No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
St. Augustine's Conception of the State1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
Extract
In his celebrated lecture on the Confessions of St. Augustine the late Professor Adolf von Harnack declared: “Between St. Paul the Apostle and Luther the Reformer, the Christian Church has possessed no one who could measure him- self with Augustine; and in comprehensive influence no other is to be compared with him.” Not only was this North African bishop the chief luminary of Western Christendom in his own generation, but through his writings he fairly dominated the philosophy, the theology, and the ethics of the Middle Ages; he stimulated the medieval mystics, alike those who accepted and many of those who rejected the traditional dogmas; he inspired both the so-called forerunners of the Reformation and the leading humanists of the Renaissance; and in large measure he moulded the evangelical faith and piety of the Lutheran and especially of the Reformed churches from the days of their founders down to our own times. But in no realm of thought or life was his influence more potent or historically more significant than in that characteristic development of the relations of church and state that marked the millenial period beginning, less than half a century after his death, with the fall of the Western Empire in the year 476. He was the weightiest authority to whom emperors and popes could and did appeal for support in their age-long contest for the supreme power: the former to vindicate their independence in secular affairs, and the latter to prove their lordship over all other earthly potentates, whether temporal or spiritual.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Church History 1935
References
2 Monasticism: Its Ideals and History, and The Confessions of St. Augustine (Crown Theological Library, xxviii), p. 123.Google Scholar
3 Cf. Mirbt, K., Die Stellung Augustins in der Publizistik des gregorianischen Kirchemstreits, Leipzig, 1888.Google Scholar He shows the thoroughly partisan use that both factions made of Augustine's often purely incidental and never fully developed statements.
4 These are specially important for his doctrine of the church. Cf. Reuter, H., Augustimsche Studien, Gotha, 1887, p. 151Google Scholar: “Man kann die Staatslehre Augustin's nur mit äusserster Vorsicht und selbst dann nicht vollständig aus den lib. de civ. schöpfen. Sie ist korrekt nur unter Vergleichung anderer Schriften, namentlich der antidonatistischen aufzubauen.”
5 We use the edition of Dombart, B., Leipzig, (vol. i, 1908Google Scholar; vol. ii, 1918); and the English translation by Dods, Marcus in the Nioene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Buffalo, 1887, Second Series, vol. ii.Google Scholar
6 I, Praefatio, ; xxii, 30Google Scholar (ii, p. 635, ed. Dombart): “ingentis huius operis”; Retract. ii, 69Google Scholar (i, p. 1): “grande opus.”
7 The facts in regard to the origin of the work, the dates for the publication of the several parts, the course of the argument as a whole, and such matters, may be found in the introductory chapter of Seholz, H.'s Glaube and Unglaube in der Weltgeschichte: Ein Kommentar eu Augustins De Civitate Dei, Leipzig, 1911.Google Scholar Later writers have called attention to some misconceptions in this “Commentary”, but it is on the whole the most useful guide we have for the study of the City of God.
8 Cf. the ancient title in Dombart, , ii, p. 635Google Scholar: “De Civitate Dei contra paganos.”
9 Retract., ii, 43Google Scholar (E. T., p. xii); cf. De Civ. Dei, x, 32Google Scholar, at the end.
10 See Flint, , Philosophy of History in France and French Belgium and Switzerland, 1894, pp. 152ff.Google Scholar; Reinkens, J., Die Geschichtsphilosophie des heiligen Augustinus, 1865Google Scholar; Seyrich, G. J., Die Geschichtsphilosohpie Augustins nach seiner Sehrift De civitate Dei, 1891Google Scholar; Biegler, J., Die Civitas Dei des heiligen Augustinus, 1894Google Scholar; Niemann, A., Augustins Geschichtsphilosophie, 1895.Google Scholar
11 Holl, Karl, “Augustins innere Entwicklung,” (in Gesammelte Aufsätse zur Kirchengeschichte, Tübingen, iii, 1928) p. 101f.Google Scholar; Hermelink, , “Die civitas terrena bei Augnstin” (Festgabe von Fachgenossen und Freunden A. Von Harnack sum siebzigsten Geburtstag dargebracht, Tübingen, 1921), p. 311f.Google Scholar
