View source for Directory:Logic Museum/Augustine City of God Book I

'''ON THE CITY OF GOD, BOOK I'''
----------------------

Translated by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Dods_%28theologian%29 Marcus Dods].

Augustin censures the pagans, who attributed the calamities of the world, and especially the recent sack of Rome by the Goths, to the Christian religion, and its prohibition of the worship of the gods.  He speaks of the blessings and ills of life, which then, as always, happened to good and bad men alike.  Finally, he rebukes the shamelessness of those who cast up to the Christians that their women had been violated by the soldiers.

*[[#c0|Introduction]] His Design in Undertaking This Work
*[[#c1|Chapter 1]] Of the Adversaries of the Name of Christ, Whom the Barbarians for Christ's Sake Spared When They Stormed the City.
*[[#c2|Chapter 2]] That It is Quite Contrary to the Usage of War, that the Victors Should Spare the Vanquished for the Sake of Their Gods.
*[[#c3|Chapter 3]] That the Romans Did Not Show Their Usual Sagacity When They Trusted that They Would Be Benefited by the Gods Who Had Been Unable to Defend Troy.
*[[#c4|Chapter 4]] Of the Asylum of Juno in Troy, Which Saved No One from the Greeks; And of the Churches of the Apostles, Which Protected from the Barbarians All Who Fled to Them.
*[[#c5|Chapter 5]] Caesar's Statement Regarding the Universal Custom of an Enemy When Sacking a City.
*[[#c6|Chapter 6]] That Not Even the Romans, When They Took Cities, Spared the Conquered in Their Temples.
*[[#c7|Chapter 7]] That the Cruelties Which Occurred in the Sack of Rome Were in Accordance with the Custom of War, Whereas the Acts of Clemency Resulted from the Influence of Christ's Name.
*[[#c8|Chapter 8]] Of the Advantages and Disadvantages Which Often Indiscriminately Accrue to Good and Wicked Men.
*[[#c9|Chapter 9]] Of the Reasons for Administering Correction to Bad and Good Together.
*[[#c10|Chapter 10]] That the Saints Lose Nothing in Losing Temporal Goods.
*[[#c11|Chapter 11]] Of the End of This Life, Whether It is Material that It Be Long Delayed.
*[[#c12|Chapter 12]] Of the Burial of the Dead:  that the Denial of It to Christians Does Them No Injury.
*[[#c13|Chapter 13]] Reasons for Burying the Bodies of the Saints.
*[[#c14|Chapter 14]] Of the Captivity of the Saints, and that Divine Consolation Never Failed Them Therein.
*[[#c15|Chapter 15]] Of Regulus, in Whom We Have an Example of the Voluntary Endurance of Captivity for the Sake of Religion; Which Yet Did Not Profit Him, Though He Was a Worshipper of the Gods.
*[[#c16|Chapter 16]] Of the Violation of the Consecrated and Other Christian Virgins, to Which They Were Subjected in Captivity and to Which Their Own Will Gave No Consent; And Whether This Contaminated Their Souls.
*[[#c17|Chapter 17]] Of Suicide Committed Through Fear of Punishment or Dishonor.
*[[#c18|Chapter 18]] Of the Violence Which May Be Done to the Body by Another's Lust, While the Mind Remains Inviolate.
*[[#c19|Chapter 19]] Of Lucretia, Who Put an End to Her Life Because of the Outrage Done Her.
*[[#c20|Chapter 20]] That Christians Have No Authority for Committing Suicide in Any Circumstances Whatever.
*[[#c21|Chapter 21]] Of the Cases in Which We May Put Men to Death Without Incurring the Guilt of Murder.
*[[#c22|Chapter 22]] That Suicide Can Never Be Prompted by Magnanimity.
*[[#c23|Chapter 23]] What We are to Think of the Example of Cato, Who Slew Himself Because Unable to Endure Cжsar's Victory.
*[[#c24|Chapter 24]] That in that Virtue in Which Regulus Excels Cato, Christians are Pre-Eminently Distinguished.
*[[#c25|Chapter 25]] That We Should Not Endeavor By Sin to Obviate Sin.
*[[#c26|Chapter 26]] That in Certain Peculiar Cases the Examples of the Saints are Not to Be Followed.
*[[#c27|Chapter 27]] Whether Voluntary Death Should Be Sought in Order to Avoid Sin.
*[[#c28|Chapter 28]] By What Judgment of God the Enemy Was Permitted to Indulge His Lust on the Bodies of Continent Christians.
*[[#c29|Chapter 29]] What the Servants of Christ Should Say in Reply to the Unbelievers Who Cast in Their Teeth that Christ Did Not Rescue Them from the Fury of Their Enemies.
*[[#c30|Chapter 30]] That Those Who Complain of Christianity Really Desire to Live Without Restraint in Shameful Luxury.
*[[#c31|Chapter 31]] By What Steps the Passion for Governing Increased Among the Romans.
*[[#c32|Chapter 32]] Of the Establishment of Scenic Entertainments.
*[[#c33|Chapter 33]] That the Overthrow of Rome Has Not Corrected the Vices of the Romans.
*[[#c34|Chapter 34]] Of God's Clemency in Moderating the Ruin of the City.
*[[#c35|Chapter 35]] Of the Sons of the Church Who are Hidden Among the Wicked, and of False Christians Within the Church.
*[[#c36|Chapter 36]] What Subjects are to Be Handled in the Following Discourse.



{| border=1 cellpadding=10
!valign = top width=44%|Latin
!valign = top width=56%|Latin
|- valign = top
||<div id="c0"><b>BOOK I</b> [Pr] Gloriosissimam civitatem Dei sive in hoc temporum cursu, cum inter impios peregrinatur ex fide vivens, sive in illa stabilitate sedis aeternae, quam nunc expectat per patientiam, quoadusque iustitia convertatur in iudicium, deinceps adeptura per excellentiam victoria ultima et pace perfecta, hoc opere instituto et mea ad te promissione debito defeendere adversus eos, qui conditori eius deos suos praeferunt, fili carissime Marcelline, suscepi, magnum opus et arduum, sed Deus adiutor noster est. Nam scio quibus viribus opus sit, ut persuadeatur superbis quanta sit virtus humilitatis, qua fit ut omnia terrena cacumina temporali mobilitate nutantia non humano usurpata fastu, sed divina gratia donata celsitudo transcendat. Rex enim et conditor civitatis huius, de qua loqui instituimus, in scriptura populi sui sententiam divinae legis aperuit, qua dictum est: Deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam. Hoc vero, quod Dei est, superbae quoque animae spiritus inflatus adfectat amatque sibi in laudibus dici: Parcere subiectis et debellare superbos. unde etiam de terrena civitate, quae cum dominari adpetit, etsi populi seruiant, ipsa ei dominandi libido dominatur, non est praetereundum silentio quidquid dicere suscepti huius operis ratio postulat si facultas datur.  ||The glorious city of God is my theme in this work, which you, my dearest son Marcellinus, suggested, and which is due to you by my promise.  I have undertaken its defence against those who prefer their own gods to the Founder of this city,-a city surpassingly glorious, whether we view it as it still lives by faith in this fleeting course of time, and sojourns as a stranger in the midst of the ungodly, or as it shall dwell in the fixed stability of its eternal seat, which it now with patience waits for, expecting until "righteousness shall return unto judgment," and it obtain, by virtue of its excellence, final victory and perfect peace.  A great work this, and an arduous; but God is my helper.  For I am aware what ability is requisite to persuade the proud how great is the virtue of humility, which raises us, not by a quite human arrogance, but by a divine grace, above all earthly dignities that totter on this shifting scene.  For the King and Founder of this city of which we speak, has in Scripture uttered to His people a dictum of the divine law in these words:  "God resists the proud, but gives grace unto the humble."  But this, which is God's prerogative, the inflated ambition of a proud spirit also affects, and dearly loves that this be numbered among its attributes, to "Show pity to the humbled soul, And crush the sons of pride". And therefore, as the plan of this work we have undertaken requires, and as occasion offers, we must speak also of the earthly city, which, though it be mistress of the nations, is itself ruled by its lust of rule. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c1"><b>BOOK I</b> [I] Ex hac namque existunt inimici, adversus quos defendenda est Dei civitas, quorum tamen multi correcto impietatis errore cives in ea fiunt satis idonei; multi vero in eam tantis exardescunt ignibus odiorum tamque manifestis beneficiis redemptoris eius ingrati sunt, ut hodie contra eam linguas non moverent, nisi ferrum hostile fugientes in sacratis eius locis vitam, de qua superbiunt, invenirent. An non etiam illi Romani Christi nomini infesti sunt, quibus propter Christum barbari pepercerunt? Testantur hoc martyrum loca et basilicae apostolorum, quae in illa uastatione Vrbis ad se confugientes suos alienosque receperunt. Huc usque cruentus saeviebat inimicus, ibi accipiebat limitem trucidatoris furor,,, illo ducebantur a miserantibus hostibus, quibus etiam extra ipsa loca pepercerant, ne in eos incurrerent, qui similem misericordiam non habebant. Qui tamen etiam ipsi alibi truces atque hostili more saevientes posteaquam ad loca illa veniebant, ubi fuerat interdictum quod alibi belli iure licuisset, et tota feriendi refrenabatur inmanitas et captivandi cupiditas frangebatur. Sic euaserunt multi, qui nunc Christianis temporibus detrahunt et mala, quae illa civitas pertulit, Christo inputant; bona vero, quae in eos ut viverent propter Christi nonorem facta sunt, non inputant Christo nostro, sed fato suo, cum potius deberent, si quid recti saperent, ila, quae ab hostibus aspera et dura perpessi sunt, illi providentiae divinae tribuere, quae solet corruptos hominum mores bellis emendare atque conterere itemque vitam mortalium iustam atque laudabilem talibus adflictionibus exercere probatamque vel in meliora transferre vel in his adhuc terris propter usus alios detinere; illud vero, quod eis vel ubicumque propter Christi nomen vel in locis Christi nomini dicatissimis et amplissimis ac pro largiore misericordia ad capacitatem multitudinis electis praeter bellorum morem truculenti barbari pepercerunt, hoc tribuere temporibus Christianis, hinc Deo agere gratias, hinc ad eius nomen veraciter currere, ut effugiant poenas ignis aeterni, quod nomen multi eorum mendaciter usurparunt, ut effugerent poenas praesentis exitii. Nam quos vides petulanter et procaciter insultare seruis Christi, sunt in eis plurimi, qui illum interitum clademque non euasissent, nisi seruos Christi se esse finxissent. Et nunc ingrata superbia atque impiissima insania eius nomini resistunt corde peruerso, ut sempiternis tenebris puniantur, ad quod nomen ore vel subdolo confugerunt, ut temporali luce fruerentur.  ||chapter 1.  For to this earthly city belong the enemies against whom I have to defend the city of God.  Many of them, indeed, being reclaimed from their ungodly error, have become sufficiently creditable citizens of this city; but many are so inflamed with hatred against it, and are so ungrateful to its Redeemer for His signal benefits, as to forget that they would now be unable to utter a single word to its prejudice, had they not found in its sacred places, as they fled from the enemy's steel, that life in which they now boast themselves.  Are not those very Romans, who were spared by the barbarians through their respect for Christ, become enemies to the name of Christ?  The reliquaries of the martyrs and the churches of the apostles bear witness to this; for in the sack of the city they were open sanctuary for all who fled to them, whether Christian or Pagan.  To their very threshold the blood-thirsty enemy raged; there his murderous fury owned a limit.  Thither did such of the enemy as had any pity convey those to whom they had given quarter, lest any less mercifully disposed might fall upon them.  And, indeed, when even those murderers who everywhere else showed themselves pitiless came to those spots where that was forbidden which the license of war permitted in every other place, their furious rage for slaughter was bridled, and their eagerness to take prisoners was quenched.  Thus escaped multitudes who now reproach the Christian religion, and impute to Christ the ills that have befallen their city; but the preservation of their own life-a boon which they owe to the respect entertained for Christ by the barbarians-they attribute not to our Christ, but to their own good luck.  They ought rather, had they any right perceptions, to attribute the severities and hardships inflicted by their enemies, to that divine providence which is wont to reform the depraved manners of men by chastisement, and which exercises with similar afflictions the righteous and praiseworthy,-either translating them, when they have passed through the trial, to a better world, or detaining them still on earth for ulterior purposes.  And they ought to attribute it to the spirit of these Christian times, that, contrary to the custom of war, these bloodthirsty barbarians spared them, and spared them for Christ's sake, whether this mercy was actually shown in promiscuous places, or in those places specially dedicated to Christ's name, and of which the very largest were selected as sanctuaries, that full scope might thus be given to the expansive compassion which desired that a large multitude might find shelter there.  Therefore ought they to give God thanks, and with sincere confession flee for refuge to His name, that so they may escape the punishment of eternal fire-they who with lying lips took upon them this name, that they might escape the punishment of present destruction.  For of those whom you see insolently and shamelessly insulting the servants of Christ, there are numbers who would not have escaped that destruction and slaughter had they not pretended that they themselves were Christ's servants.  Yet now, in ungrateful pride and most impious madness, and at the risk of being punished in everlasting darkness, they perversely oppose that name under which they fraudulently protected themselves for the sake of enjoying the light of this brief life. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c2"><b>BOOK I</b> [II] Tot bella gesta conscripta sunt vel ante conditam Romam vel ab eius exortu et imperio: legant et proferant sic aut ab alienigenis aliquam captam esse civitatem, ut hostes, qui ceperant, parcerent eis, quos ad deorum suorum templa confugisse compererant, aut aliquem ducem barbarorum praecepisse, ut inrupto oppido nullus feriretur, qui in illo vel illo templo fuisset inventus. Nonne vidit Aeneas Priamum per aras Sanguine foedantem quos ipse sacraverat ignes? Nonne Diomedes et Vlixes caesis summae custodibus arcis Corripuere sacram effigiem manibusque cruentis Virgineas ausi divae contingere vittas? Nec tamen quod sequitur verum est: Ex illo fluere ac retro sublapsa referri Spes Danaum. Postea quippe vicerunt, postea Troiam ferro ignibusque delerunt, postea confugientem ad aras Priamum obtruncaverunt. Nec ideo Troia periit, quia Mineruam perdidit. Quid enim prius ipsa Minerua perdiderat, ut periret? an forte custodes suos? Hoc sane verum est; illis quippe interemptis potuit auferri. Neque enim homines a simulacro, sed simulacrum ab hominibus servabatur. Quomodo ergo colebatur, ut patriam custodiret et cives, quae suos non valuit custodire custodes?  ||chapter 2.  There are histories of numberless wars, both before the building of Rome and since its rise and the extension of its dominion; let these be read, and let one instance be cited in which, when a city had been taken by foreigners, the victors spared those who were found to have fled for sanctuary to the temples of their gods; or one instance in which a barbarian general gave orders that none should be put to the sword who had been found in this or that temple.  Did not Жneas see"Dying Priam at the shrine, Staining the hearth he made divine? "Did not Diomede and Ulysses "Drag with red hands, the sentry slain, Her fateful image from your fane, Her chaste locks touch, and stain with gore The virgin coronal she wore? "Neither is that true which follows, that "Thenceforth the tide of fortune changed, And Greece grew weak. "For after this they conquered and destroyed Troy with fire and sword; after this they beheaded Priam as he fled to the altars.  Neither did Troy perish because it lost Minerva.  For what had Minerva herself first lost, that she should perish?  Her guards perhaps?  No doubt; just her guards.  For as soon as they were slain, she could be stolen.  It was not, in fact, the men who were preserved by the image, but the image by the men.  How, then, was she invoked to defend the city and the citizens, she who could not defend her own defenders? 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c3"><b>BOOK I</b> [III] Ecce qualibus diis Vrbem Romani servandam se commisisse gaudebant! O nimium miserabilem errorem! Et nobis suscensent, cum de diis eorum talia dicimus; nec suscensent auctoribus suis, quos ut ediscerent mercedem dederunt doctoresque ipsos insuper et salario publico et honoribus dignissimos habuerunt. Nempe apud Vergilium, quem propterea paruuli legunt, ut videlicet poeta magnus omniumque praeclarissimus atque optimus teneris ebibitus animis non facile oblivione possit aboleri, secundum illud Horatii: Quo semel est inbuta recens servabit odorem Teste diu --- apud hunc ergo Vergilium nempe Iuno inducitur infesta Troianis Aeolo ventorum regi adversus eos inritando dicere: Gens inimica mihi Tyrrhenum navigat aequor Ilium in Italiam portans victosque penates. Itane istis penatibus victis Romam, ne vinceretur, prudenter commendare debuerunt? Sed haec Iuno dicebat velut irata mulier, quid loqueretur ignorans. Quid Aeneas ipse, pius totiens appellatus, nonne ita narrat: Panthus Othryades, arcis Phoebique sacerdos, Sacra manu victosque deos paruumque nepotem Ipse trahit cursuque amens ad liimina tendit? Nonne deos ipsos, quos victos non dubitat dicere, sibi potius quam se illis perhibet commendatos, cum ei dicitur: Sacra suosque tibi commendat Troia penates? Si igitur Vergilius tales deos et victos dicit et, ut vel victi quoquo modo euaderent, homini commendatos: quae dementia est existimare his tutoribus Romam sapienter fuisse commissam et nisi eos amisisset non potuisse uastari? Immo vero victos deos tamquam praesides ac defensores colere, quid est aliud quam tenere non numina bona, sed nomina mala? Quanto enim sapientius creditur, non Romam ad istam cladem non fuisse venturam, nisi prius illi perissent, sed illos potius olim fuisse perituros, nisi eos quantum potuisset Roma servasset! Nam quis non, cum adverterit, videat quanta sit uanitate praesumptum non posse vinci sub defensoribus victis et ideo perisse, quia custodes perdidit deos, cum vel sola esse potuerit causa pereundi custodes habere voluisse perituros? Non itaque, cum de diis victis illa conscriberentur atque canerentur, poetas libebat mentiri, sed cordatos homines cogebat veritas confiteri. Verum ista oportunius alio loco diligenter copioseque tractanda sunt: nunc, quod institueram de ingratis hominibus dicere, parumper expediam ut possum, qui ea mala, quae pro suorum morum peruersitate merito patiuntur, blasphemantes Christo inputant; quod autem illis etiam talibus propter Christum parcitur, nec dignantur adtendere et eas linguas adversus eius nomen dementia sacrilegae peruersitatis exercent, quibus linguis usurpaverunt mendaciter ipsum nomen, ut viverent, vel quas linguas in locis ei sacratis metuendo presserunt, ut illic tuti atque muniti, ubi propter eum inlaesi ab hostibus fuerant, inde in eum maledictis hostilibus prosilirent.  ||chapter 3.-And these be the gods to whose protecting care the Romans were delighted to entrust their city!  O too, too piteous mistake!  And they are enraged at us when we speak thus about their gods, though, so far from being enraged at their own writers, they part with money to learn what they say; and, indeed, the very teachers of these authors are reckoned worthy of a salary from the public purse, and of other honors.  There is Virgil, who is read by boys, in order that this great poet, this most famous and approved of all poets, may impregnate their virgin minds, and may not readily be forgotten by them, according to that saying of Horace,The fresh cask long keeps its first tang. Well, in this Virgil, I say, Juno is introduced as hostile to the Trojans, and stirring up Жolus, the king of the winds, against them in the words, "A race I hate now ploughs the sea, Transporting Troy to Italy, And home-gods conquered &  "And ought prudent men to have entrusted the defence of Rome to these conquered gods?  But it will be said, this was only the saying of Juno, who, like an angry woman, did not know what she was saying.  What, then, says Жneas himself,-Жneas who is so often designated "pious?"  Does he not say,"Lo! Panthus, 'scaped from death by flight, Priest of Apollo on the height, His conquered gods with trembling hands He bears, and shelter swift demands? "Is it not clear that the gods (whom he does not scruple to call "conquered") were rather entrusted to Жneas than he to them, when it is said to him, "The gods of her domestic shrines Your country to your care consigns? "If, then, Virgil says that the gods were such as these, and were conquered, and that when conquered they could not escape except under the protection of a man, what a madness is it to suppose that Rome had been wisely entrusted to these guardians, and could not have been taken unless it had lost them!  Indeed, to worship conquered gods as protectors and champions, what is this but to worship, not good divinities, but evil omens?  Would it not be wiser to believe, not that Rome would never have fallen into so great a calamity had not they first perished, but rather that they would have perished long since had not Rome preserved them as long as she could?  For who does not see, when he thinks of it, what a foolish assumption it is that they could not be vanquished under vanquished defenders, and that they only perished because they had lost their guardian gods, when, indeed, the only cause of their perishing was that they chose for their protectors gods condemned to perish?  The poets, therefore, when they composed and sang these things about the conquered gods, had no intention to invent falsehoods, but uttered, as honest men, what the truth extorted from them.  This, however, will be carefully and copiously discussed in another and more fitting place.  Meanwhile I will briefly, and to the best of my ability, explain what I meant to say about these ungrateful men who blasphemously impute to Christ the calamities which they deservedly suffer in consequence of their own wicked ways, while that which is for Christ's sake spared them in spite of their wickedness they do not even take the trouble to notice; and in their mad and blasphemous insolence, they use against His name those very lips wherewith they falsely claimed that same name that their lives might be spared.  In the places consecrated to Christ, where for His sake no enemy would injure them, they restrained their tongues that they might be safe and protected; but no sooner do they emerge from these sanctuaries, than they unbridle these tongues to hurl against Him curses full of hate. