oft ways in which God can be resembled.
Is that way of resemblance identical with God essence? Surely nor. For
Aquinas dentines a way of resembling God with the nature of someching
other [Hanna God; and if such a my of resembling was identical win G¤dʼs
essence, the nature of sum: thing other than God would be identical with
God'; scenee—€mm which ic would follow ha: harhing which was osha:
chi God was identical wire G¤d4 The conclusion muse he cha: Aquinas' ad
heresy no the simplicity doctrine makes unremble chis acrennpr err explaining
how God knows thing other can Himse1£
Aquinas’ struggle to End in the Plorinian God something that might ap
proprietary bcd called "knowledge of Utica Things" becomes even more trains
parentally a struggle when it comes or God knowledge of evil. I will not here
rehearse all his ax·gun1en¤s; he gives some seven of them. But the basic line of
thought running through all of rhyme is evident Bum the first: "When a good
is known, the opposite evil is known. Bur God knows all particular goods, to
which evils are opposed, Therefore God knows eve|s" (I, 71, 2). God, Aquinas
would say knows than particular human evil which is blindness because he
knows rl-mc "parricu1nr good" which is human sigh: co which chis evil of`b1ind—
nests is "opposed," Now in is obscure in Aquinas’ zu-gumcn: whether he means
to say that God knows, of same particular human being, that she cquys that
good which is sight, or whether he means to say than Giddiest knows abstractly
what is than good which is human sigh:Burr suppose he means he foam, Ac
most what can be said is that anyone who has such knowledge will also know
wan blindness is. Tim leaves such a person wall short of knowing, say cha:
some particular elderly woman has gone blind-which is what all CFOs would
regard as knowing one oft accrual evils of our world.
The conclusion is unavoidable: Aquinas does not Gnu, in the Plozinian
Gad. anything which could appmpriamly be called, knowing Hz: Wiring and
evil which :ran.¢p¤'re in our world. Bu: if God does not know zhe suEering and
evil which mmspize in our world, than he does nor sxwrirggly know in. New
Sqhring Loupe 133
suppose we assume, as seems reasonable, that Aquinas has done as well as can
he dune by way of finding in the Plccinian God something which could be
called "k¤ow1edge of things other than himself "ang knowledgee of theusf
ferrying and evil of our world? Then we must conclude that on the Ploriuizm
concept of Gnu, God does indeed not have a suffering mvarencss offense world.
He does not have such an awareness because he daps not have an mammas
of the world an all.
God,tl1e conclusion falls out that God docs no! sufficer, and, of com-se, dues not
have passions, But one gets the conclusion by paying the price of removing
from God all knowledge ugh, and love for, the particular things of this world.
The question, then, is whether this price is mo. high.VirtunlIy the entire Chris
Tina tradition wailed say Ir. is. The Cln-isdan cannot surrender the conviction
Thai: God knows and loves his creation. Or to put Ir. diilhrcntlyz roc pay the prim:
charged by the Polarizing concept of God is or move away Ohm Clusjstiamity
toward some other form of religion.
Sc wc are back to where: we were; Does God suflériugly experience what
tmnspixcs in the world? The tradition said than he docs nut. The modems say
that he docs%peci6cally that he sufferingly experiences our suffering. Both
parties agree [hat God loves the world. But the cradiriou held than God loves
only in the mode ugh benevolence; Ir. proposed construing all the biblical pas
sages in the light of what z;onvicri¤n."‘ The modems insist char God’s love in
clouds love in theca mode ofsynupathyn The modems paint in attractive colors a
moral ideal which is an alremacive :0 rah: of the naxditiun, and point to vary»
us biblical passages speaking of God suffering love—passages which the cm
Darien, for centuries, has construed in is own way The tradition, for its part,
offered essentially row limes of defense. It argued than the attribution of me—
tins and suf`Feriug K0 God was incompatible with Gcdk unconditiouednesym
argument which, so we have concluded, should be rejected. And second, in ¤f—
[creed a pair of what Ir. rock to he obvious truths: that suffering is incomparable
with ideal cxistcucc, and cha; G¤d’s existence is immumbly ideal, We saw that
the supposition that those rmrhs are obvious was ‘qk1dm1gcrcd iu Augustinek
case by his insistence that wc human beings am to cultivate a solidarity of
grieving over evil and rejoicing over 1·spcnanc,But we did not ourselvesughl
Ferro any argument directly against chose supposed myths,
How can we advance from here? Perhaps by looking more intently than
we have thus far err that claim of the tradition that G¤dʼs love consistspxc1u—
sivcly of benevolence. Bcncvoleucc in God was uudexstuod as his steady ids
position to do good or his creatures. And since as lang as thcrc are creatures
no natter what chair c0ndicion—thcrc is scope {br Gad's exercise of rhar
dispusitiuu, and since his exercise of that disposition is never fiustmtcd, God
 134 Ninlmlas IM»l1mmg@‘

endlessly cakes joy in chi: dimension of himself He does not take joy——1e: us Perhaps in his description ofmnrnl action that great Sic plnilosoplmr of
carefully n¤cs—in his awareness ofche condinian of his creatures. He doEscnok he modem weld, Imrmmucl Am, can be of help to us here. In the moral id—
delight in beholding hrs creaturely good that he has brought Abu:. Ifrhat were mansion offer existence, the only change good in Israelis a good will,s:id Am.
