Excellent selections.

This compilation of a number of Augustine's letters and sermons was published back in 2001 as one of the "Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought". Obviously though, this was not written in the recent past. Augustine lived in the 4th/5th centuries AD and is widely known by many people for being one of the greatest early church theologians. I enjoyed reading this work and appreciated the fact that a couple of scholars put this together not from a Christian perspective, but from a scholarly perspective, attempting to discern Augustine's thoughts on politics (or rather, civil authority and its out-workings). Augustine himself I must confess I do not know well. Yes, he was a bishop in the early church, prominent in North Africa and widely influential in his day...but beyond that? I do not know as much as I should. I need to read more of him and this first glimpse at his writings convinces me that further reading of him will be most profitable. This book itself is a fascinating look at the man, because the bulk of it is personal letters written from Augustine to various personages. This more personal look into Augustine's thoughts was much enjoyed and even though I didn't agree with everything Augustine wrote, my soul was blessed by this book. Some of the things I found the most fascinating? Well, Augustine lived during the period when Rome was a nominally Christian empire. He lived after the time of Constantine and so the church had state support. This led to Augustine's view that the "conversion of the empire" to Christianity was fulfilling prophecies from the Old Testament that all the kings of the earth would come to adore Christ and submit themselves to Him. Indeed, a renewing of the world order and an alignment of the nations into the kingdom of God was something that Augustine expected and thought he was seeing taking place. Without getting into the somewhat dubious interpretations of Scripture Augustine was putting forth, I did enjoy reading how he thought as he lived in a Christian empire. What was the place of the state and what was the place of the church? He touches on some of these themes, but what's most interesting is that he doesn't write about these things in a vacuum - but he addresses real issues that were taking place in the surrounding areas (usually in his region of North Africa). I also was struck by Augustine's view of how the state should uphold the law and punish wrongdoers. In his mind, the goal of any criminal justice system should be primarily to deter others from practicing evil and to reform the individual responsible. Vengeance should never be the motivation and driver behind the punishment of a criminal. And indeed, Augustine often urged mercy. That for me is one of the biggest takeaways in this book. Augustine seemed to err on the side of mercy more often than not, simply because he wanted - if possible - the guilty party to change their ways and come to Christ. He was almost always against capital punishment - for indeed, how can the soul of the guilty party be saved if the man was executed? I have not always myself thought capital punishment is a great evil, but I am pondering this further and greatly appreciate Augustine's thoughts on this. Even when various Christians were tortured and persecuted and killed...Augustine pleaded for mercy for the perpetrators and said that the Christians did not want the guilty party to be treated as the Christians had been treated. But Augustine did also recognize that the state had the right and the authority and even the duty to maintain order - and so he does not oppose civil authority using its authority to punish wrongdoers. He simply urges mercy whenever possible. Let the man who is without sin throw the first stone. But yes, the state does not wield the sword for no reason. But...consider mercy!! Honestly, reading his thoughts on criminal justice made me consider our own criminal justice system in 21st century America and weep as I see how often we err on the side of harsh and prolonged punishment for those who do wrong. We so often have spirits full of vengeance and hatred, wanting to see wrongdoers get what they deserve. Oh let us consider mercy and compassion. Other notes? I've already gone on too long, but I also found it tragic when Augustine wrote to Rome for help and assistance fighting the rising systematization of the slave trade in Africa. He writes that the churches were doing all they could to buy slaves and then help them get somewhere safe...but that countless people were being kidnapped and shipped off as slaves. His view of slavery isn't quite the same as ours (we must allow for differences from the modern thought!), but his sorrow and emotion at the outrages he saw being perpetrated and the work the church was doing to fight back...all of this stirred my soul and made me most sad as I thought that these events in the 4th century AD were but a harbinger of the horrors to come. There is nothing new under the sun. Augustine also had a few thoughts and musings that I see as leading towards the future dogmas of the Roman Catholic church...the appropriate use of the power of the state to uphold and propagate Christianity being one. While Augustine mainly states that the state should use its power to protect Christians, there is also some language used that makes me quail a bit - i.e., words in the vein of, "If we want the souls of men to be saved, why would we not do whatever it takes, use any power at our disposal, to save their souls and fight against heretical and dangerous movements?" Reading words like these make me nervous for indeed the kingdom of Christ is not of this world. Someday, the kingdom of this world will be the kingdom of Christ. But it is not yet. The gospel should not be maintained at the point of the sword. Again, this gets back to Augustine's eschatological views, which I believe were (understandably) in error in a few points. Yes, the empire had become Christian in name. But did that mean that the kingdom of God was beginning to be further manifest in a physical, political way and that the power of the state should and must be used to fight against heretical outgrowths of the Church? Augustine also very much longed for the unity of the church and I understand a small bit of how his heart must have been breaking as he saw divisions in the church - what would he think if he could see the church now!? But unity cannot be enforced by rule of law. To move on...Augustine also had a most high view of celibacy, seeing it as superior to the state of marriage. He even advises this one Roman military commander that he was sad to see he got married...but hopeful that at some point him and his wife will come to see that celibacy is preferred and that they will live in that way in their marriage. Again, reading this made me nervous as I thought of the future of the church and the dangerous results that would come from false ideas around marriage and celibacy. But, no man is perfect, surely, and as great as Augustine is - by the grace of God - even he was not perfect in all things, as he would surely admit, resting in the love of God as he did! This book greatly encouraged me and I very much appreciated reading a book written by a Christian who lived long ago - I need to read more such books. They kick me out of my insular 21st century American bubble and make me consider the greater world in all its epochs. Yes, myself and Augustine lived in different times and places and in very different circumstances. Yet, we both worship and adore the same God. How great is that? Glad I read this work, need to read more Augustine.