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c4"><b>BOOK I</b> [IV] Ipsa, ut dixi, Troia, mater populi Romani, sacratis locis deorum suorum munire non potuit cives suos ab ignibus ferroque Graecorum, eosdem ipsos deos colentium; quin etiam Iunonis asylo Custodes lecti, Phoenix et dirus Vlixes, Praedam adservabant; huc undique Troia gaza Incensis erepta adytis mensaeque deorum Crateres que auro solidi captivaque uestis Congeritur. Pueri et pavidae longo ordine matres Stant circum. Electus est videlicet locus tantae deae sacratus, non unde captivos non liceret educere, sed ubi captivos liberet includere. Compara nunc asylum illud non cuiuslibet dei gregalis vel de turba plebis, sed Iovis ipsius sororis et coniugis et reginae omnium deorum cum memoriiis nostrorum apostolorum. Illuc incensis templis et diis ereptae spolia portabantur, non donanda victis, sed dividenda victoribus; huc autem et quod alibi ad ea loca pertinere compertum est cum honore et obsequio religiosissimo reportatum est. Ibi amissa, hic servata libertas; ibi clausa, hic interdicta captivitas; ibi possidendi a dominantibus hostibus premebantur, huc liberandi a miserantibus ducebantur: postremo illud Iunonis templum sibi elegerat auaritia et superbia levium Graeculorum, istas Christi basilicas misericordia et humilitas etiam inmanium barbarorum. Nisi forte Graeci quidem in illa sua victoria templis deorum communium pepercerunt atque illo confugientes miseros victosque Troianos ferire vel captivare non ausi sunt, sed Vergilius poetarum more illa mentitus est. Immo vero morem hostium civitates euertentium ille descripsit.  ||chapter 4. Troy itself, the mother of the Roman people, was not able, as I have said, to protect its own citizens in the sacred places of their gods from the fire and sword of the Greeks, though the Greeks worshipped the same gods.  Not only so, but"Phoenix and Ulysses fell In the void courts by Juno's cell Were set the spoils to keep; Snatched from the burning shrines away, There Ilium's mighty treasure lay, Rich altars, bowls of massy gold, And captive raiment, rudely rolled In one promiscuous heap; While boys and matrons, wild with fear, In long array were standing near. " In other words, the place consecrated to so great a goddess was chosen, not that from it none might be led out a captive, but that in it all the captives might be immured.  Compare now this "asylum"-the asylum not of an ordinary god, not of one of the rank and file of gods, but of Jove's own sister and wife, the queen of all the gods-with the churches built in memory of the apostles.  Into it were collected the spoils rescued from the blazing temples and snatched from the gods, not that they might be restored to the vanquished, but divided among the victors; while into these was carried back, with the most religious observance and respect, everything which belonged to them, even though found elsewhere.  There liberty was lost; here preserved.  There bondage was strict; here strictly excluded.  Into that temple men were driven to become the chattels of their enemies, now lording it over them; into these churches men were led by their relenting foes, that they might be at liberty.  In fine, the gentle Greeks appropriated that temple of Juno to the purposes of their own avarice and pride; while these churches of Christ were chosen even by the savage barbarians as the fit scenes for humility and mercy.  But perhaps, after all, the Greeks did in that victory of theirs spare the temples of those gods whom they worshipped in common with the Trojans, and did not dare to put to the sword or make captive the wretched and vanquished Trojans who fled thither; and perhaps Virgil, in the manner of poets, has depicted what never really happened?  But there is no question that he depicted the usual custom of an enemy when sacking a city. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c5"><b>BOOK I</b> [V] Quem morem etiam Cato, sicut scribit Sallustius, nobilitatae veritatis historicus, sententia sua, quam de coniuratis in senatu habuit, commemorare non praetermittit: "Rapi virgines pueros, divelli liberos a parentum complexu, matres familiarum pati quae victoribus conlibuisset, fana atque domos spoliari, caedem incendia fieri: postremo armis cadaveribus cruore atque luctu omnia compleri." Hic si fana tacuisset, deorum sedibus solere hostes parcere putaremus. Et haec non ab alienigenis hostibus, sed a Catilina et sociis eius, nobilissimis senatoribus et Romanis civibus, Romana templa metuebant. Sed hi videlicet perditi et patriae parricidae.  ||chapter 5. Even Cжsar himself gives us positive testimony regarding this custom; for, in his deliverance in the senate about the conspirators, he says (as Sallust, a historian of distinguished veracity, writes) "that virgins and boys are violated, children torn from the embrace of their parents, matrons subjected to whatever should be the pleasure of the conquerors, temples and houses plundered, slaughter and burning rife; in fine, all things filled with arms, corpses, blood, and wailing."  If he had not mentioned temples here, we might suppose that enemies were in the habit of sparing the dwellings of the gods.  And the Roman temples were in danger of these disasters, not from foreign foes, but from Catiline and his associates, the most noble senators and citizens of Rome.  But these, it may be said, were abandoned men, and the parricides of their fatherland. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c6"><b>BOOK I</b> [VI] Quid ergo per multas gentes, quae inter se bella gesserunt et nusquam victis in deorum suorum sedibus pepercerunt, noster sermo discurrat? Romanos ipsos videamus, ipsos, inquam, recolamus respiciamusque Romanos, de quorum praecipua laude dictum est: Parcere subiectis et debellare superbos, et quod accepta iniuria ignoscere quam persequi malebant: quando tot tantasque urbes, ut late dominarentur, expugnatas captasque euerterunt, legatur nobis quae templa excipere solebant, ut ad ea quisquis confugisset liberaretur. An illi faciebant et scriptores earundem rerum gestarum sita reticebant? Ita vero, qui ea quae laudarent maxime requirebant, ista praeclarissima secundum ipsos pietatis indicia praeterirent? Egregius Romani nominis Marcus Marcellus, qui Syracusas urbem ornatissimam cepit, refertur eam prius flevisse ruituram et ante eius sanguinem suas illi lacrimas effudisse. Gessit et curam pudicitiae etiam in hoste servandae. Nam priusquam oppidum victor iussisset inuadi, constituit edicto, ne quis corpus liberum violaret. Euersa est tamen civitas more bellorum, nec uspiam legitur ab imperatore tam casto atque clementi fuisse praeceptum, ut quisquis ad illud vel illud templum fugisset haberetur inlaesus. Quod utique nullo modo praeteriretur, quando nec eius fletus nec quod edixerat pro pudicitia minime violanda potuit taceri. Fabius, Tarentinae urbis euersor, a simulacrorum depraedatione se abstinuisse laudatur. Nam cum ei scriba suggessisset quid de signis deorum, quae multa capta fuerant, fieri iuberet, continentiam suam etiam iocando condivit. Quaesivit enim cuius modi essent, et cum ei non solum multa grandia, verum etiam renuntiarentur armata: "Relinquamus, inquit, Tarentinis deos iratos." Cum igitur nec illius fletum nec huius risum, nec illius castam misericordiam nec huius facetam continentiam Romanarum rerum gestarum scriptores tacere potuerint: quando praetermitteretur, si aliquibus hominibus in honorem cuiuspiam deorum suorum sic pepercissent, ut in quoquam templo caedem vel captivitatem fieri prohiberent?  ||chapter 6. Why, then, need our argument take note of the many nations who have waged wars with one another, and have nowhere spared the conquered in the temples of their gods?  Let us look at the practice of the Romans themselves; let us, I say, recall and review the Romans, whose chief praise it has been "to spare the vanquished and subdue the proud," and that they preferred "rather to forgive than to revenge an injury;" and among so many and great cities which they have stormed, taken, and overthrown for the extension of their dominion, let us be told what temples they were accustomed to exempt, so that whoever took refuge in them was free.  Or have they really done this, and has the fact been suppressed by the historians of these events?  Is it to be believed, that men who sought out with the greatest eagerness points they could praise, would omit those which, in their own estimation, are the most signal proofs of piety?  Marcus Marcellus, a distinguished Roman, who took Syracuse, a most splendidly adorned city, is reported to have bewailed its coming ruin, and to have shed his own tears over it before he spilt its blood.  He took steps also to preserve the chastity even of his enemy.  For before he gave orders for the storming of the city, he issued an edict forbidding the violation of any free person.  Yet the city was sacked according to the custom of war; nor do we anywhere read, that even by so chaste and gentle a commander orders were given that no one should be injured who had fled to this or that temple.  And this certainly would by no means have been omitted, when neither his weeping nor his edict preservative of chastity could be passed in silence.  Fabius, the conqueror of the city of Tarentum, is praised for abstaining from making booty of the images.  For when his secretary proposed the question to him, what he wished done with the statues of the gods, which had been taken in large numbers, he veiled his moderation under a joke.  For he asked of what sort they were; and when they reported to him that there were not only many large images, but some of them armed, "Oh," says he, "let us leave with the Tarentines their angry gods."  Seeing, then, that the writers of Roman history could not pass in silence, neither the weeping of the one general nor the laughing of the other, neither the chaste pity of the one nor the facetious moderation of the other, on what occasion would it be omitted, if, for the honor of any of their enemy's gods, they had shown this particular form of leniency, that in any temple slaughter or captivity was prohibited? 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c7"><b>BOOK I</b> [VII] Quidquid ergo uastationis trucidationis depraedationis concremationis adflictionis in ista recentissima Romana clade commissum est, fecit hoc consuetudo bellorum; quod autem nouo more factum est, quod inusitata rerum facie inmanitas barbara tam mitis apparuit, ut amplissimae basilicae implendae populo cui parceretur eligerentur et decernerentur, ubi nemo feriretur, unde nemo raperetur, quo liberandi multi a miserantibus hostibus ducerentur, unde captivandi ulli nec a crudelibus hostibus abducerentur: hoc Christi nomini, hoc Christiano tempori tribuendum quisquis non videt, caecus, quisquis videt nec laudat, ingratus, quisquis laudanti reluctatur, insanus est. Absit, ut prudens quisquam hoc feritati inputet barbarorum. Truculentissimas et saevisimas mentes ille terruit, ille frenavit, ille mirabiliter temperavit, qui per prophetam tanto ante dixit: Visitabo in virga iniquitates eorum et in flagellis peccata eorum; misericordiam autem meam non dispergam ab eis.  ||chapter 7. All the spoiling, then, which Rome was exposed to in the recent calamity-all the slaughter, plundering, burning, and misery-was the result of the custom of war.  But what was novel, was that savage barbarians showed themselves in so gentle a guise, that the largest churches were chosen and set apart for the purpose of being filled with the people to whom quarter was given, and that in them none were slain, from them none forcibly dragged; that into them many were led by their relenting enemies to be set at liberty, and that from them none were led into slavery by merciless foes.  Whoever does not see that this is to be attributed to the name of Christ, and to the Christian temper, is blind; whoever sees this, and gives no praise, is ungrateful; whoever hinders any one from praising it, is mad.  Far be it from any prudent man to impute this clemency to the barbarians.  Their fierce and bloody minds were awed, and bridled, and marvellously tempered by Him who so long before said by His prophet, "I will visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquities with stripes; nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from them." 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c8"><b>BOOK I</b> [VIII] Dicet aliquis: "Cur ergo ista divina misericordia etiam ad impios ingratosque pervenit?" Cur putamus, nisi quia eam ille praebuit, qui cotidie facit oriri solem suum super bonos et malos et pluit super iustos et iniustos? Quamuis enim quidam eorum ista cogitantes paenitendo ab impietate se corrigant, quidam vero, sicut apostolus dicit, divitias bonitatis et longanimitatis Dei contemnentes secundum duritiam cordis sui et cor inpaenitens thesaurizent sibi iram in die irae et reuelationis iusti iudicii Dei, qui reddet unicuique secundum opera eius: tamen patientia Dei ad paenitentiam inuitat malos, sicut flagellum Dei ad patientiam erudit bonos; itemque misericordia Dei fovendos amplectitur bonos, sicut seueritas Dei puniendos corripit malos. Placuit quippe divinae providentiae praeparare in posterum bona iustis, quibus non fruentur iniusti, et mala impiis, quibus non excruciabuntur boni; ista vero temporalia bona et mala utrisque voluit esse communia, ut nec bona cupidius adpetantur, quae mali quoque habere cernuntur; nec mala turpiter evitentur, quibus et boni plerumque adficiuntur. Interest autem plurimum, qualis sit usus vel earum rerum, quae prosperae, vel earum, quae dicuntur adversae. Nam bonus temporalibus nec bonis extollitur nec malis frangitur; malus autem ideo huiusce modi infelicitate punitur, quia felicitate corrumpitur. Ostendit tamen Deus saepe etiam in his distribuendis evidentius operationem suam. Nam si nunc omne peccatum manifesta plecteret poena, nihil ultimo iudicio servari putaretur; rursus si nullum nunc peccatum puniret aperta divinitas, nulla esse divina providentia crederetur. Similiter in rebus secundis, si non eas Deus quibusdam petentibus evidentissima largitate concederet, non ad eum ista pertinere diceremus; itemque si omnibus eas petentibus daret, non nisi propter talia praemia seruiendum illi esse arbitraremur, nec pios nos faceret talis seruitus, sed potius cupidos et auaros. Haec cum ita sint, quicumque boni et mali pariter adflicti sunt, non ideo ipsi distincti non sunt, quia distinctum non est quod utrique perpessi sunt. Manet enim dissimilitudo passorum etiam in similitudine passionum, et licet sub eodem tormento non est idem virtus et vitium. Nam sicut sub uno igne aurum rutilat palea fumat, et sub eadem tribula stipulae comminuuntur frumenta purgantur, nec ideo cum oleo amurca confunditur, quia eodem preli pondere exprimitur: ita una eademque vis inruens bonos probat purificat eliquat, malos damnat uastat exterminat. unde in eadem adflictione mali Deum detestantur atque blasphemant, boni autem precantur et laudant. Tantum interest, non qualia, sed qualis quisque patiatur. Nam pari motu exagitatum et exhalat horribiliter caenum et suaviter fragrat unguentum.  ||chapter 8. Will some one say, Why, then, was this divine compassion extended even to the ungodly and ungrateful?  Why, but because it was the mercy of Him who daily "makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." Matthew 5:45   For though some of these men, taking thought of this, repent of their wickedness and reform, some, as the apostle says, "despising the riches of His goodness and long-suffering, after their hardness and impenitent heart, treasure up unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds:" Romans 2:4 nevertheless does the patience of God still invite the wicked to repentance, even as the scourge of God educates the good to patience.  And so, too, does the mercy of God embrace the good that it may cherish them, as the severity of God arrests the wicked to punish them.  To the divine providence it has seemed good to prepare in the world to come for the righteous good things, which the unrighteous shall not enjoy; and for the wicked evil things, by which the good shall not be tormented.  But as for the good things of this life, and its ills, God has willed that these should be common to both; that we might not too eagerly covet the things which wicked men are seen equally to enjoy, nor shrink with an unseemly fear from the ills which even good men often suffer.There is, too, a very great difference in the purpose served both by those events which we call adverse and those called prosperous.  For the good man is neither uplifted with the good things of time, nor broken by its ills; but the wicked man, because he is corrupted by this world's happiness, feels himself punished by its unhappiness.  Yet often, even in the present distribution of temporal things, does God plainly evince His own interference.  For if every sin were now visited with manifest punishment, nothing would seem to be reserved for the final judgment; on the other hand, if no sin received now a plainly divine punishment, it would be concluded that there is no divine providence at all.  And so of the good things of this life:  if God did not by a very visible liberality confer these on some of those persons who ask for them, we should say that these good things were not at His disposal; and if He gave them to all who sought them, we should suppose that such were the only rewards of His service; and such a service would make us not godly, but greedy rather, and covetous.  Wherefore, though good and bad men suffer alike, we must not suppose that there is no difference between the men themselves, because there is no difference in what they both suffer.  For even in the likeness of the sufferings, there remains an unlikeness in the sufferers; and though exposed to the same anguish, virtue and vice are not the same thing.  For as the same fire causes gold to glow brightly, and chaff to smoke; and under the same flail the straw is beaten small, while the grain is cleansed; and as the lees are not mixed with the oil, though squeezed out of the vat by the same pressure, so the same violence of affliction proves, purges, clarifies the good, but damns, ruins, exterminates the wicked.  And thus it is that in the same affliction the wicked detest God and blaspheme, while the good pray and praise.  So material a difference does it make, not what ills are suffered, but what kind of man suffers them.  For, stirred up with the same movement, mud exhales a horrible stench, and ointment emits a fragrant odor. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c9"><b>BOOK I</b> [IX] Quid igitur in illa rerum uastitate Christiani passi sunt, quod non eis magis fideliter ista considerantibus ad provectum valeret? Primum quod ipsa peccata, quibus Deus indignatus implevit tantis calamitatibus mundum, humiliter cogitantes, quamuis longe absint a facinerosis flagitiosis atque impiis, tamen non usque adeo se a delictis deputant alienos, ut nec temporalio pro eis mala perpeti se iudicent dignos. Excepto enim quod unusquisque quamlibet laudabiliter vivens cedit in quibusdam carnali concupiscentiae, etsi non ad facinorum inmanitatem et gurgitem flagitiorum atque impietatis abominationem, ad aliqua tamen peccata vel rara vel tanto crebriora, quanto minora -- hoc ergo excepto quis tandem facile reperitur, qui eosdem ipsos, propter quorum horrendam superbiam luxuriamque et auaritiam atque execrabiles iniquitates et impietates Deus, sicut minando praedixit, conterit terras, sic habeat, ut habendi sunt? sic cum eis vivat, ut cum talibus est vivendum? Plerumque enim ab eis docendis ac monendis, aliquando etiam obiurgandis et ocrripiendis male dissimulatur, vel cum laboris piget, vel cum os eorum verecundamur offendere, vel cum inimicitias devitamus, ne impediant et noceant in istis temporalibus rebus, sive quas adipisci adhuc adpetit nostra cupiditas, sive quas amittere formidat infirmitas, ita ut quamuis bonis malorum vita displiceat et ideo cum eis non incidant in illam damnationem, quae post hanc vitam talibus praeparatur, tamen, quia propterea peccatis eorum damnabilibus parcunt, dum eos in suis licet levibus et venialibus metuunt, iure cum eis temporaliter flagellantur, quamuis in aeternum minime puniantur, iure istam vitam, quando divinitus adfliguntur cum eis, amaram sentiunt, cuius amando dulcedinem peccantibus eis amari esse noluerunt. Nam si propterea quisque obiurgandis et corripiendis male agentibus parcit, quia opportunius tempus inquirit vel eisdem ipsis metuit, ne deteriores ex hoc efficiantur, vel ad bonam vitam et piam erudiendos impediant alios infirmos et premant atque avertant a fide: non videtur esse cupiditatis occasio, sed consilium caritatis. Illud est culpabile, quod hi, qui dissimiliter vivunt et a malorum factis abhorrent, parcunt tamen peccatis alienis, quae dedocere aut obiurgare deberent, dum eorum offensiones cavent, ne sibi noceant in his rebus, quibus licite boni atque innocenter utuntur, sed cupidius, quam oportebat eos, qui in hoc mundo peregrinantur et spem supernae patriae prae se gerunt. Non solum quippe infirmiores, vitam ducentes coniugalem, filios habentes vel habere quaerentes, domos ac familias possidentes, (quos apostolus in ecclesiis adloquitur docens et monens quem ad modum vivere debeant et uxores cum maritis et mariti cum uxoribus, et filii cum parentibus et parentes cum filiis, et serui cum dominis et domini cum seruis) multa temporalia, multa terrena libenter adipiscuntur et moleste amittunt, propter que non audent offendere homines, quorum sibi vita contaminatissima et consceleratissima displicet; verum etiam hi, qui superiorem vitae gradum tenent nec coniugalibus vinculis inretiti sunt et victu paruo ac tegimento utuntur, plerumque, suae famae ac saluti dum insidias atque impetus malorum timent, ab eorum reprehensione sese abstinent, et quamuis non in tantum eos metuant, ut ad similia perpetranda quibuslibet eorum terroribus atque inprobitatibus cedant, ea ipsa tamen, quae cum eis non perpetrant, nolunt plerumque corripere, cum fortasse possint aliquos corripiendo corrigere, ne, si non potuerint, sua salus ac fama in periculum exitiumque perveniat, nec ea consideratione, qua suam famam ac salutem vident esse necessariam utilitati erudiendorum hominum, sed ea potius infirmitate, qua delectat lingua blandiens et humanus dies et reformidatur uulgi iudicium et carnis excruciatio vel peremptio, hoc est propter quaedam cupiditatis vincula, non propter officia caritatis. Non mihi itaque videtur haec parua esse causa, quare cum malis flagellentur et boni, quando Deo placet perditos mores etiam temporalium poenarum adflictione punire. Flagellantur enim simul, non quia simul agunt malam vitam, sed quia simul amant temporalem vitam, non quidem aequaliter, sed tamen simul, quam boni contemnere deberent, ut illi correpti atque correcti consequerentur aeternam, ad quam consequendam si nollent esse socii, ferrentur et diligerentur inimici, quia donec vivunt semper incertum est utrum voluntatem sint in melius mutaturi. qua in; re non utique parem, sed longe graviorem habent causam, quibus per prophetam dicitur: Ille quidem in suo peccato morietur, sanguinem autem eius de manu speculatoris requiram. Ad hoc enim speculatores, hoc est populorum praepositi, constituti sunt in ecclesiis, ut non parcant obiurgando peccata. Nec ideo tamen ab huius modi culpa penitus alienus est, qui, licet praepositus non sit, in eis tamen, quibus vitae huius necessitate coniungitur, multa monenda vel arguenda novit et neglegit, devitans eorum offensiones propter illa quibus in hac vita non indebitis utitur, sed plus quam debuit delectatur. Deinde habent aliam causam boni, quare temporalibus affligantur malis, qualem habuit Iob: ut sibi ipse humanus animus sit probatus et cognitus, quanta virtute pietatis gratis Deum diligat.  ||chapter 9. What, then, have the Christians suffered in that calamitous period, which would not profit every one who duly and faithfully considered the following circumstances?  First of all, they must humbly consider those very sins which have provoked God to fill the world with such terrible disasters; for although they be far from the excesses of wicked, immoral, and ungodly men, yet they do not judge themselves so clean removed from all faults as to be too good to suffer for these even temporal ills.  For every man, however laudably he lives, yet yields in some points to the lust of the flesh.  Though he do not fall into gross enormity of wickedness, and abandoned viciousness, and abominable profanity, yet he slips into some sins, either rarely or so much the more frequently as the sins seem of less account.  But not to mention this, where can we readily find a man who holds in fit and just estimation those persons on account of whose revolting pride, luxury, and avarice, and cursed iniquities and impiety, God now smites the earth as His predictions threatened?  Where is the man who lives with them in the style in which it becomes us to live with them?  For often we wickedly blind ourselves to the occasions of teaching and admonishing them, sometimes even of reprimanding and chiding them, either because we shrink from the labor or are ashamed to offend them, or because we fear to lose good friendships, lest this should stand in the way of our advancement, or injure us in some worldly matter, which either our covetous disposition desires to obtain, or our weakness shrinks from losing.  So that, although the conduct of wicked men is distasteful to the good, and therefore they do not fall with them into that damnation which in the next life awaits such persons, yet, because they spare their damnable sins through fear, therefore, even though their own sins be slight and venial, they are justly scourged with the wicked in this world, though in eternity they quite escape punishment.  Justly, when God afflicts them in common with the wicked, do they find this life bitter, through love of whose sweetness they declined to be bitter to these sinners.If any one forbears to reprove and find fault with those who are doing wrong, because he seeks a more seasonable opportunity, or because he fears they may be made worse by his rebuke, or that other weak persons may be disheartened from endeavoring to lead a good and pious life, and may be driven from the faith; this man's omission seems to be occasioned not by covetousness, but by a charitable consideration.  But what is blame-worthy is, that they who themselves revolt from the conduct of the wicked, and live in quite another fashion, yet spare those faults in other men which they ought to reprehend and wean them from; and spare them because they fear to give offence, lest they should injure their interests in those things which good men may innocently and legitimately use,-though they use them more greedily than becomes persons who are strangers in this world, and profess the hope of a heavenly country.  For not only the weaker brethren who enjoy married life, and have children (or desire to have them), and own houses and establishments, whom the apostle addresses in the churches, warning and instructing them how they should live, both the wives with their husbands, and the husbands with their wives, the children with their parents, and parents with their children, and servants with their masters, and masters with their servants,-not only do these weaker brethren gladly obtain and grudgingly lose many earthly and temporal things on account of which they dare not offend men whose polluted and wicked life greatly displeases them; but those also who live at a higher level, who are not entangled in the meshes of married life, but use meagre food and raiment, do often take thought of their own safety and good name, and abstain from finding fault with the wicked, because they fear their wiles and violence.  And although they do not fear them to such an extent as to be drawn to the commission of like iniquities, nay, not by any threats or violence soever; yet those very deeds which they refuse to share in the commission of they often decline to find fault with, when possibly they might by finding fault prevent their commission.  They abstain from interference, because they fear that, if it fail of good effect, their own safety or reputation may be damaged or destroyed; not because they see that their preservation and good name are needful, that they may be able to influence those who need their instruction, but rather because they weakly relish the flattery and respect of men, and fear the judgments of the people, and the pain or death of the body; that is to say, their non-intervention is the result of selfishness, and not of love.Accordingly this seems to me to be one principal reason why the good are chastised along with the wicked, when God is pleased to visit with temporal punishments the profligate manners of a community.  They are punished together, not because they have spent an equally corrupt life, but because the good as well as the wicked, though not equally with them, love this present life; while they ought to hold it cheap, that the wicked, being admonished and reformed by their example, might lay hold of life eternal.  And if they will not be the companions of the good in seeking life everlasting, they should be loved as enemies, and be dealt with patiently.  For so long as they live, it remains uncertain whether they may not come to a better mind.  These selfish persons have more cause to fear than those to whom it was said through the prophet, "He is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand." Ezekiel 33:6   For watchmen or overseers of the people are appointed in churches, that they may unsparingly rebuke sin.  Nor is that man guiltless of the sin we speak of, who, though he be not a watchman, yet sees in the conduct of those with whom the relationships of this life bring him into contact, many things that should be blamed, and yet overlooks them, fearing to give offence, and lose such worldly blessings as may legitimately be desired, but which he too eagerly grasps.  Then, lastly, there is another reason why the good are afflicted with temporal calamities-the reason which Job's case exemplifies:  that the human spirit may be proved, and that it may be manifested with what fortitude of pious trust, and with how unmercenary a love, it cleaves to God. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c10"><b>BOOK I</b> [X] Quibus recte consideratis atque perspectis adtende utrum aliquid mali acciderit fidelibus et piis, quod eis non in bonum verteretur, nisi forte putandum est apostolicam illam uacare sententiam, ubi ait: Scimus quia diligentibus Deum omnia cooperatur in bonum. Amiserunt omnia quae habebant. Numquid fidem? numquid pietatem? numquid interioris hominis bona, qui est ante Deum dives? Hae sunt opes Christianorum, quibus opulentus dicebat apostolus: Est autem quaestus magnus pietas cum sufficientia. NIhil enim intulimus in hunc mundum, sed nec auferre aliquid possumus. Habentes autem victum et tegumentum his contenti sumus. Nam qui volunt divites fieri, incidunt in temptationem et laqueum et desideria multa <stulta> et noxia, quae mergunt homines in interitum et perditionem. Radix enim est omnium malorum auaritia, quam quidam adpetentes a fide pererraverunt et inseruerunt se doloribus multis. Quibus ergo terrenae divitiae in illa uastatione perierunt, si eas sic habebant, quem ad modum ab isto foris paupere, intus divite audierant, id est, si mundo utebantur tamquam non utentes, potuerunt dicere, quod ille graviter temptatus et minime superatus: Nudus exivi de utero matris meae, nudus reuertar in terram. Dominus dedit, Dominus abstulit, sicut Domino placuit, ita factum est; sit nomen Domini benedictum; ut bonus eruus magnas facultates haberet ipsam sui Domini voluntatem, cui pedisequus mente ditesceret, nec contristaretur eis rebus vivens relictus, quas cito fuerat moriens relicturus. Illi autem infirmiores, qui terrenis his bonis, quamuis ea non praeponerent Christo, aliquantula tamen cupiditate cohaerebant, quantum haec amando peccaverint, perdendo senserunt. Tantum quippe doluerunt, quantum se doloribus inseruerant, sicut apostolum dixisse supra commemoravi. Oportebat enim ut eis adderetur etiam experimentorum disciplina, a quibus tam diu fuerat neglecta verborum. Nam cum dixit apostolus: Qui volunt divites fieri, incidunt in temptationem et cetera, profecto in divitiis cupiditatem reprehendit, non facultatem, quoniam praecepit alibi dicens: Praecipe divitibus huius mundi non superbe sapere neque sperare in incerto divitiarum, sed in Deo vivo, qui praestat nobis omnia abundanter ad fruendum: bene faciant, divites sint in operibus bonis, facile tribuant, communicent, thesaurizent sibi fundamentum bonum in futurum, ut adprehendant veram vitam. Haec qui de suis divitiis faciebant, magnis sunt lucris levia damna solati plusque laetati ex his, quae facile tribuendo tutius servaverunt, quam contristati ex his, quae timide retinendo facilius amiserunt. Hoc enim potuit in terra perire, quod piguit inde transferre. Nam qui receperunt consilium Domini sui dicentis: Nolite vobuis condere thesauros in terra, ubi tinea et rubigo exterminant et ubi fures effodiunt et furantur; sed thesaurizate vobis thesaurum in caelo, quo fur non accedit neque tinea corrumpit; ubi enim est thesaurus tuus, illic erit et cor tuum, tribulationis tempore probaverunt quam recte sapuerint non contemnendo veracissimum praeceptorem et thesauri sui fidelissimum inuictissimumque custodem. Nam si multi gavisi sunt ibi se habuisse divitias suas, quo contigit ut hostis non accederet: quanto certius et securius gaudere potuerunt, qui monitu Dei sui illuc migraverunt, quo accedere omnino non posset! unde Paulinus noster, Nolensis episcopus, ex opulentissimo divite voluntate pauperrimus et copiosissime sanctus, quando et ipsam Nolam barbari uastaverunt, cum ab eis teneretur, sic in corde suo, ut ab eo postea cognovimus, precabatur: "Domine, non excrucier propter aurum et argentum; ubi enim sint omnia mea, tu scis." Ibi enim habebat omnia sua, ubi eum condere et thesaurizare ille monstraverat, qui haec mala mundo ventura praedixerat. Ac per hoc qui Domino suo monenti oboedierant, ubi et quo modo tehesaurizare deberent, nec ipsas terrenas divitias barbaris incursantibus amiserunt. Quos autem non oboedisse paenituit, quid de talibus rebus faciendum esset, si non praecedente sapientia, certe consequente experientia didicerunt. At enim quidam boni etiam Christiani tormentis excruciati sunt, ut bona sua hostibus proderent. Illi vero nec prodere nec perdere potuerunt bonum, quo ipsi boni erant. Si autem torqueri quam mammona iniquitatis prodere maluerunt, boni non erant. Admonendi autem fuerant, qui tanta patiebantur pro auro, quanta essent sustinenda pro Christo, ut eum potius diligere discerent, qui pro se passos aeterna felicitate ditaret, non aurum et argentum, pro quo pati miserrimum fuit, seu mentiendo occultaretur, seu verum dicendo proderetur. Namque inter tormenta nemo Christum confitendo amisit, nemo aurum nisi negando servavit. Quocirca utiliora erant fortasse tormenta, quae bonum incorruptibile amandum docebant, quam illa bona, quae sine ullo utili fructu dominos sui amore torquebant. Sed quidam etiam non habentes quod proderent, dum non creduntur, torti sunt. Et hi forte habere cupiebant nec sancta voluntate pauperes erant; quibus demonstrandum fuit non facultates, sed ipsas cupiditates talibus dignas esse cruciatibus. Si vero vitae melioris proposito reconditum aurum argentumque non habebant, nescio quidem utrum cuiquam talium acciderit, ut dum habere creditur torqueretur: verum tamen etiamsi accidit, profecto, qui inter illa tormenta paupertatem sanctam confitebatur, Christum confitebatur. Quapropter etsi non meruit ab hostibus credi, non potuit tamen sanctae paupertatis confessor sine caelesti mercede torqueri. Multos, inquiunt, etiam Christianos fames diuturna uastavit. Hoc quoque in usus suos boni fideles pie tolerando verterunt. Quos enim fames necavit, malis vitae huius, sicut corporis morbus, eripuit: quos autem non necavit, docuit parcius vivere, docuit productius ieiunare.  ||chapter 10. These are the considerations which one must keep in view, that he may answer the question whether any evil happens to the faithful and godly which cannot be turned to profit.  Or shall we say that the question is needless, and that the apostle is vaporing when he says, "We know that all things work together for good to them that love God?" Romans 8:28 They lost all they had.  Their faith?  Their godliness?  The possessions of the hidden man of the heart, which in the sight of God are of great price? 1 Peter 3:4   Did they lose these?  For these are the wealth of Christians, to whom the wealthy apostle said, "Godliness with contentment is great gain.  For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.  And having food and raiment, let us be therewith content.  But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.  For the love of money is the root of all evil; which, while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."They, then, who lost their worldly all in the sack of Rome, if they owned their possessions as they had been taught by the apostle, who himself was poor without, but rich within,-that is to say, if they used the world as not using it,-could say in the words of Job, heavily tried, but not overcome:  "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither:  the Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; as it pleased the Lord, so has it come to pass:  blessed be the name of the Lord." Job 1:21   Like a good servant, Job counted the will of his Lord his great possession, by obedience to which his soul was enriched; nor did it grieve him to lose, while yet living, those goods which he must shortly leave at his death.  But as to those feebler spirits who, though they cannot be said to prefer earthly possessions to Christ, do yet cleave to them with a somewhat immoderate attachment, they have discovered by the pain of losing these things how much they were sinning in loving them.  For their grief is of their own making; in the words of the apostle quoted above, "they have pierced themselves through with many sorrows."  For it was well that they who had so long despised these verbal admonitions should receive the teaching of experience.  For when the apostle says, "They that will be rich fall into temptation," and so on, what he blames in riches is not the possession of them, but the desire of them.  For elsewhere he says, "Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life." 1 Timothy 6:17-19   They who were making such a use of their property have been consoled for light losses by great gains, and have had more pleasure in those possessions which they have securely laid past, by freely giving them away, than grief in those which they entirely lost by an anxious and selfish hoarding of them.  For nothing could perish on earth save what they would be ashamed to carry away from earth.  Our Lord's injunction runs, "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust does corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust does corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:  for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Matthew 6:19-21   And they who have listened to this injunction have proved in the time of tribulation how well they were advised in not despising this most trustworthy teacher, and most faithful and mighty guardian of their treasure.  For if many were glad that their treasure was stored in places which the enemy chanced not to light upon, how much better founded was the joy of those who, by the counsel of their God, had fled with their treasure to a citadel which no enemy can possibly reach!  Thus our Paulinus, bishop of Nola, who voluntarily abandoned vast wealth and became quite poor, though abundantly rich in holiness, when the barbarians sacked Nola, and took him prisoner, used silently to pray, as he afterwards told me, "O Lord, let me not be troubled for gold and silver, for where all my treasure is You know."  For all his treasure was where he had been taught to hide and store it by Him who had also foretold that these calamities would happen in the world.  Consequently those persons who obeyed their Lord when He warned them where and how to lay up treasure, did not lose even their earthly possessions in the invasion of the barbarians; while those who are now repenting that they did not obey Him have learned the right use of earthly goods, if not by the wisdom which would have prevented their loss, at least by the experience which follows it.But some good and Christian men have been put to the torture, that they might be forced to deliver up their goods to the enemy.  They could indeed neither deliver nor lose that good which made themselves good.  If, however, they preferred torture to the surrender of the mammon of iniquity, then I say they were not good men.  Rather they should have been reminded that, if they suffered so severely for the sake of money, they should endure all torment, if need be, for Christ's sake; that they might be taught to love Him rather who enriches with eternal felicity all who suffer for Him, and not silver and gold, for which it was pitiable to suffer, whether they preserved it by telling a lie or lost it by telling the truth.  For under these tortures no one lost Christ by confessing Him, no one preserved wealth save by denying its existence.  So that possibly the torture which taught them that they should set their affections on a possession they could not lose, was more useful than those possessions which, without any useful fruit at all, disquieted and tormented their anxious owners.  But then we are reminded that some were tortured who had no wealth to surrender, but who were not believed when they said so.  These too, however, had perhaps some craving for wealth, and were not willingly poor with a holy resignation; and to such it had to be made plain, that not the actual possession alone, but also the desire of wealth, deserved such excruciating pains.  And even if they were destitute of any hidden stores of gold and silver, because they were living in hopes of a better life,-I know not indeed if any such person was tortured on the supposition that he had wealth; but if so, then certainly in confessing, when put to the question, a holy poverty, he confessed Christ.  And though it was scarcely to be expected that the barbarians should believe him, yet no confessor of a holy poverty could be tortured without receiving a heavenly reward.Again, they say that the long famine laid many a Christian low.  But this, too, the faithful turned to good uses by a pious endurance of it.  For those whom famine killed outright it rescued from the ills of this life, as a kindly disease would have done; and those who were only hunger-bitten were taught to live more sparingly, and inured to longer fasts. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c11"><b>BOOK I</b> [XI] Sed enim multi etiam Christiani interfecti sunt, multi multarum mortium foeda varietate consumpti. Hoc si aegre ferendum est, omnibus, qui in hanc vitam procreati sunt, utique commune est. Hoc scio, neminem fuisse mortuum, qui non fuerat aliquando moriturus. Finis autem vitae tam longam quam breuem vitam hoc idem facit. Neque enim aliud melius et aliud deterius, aut aliud maius et aliud brevius est, quod iam pariter non est. Quid autem interest, quo mortis genere vita ista finiatur, quando ille, cui finitur, iterum mori non cogitur? Cum autem unicuique mortalium sub cotidianis vitae huius casibus innumerabiles mortes quodam modo comminentur, quamdiu incertum est quaenam earum ventura sit: quaero utrum satius sit unam perpeti moriendo an omnes timere vivendo. Nec ignoro quam citius eligatur diu vivere sub timore tot mortium quam semel moriendo nullam deinceps formidare. Sed aliud est quod carnis sensus infirmiter pavidus refigit, aliud quod mentis ratio diligenter enucleata conuincit. Mala mors putanda non est, quam bona vita praecesserit. Neque enim facit malam mortem, nisi quod sequitur mortem. Non itaque multum curandum est eis, qui necessario morituri sunt, quid accidat ut moriantur, sed moriendo quo ire cogantur. Cum igitur Christiani noverint longe meliorem fuisse religiosi pauperis mortem inter lingentium canum linguas quam impii divitis in purpura et bysso, horrenda illa genera mortium quid mortuis obfuerunt, qui bene vixerunt?  ||chapter 11. But, it is added, many Christians were slaughtered, and were put to death in a hideous variety of cruel ways.  Well, if this be hard to bear, it is assuredly the common lot of all who are born into this life.  Of this at least I am certain, that no one has ever died who was not destined to die some time.  Now the end of life puts the longest life on a par with the shortest.  For of two things which have alike ceased to be, the one is not better, the other worse-the one greater, the other less.  And of what consequence is it what kind of death puts an end to life, since he who has died once is not forced to go through the same ordeal a second time?  And as in the daily casualties of life every man is, as it were, threatened with numberless deaths, so long as it remains uncertain which of them is his fate, I would ask whether it is not better to suffer one and die, than to live in fear of all?  I am not unaware of the poor-spirited fear which prompts us to choose rather to live long in fear of so many deaths, than to die once and so escape them all; but the weak and cowardly shrinking of the flesh is one thing, and the well-considered and reasonable persuasion of the soul quite another.  