the case, his joy would be condicioual on he sm. of things other can him· Ycgofcourse, the mom] person will do such things as ac: to advance [he hmlmh
scull Ha: God joyfully experiences is simply his own exercise ofbcnevolence. of others. Inseam- as she ams morally huwevm, sly; dues no: do so because ha
God awareness of our plunge into sin and suffering causes him nu discus awareness of health in people gives her dclighi and hc: mwreucss of illness
banks; his awareness of he anvil office perfected Kingdom will likewise give proves disturbing. She may indeed be so ccmscicnred lm she dues thus value
him no joy For no Nam what the stare oft w0r1d,church is room for God‘s e health and sickness in mixers and ncm1hem¤n.Buq1l1ar is no moral credit ru her,
success&1l exercise of his steady disposition to do good; and it is in that exc. To be moral she muss: ac: not cm of delight overahealclu nor our of disuuvlumzce
cite lm he Ends delight. over illness bur our of duty. She muss: ace on same rule specifying xvhnz use
An analogue which comes can mind is rah oaf professional health-care spar E ought no do in her sm.-: 0f`sinuntim14a rule to which, by follmviug, she accords
claims:. Perhaps when first she entered her profession she was disturbed by he "respect}ʻ That is what it is no value good will: ro uct our oforcepscrathx- (he
pain and limping and death she saw Bu: cha: is nub over. Gnaw she is neither mol law rather roll-on out of one`s mural likings and disliking, rejoicing; and
perturbed Nam delighted by he wndiciou oft people cha: she sees.\X/ha: gives grieving. And the mum} pc1·s<>n is rh: person wl10,whcrever rclev.·m:,tl1uSivalr
her delight is just: her inner awareness cfhcr own we]1·doing. And always she use ah: goodness of her will. Her valuing of what will mean, when lm- will is
Ends scope for well-ding——sc lung, ofcourse, as she has cliencs. Tb chose who iu {hen god,rl1ar she willdelightzreeven. Bmfishe am ourofz desire ro de
are healthy she gives reassuring advice on hack mzinremnce,T¤ chose who aw ? light in having a good will], char ow is not moral action; she muss: ac: our ors»
ill] she dispenses medicine and surgery, Bur Ir. makes no difference or her i Sam rm.- me mom xm
whether cx not her advice maintains the health of the healtlxy and whether or Suppose hen chat our heaItI1-care specialist values the goodness offer
um her preferred mncocwious and cussing um he illness of he iii. Wham Q will and acts thereon by ducihxlly seeking or advance he health of ha
makes a ditfemnce is us; her sacredness in we|l~dug; in this and in this alone pacers—delighcing inachous acning. Shenmy or may no: also valuerrhs health
she Ends her delight. lf it falls within her competence she will, of course, coop— } of her paxiemgheing disarmed by its absence and delighted by its pmence.Bur
emcee in pursuing he elimination of smallpox; that is doing good, Bu: should if she docs not in cha: way value her pa:I'ms’ hmk, rhar dues not in any may
the news arrive of is elimination, she will not join the party; she has al] along milliner against her delighting in her own well-doing.
been celebrating the only thing she Ends worth cs1ebraring—nan-mh; he: own We have here, hen, a way of understanding how in cram be lm God de»
welding. She is a Sic sage in the modem world. , lights in his doing good roc human beings lwirhdur either delighting in, or be
I dare say that Morse onus Bud such a person chomnghly repugnant; that ?j values
ing disturbed by dm Hunan condition. God am our of duty. Thus acting, hc
shows how far we are from the merrily of many of the imelleeruals in he his own good will whitener valuing anything in his crcarion. Ifwc inner
world of lane amiquicy But beyond giving Vern no our feelings of repp pricer God`; benevolence as his acting uu: of um [hen the cmdiciml picture
Ionic, Ie: us consider whether the picture I have drawn is even colorant, becomes coherent.
Though this person niche rejoices nor suffers over anything iu he condo Bur of course Ir. buys this coherence ac Mac price. For rue think thus ugh
tin offer paces, nonetheless she: rejoice; in her own doing ¤fgood.Buc Q Gnu is m pmdum centric nor a very deep level indeed with the Christian Scrip
what then docs she cake assigned? What does she value? The health Cheri pa trues, These rel.] us char it is not out ofdury but out of-love that God blesses us,
tints, one would suppose. Why nrhervvise would she give advice Tu. the one not our ofcbligation bur our ufgracc that he delivers us.Tn construe God'; love
as purely benevolence and m consume his benevolence along Knmian-Scoic
on how to maintain his health, and chemicals so the other to recover his,
and all the whale xejoaec, on account oaths ming, in her Own doing of T 1**** “S his “°““€ °“” °*-d"ʻ%*$ ʻ° '¤°1°“ "ʼ“h°"ʻ G°°“ l°"°·
good? But fish docs indeed value (hg health Of;-my patgemsv than Perforce T { So we are back with the model in which »G¤d values rhings orlxer than
she will also be glad mm- kg presence and disturbed by its absence (when * ‘ his own goodewil|—values positively someof chu events and coudixions in his
she knows about these). Ye: we have pictured hg; as nekhcr happy Nam id,_ . _ creation, and values negatively others. To act our of love coward somerhiug `'
wrbcd by ¤"ʻ/{hi-Hg other than her own we1lrd¤ing_ Ham; we not described f other than oneself is co valearhar thing and certain states ofrhar ¤hiug.And on
what cannot bcd? ; this point in nmnars nor whether the love be Cruz our agape. {foam: rejects the
136 Nidmlus Vwlnerxrugy
duty-model of God action, than the biblical speech Abu; G¤dʼs prizing of
justice and shalom in his creation will have or be taken at {ace value and not
consumed as meaning that God has a duty co work for justice and shalom.
These reflections place us in a position no sc. banner than we could beam-e
he cause of rennin in Auguscinek rougher. Augustine urged us co value she
religious condiciou of our fellow human beings. But, as we saw; he does not
hold that our was is m be acmnhcd so our {clc>ws.Rszhm-ic vm his assumption
that {he religious condition of our fellow human beings has its own moods of
value, distinct from char mode ofvalua which chose things have for us than Saar
iffy our need, our em:. We are co love our fellow human beings wizhouz being
acmched or chem. Bu: if are indeed to value in [his noxmmcic way the reel
pious condition of our fellows, why would God not do so as well? Or con
verbosely if God docs not do so, why is it nonetheless appropriate for us to do
so? The tension in Augusninek roughen is due no he {ac: hrs: our (nunemdc)
valuing and God valuing arbicmrily part ways.
In my argument I have assumed [ha ii believing some state of a&is roc
be occurring, one values char occurrence,whschcr negatively or positively than
one is correspondingly delighted or disturbed. I have assumed than one he
living is hen either a delightedly believing or a discurbedly believing, an
ave.;-tie believing or an "adver¤ive" believing. Some 1-nigh: question this as
summation. Can wxluing nor be exisrenzially colorless? Can God not value us
ice and shalom in his creation while ay: his awareness offers presence gives him
no: a Eljcker of delight nor his awareness of its absence a Lwiuge of unhappy
nests? My answer is than I do not know how to envisage such a p0ssibi1iry.Thc
Kaman duty-model gives us a way of understanding how one might ace in
zcmionally to bring about some scare ofatfairs wichouz bluing dm snare oft
{airs. Bu: even Am, along with the ancient Swiss, assumed that valuing ids
plays itself in he aversive and ndvensivc qualities of our experience. Ic is true,
of-course, that one can evaluate things coolly and imparciallyn One can work in
a Fnrneis shed evaluating panama: wizhoum xmluing positively (hose ox which
one gives top grade or negatively chose that one roses out. But that is a if
ferret nmcer.EvaIuaring is not valuing.
