Augustine: DE CIVITATE DEI

[Pr] Gloriosissimam ciuitatem Dei siue in hoc temporum cursu, cum inter impios peregrinatur ex fide uiuens, siue in illa stabilitate sedis aeternae, quam nunc expectat per patientiam, quoadusque iustitia conuertatur in iudicium, deinceps adeptura per excellentiam uictoria ultima et pace perfecta, hoc opere instituto et mea ad te promissione debito defendere aduersus eos, qui conditori eius deos suos praeferunt, fili carissime Marcelline, suscepi, magnum opus et arduum, sed Deus adiutor noster est. Nam scio quibus uiribus opus sit, ut persuadeatur superbis quanta sit uirtus humilitatis, qua fit ut omnia terrena cacumina temporali mobilitate nutantia non humano usurpata fastu, sed diuina gratia donata celsitudo transcendat. Rex enim et conditor ciuitatis huius, de qua loqui instituimus, in scriptura populi sui sententiam diuinae legis aperuit, qua dictum est: Deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam.

[Pr] The most glorious City of God, whether in this course of times, when among the impious it sojourns as a pilgrim living by faith, or in that stability of the eternal seat, which it now awaits through patience until righteousness be turned into judgment, thereafter to obtain through excellence the ultimate victory and perfect peace—this I have undertaken, with this work instituted and by my promise to you owed, to defend against those who prefer their gods to its Founder, most beloved son Marcellinus: a great and arduous work; but God is our helper. For I know what forces are needed, that it may be persuaded to the proud how great is the virtue of humility, whereby it comes to pass that all earthly summits, wavering with temporal mutability, are overpassed not by a loftiness usurped by human pride, but by a loftiness bestowed by divine grace. For the King and Founder of this City, of which we have set ourselves to speak, in the Scripture of his people has disclosed the sentence of the divine Law, wherein it is said: God resists the proud, but to the humble he gives grace.

Hoc uero, quod Dei est, superbae quoque animae spiritus inflatus adfectat amatque sibi in laudibus dici: Parcere subiectis et debellare superbos. Unde etiam de terrena ciuitate, 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.

This, however, which is God’s, the puffed‑up spirit of a proud soul also strives after and loves to have said of itself: “to spare the subjected and to debellate the proud.” Whence also concerning the earthly city—which, when it aims to rule, even if the peoples are in servitude, is itself ruled by the very libido of domination—whatever the rationale of this undertaken work demands to be said is not to be passed over in silence, if the capacity is granted.

[I] Ex hac namque existunt inimici, aduersus quos defendenda est Dei ciuitas, quorum tamen multi correcto impietatis errore ciues in ea fiunt satis idonei; multi uero in eam tantis exardescunt ignibus odiorum tamque manifestis beneficiis redemptoris eius ingrati sunt, ut hodie contra eam linguas non mouerent, nisi ferrum hostile fugientes in sacratis eius locis uitam, de qua superbiunt, inuenirent. 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.

[1] From this, namely, arise the enemies against whom the City of God must be defended, of whom, however, many, with the error of impiety corrected, become citizens in it quite fit; but many truly blaze against it with such fires of hatreds and are so ungrateful for the manifest benefactions of its Redeemer, that today they would not move their tongues against it, unless, fleeing the hostile sword, they found in its sacred places the life of which they are proud. Are not even those Romans hostile to the name of Christ, on whose account, for Christ’s sake, the barbarians spared them? The places of the martyrs and the basilicas of the apostles bear witness to this, which in that devastation of the City received to themselves those fleeing for refuge, their own and outsiders alike.

Huc usque cruentus saeuiebat 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 saeuientes posteaquam ad loca illa ueniebant, ubi fuerat interdictum quod alibi belli iure licuisset, et tota feriendi refrenabatur inmanitas et captiuandi cupiditas frangebatur. Sic euaserunt multi, qui nunc Christianis temporibus detrahunt et mala, quae illa ciuitas pertulit, Christo inputant; bona uero, quae in eos ut uiuerent 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 prouidentiae diuinae tribuere, quae solet corruptos hominum mores bellis emendare atque conterere itemque uitam mortalium iustam atque laudabilem talibus adflictionibus exercere probatamque uel in meliora transferre uel in his adhuc terris propter usus alios detinere; illud uero, quod eis uel ubicumque propter Christi nomen uel 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 ueraciter currere, ut effugiant poenas ignis aeterni, quod nomen multi eorum mendaciter usurparunt, ut effugerent poenas praesentis exitii.

Thus far the bloody enemy was raging savagely; there the fury of the slaughterer was receiving its boundary,,, thither they were being led by pitying enemies, by whom even outside those very places they had been spared, lest they should run into those who did not have like mercy. Yet those same men too, savage elsewhere and raging in hostile fashion, after they came to those places where there had been interdicted what elsewhere would have been permitted by the law of war, the whole monstrosity of striking was reined in, and the greed of taking captive was broken. Thus many escaped, who now in Christian times detract and impute to Christ the evils which that city endured; but the good things which were done for them for the honor of Christ so that they might live, they do not impute to our Christ, but to their fate—whereas they ought rather, if they had any taste for what is right, to attribute to that divine providence the things rough and hard which they suffered from the enemies, which is wont to amend and crush by wars the corrupted morals of men, and likewise to exercise the mortal life that is just and praiseworthy by such afflictions, and, once approved, either to transfer it into better things or to detain it still in these lands for other uses; but that which the truculent barbarians, beyond the custom of wars, spared them either wherever on account of the name of Christ or in the places most dedicated and most ample to the name of Christ and chosen for a broader mercy for the capacity of a multitude—this to attribute to Christian times, from this to give thanks to God, from this to run truly to His name, that they may escape the penalties of the eternal fire, which name many of them falsely usurped, that they might escape the penalties of the present destruction.

Nam quos uides 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 uel subdolo confugerunt, ut temporali luce fruerentur.

For those whom you see petulantly and insolently insulting the servants of Christ, among them there are very many who would not have escaped that destruction and calamity, unless they had feigned themselves to be servants of Christ. And now, with ungrateful pride and most impious insanity, they resist His name with a perverse heart, in order that they may be punished with everlasting darkness—the very name to which they fled for refuge with the mouth or by subterfuge, so that they might enjoy the temporal light.

[II] Tot bella gesta conscripta sunt uel ante conditam Romam uel ab eius exortu et imperio: legant et proferant sic aut ab alienigenis aliquam captam esse ciuitatem, 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 uel illo templo fuisset inuentus. Nonne uidit Aeneas Priamum per aras Sanguine foedantem quos ipse sacrauerat ignes? Nonne Diomedes et Vlixes caesis summae custodibus arcis Corripuere sacram effigiem manibusque cruentis Virgineas ausi diuae contingere uittas?