That death is not to be judged an evil which is the end of a good life; for death becomes evil only by the retribution which follows it.  They, then, who are destined to die, need not be careful to inquire what death they are to die, but into what place death will usher them.  And since Christians are well aware that the death of the godly pauper whose sores the dogs licked was far better than of the wicked rich man who lay in purple and fine linen, what harm could these terrific deaths do to the dead who had lived well? 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c12"><b>BOOK I</b> [XII] At enim in tanta strage cadaverum nec sepelire potuerunt. Neque istuc pia fides nimium reformidat, tenens praedictum nec absumentes bestias resurrecturis corporibus obfuturas, quorum capillus capitis non peribit. Nullo modo diceret veritas: Nolite timere eos, qui corpus occidunt, animam autem non possunt occidere, si quicquam obesset futurae vitae, quidquid inimici de corporibus occisorum facere voluissent. Nisi forte quispiam sic absurdus est, ut contendat eos, qui corpus occidunt, non debere timeri ante mortem, ne corpus occidant, et timeri debere post mortem, ne corpus occisum sepeliri non sinant. Falsum est ergo quod ait <Christus>: Qui corpus occidunt, et postea non habent quid faciant, si habent tanta, quae de cadaveribus faciant. Absit, ut falsum sit quod veritas dixit. Dictum est enim aliquid eos facere cum occidunt, quia in corpore sensus est occidendo; postea vero nihil habere quod faciant, quia nullus sensus est in corpore occiso. Multa itaque corpora Christianorum terra non texit, sed nullum eorum quisquam a caelo et terra separavit, quam totam implet praesentia sui, qui novit unde resuscitet quod creavit. Dicitur quidem in psalmo: Posuerunt mortalia seruorum tuorum escam volatilibus caeli, carnes sanctorum tuorum bestiis terrae; effuderunt sanguinem eorum sicut aquam in circuitu Hierusalem, et non erat qui sepeliret, sed magis ad exaggerandam crudelitatem eorum, qui ista fecerunt, non ad eorum infelicitatem, qui ista perpessi sunt. Quamuis enim haec in conspectu hominum dua et dira videantur, sed pretiosa in conspectu Domini mors sanctorum eius. Proi;nde ista omnia, <id est> curatio funeris, conditio sepulturae, pompa exequiarum, magis sunt vivorum solacia quam subsidia mortuorum. Si aliquid prodest impio sepultura pretiosa, oberit pio vilis aut nulla. Praeclaras exequias in conspectu hominum exhibuit purpurato illi diviti turba famulorum, sed multo clariores in conspectu Domini ulceroso illi pauperi ministerium praebuit angelorum, qui eum non extulerunt in marmoreum tumulum, sed in Abrahae gremium sustulerunt. Rident haec illi, contra quos defendendam suscepimus civitatem Dei. Verum tamen sepulturae curam etiam eorum philosophi contempserunt. Et saepe universi exercitus, dum pro terrena patria morerentur, ubi postea iacerent vel quibus bestiis esca fierent, non curarunt, licuitque de hac re poetis plausibiliter dicere: Caelo tegitur, qui non habet urnam. Quanto minus debent de corporibus insepultis insultare Christianis, quibus et ipsius carnis membrorumque omnium reformatio non solum ex terra, verum etiam ex aliorum elementorum secretissimo sinu, quo dilapsa cadavera recesserunt, in temporis puncto reddenda et redintegranda promittitur.  ||chapter 12. Further still, we are reminded that in such a carnage as then occurred, the bodies could not even be buried.  But godly confidence is not appalled by so ill-omened a circumstance; for the faithful bear in mind that assurance has been given that not a hair of their head shall perish, and that, therefore, though they even be devoured by beasts, their blessed resurrection will not hereby be hindered.  The Truth would nowise have said, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul," Matthew 10:28 if anything whatever that an enemy could do to the body of the slain could be detrimental to the future life.  Or will some one perhaps take so absurd a position as to contend that those who kill the body are not to be feared before death, and lest they kill the body, but after death, lest they deprive it of burial?  If this be so, then that is false which Christ says, "Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do;" Luke 12:4 for it seems they can do great injury to the dead body.  Far be it from us to suppose that the Truth can be thus false.  They who kill the body are said "to do something," because the deathblow is felt, the body still having sensation; but after that, they have no more that they can do, for in the slain body there is no sensation.  And so there are indeed many bodies of Christians lying unburied; but no one has separated them from heaven, nor from that earth which is all filled with the presence of Him who knows whence He will raise again what He created.  It is said, indeed, in the Psalm:  "The dead bodies of Your servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of Your saints unto the beasts of the earth.  Their blood have they shed like water round about Jerusalem; and there was none to bury them."  But this was said rather to exhibit the cruelty of those who did these things, than the misery of those who suffered them.  To the eyes of men this appears a harsh and doleful lot, yet "precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints."  Wherefore all these last offices and ceremonies that concern the dead, the careful funeral arrangements, and the equipment of the tomb, and the pomp of obsequies, are rather the solace of the living than the comfort of the dead.  If a costly burial does any good to a wicked man, a squalid burial, or none at all, may harm the godly.  His crowd of domestics furnished the purple-clad Dives with a funeral gorgeous in the eye of man; but in the sight of God that was a more sumptuous funeral which the ulcerous pauper received at the hands of the angels, who did not carry him out to a marble tomb, but bore him aloft to Abraham's bosom.The men against whom I have undertaken to defend the city of God laugh at all this.  But even their own philosophers have despised a careful burial; and often whole armies have fought and fallen for their earthly country without caring to inquire whether they would be left exposed on the field of battle, or become the food of wild beasts.  Of this noble disregard of sepulture poetry has well said:  "He who has no tomb has the sky for his vault."  How much less ought they to insult over the unburied bodies of Christians, to whom it has been promised that the flesh itself shall be restored, and the body formed anew, all the members of it being gathered not only from the earth, but from the most secret recesses of any other of the elements in which the dead bodies of men have lain hid! 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c13"><b>BOOK I</b> [XIII] Nec ideo tamen contemnenda et abicienda sunt corpora defunctorum maximeque iustorum atque fidelium, quibus tamquam organis et uasis ad omnia bona opera sancte usus est Spiritus. Si enim paterna uestis et anulus, ac si quid huius modi, tanto carius est posteris, quanto erga parentes maior adfectus: nullo modo ipsa spernenda sunt corpora, quae utique multo familiarius atque coniunctius quam quaelibet indumenta gestamus. Haec enim non ad ornamentum vel adiutorium, quod adhibetur extrinsecus, sed ad ipsam naturam hominis pertinent. unde et antiquorum iustorum funera officiosa pietate curata sunt et exequiae celebratae et sepultura provisa, ipsique cum viverent de sepeliendis vel etiam transferendis suis corporibus filiis mandaverunt, et Tobis sepeliendo mortuios Deum promeruisse teste angelo commendatur. Ipse quoque Dominus die tertio resurrecturus religiosae mulieris bonum opus praedicat praedicandumque commendat, quod unguentum pretiosum super membra eius effuderit atque hoc ad eum sepeliendum fecerit. Et laudabiliter commemorantur in euangelio qui corpus eius de cruce acceptum diligenter atque honorifice tegendum sepeliendumque curarunt. Verum istae auctoritates non hoc admonent, quod insit ullus cadaveribus sensus, sed ad Dei providentiam, cui placent etiam talia pietatis officia, corpora quoque mortuorum pertinere significant propter fidem resurrectionis astruendam. Vbi et illud salubriter discitur, quanta possit esse remuneratio pro elemosynis, quas viventibus et sentientibus exhibemus, si neque hoc apud Deum perit, od exanimis hominum membris officii diligentiaeque persolvitur. Sunt quidem et alia, quae sancti patriarchae de corporibus suis vel condendis vel transferendis prophetico spiritu dicta intellegi voluerunt; non autem hic locus est, ut ea pertractemus, cum sufficiant ista, quae diximus. Sed si ea, quae sustentandis viventibus sunt necessaria, sicut victus et amictus, quamuis cum gravi adflictione desint, non frangunt in bonis perferendi tolerandique virtutem nec eradicant ex animo pietatem, sed exercitatam faciunt fecundiorem: quanto magis, cum desunt ea, quae curandis funeribus condendisque corporibus defunctorum adhiberi solent, non efficiunt miseros in occultis piorum sedibus iam quietos! Ac per hoc quando ista cadaveribus Christianorum in illa magnae urbis vel etiam aliorum oppidorum uastatione defuerunt, nec vivorum culpa est, qui non potuerunt ista praebere, nec poena mortuorum, qui non possunt ista sentire.  ||chapter 13. Nevertheless the bodies of the dead are not on this account to be despised and left unburied; least of all the bodies of the righteous and faithful, which have been used by the Holy Spirit as His organs and instruments for all good works.  For if the dress of a father, or his ring, or anything he wore, be precious to his children, in proportion to the love they bore him, with how much more reason ought we to care for the bodies of those we love, which they wore far more closely and intimately than any clothing!  For the body is not an extraneous ornament or aid, but a part of man's very nature.  And therefore to the righteous of ancient times the last offices were piously rendered, and sepulchres provided for them, and obsequies celebrated; and they themselves, while yet alive, gave commandment to their sons about the burial, and, on occasion, even about the removal of their bodies to some favorite place.  And Tobit, according to the angel's testimony, is commended, and is said to have pleased God by burying the dead. Tobit 12:12   Our Lord Himself, too, though He was to rise again the third day, applauds, and commends to our applause, the good work of the religious woman who poured precious ointment over His limbs, and did it against His burial. Matthew 26:10-13   And the Gospel speaks with commendation of those who were careful to take down His body from the cross, and wrap it lovingly in costly cerements, and see to its burial. John 19:38   These instances certainly do not prove that corpses have any feeling; but they show that God's providence extends even to the bodies of the dead, and that such pious offices are pleasing to Him, as cherishing faith in the resurrection.  And we may also draw from them this wholesome lesson, that if God does not forget even any kind office which loving care pays to the unconscious dead, much more does He reward the charity we exercise towards the living.  Other things, indeed, which the holy patriarchs said of the burial and removal of their bodies, they meant to be taken in a prophetic sense; but of these we need not here speak at large, what we have already said being sufficient.  But if the want of those things which are necessary for the support of the living, as food and clothing, though painful and trying, does not break down the fortitude and virtuous endurance of good men, nor eradicate piety from their souls, but rather renders it more fruitful, how much less can the absence of the funeral, and of the other customary attentions paid to the dead, render those wretched who are already reposing in the hidden abodes of the blessed!  Consequently, though in the sack of Rome and of other towns the dead bodies of the Christians were deprived of these last offices, this is neither the fault of the living, for they could not render them; nor an infliction to the dead, for they cannot feel the loss. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c14"><b>BOOK I</b> [XIV] Sed multi, inquiunt, Christiani etiam captivi ducti sunt. Hoc sane miserrimum est, si aliquo duci potuerunt, ubi Deum suum non invenerunt. Sunt in scripturis sanctis huius etiam cladis magna solacia. Fuerunt in captivitate tres pueri, fuit Daniel, fuerunt alii prophetae; nec Deus defuit consolator. Sic ergo non deseruit fideles suos sub dominatione gentis, licet barbarae, tamen humanae, qui prophetam non deseruit nec in visceribus beluae. Haec quoque illi, cum quibus agimus, malunt inridere quam credere, qui tamen suis litteris credunt Arionem Methymnaeum, nobilissimum citharistam, cum esset deiectus e navi, exceptum delphini dorso et ad terras esse peruectum. Verum illud nostrum de Iona propheta incredibilius est. Plane incredibilius quia mirabilius, et mirabilius quia potentius.  ||chapter 14. But, say they, many Christians were even led away captive.  This indeed were a most pitiable fate, if they could be led away to any place where they could not find their God.  But for this calamity also sacred Scripture affords great consolation.  The three youths Daniel 3 were captives; Daniel was a captive; so were other prophets:  and God, the comforter, did not fail them.  And in like manner He has not failed His own people in the power of a nation which, though barbarous, is yet human,-He who did not abandon the prophet in the belly of a monster. Jonah 1 These things, indeed, are turned to ridicule rather than credited by those with whom we are debating; though they believe what they read in their own books, that Arion of Methymna, the famous lyrist, when he was thrown overboard, was received on a dolphin's back and carried to land.  But that story of ours about the prophet Jonah is far more incredible,-more incredible because more marvellous, and more marvellous because a greater exhibition of power. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c15"><b>BOOK I</b> [XV] Habent tamen isti de captivitate religionis causa etiam sponte toleranda et in suis praeclaris viris nobilissimum exemplum. Marcus Regulus, imperator populi Romani, captivus apud Carthaginienses fuit. Qui cum sibi mallent a Romanis suos reddi quam eorum tenere captivos, ad hoc impetrandum etiam istum praecipue Regulum cum legatis suis Romam miserunt, prius iuratione constrictum, si quod volebant minime peregisset, rediturum esse Carthaginem. Perrexit ille atque in senatu contraria persuasit, quoniam non arbitrabatur utile esse Romanae rei publicae mutare captivos. Nec post hanc persuasionem a suis ad hostes redire compulsus est, sed quia iuraverat, id sponte complevit. At illi eum excogitatis atque horrendis cruciatibus necaverunt. Inclusum quippe angusto ligno, ubi stare cogeretur, clavisque acutisimis undique confixo, ut se in nullam eius partem sine poenis atrocissimis inclinaret, etiam vigilando peremerunt. Merito certe laudant virtutem tam magna infelicitate maiorem. Et per deos ille iuraverat, quorum cultu prohibito has generi humano clades isti opinantur infligi. Qui ergo propterea colebantur, ut istam vitam prosperam redderent, si verum iuranti has inrogari poenas seu voluerunt seu permiserunt, quid periuro gravius irati facere potuerunt? Sed cur non ratiocinationem meam potius ad utrumqeu concludam? Deos certe ille sic coluit, ut propter iuris iurandi fidem nec maneret in patria, nec inde quolibet ire, sed ad suos acerrimos inimicos redire minime dubitaret. Hoc si huic vitae utile existimabat, cuius tam horrendum exitum meruit, proculdubio fallebatur. Suo quippe docuit exemplo nihil deos ad istam temporalem felicitatem suis prodesse cultoribus, quando quidem ille eorum deditus cultui et victus et captivus abductus et, quia noluit aliter quam per eos iuraverat facere, nouo ac prius inaudito nimiumque horribili supplicii genere cruciatus extinctus est. Si autem deorum cultus post hanc vitam velut mercedem reddit felicitatem, cur calumniantur temporibus Christianis, ideo dicentes Vrbi accidisse illam calamitatem, quia deos suos colere destitit, cum potuerit etiam illos dili gentissime colens tam infelix fieri, quam ille Regulus fuit? Nisi forte contra clarissimam veritatem tanta quisquam dementia mirae caecitatis obnititur, ut contendere audeat universam civitatem deos colentem infelicem esse non posse, unum vero hominem posse, quod videlicet potentia deorum suorum multos potius sit idonea conservare quam singulos, cum multitudo constet ex singulis. Si autem dicunt M. Regulum etiam in illa captivitate illisque cruciatibus corporibus animi virtute beatum esse potuisse, virtus potius vera quaeratur, qua beata esse possit et civitas. Neque enim aliunde beata civitas, aliunde homo, cum aliud civitas non sit quam concors hominum multitudo. Quam ob rem nondum interim disputo, qualis in Regulo virtus fuerit; sufficit nunc, quod isto nobilissimo exemplo coguntur fateri non propter corporis bona vel earum rerum, quae extrinsecus homini accidunt, colendos deos, quando quidem ille carere his omnibus maluit quam deos per quos iuravit offendere. Sed quid faciamus hominibus, qui gloriantur se talem habuisse civem, qualem timent habere civitatem? Quod si non timent, tale ergo aliquid, quale accidit Regulo, etiam civitati tam diligenter quam ille deos colenti accidere potuisse fateantur et Christianis temporibus non calumnientur. Verum quia de illis Christianis orta quaestio est, qui etiam captivati sunt, hoc intueantur et taceant, qui saluberrimae religioni hinc inpudenter atque inprudenter inludunt, quia, si diis eorum probro non fuit, quod adtentissimus cultor illorum, dum eis iuris iurandi fidem servaret, patria caruit, cum aliam non haberet, captivusque apud hostes per longam mortem supplicio nouae crudelitatis occisus est, multo minus nomen criminandum est Christianum in captivitate sacratorum suorum, qui supernam patriam veraci fide expectantes etiam in suis sedibus peregrionos se esse noverunt.  ||chapter 15. But among their own famous men they have a very noble example of the voluntary endurance of captivity in obedience to a religious scruple.  Marcus Attilius Regulus, a Roman general, was a prisoner in the hands of the Carthaginians.  But they, being more anxious to exchange their prisoners with the Romans than to keep them, sent Regulus as a special envoy with their own embassadors to negotiate this exchange, but bound him first with an oath, that if he failed to accomplish their wish, he would return to Carthage.  He went and persuaded the senate to the opposite course, because he believed it was not for the advantage of the Roman republic to make an exchange of prisoners.  After he had thus exerted his influence, the Romans did not compel him to return to the enemy; but what he had sworn he voluntarily performed.  But the Carthaginians put him to death with refined, elaborate, and horrible tortures.  They shut him up in a narrow box, in which he was compelled to stand, and in which finely sharpened nails were fixed all round about him, so that he could not lean upon any part of it without intense pain; and so they killed him by depriving him of sleep.  With justice, indeed, do they applaud the virtue which rose superior to so frightful a fate.  However, the gods he swore by were those who are now supposed to avenge the prohibition of their worship, by inflicting these present calamities on the human race.  But if these gods, who were worshipped specially in this behalf, that they might confer happiness in this life, either willed or permitted these punishments to be inflicted on one who kept his oath to them, what more cruel punishment could they in their anger have inflicted on a perjured person?  But why may I not draw from my reasoning a double inference?  Regulus certainly had such reverence for the gods, that for his oath's sake he would neither remain in his own land nor go elsewhere, but without hesitation returned to his bitterest enemies.  If he thought that this course would be advantageous with respect to this present life, he was certainly much deceived, for it brought his life to a frightful termination.  By his own example, in fact, he taught that the gods do not secure the temporal happiness of their worshippers; since he himself, who was devoted to their worship, as both conquered in battle and taken prisoner, and then, because he refused to act in violation of the oath he had sworn by them, was tortured and put to death by a new, and hitherto unheard of, and all too horrible kind of punishment.  And on the supposition that the worshippers of the gods are rewarded by felicity in the life to come, why, then, do they calumniate the influence of Christianity? why do they assert that this disaster has overtaken the city because it has ceased to worship its gods, since, worship them as assiduously as it may, it may yet be as unfortunate as Regulus was?  Or will some one carry so wonderful a blindness to the extent of wildly attempting, in the face of the evident truth, to contend that though one man might be unfortunate, though a worshipper of the gods, yet a whole city could not be so?  That is to say, the power of their gods is better adapted to preserve multitudes than individuals,-as if a multitude were not composed of individuals.But if they say that M. Regulus, even while a prisoner and enduring these bodily torments, might yet enjoy the blessedness of a virtuous soul, then let them recognize that true virtue by which a city also may be blessed.  For the blessedness of a community and of an individual flow from the same source; for a community is nothing else than a harmonious collection of individuals.  So that I am not concerned meantime to discuss what kind of virtue Regulus possessed; enough, that by his very noble example they are forced to own that the gods are to be worshipped not for the sake of bodily comforts or external advantages; for he preferred to lose all such things rather than offend the gods by whom he had sworn.  But what can we make of men who glory in having such a citizen, but dread having a city like him?  If they do not dread this, then let them acknowledge that some such calamity as befell Regulus may also befall a community, though they be worshipping their gods as diligently as he; and let them no longer throw the blame of their misfortunes on Christianity.  But as our present concern is with those Christians who were taken prisoners, let those who take occasion from this calamity to revile our most wholesome religion in a fashion not less imprudent than impudent, consider this and hold their peace; for if it was no reproach to their gods that a most punctilious worshipper of theirs should, for the sake of keeping his oath to them, be deprived of his native land without hope of finding another, and fall into the hands of his enemies, and be put to death by a long-drawn and exquisite torture, much less ought the Christian name to be charged with the captivity of those who believe in its power, since they, in confident expectation of a heavenly country, know that they are pilgrims even in their own homes. