• 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 abodeof misery. All that we had done together was now a grim ordeal withouthim. 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 themand they could no longer whisper to rne."Heie he comes“ as rhey wouldhave 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 Ifound 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 attractedI 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 expreened torments similar to those Augustine here describes, the passage alsohas the mysteriously baleen quality of expressing with delicate precision thegrief they themselves have felt. All the places and all the objects than once whizzpeered "icier he corner" or "icier she comes" have lost their voice and fallenachingly mute.

It is a rough jolt, to discover that at those very points in his life where weGnu Augustine most appealing, he, from the time of his conversion onward,found himself thoroughly disgusting. His reason for exposing his grief was toshare with his readers his confession to God of the senselessness and sinfulnessoaf love so intense for a being so fragile that its destruction could cause suchgrie£ "Why do Ialk ofrhese things?" he asks. And he answers. "Ir is time toconfess, 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 cuhis 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 uvcrduwedin rem if I had no: made a moon; eftbn of will and seemed an Hmm uscha: mho: rem dried in my eyes, Wham a zmible snuggle in was ox hold hemback! As she bmrhed lm man, me boy Adeodazus Ben us wail aloud andonly ceased his cries when we aLl checked him. I, woo, fell: ha: I waned nocry 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 hishank desire they had taken the place of his &i<:Ned" (Confessions N 4). In hisreminiscences he asked why that was so, "why tears are sweet to the sorrowful.""1-[ow . . . can it be than Cherie is sweetness in he EO: we pluck from thebirch 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 "{ughragainst the wave formw" Cushions IX, 12).

His snuggle bf: selfrcontml was not successful. He rap char attire theburial, as he lay in bed thinking of his devoted mother, "de tears which I hadbeen 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 itwho will .... And if he finds that I sinned by weeping for my mother, even ifugly 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, isno: so much the sin of weeping of: the death of his mother as the sin ofwhich that weeping was a sign. "I was," says Augustine, "gui1ry ugh muchworldly 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 backtears-usually because l-my rhino in unbecoming to cry; seldom because heythink in sinful. Bu; me is he person who believes [ha even rope! grief uponthe death of a friend or une’s mother is co have bumogulcy of mu muchworldly aH`ecricm4 The msnmlicy expressed nurd only shapes Auguscinek view ofthe proper place of m-mw and suH`m-img in human life; ice also contributes tohis conviction rear in God there is no sorrow or suffering. God life is a lifeRec. of sorrow——indeed, a lFefiee of upsetting emotions in gencn1-,a lif: {reeugh passions, a life of apathy untouched by suffering, chamcrerizsd only by

swam Lmm 109steady 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 enjoyednear 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 traditionthink 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 ora11uther>t0 the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. And even those whoread while running cannot Fail or notice that God is there pictured as one whous{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 mimelousily in history; if they rcmaxin within the Christian tmdition, they "bracket"that p.m. of hrs biblical narrative and picky:. But "bracketing" did not beginwith the Enlightenment. Ir was practiced apically by he church hthcrs, on allthe passages which spoke: of the passions and the suffering of God. In this parper I wish roc dig down to the roots of this practice; and having um: rim. togo 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 suftéringin the life of God, For it was true of Augustine, as Ir. was of most othcxs in thetradiri0n,Th.:1r his reflections urn the p1uce§fe1u0ci¤ns and suflkring in Godklife were merely a component within his more compmhcusivc reflections onthe 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 suffering in human experience.

Augusrinc thrones his thought within roc cudaeumnistic cmdizion ¤i :111tiquity We an: all in search of lumpiness—l¤y which Augustine and the otherancients did not mean a life in which happiness outweighs gricfand coon buta life from which grinfand mum have been as: ¤uc—a life ot'unincm·rupredbliss. Furthermore, Augusriue aligns himself with hrs Platonic tradition in hisconviction that once love, 0ne’seems, is theundoneml determinant oFeckhznppinssc. Augusrinc never imagined that a human being could root out OEMsfrom his existence} Incomplete beings that we are, we inescapably long tar fullLlmcm. The challenge, accordingly is m choose objects for 011:% lcv: suchthat happiness ensues.

Now Ir. was as obvious m Augustine as it is to all of us that gxinf Cumminswhen 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 dashof his friend, "[ lived in misery like every man whose soul is tethered by thelove of change; ha: cannon las: and hen is agmuized co lose hem 4..4 The griefI felt for the loss of my friend had struck so easily into my inmost hear: simply because I had poured cur my sou] upon him,1ikc wane: upon sand, lavinga man who was mortal as though he were never to die" (Cargfecsions HL 6; HL8). The cure is to detach ¤nc’s1¤vs Eom such nlgjccts and to attach it to something immutable and indestructible. Fox Augustine. the only candidate wasGod. "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 mightforwardly If Ir. is happiness and res: for your soul that you desire—and whodoes Nat?—th:n fix yum- love on the eternal inwnumhle God. Addressing hisNan soul and thereby all others as well Augustine says: "[In God] is the placeofpcacc that cannot bcd disturbed, and he will cut withhold himself&¤1·n yourlove 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 willbe made to thrive again, All your sickness will bcd eh]Ed" (Confusion: IV] 11).

Par: ofwhsc nbsrruccs our detachment from the world and accachmen: rocGnu is illusion as to where lumpiness can be found. Much 0i Augustiue`s candcavor iu his early writings was devoted co pmetmring his readers veil ¤(i1lu—sions. Bu: z striking fiancee ofAugusrines rh¤ughr—hcra he departs decisivelyOhm he Plane :midin——ishis ernvierion dm illumination isnourishiciemco redirect love. Though we may knave that only in loving God is abiding happines an be f`¤und,ycc the beauties of the world sink theirradons so deep intoour souls cha: only by he glom ugh God and the moss: agonizing of strugglescan we break loose, Nowhere is this anti—Plat¤nic point made more vividly inAugustness writings than in the brilliant description of his experience in thegardcnjusc before his conversion:

I new [fund myself driven by the roomily m my broncos: m cake remming in hisgarden, where no one could inzenupz char Ecru: snug. in which I wasmy own conresxam, until in canes cc ics conclusion .... I was franc, overcome by violent anger wire xnyselffox nor accepzmg your will and embering in your cavean:.Ye: in my bones I knewarhs: chis was what I oughtno doll In my hem of-hems I poised in no me skies. And cc mach chis goalI needed no charm: or ship. I need nor even walk as far as I had come fromhrs 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 zesclurcand 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 allthis 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: andcould have don: as once .... My lower inscincks, which had zakcn Gnu holdoffice, were manger can rah: higher, which were umricd. And rah: close Ium: or roc mumcnr which was so mark ch: gram clung: in me, hrs moreI shank from my purpose; in nuxcly Itch me hanging in suspense, (Caughtxim VIII, $:VIII, 11)

I sees no reason or interpret Augusdne as opposed to all enjoyment ofearthly 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 "Lermy 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 belike glue co bind my soul rue [hem" (Cw;kiss{1.< N 10). To exogamy he mare ofkiwi Rue: is acceptable provided that ouch enjoyment is not such hrs: if iceproves unacmimble, one griaves.'1'huugl1 we must roc love the world, we mayenjoy 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 speakj. 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 Augusting, 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—Calvinsturging rah wc delight in our acts of social obedience nor an arch-Orthodoxurging that we delight in our celebmrion of ha liturgy He is urging rlmr wcdelight in the experience of he presence n/f God. It was [hc prcscncc of hisl`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 God: presence. Augustine knew ofchat swccmess. Looking out Rum zu window into the courtyard of a house in Oust, he was discoursing with hismother, shortly before her death,about G0d,"And while we spoke oft enteral YX/isdcm,” hc says,Ioniang for it and strqiniug for it with all ah-: strengthof 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 saintsthrough 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 ofthe soul, and in that niglnc, they grieve. God "wig not withhold himself EOMyour love unless you wichlmld your love from lm," says Augustine (ConfusionsN 11). Many of he Mac mystics would disagree. But in any case, if humanicy`s greatest lovers of God find their love plunging hem Mia grief (hen onemmm recommend turning came love m God as he way rue eliminate griefQom 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 griefBu; the grief he had in mind is nor that of which I have us: spoken, that ofme lover of Gnu grieving because Gnu hides himse1£ Ic was cha: of the loverof God grieving because her own love proves weak and inczmscanz. The exspoons Augustine urged roc the grief which ensues upon change and decay inhe abject; we love is char we demch ourselves Gum such nhjeeus and machourselves to God in whom there is no shadow of numbing, Bur this newly orenter 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 onereligious character—¤var these pm-sisnenc habirs ofthe asn that one nowreccgmzes as sm.

Pronxinem in the ethical philosophy of middle and late antiquity werediscussions over the proper place of emotions in life. In chose discussions, theSame 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 metonal coloring cu one experience. They incised, on the conn-r; than in sucha life there would he various no11»p¤ruu*bing emotions which they called eupmhciai. They regularly cited three of rhesezjoy wishfulness, and caution. Theirthough: was near he ideal fife,:he happy fife,is he life of he wise poem—¤fthe person who, by virtue of directing his life by reason, is a person whosecharacter and imcmicm are morally vinous. To make Ir. clear char, in duejudgment, hrs any thing good in itself is normal good, they typically refusedeven 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, willwish for the ccnrinuarion of that status, and will he watchful for what threaten is.

The Smiles am on co say though, rah he sage would be wittierpalm, Winton passion. Ha would he apishs,apachen. His condition wouldbe that of apathzia——apatlm impassibilim passionlsssness. What did theymean?