[2] So many wars have been waged and written down either before Rome was founded or from its rise and dominion: let them read and bring forward whether either from foreigners any city was ever taken in such a way that the enemies who had taken it spared those whom they had found to have fled to the temples of their gods, or that any leader of the barbarians gave orders, when a town had been broken into, that no one be struck who had been found in this or that temple. Did not Aeneas see Priam, over the altars, defiling with blood the fires which he himself had consecrated? Did not Diomedes and Ulysses, after the guardians of the high citadel had been slain, snatch up the sacred effigy and with bloodied hands dare to touch the maidenly fillets of the goddess?

Nec tamen quod sequitur uerum est: Ex illo fluere ac retro sublapsa referri Spes Danaum. Postea quippe uicerunt, postea Troiam ferro ignibusque delerunt, postea confugientem ad aras Priamum obtruncauerunt. Nec ideo Troia periit, quia Mineruam perdidit.

Nor yet is what follows true: ‘From that point the Hope of the Danaans to flow away and, slipping backward, to be borne back.’ For afterward they conquered, afterward they destroyed Troy with sword and fires, afterward they cut down Priam as he was taking refuge at the altars. Nor therefore did Troy perish because it lost Minerva.

Quid enim prius ipsa Minerua perdiderat, ut periret? an forte custodes suos? Hoc sane uerum est; illis quippe interemptis potuit auferri.

For what, indeed, had Minerva herself first lost, that she should perish? Or perhaps her own custodians? This, to be sure, is true; for, with them slain, she could be carried off.

Neque enim homines a simulacro, sed simulacrum ab hominibus seruabatur. Quomodo ergo colebatur, ut patriam custodiret et ciues, quae suos non ualuit custodire custodes?

For it was not men who were preserved by the simulacrum, but the simulacrum that was preserved by men. How, then, was it being worshiped, in order that it might guard the fatherland and the citizens, which was not able to guard its own guardians?

[III] Ecce qualibus diis Vrbem Romani seruandam 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.

[3] Behold with what sort of gods the Romans rejoiced that they had committed the City to be preserved! O excessively pitiable error! And they resent us, when we say such things about their gods; nor do they resent their own authors, whom they paid a fee to learn by heart, and the very doctors, moreover, they held as most worthy both of public salary and of honors.

Nempe apud Vergilium, quem propterea paruuli legunt, ut uidelicet poeta magnus omniumque praeclarissimus atque optimus teneris ebibitus animis non facile obliuione possit aboleri, secundum illud Horatii: Quo semel est inbuta recens seruabit odorem Teste diu --- apud hunc ergo Vergilium nempe Iuno inducitur infesta Troianis Aeolo uentorum regi aduersus eos inritando dicere: Gens inimica mihi Tyrrhenum nauigat aequor Ilium in Italiam portans uictosque penates. Itane istis penatibus uictis Romam, ne uinceretur, prudenter commendare debuerunt? Sed haec Iuno dicebat uelut irata mulier, quid loqueretur ignorans.

Indeed, in Vergil, whom therefore little children read, to wit that the great poet, most illustrious of all and best, drunk in by tender minds, may not easily be abolished by oblivion, according to that of Horace: What the fresh jar has once been steeped with will keep its scent for a long time Teste diu --- with this Vergil, then, Juno is introduced, hostile to the Trojans, goading Aeolus, king of the winds, against them to say: “A people hostile to me sails the Tyrrhenian sea, carrying Ilium into Italy and the conquered Penates.” Was it then to those conquered Penates that they ought prudently to commend Rome, lest it be conquered? But Juno was saying these things like an angry woman, not knowing what she was saying.

Quid Aeneas ipse, pius totiens appellatus, nonne ita narrat: Panthus Othryades, arcis Phoebique sacerdos, Sacra manu uictosque deos paruumque nepotem Ipse trahit cursuque amens ad liimina tendit? Nonne deos ipsos, quos uictos 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 uictos dicit et, ut uel uicti quoquo modo euaderent, homini commendatos: quae dementia est existimare his tutoribus Romam sapienter fuisse commissam et nisi eos amisisset non potuisse uastari?

What of Aeneas himself, so often called “pious”? Does he not relate thus: “Panthus Othryades, priest of Phoebus’s citadel, himself drags in his hand the sacred things and the conquered gods and his little grandson, and, mad in his running, makes for the thresholds”? Do not these very gods, whom he does not hesitate to call conquered, he attest as having been entrusted to himself rather than himself to them, when it is said to him: “Troy entrusts to you the sacred things and its Penates”? If therefore Vergil says that such gods were both conquered and—so that even conquered they might somehow escape—entrusted to a man, what madness is it to suppose that to such guardians Rome was wisely committed, and that it could not have been laid waste unless it had lost them?

Immo uero uictos 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 uenturam, nisi prius illi perissent, sed illos potius olim fuisse perituros, nisi eos quantum potuisset Roma seruasset! Nam quis non, cum aduerterit, uideat quanta sit uanitate praesumptum non posse uinci sub defensoribus uictis et ideo perisse, quia custodes perdidit deos, cum uel sola esse potuerit causa pereundi custodes habere uoluisse perituros?

Nay rather, to worship conquered gods as presiding protectors and defenders—what is it but to hold not good numina, but evil names? For how much more wisely is it believed, not that Rome would not have come to that disaster unless those had first perished, but rather that they would long since have perished, had not Rome, so far as it could, preserved them! For who, when he gives heed, does not see with what vanity it has been presumed that one cannot be conquered under conquered defenders, and that therefore it perished because it lost the gods as guardians, when the very wish to have as guardians those destined to perish could have been the sole cause of perishing?

Non itaque, cum de diis uictis illa conscriberentur atque canerentur, poetas libebat mentiri, sed cordatos homines cogebat ueritas 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 aduersus eius nomen dementia sacrilegae peruersitatis exercent, quibus linguis usurpauerunt mendaciter ipsum nomen, ut uiuerent, uel 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.

Therefore, when those things about the vanquished gods were being written and sung, it was not that the poets were pleased to lie, but that the truth compelled sensible men to confess. But these matters are more opportunely to be handled elsewhere, diligently and copiously: now, what I had set out to say about ungrateful men I will for a little set forth as I can, who, blaspheming, impute to Christ the evils which, on account of the perversity of their own morals, they deservedly suffer; but that even to such as these, for Christ’s sake, forbearance is shown, they do not deign to attend, and they exercise those tongues against his name with the madness of sacrilegious perversity—the very tongues with which they mendaciously usurped his name, in order to live, or which tongues, in places consecrated to him, they held pressed through fear, so that there, safe and fortified, where on account of him they had been unharmed by enemies, from there they might spring forth against him with hostile maledictions.

[IV] Ipsa, ut dixi, Troia, mater populi Romani, sacratis locis deorum suorum munire non potuit ciues suos ab ignibus ferroque Graecorum, eosdem ipsos deos colentium; quin etiam Iunonis asylo Custodes lecti, Phoenix et dirus Vlixes, Praedam adseruabant; huc undique Troia gaza Incensis erepta adytis mensaeque deorum Crateres que auro solidi captiuaque uestis Congeritur. Pueri et pauidae longo ordine matres Stant circum. Electus est uidelicet locus tantae deae sacratus, non unde captiuos non liceret educere, sed ubi captiuos liberet includere.