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c16"><b>BOOK I</b> [XVI] Magnum sane crimen se putant obicere Christianis, cum eorum exaggerantes captivitatem addunt etiam stupra commissa, non solum in aliena matrimonia virginesque nupturas, sed etiam in quasdam sanctimoniales. Hic vero non fides, non pietas, non ipsa virtus, quae castitas dicitur, sed nostra potius disputatio inter pudorem atque rationem quibusdam coartatur angustiis. Nec tantum hic curamus alienis responsionem redere, quantum ipsis nostris consolationem. Sit igitur in primis positum atque firmatum virtutem, qua recte vivitur, ab aanimi sede membris corporis imperare sanctumque corpus usu fieri sanctae voluntatis, qua inconcussa ac stabili permanente, quidquid alius de corpore vel in corpore fecerit, quod sine peccato proprio non valeat evitari, praeter culpam esse patientis. Sed quia non solum quod ad dolorem, verum etiam quod ad libidinem pertinet, in corpore alieno perpetrari potest: quidquid tale factum fuerit, etsi retentam constantissimo animo pudicitiam non excutit, tamen pudorem incutit, ne credatur factum cum mentis etiam voluntate, quod fieri fortasse sine carnis aliqua voluptate non potuit.  ||chapter 16. But they fancy they bring a conclusive charge against Christianity, when they aggravate the horror of captivity by adding that not only wives and unmarried maidens, but even consecrated virgins, were violated.  But truly, with respect to this, it is not Christian faith, nor piety, nor even the virtue of chastity, which is hemmed into any difficulty; the only difficulty is so to treat the subject as to satisfy at once modesty and reason.  And in discussing it we shall not be so careful to reply to our accusers as to comfort our friends.  Let this, therefore, in the first place, be laid down as an unassailable position, that the virtue which makes the life good has its throne in the soul, and thence rules the members of the body, which becomes holy in virtue of the holiness of the will; and that while the will remains firm and unshaken, nothing that another person does with the body, or upon the body, is any fault of the person who suffers it, so long as he cannot escape it without sin.  But as not only pain may be inflicted, but lust gratified on the body of another, whenever anything of this latter kind takes place, shame invades even a thoroughly pure spirit from which modesty has not departed,-shame, lest that act which could not be suffered without some sensual pleasure, should be believed to have been committed also with some assent of the will. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c17"><b>BOOK I</b> [XVII] Ac per hoc et quae se occiderunt, ne quicquam huius modi paterentur, quis humanus affectus eis nolit ignosci? et quae se occidere noluerunt, ne suo facinore alienum flagitium devitarent, quisquis <eis> hoc crimini dederit, ipse crimen insipientiae non cavebit. Nam utique si non licet privata potestate hominem occidere vel nocentem, cuius occidendi licentiam lex nulla concedit, profecto etiam qui se ipsum occidit homicida est, et tanto fit nocentior, cum se occiderit, quanto innocentior in ea causa fuit, qua se occidendum putavit. Nam si Iudae factum merito detestamur eumque veritas iudicat, cum se laqueo suspendit, sceleratae illius traditionis auxisse potius quam expiasse commissum, quoniam Dei misericordiam desperando exitiabiliter paenitens nullum sibi salubris paenitentiae locum reliquit: quanto magis a sua nece se abstinere debet, qui tali supplicio quod in se puniat non habet! Iudas enim cum se occidit, sceleratum hominem occidit, et tamen non solum Christi, verum etiam suae mortis reus finivit hanc vitam, qua licet propter suum scelus alio suo scelere occisus eis. Cur autem homo, qui mali nihil fecit, sibi malefaciat et se ipsum interficiendo hominem interficiat innocentem, ne alium patiatur nocentem, atque in se perpetret peccatum proprium, ne in eo perpetretur alienum?  ||chapter 17. And consequently, even if some of these virgins killed themselves to avoid such disgrace, who that has any human feeling would refuse to forgive them?  And as for those who would not put an end to their lives, lest they might seem to escape the crime of another by a sin of their own, he who lays this to their charge as a great wickedness is himself not guiltless of the fault of folly.  For if it is not lawful to take the law into our own hands, and slay even a guilty person, whose death no public sentence has warranted, then certainly he who kills himself is a homicide, and so much the guiltier of his own death, as he was more innocent of that offence for which he doomed himself to die.  Do we justly execrate the deed of Judas, and does truth itself pronounce that by hanging himself he rather aggravated than expiated the guilt of that most iniquitous betrayal, since, by despairing of God's mercy in his sorrow that wrought death, he left to himself no place for a healing penitence?  How much more ought he to abstain from laying violent hands on himself who has done nothing worthy of such a punishment!  For Judas, when he killed himself, killed a wicked man; but he passed from this life chargeable not only with the death of Christ, but with his own:  for though he killed himself on account of his crime, his killing himself was another crime.  Why, then, should a man who has done no ill do ill to himself, and by killing himself kill the innocent to escape another's guilty act, and perpetrate upon himself a sin of his own, that the sin of another may not be perpetrated on him? 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c18"><b>BOOK I</b> [XVIII] At enim, ne vel aliena polluat libido, metuitur. Non polluet, si aliena erit; si autem polluet, aliena non erit. Sed cum pudicitia virtus sit animi comitemque habeat fortitudinem, qua potius quaelibet mala tolerare quam malo consentire decernit, nullus autem magnamimus et pudicus in potestate habeat, quid de sua carne fiat, sed tantum quid adnuat mente vel renuat: quis eadem sana mente putaverit perdere se pudicitiam, si forte in adprehensa et oppressa carne sua exerceatur et expleatur libido non sua? Si enim hoc modo pudicitia perit, profecto pudicitia virtus animi non erit, nec pertinebit ad ea bona, quibus bene vivitur, sed in bnois corporis numerabitur, qualia sunt vires pulchritudo sana valetudo, ac si quid huius modi est; quae bona, etiamsi minuantur, bonam iustamque vitam omnino non minuunt. Quod si tale aliquid est pudicitia, ut quid pro illa, ne amittatur, etiam <cum> periculo corpris laboratur? Si autem animi bonum est, etiam oppresso corpore non amittitur. Quin etiam sanctae continentiae bonum cum inmunditiae carnalium concupiscentiarum non cedit, et ipsum corpus sanctificatur, et ideo, cum eis non cedere inconcussa intentione persistit, nec de ipso corpore perit sanctitas, quia eo sancte utendi perseuerat voluntas et, quantum est in ipso, etiam facultas. Neque enim eo corpus sanctum est, quod eius membra sunt integra, aut eo, quod nullo contrectantur adtactu, cum possint diversis casibus etiam uulnerata vim perpeti, et medici aliquando saluti opitulantes haec ibi faciant, quae horret aspectus. Obstetrix virginis cuiusdam integritatem manu velut explorans sive maleuolentia sive inscitia sive casu, dum inspicit, perdidit. Non opinor quemquam tam stulte sapere, ut huic perisse aliquid existimet etiam de ipsius corporis sactitate, quamuis membri illius integritate iam perdita. Quocirca proposito animi permanente, per quod etiam corpus sanctificari meruit, nec ipsi corpori aufert sanctitatem violentia libidinis alienae, quam servat perseuerantia continentiae suae. An vero si aliqua femina mente corrupta violatoque proposito, quod Deo voverat, pergat vitianda ad deceptorem suum, ad hoc eam pergentem sanctam vel corpore dicimus, ea sanctitate animi, per quam corpus sanctificabatur, amissa atque destructa? Absit hic error et hinc potius admoneamur ita non amitti corporis sanctitatem manente animi sanctitate etiam corpore oppresso, sicut amittitur et corporis sanctitas violata animi sanctitate etiam corpore intacto. Quam ob rem non habet quod in se morte spontanea puniat femina sine ulla sua consensione violenter oppressa et alieno conpressa peccato; quanto minus antequam hoc fiat! ne admittantur homicidium certum, cum ipsum flagitium, quamuis alienum, adhuc pendet incertum.  ||chapter 18. But is there a fear that even another's lust may pollute the violated?  It will not pollute, if it be another's:  if it pollute, it is not another's, but is shared also by the polluted.  But since purity is a virtue of the soul, and has for its companion virtue, the fortitude which will rather endure all ills than consent to evil; and since no one, however magnanimous and pure, has always the disposal of his own body, but can control only the consent and refusal of his will, what sane man can suppose that, if his body be seized and forcibly made use of to satisfy the lust of another, he thereby loses his purity?  For if purity can be thus destroyed, then assuredly purity is no virtue of the soul; nor can it be numbered among those good things by which the life is made good, but among the good things of the body, in the same category as strength, beauty, sound and unbroken health, and, in short, all such good things as may be diminished without at all diminishing the goodness and rectitude of our life.  But if purity be nothing better than these, why should the body be perilled that it may be preserved?  If, on the other hand, it belongs to the soul, then not even when the body is violated is it lost.  Nay more, the virtue of holy continence, when it resists the uncleanness of carnal lust, sanctifies even the body, and therefore when this continence remains unsubdued, even the sanctity of the body is preserved, because the will to use it holily remains, and, so far as lies in the body itself, the power also.For the sanctity of the body does not consist in the integrity of its members, nor in their exemption from all touch; for they are exposed to various accidents which do violence to and wound them, and the surgeons who administer relief often perform operations that sicken the spectator.  A midwife, suppose, has (whether maliciously or accidentally, or through unskillfulness) destroyed the virginity of some girl, while endeavoring to ascertain it:  I suppose no one is so foolish as to believe that, by this destruction of the integrity of one organ, the virgin has lost anything even of her bodily sanctity.  And thus, so long as the soul keeps this firmness of purpose which sanctifies even the body, the violence done by another's lust makes no impression on this bodily sanctity, which is preserved intact by one's own persistent continence.  Suppose a virgin violates the oath she has sworn to God, and goes to meet her seducer with the intention of yielding to him, shall we say that as she goes she is possessed even of bodily sanctity, when already she has lost and destroyed that sanctity of soul which sanctifies the body?  Far be it from us to so misapply words.  Let us rather draw this conclusion, that while the sanctity of the soul remains even when the body is violated, the sanctity of the body is not lost; and that, in like manner, the sanctity of the body is lost when the sanctity of the soul is violated, though the body itself remains intact.  And therefore a woman who has been violated by the sin of another, and without any consent of her own, has no cause to put herself to death; much less has she cause to commit suicide in order to avoid such violation, for in that case she commits certain homicide to prevent a crime which is uncertain as yet, and not her own. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c19"><b>BOOK I</b> [XIX] An forte huic perspicuae rationi, qua dicimus corpore oppresso nequaquam proposito castitatis ulla in malum consensione mutato illius tantum esse flagitium, qui opprimens concubuerit, non illius, quae oppressa concumbenti nulla voluntate consenserit, contradicere audebunt hi, contra quos feminarum Christianarum in captivitate oppressarum non tantum mentes, verum etiam corpora sancta defendimus? Lucretiam certe, matronam nobilem ueteremque Romanam, pudicitiae magnis efferunt laudibus. Huius corpore cum violenter oppresso Tarquinii regis filius libidinose potitus esset, illa scelus improbissimi ivvenis marito Collatino et propinquo Bruto, viris clarissimis et fortissimis, indicavit eosque ad vindicatam constrinxit. Deinde foedi in se commissi aegra atque inpatiens e peremit. Quid dicemus? Adultera haec an casta iudicanda est? Quis in hac controversia laborandum putaverit? Egregie quidam ex hoc veraciterque declamans ait: "Mirabile dictu, duo fuerunt et adulterium unus admisit." Splendide atque verissime. Intuens enim in duorum corporum commixtione unius inquinatissimam cupiditatem, alterius castissimam voluntatem, et non quid coniunctione membrorum, sed quid animorum diversitate ageretur adtendens: "Duo, inquit, fuerunt, et adulterium unus admisit." Sed quid est hoc, quod in eam gravius vindicatur, quae adulterium non admisit? Nam ille patria cum patre pulsus est, haec summo est mactata supplicio. Si non est illa inpudicitia qua inuita opprimitur, non est haec iustitia qua casta punitur. Vos appello, leges iudicesque Romani. Nempe post perpetrata facinora nec quemquam scelestum indemnatum inpune voluistis occidi. Si ergo ad uestrum iudicium quisquam deferret hoc crimen vobisque probaretur non solum indemnatam, verum etiam castam et innocentem interfectam esse mulierem, nonne eum, qui id fecisset, seueritate congrua plecteretis? hoc fecit illa Lucretia; illa, illa sic praedicata Lucretia innocentem, castam, vim perpessam Lucretiam insuper interemit. Proferte sententiam. Quod si propterea non potestis, quia non adstat quam punire possitis, cur interfectricem innocentis et castae tanta praedicatione laudatis? Quam certe apud infernos iudices etiam tales, quales poetarum uestrorum carminibus cantitantur, nulla ratione defenditis, constitutam scilicet inter illos, qui sibi letum Insontes peperere manu lucemque perosi Proiecere animas; cui ad superna redire cupienti Fas obstat, tristisque palus inamabilis undae Adligat. An forte ideo ibi non est, quia non insontem, sed male sibi consciam se peremit? Quid si enim (quod ipsa tantummodo nosse poterat) quamuis ivveni violenter inruenti etiam sua libidine inlecta consensit idque in se puniens ita doluit, ut morte putaret expiandum? Quamquam ne sic quidem se occidere debuit, si fructuosam posset apud deos falsos agere paenitentiam. Verum tamen si forte ita est falsumque est illud, quod duo fuerunt et adulterium unus admisit, sed potius ambo adulterium commiserunt, unus manifesta inuasione, altera latente consensione: non se occidit insontem, et ideo potest a litteratis eius defensoribus dici non esse apud inferos inter illos, "qui sibi letum insontes peperere manu." Sed ita haec causa ex utroque latere coartatur, ut, si extenuatur homicidium, adulterium confirmetur; si purgatur adulterium, homicidium cumuletur; nec omnino invenitur exitus, ubi dicitur: "Si adulterata, cur laudata; si pudica, cur occisa?" Nobis tamen in hoc tam nobili feminae huius exemplo ad istos refutandos, qui Christianis feminis in captivitate compressis alieni ab omni cogitatione sanctitatis insultant, sufficit quod in praeclaris eius laudibus dictum est: "Duo fuerunt et adulterium unus admisit." Talis enim ab eis Lucretia magis credita est, quae se nullo adulterino potuerit maculare consensu. Quod ergo se ipsam, quoniam adulterum pertulit, etiam non adultera occidit, non est pudicitiae caritas, sed pudoris infirmitas. Puduit enim eam turpitudinis alienae in se commissae, etiamsi non secum, et Romana mulier, laudis avida nimium, verita est ne putaretur, quod violenter est passa cum viveret, libenter passa si viveret. unde ad oculos hominum testem mentis suae illam poenam adhibendam putavit, quibus conscientiam demonstrare non potuit. Sociam quippe facti se credi erubuit, si, quod alius in ea fecerat turpiter, ferret ipsa patienter. Non hoc fecerunt feminae Christianae, quae passae similia vivunt tamen nec in se ultae sunt crimen alienum, ne aliorum sceleribus adderent sua, si, quoniam hostes in eis concupiscendo stupra commiserant, illae in se ipsis homicidia erubescendo commiteerent. Habent quippe intus gloriam castitatis, testimonium conscientiae; habent autem coram oculis Dei sui nec requirunt amplius, ubi quid recte faciant non habent amplius, ne devient ab auctoriate legis divinae, cum male devitant offensionem suspicionis humanae.  ||chapter 19. This, then, is our position, and it seems sufficiently lucid.  We maintain that when a woman is violated while her soul admits no consent to the iniquity, but remains inviolably chaste, the sin is not hers, but his who violates her.  But do they against whom we have to defend not only the souls, but the sacred bodies too of these outraged Christian captives,-do they, perhaps, dare to dispute our position?  But all know how loudly they extol the purity of Lucretia, that noble matron of ancient Rome.  When King Tarquin's son had violated her body, she made known the wickedness of this young profligate to her husband Collatinus, and to Brutus her kinsman, men of high rank and full of courage, and bound them by an oath to avenge it.  Then, heart-sick, and unable to bear the shame, she put an end to her life.  What shall we call her?  An adulteress, or chaste?  There is no question which she was.  Not more happily than truly did a declaimer say of this sad occurrence:  "Here was a marvel:  there were two, and only one committed adultery."  Most forcibly and truly spoken.  For this declaimer, seeing in the union of the two bodies the foul lust of the one, and the chaste will of the other, and giving heed not to the contact of the bodily members, but to the wide diversity of their souls, says:  "There were two, but the adultery was committed only by one."But how is it, that she who was no partner to the crime bears the heavier punishment of the two?  For the adulterer was only banished along with his father; she suffered the extreme penalty.  If that was not impurity by which she was unwillingly ravished, then this is not justice by which she, being chaste, is punished.  To you I appeal, you laws and judges of Rome.  Even after the perpetration of great enormities, you do not suffer the criminal to be slain untried.  If, then, one were to bring to your bar this case, and were to prove to you that a woman not only untried, but chaste and innocent, had been killed, would you not visit the murderer with punishment proportionably severe?  This crime was committed by Lucretia; that Lucretia so celebrated and lauded slew the innocent, chaste, outraged Lucretia.  Pronounce sentence.  But if you cannot, because there does not appear any one whom you can punish, why do you extol with such unmeasured laudation her who slew an innocent and chaste woman?  Assuredly you will find it impossible to defend her before the judges of the realms below, if they be such as your poets are fond of representing them; for she is among those"Who guiltless sent themselves to doom, And all for loathing of the day, In madness threw their lives away. "And if she with the others wishes to return, "Fate bars the way:  around their keep The slow unlovely waters creep, And bind with ninefold chain. "Or perhaps she is not there, because she slew herself conscious of guilt, not of innocence?  She herself alone knows her reason; but what if she was betrayed by the pleasure of the act, and gave some consent to Sextus, though so violently abusing her, and then was so affected with remorse, that she thought death alone could expiate her sin?  Even though this were the case, she ought still to have held her hand from suicide, if she could with her false gods have accomplished a fruitful repentance.  However, if such were the state of the case, and if it were false that there were two, but one only committed adultery; if the truth were that both were involved in it, one by open assault, the other by secret consent, then she did not kill an innocent woman; and therefore her erudite defenders may maintain that she is not among that class of the dwellers below "who guiltless sent themselves to doom."  But this case of Lucretia is in such a dilemma, that if you extenuate the homicide, you confirm the adultery:  if you acquit her of adultery, you make the charge of homicide heavier; and there is no way out of the dilemma, when one asks, If she was adulterous, why praise her? if chaste, why slay her?Nevertheless, for our purpose of refuting those who are unable to comprehend what true sanctity is, and who therefore insult over our outraged Christian women, it is enough that in the instance of this noble Roman matron it was said in her praise, "There were two, but the adultery was the crime of only one."  For Lucretia was confidently believed to be superior to the contamination of any consenting thought to the adultery.  And accordingly, since she killed herself for being subjected to an outrage in which she had no guilty part, it is obvious that this act of hers was prompted not by the love of purity, but by the overwhelming burden of her shame.  She was ashamed that so foul a crime had been perpetrated upon her, though without her abetting; and this matron, with the Roman love of glory in her veins, was seized with a proud dread that, if she continued to live, it would be supposed she willingly did not resent the wrong that had been done her.  She could not exhibit to men her conscience but she judged that her self-inflicted punishment would testify her state of mind; and she burned with shame at the thought that her patient endurance of the foul affront that another had done her, should be construed into complicity with him.  Not such was the decision of the Christian women who suffered as she did, and yet survive.  They declined to avenge upon themselves the guilt of others, and so add crimes of their own to those crimes in which they had no share.  For this they would have done had their shame driven them to homicide, as the lust of their enemies had driven them to adultery.  Within their own souls, in the witness of their own conscience, they enjoy the glory of chastity.  In the sight of God, too, they are esteemed pure, and this contents them; they ask no more:  it suffices them to have opportunity of doing good, and they decline to evade the distress of human suspicion, lest they thereby deviate from the divine law. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c20"><b>BOOK I</b> [XX] Neque enim frustra in sanctis canonicis libris nusquam nobis divinitus praeceptum permissumue reperiri potest, ut vel ipsius adipiscendae inmortalitatis vel ullius cavendi carendive mali causa nobismet ipsis necem inferamus. Nam et prohibitos nos esse intellegendum est, ubi lex ait: Non occides, praesertim quia non addidit: "proximum tuum", sicut falsum testimonium cum uetaret: Falsum, inquit, testimonium non dices adversus proximum tuum. Nec ideo tamen si adversus se ipsum quisquam falsum testimonium dixerit, ab hoc crimine se putaverit alienum, quoniam regulam diligendi proximum a semet ipso dilector accepit, quando quidem scriptum est: Diliges proximum tuum tamquam te ipsum. Porro si falsi testimonii non minus reus est qui de se ipso falsum fatetur, quam si adversus proximum hoc faceret, cum in eo praecepto, quo falsum testimonium prohibetur, adversus proximum prohibeatur possitque non recte intellegentibus videri non esse prohibitum, ut adversus se ipsum quisque falsus testis adsistat: quanto magis intellegendum est non licere homini se ipsum occidere, cum in eo, quod scriptum est: Non occides, nihilo deinde addito nullus, nec ipse utique, cui praecipitur, intellegatur exceptus! unde quidam hoc praeceptum etiam in bestias ac pecora conantur extendere, ut ex hoc nullum etiam illorum liceat occidere. Cur non ergo et herbas et quidquid humo radicitus alitur ac figitur? Nam et hoc genus rerum, quamuis non sentiat, dicitur vivere ac per hoc potest et mori, proinde etiam, cum vis adhibetur, occidi. unde et apostolus, cum de huius modi seminibus loqueretur: Tu, inquit, quod seminas non vivificatur, nisi moriatur; et in psalmo scriptum est: Occidit vites eorum in grandine. Num igitur ob hoc, cum audimus: Non occides, virgultum vellere nefas ducimus et Manichaeorum errori insanissime adquescimus? His igitur deliramentis remotis cum legimus: Non occides, si propterea non accipimus hoc dictum de fructecti esse, quia nullus eis sensus est, nec de inrationalibus animantibus, volatilibus natatilibus, ambulatilibus reptilibus, quia nulla nobis ratione sociantur, quam non eis datum est nobiscum habere communem (unde iustissima ordinatione creatoris et vita et mors eorum nostris usibus subditur): restat ut de homine intellegamus, quod dictum est: Non occides, nec alterum ergo nec te. Neque enim qui se occidit aliud quam hominem occidit.  ||chapter 20. It is not without significance, that in no passage of the holy canonical books there can be found either divine precept or permission to take away our own life, whether for the sake of entering on the enjoyment of immortality, or of shunning, or ridding ourselves of anything whatever.  Nay, the law, rightly interpreted, even prohibits suicide, where it says, "You shall not kill."  This is proved especially by the omission of the words "your neighbor," which are inserted when false witness is forbidden:  "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."  Nor yet should any one on this account suppose he has not broken this commandment if he has borne false witness only against himself.  For the love of our neighbor is regulated by the love of ourselves, as it is written, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."  If, then, he who makes false statements about himself is not less guilty of bearing false witness than if he had made them to the injury of his neighbor; although in the commandment prohibiting false witness only his neighbor is mentioned, and persons taking no pains to understand it might suppose that a man was allowed to be a false witness to his own hurt; how much greater reason have we to understand that a man may not kill himself, since in the commandment, "You shall not kill," there is no limitation added nor any exception made in favor of any one, and least of all in favor of him on whom the command is laid!  And so some attempt to extend this command even to beasts and cattle, as if it forbade us to take life from any creature.  But if so, why not extend it also to the plants, and all that is rooted in and nourished by the earth?  For though this class of creatures have no sensation, yet they also are said to live, and consequently they can die; and therefore, if violence be done them, can be killed.  So, too, the apostle, when speaking of the seeds of such things as these, says, "That which you sow is not quickened except it die;" and in the Psalm it is said, "He killed their vines with hail."  Must we therefore reckon it a breaking of this commandment, "You shall not kill," to pull a flower?  Are we thus insanely to countenance the foolish error of the Manichжans?  Putting aside, then, these ravings, if, when we say, You shall not kill, we do not understand this of the plants, since they have no sensa tion, nor of the irrational animals that fly, swim, walk, or creep, since they are dissociated from us by their want of reason, and are therefore by the just appointment of the Creator subjected to us to kill or keep alive for our own uses; if so, then it remains that we understand that commandment simply of man.  The commandment is, "You shall not kill man;" therefore neither another nor yourself, for he who kills himself still kills nothing else than man. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c21"><b>BOOK I</b> [XXI] Quasdam vero exceptiones eadem ipsa divina fecit auctoritas, ut non liceat hominem occidi. Sed his exceptis, quos Deus occidi iubet sive data lege sive ad personam pro tempore expressa iussione, (non autem ipse occidit, qui ministerium debet iubenti, sicut adminiculum gladius utenti; et ideo nequaquam contra hoc praeceptum fecerunt, quo dictum est: Non occides, qui Deo auctore bella gesserunt aut personam gerentes publicae potestatis secundum eius leges, hoc est iustissimae rationis imperium, sceleratos morte punierunt; et Abraham non solum non est culpatus crudelitatis crimine, verum etiam laudatus est nomine pietatis, quod voluit filium nequaquam scelerate, sed oboedienter occidere; et merito quaeritur utrum pro iussu Dei sit habendum, quod lephte filiam, quae patri occurrit, occidit, cum id se vovisset immolaturum Deo, quod ei redeunti de proelio victori primitus occurrisset; nec Samson aliter excusatur, quod se ipsum cum hostibus ruina domus oppressit, nisi quia Spiritus latenter hoc iusserat, qui per illum miracula faciebat) -- his igitur exceptis, quos vel lex iusta generaliter vel ipse fons iustitiae Deus specialiter occidi iubet, quisquis hominem vel se ipsum vel quemlibet occiderit, homicidii crimine innectitur.  ||chapter 21. However, there are some exceptions made by the divine authority to its own law, that men may not be put to death.  These exceptions are of two kinds, being justified either by a general law, or by a special commission granted for a time to some individual.  And in this latter case, he to whom authority is delegated, and who is but the sword in the hand of him who uses it, is not himself responsible for the death he deals.  And, accordingly, they who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, "You shall not kill."  Abraham indeed was not merely deemed guiltless of cruelty, but was even applauded for his piety, because he was ready to slay his son in obedience to God, not to his own passion.  And it is reasonably enough made a question, whether we are to esteem it to have been in compliance with a command of God that Jephthah killed his daughter, because she met him when he had vowed that he would sacrifice to God whatever first met him as he returned victorious from battle.  Samson, too, who drew down the house on himself and his foes together, is justified only on this ground, that the Spirit who wrought wonders by him had given him secret instructions to do this.  With the exception, then, of these two classes of cases, which are justified either by a just law that applies generally, or by a special intimation from God Himself, the fountain of all justice, whoever kills a man, either himself or another, is implicated in the guilt of murder. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c22"><b>BOOK I</b> [XXII] Et quicumque hoc in se ipsis perpetraverunt, animi magnitudine fortasse mirandi, non sapientiae sanitate laudandi sunt. Quamquam si rationem diligentius consulas, ne ipsa quidem animi magnitudo recte nominabitur, ubi quisque non valendo tolerare vel quaeque aspera vel aliena peccata se ipse interemerit. Magis enim mens infirma deprehenditur, quae ferre non potest vel duram sui corporis seruitutem vel stultam uulgi opinionem, maiorque animus merito dicendus est, qui vitam aerumnosam magis potest ferre quam fugere et humanum iudicium maximeque uulgare, quod plerumque caligine erroris inuoluitur, prae conscientiae luce ac puritate contemnere. Quam ob rem si magno animo fieri putandum est, cum sibi homo ingerit mortem, ille potius Theombrotus in hac animi magnitudine reperitur, quem ferunt lecto Platonis libro, ubi de inmortalitate animae disputavit, se praecipitem dedisse de muro atque ita ex hac vita emigrasse ad eam, quam credidit esse meliorem. Nihil enim urguebat aut calamitatis aut criminis seu verum seu falsum, quod non valendo ferre se auferret; sed ad capessendam mortem atque <ad> huius vitae suavia vincla rumpenda sola adfuit animi magnitudo. Quod tamen magne potius factum esse quam bene testis ei esse potuit Plato ipse, quem legerat, qui profecto id praecipue potissimumque fecisset vel etiam praecepisset, nisi ea mente, qua inmortalitatem animae vidit, nequaquam faciendum, quin etiam prohibendum esse iudicasset. At enim multi se interemerunt, ne in manus hostium pervenirent. Non modo quaerimus utrum sit factum, sed utrum fuerit faciendum. Sana quippe ratio etiam exemplis anteponenda est, cui quidem et exempla concordant, sed illa, quae tanto digniora sunt imitatione, quanto excellentiora pietate. Non fecerunt patriarchae, non prophetae, non apostoli, quia et ipse Dominus Christus, quando eos, si persecutionem paterentur, fugere admonuit de civitate in civitatem, potuit admonere ut sibi manus inferrent, ne in manus persequentium pervenirent. Porro si hoc ille non iussit aut monuit, ut eo modo sui ex hac vita emigrarent, quibus migrantibus mansiones aeternas praeparaturum esse se promisit, quaelibet exempla proponant gentes, quae ignorant Deum, manifestum est hoc non licere colentibus unum verum Deum.  ||chapter 22. But they who have laid violent hands on themselves are perhaps to be admired for their greatness of soul, though they cannot be applauded for the soundness of their judgment.  However, if you look at the matter more closely, you will scarcely call it greatness of soul, which prompts a man to kill himself rather than bear up against some hardships of fortune, or sins in which he is not implicated.  Is it not rather proof of a feeble mind, to be unable to bear either the pains of bodily servitude or the foolish opinion of the vulgar?  And is not that to be pronounced the greater mind, which rather faces than flees the ills of life, and which, in comparison of the light and purity of conscience, holds in small esteem the judgment of men, and specially of the vulgar, which is frequently involved in a mist of error?  And, therefore, if suicide is to be esteemed a magnanimous act, none can take higher rank for magnanimity than that Cleombrotus, who (as the story goes), when he had read Plato's book in which he treats of the immortality of the soul, threw himself from a wall, and so passed from this life to that which he believed to be better.  For he was not hard pressed by calamity, nor by any accusation, false or true, which he could not very well have lived down; there was, in short, no motive but only magnanimity urging him to seek death, and break away from the sweet detention of this life.  And yet that this was a magnanimous rather than a justifiable action, Plato himself, whom he had read, would have told him; for he would certainly have been forward to commit, or at least to recommend suicide, had not the same bright intellect which saw that the soul was immortal, discerned also that to seek immortality by suicide was to be prohibited rather than encouraged. Again, it is said many have killed themselves to prevent an enemy doing so.  But we are not inquiring whether it has been done, but whether it ought to have been done.  Sound judgment is to be preferred even to examples, and indeed examples harmonize with the voice of reason; but not all examples, but those only which are distinguished by their piety, and are proportionately worthy of imitation.  For suicide we cannot cite the example of patriarchs, prophets, or apostles; though our Lord Jesus Christ, when He admonished them to flee from city to city if they were persecuted, might very well have taken that occasion to advise them to lay violent hands on themselves, and so escape their persecutors.  But seeing He did not do this, nor proposed this mode of departing this life, though He were addressing His own friends for whom He had promised to prepare everlasting mansions, it is obvious that such ex amples as are produced from the "nations that forget God," give no warrant of imitation to the worshippers of the one true God. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c23"><b>BOOK I</b> [XXIII] Sed tamen etiam illi praeter Lucretiam, de qua supra satis quod videbatur diximus, non facile reperiunt de cuius auctoritate praescribant, nisi illum Catonem, qui se Vticae occidit; non quia solus id fecit, sed quia vir doctus et probus habebatur, ut merito putetur etiam recte fieri potuisse vel posse quod fecit. De cuius facto quid potissimum dicam, nisi quod amici eius etiam docti quidam viri, qui hoc fieri prudentius dissuadebant, inbecillioris quam fortioris animi facinus esse censuerunt, quo demonstraretur non honestas turpia praecavens, sed infirmitas adversa non sustinens? Hoc et ipse Cato in suo carissimo filio iudicavit. Nam si turpe erat sub victoria Caesaris vivere, cur auctor huius turpitudinis filio fuit, quem de Caesaris benignitate omnia sperare praecepit? Cur non et illum secum coegit ad mortem? Nam si eum filium, qui contra imperium in hostem pugnaverat, etiam victorem laudabiliter Torquatus occidit, cur victus victo filio pepercit Cato, qui non pepercit sibi? An turpius erat contra imperium esse victorem, quam contra decus ferre victorem? Nullo modo igitur Cato turpe esse iudicavit sub victore Caesare vivere; alioquin ab hac turpitudine paterno ferro filium liberaret. Quid ergo, nisi quod filium quantum amavit, cui parci a Caesare et speravit et voluit, tantum gloriae ipsius Caesaris, ne ab illo etiam sibi parceretur, ut ipse Caesar dixisse fertur, inuidit, ut aliquid nos mitius dicamus, erubuit?  ||chapter 23. Besides Lucretia, of whom enough has already been said, our advocates of suicide have some difficulty in finding any other prescriptive example, unless it be that of Cato, who killed himself at Utica.  His example is appealed to, not because he was the only man who did so, but because he was so esteemed as a learned and excellent man, that it could plausibly be maintained that what he did was and is a good thing to do.  But of this action of his, what can I say but that his own friends, enlightened men as he, prudently dissuaded him, and therefore judged his act to be that of a feeble rather than a strong spirit, and dictated not by honorable feeling forestalling shame, but by weakness shrinking from hardships?  Indeed, Cato condemns himself by the advice he gave to his dearly loved son.  For if it was a disgrace to live under Cжsar's rule, why did the father urge the son to this disgrace, by encouraging him to trust absolutely to Cжsar's generosity?  Why did he not persuade him to die along with himself?  If Torquatus was applauded for putting his son to death, when contrary to orders he had engaged, and engaged successfully, with the enemy, why did conquered Cato spare his conquered son, though he did not spare himself?  Was it more disgraceful to be a victor contrary to orders, than to submit to a victor contrary to the received ideas of honor?  Cato, then, cannot have deemed it to be shameful to live under Cжsar's rule; for had he done so, the father's sword would have delivered his son from this disgrace.  The truth is, that his son, whom he both hoped and desired would be spared by Cжsar, was not more loved by him than Cжsar was envied the glory of pardoning him (as indeed Cжsar himself is reported to have said); or if envy is too strong a word, let us say he was ashamed that this glory should be his. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c24"><b>BOOK I</b> [XXIV] Nolunt autem isti, contra quos agimus, ut sanctum virum Iob, qui tam horrenda mala in sua carne perpeti maluit quam inlata sibi morte omnibus carere cruciatibus, vel alios sanctos ex litteris nostris summa auctoritate celsissimis fideque dignissimis, qui captivitatem dominationemque hostium ferre quam sibi necem inferre maluerunt, Catoni praeferamus; sed ex litteris eorum eundem illum Marco Catoni Marcum Regulum praeferam. Cato enim numquam Caesarem vicerat, cui victus dedignatus est subici et, ne subiceretur, a se ipso elegit occidi: Regulus autem Poenos iam vicerat imperioque Romano Romanus imperator non ex civibus dolendam, sed ex hostibus laudandam victoriam reportaverat; ab eis tamen postea victus maluit eos ferre seruiendo quam eis se auferre moriendo. Proinde servavit et sub Carthaginiensium dominatione patientiam et in Romanorum dilectione constantiam, nec victum auferens corpus ab hostibus nec inuictum animum a civibus. Nec quod se occidere noluit, vitae huius amore fecit. Hoc probavit, cum causa promissi iurisque iurandi ad eosdem hostes, quos gravius in senatu verbis quam <in> bello armis offenderat, sine ulla dubitatione remeavit. Tantus itaque vitae huius contemptor, cum saevientibus hostibus per quaslibet poenas eam finire quam se ipse perimere maluit, magnum scelus esse, si se homo interimat, procul dubio iudicavit. Inter omnes suos laudabiles et virtutis insignibus inlustres viros non proferunt Romani meliorem, quem neque felicitas corruperit, nam in tanta victoria mansit pauperrimus; nec infelicitas fregerit, nam ad tanta exitia reuertit intrepidus. Porro si fortissimi et praeclarissimi viri terrenae patriae defensores deorumque licet falsorum, non tamen fallaces cultores, sed veracissimi etiam iuratores, qui hostes victos more ac iure belli ferire potuerunt, hi ab hostibus victi se ipsos ferire noluerunt et, cum mortem minime formidarent, victores tamen dominos ferre quam eam sibi inferre maluerunt: quanto magis Christiani, verum Deum colentes et supernae patriae suspirantes, ab hoc facinore temperabunt, si eos divina dispositio vel probandos vel emendandos ad tempus hostibus subiugaverit, quos in illa humilitate non deserit, qui propter eos tam humiliter altissimus venit, praesertim quos nullius militaris potestatis vel talis militiae iura constringunt ipsum hostem ferire superatum. Quis ergo tam malus error obrepit, ut homo se occidat, vel quia in eum peccavit, vel ne in eum peccet inimicus, cum vel peccatorem vel peccaturum ipsum occidere non audeat inimicum?  ||chapter 24. Our opponents are offended at our preferring to Cato the saintly Job, who endured dreadful evils in his body rather than deliver himself from all torment by self-inflicted death; or other saints, of whom it is recorded in our authoritative and trustworthy books that they bore captivity and the oppression of their enemies rather than commit suicide.  But their own books authorize us to prefer to Marcus Cato, Marcus Regulus.  For Cato had never conquered Cжsar; and when conquered by him, disdained to submit himself to him, and that he might escape this submission put himself to death.  Regulus, on the contrary, had formerly conquered the Carthaginians, and in command of the army of Rome had won for the Roman republic a victory which no citizen could bewail, and which the enemy himself was constrained to admire; yet afterwards, when he in his turn was defeated by them, he preferred to be their captive rather than to put himself beyond their reach by suicide.  Patient under the domination of the Carthaginians, and constant in his love of the Romans, he neither deprived the one of his conquered body, nor the other of his unconquered spirit.  Neither was it love of life that prevented him from killing himself.  This was plainly enough indicated by his unhesitatingly returning, on account of his promise and oath, to the same enemies whom he had more grievously provoked by his words in the senate than even by his arms in battle.  Having such a contempt of life, and preferring to end it by whatever torments excited enemies might contrive, rather than terminate it by his own hand, he could not more distinctly have declared how great a crime he judged suicide to be.  Among all their famous and remarkable citizens, the Romans have no better man to boast of than this, who was neither corrupted by prosperity, for he remained a very poor man after winning such victories; nor broken by adversity, for he returned intrepidly to the most miserable end.  But if the bravest and most renowned heroes, who had but an earthly country to defend, and who, though they had but false gods, yet rendered them a true worship, and carefully kept their oath to them; if these men, who by the custom and right of war put conquered enemies to the sword, yet shrank from putting an end to their own lives even when conquered by their enemies; if, though they had no fear at all of death, they would yet rather suffer slavery than commit suicide, how much rather must Christians, the worshippers of the true God, the aspirants to a heavenly citizenship, shrink from this act, if in God's providence they have been for a season delivered into the hands of their enemies to prove or to correct them!  And certainly, Christians subjected to this humiliating condition will not be deserted by the Most High, who for their sakes humbled Himself.  Neither should they forget that they are bound by no laws of war, nor military orders, to put even a conquered enemy to the sword; and if a man may not put to death the enemy who has sinned, or may yet sin against him, who is so infatuated as to maintain that he may kill himself because an enemy has sinned, or is going to sin, against him? 