12 Psalm 87, 3Google Scholar; 48, 2; 46, 4.
13 Among these he may have had in mind Heb. 11, 10; 11, 16; 12, 22; 13, 14; and Rev. 3, 12; 21, 2.
14 Seholz, , op. cit., p. 71f.Google Scholar, gives an extended account of some striking adumbrations, amounting almost to anticipations, of the Augustinian antithesis between civitas Dei and civitas terrena, in Plato, Plotinus, the Stoics, Philo, Hermas, Origen, Lactantius, Ambrose, and Ticonius.
15 xv, 1, xv, 2 (ii, p. 59, 60).
16 xiv, 13 (ii, p. 33).
17 xv, 1 (ii, p. 58).
18 xiv, 1 (ii, p. 4).
19 xi, 28 (i, p. 502).
20 xx, 3 (ii, p. 556f.). How far Augustine's doctrine of predestination undermines the Catholic dogma of the church may be seen in Reuter, , op. cit., p. 96f.Google Scholar
21 Not with Beth, as Reuter (p. 132) represents.
22 xii, 28 (i, p. 556).
23 xvii, 15 and 16, and the later chapters dealing with the history of the Jews.
24 xviii, 23 (ii, 285).
25 xviii, 47 (ii, 330).
26 xx, 5 (ii, 411).
27 xx, 9 (ii, p. 429, 431). Augustine gave up his earlier chiliasm and interpreted the millenium as the present reign of Christ and his saints.
28 xxii, 29 and 30.
29 Reuter, , op. cit., p. 130Google Scholar: “Die Wahl des Wortes civitas ist doch eine verhängnisvolle geworden.” Cf. p. 131.
30 Die Ethik des hl. Augustinus, i, Freiburg, 1909, p. 332.Google Scholar
31 Seidel, Bruno, “Die Lehre des hl. Augustinus vom Staate,” in Kirchengeschlchtliche Abhandlungen herausg. von Dr. Max Sdralek, ix, i, Breslau, 1909, pp. 5–14Google Scholar; Schilling, Otto, Die Staats- und Soziallehre des hl. Augustinus, Freiburg, 1910, particularly pp. 37–44Google Scholar, where he shows that Gierke, (Das Deutsche Genossenschaftsrecht, iii, Berlin, 1897)Google Scholar misinterprets the five passages from De Civ. Dei which he cites in support of his view that Augustine denies all justification to the state per se.
32 Robertson, Archibald, Begnum Dei, London, 1901, p. 206ff.Google Scholar; Scholz, as cited— though his judgment of Augustine's “state” is not as favorable as the facts warrant; Eckstädt, K., Augustins Anschmmng vom Staat, Kirchhain, 1912, p. 7Google Scholar; Troeltsch, , Augustin, die christliche Antike und das Mittelalter, Berlin, 1915, p. 12f.Google Scholar; Hermelink, as cited, p. 302; Figgis, J. N., The Political, Aspects of St. Augustine's ‘City of God’, Lond., 1921, p. 50.Google Scholar
33 xv, 8 (ii, p. 73): “civitas, quae nihil est aliud quam hominum multitude aliquo societatis vinculo conligata”. Cf. Quaest. ev. ii, 46Google Scholar (Migne, , P. L. 35, 1360)Google Scholar: “rationalium multitude legis unius societate devincta.”
34 Letter 138, 11Google Scholar, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, i, p. 484Google Scholar. Cf. De Civ D. xix, 24Google Scholar (ii, p. 400): “Populus est coetus multitudinis rationalis rerum quas diligit concordi communione sociatus.”
35 xix, 16 (ii, p. 384): “ad ordinatam imperandi oboediendique concordiam civium.”