I come hen so this conclusion: The fact rear the biblical wl-im; speak of
God as rejoicing and suflh-ing over the stars oft crcarion is not a super6z:Ian
elimimble {mmm ofmhcir speech. I: expresses themes deeply embedded in the
biblical vision. God love for his world is a rqoicing and us&”ering love. The
picker of God as a Scion sage, ever blissful and nonsuffcring, is in deep condign
with the biblical piecumf
Bu: are we emicled so say than Ir. is a .s:@ringdove, someone may ¤k—¤
love prompted by a sv;§&ri»;q awareness ofwhac goes on in che world. An un
happy awareness, Yes; hun docs in reach all the way no suffixing?
What the Christian sorry says is rah God the Father, our of love for lm
nmniq; delivered his only begotten Son to theca suffering and abandonment and
dacha oft cmss.h1 the light ofrhapl think it grotesque or suggest chat God`s
valuing coffer human prsdicameam was so mildly negative as m cause him no
suffering. Bur in any case, noshing ofimporruncz hang on degrees. The claim
of the cmdition was that God`: knowledge of the world gives him nu vexaricn
at all, no disturbance, no unhappiness. We have seen reason m think dm lm
claim is false.
In closing leer me observe cha: if we agree cha: God bore us};-jingly and
joyfully experiences this world of ours and of his, then an ounce {here comes to
mind a question which the tradition never asked; x1:‘¤liely Wha: in our world
causes God suffering and what in ice causes him joy? And then err once there
also comes or mind a vision of the reunion between nurd suBEx-ing and joy and
Guck suffering and joy which is profoundly ditYexem from that or be found in
the tradition, In the rmdiriou the relation was simply that here in this life we
long co shave in lm uninterrupted bliss which Gnu fmm eternity enjoys. What
now comes so mind instead is the vision 0f`nl{g¤x1i1qq éurxclves with God's suflkr
ing and with his joy: of deliglwriug over rear which is such rear his awamxess
of our delight gives him delight and of suffering over that which is such that
his awareness of our Saharang causes him sutkriug.
The cnubmce of [his new vision will than lead us or look once again at
the murex of the Augustinimx vision, according no which the only thing in our
Emily lives of suflicienr worth to merit suftériug ishie religious condition of
our souls. The company of&ic11ds mud relieves is or become to us as kiwi Hi:
which we enjoy while we have Ir. bur whose disnppezmnncc causes us no sf
ferrying. And so mo. for whatever else one wants to mcmic—jusricc, for cx»
ample. We are or grieve over the souls of those who performer injustice wire
evil lwambur over the violuciou off rights as such wc me nu: to grieve. Our
rights we me to enjoy if have hem, but not grieve of: if do no:.
dan piety which he helped to shape is u radical and comprel1eusive lowering
2 of the worth of the things of this world. Len the presence of all those grief
which ensue Ohm the destruction of that which we love, Augustine p.m.
ncunces a "N0" to the armcl1rn¤>ms rather than a "N0" to the desrrucriou-·
not a "N¤" ccEdamh but :1 "Nc" to love of what is subject to death, Thereby
he also pronounces a "Not much" concerning the worth of the things loved.
E Nothing an ams world has worth enough to merit an attachment which Mr.
rise the potential 0f`gricP—n0thing except the religious mw ofsouls. The state
i of my childʼs soul is worth sut`t7:ring love; the childk fompany is uoc}
Bur there is another way to gun. T0 same of thé things in this world one
can pay he tribute of recognizing in hem worth soot}icicm cu maxi: a love
138 Nicholas VMw1¢er:1¤m'
which plunges one into suffering upon their demotion. In one love one can
say A "Yes" no he wm-rh ufpersous or change: and in onset suffering n "Nc" so
their destruction. To friends and relatives one can pay the uibum of loving
hem enough to suffer upon their death. To justice among oueé people one
can pay the niburc ofluving in enough co us&”er upon its tyrannical denial. To
he delights of music and voice and birdsong one can pay the tribute ofluving
them enough no suffer upon going dace One can pay to persons and rhinos he
existential uibuce of suffering love. "The world is bender," says Richard Swine
bum in a Ben passage,
xf qgmrx pay Papua zribuze no lasses and f¤i1u¤es,if whey are sad an che fail
um ¤fnilm:endeavors, mourn for medewhofa child, meMxy anrahs sc
Dumont of a wife, and so on. Such ominous involve suiting and anguish,
beau; in Imo such props: feelings a man shows his xespm no himself and
ohms. A man who feels nu grief err the dead; ugh his child or nh: seduction
UHF's wife is zighdy banded by us as imeusisiw, for he has failed no pay me
proper Mauna offeelmg no mlm;. no shaw in his feeling how much he vale
use them, and cheery Ailed no value hum. pmp¢rly—for valuing zhem
properly involves having pamper medians ¤>E`£¤¤li¤g no chi1¤ss4”
Suffering is an essential element in rear mode office which says not only "No"
to the misery offer world but "Yes" cc its glories.
And if one does pay so friends and relatives the tribune of: love that may
suffer, then also one will scruple co prolong their lives archer than to reorient
a self cast into suffering by he sunning our of their lives. If one does pay or
justice among one people he tribune of z love than may us&`re, then also one
will snuggle to ove1·chrowrahecyanr rather than to reconstructuseksellso as
cu be common: under tyranny Suffering conrribures co changing the world. SuL
{erring must sometimes he cukivaccd. We are indeed or live in a solidarity of
grieving and rcj¤icing—but of grieving and rejoicing over the absence and
presence of that mode of human flourishing which ha biblical wringers call
shalom; not just over the religious condition of our souls.
This, I said, was a diicrenc way or go—rhe way of "Nc" to death rather
than co love ofchac which dies, he way ¤f"N¤" no injusrine mheRichan no love
Mjusrice, the way of "No" no poverty rarer than to the struggle to alleviate
p¤vercy—and Yes, chu way of "No" co our distance from Gad ratherrhan to
love of God, lr is also, in myjudgmcm, a better way. For ice is in line with Godʻs
sulking and which God joy Instead of loving only God we will love what
God loves, including God. For in is in the presence ofjusnice and shalom among
his human creatures ha: God delight, as in is for the full xealizariun ufjusnice
and Shalom in his perfected Kingdom char he works.To1ove what is ofworch
in this world and to suffer over its dominion is cu pay ca that Kingdom nhs
S¢g[heri1;g Lune 139
tribute of anguish over its delay "Our hearts axe restless until they find their
rest in rule, O Lard," said Augustine. Ha: nits lac added is rlmr our hams
will not Gnu their full rust and xlnunld nv! Gnu their Th.]! rest until he hem of
our Lord is itself fully at rest in his perfected Kingdom.