In the interpretation which Hz offers 0{rehire position, Augustine cakes upenthouse to biz: simply a perturbing, upsetting emotion such as {ear, grief] and ccsassy. He does not incorporate into his concept cfpnilws any theory as to therightness or xvrongness of such emurions. And he was ugh hrs opinion than, inspice 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 lifeY 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 substancetie difference Berwyn chew two positions, Augusrimi_ cited an anecdote Room

` Lulus Gullies. Galls was once err sac wire a famous Stoic when a storm cameup and the Stoic became pale wilt {car ugh slnipwmék. Aéerathc storm hadpassed, Gullies courteously asked the Stoic why he h;u§ become: fczwlhl. Thereupon he Scion pulled our n book of Epiczems and,P¤iured co a passage inwhich the pioneer was made that

When these impressions are mud: by alarming and fm·mie|alsl¤ nbjeeu, irmuss needs be dour [hey move me soul even niche wise um, San lm for nId he zombies wish {hue, or is depressed by sadness, rheas impressions Nanricipmng he work oh-e.1s¤u md selflmnrrol; bur [his dues not implylmrhe 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 diffcrcnccbczwccn rah: mind oft wise man and dm oft fool, du: due [ays mindyields to rocs passions and consents or them, while lm of [he wise man,though ice cannot help being invaded by them, yen mains wire unshakenErnmcss 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 rsmain 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 theyj 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 cullhis 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 screamedhis 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 wouldprobably also have turned pals EOM fear over he threat co ice.

Bur if hi; is what he Scones em, hen, says Augustine, all parties agreethat though the wise person may well experience such passions as fear andgrief he will not allow hem co of;-Chmn he rule of reason in his life-willnot :¤ll<>w them ro damage his virtue. Though the wiseemun may no: be freeqfpnssions, he will be Gem chem. Though hey may bow}! him, he will notbe mlyect roc them; they will not indigence his intentions and judgments. Ic is inthan sense them: he sage is characterized by apn1hai¤—by apathy; passionlessnsss,in1passibi1icy*

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 Smics actually said can the proper place of enmticms in life but ha; Augustineinrerprecsd hem as saying. Nonetheless Ir. is worth observing that probablyAugustine has described a lace, nonstandard vcxsion of Sminism.’ For it isclear that he founding fathers ofSroicism, Zen and Chrysippus, said that apathos is "an excessive impulse? "a ‘diseass’ which affects our basic impuIs¤s,""an irrational movement of the souk," "a¤ unnatural movement ofc.h.e soulwhich is mnnmy co :Esc>n," etc. And by such sayings they mean: co implyamong 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 (oridemical which) ermneousjudgmcms ofevaluaved fact that lead to (cr. are) Ir.rational feelings and excessive impulses. Bm if his is one`s understanding ofa pathos, hen obviously one will hold char passions will in no form whamever appear in the life oft Hilly wise person. And that in fact is what themainline Stoics claimed when they said char the wise person will be champcoursed by apazhzia.

In principle he question remains open, however, whether all emotionaldisrurbancewxvith Fear, grief] and ecstasy as prime cx;¤mp1es—¤ze passion: onthis concept ¤(passon. Ir is clear cha: che classic Sroics though: [heyewxc. Onegrieves, 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, S0too, one fears ha: one evaluates as an evil chrcamning but for he sage, whois steady in virtue,rl-mrc narc no threatening evils. And one goes into ecstasy oversomething 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 whichis the only change good for him, namely his own Ronal chazacrer, is entirely ofhis own making. Ir was, chess, he conrencion ugh classic Swiss than as a macet: 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 wasj (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 needg not enter. However, a decision on fremninology js necessary Ir will be Car andS 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 anQ 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 arecountry 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 Augustinej 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 beyondI 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 patheatric: If "same, with a vanity nmnsrrcus in propurrim to its rarity have be

§ ccmcDunmored ofthemselvess becausehey can be srinuulared and excited byI 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. Shewill 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 renouncesuch 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. Such1 :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 intentionsQ 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 liesin 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 whyhe is angry; not whether he is sad, but what is he: course of his sadness; not

shell7%ri·w I-M 117116 Num. mmmdiwhether 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 mdaanmniscic ideal of antiquity begins to crake and crack before our eyes.Though we me to lung fm- eudaenmnia, says Augustine, it would be wrong inthis life to pursue Ir.

Now moss: certainly Hz Stoics did not recommend the culcivarion ufpassion in the life of the non-sage, nor even in he life oft person a>vnnzirzz·d tobecoming 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 rheaown way what Augustine here h¤1ds.Augusine has argued that eros must bezoomed 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 ofem:.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 easelyon ics axis. And so we grieve&—grieve overanar being able toatum right mund.We grieve over our pmsiscenr failure ca achieve he project ofreoriencating ourlove? Now roc Scions said that the sage would both rejoice over his mml pepfaction and be wary of he ccnxpmrions than lie in way:. But, having said char, itis hard to see what grounds racy could have for resisting admiring he properet ot rqriq‘¤ver muralpilurc by cha person struggling to become a sage. For suchan 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 Augustinestood in the Plasmic carrion of seeing happiness as lying in the sarisihcrionusers while the Stoics saw happiness as lying in the elirnination office: and theachievement oft pmjecz offing a fully narwal ssl£Yec grief overen’s moralFailure seems as appropriate in the Scion universe as dues grief over came reelpious failure in he Augustinian.

I: is in what Augustine wen: on co say next that he burst outside not onlywhat any Stoic said but what any Sic mulled possibly have said—indccd, whatany ancicnr pagan stickers could have said. Auhuxninn says that we are not onlyNan grieve over our awn sins and be fearful offending Imo new ones. We are alsoto grieve over Lc sins ofcrhnxs and to rejoice in their repentance (City J CadXM 9). And, modvarczd by pima we are co work for zheiz deliverance. We areto be nuemiful.

We muss: understand Augustine Zurich: here. He is not suddenly bringingeros back iu. He is nor saying that our lives are incomplete unless hey are accached by em: so our fellows. Em; is co remain Exude on God. Ye: we are togrieve over he religious condition oft sunless offal humanity~—or, more concornily, offal rl-msc whom we know

What is Auguscinck though: hem? He never quite spells Ir. out. I see noa1mmacive,however,buck no inspirer it along he following ins;Ea¤hoofus isto be joined in a solidarity of-joy and grief with all hurnanicy·Aoy andGuccif

rejoice and grieve over [he religious condition of my soul and,in the vex samexray to rejoice and grieve nacre the condition of yours. In the most sorrier ofsenses, I am m love my neighbor as 1nysclP—:ns if he wmMylesI£ The idea isnc: that I am to recognize some value in you which {ulmls mc; that would hethe snake of earthly OEMs slinking hack iu. Rarer, I am no live in embalm solidarity 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 isnot 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 youre not grieving over your soul when you should bcd. Then I will grieve onyour 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 attributionugh zoo certain kind of worth to ouch self which {his project pmsupposes lscarcely 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. " Human beings are wm-rlgy of being caught up in onessolidarity of grieving and rejoicing. One is td honor every human soul whygrieving 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; afterall, 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 isthis: Because we are all icons of G0d."

awning modes ofworrh and valuing, God has one mode ¤f worrh; we expressI 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 thatmode of worth by re<>iciug and grieving over the religious health of theirsouls. The morally admirable person has another mode ugh wm-rh, one whichthe 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

Snaring Lmm 119H8 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 be12uS, 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*¢ ¤FChemed 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 clxaractcrgraded accordingly, Some people are presumably worth nothing an all; andthese should be treated ace:dingly."‘2 And Epictcnus remarked thatneigherhe Ms. nor the eyes are succinct m make a man, beau: he is a man who makesproperly human judgmems. l-[ere is someone who does not listen to reasonhe is an ass. Here is one whose sense of-self-respect has become numbed: he isuseless, 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 nopanic 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 (philasmgm) and dm he is me Macs devoid nfpminns mummy so menu .... Hencewe awe co conclude mlm p/mil¤:z¤»gi¤ nuizher conFersrnm mcugnius value inin object, no: does Ir. chink ugh ins ubjecu as unique and ¤p1¤b1e,¤¤xdoes u demand any overwhelming emocioml cnmmiuuem in um whom»abs¤1¤.'*

"lr is clearly iucumlmu on each man Lo bcd emotionally committed toone human being, or mlm one human phenomenon alone, namely one ownmoral 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 cannotbe for me a gouda. The sole good for me is my own moral character. "Each manhas 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 Onlyanother individual can love hinmzyfjusr as only I can love mycelia There is onlyone 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 isis 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 thereligious character of others the relation you bear co your own. It makes nosense to grieve and rejoice over theirs as you do over yours. To this deep calledge Augustine 1-nigh: well have made two xuspunsesz Even if it is true that Icam: consumer anyone; ¤1s¤’s religious characterin nhe same way nba: I canconsrimrc my own, ice does not follow than he only change goad in my universeis my own chzmem. For ice is Nam [rue rear only what is in a pumice z;¤m-ml is

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 thatI 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 asksiu one passage, "but a fclloxv-feeling for anorl1ey’s misery which prompts us rohelp him ifwc can? And this enuoriou is obedient or reason, when con1passionis 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 disserviceuu: to have nusnrioned his p<>im·, so also it would be a disservice m give ir anymore 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 reminded 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 lifethere will be no such embryonal disrurbauces as griefaud fear. For mlm: will hea life of uuimerrupted bliss; and "wh¤ chat is affected by fear or gricfcan be

j called absolutely b1csscd?“ Evenwhocn these afiéctions are well regulated, andaccording 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 Namthe Scion argument that the passions are alxwxys based on false cvahmrions; theyare 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 withreason. 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, wesnuggle here and now. For apathy, we merely long, in the mcamvhilc fearing

» and grieving over the evil worth fearing and grieving over. Struggle and longing, 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 langg 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 mingof {mr or sadness; but who that is not quite Los: or truth would say cha: enthree love norjny hall be experienced :here?" (City q' Cad XIY 9)}*

And now the eternal life of God, as undimmed by Augusziue, can be verysimply described: God life satisfies the eudaenmniscic ideal implicit in all thathas preceded. G¤d’s life is mhrough and nhrough blisséml. Thus God mo is freeof negative paths. Of M'rluIden with those who are su8`ering, God feels noting, as also he feels no pain mer he shortfall of guidelines in his errant crierruers. His snare is ¤p¤zhei¤—an npmheia cl1mcmized pusirively bychessceadymn-perturbiug scare nfjoy. God dwells sccmnlly in blissful nonsufering upArchie, Nothing than happens in hrs wm-ld lm-s his blissful unperturbed sereneit 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 actbenevolemly proceeds on is uninterrupted successful course whenever mmspires in the world.