36 Eckstädt, , p. 14Google Scholar, gives a list of instances.
37 xxii, 6 (ii, 563): “civitates positas sub iure Romano.”
38 xiv, 13 (ii, p. 33). Cf. xviii, 18 (ii, p. 277): “civitate, quae profecto et angelorum et hominum societas impiorum est”; xii, 1 (i, p. 512): “sed duae potius civitates, hoc est societates, merito ease dicantur, una in bonis, altera in mails non solum angelis, verum etiam hominibus constitutae.”
39 xiv, 28 (ii, p. 56): “Fecerunt itaque civitates duas amores duo, terrenam scilicet amor sui usque ad contemptum Dei, caelestem vero amor Dei usque ad contemptum sui.”
40 i, Praef.
41 viii, 25 (i, p. 363).
42 xvi, 17 (ii, p. 153): “terrigenarum civitas.”
43 xv, 15 (ii, p. 88).
44 x, 32 (i, p. 460).
45 xiv, 1 (ii p. 1).
46 i, 30 (i, p. 47).
47 Op. cit., p. 126.
48 There are, indeed, a few cases in which the “terrena” seems to be morally colorless, signifying, simply, “on earth”; see Eckstädt, , p. 19f.Google Scholar, and Seidel, , p. 13.Google Scholar
49 xx, 9 (ii, p. 431): “impia civitas … et populus infldelium contrarius populo fideli et civitati Dei”.
50 Kiolde, F., Das Staatswesen des Mittelalters, Teil I, Seine Grundlegung durch Augustin, p. 6Google Scholar, misconstrues this statement, saying, “Dem irdischen Staat gegenüber steht der himmlische, der sich selber welter in zwei einander entgegengesetzte Teile spaltete, den guten und den bösen.” The error is the more remarkable as Reinkens, to whom he refers, gave the correct rendering.
51 Of. Bliemetzrieder, , “Ueber St. Augustin's Schrift, ‘De civitate Dei’” in Theologische Quartalschrift, Tübingen, 1933, p. 103.Google Scholar
52 xv, 1 (ii, p. 58).
53 Op. cit., p. 309. Seidel, , p. 7Google Scholar, refers to the occasional phrase “secundum scripturas nostras” (xiv, 1) as an equivalent, but this does not bring out clearly the main idea—that of the more or less hidden figurative meaning.
54 So Troeltsch, , p. 11.Google Scholar
55 v, 19 (i, p. 230): “quandam formam terrenae civitatis.”
56 Cf. Holl, as cited, p. 100.
57 xv, 5 (ii, p. 64).
58 E. g., Eucken, , Die Lebensanschauungen der grossen Denker, 1890, p. 282Google Scholar; and Scholz, , p. 99.Google Scholar
59 i, 35 (i, p. 51). Cf. xv, 22 (ii, p. 106), referring to Genesis 6:2.
60 xv, 20 (ii, p. 99).
61 xvi, 17 (ii, p. 153f.); cf. xvii, 16 (ii, p. 239).
62 Ibid.
63 iv, 15 (i, p. 165).
64 v, 13 (i, p. 218).
65 xv, 5 (ii, p. 64).
66 Books ii–v.
67 Mausbach, , i, p. 332f.Google Scholar, gives three reasons for the fact: 1) political interests and motives, if not restrained, lead to the sinful cupiditas and superbia of the civitas terrena; 2) the ancient world monarchies reflected this tendency in its heathenish character; and 3) the treatise itself was occasioned by the defenders of the heathen Roman state.