NOTES
1. Tmuslaned by R. S. Yin—C¤l`K1n (Hanmmdsxvorth, Middlesex; Pcngnin Books,
196l), All my curios from rah: My':.Mauna.< will be`£}0m chis translation.
2, No doubt for the reason which is vividly smell in {his passage {tam Pluunusz
And se his being, [Lava EMS] has [mm evulasruug came Imo cxisnmce Emu he scull near
pitman towards due higher and dm good, and he was there IWWy:,ns lung nsScudl,u.>¤, cx
isrcd.Ax1d he xs cx nuxcd dung. having 1 p.m. of ncer1.in rlmr he wishes m be Ell:d,bum nor
whirler A share ofpleuizudc. in dm he seeks what is wanting to dm which he nlrcndy Im;
bin seemly hum welch xs almgcrhu without a share in rah: good would nurd ever >:¢k ah:
good. Su hc ns born cf.[’1¢n:y and Pcvcrry, . 4 .Bourlus mother is Povcrzy. hemus: aspimiun
belong or than which is in need. (EnuvmIs1H,5, 9;A:Ms.¤g u. in neb Classical Libnuy
[Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1967])
For arguments char rhejhll notion ohms in Plan and Platoons included some comp
ncnr 1”sel(—gjviug, see A. H. Ammnong, "Plarcnic Eros and ChriIan Agapc" in Arm
strong, Pluilninu rm. Clvrmizm Snails (Lcdm>n:Vnri0mm Reprints, 1979); and john M,
Ricer, Em; and Rcyzlm: Sodium in Plum Polonium, Ned Origin (Tcrcnm: University of
Tcmnm Press, 1964).
3. I see rm. nrher way mo. make the point In the ex: than with the word "cnj¤y" or
some near synonym such ns "deliglu." Hour m do so is to risk inncducing serious con
Buskin Imo the interpretation ofAugustine. For he was Rand of drawing a distinction
between use (mi.) and enjoyment (hi), roc cqunze enqcying huh loving, {Md. hen no say
that God alone must be eqj¤y¤d—¤mhIy things are onlyOfr usc, Seec thc clmpscx
“M¤rius Vicrnrinus and Augusrine" by R. A. M;ukQs m YM Cnrrvbridgr Hitlory q/rLnI¢·r
Check and Early Mcrilzunl Philosophy [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970],
pp. 389-391.) My poison, however; is Dan: he "us" m which earthly things may bcd purr
is probably not or be conceived in grimly urilimrian fashion; we may "an_y¤y" [hem. On
who archer hand, Augustine was cvc conscious oft f.1•;redur zichggln in earthly things
may become [um:. CSC his rcHcc1i011s on theca cxjoynncmz of food, music. we. in Cmy2·s—
Sinai: X, 3l—J4.
Here is perhaps also the best place to discuss ax renuionolugical point about love
nnmr.I think there can be no doubt that most oft time Augustine says lm. we should
love God alone. And to expljcan: his thought on his,I have mkcn love to be hat mode
ofntrachruent to A thing which is such that [he dermic:-ion or clung: of rlmr thing
would cause one gric£ Bur there are also passages in which Augustine,wickh the great
"cI-min o{bing" in mind, says that we should love things in proportion to their wcrrh.
140 Nizhnlns Mlrerszuy
One Ends :1 {caw such passages in Of7hu Rclgimz. Err Marks (Cambridge History, pp.
386687) circus one of rho muss: elaborate of hem, mkcn from De dmrimz nhrminna I,
27.28: The: righteous man is "roc man who values thing an their crook w¤rrh;he has or
dcxcd love, which prcvcms him Emu having when is not to be loved, or Nam loving what
is to bcd loved, from pmfcrring what chugger ran he loved less, from loving equally ha:
cough Lo be loved either less or more, our from loving cizhcr lc: or more what ought
to be loved :quarry' Probably all of us, in ax Em. approach to Augusrinc, are inclined
roc give such passages as relines prominence, mrhey mlm chose in which he says that God
alone is so be 1oved.They sound so much more humane! Bu: I rhino there can he Abu—
soldierly rm. doubt cha: Augustine gcnenally mean: by "lave." rah: degree ofamclunenr
cu something such cha: [he dcsmrucucn or change after object will case one imc grief}
and char he mead cu say {ha, in can sense, God al¤nc'is ro be loved.Orer things are
only or bcd used. dais use including ha: I have called *`nnj¤ymem3’ Nnw namnlly use
and enjoymcm are n form ¤f"arr.xcluuent" mthings, Hence in is nm mappmpriace for
August: somccimcs ox speak of`; properly mupnmd love for [Hess: vying. Bur rah:
cmx oft issue is this: Our "love" fur such things is not to be such than it can cause
us grief As we shall sc. slxordyq August: also says, as one would expect, that each of
us is roc "1-¤veauux neighbor as ourselves. Bu¢—how arc weto "l¤v:" ourselves?
4. Auguscinc was nor alone in antiquity in holding this view Camcadcs held it as
well—0r aNalcosc went around assuring ir. CE], MRiosnSm.iz P/nilusvphy (Cambridge:
Cambridge Umversiry Press, 1969), p. I. My understanding oft Sticks is very much
indebted m this bunk by Risk, Also helpful is E H. Snatch, Hue Swiss (New York: W
W Norton Co., 1975).
5. Augustine, The City gf Cad, muss. Marcus Dads (New York: Random House,
1950). My crannies will be {mm his edition.
6. lr is inmrnsring lm ]. M. IRS: gives essendnlly the same formula in one passage:
"Theca Smile wise man is a man of fueling, bur has feelings do not control, cr. even in
alliance, his decisions and his actions. In his terminology he is passionless (upurlrb), but
nurd wnrhuut nuance feelings? From Risk Hull discussion it becomes clear, however.
what the classic Simps thought near, in fact, the pcrmrbing communions never were fully in
accord with reason.