AN EXCELLENT COLLECTION OF AUGUSTINE’S WRITINGS ON SUCH SUBJECTS

Augustine (354-430) of Hippo Regius (in North Africa) was a tremendously influential Christian theologian and philosopher; his ‘City of God’ is a theological landmark, and his autobiographical ‘Confessions’ tells the story of his conversion, plus much more.

He says of a ‘Just War’: “the safety of the city of God is such that it can be retained, or rather acquired, by faith and with faith; but if faith be abandoned, no one can attain it… The real evils in war are love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like; and it is generally to punish these things… that, in obedience to God or some lawful authority, good men undertake wars… A great deal depends on the causes for which men undertake wars, and on the authority they have for doing so… When war is undertaken in obedience to God, who would rebuke, or humble, or crush the pride of man, it must be allowed to be a righteous war…” (Pg. 163-165)

He continues, “If it is supposed that God could not enjoin warfare, because in after times it was said by the Lord Jesus Christ, ‘I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but if any one strike thee on the right cheek, turn to him the left also,’ the answer is, that what is here required is not a bodily action, but an inward disposition.” (Pg. 165-166)

He suggests, “At one time [Jesus] says … ‘…he that hath not a sword, let him sell his garments, and buy one.’ Does this not show how, without any inconsistency, precepts and counsels may be changed, as different times require different arrangements?... And we find in the passage that we have quoted… that the words spoken by the Lord were carried into effect by his disciples… Hence we find Peter with a weapon when he cut off the assailant’s ear, on which occasion his spontaneous boldness was checked, because, although he had been told to take a sword, he had not been told to use it. Doubtless, it was mysterious that the Lord should require them to carry weapons, and forbid the use of them. But it was His part to give the suitable precepts, and it was their part to obey without reserve.” (Pg. 169)

He argues, “If God permits [evil] things to prevail, He is in that permission showing more grievous displeasure: if He leave these crimes unpunished, such impunity is a more terrible judgment. When, on the other hand, He overthrows the props of vice, and reduces to poverty those lusts which were nursed by plenty, He afflicts in mercy… even wars might be waged by the good, in order that, by bringing under the yoke the unbridled lusts of men, those vices might be abolished which ought, under a just government, to be either extirpated or suppressed. For if the Christian religion condemned wars of every kind, the command given in the gospel to soldiers … would rather be to cast away their arms, and withdraw themselves wholly from military service; whereas the word spoken to such as, ‘Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages’---the command to be content with their wages manifestly implying no prohibition to continue in the service.” (Pg. 179-180)

He summarizes, “Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only that God may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in peace. For peace is no sought in order to the kindling of war, but war is waged in order that peace may be obtained. Therefore, even in waging war, cherish the spirit of a peace-maker, that, by conquering those whom you attack, you may lead them back to the advantage of peace.” (Pg. 182)