68 Hermelink, , p. 309.Google Scholar
69 Op. cit., p. 37.
70 See Seidel, , p. 25Google Scholar, for an excellent summary of the various forms of this basal error in the writings of Sehmidt, Dorner, Reuter, Gierke, Kolde, Eucken, von Eicken, and Sommerlad; the last-named going the length of saying: “Einzig und allein die irdische staatliche Gesellschaft gewinnt für den grossen Kirchenlehrer Berechtigung, die sich unbedingt nud unbeschränkt in den Dienst der Gemeinde Gottes, der Kirche, und ihres Organs, des Klerus, begiebt.” (Die wirtschaftliche Thätigkeit der Kirche in Deutschland, i, p. 137)Google Scholar. We think that Seidel is justified in saying: “Alle diese den wahren Anschauungen Augustins widerspreehenden Behauptungen rühren von der verkehrten Auffassung des Begriffs civitas terrena als Wesensbestimmung für ‘Staat’ Oder ‘nichtchristlicher Staat’ her.”
71 Op, cit., p. 63.
72 xix, 24 (ii, p. 400): “Populus est coetus multitudinis rationalis rerum quas diligit concordi communione sociatus.”
73 Op. cit., p. 29f.
74 i, 15 (i, p. 27): “cum aliud civitas non sit quam concors hominum multitudo.”
75 ii, 18 (i, p. 74). Cf. iii, 23 (i, p. 135): “discordiae civiles vel potius inciviles.”
76 iii, 25 (i, p. 136).
77 (See note 33).
78 Op. cit., p. 137f.
79 iv, 4 (i, p. 150): “Remota itaque iustitia quid sunt regna nisi magna latrocinia?”
80 Op. cit., p. 102. But on the very next page he admits that Augustine concedes to the “Naturstaat” a certain “iustitia eivilis.”
81 Vol. i, p. 336f.
82 P. 20f.
83 P. 110f.
84 P. 321. He thinks, however, that the possibility ought to be left open that the clause may be both causal and hypothetical.
85 P. 40.
86 P. 60.
87 Scholz, and especially Troeltseh and Schilling, develop the historic background of Augustine's ideas on the lex naturae.
88 Seidel, , p. 23.Google Scholar
89 ii, 21 (i, p. 80).
90 iii, 10 (i, p. 107): “Decenter Ms artibus Roma crevit.”
91 iv, 15 (i, p. 164).
92 xii, 23 (i, p. 550): “in pluribus unitas.”
93 xix, 12 (ii, p. 375): “Quanto magis homo fertur quodam modo naturae suae legibus ad ineundam societatem pacemque cum hominibus, quantum in ipso est, omnibus obtinendam.”
94 xv, 16 (ii, p. 93):” “quoddam seminarium est civitatis.”
95 xix, 16 (ii, p. 383): “Quia igitur hominis domus initium sive particula debet esse civitatis.”
96 Cf. Schilling, , p. 60.Google Scholar
97 xix, 14 (ii, p. 381).
98 xix, 15 (ii, p. 381).
99 Ibid.
100 Augustine, like the earlier Fathers, accepted slavery as a historical fact; but Mausbaeh, , i, p. 327Google Scholar, goes too far in intimating, on the basis of xix, 14 (ii, p. 380), that he regarded slavery as “necessary.”
101 Gregorovius, , Rome in the Middle Ages, 4th ed., E. t., i. p. 169Google Scholar, says: Augustine “considered the Empire of the Romans, with all its imperious majesty, its laws, literature and philosophy, only as the accursed work of devils.” But Augustine says, on the contrary, that it was God who gave Rome its ancient glory; v. 15f.
102 xii, 28 (i, p. 555).
103 Confessiones, iii, c. 8, 35Google Scholar; cf. De Civ. D., iv, 4.Google Scholar
104 v, 1 (i, p. 190): “Prorsus divina providentia regna constituuntur humana.”
105 Op. cit., p. 51. Cf. Fuchs, H., Augustin und der antike Friedensgedanke, Berlin, 1926, p. 16f.Google Scholar
106 xix, 11 (ii, p. 372).
107 xix, 13 (ii, p. 377).
108 xix, 10 and 11 (ii, p. 370f.).
109 xix, 14 (ii, p. 379).
110 xv, 4 (ii, p. 63).
111 xix, 7 (ii, p. 367).
112 v, 15 (i, p. 220).
