Saint Augustin Lecteur et Interprete de Saint Paul dans le De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione (hiver 411-412) (review)

Against the background of a steadily increasing number of studies of scriptural exegesis in the early church, the author of this work adopts an approach which is refreshing and provocative. Rather than attempting a sketch of Augustine’s interpretation of Paul in general or of one Pauline epistle in particular, and rather than tracing Augustine’s developing interpretation of some Pauline passage, verse or theme, he proposes instead to focus on one Augustinian treatise in order to reveal in its use of Pauline material the “structured ensemble (with) its own consistency” (72).

Using the phraseology of Goulven Madec, Delaroche indicates a desire to clarify the peculiar movement of discourse, argumentation and thought that Augustine has developed in the De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, particularly with regard to the exegesis of Paul contained therein. By concentrating his efforts on this one composition he hopes to get inside its logic, so to speak, that we may see how Augustine’s thinking grew out of his scriptural sources and constantly returned to them for further inspiration and direction. This micro-focus is both the strength and the limitation, even weakness, of the study, which for all of its remarkable throughness and detail lacks critical perspective and thus does not achieve quite the clarification for which the author hopes.

The introduction contains a good analysis of the concrete historical setting of this work of Augustine’s as well as a careful delineation of the personalities and politics surrounding the emergence of the Pelagian controversy. Augustine composed the De Meritis in response to a request from the Roman official Marcellinus, who had presided in June 411 at a conference whose result was an imperial order for submission by the Donatists. Later in that year Marcellinus laid before Augustine some doctrinal positions about which he had concern, positions being bruited about by certain Christians in Carthage. These doctrinal points turned out to be teachings associated with the presbyter Caelestius and that had apparently entered North Africa with refugees from Italy.

Three questions were specifically at issue: whether Adam would have died if he had never sinned, whether it is correct to attribute original sin to newborns and to base the practice of infant baptism on such a notion, and whether it is correct to imagine that there has ever been, or ever could be, a person without sin, except Christ himself. Augustine wrote books I and II of De Meritis in order to respond to these questions, and then wrote book III once he had begun to realize that some of these opinions were being tied to the highly respected teacher and ascetic Pelagius. In various ways Delaroche argues here that Augustine’s intent in writing was to expound the Catholic faith in the face of heretical “novelties,” and, with regard to the exegesis of Paul, to display the character of a properly Catholic exposition, particularly in the light of his misuse by heretics.

In the first section of the study the author gives consideration to Augustine’s interpretation of Paul prior to the writing of De Meritis. Delaroche decries any strong reliance by scholars on a psychological evaluation (101) of Augustine’s development, including his unfolding use and interpretation of scripture, and insists that Augustine must be understood simply as stating the faith of the Church against its detractors. What sparked such an effort on Augustine’s part was his elevation to the episcopal office and its high responsibility. In his exposition of Paul, as of Scripture as a whole, he was determined both to demonstrate and proclaim the gospel of salvation by God’s redemptive grace as this is mediated through the incarnate Word. One problem, however, with such an uncritical understanding reading of Augustine’s thought-processes is that Delaroche does not allow us to see how, and to...