[4] Troy herself, as I said, the mother of the Roman people, could not fortify her citizens by the consecrated places of her own gods against the fires and iron of the Greeks, who worshipped those very same gods; nay even in Juno’s asylum the chosen guardians, Phoenix and grim Ulysses, were keeping the plunder under watch; hither from every side the Trojan treasure, snatched from the blazing inner sanctuaries, and the tables of the gods, and mixing-bowls solid with gold, and captive raiment, is heaped together. Boys and timorous mothers stand around in a long line. Evidently a place consecrated to so great a goddess was chosen, not whence it would be unlawful to lead captives out, but where it would be free to shut captives in.

Compara nunc asylum illud non cuiuslibet dei gregalis uel de turba plebis, sed Iouis ipsius sororis et coniugis et reginae omnium deorum cum memoriiis nostrorum apostolorum. Illuc incensis templis et diis ereptae spolia portabantur, non donanda uictis, sed diuidenda uictoribus; huc autem et quod alibi ad ea loca pertinere compertum est cum honore et obsequio religiosissimo reportatum est. Ibi amissa, hic seruata libertas; ibi clausa, hic interdicta captiuitas; ibi possidendi a dominantibus hostibus premebantur, huc liberandi a miserantibus ducebantur: postremo illud Iunonis templum sibi elegerat auaritia et superbia leuium Graeculorum, istas Christi basilicas misericordia et humilitas etiam inmanium barbarorum.

Compare now that asylum—not of any old herd-deity or from the crowd of the plebs, but of Jupiter’s very sister and spouse and the queen of all the gods—with the memorials of our apostles. Thither, when the temples were set ablaze and the gods despoiled, the spoils were carried, not to be given to the vanquished, but to be divided among the victors; but hither even what elsewhere was found to pertain to those places was brought back with the most religious honor and dutiful service. There liberty was lost; here it was preserved; there captivity was shut in; here it was interdicted; there they were pressed for possession by domineering enemies; hither they were led to be freed by the compassionate: in fine, that temple of Juno avarice and pride of frivolous Greeklings had chosen for themselves, whereas these basilicas of Christ even the mercy and humility of savage barbarians had chosen.

Nisi forte Graeci quidem in illa sua uictoria templis deorum communium pepercerunt atque illo confugientes miseros uictosque Troianos ferire uel captiuare non ausi sunt, sed Vergilius poetarum more illa mentitus est. Immo uero morem hostium ciuitates euertentium ille descripsit.

Unless perhaps the Greeks, indeed, in that their victory spared the temples of the common gods and did not dare to strike or to capture the wretched and conquered Trojans fleeing for refuge thither, but Vergil, in the manner of poets, feigned those things. Nay rather, he described the custom of enemies overturning cities.

[V] Quem morem etiam Cato, sicut scribit Sallustius, nobilitatae ueritatis historicus, sententia sua, quam de coniuratis in senatu habuit, commemorare non praetermittit: "Rapi uirgines pueros, diuelli liberos a parentum complexu, matres familiarum pati quae uictoribus conlibuisset, fana atque domos spoliari, caedem incendia fieri: postremo armis cadaueribus 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 ciuibus, Romana templa metuebant. Sed hi uidelicet perditi et patriae parricidae.

[5] Which custom even Cato, as Sallustius writes, the historian of ennobled verity, does not omit to recall in his opinion which he delivered in the senate concerning the conspirators: "maidens and boys to be snatched, children to be torn from the embrace of parents, matrons to suffer whatever it had pleased the victors, shrines and houses to be despoiled, slaughter and burnings to be done: finally, with arms, corpses, blood, and grief all things to be filled." Here, if he had kept silent about the fanes, we would think that enemies are wont to spare the seats of the gods. And these things were feared not from alien-born enemies, but from Catiline and his associates, most noble senators and Roman citizens: the Roman temples were feared. But these, to be sure, were profligate men and parricides of their fatherland.

[VI] Quid ergo per multas gentes, quae inter se bella gesserunt et nusquam uictis in deorum suorum sedibus pepercerunt, noster sermo discurrat? Romanos ipsos uideamus, 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?

[6] Why then should our discourse run through many nations, which have waged wars among themselves and nowhere spared the vanquished in the seats of their own gods? Let us look at the Romans themselves, yes, I say, let us recall and look back upon the Romans themselves, of whose chief praise it has been said: to spare the subjected and to debellate the proud, and that, when an injury had been received, they preferred to forgive rather than to pursue it; when they stormed, captured, and overthrew so many and so great cities, in order that they might rule widely, let it be read out to us which temples they were accustomed to receive as asylums, so that whoever had fled to them for refuge might be set free. Or were they doing this, and the writers of those same deeds kept silent about the sites?

Ita uero, 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 fleuisse ruituram et ante eius sanguinem suas illi lacrimas effudisse. Gessit et curam pudicitiae etiam in hoste seruandae.

Indeed, would those who were especially seeking the things they might praise pass over these most illustrious, by their own lights, indications of piety? The distinguished bearer of the Roman name, Marcus Marcellus, who captured Syracuse, a most adorned city, is reported to have first wept over its impending ruin, and, before its blood, to have poured out his own tears for it. He also exercised care for chastity to be preserved even in an enemy.

Nam priusquam oppidum uictor iussisset inuadi, constituit edicto, ne quis corpus liberum uiolaret. Euersa est tamen ciuitas more bellorum, nec uspiam legitur ab imperatore tam casto atque clementi fuisse praeceptum, ut quisquis ad illud uel illud templum fugisset haberetur inlaesus. Quod utique nullo modo praeteriretur, quando nec eius fletus nec quod edixerat pro pudicitia minime uiolanda potuit taceri.

For before the victor had ordered the town to be invaded, he established by edict that no one should violate a free person. Nevertheless the city was overthrown, in the manner of wars; nor is it read anywhere that by so chaste and clement a commander there was a precept, that whoever had fled to this or that temple should be held unharmed. Which surely would in no way have been passed over, since neither his tears nor what he had decreed on behalf of chastity to be by no means violated could be kept silent.

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 condiuit. Quaesiuit enim cuius modi essent, et cum ei non solum multa grandia, uerum 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 uel captiuitatem fieri prohiberent?

Fabius, the overthrower of the Tarentine city, is praised for having abstained from the depredation of images. For when his scribe had suggested to him what he ordered to be done about the statues of the gods, of which many had been taken, he seasoned his continence even by joking. For he asked of what sort they were, and when it was reported to him that there were not only many large ones, but even armed ones: “Let us leave,” he said, “to the Tarentines their gods angry.” Since, therefore, neither that one’s weeping nor this one’s laughter, neither that one’s chaste mercy nor this one’s facetious continence, could the writers of Roman deeds keep silent about: when would it be passed over, if certain men, in honor of some one of their gods, had spared in such a way as to prohibit slaughter or captivity to be done in any temple?