7. See chapter 3, "Emblems ofP1easure and Pain," iu Rims. Shrank P}u'luscpIxy.
8. In he above I follow A. C. Lloyd, "Emoryn andDecxsizon inStaciecPsychologyy"
in john M. Rio (ed.), The Suzann (Berkeley Calif; Uuiversiry of`Cali£brnia Press. 1978).
Compare he summary by A. A. Long, Hellcrznlwric Plrilnscphy (NewYcrk:Sharks Scribe
ncr’s Sons, 1974), pp. 206-207:
The Smile sage is free [mm all passim. Anger,:micaq supidicydxcd, clarion,rocse andSanm
ilm enema emuaicns are all nhsem &¤m hn:deposedn. He docs nu:mugm plenum as
scnuuhing good, nor pain as snmedning evil ..,. The Sic nee is nun insensitive cc painful
or pleasurable sermons, beau: zany do am: "m¤~¢ hiSamul exc¤sive1y" He is impassive r<>—
wards u1¤m.Bu: he is nm mziwlyimpassivee ,... His dispusixiun is chmomizud by "g¤¤d
Maria¤| smcs." \XI¤ll-wishing. wishingrainuzhu man good zhnip lbr his szk=;j, rejoic
ing in vinous minus, a u1nqui.\ Fe, a guck ccnscicncu 4 . . undo "wzri¤es," xummhkids
inclimdun.
Augustine himself, in various scattered passages, uses the classic Sic concept of
pnrlmx. He speaks, kb axampk, ¤f"rhazSaare which the Greeks callpawls, whence our
Wm. passion is derived;pn1Ivos, and passion, being a motion Carlene mind agxinsz reason"
(City ¤y'CmIVllI, 16), Using this deE¤iri¤n, one would have to express Augusxin1c‘s in—
rcxpmrarion of zhc Sic position as rear such n perturbing "plxen¤mc¤1¤n" as fear or
griefmigh: or milmc um, in a given case, be a pnrlwx. lr would be San if cverrhrew the
rule n/f reason in lm person experiencing is; uclnerwise in would Nan: hc. And than or
say lm nh: wise person is cluracrerxzed by apathy would he m say dm such perturb
ing“phnmuu" as {ca: and gricfwculd nor {uucrion in him as passions; ir wLd.ld nm
g beau rue my mlm Hz: never experiences xhcsu.
9, This is xlne [hem of chapter 15, "The Lost Fumref in Peru Br¤wn’s superbi bi
t agraphy, Axqnxiinu qffhppo (London: Faber Bc Faber, 1967). Consider especially [his
passage on p. 156:
Augustine is n mm who has xenlixed rlmz he was doomed no remain incnmplere, in his press
lm Wilma he wished for muss: mdemlwould never hc more rlmu n I
unzexmeuae,nighmap:.posrpcuedornHun!resolutionOttawa|Irensxmnsfarbyname}hisFe.Anyonewhoulmnghm oh
crevasse, he fez, was either m¤mily obtuse or n dncrrixmire. All nmoma could do was ro "y:¤m"
for lm abbess perfusion, rue feel is loss immensely,so pin: for nor ,... This marks uh: end oh
lung-esmblished classical idsnl of pcrlkcrionz Augusnnc would never achieve he concern
zed rmnquilky of zhc superman hum sill gaze ohm err us from mm: xuomics in Clxrimun
churls and {mm dm sum: n/f pang sages.
10. Thus we sc. in Augusrinc, and in all those who accept with "Augurs:ini:m scar
nooses" he biblical injunction so love one neighbor as nne‘s sc1£ the seed nfrlm
plan: welch eventually blosscnwd into the reccgniriun ofnmural human rights, u l~»los—
mm whiclx, as Ir. has gone xc send, has rented roc destroy that sense oi`hunmn soldiery
{mm which Ir. sprang,
11. This whole line of inrcrprcmrion is confirmed, Ijudgc, by a Fascinating and, Rae
muss knifes, nmnislning and even offensive, passage iq Augusrinds OfTrnc Rvlggivn, wrier—
f wren as virally roc same mime as rhea Cnnyizxinnzsz
Only Len: is ¤vcrc0m¢ wlm has xvhnx he love: smrclxul from him by his adversary. He who
loves only flux cannot he searched hum him is indubitably nncmxqueml.w|e. . . 4 He mmm:
Ins: hex: ncighb¤u1·\vI\¤u1 I1: ovcs as lximmli for 11: duns um uvccvcn in himsclftlnc things
char appear or rah: eyes or co any order bodily seem:. So he has inward fellowship wire him
wh o m h e lo ve s a s h im scltj
The Mlle cflcvbe; is dm: one should wish his {mend roc have all rah: good thin; he xvnuu
to have hims¤lf,and should nc: wish dw evils roBethell his friendwhenceh hc wishes rc avoid
l¤ im sel£ He sh o wsirh i: b en ev o len ce to ward s all m m .... {fau m n wm : to ln v cran ed wr n o t
as himself but as 1 leas: ofbnxden, or as the baths, or as A Andy or grumbles bird, rlmr is
for some mmpoml pleasure or ndvmumgc he hoped m derive, he muss: serve nurd an um bum,
ha: is much wars:, a foul and d:csm.l:vicunannilm I1: docs uc:Louv:c.h.emann as a man
ought to bcd lvcd ....
M:m is nurd m bcd loved by um even ns bmthms afncr the flesh nor: loved, nor mm, or wives,
or kinsfolk, our relatives, or fellow cairns. For such lvc is:mpurn1.V/c should have no such
 142 Mmm m»1mm;g¤ SWW LM H3
cum. as me condngml upon high and dm`], Um mmm had remained in ¤b¢di_ ‘orexiswire Qur félynws eiuminewsImoo nur perfected exiimnce.Burrfsome sowls uw?
cnc: no he cnumzandmenxs ¤FG¤d md an me 1-;km¤; omg, img: __Accradmm theelnsr from Gods abxrhng Kmgdcm, than zh: alisence offingncf mxdzlxe presence on y o
I lm namse1m11s us mk m um ¤¤g.m1 mupmm mm,ba¤1s us mm cam: mmm me ;mawhwh is r¤ ¤h¤¤¤¤r¤r¤Z¤ ¤¤¤ ¤¢¤V¢¤¤=d ¤>¤¤¤¤=¤¤=- ¤¤¤ b= ¤¤*¤°V¢d °¤*¥ by 1**** °Y
reaches :h¤ru¤ me is 6: for nh: kingdo ¤fG¤d unless he hm; mm mud relaziwship:. ‘ awareness by rlmsc who are xqoicing of chow who are lost.