He recalls, “Fortunius began to insist upon my answering categorically this question: Whether I thought the persecutor or the persecuted to be in the right? To which I answered, that the question was not fairly stated: it might be that both were in the wrong, or that the persecution might be made by the one who was the more righteous… I also asked whether Maximianus… was in his view a righteous man… I therefore reminded him that he had endured such persecution that his church had been razed to the foundations… I labored to persuade him… go give up affirming that the suffering of persecution is the most infallible mark or Christian righteousness.” (Pg. 185-186)

He states, “the thing to be considered when anyone is coerced, is not the mere fact of the coercion, but the nature of that to which he is coerced, whether it be good or bad: not that anyone can be good in spite of his own will, but that, through fear of suffering what he does not desire, h either renounces his hostile prejudices, or is compelled to examine truth of which he had been contentedly ignorant; and under the influence of this fear repudiates the error which he was wont to defend, or seeks the truth of which he formerly knew nothing, and now willingly holds what he formerly rejected.” (Pg. 202-203)

He acknowledges, “originally my opinion was, that no one should be coerced into the unity of Christ, that we must act only by words, fight only by arguments, and prevail by force of reason, lest we should have those whom we knew as avowed heretics feigning themselves to be Catholics. But this opinion of mine was overcome not by the words of those won controverted it, but by the conclusive instances to which they could point. For, in the first place, there was set over against my opinion my own town, which, although it was once wholly on the side of the Donatists, was brought over to the Catholic unity by fear of the imperial edicts, but which we now see filled with such detestation of your ruinous perversity, that it would scarcely be believed that it had ever been involved in your error.” (Pg. 203-204)

He asserts, “It is indeed better … that men should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be driven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow that because the former course produces the better men, therefore those who do not yield to it should be neglected. For many have found advantage… in being first compelled by fear or pain, so that they might afterwards be influenced by teaching, or might follow out in act what they had already learned in word.” (Pg. 214) Later, he adds, “Why, therefore, should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to return, if the lost sons compelled others to their destruction?” (Pg. 217)

He advises, “Lo! In what frail estate is the life of man; which sooner or later thou must abandon; do not struggle then in such wise for it, as that thou shouldest be abandoned thyself.” (Pg. 314)

This book will be of great interest to those studying Augustine and Christian theology, but also of the history of political science.

While I generally appreciate the writings of Augustine, I found this particular book/translation forgettable.

The sections taken from Augustine was wonderful. This basically an abridged version of City of God. It leaves out a lot of the historical and mythological aspects and focuses more on the specifically political content. This book gets 4 starts because the publishers (Hacket) decided to save a buck and print it on paper that is impossible to take notes on.

Man, Augustine is so profound in places that it is difficult to read this in a couple of sittings (which I had to do for class) I will definitely be coming back to it more in the future to mine it for deeper insights.

I think this is an excellent book. please beware that if you want to read it, you must reqd cover to cover, by which I mean the explanatory commentary and you must have an intention for why you're reading it. whether you agree with the philosophy, the English translation is antiquated and times very hard to read.

"How much more agreeable it is for two friends to eat, drink, and talk together than for a man and a woman to dwell in common." Basically, Augustine was the first asexual.

Taking its readings mostly from the Civitas Dei , the 'Political Writings' form a good introduction to St.Augsutine's theological anthropology and their political consequences. What does it mean for us, socially and politically that Man as such isn`t ... well... very good? (Romans 3). One thing's for sure: the saint would have made short shrift of any utopian project.

It would be hard to contest if someone said to me that Augustine's ideas were the beginning of the end for Christian thought, truly Christian intellectualism, and the doctrine being anything worth paying attention to. Are these 'good' philosophical reflections? At times, yes, usually not very, but in all times, they are decidedly, uniquely antithetical to Christian teaching prior to Augustine's work, and not in a way that improves it. If I wanted the death of God, I'd go for Nietzsche instead.

Quite enjoyed re-learning the base of Monotheism.

Augustine is a canonical classic for one exploring the intellectual elements of Christianity. I would say that reading this helped better inform my role as a citizen in contemporary society through a Christian ethic--how can I be a good citizen and a good Christian, and do they feed into each other? I think this would be an enjoyable read for those that are religious, interested in the history of Christianity, or would like to reflect on religion's relationship with politics.