[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 captiuandi ulli nec a crudelibus hostibus abducerentur: hoc Christi nomini, hoc Christiano tempori tribuendum quisquis non uidet, caecus, quisquis uidet nec laudat, ingratus, quisquis laudanti reluctatur, insanus est. Absit, ut prudens quisquam hoc feritati inputet barbarorum. Truculentissimas et saeuisimas mentes ille terruit, ille frenauit, ille mirabiliter temperauit, qui per prophetam tanto ante dixit: Visitabo in uirga iniquitates eorum et in flagellis peccata eorum; misericordiam autem meam non dispergam ab eis.

[7] Whatever, then, of devastation, trucidation, depredation, concremation, affliction was committed in that most recent Roman disaster, this the custom of wars did; but what was done in a new manner, that with an unprecedented face of affairs barbarian immanity appeared so mild, that the most spacious basilicas were chosen and decreed to be filled with a people to whom mercy should be shown, where no one would be struck, whence no one would be seized, whither many to be freed were led by pitying enemies, whence none to be taken captive were led away, not even by cruel enemies: this is to be attributed to the name of Christ, to the Christian time—whoever does not see this is blind; whoever sees it and does not praise, ungrateful; whoever resists one who praises, insane. Far be it that any prudent person should impute this to the ferocity of the barbarians. The most truculent and most savage minds he terrified, he curbed, he wondrously tempered—he who long before said through the prophet: I will visit with a rod their iniquities and with scourges their sins; but my mercy I will not disperse from them.

[VIII] Dicet aliquis: "Cur ergo ista diuina misericordia etiam ad impios ingratosque peruenit?" 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 uero, sicut apostolus dicit, diuitias 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 fouendos amplectitur bonos, sicut seueritas Dei puniendos corripit malos. Placuit quippe diuinae prouidentiae praeparare in posterum bona iustis, quibus non fruentur iniusti, et mala impiis, quibus non excruciabuntur boni; ista uero temporalia bona et mala utrisque uoluit esse communia, ut nec bona cupidius adpetantur, quae mali quoque habere cernuntur; nec mala turpiter euitentur, quibus et boni plerumque adficiuntur.

[8] Someone will say: “Why then does this divine mercy also reach the impious and the ungrateful?” Why do we suppose, unless because He has bestowed it who daily makes His sun rise upon the good and the evil and sends rain upon the just and the unjust? For although some of them, pondering these things, correct themselves from impiety by repenting, yet some, as the Apostle says, despising the riches of the goodness and the longanimity of God, according to the hardness of their heart and their impenitent heart, treasure up for themselves wrath in the day of wrath and of the revelation of the just judgment of God, who will render to each according to his works; nevertheless, the patience of God invites the evil to repentance, just as the scourge of God trains the good to patience; likewise the mercy of God embraces the good to be fostered, just as the severity of God corrects the evil to be punished. For it has pleased divine providence to prepare hereafter goods for the just, of which the unjust will not have the enjoyment, and evils for the impious, by which the good will not be tormented; but these temporal goods and evils He has willed to be common to both, so that neither may the goods be desired too greedily, since the evil also are seen to have them, nor may the evils be shamefully avoided, by which the good too are for the most part affected.

Interest autem plurimum, qualis sit usus uel earum rerum, quae prosperae, uel earum, quae dicuntur aduersae. 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 euidentius operationem suam.

But it matters very much what the use is either of those things which are prosperous, or of those which are called adverse. For the good person by temporal things is neither exalted by the good nor shattered by the bad; but the bad person is punished by an ill-fortune of this sort for this reason, because he is corrupted by good-fortune. Yet God often shows his operation more evidently even in the distributing of these.

Nam si nunc omne peccatum manifesta plecteret poena, nihil ultimo iudicio seruari putaretur; rursus si nullum nunc peccatum puniret aperta diuinitas, nulla esse diuina prouidentia crederetur. Similiter in rebus secundis, si non eas Deus quibusdam petentibus euidentissima 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.

For if now every sin were chastised with a manifest penalty, nothing would be thought to be reserved for the final judgment; conversely, if the manifest divinity were now to punish no sin, it would be believed that there is no divine providence. Similarly, in prosperous matters, if God did not grant them to certain petitioners with most evident largesse, we would say that those things do not pertain to him; and likewise, if he were to give them to all who ask, we would judge that he must be served only on account of such rewards, and such servitude would not make us pious, but rather covetous and avaricious. Since these things are so, whenever good and bad alike have been afflicted, not therefore are they themselves without distinction, because that which both have suffered is not distinct.

Manet enim dissimilitudo passorum etiam in similitudine passionum, et licet sub eodem tormento non est idem uirtus et uitium. 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 uis inruens bonos probat purificat eliquat, malos damnat uastat exterminat. Unde in eadem adflictione mali Deum detestantur atque blasphemant, boni autem precantur et laudant.

For the dissimilarity of the sufferers remains even in the similarity of the sufferings, and yet under the same torment virtue and vice are not the same. For just as under one fire gold glows while chaff smokes, and under the same threshing-board the stalks are crushed while the grains are purged, nor on that account are the dregs (amurca) mixed with the oil because they are pressed out by the same weight of the press: so the one and selfsame force rushing upon them tests, purifies, and refines the good, but condemns, lays waste, and exterminates the bad. Whence, in the same affliction the wicked detest and blaspheme God, whereas the good pray and praise.

Tantum interest, non qualia, sed qualis quisque patiatur. Nam pari motu exagitatum et exhalat horribiliter caenum et suauiter fragrat unguentum.

So great is the difference: not what kinds of things one suffers, but what sort each person is who suffers. For by an equal motion, when agitated, the filth exhales horribly, and the unguent sweetly gives off fragrance.

[IX] Quid igitur in illa rerum uastitate Christiani passi sunt, quod non eis magis fideliter ista considerantibus ad prouectum ualeret? Primum quod ipsa peccata, quibus Deus indignatus impleuit 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 uiuens cedit in quibusdam carnali concupiscentiae, etsi non ad facinorum inmanitatem et gurgitem flagitiorum atque impietatis abominationem, ad aliqua tamen peccata uel rara uel 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?