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c25"><b>BOOK I</b> [XXV] At enim timendum est et cavendum, ne libidini subditum corpus inlecebrosissima voluptate animum adliciat consentire peccato. Proinde, inquiunt, non iam propter alienum, sed propter suum peccatum, antequam hoc quisque committat, se debet occidere. Nullo modo quidem hoc faciet animus, ut consentiat libidini carnis suae aliena libidine concitatae, qui Deo potius eiusque sapientiae quam corpori eiusque concupiscentiae subiectus est. Verum tamen si detestabile facinus et damnabile scelus est etiam se ipsum hominem occidere, sicut veritas manifesta proclamat, quis ita desipiat, ut dicat: "Iam nunc peccemus, ne postea forte peccemus; iam nc perpetremus homicidium, ne postea forte incidamus in adulterium"? Nonne si tantum dominatur iniquitas, ut non innocentia, sed peccata potius eligantur, satius est incertum de futuro adulterium quam certum de praesenti homicidium? Nonne satius est flagitium committere, quod paenitendo sanetur, quam tale facinus, ubi locus salubris paenitentiae non relinquitur? Haec dixi propter eos vel eas, quae non alieni, sed proprii peccati devitandi causa, ne sub alterius libidine etiam excitatae suae forte consentiant, vim sibi, qua moriantur, inferendam putant. Ceterum absit a mente Christiana, quae Deo suo fidit in eoque spe posita eius adiutorio nititur, absit, inquam, ut mens talis quibuslibet carnis voluptatibus ad consensum turpitudinis cedat. Quod si illa concupiscentialis inoboedientia, quae adhuc in membris moribundis habitat, praeter nostrae voluntatis legem quasi lege sua movetur, quanto magis absque culpa est in corpore non consentientis, si absque culpa est in corpore dormientis!  ||chapter 25. But, we are told, there is ground to fear that, when the body is subjected to the enemy's lust, the insidious pleasure of sense may entice the soul to consent to the sin, and steps must be taken to prevent so disastrous a result.  And is not suicide the proper mode of preventing not only the enemy's sin, but the sin of the Christian so allured?  Now, in the first place, the soul which is led by God and His wisdom, rather than by bodily concupiscence, will certainly never consent to the desire aroused in its own flesh by another's lust.  And, at all events, if it be true, as the truth plainly declares, that suicide is a detestable and damnable wickedness, who is such a fool as to say, Let us sin now, that we may obviate a possible future sin; let us now commit murder, lest we perhaps afterwards should commit adultery?  If we are so controlled by iniquity that innocence is out of the question, and we can at best but make a choice of sins, is not a future and uncertain adultery preferable to a present and certain murder?  Is it not better to commit a wickedness which penitence may heal, than a crime which leaves no place for healing contrition?  I say this for the sake of those men or women who fear they may be enticed into consenting to their violator's lust, and think they should lay violent hands on themselves, and so prevent, not another's sin, but their own.  But far be it from the mind of a Christian confiding in God, and resting in the hope of His aid; far be it, I say, from such a mind to yield a shameful consent to pleasures of the flesh, howsoever presented.  And if that lustful disobedience, which still dwells in our mortal members, follows its own law irrespective of our will, surely its motions in the body of one who rebels against them are as blameless as its motions in the body of one who sleeps. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c26"><b>BOOK I</b> [XXVI] Sed quaedam, inquiunt, sanctae feminae tempore persecutionis, ut insectatores suae pudicitiae devitarent, in rapturum atque necaturum se fluuium proiecerunt eoque modo defunctae sunt earumque martyria in catholica ecclesia veneratione celeberrima frequentantur. De his nihil temere audeo iudicare. Vtrum enim ecclesiae aliquibus fide dignis testificationibus, ut earum memoriam sic honoret, divina persuaserit auctoritas, nescio; et fieri potest ut ita sit. Quid si enim hoc fecerunt, non humanitus deceptae, sed divinitus iussae, nec errantes, sed oboedientes? sicut de Samsone aliud nobis fas non est credere. Cum autem Deus iubet seque iubere sine ullis ambagibus intimat, quis oboedientiam in crimen vocet? quis obsequium pietatis accuset? Sed non ideo sine scelere facit, quisquis Deo filium immolare decreuerit, quia hoc Abraham etiam laudabiliter fecit. Nam et miles cum oboediens potestati, sub qualibet legitime constitutus est, hominem occidit, nulla civitatis suae lege reus est homicidii, immo, nisi fecerit, reus est imperii deserti atque contempti; quod si sua sponte atque auctoritate fecisset, crimen effusi humani sanguinis incidisset. Itaque unde punitur si fecit iniussus, inde punietur nisi fecerit iussus. Quod si ita est iubente imperatore, quanto magis iubente creatore! Qui ergo audit non licere se occidere, faciat, si iussit cuius non licet iussa contemnere; tantummodo videat utrum divina iussio nullo nutet incerto. Nos per aurem conscientiam convenimus, occultorum nobis iudicium non usurpamus. Nemo scit quid agatur in homine nisi spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est. Hoc dicimus, hoc asserimus, hoc modis omnibus adprobamus, neminem spontaneam mortem sibi inferre debere velut fugiendo molestias temporales, ne incidat in perpetuas; neminem propter aliena peccata, ne hoc ipso incipiat habere gravissimum proprium, quem non polluebat alienum; neminem propter sua peccata praeterita, propter quae magis hac vita opus est, ut possint paenitendo sanari; neminem velut desiderio vitae melioris, quae post mortem speratur, quia reos suae mortis melior post mortem vita non suscipit.  ||chapter 26. But, they say, in the time of persecution some holy women escaped those who menaced them with outrage, by casting themselves into rivers which they knew would drown them; and having died in this manner, they are venerated in the church catholic as martyrs.  Of such persons I do not presume to speak rashly.  I cannot tell whether there may not have been vouchsafed to the church some divine authority, proved by trustworthy evidences, for so honoring their memory:  it may be that it is so.  It may be they were not deceived by human judgment, but prompted by divine wisdom, to their act of self-destruction.  We know that this was the case with Samson.  And when God enjoins any act, and intimates by plain evidence that He has enjoined it, who will call obedience criminal?  Who will accuse so religious a submission?  But then every man is not justified in sacrificing his son to God, because Abraham was commendable in so doing.  The soldier who has slain a man in obedience to the authority under which he is lawfully commissioned, is not accused of murder by any law of his state; nay, if he has not slain him, it is then he is accused of treason to the state, and of despising the law.  But if he has been acting on his own authority, and at his own impulse, he has in this case incurred the crime of shedding human blood.  And thus he is punished for doing without orders the very thing he is punished for neglecting to do when he has been ordered.  If the commands of a general make so great a difference, shall the commands of God make none?  He, then, who knows it is unlawful to kill himself, may nevertheless do so if he is ordered by Him whose commands we may not neglect.  Only let him be very sure that the divine command has been signified.  As for us, we can become privy to the secrets of conscience only in so far as these are disclosed to us, and so far only do we judge:  "No one knows the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him." 1 Corinthians 2:11   But this we affirm, this we maintain, this we every way pronounce to be right, that no man ought to inflict on himself voluntary death, for this is to escape the ills of time by plunging into those of eternity; that no man ought to do so on account of another man's sins, for this were to escape a guilt which could not pollute him, by incurring great guilt of his own; that no man ought to do so on account of his own past sins, for he has all the more need of this life that these sins may be healed by repentance; that no man should put an end to this life to obtain that better life we look for after death, for those who die by their own hand have no better life after death. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c27"><b>BOOK I</b> [XXVII] Restat una causa, de qua dicere coeperam, qua utile putatur, ut se quisque interficiat, scilicet ne in peccatum inruat vel blandiente voluptate vel dolore saeviente. Quam causam si voluerimus admittere, eo usque progressa perveniet, ut hortandi sint homines tunc se potius interimere, cum lauacro sanctae regenerationis abluti universorum remissionem acceperint peccatorum. Tunc enim tempus est cavendi omnia futura peccata, cum sunt omnia deleta praeterita. Quod si morte spontanea recte fit, cur non tunc potissimum fit? Cur baptizatus sibi quisque parcit? Cur liberatum caput tot rursus vitae huius periculis inserit, cum sit facillimae potestatis inlata sibi nece omnia devitare scriptumque sit: Qvti amat periculum, incidet in illud? Cur ergo amantur tot et tanta pericula vel certe, etiamsi non amantur, suscipiuntur, cum manet in hac vita, cui abscedere licitum est? An vero tam insulsa peruersitas cor euertit et a consideratione veritatis avertit, ut, si se quisque interimere debet, ne unius captivantis dominatu conruat in peccatum, vivendum sibi existimet, ut ipsum perferat mundum per omnes horas temptationibus plenum, et talibus, qualis sub uno domino formidatur, et innumerabilibus ceteris, sine quibus haec vita non ducitur? Quid igitur causae est, cur in eis exhortationibus tempora consumamus, quibus baptizatos adloquendo studemus accendere sive ad virginalem integritatem sive ad continentiam vidualem sive ad ipsam tori coniugalis fidem, cum habeamus meliora et ab omnibus peccandi periculis remota compendia, ut, quibuscumque post remissionem recentissimam peccatorum adripiendam mortem sibique ingerendam persuadere potuerimus, eos ad Dominum saniores purioresque mittamus? Porro si, quisquis hoc adgrediendum et suadendum putat, non dico desipit, sed insanit: qua tandem fronte homini dicit: "Interfice te, ne paruis tuis peccatis adicias gravius, dum vivis sub domino barbaris moribus inpudico," qui non potest nisi sceleratissime dicere: "Interfice te peccatis tuis omnibus absolutis, ne rursus talia vel etiam peiora committas, dum vivis in mundo tot inpuris voluptatibus inlecebroso, tot nefandis crudelitatibus furioso, tot erroribus et terroribus inimico"? Hoc quia nefas est dicere, nefas est profecto se occidere. Nam si hoc sponte faciendi ulla causa iusta esse posset, procul dubio iustior quam ista non esset. Quia vero nec ista est, ergo nulla est.  ||chapter 27. There remains one reason for suicide which I mentioned before, and which is thought a sound one,-namely, to prevent one's falling into sin either through the blandishments of pleasure or the violence of pain.  If this reason were a good one, then we should be impelled to exhort men at once to destroy themselves, as soon as they have been washed in the laver of regeneration, and have received the forgiveness of all sin.  Then is the time to escape all future sin, when all past sin is blotted out.  And if this escape be lawfully secured by suicide, why not then specially?  Why does any baptized person hold his hand from taking his own life?  Why does any person who is freed from the hazards of this life again expose himself to them, when he has power so easily to rid himself of them all, and when it is written, "He who loves danger shall fall into it?" Sirach 3:27   Why does he love, or at least face, so many serious dangers, by remaining in this life from which he may legitimately depart?  But is any one so blinded and twisted in his moral nature, and so far astray from the truth, as to think that, though a man ought to make away with himself for fear of being led into sin by the oppression of one man, his master, he ought yet to live, and so expose himself to the hourly temptations of this world, both to all those evils which the oppression of one master involves, and to numberless other miseries in which this life inevitably implicates us?  What reason, then, is there for our consuming time in those exhortations by which we seek to animate the baptized, either to virginal chastity, or vidual continence, or matrimonial fidelity, when we have so much more simple and compendious a method of deliverance from sin, by persuading those who are fresh from baptism to put an end to their lives, and so pass to their Lord pure and well-conditioned?  If any one thinks that such persuasion should be attempted, I say not he is foolish, but mad.  With what face, then, can he say to any man, "Kill yourself, lest to your small sins you add a heinous sin, while you live under an unchaste master, whose conduct is that of a barbarian?"  How can he say this, if he cannot without wickedness say, "Kill yourself, now that you are washed from all your sins, lest you fall again into similar or even aggravated sins, while you live in a world which has such power to allure by its unclean pleasures, to torment by its horrible cruelties, to overcome by its errors and terrors?"  It is wicked to say this; it is therefore wicked to kill oneself.  For if there could be any just cause of suicide, this were so.  And since not even this is so, there is none. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c28"><b>BOOK I</b> [XXVIII] Non itaque vobis, o fideles Christi, sit taedio vita uestra, si ludibrio fuit hostibus castitas uestra. Habetis magnam veramque consolationem, si fidam conscientiam retinetis non vos consensisse peccatis eorum, qui in vos peccare permissi sunt. Quod si forte, cur permissi sint, quaeritis, alta quidem est providentia creatoris mundi atque rectoris, et inscrowtabilia sunt iudicia eius et investigabiles viae eius.. verum tamen interrogate fideliter animas uestras, ne forte de isto integritatis et continentiae vel pudicitiae bono vos inflatius extulistis et humanis laudibus delectatae in hoc etiam aliquibus inuidistis. Non accuso quod nescio, nec audio quod vobis interrogata uestra corda respondent. Tamen si ita esse responderint, nolite admirari hoc vos amisisse, unde hominibus placere gestistis, illud vobis remansisse, quod ostendi hominibus non potest. Si peccantibus non consensistis, divinae gratiae, ne amitteretur, divinum accessit auxilium; humanae gloriae, ne amaretur, humanum successit opprobrium. In utroque consolamini, pusillanimes, illinc probatae hinc castigatae, illinc iustificatae hinc eme atae. Quarum vero corda interrogata respondent numquam se de bono virginitatis vel viduitatis vel coniugalis pudicitiae superbisse, sed humilibus consentiendo de dono Dei cum tremore exultasse, nec inuidisse cuiquam paris excellentiam sanctitatis et castitatis, sed humana laude postposita, quae tanto maior deferri solet, quanto est bonum rarius, quod exigit laudem, optasse potius ut amplior earum numerus esset, quam ut ipsae in paucitate amplius eminerent: nec istae, quae tales sunt, si earum quoque aliquas barbarica libido compressit, permissum hoc esse causentur, nec ideo Deum credant ista neglegere, quia permittit quod nemo inpune committit. Quaedam enim veluti pondera malarum cupiditatum et per occultum praesens divinum iudicium relaxantur et manifesto ultimo reservantur. Fortassis autem istae, quae bene sibi sunt consciae non se ex isto castitatis bono cor inflatum extulisse, et tamen vim hostilem in carne perpessae sunt, habebant aliquid latentis infirmitatis, quae posset in superbiae fastum, si hanc humilitatem in uastatione illa euasissent, extolli. Sicut ergo quidam morte rapti sunt, ne malitia mutaret intellectum eorum, ita quiddam ab istis vi raptum est, ne prosperitas mutaret modestiam earum. Vtrisque igitur, quae de carne sua, quod turpem nullius esset perpessa contactum, vel iam superbiebant vel superbire, si nec hostium violentia contrectata esset, forsitan poterant, non ablata est castitas, sed humilitas persuasa; illarum tumori succursum est inmanenti, istarum occursum est inminenti. Quamquam et illud non sit tacendum, quod quibusdam, quae ista perpessae sunt, potuit videri continentiae bonum in bonis corporalibus deputandum et tunc manere, si nullius libidine corpus adtrectaretur; non autem esse positum in solo adiuto divinitus robore voluntatis, ut sit sanctum et corpus et spiritus; nec tale bonum esse, quod inuito animo non possit auferri; qui error eis fortasse sublatus est. Cum enim cogitant, qua conscientia Deo seruierint, et fide inconcussa non de illo sentiunt, quod ita sibi seruientes eumque inuocantes deserere ullo modo potuerit, quantumque illi castitas placeat dubitare non possunt, vident esse consequens nequaquam illum fuisse permissurum, ut haec acciderent sanctis suis, si eo modo perire posset sanctitas, quam contulit eis et diligit in eis.  ||chapter 28. Let not your life, then, be a burden to you, you faithful servants of Christ, though your chastity was made the sport of your enemies.  You have a grand and true consolation, if you maintain a good conscience, and know that you did not consent to the sins of those who were permitted to commit sinful outrage upon you.  And if you should ask why this permission was granted, indeed it is a deep providence of the Creator and Governor of the world; and "unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out." Romans 11:33   Nevertheless, faithfully interrogate your own souls, whether you have not been unduly puffed up by your integrity, and continence, and chastity; and whether you have not been so desirous of the human praise that is accorded to these virtues, that you have envied some who possessed them.  I, for my part, do not know your hearts, and therefore I make no accusation; I do not even hear what your hearts answer when you question them.  And yet, if they answer that it is as I have supposed it might be, do not marvel that you have lost that by which you can win men's praise, and retain that which cannot be exhibited to men.  If you did not consent to sin, it was because God added His aid to His grace that it might not be lost, and because shame before men succeeded to human glory that it might not be loved.  But in both respects even the faint-hearted among you have a consolation, approved by the one experience, chastened by the other; justified by the one, corrected by the other.  As to those whose hearts, when interrogated, reply that they have never been proud of the virtue of virginity, widowhood, or matrimonial chastity, but, condescending to those of low estate, rejoiced with trembling in these gifts of God, and that they have never envied any one the like excellences of sanctity and purity, but rose superior to human applause, which is wont to be abundant in proportion to the rarity of the virtue applauded, and rather desired that their own number be increased, than that by the smallness of their numbers each of them should be conspicuous;-even such faithful women, I say, must not complain that permission was given to the barbarians so grossly to outrage them; nor must they allow themselves to believe that God overlooked their character when He permitted acts which no one with impunity commits.  For some most flagrant and wicked desires are allowed free play at present by the secret judgment of God, and are reserved to the public and final judgment.  Moreover, it is possible that those Christian women, who are unconscious of any undue pride on account of their virtuous chastity, whereby they sinlessly suffered the violence of their captors, had yet some lurking infirmity which might have betrayed them into a proud and contemptuous bearing, had they not been subjected to the humiliation that befell them in the taking of the city.  As, therefore, some men were removed by death, that no wickedness might change their disposition, so these women were outraged lest prosperity should corrupt their modesty.  Neither those women then, who were already puffed up by the circumstance that they were still virgins, nor those who might have been so puffed up had they not been exposed to the violence of the enemy, lost their chastity, but rather gained humility; the former were saved from pride already cherished, the latter from pride that would shortly have grown upon them.We must further notice that some of those sufferers may have conceived that continence is a bodily good, and abides so long as the body is inviolate, and did not understand that the purity both of the body and the soul rests on the steadfastness of the will strengthened by God's grace, and cannot be forcibly taken from an unwilling person.  From this error they are probably now delivered.  For when they reflect how conscientiously they served God, and when they settle again to the firm persuasion that He can in nowise desert those who so serve Him, and so invoke His aid and when they consider, what they cannot doubt, how pleasing to Him is chastity, they are shut up to the conclusion that He could never have permitted these disasters to befall His saints, if by them that saintliness could be destroyed which He Himself had bestowed upon them, and delights to see in them. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c29"><b>BOOK I</b> [XXIX] Habet itaque omnis familia summi et veri Dei consolationem suam, non fallacem nec in spe rerum nutantium vel labentium constitutam, vitamque etiam ipsam temporalem minime paenitendam, in qua eruditur ad aeternam, bonisque terrenis tamquam peregrina utitur nec capitur, malis autem aut probatur aut emendatur. Illi vero, qui probitati eius insultant eique dicunt, cum forte in aliqua temporalia mala deuenerit: Vbi est Deus tuus? ipsi dicant, ubi sint dii eorum, cum talia patiuntur, pro quibus evitandis eos vel colunt vel colendos esse contendunt. Nam ista respondet: Deus meus ubique praesens, ubique totus, nusquam inclusus, qui possit adesse secretus, abesse non motus; ille cum me adversis rebus exagitat, aut merita examinat aut peccata castigat mercedemque mihi aeternam pro toleratis pie malis temporalibus servat; vos autem qui estis, cum quibus loqui dignum sit saltem de diis uestris, quanto minus de Deo meo, qui terribilis est super omnes deos, quoniam <omnes> dii gentium daemonia, Dominus autem caelos fecit.  ||chapter 29. The whole family of God, most high and most true, has therefore a consolation of its own,-a consolation which cannot deceive, and which has in it a surer hope than the tottering and falling affairs of earth can afford.  They will not refuse the discipline of this temporal life, in which they are schooled for life eternal; nor will they lament their experience of it, for the good things of earth they use as pilgrims who are not detained by them, and its ills either prove or improve them.  As for those who insult over them in their trials, and when ills befall them say, "Where is your God?" we may ask them where their gods are when they suffer the very calamities for the sake of avoiding which they worship their gods, or maintain they ought to be worshipped; for the family of Christ is furnished with its reply:  our God is everywhere present, wholly everywhere; not confined to any place.  