In sum, he Augustinian God Mts our co be nznmknbly like he Sicsage: devoid ofpassious, unfamiliar with longing, foreign roc suffering, dwellingin steady bliss, exhibiting co criers only benevolence. Augustine fought: free ofthe Stoic (and neo-Plamnic) vision when is came no humanity; when it camem 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, forus, authentic existence in the presence of-evil is a suE`cring awareness whereas,for God, ice is a nunsutfering, perpetually blissful, awareness? Augusdne neversays. Sometimes hc suggests that when reality is sec whole as God sees it, hennothing appears evil but evezyching is seen or make is concriburiou me hegoodness of the whole. Thus God has no s¤&'m-ing awareness of evil becausethere is no evil of which or be aware. But if this were Auguscinek steady cow

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 auycluingother 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 cullerriver mdkrinng over evil. I suggest rah, in addition no he grip on him of helate antique picture of ideal existence, two additional comidemiuns preventedAugusriue 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:yto 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, thanthat life muss: irselfbc u life ofpcznce and joy IiZ_upon entering Imo the ilk ofGod, we [here find vexaciou and disturbance arid stuttering,clue our own usdaemmxia 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 perfectedKingdom. I suggest, in short, ha: what leaped no Augusninek eye when he snarevexed the picture he had drawn was this Feature offer In God eternal life is tobe found the guy and peace in the slumming of which lies our own crook aud. Tcchar fearer of Hz picture, he was deeply mashed,

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_

Augustine does indeed make clear mat in one importargt respect G0d’s lifeis not m bcd identified with Om sudacmonisric adam. In humanity perfectedexistence was is fagged 5(Emily on GOd_ Gad_ in m.,t,m_ has no Em Since themis 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 [msdifference, 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 wishesto nuke for human beings, he stem embraces the me antique, $[0;,; man ofWm. constitutes perfect existence? Is that the bottom line?Yes,I think wc mmmama say Mts—m; only fgAgueng but fg; me mdmon ;n gmm1_

_ mm; namely; God remains blissfully unpcrrurbed while lmmamzy drowns an¤¤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\¤¢ picwre2 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 ¤¤¤¥¤ amrply 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 thisconclusion and judges [hem all to be f :blures.“" In my discussion I shall have toneglect entirely chi; theological argument for the sheering of Gnu.

Far ad away the moss; commonly used argument in the comemporarydiscussion is that if God truly loves his us&axing children, hen he himself willFeel their missy which them. God love must include than mode oflovc whichis sympathy It/Mlcidcn. Perhaps the most vivid statement of His argument wascomposed by an English writ:,Ma1dwyn Hughes, early in the century in hisbook, VI/ha: Is Atune»nm:.A 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 reeveLatin .,.. Ic is an entire misuse ugh words Lu call God our loving Fachcr, ifHe is able rue view mho: waywardness and revulsion of His children Wilburbeing moved by grief-and pi . . , ix is ho: v:wry nature of-love to us&`¢rwhen its ubjcc: suffers loss, whccher intlicned by itself or inheres. Ifmhc suitfaxing 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 Augusrinianview there is a deep clash of id-cab: The ideal divine life for Augustine was thatof uninterrupted suEE`eri11g—fres bliss; che ideal divine life for the modems is alife ofsympazheric love. In efface: nhs modems insist rah the snlidarizy nfgrieving and rejoicing which Augustine recommends for humanity on this earth isto embrace God as well. I-low can we adjudicate between chess profoundly deifyferret visions?

Little will be gained by the mc>deems' simply citing biblical passages aboutGad as loving. For Augustine and the other church fathers who defended thenunsu&'m-ing apathy of God had nu: nvulookedc.h.e fact cha: the Bible speaksof God loving. And they too were combusted ran the teaching of the pmphccsand apostles. Ir was their couvicciou, however, that all he srazenwms aboutGcdk love could be, and should be, interpreted in a manner consistent withGod apathy and his ikcedom Gam suffering.

Auguscinck proposal bccarne classic? Scripture everywhere whimsiescha: God is pitiful, he says. Bu: he icy of God differs &¤m humanpiy Human pity brings "misery of ham"; whereas "who can smelly say that God istouched by any misery?" "will regard to pity if you take away the compasssion which involves a sharing of misery with whom you pima sc. [ha there remains the peaceful gondncss ofhzlping and Eying from misery, Mts kind ofknowledge of the divine pity is suggested."“ In short: The love that we are toam-ibucs no God is not the love of-sympathy of Mizleidm, in which one sharesdmc feelings oft other; Ir. is {he love ofwellrdoing, of benevolence, of agape,

And in general, as Lo theca predication oft language of theca emotions tos 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 wizhIr. 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 ofGod is mann: he change: efrhing which lie within His pawn, mmxpeemdby man; roc anger of God is His vengeance: upon sinwlne pry of God is thegoodness of His help; he jealousy of God is rhino providence xvlmreby Hedocs uc: allow rhesus whom He has in subjection cc Himself so l¤v¤w.i.chimpunity what He forbids?

The conclusion is ha: "who God rcpcnrs He is Nat changed bur He bringabout change; when Hs is angry He is not moved but He avenges; when Hepities Hz: docs not gri•:ve but He Iibcmtcs; when H: is jealous Hz: is not painedbut He causes pain."‘

crashing down simply by observing that the Scriptures speak 0`Gd as lovingY 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 recentbunk, Eumrimn.2" The pusher oft philosophical discussions is decisively in tior 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 oris 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 eitherveridical or n¤nvmidical, Suppose, for example (roomlce one ot`Lyons illus

V mucus), than I am amid can me large dog appmaqhing will mack me. Theproposition (scare of fathers) that the large dog v~Fiji mack me is men he

· pmpusiniuml cement ofraheemceeu; and a nenrml cmupnnenc nfrhec.m.u5 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 viewThe pmposicional content cf.; cnmaion is nor only believed but evaluated. IfI were indifferent or being attacked by the large dog, usher than evaluatingsuch 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 desirefor nmryxdom, I would {eel not {ear but exhilaration.

The pmposicinnal content of an emotion, along which one negative orpositive evaluation of that count, plays a central lm in Hz idemiécacion ofan unwire. Bu: in is nurd the whole oft emotion. There is no emotion urnless 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 disbarbank. Whack proves no he the as: is ha; the physiological disturbance and theaccompanying feelings diecr remarkably Iicnle from one kind ofemocion rovanrother. One cannon, for example, diffcrenniane anger 6-m fear on his basis.

Lastly many if nor all emotions incorporate a chazacceriszic appecicivccouxponen:—-—a desire co do something or other so as, for example,nobeliuminamhe scare ofaifaixs in question our or continue ix, eke. The person amid that thelarge approaching dog will amok him is strongly desirous of doing somethingto aver: the Armco-—rhough ic may happen cha: his physiological dismrbanecbecomes so severe tl1ar,instead 0f`ru1mi11g1ikc a gazelle so as or implement hisdesire no avoid mack, he sinks down helpless as a JCL'sh. Ir is the appcritivecomponent in emotions than assumes for the face: dm embody can functionas motives [or intentionally undertaken actions: a person may run away our ofem-, may send a blistering Werner out of anger, arc.

Now if this schematic analysis ugh he nature ofenqcions is cancer in Imomain outlines, in follows directly rear God has no exorcism: No grief noanger, no fear, and us forth. Fm a person can have an emotion only if rahperson is capable cfbcing physiologically upset. And God, having no physiclogy is no: so capable. I am nor aware rah: Augustine ever used this arguemecum fm- G¤ds apathcmz 1-Ic had other arguments. Bu: Aquinas, for example,makes explicit use office in Summa Thenlugiae,Book I, 20, err:. 1; and in Summammm Gcmiles 1,89,34 In the sense ofpathvx which we have been using in ourdiscussion. we can conclude that God is lacking in pathos. The tradition wasright: God is apathetic. l-In dues not grieve, neiclmr in sympathy Nam, as itwere, on his own.