[9] What, then, in that devastation of things have the Christians suffered which would not rather, for those who consider these matters more faithfully, avail for advancement? First, that, humbly reflecting upon the very sins by which God, being indignant, has filled the world with such great calamities, although they are far removed from criminal, scandalous, and impious men, nevertheless they do not reckon themselves so alien from offenses as not to judge themselves worthy to endure even temporal evils for them. For excepting this, that each person, however laudably he lives, yields in certain respects to carnal concupiscence—though not to the monstrosity of crimes and the whirlpool of scandalous deeds and the abomination of impiety—yet to some sins either rare, or the more frequent in proportion as they are lesser—this therefore being excepted, who at length is easily found who so regards those very men, on account of whose horrendous pride and luxury and avarice and execrable iniquities and impieties God, as He foretold by threatening, crushes the lands, as they ought to be regarded?

sic cum eis uiuat, ut cum talibus est uiuendum? Plerumque enim ab eis docendis ac monendis, aliquando etiam obiurgandis et ocrripiendis male dissimulatur, uel cum laboris piget, uel cum os eorum uerecundamur offendere, uel cum inimicitias deuitamus, ne impediant et noceant in istis temporalibus rebus, siue quas adipisci adhuc adpetit nostra cupiditas, siue quas amittere formidat infirmitas, ita ut quamuis bonis malorum uita displiceat et ideo cum eis non incidant in illam damnationem, quae post hanc uitam talibus praeparatur, tamen, quia propterea peccatis eorum damnabilibus parcunt, dum eos in suis licet leuibus et uenialibus metuunt, iure cum eis temporaliter flagellantur, quamuis in aeternum minime puniantur, iure istam uitam, quando diuinitus adfliguntur cum eis, amaram sentiunt, cuius amando dulcedinem peccantibus eis amari esse noluerunt.

thus let him live with them as one must live with such? For often the duty of teaching and admonishing them, and at times also of rebuking and correcting them, is badly dissimulated—either when we shrink from the labor, or when we are ashamed to offend them to their face, or when we avoid enmities, lest they hinder and harm us in these temporal matters, whether such as our cupidity still strives to acquire, or such as our infirmity fears to lose—so that, although the life of the wicked displeases the good, and therefore they do not fall with them into that condemnation which after this life is prepared for such, nevertheless, because for that reason they spare their damnable sins, while, in their own sins—albeit light and venial—they fear them, they are rightfully scourged together with them for a time, although they are in no way punished for eternity; rightfully they feel this life bitter, when by divine agency they are afflicted together with them—the sweetness of which, by loving it, they were unwilling to have be bitter to the sinners.

Nam si propterea quisque obiurgandis et corripiendis male agentibus parcit, quia opportunius tempus inquirit uel eisdem ipsis metuit, ne deteriores ex hoc efficiantur, uel ad bonam uitam et piam erudiendos impediant alios infirmos et premant atque auertant a fide: non uidetur esse cupiditatis occasio, sed consilium caritatis. Illud est culpabile, quod hi, qui dissimiliter uiuunt et a malorum factis abhorrent, parcunt tamen peccatis alienis, quae dedocere aut obiurgare deberent, dum eorum offensiones cauent, 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, uitam ducentes coniugalem, filios habentes uel habere quaerentes, domos ac familias possidentes, (quos apostolus in ecclesiis adloquitur docens et monens quem ad modum uiuere 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 uita contaminatissima et consceleratissima displicet; uerum etiam hi, qui superiorem uitae gradum tenent nec coniugalibus uinculis inretiti sunt et uictu 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 perueniat, nec ea consideratione, qua suam famam ac salutem uident esse necessariam utilitati erudiendorum hominum, sed ea potius infirmitate, qua delectat lingua blandiens et humanus dies et reformidatur uulgi iudicium et carnis excruciatio uel peremptio, hoc est propter quaedam cupiditatis uincula, non propter officia caritatis.

For if someone, for this reason, spares those who act badly from being chided and corrected, because he seeks a more opportune time, or he even fears for those very persons, lest from this they become worse, or lest they hinder others who are weak from being trained to a good and pious life and press them down and turn them away from the faith: this does not seem an occasion of cupidity, but a counsel of charity. That is blameworthy, namely that those who live otherwise and abhor the deeds of the wicked nevertheless spare others’ sins, which they ought to unteach or to chide, while they avoid offending them, lest they harm themselves in those matters which the good use lawfully and innocently, yet more greedily than was fitting for those who are sojourners in this world and carry before them the hope of the supernal fatherland. For not only the weaker, leading a conjugal life, having children or seeking to have them, possessing houses and households (whom the Apostle addresses in the churches, teaching and admonishing how they ought to live—both wives with husbands and husbands with wives, and sons with parents and parents with sons, and servants with masters and masters with servants)—gladly acquire many temporal things, many earthly things, and lose them painfully, on account of which they do not dare to offend men whose life, most contaminated and most criminal, displeases them; but even those who hold a higher grade of life and are not entangled in conjugal bonds and use scanty food and covering, often, while they fear for their own reputation and safety the plots and onsets of the wicked, refrain from reproving them; and although they do not fear them to such an extent that they yield, under any terrors and villainies of theirs, to perpetrate similar things, yet those very things which they do not perpetrate with them they for the most part are unwilling to correct, although perhaps by correcting they could correct some, lest, if they should not be able, their own safety and reputation come into peril and destruction—not from that consideration by which they see their reputation and safety to be necessary to the utility of men to be instructed, but rather from that weakness whereby a flattering tongue and a humanly pleasant day delights, and the judgment of the crowd and the excruciation or peremption of the flesh is dreaded—that is, on account of certain bonds of cupidity, not on account of the offices of charity.

Non mihi itaque uidetur 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 uitam, sed quia simul amant temporalem uitam, 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 uiuunt semper incertum est utrum uoluntatem sint in melius mutaturi. qua in; re non utique parem, sed longe grauiorem habent causam, quibus per prophetam dicitur: Ille quidem in suo peccato morietur, sanguinem autem eius de manu speculatoris requiram.

Therefore it does not seem to me a small cause why together with the wicked the good are scourged, when it pleases God to punish ruined morals also by the affliction of temporal penalties. For they are scourged together, not because they together practice an evil life, but because they together love the temporal life— not indeed equally, yet still together— which the good ought to contemn, in order that those, reproved and corrected, might obtain the eternal; to the attaining of which, if they were unwilling to be companions, the enemies would be borne with and loved, because so long as they live it is always uncertain whether they will change their will for the better. qua in; re they have, not of course an equal, but a far graver cause, to whom it is said through the prophet: He indeed will die in his own sin, but his blood I will require at the hand of the watchman.

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 uitae huius necessitate coniungitur, multa monenda uel arguenda nouit et neglegit, deuitans eorum offensiones propter illa quibus in hac uita 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 uirtute pietatis gratis Deum diligat.

For to this end watchmen, that is, the prepositi of the peoples, are appointed in the churches, that they may not spare in rebuking sins. Yet neither on that account is he wholly free from guilt of this kind who, although he is not a prepositus, nevertheless among those to whom by the necessity of this life he is joined, knows many things that ought to be admonished or arraigned and neglects them, avoiding their displeasure on account of those things which in this life he uses lawfully, but in which he takes delight more than he ought. Then the good have another cause why they are afflicted with temporal evils, such as Job had: that the human soul may be proved and known to itself, with what strength of piety it loves God freely (gratis).