Lu no one mink dm i:in11um:\nit is nxnzciulmumu mime a man bow: he is your son 19. An impm-mn: and highly inflneminl bunk in biblical studies has been Ham»
and Nam hmm he is a um., Nam ax, Nam so me [rm. in mm Wm. twang m G¤¤1-,uu¤ m hm HMOhc1_ The1->myIm; (New York; Harper B: Row, 1962CSClwinnerguw dw
Imo um ·V'=*¢*· ʻ=='·¤·¤ W v¤·*¤=*i-
K-= M =¤1M¢ Wim *¤V¤ *¤·=¤=¤¤i=>· W M *==*= ¤=mv<>·¤1¤='=¤*¤··$*¤*¤=¤·L¤==¤-··¤¤¤v= · Fm mamas¤.emseg nm 1·m.m ¤.1=mh»am. m slypmw Ay c¤.1;,4.. Om vm. ʻ
ʼ··= ¤¤*¤¤¤>¤·¤M *=*··*¤¤' N¤ ¤¤= 5* **5 M ¤·ʻ·¤· M M ·=* *=**~*···=·= ¤* =¤v·*=*¤¤ =>f ='== L mu.! ¤m,,m (Pnlanmpmnz Form pim, am). un hmm m¤1m1$[..4¤c$ md °*i
¥"?ʻ °“' ` °""ʼlʼ “ “`““ʻW"°“"°ʻ ʻ°“°ʻ ?"°““ʻ " "“"ʻ°“°““"ʻ ʻ° '€"ʼ° €"““fʻ *"ʻ“ “""“" * Sysmmuc ;1.w1°gy as ncmh 1<am.ma, r:.w1.w,· .y me nm. 4 can (1u¤hm¤.m, vn.: l ʻ}Fʻ"ʻ 1 ʻ°ʼ“" “ʻ“°*°dʻ“" "°°"°'"°"ʻ'°"“ ʻ“ *"ʻ "°'*"ʼ°“ʼ “"
Q? T,fifth j ?S ʻ ʻ wQ··g" jah,. Kmapm, wsa), Ans.; in umnmSamsqpprm (v1.x1¤d¤1pna¤; 1=¤m=$s “dʻʻ”ʻ"ʻ
§hy;hJ;l§f“fheQf“Q;_jfljH:Qj§lQM¤;ihgnm IM mhamg but mt mm] me vim, 4A975An impmm qmvam Umm dxscufsaoq iSDKbcarotma ang. xiLyg¤21¤y,
{mum °t·G0dymade acmrdjngm his image? _'__ ]mMV=rimpmPu.ml.v= mgh['Wh0_ A4 7hn 1uvp.ymi»1e God (Cammbndgej Cnmbndge Qnrnversnry Press, IJZ6). ln T; mon zo
we, du, hi, Md. yo", ;,_ Nam ,,,,1), dm, not mw mm who i,u;m, h;m_ bum also ,,,,5 ' surveying me discussions aftinmng G¤d‘s passnbnhry by a number ¤{§¤{g1s{x theolo
hem wash Hz gxeuzm possible kindness and good wil1.Bu: he dm; Nam mud in any need ’ g-ians in du: firsquirecr ufrhis cemuzyMolzy suxyeysache long rradmou Machns—
ugh :hem.\X/lm-he loves m hem he lumseif numplemly and up-{Body p¤ssm¤s.S¤ when a V mu zheuloguy nf divine impussibiliry from ins beginnings. Alsoaveexy useful isrHz xe
man loves us nughhnuz as himself he is Nam envious of-him any more Shane he is envious cm; book by Rippled E, Cm;1_ Divine Iu»p.wsxibiIi¢)· (Cambridge: C.nmbri•\g€
ofhimse1€ He gives him such help as h¤ can asifh: were he1pinghims¤!£Bu: he dm: nu: ¤ U“;V¤,s;[y gangs 1936)
new mm any more man en us unseen. en mesa roc um:. by ckeavmg or whom he
20, jargon Mauling, The Crncfud Gnu (Nc\vY0f}<: Harper 5: Room 1981)::Md. The
is happy No on: can mk: God [mm him. Hz, hen, is muss: null and seminally an unchain Tidily and rave lG:whom (Gnaw York: Harper 64 Row, 1981).
quarrel man who cloves no God, (xiv;. 86-xlvii, 90; muss. by j. H. S. Burleigh [Chicago:
Henry Regnury Cn., 1959]) 21, Quoted m Muzlcy, pp. 165466. Compare these passages from Haushomc:
"Theca lover is not merely he one who unwavcriugly understands and tries to help; the
In his Rctruzrium Augusdnc discusses this passage and says char he should not have lover is-just as emplxaricully the cnc who Macs unto himself Hz: v.xryingjoys and sm.
said,"arc temporal r¤1adc>nships"ifr forcbcar: had done chis, we their descendants rows of others. and whose own happiness is capable ugh altcmiun rhevehy . . . Love is
would never have been bum and Gcdk company of roc clear would not have been joy in the joy (actual or expected) ufanothcr, cmd sorrow in he sorrow ¤fan¤rher"
filled up. So hazing is inappropriate, And of course in roc rcpt I have xm: inzerprezed (Man? Wise nigh` Gnu [New York: Harper 84 Bros.., 1941], pp. 111, 116). "Syxupmrlxezic
Augusrinc as proposing "harked," The thing remarkable about theca Retraatiom passage, dependence is n sign cf. excellence and xwxes with every ascent in hrs scale offing.