Bu: we muss: nor conclude 6-m this that the comes: is over and that theancients are victorious in their combat with the modems. For though he is—sue ofwhecher God sugars is regularly blurred withc.h.e issue ofwhether Godhas passions, I suggest that suffering is in OCR a disrincr phenomenon EOM griefand 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 openqucsmiun whether Gcdk apathy is a uyjériygq apathy

A person grieving over some loss is snfkkriug. gc will be recalled than xhcrcccguimion cha: grief has a cmmpnnem of suflbriug is what led Augustine toconclude that God does not experience the passion ofgrdiei Bur human Sufiferrying is by no memos confide to emotional smirks. There is also the sulfuringcaused by physical pain, the Sufi<-zing caused by Michael depression, the suffering caused by the dcspcmtz: wish that ¤ns s sexual lwienrnriou were diftbrentBum what it is, and so forth. Furrhcrmme, Ir. is often the case that even whenthe 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 compriced in char grieving? Well, clearly {hc cause of the suffering that one expo»rinks in grieving is not the physiological disturbance or the accompanyingke1ings.Thesc arc not or be thought of as one ofrhe sources of suffering inour existence, ow a p.m.: with physical pain and mental depression. For as wehave seen, the actual feelings involved in grief-arc IE diflkrenr from those ingzearjoy T hex are tears of joy as well as tears of gricfj And it is worth recalling Augusrimfs observation that the grieving person may even find sweetnessin the tears office grid

One is tempted to cc11clude,then,¤:h:•t the causetoffthe snillzring that oneexperiences when grieving is the event over which one is grieving:tl1e death,he maiming, the defeat, whatever. But this mo. cannot be correct. For rashermay be no such evener! One may Lmlicvc that hrs depth, the m;\i1uing,tl1e dcFet, occurred when in did n0t.Thc1·c may inthct Be no event such cha: onegrieves over it and it caused CNN's grief And c0nve1·selygit'son1e cvcm occurredbut one does roc believe it did, he even: muses no grid

The conclusion must be, I think, that the cause of cne’s suffering, whengrieving over loss, is simply ounce? bellowing that a loss occurred, For whether ournot a loss oft sm.-: in question occurred, the bclievirqq definitely exists. V/hensomeone sulfursSom physical pain, eliminatingrahs pain elimimrcs theusf}b1·—ing. \X/hen someone sifters overmcml deprcssi0n¢"getting rid of (hc depression gm rid ufthc sulfuring. S0 to, the suffering cnc experiences when grieveing 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 Physic?1 pain and mental depresssion and unsatisfied desire cause suffering. But so a so do certain of our waysof representing rea1iry.Aud Ir. makes no difference whether [hose ways bcd faithfull to racily or unfaithful—vcridical or non-vcridical.

We speak naturally of the suffering caused by pain, of he sufferingmused by mental depression, cm. Bur we must nut think oft connection

J S u j b z i r w L v c 1 2 7126 Nicholas Vlhlzerswj

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 weing, on he other, as the connection of efficient causality, The suffering ?mated by pain is not some distinct sensation caused by the pain sensation.Suffering and joy arc, as Ir. were, adverbial modify}crass oft stares and eventsof consciousness. Pain and depmssimm and the belief than someone we love Ihas died are episodes of consciousness cha: occur sufferingly The experienceof an and Hz: ask of good food and the belief-char one of our pxojeers hassucceeded are episodes of consciousness that occur-joyfully A fundanmnmlface: of-consciousness is than the eve:-ns cfconsciousness do nor all occur indifferemly. Some occur unplezsamly on a enncinuum all he way co su¢'far»ing; some occur pleasantly on zoo communism all he way toy; and some, in»deed, occur in neither made,

Suffering, when veridical, is an cxisremial Nuqzying emu meeting in exAlice With :me’s very existence one says “N¤" to the pain,"N0" to the mencal depression. Bm when cha: scare of consciousness which causes he grief isone which has a pmposicional comma, hen ha: no which use exisrenrially says"No" pulls apart from he cause of he sheering. One exisremially says "No"to the loss, not to the believing; "No" ran the discern being unfulE1Ied, nor orthe desiring, (The sheering may of-course lead one to say "No" to he desireileum)

Earlier we spoke of e1u0ri<ms as including an evaluative component. Butquite clearly (here is no emotion if us: coolly evaluate something as meeting or not meeting some criterion than we happen to cn1brace, The evaluationmuss: be an exiscencial valuing ufwhinh we have us: new been speaking. Ac thecore ugh an emotion will be our valuing of the facts and supposed am n/f the

OI GOd Ot &V€fY[hI1lg bad, \VhIlI€VdT be the a11S\•V€r WB glvtb [0 ORC OI [DESCQ questions muss: also be the answer we give to the other.

Om- answer must be postponed for a few pages, however, San as to introdue Imo the discussion ca new and distinct line ut`clmughc,als¤ embmccd withnear umminuicy by he pucriscics and medicwxls, leading co the same conclusionas the perfection argument which we have thus Far couzsidncd. This Admiralargument for the couclusicm that God experiences neither passions nor Sufi%r·ing may be called the mmvlqqiml uxgunuenr. The NCR the: the perfection urge»em and the ontological argumem join so yieldirlue sauna result is ha: made

E hrs midair of God n¤usufYering apathy so criomwusly poxverllnl. There ismore lm divides he modems Tom he ancients than a clash nfnmul idealsthough rue this "more," the modems rarely give guy extenuation.

Suppose than God sulfured on account of he pain experienced by thepeople in S:aliuʼs gulag camps and nfchc evil in the Iuearc of Stalin who put[hem there. Then in would be the case them ha: one lemma being did, andwhat lmppeucd no other human beings, would determine hrs quality m`G0d’s

€ lifeSmilenk nczing as he did would bring about God’s suftkriug axvavencss ofthe5 evil in Stalin`; hear:. The victims experience of pain would bring about G¤ds

snflkx-ing knowledge of rehire pain. Or m cake auorhcr example; If-God suftkredJ on account of humanicy’s destructive irnpau upon his earth, [hen again what

transpires in the world would determine he quality of his life.

§ 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 meis 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 assalves 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 isGucci 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- ‘ g care correctly predicated of something other rah Gnu can with the sameson joyfully experiences his sufferingly experiencing pain.

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 GodSparks 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.¤sthe 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, cameOhm Palominos, whose key premise was than reality must comprise a beingwhich is entirely unconditioned.

Beyond a doubt it was Aquinas who, a&re Pluckiness, worked out most profondly he implications oft assun1pcion than God is the unconditioned condittoing of everything not identical with himself No doubt he saw Ir. as rendering the biblical teaching of Gcdk sovereignty. At the same Lime it was he whomugged moss: intensely co construe rah: reaching oft Scriptures as a wholein the light of this assumption undo its implicates. Len us, then, i nl]c>w him inhis clmughc.

In Summa cnnlm Gentiles I, 89. 9,Aquinas says char the passion ufsumzw orpain has for its "subject he already present evil,just as the abject ofjny is thegood present and possessed. Sorrow and pain, nlm-efore, of their cry naturecannot be found in God."”" No doubt in [his pmicuhr formulation Aquinasis alluding to the perfection argument? Bur what has already brought him tothis conclusion is an elaborate development of hrs: ontological argument andits ramifications.

Aquinas has-just argued that God has no passions at all. And in additionto offering as ground for this conclusion that God lacks he "sensitive papcti•:cs" anDKrhs bodily physiology necessary for experiencing passions (1,89,2-3), he argued, more relevantly to our purposes ham, cha: "i¤vexy passionof the appetite theca patient is somehow drawn out of his usual, calm, or connatural disposition ..,. Bu: ice is nu: possible for God co be somehow drawnoutside His natural ccndizicm, since He is absolutely immutable, as has beenShawn" (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 unalloyedabiding bliss, does it nor follow that God is either ignorant oft suffering andevil chat nmnspim in dm life of his human creatures, or is India&`errant to theirplight? Your he forms: is incompatible with God omniscience. And as to thelarder, how would indifference no the plight of humanity be compatible withthe 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 urnderstand in what way, as he sees Ir., God knows anything at all other thanhimsnli

It must be granted, says Aquinas, "chic primely and esscmially God

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 severalpans, or He will have an in:cIl¤cr.u;¤l uperqziuurahar is nor his subsmnce. Bothofrhcse 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, heknows only l1imself.Yer Aquinas immediately goes on m Argue rah "Godundcmauds things other than Himsel£"1-lis reason is char "¤n eflécr isadeqnmely known when is cause is known. Sc ‘wa me said ro know each thingwhen we know the muse' [Arisrocle], Bur God Himself is tlxmugh Hisessence the cause offing for mI1ercl1ings.Since He has a moss: hull knolledge 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 rearGod knows all other rhinos—¤n rhs [wo principles rlmr God is the cause ofall things other than l1imscl€ and that in knowlng u ching’s cause one knows Ime rhino.?