[X] Quibus recte consideratis atque perspectis adtende utrum aliquid mali acciderit fidelibus et piis, quod eis non in bonum uerteretur, nisi forte putandum est apostolicam illam uacare sententiam, ubi ait: Scimus quia diligentibus Deum omnia cooperatur in bonum. Amiserunt omnia quae habebant. Numquid fidem?

[X] These things rightly considered and thoroughly perceived, attend to whether anything evil has happened to the faithful and the pious that would not be turned to their good—unless perhaps one must think that that apostolic sentence is void, where he says: We know that for those who love God all things cooperate unto good. They have lost all the things they had. Did they lose faith?

numquid pietatem? numquid interioris hominis bona, qui est ante Deum diues? Hae sunt opes Christianorum, quibus opulentus dicebat apostolus: Est autem quaestus magnus pietas cum sufficientia.

Did they lose piety? Did they lose the goods of the inner man, who is rich before God? These are the riches of Christians, in which the Apostle called one opulent: “But piety with sufficiency is great gain.”

NIhil enim intulimus in hunc mundum, sed nec auferre aliquid possumus. Habentes autem uictum et tegumentum his contenti sumus. Nam qui uolunt diuites fieri, incidunt in temptationem et laqueum et desideria multa <stulta> et noxia, quae mergunt homines in interitum et perditionem.

For we brought nothing into this world, nor indeed can we carry anything out. But having food and covering, with these we are content. For those who want to become rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and noxious desires, which sink men into ruin and perdition.

Radix enim est omnium malorum auaritia, quam quidam adpetentes a fide pererrauerunt et inseruerunt se doloribus multis.

For avarice is the root of all evils, which some, desiring, have erred away from the faith and have pierced themselves with many sorrows.

Quibus ergo terrenae diuitiae in illa uastatione perierunt, si eas sic habebant, quem ad modum ab isto foris paupere, intus diuite audierant, id est, si mundo utebantur tamquam non utentes, potuerunt dicere, quod ille grauiter temptatus et minime superatus: Nudus exiui 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 uoluntatem, cui pedisequus mente ditesceret, nec contristaretur eis rebus uiuens 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 peccauerint, perdendo senserunt.

Therefore those whose earthly riches perished in that devastation, if they were holding them thus in the manner they had heard from that one outwardly poor, inwardly rich, that is, if they were using the world as though not using it, were able to say what that man, gravely tempted and in no way overcome, said: Naked I came forth from my mother’s womb, naked shall I return to the earth. The Lord gave, the Lord has taken away; as it pleased the Lord, so has it been done; let the name of the Lord be blessed; so that, as a good servant, he might have as his great faculties the very will of his Lord, in whose train, as an attendant, he might grow rich in mind, and not be saddened, being left without those things while living, which he would soon, when dying, have been about to leave behind. But those more infirm, who, to these earthly goods—although they did not set them before Christ—were nevertheless cleaving with a certain small cupidity, perceived by losing them how much they had sinned by loving these things.

Tantum quippe doluerunt, quantum se doloribus inseruerant, sicut apostolum dixisse supra commemoraui. Oportebat enim ut eis adderetur etiam experimentorum disciplina, a quibus tam diu fuerat neglecta uerborum. Nam cum dixit apostolus: Qui uolunt diuites fieri, incidunt in temptationem et cetera, profecto in diuitiis cupiditatem reprehendit, non facultatem, quoniam praecepit alibi dicens: Praecipe diuitibus huius mundi non superbe sapere neque sperare in incerto diuitiarum, sed in Deo uiuo, qui praestat nobis omnia abundanter ad fruendum: bene faciant, diuites sint in operibus bonis, facile tribuant, communicent, thesaurizent sibi fundamentum bonum in futurum, ut adprehendant ueram uitam.

For they sorrowed exactly as much as they had inserted themselves into sorrows, as I have recalled above that the apostle said. For it was needful that there be added to them also the discipline of experiences, by whom for so long the discipline of words had been neglected. For when the apostle said: “Those who wish to become rich fall into temptation, and so forth,” he assuredly reproved in riches the cupidity, not the faculty, since elsewhere he gave command, saying: “Charge those who are rich in this world not to be high‑minded nor to hope in the uncertainty of riches, but in the living God, who furnishes us all things abundantly for enjoyment: let them do good, be rich in good works, readily give, share in common, treasure up for themselves a good foundation for the future, that they may lay hold on the true life.”

Haec qui de suis diuitiis faciebant, magnis sunt lucris leuia damna solati plusque laetati ex his, quae facile tribuendo tutius seruauerunt, 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 uobuis condere thesauros in terra, ubi tinea et rubigo exterminant et ubi fures effodiunt et furantur; sed thesaurizate uobis thesaurum in caelo, quo fur non accedit neque tinea corrumpit; ubi enim est thesaurus tuus, illic erit et cor tuum, tribulationis tempore probauerunt quam recte sapuerint non contemnendo ueracissimum praeceptorem et thesauri sui fidelissimum inuictissimumque custodem.

Those who did this with their own riches consoled light losses with great profits, and rejoiced more over those things which, by giving readily, they kept more safely, than they were saddened over those which, by retaining timidly, they lost more easily. For that could perish on earth which they were loath to transfer from there. For they who received the counsel of their Lord, saying: Do not lay up treasures for yourselves on earth, where moth and rust exterminate and where thieves dig through and steal; but treasure up for yourselves treasure in heaven, where the thief does not come near nor does the moth corrupt; for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also, in the time of tribulation proved how rightly they had been wise, by not despising the most veracious preceptor and the most faithful and most unconquerable custodian of their treasure.

Nam si multi gauisi sunt ibi se habuisse diuitias suas, quo contigit ut hostis non accederet: quanto certius et securius gaudere potuerunt, qui monitu Dei sui illuc migrauerunt, quo accedere omnino non posset! Unde Paulinus noster, Nolensis episcopus, ex opulentissimo diuite uoluntate pauperrimus et copiosissime sanctus, quando et ipsam Nolam barbari uastauerunt, cum ab eis teneretur, sic in corde suo, ut ab eo postea cognouimus, 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 monstrauerat, qui haec mala mundo uentura praedixerat. Ac per hoc qui Domino suo monenti oboedierant, ubi et quo modo tehesaurizare deberent, nec ipsas terrenas diuitias barbaris incursantibus amiserunt.

For if many rejoiced that they had had their riches in a place where it happened that the enemy did not approach, how much more surely and securely could they rejoice, who at the monition of their God migrated thither, where he could by no means approach! Whence our Paulinus, bishop of Nola—out of a most opulent rich man, by will most poor and most copiously holy—when even Nola itself the barbarians ravaged, while he was held by them, thus in his heart, as we learned from him afterwards, was praying: "Lord, let me not be excruciated on account of gold and silver; for where all my things are, you know." For there he had all his things, where he who had foretold that these evils were to come upon the world had shown him to store and to treasure them. And through this, those who had obeyed their Lord warning them where and how they ought to treasure up did not even lose their earthly riches when the barbarians were making incursions.