113 iv, 15 (i, p. 164): “Si ergo iusta gerenda bella, non impia, non iniqua, Romani imperium tarn magnum adquirere potuernnt.” Cf. i, 21 (i, p. 35), concerning those who—in the biblical history—“waged war in obedience to the divine command.”
114 xviii, 22 (ii, p. 284).
115 Ep. 138 (to Marcellinus), c. 15. Ep. 189 (to Boniface), c. 4: “Do not think that it is impossible for any one to please God while engaged in active military service.”
116 iv, 6 (i, p. 153): “Inferre antem bella finitimis et in cetera inde procedere ac populos sibi non molestos sola regni eupiditate conterere et subdere, quid aliud quam grande latrocinium nominandum est?”
117 xix, 17 (ii, p. 384).
118 Ep. 130 (to Proba), c. xii, section 13.
119 Ep. 93 (to Vincentius), c. 12, sect. 50: “Every earthly possession can be rightly retained only on the ground of divine right, according to which all things belong to the righteous, or of human right, which is the jurisdiction of the kings of the earth.” Cf. xix, 17 (ii, p. 384): “legibus terrenae civitatis, quae sustentandae mortali vitae accommodata sunt, obtemperare non dubitat.”
120 xix, 17 (ii, p. 384).
121 Op. cit., p. 384.
122 Op. cit., p. 34.
123 Op. cit., p. 29.
124 Ibid.
125 xix, 5 and 6 (ii, p. 364f.).
126 Augustinus, 1873, p. 298.Google Scholar
127 xv. 4 (ii, p. 63): “Non autem reete dicitur ea bona non esse, quae concupiscit haee civitas, quando est et ipsa in suo genere melior.” We follow Hermelink, p. 315, and Mausbach, i, 339, in the interpretation of this difficult and much debated passage. Cf. Scholz, , p. 105Google Scholar, and Bliemetzrieder, , p. 102.Google Scholar
128 Ep. 133 (to Marcellinus), e. 2 (ed. Goldbacher, , iii, p. 82)Google Scholar: “Imple, Christiane iudex, pii patris offieium.”
129 iv, 3 (i, p. 149f.).
130 Ep. 155 (to Mareellinus), e. 7 (ed. Goldbacher, , iii, p. 437)Google Scholar: “Quoniam vero te rei publicae scimus amatorem, non aliunde esse beatum hominem, aliunde civitatem vide quam sit in illis sacris litteris clarum.”
131 xix, 16 (ii, p. 383).
132 i, 33 (i, p. 50).
133 xix, 14 (ii, p. 381).
134 Ep. 155, c. 2 (Golctbacher, iii, p. 349).Google Scholar
135 v. 19 (ii, p. 230).
136 iv, 3 (i, p. 149f.).
137 iv, 28 (i, p. 181): “melius hie regnum haberent, quantumcumque haberent.”
138 L. c., p. 151.Google Scholar
139 Scholz, , p. 110f.Google Scholar; Holl, , pp. 101, 115Google Scholar; Robertson, , p. 214Google Scholar; and Seidel, , p. 44Google Scholar, note 1, as against Reuter's contention that the kingdom of God means only the invisible communion of the saints and not the hierarchically governed church.
140 Luke, 20, 25.Google Scholar
141 xix, 17 (ii, p. 385 f.).
142 Ep. 138 (to Marcellinus), c. ii, sect. 11 (ed. Goldbacher, , iii, p. 136).Google Scholar
143 Ibid., sect. 10 (iii, p. 135).
144 v, 24 (i, p. 237), the justly celebrated “Mirror of the Princes”. Cf. v, 26, on the piety of Theodosius.
145 Ep. 155 (to Macedonius), c. 9, sect. 17 (ed. Goldbacher, , iii, p. 477)Google Scholar: “ut te appareat in terreni iudicis cingulo non parua ex parte caelestem rem publicam eogitare.”