And how is God ch: muse of when- things? He is the cause by virus ofhis will, says Aquinas. Your it must be gunned rear "he principal object oftdivine will is he divine essence." For if wc allowed that God directly willedthing other clam himscltj the principle of-divine simplicity would again be viorated?] "lf . . . God should principally will something other can Himself iswill folloxv that somexhciug other is {hc cause of His willing. Bur His willing isHis being, as has been sI1own.Hencc, something other will be Hz cause of Hisbeing-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 docsGod cause other things? In Smug mmm Grilles I, 74, 4, Aquinas says that inevery case of willing scmetluing "theca principle object“ is just the ulrlmnw mdfm- which he thing is wi1led.Buc that is misleading for the case before us. Weare not no think of God as willing other chugs as means to the and oflnimself.Radar,Aquinas though: is this: "God wills and loves His essence fur im ownsake? Now "he rlmings [hat we love for their own sake we w:u1r to be mostperfect, 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 isonly one way in which he divine self can be enriched or enhanced, nmuelyqby way ofrhere being other emirs which resemble ice,Theca divine essence "gnube 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

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" °°“"" '“P"“““g “ ';ʻ°jPl “““ °T °"ʻ1°?°“°»ft.;;§ };§ texamsmm, our answer isirms pair ¤{ph¢¤¤¤]em}_;Th¤¤ mas whole errray of bc. ʻʼ°ʻ;ʻ*°ʻ*§§¤;E;§h;§;;d§;;m;h;;;:;§;I; I; die: di ) =j mg, mh in an wm way and degree rcscmblixfg God (including their being

Szgyhrinyg Lug: 131130 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 hjeered as one of he weak points in his theory; for when he mulct ettin; ad that God wills the euhancemem of his own seemWe 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 byhis censorial of he love of God for change other ran himself, since all he reelevent 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 Bojet 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 theone he1oves" (1,91,2)Burr we have also found it appmpriace, says Aquinas, cospeak of God as willing ache: things. New we have us: seen that iris a neckssay much about willing than one wills what one judges guide. Su God wills thegood cfthcse other things. And since, as we have also seen, co love somethingis co will [hc guide oft :hinge——Aquinas, be it noted, construe; love simply asbenevolence—ir follows straighrforwardly that God loves things other Lhanhimsel£”

Bur now is in not meshing ch: sense of the words beyond their breakingpoi or cal1"knowlcdge of ache: :hinge" chose phenomena in he PloeinianGod to which Aquinas applies Thai! phrase; and so, sivnilaxlyq for "wi11ing ofurhsr rhinos" and "l¤viug of other thing"? Consider: God knows himself andGod is he cause of all change other than himself This pair of phenomena iswhat Aquinas calls Cud knowing y Lhiqqs nzhcr than himself on he principleha: co know he cause oaf thing is to know he change. And consider; G¤d willshis perfection, and he ensemble of things acl-ner {Hanna God enhances his perfaction by resembling him: This pair ofphenumena Aquinas calls God willingmfzhings other San hinxseyf He Hmhsrnmors proposes calling chis las: pair offnum., Gad lug q` things other 1/n himsey€ on the grounds cha: one onlywills 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 notor deserve the title? And is nc: the latter so disarm: from the imemional maing and he loving ¤£ ching; as also non no deserve those cicles? Wha: is missingthroughout is any awareness 0E any acquaintance with, change other than himself by God. God has no concept nor anything like a concept ofanyrhing ocherthan hinuslf "Ou: imellecn knows singular things through singular species [haarc proper and divers," says Aquinas. By acquiring such "signalize species? weacmalize our pencils for knowledge. No: so for hrs divine inceueez. "l{Ir.knew something through a species that is not Israeli it would necessarily followchar 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 ownessence" (I, 71, 11-12). (Aquinas might, of-course, have reached the same concloisonnéfilmm the premise: of Gcdk simplicity)

i pamper km>wedge?" (S11, 14, a. eve) He mu nos,o1 course, marumuans npamper and roc merely a general knowledge of things other than himself , hismason being chat "w know a rhino in general and pot in pmiculnr, is to havean 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 charthe Plotiniau God has a proper knowledge of thing other than l1imscl£

McAllen or mscmblancc with respect co is; perfections. Nc: only do human bcdQ ins, for example, resemble God with respect :0 rewire perfection; in a way ifj {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 noeach 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 thesimilitude 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 whichZ 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 assumesQ 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 WCconstrue "pamper noe." He also assumes than athingk pmieular way of nesmelling God consnimces he namer nfxhc thing. Ha: seems more conrrovspsin; beau: El: us nc: comes: the nearer, He further assumes, in classic Chain ofBeing 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 orGnu. There assumption is even more commercial; bum lc: us still nor boggle. lris because of these l-nee nssunnprions than Aquinas can say than in God s knowing 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 questioningAquinas 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 resembledbelong or ics essence. But it is Nan: sufficient for Aquinas’ purposes to hold thata perfect knowledge of God‘s essence implies a knowledge of all the ways inwhich hen can be rcscmbledl The demands of the simplicity docrrinc are suchcha: he muss: say that God knowing ¤f his essencedus: is his knowing ofc.h.evarious ways in which he can beau resembled. Perhaps, indeed, the demands ofthe simplicity doctrine are coven more stringent can ha:. For someone might

Sqhring Loupe 133

suppose we assume, as seems reasonable, that Aquinas has done as well as canhe dune by way of finding in the Plccinian God something which could becalled "k¤ow1edge of things other than himself "ang knowledgee of theusfferrying and evil of our world? Then we must conclude that on the Ploriuizmconcept 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 mammasof the world an all.

€<>¤¤¢¤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 ofy even though x is no: idemieal with y. Bu: if rim is indeed me, then warmuss: be said is them: he doctrine of Divine Simplicity requixcs Nam only rearGads 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. ForAquinas dentines a way of resembling God with the nature of somechingother [Hanna God; and if such a my of resembling was identical win G¤dʼsessence, the nature of sum: thing other than God would be identical withGod'; scenee—€mm which ic would follow ha: harhing which was osha:chi God was identical wire G¤d4 The conclusion muse he cha: Aquinas' adheresy no the simplicity doctrine makes unremble chis acrennpr err explaininghow God knows thing other can Himse1£

Aquinas’ struggle to End in the Plorinian God something that might approprietary bcd called "knowledge of Utica Things" becomes even more trainsparentally a struggle when it comes or God knowledge of evil. I will not hererehearse all his ax·gun1en¤s; he gives some seven of them. But the basic line ofthought running through all of rhyme is evident Bum the first: "When a goodis known, the opposite evil is known. Bur God knows all particular goods, towhich evils are opposed, Therefore God knows eve|s" (I, 71, 2). God, Aquinaswould say knows than particular human evil which is blindness because heknows 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 meansto say that God knows, of same particular human being, that she cquys thatgood which is sight, or whether he means to say than Giddiest knows abstractlywhat is than good which is human sigh:Burr suppose he means he foam, Acmost what can be said is that anyone who has such knowledge will also knowwan 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 wouldregard as knowing one oft accrual evils of our world.

The conclusion is unavoidable: Aquinas does not Gnu, in the PlozinianGad. anything which could appmpriamly be called, knowing Hz: Wiring andevil which :ran.¢p¤'re in our world. Bu: if God does not know zhe suEering andevil which mmspize in our world, than he does nor sxwrirggly know in. New

God,tl1e conclusion falls out that God docs no! sufficer, and, of com-se, dues nothave passions, But one gets the conclusion by paying the price of removingfrom 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 ChrisTina tradition wailed say Ir. is. The Cln-isdan cannot surrender the convictionThai: 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 Clusjstiamitytoward some other form of religion.

Sc wc are back to where: we were; Does God suflériugly experience whattmnspixcs in the world? The tradition said than he docs nut. The modems saythat he docs%peci6cally that he sufferingly experiences our suffering. Bothparties agree [hat God loves the world. But the cradiriou held than God lovesonly in the mode ugh benevolence; Ir. proposed construing all the biblical passages in the light of what z;onvicri¤n."‘ The modems insist char God’s love inclouds love in theca mode ofsynupathyn The modems paint in attractive colors amoral 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 cmDarien, 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 unconditiouednesymargument 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 incomparablewith ideal cxistcucc, and cha; G¤d’s existence is immumbly ideal, We saw thatthe supposition that those rmrhs are obvious was ‘qk1dm1gcrcd iu Augustinekcase by his insistence that wc human beings am to cultivate a solidarity ofgrieving over evil and rejoicing over 1·spcnanc,But we did not ourselvesughlFerro any argument directly against chose supposed myths,

How can we advance from here? Perhaps by looking more intently thanwe 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 idsposition to do good or his creatures. And since as lang as thcrc are creaturesno natter what chair c0ndicion—thcrc is scope {br Gad's exercise of rhardispusitiuu, 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: uscarefully n¤cs—in his awareness ofche condinian of his creatures. He doEscnokdelight in beholding hrs creaturely good that he has brought Abu:. Ifrhat werethe case, his joy would be condicioual on he sm. of things other can him·scull Ha: God joyfully experiences is simply his own exercise ofbcnevolence.God awareness of our plunge into sin and suffering causes him nu discusbanks; his awareness of he anvil office perfected Kingdom will likewise givehim no joy For no Nam what the stare oft w0r1d,church is room for God‘ssuccess&1l exercise of his steady disposition to do good; and it is in that exc.cite lm he Ends delight.

An analogue which comes can mind is rah oaf professional health-care sparclaims:. Perhaps when first she entered her profession she was disturbed by hepain and limping and death she saw Bu: cha: is nub over. Gnaw she is neitherperturbed Nam delighted by he wndiciou oft people cha: she sees.\X/ha: givesher delight is just: her inner awareness cfhcr own we]1·doing. And always sheEnds scope for well-ding——sc lung, ofcourse, as she has cliencs. Tb chose whoare healthy she gives reassuring advice on hack mzinremnce,T¤ chose who awill] she dispenses medicine and surgery, Bur Ir. makes no difference or herwhether cx not her advice maintains the health of the healtlxy and whether orum her preferred mncocwious and cussing um he illness of he iii. Whammakes a ditfemnce is us; her sacredness in we|l~dug; in this and in this aloneshe Ends her delight. lf it falls within her competence she will, of course, coop—emcee in pursuing he elimination of smallpox; that is doing good, Bu: shouldthe news arrive of is elimination, she will not join the party; she has al] alongbeen celebrating the only thing she Ends worth cs1ebraring—nan-mh; he: ownwelding. She is a Sic sage in the modem world.