Quos autem non oboedisse paenituit, quid de talibus rebus faciendum esset, si non praecedente sapientia, certe consequente experientia didicerunt.

But those who were penitent for not having obeyed learned what ought to be done about such matters, if not with wisdom going before, certainly with experience following after.

At enim quidam boni etiam Christiani tormentis excruciati sunt, ut bona sua hostibus proderent. Illi uero nec prodere nec perdere potuerunt bonum, quo ipsi boni erant. Si autem torqueri quam mammona iniquitatis prodere maluerunt, boni non erant.

But indeed certain even good Christians were tortured with torments, in order that they might betray their goods to the enemies. Those, however, could neither betray nor lose the good by which they themselves were good. If, however, they preferred to be tormented rather than to betray the mammon of iniquity, they were not good.

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 uerum dicendo proderetur. Namque inter tormenta nemo Christum confitendo amisit, nemo aurum nisi negando seruauit. Quocirca utiliora erant fortasse tormenta, quae bonum incorruptibile amandum docebant, quam illa bona, quae sine ullo utili fructu dominos sui amore torquebant.

But those who were enduring so much for gold ought to have been admonished how much must be borne for Christ, that they might rather learn to love him who enriches with eternal felicity those who have suffered for him, and not gold and silver, for which it was most miserable to suffer, whether it was being concealed by lying or betrayed by speaking the truth. For amid the torments no one lost Christ by confessing him, no one preserved his gold except by denying. Wherefore the torments were perhaps more useful, which were teaching that the incorruptible good is to be loved, than those goods which, without any useful fruit, were torturing their masters by their love.

Sed quidam etiam non habentes quod proderent, dum non creduntur, torti sunt. Et hi forte habere cupiebant nec sancta uoluntate pauperes erant; quibus demonstrandum fuit non facultates, sed ipsas cupiditates talibus dignas esse cruciatibus. Si uero uitae melioris proposito reconditum aurum argentumque non habebant, nescio quidem utrum cuiquam talium acciderit, ut dum habere creditur torqueretur: uerum tamen etiamsi accidit, profecto, qui inter illa tormenta paupertatem sanctam confitebatur, Christum confitebatur.

But certain persons even, not having what they might betray, while they are not believed, were tortured. And these perhaps desired to have, and were not poor by a holy will; to whom it had to be shown that not the faculties, but the desires themselves, were worthy of such cruciations. If indeed, with a purpose of a better life, they did not have hidden gold and silver, I do not know, to be sure, whether it befell any of such that, while he was believed to have, he was tortured: nevertheless, even if it happened, assuredly he who amid those torments was confessing holy poverty was confessing Christ.

Quapropter etsi non meruit ab hostibus credi, non potuit tamen sanctae paupertatis confessor sine caelesti mercede torqueri.

Wherefore, even if he did not merit to be believed by the enemies, nevertheless the confessor of holy poverty could not be tortured without a celestial reward.

Multos, inquiunt, etiam Christianos fames diuturna uastauit. Hoc quoque in usus suos boni fideles pie tolerando uerterunt. Quos enim fames necauit, malis uitae huius, sicut corporis morbus, eripuit: quos autem non necauit, docuit parcius uiuere, docuit productius ieiunare.

Many, they say, even Christians, a long-continued famine has laid waste. This too the good faithful turned to their own use by piously enduring it. For those whom the famine slew, it snatched from the evils of this life, just as a disease of the body; but those whom it did not slay, it taught to live more sparingly, it taught to fast more protractedly.

[XI] Sed enim multi etiam Christiani interfecti sunt, multi multarum mortium foeda uarietate consumpti. Hoc si aegre ferendum est, omnibus, qui in hanc uitam procreati sunt, utique commune est. Hoc scio, neminem fuisse mortuum, qui non fuerat aliquando moriturus.

[11] But indeed many Christians too were killed, many consumed by the foul variety of many deaths. If this is to be borne with difficulty, it is assuredly common to all who have been procreated into this life. This I know: no one has died who was not at some time going to die.

Finis autem uitae tam longam quam breuem uitam hoc idem facit. Neque enim aliud melius et aliud deterius, aut aliud maius et aliud breuius est, quod iam pariter non est. Quid autem interest, quo mortis genere uita ista finiatur, quando ille, cui finitur, iterum mori non cogitur?

But the end of life makes both a long life and a short life the same. For what now alike is not is neither better nor worse, nor greater nor shorter. What, moreover, does it matter by what kind (genre) of death this life is finished, when he for whom it is finished is not compelled to die again?

Cum autem unicuique mortalium sub cotidianis uitae huius casibus innumerabiles mortes quodam modo comminentur, quamdiu incertum est quaenam earum uentura sit: quaero utrum satius sit unam perpeti moriendo an omnes timere uiuendo. Nec ignoro quam citius eligatur diu uiuere sub timore tot mortium quam semel moriendo nullam deinceps formidare. Sed aliud est quod carnis sensus infirmiter pauidus refigit, aliud quod mentis ratio diligenter enucleata conuincit.

But since under the quotidian accidents of this life innumerable deaths in a certain manner menace each of the mortals, so long as it is uncertain which of them will come: I inquire whether it is preferable to endure one by dying or to fear all by living. Nor am I unaware how much more readily it is chosen to live long under the fear of so many deaths than, by dying once, thereafter to dread none. But one thing is what the sense of the flesh, weakly timorous, shrinks back from; another what the reason of the mind, carefully elucidated, proves.

Mala mors putanda non est, quam bona uita 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.

An evil death is not to be thought, which a good life has preceded. For nothing makes death evil, except what follows death. Therefore it is not a matter of much concern for those who are necessarily going to die, what happens so that they die, but, in dying, whither they are compelled to go.

Cum igitur Christiani nouerint longe meliorem fuisse religiosi pauperis mortem inter lingentium canum linguas quam impii diuitis in purpura et bysso, horrenda illa genera mortium quid mortuis obfuerunt, qui bene uixerunt?

Since therefore Christians have come to know that the death of a devout poor man amid the tongues of licking dogs was far better than that of an impious rich man in purple and byssus, how have those dreadful kinds of deaths harmed the dead who lived well?

[XII] At enim in tanta strage cadauerum 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 ueritas: Nolite timere eos, qui corpus occidunt, animam autem non possunt occidere, si quicquam obesset futurae uitae, quidquid inimici de corporibus occisorum facere uoluissent.

[12] But, you say, amid so great a carnage of cadavers they could not even bury. Nor does pious faith dread that overly, holding the pre-said truth that devouring beasts will not be detrimental to the bodies destined to rise again, of whom not a hair of the head will perish. In no way would Truth say: "Do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul," if anything could harm the future life, whatever enemies might have wished to do to the bodies of the slain.

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 cadaueribus faciant. Absit, ut falsum sit quod ueritas dixit.