146 xix, 19 (ii, p. 388): “In actione vero non amandus est honor in hae vita sive potentia, quoniam omnia vana sub sole, sed opus ipsum, quod per honorem vel potentiam fit, si reete atque utiliter fit, id est, ut valeat ad earn salutem subditorum, quae seeundum Deum est.”
147 xix, 16 (ii, p. 384).
148 Seidel, , pp. 50, 53Google Scholar; and, less explicitly and confidently, Schilling, , p. 144.Google Scholar
149 Ep. 232 (to the brethren of Madaura), c. 3 (ed. Goldbacher, , iv, p. 514)Google Scholar. Cf. Ep. 35 (to Eusebius), anno 396, c. 3 (Goldbacher, , ii, p. 30)Google Scholar: “Dominus … qui iugo suo in gremio ems toto orbe diffuse omnia terrena regna subiecit.”
150 Ep. 185 (to Boniface, “Concerning the Correction of the Donatists”), c. 2, sect. 8 and c. 5, sect. 20 (ed. Goldbaeher, , iv, p. 7 and p. 18).Google Scholar
151 v. 26 (i, p. 240).
152 v, 24 (i, p. 237).
153 Contra Lit. Petiliani, ii, c. 92, sect. 210 (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, iv. p. 583).Google Scholar
154 Harnack, , History of Dogma, E. t., v. p. 144f.Google Scholar; for the modifications occasioned by Augustine's later emphasis on predestination, see p. 163f.
155 Contra Ep. Maniehaei Quam Vocant Fundamenti, c. i (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, F. Ser., iv, p. 129).Google Scholar
156 Ep. 93 (anno 408, to Vinceutius, one of the small group of Donatists called Rogatists), c. 5, sect. 17 (ed. Goldbacher, , ii, p. 461)Google Scholar. Cf. Ep. 23 (anno 392, when Augustine was still a presbyter), c. 7 (Goldbacher, , i, p. 71)Google Scholar: “cessabit a nostris partibus terror temporalium potestatum; cesset etiam a uestris partibus terror congregatorum Cireumcellionum: re agamus, ratione agamus, diuinarum seripturarum auctoritatibus agamus.”
157 Contra Ep. Manich., as cited, i.
158 Ep. 93, c. iv, sect. 12ff. (Goldbacher, , ii, p. 456).Google Scholar
159 Ibid., c. If., c. 17ff. Cf. Ep. 185, c. ii, sect. 7 (Goldb., iv, p. 7).Google Scholar
160 Ep. 100 (to Donatus), c. 1 and 2 (Goldb., ii, p. 535)Google Scholar; Ep. 133 (to Mareellinus), c. 3 (Goldb., iii, p. 83)Google Scholar; Ep. 134 (to Apringius), c. 2 (Goldb., iii, p. 85).Google Scholar
161 Ep. 173 (to Donatus), c. 10 (Goldb., iii, p. 647); Ep. 185 (to Boniface), c. ii, sect. 7 (Goldb., iv, p. 7); Ep. 93, c. v, sect. 18 (Goldb., ii, p. 463).
162 Ep. 173, as cited e. iii (iii, p. 641).
163 Ep. 93, c. ii, sect. 7 (ii, p. 451f.).
164 Op. cit., p. 501, n. 3.
165 Cf. Seidel, , p. 26Google Scholar; Mausbach, , i, p. 350Google Scholar; and Figgis, , p. 67.Google Scholar
166 Op. cit., p. 142.
167 Op. cit., p. 40.
168 Seidel, , p. 46, n. 3.Google Scholar
169 Reuter, , op. cit., p. 98Google Scholar. Cf. Harnack, , History of Dogma, v. p. 166Google Scholar: “Thus the thought of predestination shatters every notion of the Church.”. “Not only does the Medieval Catholic doctrine of the Sacraments go back to Augustine, but so do the spiritualists of the Middle Ages, and, in turn, Luther and Calvin are indebted to him for suggestions” (ibid., p. 162).
170 Op. cit., p. 108.
171 Regnum Dei, p. 214.Google Scholar