I dare say that Morse onus Bud such a person chomnghly repugnant; thatshows how far we are from the merrily of many of the imelleeruals in heworld of lane amiquicy But beyond giving Vern no our feelings of reppIonic, Ie: us consider whether the picture I have drawn is even colorant,Though this person niche rejoices nor suffers over anything iu he condotin offer paces, nonetheless she: rejoice; in her own doing ¤fgood.Bucwhat then docs she cake assigned? What does she value? The health Cheri patints, one would suppose. Why nrhervvise would she give advice Tu. the oneon how to maintain his health, and chemicals so the other to recover his,

Perhaps in his description ofmnrnl action that great Sic plnilosoplmr ofhe modem weld, Imrmmucl Am, can be of help to us here. In the moral id—mansion offer existence, the only change good in Israelis a good will,s:id Am.Ycgofcourse, the mom] person will do such things as ac: to advance [he hmlmhof others. Inseam- as she ams morally huwevm, sly; dues no: do so because haawareness of health in people gives her dclighi and hc: mwreucss of illnessproves disturbing. She may indeed be so ccmscicnred lm she dues thus value

e health and sickness in mixers and ncm1hem¤n.Buq1l1ar is no moral credit ru her,To be moral she muss: ac: not cm of delight overahealclu nor our of disuuvlumzceover illness bur our of duty. She muss: ace on same rule specifying xvhnz use

E ought no do in her sm.-: 0f sinuntim14a rule to which, by follmviug, she accords"respect} That is what it is no value good will: ro uct our oforcepscrathx- (hemol law rather roll-on out of one`s mural likings and disliking, rejoicing; andgrieving. And the mum} pc1·s<>n is rh: person wl10,whcrever rclev.·m:,tl1uSivalruse ah: goodness of her will. Her valuing of what will mean, when lm- will isiu {hen god,rl1ar she willdelightzreeven. Bmfishe am ourofz desire ro de

? light in having a good will], char ow is not moral action; she muss: ac: our ors»i Sam rm.- me mom xm

Suppose hen chat our heaItI1-care specialist values the goodness offerQ will and acts thereon by ducihxlly seeking or advance he health of ha

pacers—delighcing inachous acning. Shenmy or may no: also valuerrhs health} of her paxiemgheing disarmed by its absence and delighted by its pmence.Bur

if she docs not in cha: way value her pa:I'ms’ hmk, rhar dues not in any maymilliner against her delighting in her own well-doing.

We have here, hen, a way of understanding how in cram be lm God de», lights in his doing good roc human beings lwirhdur either delighting in, or be? ing disturbed by dm Hunan condition. God am our of duty. Thus acting, hcj values his own good will whitener valuing anything in his crcarion. Ifwc inner

pricer God ; benevolence as his acting uu: of um [hen the cmdiciml picturebecomes coherent.

Bur of course Ir. buys this coherence ac Mac price. For rue think thus ughQ Gnu is m pmdum centric nor a very deep level indeed with the Christian Scrip

trues, These rel.] us char it is not out ofdury but out of-love that God blesses us,not our ofcbligation bur our ufgracc that he delivers us.Tn construe God'; loveas purely benevolence and m consume his benevolence along Knmian-Scoic

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 thanshe will also be glad mm- kg presence and disturbed by its absence (when * ‘ his own goodewil|—values positively someof chu events and coudixions in hisshe 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 ¤"/{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 onwhat 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 ofjustice and shalom in his creation will have or be taken at {ace value and notconsumed 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-ehe cause of rennin in Auguscinek rougher. Augustine urged us co value shereligious condiciou of our fellow human beings. But, as we saw; he does nothold that our was is m be acmnhcd so our {clc>ws.Rszhm-ic vm his assumptionthat {he religious condition of our fellow human beings has its own moods ofvalue, distinct from char mode ofvalua which chose things have for us than Saariffy our need, our em:. We are co love our fellow human beings wizhouz beingacmched or chem. Bu: if are indeed to value in [his noxmmcic way the reelpious condition of our fellows, why would God not do so as well? Or converbosely if God docs not do so, why is it nonetheless appropriate for us to doso? 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 rocbe occurring, one values char occurrence,whschcr negatively or positively thanone is correspondingly delighted or disturbed. I have assumed than one heliving is hen either a delightedly believing or a discurbedly believing, anave.;-tie believing or an "adver¤ive" believing. Some 1-nigh: question this assummation. Can wxluing nor be exisrenzially colorless? Can God not value usice and shalom in his creation while ay: his awareness offers presence gives himno: a Eljcker of delight nor his awareness of its absence a Lwiuge of unhappynests? My answer is than I do not know how to envisage such a p0ssibi1iry.ThcKaman duty-model gives us a way of understanding how one might ace inzcmionally to bring about some scare ofatfairs wichouz bluing dm snare oft{airs. Bu: even Am, along with the ancient Swiss, assumed that valuing idsplays 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 ina Fnrneis shed evaluating panama: wizhoum xmluing positively (hose ox whichone gives top grade or negatively chose that one roses out. But that is a ifferret nmcer.EvaIuaring is not valuing.

I come hen so this conclusion: The fact rear the biblical wl-im; speak ofGod as rejoicing and suflh-ing over the stars oft crcarion is not a super6z:Ianelimimble {mmm ofmhcir speech. I: expresses themes deeply embedded in thebiblical vision. God love for his world is a rqoicing and us&”ering love. Thepicker of God as a Scion sage, ever blissful and nonsuffcring, is in deep condignwith 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 unhappy 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 lmnmniq; delivered his only begotten Son to theca suffering and abandonment anddacha oft cmss.h1 the light ofrhapl think it grotesque or suggest chat God`svaluing coffer human prsdicameam was so mildly negative as m cause him nosuffering. Bur in any case, noshing ofimporruncz hang on degrees. The claimof the cmdition was that God`: knowledge of the world gives him nu vexaricnat all, no disturbance, no unhappiness. We have seen reason m think dm lmclaim is false.

In closing leer me observe cha: if we agree cha: God bore us};-jingly andjoyfully experiences this world of ours and of his, then an ounce {here comes tomind a question which the tradition never asked; x1:‘¤liely Wha: in our worldcauses God suffering and what in ice causes him joy? And then err once therealso comes or mind a vision of the reunion between nurd suBEx-ing and joy andGuck suffering and joy which is profoundly ditYexem from that or be found inthe tradition, In the rmdiriou the relation was simply that here in this life welong co shave in lm uninterrupted bliss which Gnu fmm eternity enjoys. Whatnow comes so mind instead is the vision 0f nl{g¤x1i1qq éurxclves with God's suflkring and with his joy: of deliglwriug over rear which is such rear his awamxessof our delight gives him delight and of suffering over that which is such thathis awareness of our Saharang causes him sutkriug.

The cnubmce of [his new vision will than lead us or look once again atthe murex of the Augustinimx vision, according no which the only thing in ourEmily lives of suflicienr worth to merit suftériug ishie religious condition ofour 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 sfferrying. 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 wireevil lwambur over the violuciou off rights as such wc me nu: to grieve. Ourrights 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 lowering2 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, Therebyhe 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 childs 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 cansay A "Yes" no he wm-rh ufpersous or change: and in onset suffering n "Nc" sotheir destruction. To friends and relatives one can pay the uibum of lovinghem enough to suffer upon their death. To justice among oueé people onecan pay the niburc ofluving in enough co us&”er upon its tyrannical denial. Tohe delights of music and voice and birdsong one can pay the tribute ofluvingthem enough no suffer upon going dace One can pay to persons and rhinos heexistential uibuce of suffering love. "The world is bender," says Richard Swinebum in a Ben passage,

xf qgmrx pay Papua zribuze no lasses and f¤i1u¤es,if whey are sad an che failum ¤fnilm:endeavors, mourn for medewhofa child, meMxy anrahs scDumont 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 andohms. A man who feels nu grief err the dead; ugh his child or nh: seductionUHF's wife is zighdy banded by us as imeusisiw, for he has failed no pay meproper Mauna offeelmg no mlm;. no shaw in his feeling how much he valeuse them, and cheery Ailed no value hum. pmp¢rly—for valuing zhemproperly 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 maysuffer, then also one will scruple co prolong their lives archer than to reorienta self cast into suffering by he sunning our of their lives. If one does pay orjustice among one people he tribune of z love than may us&`re, then also onewill snuggle to ove1·chrowrahecyanr rather than to reconstructuseksellso ascu be common: under tyranny Suffering conrribures co changing the world. SuL{erring must sometimes he cukivaccd. We are indeed or live in a solidarity ofgrieving and rcj¤icing—but of grieving and rejoicing over the absence andpresence of that mode of human flourishing which ha biblical wringers callshalom; not just over the religious condition of our souls.