He can be present unperceived, and be absent without moving; when He exposes us to adversities, it is either to prove our perfections or correct our imperfections; and in return for our patient endurance of the sufferings of time, He reserves for us an everlasting reward.  But who are you, that we should deign to speak with you even about your own gods, much less about our God, who is "to be feared above all gods?  For all the gods of the nations are idols; but the Lord made the heavens." 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c30"><b>BOOK I</b> [XXX] Si Nasica ille Scipio uester quondam pontifex viveret, quem sub terrore belli Punici in suscipiendis Phrygiis sacris, cum vir optimus quaereretur, universus senatus elegit, cuius os fortasse non auderetis aspicere, ipse vos ab hac inpudentia cohiberet. Cur enim adflicti rebus adversis de temporibus querimini Christianis, nisi quia uestram luxuriam cupitis habere securam et perditissimis moribus remota omni molestiarum asperitate diffluere? Neque enim propterea cupitis habere pacem et omni genere copiarum abundare, ut his bonis honeste utamini, hoc est modeste sobrie, temperanter pie, sed ut infinita varietas voluptatum insanis effusionibus exquiratur, secundisque rebus ea mala oriantur in moribus, quae saevientibus peiora sunt hostibus. At ille Scipio pontifex maximus uester, ille iudicio totius senatus vir optimus, istam vobis metuens calamitatem nolebat aemulam tunc imperii Romani Carthaginem dirui et decernenti ut dirueretur contradicebat Catoni, timens infirmis animis hostem securitatem et tamquam pupillis civibus idoneum tutorem necessarium videns esse terrorem. Nec eum sententia fefellit: re ipsa probatum est quam verum diceret. Deleta quippe Carthagine magno scilicet terrore Romanae rei publicae depulso et extincto tanta de rebus prosperis orta mala continuo subsecuta sunt, ut corrupta diruptaque concordia prius saevis cruentisque seditionibus, deinde mox malarum conexione causarum bellis etiam civilibus tantae strages ederentur, tantus sanguis effunderetur, tanta cupiditate proscriptionum ac rapinarum ferueret inmanitas, ut Romani illi, qui vita integriore mala metuebant ab hostibus, perdita integritate vitae crudeliora paterentur a civibus; eaque ipsa libido dominandi, quae inter alia vitia generis humani meracior inerat universo populo Romano, postea quam in paucis potentioribus vicit, obtritos fatigatosque ceteros etiam iugo seruitutis oppressit.  ||chapter 30. If the famous Scipio Nasica were now alive, who was once your pontiff, and was unanimously chosen by the senate, when, in the panic created by the Punic war, they sought for the best citizen to entertain the Phrygian goddess, he would curb this shamelessness of yours, though you would perhaps scarcely dare to look upon the countenance of such a man.  For why in your calamities do you complain of Christianity, unless because you desire to enjoy your luxurious license unrestrained, and to lead an abandoned and profligate life without the interruption of any uneasiness or disaster?  For certainly your desire for peace, and prosperity, and plenty is not prompted by any purpose of using these blessings honestly, that is to say, with moderation, sobriety, temperance, and piety; for your purpose rather is to run riot in an endless variety of sottish pleasures, and thus to generate from your prosperity a moral pestilence which will prove a thousandfold more disastrous than the fiercest enemies.  It was such a calamity as this that Scipio, your chief pontiff, your best man in the judgment of the whole senate, feared when he refused to agree to the destruction of Carthage, Rome's rival and opposed Cato, who advised its destruction.  He feared security, that enemy of weak minds, and he perceived that a wholesome fear would be a fit guardian for the citizens.  And he was not mistaken; the event proved how wisely he had spoken.  For when Carthage was destroyed, and the Roman republic delivered from its great cause of anxiety, a crowd of disastrous evils forthwith resulted from the prosperous condition of things.  First concord was weakened, and destroyed by fierce and bloody seditions; then followed, by a concatenation of baleful causes, civil wars, which brought in their train such massacres, such bloodshed, such lawless and cruel proscription and plunder, that those Romans who, in the days of their virtue, had expected injury only at the hands of their enemies, now that their virtue was lost, suffered greater cruelties at the hands of their fellow-citizens.  The lust of rule, which with other vices existed among the Romans in more unmitigated intensity than among any other people, after it had taken possession of the more powerful few, subdued under its yoke the rest, worn and wearied. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c31"><b>BOOK I</b> [XXXI] Nam quando illa quiesceret in superbissimis mentibus, donec continuatis honoribus ad potestatem regiam perveniret? Honorum porro continuandorum facultas non esset, nisi ambitio praeualeret. Minime autem praeualeret ambitio, nisi in populo auaritia luxuriaque corrupto. Auarus vero luxuriosusque populus secundis rebus effectus est, quas Nasica°Е ille providentissime cavendas esse censebat, quando civitatem hostium maximam fortissimam opulentissimam nolebat auferri, ut timore libido premeretur, libido pressa non luxuriaretur luxuriaque cohibita nec auaritia grassaretur; quibus vitiis obseratis civitati utilis virtus floreret et cresceret eique virtuti libertas congrua permaneret. Hinc etiam erat et ex hac providentissima patriae caritate veniebat, quod idem ipse uester pontifex maximus, a senatu illius temporis (quod saepe dicendum est) electus sine ulla sententiarum discrepantia vir optimus, caveam theatri senatum construere molientem ab hac dispositione et cupiditate compescuit persuasitque oratione gravissima, ne Graecam luxuriam virilibus patriae moribus paterentur obrepere et ad virtutem labefactandam eneruandamque Romanam peregrinae consentire nequitiae, tantumque auctoritate valuit, ut verbis eius commota senatoria providentia etiam subsellia, quibus ad horam congestis in ludorum spectaculo iam uti civitas coeperat, deinceps p rohiberet adponi. Quanto studio iste ab urbe Roma ludos ipsos scaenicos abstulisset, si auctoritati eorum, quos deos putabat, resistere auderet, quos esse noxios daemones non intellegebat aut, si intellegebat, placandos etiam ipse potius quam contemnendos existimabat! Nondum enim fuerat declarata gentibus superna doctrina, quae fide cor mundans ad caelestia vel supercaelestia capessenda humili pietate humanum mutaret affectum et a dominatu superborum daemonum liberaret.  ||chapter 31. For at what stage would that passion rest when once it has lodged in a proud spirit, until by a succession of advances it has reached even the throne.  And to obtain such advances nothing avails but unscrupulous ambition.  But unscrupulous ambition has nothing to work upon, save in a nation corrupted by avarice and luxury.  Moreover, a people becomes avaricious and luxurious by prosperity; and it was this which that very prudent man Nasica was endeavouring to avoid when he opposed the destruction of the greatest, strongest, wealthiest city of Rome's enemy.  He thought that thus fear would act as a curb on lust, and that lust being curbed would not run riot in luxury, and that luxury being prevented avarice would be at an end; and that these vices being banished, virtue would flourish and increase the great profit of the state; and liberty, the fit companion of virtue, would abide unfettered.  For similar reasons, and animated by the same considerate patriotism, that same chief pontiff of yours-I still refer to him who was adjudged Rome's best man without one dissentient voice-threw cold water on the proposal of the senate to build a circle of seats round the theatre, and in a very weighty speech warned them against allowing the luxurious manners of Greece to sap the Roman manliness, and persuaded them not to yield to the enervating and emasculating influence of foreign licentiousness.  So authoritative and forcible were his words, that the senate was moved to prohibit the use even of those benches which hitherto had been customarily brought to the theatre for the temporary use of the citizens.  How eagerly would such a man as this have banished from Rome the scenic exhibitions themselves, had he dared to oppose the authority of those whom he supposed to be gods!  For he did not know that they were malicious devils; or if he did, he supposed they should rather be propitiated than despised.  For there had not yet been revealed to the Gentiles the heavenly doctrine which should purify their hearts by faith, and transform their natural disposition by humble godliness, and turn them from the service of proud devils to seek the things that are in heaven, or even above the heavens. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c32"><b>BOOK I</b> [XXXII] Verum tamen scitote, qui ista nescitis et qui vos scire dissimulatis, advertite, qui adversus liberatorem a talibus dominis murmuratis: ludi scaenici, spectacula turpitudinum et licentia uanitatum, non hominum vitiis, sed deorum uestrorum iussis Romae instituti sunt. Tolerabilius divinos honores deferretis illi Scipioni quam deos huius modi coleretis. Neque enim erant illi dii suo pontifice meliores. Ecce adtendite, si mens tam diu potatis erroribus ebria vos aliquid sanum cogitare permittit! Dii propter sedandam corporum pestilentiam ludos sibi scaenicos exhiberi iubebant; pontifex autem propter animorum cavendam um cavendam pestilentiam ipsam scaenam constitui prohibebat. Si aliqua luce mentis animum corpori praeponitis, eligite quem colatis! Neque enim et illa corporum pestilentia ideo conquievit, quia populo bellicoso et solis antea ludis circensibus adsueto ludorum scaenicorum delicata subintravit insania; sed astutia spirituum nefandorum praevidens illam pestilentiam iam fine debito cessaturam aliam longe graviorem, qua plurimum gaudet, ex (hacrЕ occasione non corporibus, sed moribus curavit inmittere, quae animos miserorum tantis obcaecavit tenebris, tanta deformitate foedavit, ut etiam modo (quod incredibile forsitan erit, si a nostris posteris audietur) Romana urbe uastata, quos pestile n tia ista possedit atque inde fugientes Carthaginem pervenire potuerunt, in theatris cotidie certatim pro histrionihus insanirent.  ||chapter 32. Know then, you who are ignorant of this, and you who feign ignorance be reminded, while you murmur against Him who has freed you from such rulers, that the scenic games, exhibitions of shameless folly and license, were established at Rome, not by men's vicious cravings, but by the appointment of your gods.  Much more pardonably might you have rendered divine honors to Scipio than to such gods as these.  The gods were not so moral as their pontiff.  But give me now your attention, if your mind, inebriated by its deep potations of error, can take in any sober truth.  The gods enjoined that games be exhibited in their honor to stay a physical pestilence; their pontiff prohibited the theatre from being constructed, to prevent a moral pestilence.  If, then, there remains in you sufficient mental enlightenment to prefer the soul to the body, choose whom you will worship.  Besides, though the pestilence was stayed, this was not because the voluptuous madness of stage-plays had taken possession of a warlike people hitherto accustomed only to the games of the circus; but these astute and wicked spirits, foreseeing that in due course the pestilence would shortly cease, took occasion to infect, not the bodies, but the morals of their worshippers, with a far more serious disease.  And in this pestilence these gods find great enjoyment, because it benighted the minds of men with so gross a darkness and dishonored them with so foul a deformity, that even quite recently (will posterity be able to credit it?) some of those who fled from the sack of Rome and found refuge in Carthage, were so infected with this disease, that day after day they seemed to contend with one another who should most madly run after the actors in the theatres. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c33"><b>BOOK I</b> [XXXIII] O mentes amentes! quis est hic tantus non error, sed furor, ut exitium uestrum, sicut audivimus, plangentibus orientalibus populis et maximis civitatibus in remotissimis terris publicum luctum maeroremque ducentibus vos theatra quaereretis intraretis impleretis et multo insaniora quam fuerant antea faceretis? Hanc animorum labem ac pestem, hanc probitatis et honestatis euersionem vobis Scipio ille metuebat, quando construi theatra prohibebat, quando rebus prosperis vos facile corrumpi atque euerti posse cernebat, quando vos securos esse ab hostili terrore nolebat. Neque enim censebat ille felicem esse rem publicam stantibus moenibus, ruentibus moribus. Sed in vobis plus valuit quod daemones impii seduxerunt, quam quod homines providi praecaverunt. Hinc est quod mala, quae facitis, vobis inputari non uultis, mala vero, quae patimini, Christianis temporibus inputatis. Neque enim in uestra securitate pacatam rem publicam, sed luxuriam quaeritis inpunitam, qui deprauati rebus prosperis nec corrigi potuistis adversis. Volebat vos ille Scipio terreri ab hoste, ne in luxuriam flueretis: nec contriti ab hoste luxuriam repressistis, perdidistis utilitatem calamitatis, et miserrimi facti estis et pessimi permansistis.  ||chapter 33. Oh infatuated men, what is this blindness, or rather madness, which possesses you?  How is it that while, as we hear, even the eastern nations are bewailing your ruin, and while powerful states in the most remote parts of the earth are mourning your fall as a public calamity, you yourselves should be crowding to the theatres, should be pouring into them and filling them; and, in short, be playing a madder part now than ever before?  This was the foul plague-spot, this the wreck of virtue and honor that Scipio sought to preserve you from when he prohibited the construction of theatres; this was his reason for desiring that you might still have an enemy to fear, seeing as he did how easily prosperity would corrupt and destroy you.  He did not consider that republic flourishing whose walls stand, but whose morals are in ruins.  But the seductions of evil-minded devils had more influence with you than the precautions of prudent men.  Hence the injuries you do, you will not permit to be imputed to you:  but the injuries you suffer, you impute to Christianity.  Depraved by good fortune, and not chastened by adversity, what you desire in the restoration of a peaceful and secure state, is not the tranquillity of the commonwealth, but the impunity of your own vicious luxury.  Scipio wished you to be hard pressed by an enemy, that you might not abandon yourselves to luxurious manners; but so abandoned are you, that not even when crushed by the enemy is your luxury repressed.  You have missed the profit of your calamity; you have been made most wretched, and have remained most profligate. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c34"><b>BOOK I</b> [XXXIV] Et tamen quod vivitis Dei est, qui vobis parcendo admonet, ut corrigamini paenitendo; qui vobis etiam ingratis praestitit ut vel sub nomine seruorum eius vel in locis martyrum eius hostiles manus euaderetis. Romulus et Remus asylum constituisse perhibentur, quo quisquis confugeret ab omni noxa liber esset, augere quaerentes creandae multitudinem civitatis. Mirandum in honorem Christi processit exemplum. Hoc constituerunt euersores Vrbis, quod constituerant antea conditores. Quid autem magnum, si hoc fecerunt illi, ut civium suorum numerus suppleretur, quod fecerunt isti, ut suorum hostium numerositas servaretur?  ||chapter 34. And that you are yet alive is due to God, who spares you that you may be admonished to repent and reform your lives.  It is He who has permitted you, ungrateful as you are, to escape the sword of the enemy, by calling yourselves His servants, or by finding asylum in the sacred places of the martyrs.It is said that Romulus and Remus, in order to increase the population of the city they founded, opened a sanctuary in which every man might find asylum and absolution of all crime,-a remarkable foreshadowing of what has recently occurred in honor of Christ.  The destroyers of Rome followed the example of its founders.  But it was not greatly to their credit that the latter, for the sake of increasing the number of their citizens, did that which the former have done, lest the number of their enemies should be diminished. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c35"><b>BOOK I</b> [XXXV] Haec et alia, si qua uberius et commodius potuerit, respondeat inimicis suis redempta familia domini Christi et peregrina civitas regis Christi. Meminerit sane in ipsis inimicis latere cives futuros, ne infructuosum vel apud ipsos putet, quod, donec perveniat ad confessos, portat infensos; sicut ex illorum numero etiam Dei civitas habet secum, quamdiu peregrinatur in mundo, conexos communione sacramentorum, nec secum futuros in aeterna sorte sanctorum, qui partim in occulto, partim in aperto sunt, qui etiam cum ipsis inimicis adversus Deum, cuius sacramentum gerunt, murmurare non dubitant, modo cum illis theatra, modo ecclesias nobiscum replentes. De correctione autem quorundam etiam talium multo minus est desperandum, si apud apertissimos adversarios praedestinati amici latitant, adhuc ignoti etiam sibi. Perplexae quippe sunt istae duae civitates in hoc saeculo inuicemque permixtae, donec ultimo iudicio dirimantur; de quarum exortu et procursu et debitis finibus quod dicendum arbitror, quantum divinitus adivuabor, expediam propter gloriam civitatis Dei, quae alienis a contrario comparatis clarius eminebit.  ||chapter 35. Let these and similar answers (if any fuller and fitter answers can be found) be given to their enemies by the redeemed family of the Lord Christ, and by the pilgrim city of King Christ.  But let this city bear in mind, that among her enemies lie hid those who are destined to be fellow-citizens, that she may not think it a fruitless labor to bear what they inflict as enemies until they become confessors of the faith.  So, too, as long as she is a stranger in the world, the city of God has in her communion, and bound to her by the sacraments, some who shall not eternally dwell in the lot of the saints.  Of these, some are not now recognized; others declare themselves, and do not hesitate to make common cause with our enemies in murmuring against God, whose sacramental badge they wear.  These men you may today see thronging the churches with us, tomorrow crowding the theatres with the godless.  But we have the less reason to despair of the reclamation even of such persons, if among our most declared enemies there are now some, unknown to themselves, who are destined to become our friends.  In truth, these two cities are entangled together in this world, and intermixed until the last judgment effects their separation.  I now proceed to speak, as God shall help me, of the rise, progress, and end of these two cities; and what I write, I write for the glory of the city of God, that, being placed in comparison with the other, it may shine with a brighter lustre. 
|- valign = top
||<div id="c36"><b>BOOK I</b> [XXXVI] Sed adhuc mihi quaedam dicenda sunt adversus eos, qui Romanae rei publicae clades in religionem nostram referunt, qua diis suis sacrificare prohibentur. Commemoranda sunt enim quae et quanta occurrere poterunt vel satis esse videbuntur mala, quae illa civitas pertulit vel ad eius imperium provinciae pertinentes, antequam eorum sacrificia prohibita fuissent; quae omnia procul dubio nobis tribuerent, si iam vel illis clareret nostra religio, vel ita eos a sacris sacrilegis prohiberet. Deinde monstrandum est, quos eorum mores et quam ob causam Deus verus ad augendum imperium adivuare dignatus est, in cuius potestate sunt regna omnia, quamque nihil eos adivuerint hi, quos deos putant, et potius quantum decipiendo et fallendo nocuerint. Postremo adversus eos dicetur, qui manifestissimis documentis confutati atque conuicti conantur asserere non propter vitae praesentis utilitatem, sed propter eam, quae post mortem futura est, colendos deos. Quae, nisi fallor, quaestio multo erit operosior et subtiliore disputatione dignior, ut et contra philosophos in ea disseratur, non quoslibet, sed qui apud illos excellentissima gloria clari sunt et nobiscum multa sentiunt, et de animae inmortalitate et quod Deus verus mundum condiderit et de providentia eius, qua universum quod condidit regit. Sed quoniam et ipsi in illis, quae contra nos sentiunt, refellendi sunt, deesse huic officio non debemus, ut refutatis impiis contradictionibus pro viribus, quas Deus inpertiet, asseramus civitatem Dei veramque pietatem et Dei cultum, in quo uno veraciter sempiterna beatitudo promittitur. Hic itaque modus sit huius voluminis, ut deinceps disposita ab alio sumamus exordio. ||chapter 36. But I have still some things to say in confutation of those who refer the disasters of the Roman republic to our religion, because it prohibits the offering of sacrifices to the gods.  For this end I must recount all, or as many as may seem sufficient, of the disasters which befell that city and its subject provinces, before these sacrifices were prohibited; for all these disasters they would doubtless have attributed to us, if at that time our religion had shed its light upon them, and had prohibited their sacrifices.  I must then go on to show what social well-being the true God, in whose hand are all kingdoms, vouchsafed to grant to them that their empire might increase.  I must show why He did so, and how their false gods, instead of at all aiding them, greatly injured them by guile and deceit.  And, lastly, I must meet those who, when on this point convinced and confuted by irrefragable proofs, endeavor to maintain that they worship the gods, not hoping for the present advantages of this life, but for those which are to be enjoyed after death.  And this, if I am not mistaken, will be the most difficult part of my task, and will be worthy of the loftiest argument; for we must then enter the lists with the philosophers, not the mere common herd of philosophers, but the most renowned, who in many points agree with ourselves, as regarding the immortality of the soul, and that the true God created the world, and by His providence rules all He has created.  But as they differ from us on other points, we must not shrink from the task of exposing their errors, that, having refuted the gainsaying of the wicked with such ability as God may vouchsafe, we may assert the city of God, and true piety, and the worship of God, to which alone the promise of true and everlasting felicity is attached.  Here, then, let us conclude, that we may enter on these subjects in a fresh book. 

|}



[[Category:Logic Museum Parallel Texts]]