for my purposes, is than Augusrinc docs not rancor he doctrine uflove expounded in joy calls (our sympathetic joy sorrow For sympathetic s¤rmxv,ns theMacs: cxccllcmops
this passage Room Oj7F·u»: Religion. sidle forms of response no xhcse stares. The cmmcm form of sympurluenc dependence
12. john M. Lillian, "The Sic Cancer of Dcmcl1men:"injchn M. Rise (c.d.,), Th: can only apply to deity for this form cannot he less can an cnxniscinnc sympathy
Sticks (Bcxkclcy Cn|i£: University of California Press, 1978), pp. 26l—262, which depends upon and is exactly colored by every nuance of-joy cr. screw any
13. Ricer, ibid., p. 264. where in lm world" (The Dim: RcIn1iuiry.·ASuzyl Cmxmpnou ¤y'Cm/ [Naw Haven:
14. Risk, ibid., p. 263. Yule University Press, 1964], p. 48).
15, Ricer, ibid., p, 264, 22. See, for exzuuple, Inseam in Pruxlogion B:
16. Ricer, ibid., p. 265,
Haw Nat Thou nor cinch painful and impassible? For if Thou our: impassible, Thou do: not
I7, A Plurinian would do the same. Sec chaprcr 12: "Th: Self and Or.hcrs" in suffer with um; i{Th.u dust nutsufferz with man, Thy hem is mx wrerclnzd bychumps—
_], M. Ricer, Plcrinns: Thai Rued sea Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, sion with zhc xvrczchcd, welch 1s roc nucaning nfbcing §Orrinl. Bur v|Thecau are umpinchl,
1 967) . whence can rah: wretched pin so Mx: cmnfcrr? How zhcn nor: Thou. mull Nan Thou um
18. Augusdnc saw that ifthc bliss of our pczféctcd existence is to be cndrclyuml pitiful, Lord, except: that Thou Mx pitiful in rcspncr of use, and non in respect ¤t`Thysclf?
Lloyd. xegrcr w111 have ca be limimmd by forgetfulness. Len is perfected cxisrcncc. ch: Truly The Nat sc. in wasp ¤!‘ mnAling, Md. Nanunc in wspecz nf Thim:4 For when Thou
soul will enjoy "an cvcrlnsxing pleasure of ezernnljcys. forgetful of faults, forgetful cf. lacquers upon us in our wrezclxcdmss we feel me cflbcc ¤|‘ Thy pity Thou Fucks: nor zinc: ufr
punisluuenrs, but not Lhcrcforc so {crgerqul offer deliverance, than she be ungrateful Lo {et, And rhereihn: Thou our: pitiful. because Thou snvcsc lxc \vr¢rcl1cdNandsparsr rh: sm»
her deliver" (City nigh' Gnu XXII, 30). There is another issue in the region which, so nets who heeling to Thee; and Than Nat not pinwheel, BCC's: Than nor: whited by no fcl
far ns I know Augustine docs not consider. Pmsumzbly ch: solidarity in which w: axe l¤\vsuitring in (hm v•·1:ct::hedn::ss.
144 Mrhalux Wnlrmmgjf Szghriqq Love 145

And Aquinas in Summon rhcalugiac I, 19, a. 11, reps: 33. Lam the principle of perkcrion would be vinlued: "If. . . he principal ubjecn
of the divine will be usher Shane he divine essence, in will fellow char rehang xs some
When cumin human pn»i¤us are prediemd nf dm Gndhend meraphnrimllyg chi; ie dm-m thing higher (Hanna he divine will moving ir.The cnnrizry Fe [his is Appamnn [mm ha;
because nfa hkencss m he Elm Hence ashingdum is in ua ¤ sign ofsome pminn iSAsig has been s:Ned" S:C I, 74, 3.
knifed mcsaplucrically in God under nh: um: of Nihau passion. Thus with us is is usual f¤r 34. And always, in addition, zhcrc was 1hL: Polonium rougher hauling medieval or
an angry man no punish, so dm punishmem becomes an expression ¤f anger.Thiefe Qecnions on God creazionz "TLC . . . which docs um am to generate suffices more
punishmem imelfis gigufied which auger, when anger is mxihured an Gnu. no vizselfin beauty; bur than which desires rue mace wmmcs or emu bury because uh
lack and is nurd self-sulhcixnr" Plcrinus, Emends III, 5. 1.
23. Quoted in Muzlcy, p. 105.
24. Ibid.,p. 106.
35, In ST I, 20, a. 2. rasp.,Aquinas’ axgumcm would seem ro run jusr a bk differ
Emily: God wills rah: isc:ncc nfall things: and since arhinok existence is good,Gund
25. Ibid.,p.106—l07.
wills the existence of all Lungs. Bur no love smooching is no will good me lm change.
26, William Lyons, Ematirm (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980).
Hence God loves all things, This is the sexier: "G¤d loves all exisringrhinop. For all ex—
27. Enneads VI, viii, 17.
28. In "Good Everlasting" in Orlcbeke & Smedcs, Gad and Ah: Good (Gunned siring rhinos, in so far as hey exist, en good. since he existence oaf zing is itself
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans Publ. Cc., 1975), I discussed he issue of whether God is good; and likewise, wlmever perfection it possesses. Now Ir. has been shown above . . .
lm God will is the cause of all rhingx. Ic muss needs biz, rlxerefore, as Ir. xs willed by
eternal and iuxmurablc. Alvin Planting, in Doe: Gnu Have a Nature? (Milwaukee,
Gnu. To every existing change, hen, God wills some good. Hence¤,since ro love anyrhing
Wis; Masquer University Press, 1980) has discussed another dimension oft Lc is nothing else rhino w will good roc dm thing, in is mzmidfac zhnr God loves cveryrlning
rind concept of G¤dNamcly. chc contention that God has no properties, in pax gar cxisrs."
titular, no nature. 36, Sn when Aquinas speaks ¤fG¤d’s many (nnixcrlwniinl, he has no choice beaur ro
294 john of Damascus, Exposition qzhe Orthodox Exam I, 8; nanslacion in Vol. 9 of mm Ir. Imo macro benevolence. "Marcy is especially or be auriburcd to God, provided
Nizcnc and Past-Mcnnc Fathers, Second Series, c.d.. such}` and Ace (Grand Rapids, Ir. he considered in is catch, bun nor as an nffecrioxmc passion. In proof of which Ir.
Niche.:.Ecrdmans Publ. Co., 1983), must be observed than a person is said no be marching [pvnixurizm] as being, so to speak.