This, I said, was a diicrenc way or go—rhe way of "Nc" to death ratherthan co love ofchac which dies, he way ¤f"N¤" no injusrine mheRichan no loveMjusrice, the way of "No" no poverty rarer than to the struggle to alleviatep¤vercy—and Yes, chu way of "No" co our distance from Gad ratherrhan tolove of God, lr is also, in myjudgmcm, a better way. For ice is in line with Godʻssulking and which God joy Instead of loving only God we will love whatGod loves, including God. For in is in the presence ofjusnice and shalom amonghis human creatures ha: God delight, as in is for the full xealizariun ufjusniceand Shalom in his perfected Kingdom char he works.To1ove what is ofworchin 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 theirrest in rule, O Lard," said Augustine. Ha: nits lac added is rlmr our hamswill not Gnu their full rust and xlnunld nv! Gnu their Th.]! rest until he hem ofour 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 nearpitman towards due higher and dm good, and he was there IWWy:,ns lung nsScudl,u.>¤, cxisrcd.Ax1d he xs cx nuxcd dung. having 1 p.m. of ncer1.in rlmr he wishes m be Ell:d,bum norwhirler 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: aspimiunbelong 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 compncnr 1”sel(—gjviug, see A. H. Ammnong, "Plarcnic Eros and ChriIan Agapc" in Armstrong, Pluilninu rm. Clvrmizm Snails (Lcdm>n:Vnri0mm Reprints, 1979); and john M,Ricer, Em; and Rcyzlm: Sodium in Plum Polonium, Ned Origin (Tcrcnm: University ofTcmnm Press, 1964).

3. I see rm. nrher way mo. make the point In the ex: than with the word "cnj¤y" orsome near synonym such ns "deliglu." Hour m do so is to risk inncducing serious conBuskin Imo the interpretation ofAugustine. For he was Rand of drawing a distinctionbetween use (mi.) and enjoyment (hi), roc cqunze enqcying huh loving, {Md. hen no saythat 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¢·rCheck 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 purris probably not or be conceived in grimly urilimrian fashion; we may "an_y¤y" [hem. Onwho archer hand, Augustine was cvc conscious oft f.1•;redur zichggln in earthly thingsmay 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 lovennmr.I think there can be no doubt that most oft time Augustine says lm. we shouldlove God alone. And to expljcan: his thought on his,I have mkcn love to be hat modeofntrachruent to A thing which is such that [he dermic:-ion or clung: of rlmr thingwould 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 ordcxcd love, which prcvcms him Emu having when is not to be loved, or Nam loving whatis 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 oughtto be loved :quarry' Probably all of us, in ax Em. approach to Augusrinc, are inclinedroc give such passages as relines prominence, mrhey mlm chose in which he says that Godalone 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 ofamclunenrcu 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 areonly or bcd used. dais use including ha: I have called * nnj¤ymem3’ Nnw namnlly useand enjoymcm are n form ¤f"arr.xcluuent" mthings, Hence in is nm mappmpriace forAugust: 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 causeus grief As we shall sc. slxordyq August: also says, as one would expect, that each ofus 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 aswell—0r aNalcosc went around assuring ir. CE], MRiosnSm.iz P/nilusvphy (Cambridge:Cambridge Umversiry Press, 1969), p. I. My understanding oft Sticks is very muchindebted m this bunk by Risk, Also helpful is E H. Snatch, Hue Swiss (New York: WW 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 inalliance, his decisions and his actions. In his terminology he is passionless (upurlrb), butnurd 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 inaccord 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 Scribencr’s Sons, 1974), pp. 206-207:

The Smile sage is free [mm all passim. Anger,:micaq supidicydxcd, clarion,rocse andSanmilm enema emuaicns are all nhsem &¤m hn:deposedn. He docs nu:mugm plenum asscnuuhing good, nor pain as snmedning evil ..,. The Sic nee is nun insensitive cc painfulor 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¤¤dMaria¤| smcs." \XI¤ll-wishing. wishingrainuzhu man good zhnip lbr his szk=;j, rejoicing in vinous minus, a u1nqui.\ Fe, a guck ccnscicncu 4 . . undo "wzri¤es," xummhkidsinclimdun.

Augustine himself, in various scattered passages, uses the classic Sic concept ofpnrlmx. He speaks, kb axampk, ¤f"rhazSaare which the Greeks callpawls, whence ourWm. 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 orgriefmigh: or milmc um, in a given case, be a pnrlwx. lr would be San if cverrhrew therule n/f reason in lm person experiencing is; uclnerwise in would Nan: hc. And than orsay lm nh: wise person is cluracrerxzed by apathy would he m say dm such perturbing“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 [hispassage on p. 156:

Augustine is n mm who has xenlixed rlmz he was doomed no remain incnmplere, in his presslm Wilma he wished for muss: mdemlwould never hc more rlmu n I

unz exmeuae, nigh map:. posrpcued or n Hun! resolution Ottawa|I rensxmnsfar byname} his Fe. Anyone who ulmnghm ohcrevasse, 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 ohlung-esmblished classical idsnl of pcrlkcrionz Augusnnc would never achieve he concernzed rmnquilky of zhc superman hum sill gaze ohm err us from mm: xuomics in Clxrimunchurls and {mm dm sum: n/f pang sages.

10. Thus we sc. in Augusrinc, and in all those who accept with "Augurs:ini:m scarnooses" he biblical injunction so love one neighbor as nne‘s sc1£ the seed nfrlmplan: 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, Raemuss 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 wholoves 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 thingschar appear or rah: eyes or co any order bodily seem:. So he has inward fellowship wire himwhom he loves as himscltj

The Mlle cflcvbe; is dm: one should wish his {mend roc have all rah: good thin; he xvnuuto have hims¤lf,and should nc: wish dw evils roBethell his friendwhenceh hc wishes rc avoidl¤ 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 tas himself but as 1 leas: ofbnxden, or as the baths, or as A Andy or grumbles bird, rlmr isfor 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 manought 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

SWW LM H3142 Mmm m»1mm;g¤

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 oI 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**** °Yreaches :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 dwImo um ·V'=*¢*· =='·¤·¤ W v¤·*¤=*i-

K-= M =¤1M¢ Wim *¤V¤ *¤·=¤=¤¤i=>· W M *==*= ¤=mv<>·¤1¤='=¤*¤··$*¤*¤=¤·L¤==¤-··¤¤¤v= · Fm mamas¤.emseg nm 1·m.m ¤.1=mh»am. m slypmw Ay c¤.1;,4.. Om vm. ʼ··= ¤¤*¤¤¤>¤·¤M *=*··*¤¤' N¤ ¤¤= 5* **5 M ¤· ·¤· M M ·=* *=**~*···=·= ¤* =¤v·*=*¤¤ =>f ='== L mu.! ¤m,,m (Pnlanmpmnz Form pim, am). un hmm m¤1m1$[..4¤c$ md °*i¥"? °“' °"" l “ “ ““W"°“"° °“° ?"°““ " "“" °“°““" ° '€" ° €"““f *" “ “""“" * Sysmmuc ;1.w1°gy as ncmh 1<am.ma, r:.w1.w,· .y me nm. 4 can (1u¤hm¤.m, vn.: l }F" 1 °“" ““°*°d“" "°°"°'"°" '°"“ “ *" "°'*" °“ “"Q? T,fifth j ?S wQ··g" jah,. Kmapm, wsa), Ans.; in umnmSamsqpprm (v1.x1¤d¤1pna¤; 1=¤m=$s “dʻ ”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 zowe, 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 theolohem 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 xeman 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 heis happy No on: can mk: God [mm him. Hz, hen, is muss: null and seminally an unchainquarrel man who cloves no God, (xiv;. 86-xlvii, 90; muss. by j. H. S. Burleigh [Chicago:Henry Regnury Cn., 1959])

In his Rctruzrium Augusdnc discusses this passage and says char he should not havesaid,"arc temporal r¤1adc>nships"ifr forcbcar: had done chis, we their descendantswould never have been bum and Gcdk company of roc clear would not have beenfilled up. So hazing is inappropriate, And of course in roc rcpt I have xm: inzerprezedAugusrinc as proposing "harked," The thing remarkable about theca Retraatiom passage,for my purposes, is than Augusrinc docs not rancor he doctrine uflove expounded inthis passage Room Oj7F·u»: Religion.

12. john M. Lillian, "The Sic Cancer of Dcmcl1men:"injchn M. Rise (c.d.,), Th:Sticks (Bcxkclcy Cn|i£: University of California Press, 1978), pp. 26l—262,

13. Ricer, ibid., p. 264.14. Risk, ibid., p. 263.15, Ricer, ibid., p, 264,16. Ricer, ibid., p. 265,I7, A Plurinian would do the same. Sec chaprcr 12: "Th: Self and Or.hcrs" in

_], M. Ricer, Plcrinns: Thai Rued sea Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1 967) .

18. Augusdnc saw that ifthc bliss of our pczféctcd existence is to be cndrclyumlLloyd. xegrcr w111 have ca be limimmd by forgetfulness. Len is perfected cxisrcncc. ch:soul will enjoy "an cvcrlnsxing pleasure of ezernnljcys. forgetful of faults, forgetful cf.punisluuenrs, but not Lhcrcforc so {crgerqul offer deliverance, than she be ungrateful Loher deliver" (City nigh' Gnu XXII, 30). There is another issue in the region which, sofar ns I know Augustine docs not consider. Pmsumzbly ch: solidarity in which w: axe

20, jargon Mauling, The Crncfud Gnu (Nc\vY0f}<: Harper 5: Room 1981)::Md. TheTidily and rave lG:whom (Gnaw York: Harper 64 Row, 1981).

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; thelover is-just as emplxaricully the cnc who Macs unto himself Hz: v.xryingjoys and sm.rows of others. and whose own happiness is capable ugh altcmiun rhevehy . . . Love isjoy in the joy (actual or expected) ufanothcr, cmd sorrow in he sorrow ¤fan¤rher"(Man? Wise nigh Gnu [New York: Harper 84 Bros.., 1941], pp. 111, 116). "Syxupmrlxezicdependence is n sign cf. excellence and xwxes with every ascent in hrs scale offing.joy calls (our sympathetic joy sorrow For sympathetic s¤rmxv,ns theMacs: cxccllcmopssidle forms of response no xhcse stares. The cmmcm form of sympurluenc dependencecan only apply to deity for this form cannot he less can an cnxniscinnc sympathywhich depends upon and is exactly colored by every nuance of-joy cr. screw anywhere in lm world" (The Dim: RcIn1iuiry.·ASuzyl Cmxmpnou ¤y'Cm/ [Naw Haven:Yule University Press, 1964], p. 48).