As to what he means by "p:ti¤n,"]0l\n says this in lbcpnsirivn Il, 22: smxoxvful err heart [nmwnun wry]; in cthcr words, as being zaffccncd with wrmxv an the
Passion is a sensible acrimony nfuhc appezirive faculryq depending on she pxcscnmicn so he misery ofanorher as though Ir. were his own. Hence Ir. follows than he cnxdeamrs so ids
mind nfsmnmlmng g¤¤d or had. Or in mlm wombpinn is an kmioml andviry nfdne peel the misery ofzhis other, as fit were his: and this is rah: eflbcr ufmercy To sorrow
mull, resulting from roc Nora of something good or bad. For due notion n/f summoning rherefarc. over the misery ofuxhus docs nc: belong co Gad; bur Ir. dans moss: properly
good result in dusk:. and due nmicn ugh wmcnhing had rcsulzs in anger. Bu: psmiun can belong zoo Him or dispel blur misery wherever be xhc efface: we call misery" (STI. 21,
sidzred as z class, can xs, passion in genial, is d¤Gned as Amaven-n: in oneching mused a. 3, reps).
by another. 37. For a full considemnion offer topic, rehire i> an argument ufCharles Hmshome
which would have roc be considered. He argues lm Gods bmuwleunvumsr irsclfbc urn—
30. My carillons from the Summa contra Ccmilcx (5:C) are from hrs Pegs mnslaticn dcrsroad as a shudderng love—¤r srricrly speaking, as u love that yields sullkxing. For God
(Noter Dame, Ind.: University of None Dame Press, 1975). in his benevolence wants us human creatures to be hnppyYe1 sc. often they uc nun,
3I. Aquinas uses theca perfection argument more cxphcinly in Summa Tlxealagiae (S7) God suffers, rhino from hrs frusrmion of his bench}car imennon. This, of course, is
I, 20, al 1, ad 2. In is inremsrjng cc um rah: one fagu:Inak reasons for zagrding summering dm zhc radiance would never have gmngedz that God'; beuevolenr mum
our human emotions as pax; of "cur present in6rmicy" is that he being acted upon iron could be frusrmed. Tlxmlngims, says Hanslmme,
which they involve is something from which we should look toward no being dcliv
creed in our pcrfccrcd cxmccc: "Wc arc cfrcn uvcrprcsscd by our emotions. A land- s , . . 4 . 4 . , . . . sought to merman a dxsrmcumn between lave as deem:. wand an element ofpossnblc pun bluff hall huh]I F·
ere em: scanty may mauve us: yet awe weep wetter we w1or no. or we . _ _ _ _ , _ , , ,, nor lm; m nh: sell] and love as purely nlmusuc benevolence; or gum bowed menus
h h 1 [b h d Ch _[H h d HG l ʻ“ ' °“ʻ °“ʼ ʻ“"ʻ"@_"ʻ ʻf"“ʻ% “ʻ ʼ° ʻ “°ʻ ""· °' ° “ " ʻ“ '“ʻ“Y ʻ ` j and $pm¤m11m,m» and ugnpr .... Bm¤v¤1¢¤c¢ is dcsirc rm thc welfare cforlwrs. ..
selffmnn Hrs van power (Cry GMXN 9).
II I 32- CC Sri? I. 68. 3r in knvwms Hrs =¤¤¤¤¤=.Gad k¤¤w¤ ¤=h¤r rhmss m ¤h= =¤m¢ j mg dexire fm m1¤m·g¤¤.1,[1...lss anribured m cmu. Bm um anamso my as um .m..$
Wav M an ¤iT¢¢¤is ¤¤w¤ ¤h¤¤¤z1¤ ¤ k¤¤w\¢d;¤ ¤¤” ¤h= ¢¤¤¤¤· By kmwing hi¤ =sS=¤¤=. Q p;·¤s¤1 upenamcg fm mm; ¤r mpapm upon the rwppanm or mum 4.,. L.mn..a
thexcfcn, God knows all things no which his causality ex:e:nds."And S:G 1,70, 2: "G0d ' deceive dm: dm slave; nigh be fn.: was Nam lm desire lcc:•us: ir was spirima],¤rmL spu
knows thing: not by meaning anything from them, bur, rather, by exercising His ` animal because in was de;i¤»¤1m im wish, mpuldeqfbailw puiqhuly rI1.mpp¤i¤ml wlmppxly
manny an m¤m.·· m!HM¤·#.·-·
 Tn hold zhaz Gnu "wills" ex pmpuses human welfare. bur is absolutely unmated by the
rcalimion or non-rcaliznuon of his or rear portion of roc purposed goal (due, for insrzncc,
so human sins or umbnumm use nftke 1l1),s4:cmsjusr nan-sense.
Does this nom inzmduue the mgedy ol'um"ulG11ed denim imc God? Yes. in doeskins lm. • (Q .
(Charles Hamhoxnc, Muncie Wxfun qf Gnu [New York: Harper & Bmslnrs, 1941], pp. IIS,
135, 294)

Compare Fmrheim, in S¤@ring q/Cvd,p, 134: "In terms ofjeremiah 45, we need to Augustincʼs Gricié
speak in some sense of a aempomry failure in ha: God has attempted no do in who
w-Id. Because of chis, ch: mummers should Lake up a lamenwdon for God as wc1l.` Paul Helm
38. "Love [Eros] is an nczivicy of soul reaching ow; her good? says Platoons in En
ueuziv Ill, 5, 4. Augusninc would agree. His argument is rear the change ofrhis world do
Nam have sumcienc good no Hz woxch reaching au: after-—or snriczly the good they have
dues Nam outweigh ch: grief zhcy cause sufHcicndy cu ma: ice worth reaching our aft
ex hem.
39. Richard Swinburne, The Exmenm gf Gad (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1979), p. 192.
·% his Cmgfusiuns Augustine provideswhoa: seems ar firs: inspection ro berawo
contesting accmnms of grief One of these, grief at the death fan unnamed
friend, occumzd before hc became n Christian; the other, the death of his
ma, mer, In this short chapter I shall uuempr or give an account of rhesus
gricié, using this account co defend Augustineagainstr the charge dm he
though: that in was a Chrisrianfs duty or be like God by seeking he eliminate
rind offal grime.

T H E G RIE FS

During he period when he was 21 Manatee Augustine recounts she devastate

ing sense floss rl-mar the death cf. friend caused him, He reels us than he had
grown up with this person, though hen was not yet than his Mend, fm- they had
been Hinds for scarcely a year when he dicd.A11d even though Hinds "Ir. was
less than true &iendsl1ip which is not possible unless you bond together chose
who cleave to one another by the love which ‘is poured imo our hear: by the
Holy Spirit who is given to us."" The paradigm of Eiandship is Christian
Gieudship, and this was not a case of such. Augustine tells us that when they
were younger he had turned the man away Room Christianity, and. following
his death, “my soul could not endure m bc without him"ThesSanrcpsom: 0F
the words that he used to express his grief av. the loss.

"Criefdnrkcnxcd my heart" (Lam. 5:17). Everything on which I seer my gaze

was dnrh. My hometown became :4 mmm: or me; my &:herE house u
strange world of unhappiness; all lm I had shared with him was wimhcur