22. See, for exzuuple, Inseam in Pruxlogion B:

Haw Nat Thou nor cinch painful and impassible? For if Thou our: impassible, Thou do: notsuffer with um; i{Th.u dust nutsufferz with man, Thy hem is mx wrerclnzd bychumps—sion with zhc xvrczchcd, welch 1s roc nucaning nfbcing §Orrinl. Bur v|Thecau are umpinchl,whence can rah: wretched pin so Mx: cmnfcrr? How zhcn nor: Thou. mull Nan Thou umpitiful, Lord, except: that Thou Mx pitiful in rcspncr of use, and non in respect ¤t Thysclf?Truly The Nat sc. in wasp ¤!‘ mnAling, Md. Nanunc in wspecz nf Thim:4 For when Thoulacquers upon us in our wrezclxcdmss we feel me cflbcc ¤|‘ Thy pity Thou Fucks: nor zinc: ufr{et, And rhereihn: Thou our: pitiful. because Thou snvcsc lxc \vr¢rcl1cdNandsparsr rh: sm»nets who heeling to Thee; and Than Nat not pinwheel, BCC's: Than nor: whited by no fcll¤\vsuitring in (hm v•·1:ct::hedn::ss.

Szghriqq Love 145144 Mrhalux Wnlrmmgjf

And Aquinas in Summon rhcalugiac I, 19, a. 11, reps:

When cumin human pn»i¤us are prediemd nf dm Gndhend meraphnrimllyg chi; ie dm-mbecause nfa hkencss m he Elm Hence ashingdum is in ua ¤ sign ofsome pminn iSAsigknifed mcsaplucrically in God under nh: um: of Nihau passion. Thus with us is is usual f¤ran angry man no punish, so dm punishmem becomes an expression ¤f anger.Thiefepunishmem imelfis gigufied which auger, when anger is mxihured an Gnu.

23. Quoted in Muzlcy, p. 105.24. Ibid.,p. 106.25. Ibid.,p.106—l07.26, William Lyons, Ematirm (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980).27. Enneads VI, viii, 17.28. In "Good Everlasting" in Orlcbeke & Smedcs, Gad and Ah: Good (Gunned

Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans Publ. Cc., 1975), I discussed he issue of whether God iseternal and iuxmurablc. Alvin Planting, in Doe: Gnu Have a Nature? (Milwaukee,Wis; Masquer University Press, 1980) has discussed another dimension oft Lcrind concept of G¤dNamcly. chc contention that God has no properties, in paxtitular, no nature.

294 john of Damascus, Exposition qzhe Orthodox Exam I, 8; nanslacion in Vol. 9 ofNizcnc and Past-Mcnnc Fathers, Second Series, c.d.. such} and Ace (Grand Rapids,Niche.:.Ecrdmans Publ. Co., 1983),

As to what he means by "p:ti¤n,"]0l\n says this in lbcpnsirivn Il, 22:

Passion is a sensible acrimony nfuhc appezirive faculryq depending on she pxcscnmicn so hemind nfsmnmlmng g¤¤d or had. Or in mlm wombpinn is an kmioml andviry nfdnemull, resulting from roc Nora of something good or bad. For due notion n/f summoninggood result in dusk:. and due nmicn ugh wmcnhing had rcsulzs in anger. Bu: psmiun cansidzred as z class, can xs, passion in genial, is d¤Gned as Amaven-n: in oneching musedby another.

30. My carillons from the Summa contra Ccmilcx (5:C) are from hrs Pegs mnslaticn(Noter Dame, Ind.: University of None Dame Press, 1975).

3I. Aquinas uses theca perfection argument more cxphcinly in Summa Tlxealagiae (S7)I, 20, al 1, ad 2. In is inremsrjng cc um rah: one fagu:Inak reasons for zagrdingour human emotions as pax; of "cur present in6rmicy" is that he being acted uponwhich they involve is something from which we should look toward no being dcliv

33. Lam the principle of perkcrion would be vinlued: "If. . . he principal ubjecnof the divine will be usher Shane he divine essence, in will fellow char rehang xs something higher (Hanna he divine will moving ir.The cnnrizry Fe [his is Appamnn [mm ha;has been s:Ned" S:C I, 74, 3.

34. And always, in addition, zhcrc was 1hL: Polonium rougher hauling medieval orQecnions on God creazionz "TLC . . . which docs um am to generate suffices moreno vizselfin beauty; bur than which desires rue mace wmmcs or emu bury because uhlack and is nurd self-sulhcixnr" Plcrinus, Emends III, 5. 1.

35, In ST I, 20, a. 2. rasp.,Aquinas’ axgumcm would seem ro run jusr a bk differEmily: God wills rah: isc:ncc nfall things: and since arhinok existence is good,Gundwills the existence of all Lungs. Bur no love smooching is no will good me lm change.Hence God loves all things, This is the sexier: "G¤d loves all exisringrhinop. For all ex—siring rhinos, in so far as hey exist, en good. since he existence oaf zing is itselfgood; 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 byGnu. To every existing change, hen, God wills some good. Hence¤,since ro love anyrhingis nothing else rhino w will good roc dm thing, in is mzmidfac zhnr God loves cveryrlninggar cxisrs."

36, Sn when Aquinas speaks ¤fG¤d’s many (nnixcrlwniinl, he has no choice beaur romm Ir. Imo macro benevolence. "Marcy is especially or be auriburcd to God, providedIr. he considered in is catch, bun nor as an nffecrioxmc passion. In proof of which Ir.must be observed than a person is said no be marching [pvnixurizm] as being, so to speak.smxoxvful err heart [nmwnun wry]; in cthcr words, as being zaffccncd with wrmxv an themisery ofanorher as though Ir. were his own. Hence Ir. follows than he cnxdeamrs so idspeel the misery ofzhis other, as fit were his: and this is rah: eflbcr ufmercy To sorrowrherefarc. over the misery ofuxhus docs nc: belong co Gad; bur Ir. dans moss: properlybelong zoo Him or dispel blur misery wherever be xhc efface: we call misery" (STI. 21,a. 3, reps).

37. For a full considemnion offer topic, rehire i> an argument ufCharles Hmshomewhich would have roc be considered. He argues lm Gods bmuwleunvumsr irsclfbc urn—dcrsroad as a shudderng love—¤r srricrly speaking, as u love that yields sullkxing. For Godin his benevolence wants us human creatures to be hnppyYe1 sc. often they uc nun,God suffers, rhino from hrs frusrmion of his bench}car imennon. This, of course, issummering dm zhc radiance would never have gmngedz that God'; beuevolenr mumiron could be frusrmed. Tlxmlngims, says Hanslmme,

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 menush h 1 [b h d Ch _[H h d HG l “ ' °“ °“ “""@_" f"“% “ ° “° ""· °' ° “ " “ '“ “Y 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..athexcfcn, 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 spuknows 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

m!HM¤·# .·-·manny an m¤m.··

Tn hold zhaz Gnu "wills" ex pmpuses human welfare. bur is absolutely unmated by thercalimion 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.

(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 tospeak in some sense of a aempomry failure in ha: God has attempted no do in whow-Id. Because of chis, ch: mummers should Lake up a lamenwdon for God as wc1l.`

38. "Love [Eros] is an nczivicy of soul reaching ow; her good? says Platoons in Enueuziv Ill, 5, 4. Augusninc would agree. His argument is rear the change ofrhis world doNam have sumcienc good no Hz woxch reaching au: after-—or snriczly the good they havedues Nam outweigh ch: grief zhcy cause sufHcicndy cu ma: ice worth reaching our aftex hem.

39. Richard Swinburne, The Exmenm gf Gad (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1979), p. 192.

• (Q .

Augustincʼs GriciéPaul Helm

·% his Cmgfusiuns Augustine provideswhoa: seems ar firs: inspection ro berawocontesting accmnms of grief One of these, grief at the death fan unnamedfriend, occumzd before hc became n Christian; the other, the death of hisma, mer, In this short chapter I shall uuempr or give an account of rhesusgricié, using this account co defend Augustineagainstr the charge dm hethough: that in was a Chrisrianfs duty or be like God by seeking he eliminaterind offal grime.

THE GRIEFS

During he period when he was 21 Manatee Augustine recounts she devastateing sense floss rl-mar the death cf. friend caused him, He reels us than he hadgrown up with this person, though hen was not yet than his Mend, fm- they hadbeen Hinds for scarcely a year when he dicd.A11d even though Hinds "Ir. wasless than true &iendsl1ip which is not possible unless you bond together chosewho cleave to one another by the love which ‘is poured imo our hear: by theHoly Spirit who is given to us."" The paradigm of Eiandship is ChristianGieudship, and this was not a case of such. Augustine tells us that when theywere younger he had turned the man away Room Christianity, and. followinghis death, “my soul could not endure m bc without him"ThesSanrcpsom: 0Fthe words that he used to express his grief av. the loss.

"Criefdnrkcnxcd my heart" (Lam. 5:17). Everything on which I seer my gazewas dnrh. My hometown became :4 mmm: or me; my &:herE house ustrange world of unhappiness; all lm I had shared with him was wimhcur