Unless perhaps someone is so absurd as to contend that those who kill the body ought not to be feared before death, lest they kill the body, and ought to be feared after death, lest they not allow the slain body to be buried. False, then, is what <Christ> says: “Those who kill the body, and afterwards have nothing further that they can do,” if they have so many things that they can do with cadavers. Far be it that what Truth has said should be false.

Dictum est enim aliquid eos facere cum occidunt, quia in corpore sensus est occidendo; postea uero 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 separauit, quam totam implet praesentia sui, qui nouit unde resuscitet quod creauit. Dicitur quidem in psalmo: Posuerunt mortalia seruorum tuorum escam uolatilibus 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.

For it has been said that they do something when they kill, because in the body there is sense in the very act of being slain; but afterwards they have nothing which they can do, because there is no sense in the body once slain. Many therefore of the bodies of Christians the earth did not cover, yet none of them did anyone separate from heaven and earth, which He wholly fills with His presence, who knows whence He may resuscitate what He created. It is said indeed in the psalm: “They have set the mortal remains of your servants as food for the birds of heaven, the flesh of your holy ones for the beasts of the earth; they poured out their blood like water around Jerusalem, and there was none to bury them,” but this is rather to exaggerate the cruelty of those who did these things, not the infelicity of those who endured them.

Quamuis enim haec in conspectu hominum dua et dira uideantur, sed pretiosa in conspectu Domini mors sanctorum eius. Proi;nde ista omnia, <id est> curatio funeris, conditio sepulturae, pompa exequiarum, magis sunt uiuorum solacia quam subsidia mortuorum. Si aliquid prodest impio sepultura pretiosa, oberit pio uilis aut nulla.

Although, indeed, these things seem twofold and dire in the sight of men, yet precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints. Accordingly, all these things, that is, the care of the funeral, the condition of burial, the pomp of exequies, are more the consolations of the living than the aids of the dead. If a precious burial profits the impious at all, a cheap one or none will harm the pious.

Praeclaras exequias in conspectu hominum exhibuit purpurato illi diuiti 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.

Splendid exequies in the sight of men a throng of servants displayed for that purple-clad rich man; but far more illustrious in the sight of the Lord was the ministry of angels rendered to that ulcerous poor man, who did not carry him out to a marble tomb, but lifted him into Abraham’s bosom.

Rident haec illi, contra quos defendendam suscepimus ciuitatem Dei. Verum tamen sepulturae curam etiam eorum philosophi contempserunt. Et saepe uniuersi exercitus, dum pro terrena patria morerentur, ubi postea iacerent uel quibus bestiis esca fierent, non curarunt, licuitque de hac re poetis plausibiliter dicere: Caelo tegitur, qui non habet urnam.

They laugh at these things, those against whom we have undertaken to defend the city of God. Yet indeed even their philosophers have despised the concern for burial. And often entire armies, while dying for their earthly fatherland, did not care where afterward they would lie or to what beasts they would become food; and it was allowable for poets to say plausibly on this matter: He is covered by the sky who does not have an urn.

Quanto minus debent de corporibus insepultis insultare Christianis, quibus et ipsius carnis membrorumque omnium reformatio non solum ex terra, uerum etiam ex aliorum elementorum secretissimo sinu, quo dilapsa cadauera recesserunt, in temporis puncto reddenda et redintegranda promittitur. [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.

How much less ought they to insult Christians about unburied bodies, for whom the reformation of the very flesh and of all the members is promised to be rendered and redintegrated in a point of time, not only from the earth but also from the most secret bosom of the other elements, to which the dispersed cadavers have withdrawn. [13] Nor therefore are the bodies of the deceased to be despised and cast away, especially of the just and the faithful, whose bodies the Spirit has used as organs and vessels for all good works in a holy way. For if a father’s garment and ring, and anything of this sort, are so much the dearer to posterity, the greater the affection toward their parents: by no means are the bodies themselves to be spurned, which indeed we bear much more familiarly and more closely than any garments.

Haec enim non ad ornamentum uel adiutorium, quod adhibetur extrinsecus, sed ad ipsam naturam hominis pertinent. Unde et antiquorum iustorum funera officiosa pietate curata sunt et exequiae celebratae et sepultura prouisa, ipsique cum uiuerent de sepeliendis uel etiam transferendis suis corporibus filiis mandauerunt, 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.

For these pertain not to ornament or to an aid which is applied from without, but to the very nature of man. Whence also the funerals of the just of old were cared for with dutiful piety, and the obsequies were celebrated, and sepulture was provided; and they themselves, while they lived, enjoined upon their sons about the burying, or even the transferring, of their bodies; and Tobias is commended, the angel bearing witness, to have merited the favor of God by burying the dead. The Lord himself also, about to rise on the third day, praises and commends as to be preached the good work of the religious woman, that she poured out precious unguent upon his members and did this for his burial.

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 cadaueribus sensus, sed ad Dei prouidentiam, 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 uiuentibus et sentientibus exhibemus, si neque hoc apud Deum perit, od exanimis hominum membris officii diligentiaeque persoluitur.

And in the Gospel those are laudably commemorated who, having received his body from the cross, took care diligently and honorably that it be covered and buried. Yet these authorities do not admonish this, that any sense inheres in corpses, but signify that the bodies of the dead also pertain to the providence of God—to whom even such offices of piety are pleasing—for the purpose of establishing the faith of the resurrection. Where also this is wholesomely learned: how great a recompense there can be for alms which we render to the living and sentient, if not even this is lost before God, which is paid as a duty of diligence to the lifeless members of human beings.

Sunt quidem et alia, quae sancti patriarchae de corporibus suis uel condendis uel transferendis prophetico spiritu dicta intellegi uoluerunt; non autem hic locus est, ut ea pertractemus, cum sufficiant ista, quae diximus. Sed si ea, quae sustentandis uiuentibus sunt necessaria, sicut uictus et amictus, quamuis cum graui adflictione desint, non frangunt in bonis perferendi tolerandique uirtutem 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 cadaueribus Christianorum in illa magnae urbis uel etiam aliorum oppidorum uastatione defuerunt, nec uiuorum culpa est, qui non potuerunt ista praebere, nec poena mortuorum, qui non possunt ista sentire.

There are indeed other things which the holy patriarchs wished to be understood, by prophetic spirit, as spoken concerning their own bodies, whether for being interred or translated; but this is not the place to treat them, since these things that we have said suffice. But if those things which are necessary for sustaining the living, such as victuals and clothing, although lacking with grave affliction, do not break in good people the virtue of enduring and tolerating, nor eradicate piety from the soul, but make it, being exercised, more fecund: how much more, when those things are lacking which are usually applied to the caring of funerals and the entombing of the bodies of the deceased, do they not render miserable those already at rest in the hidden abodes of the pious! And therefore, when these things were lacking to the cadavers of Christians in that devastation of the great city or even of other towns, it is neither the fault of the living, who could not provide these things, nor the penalty of the dead, who cannot sense these things.

[XIV] Sed multi, inquiunt, Christiani etiam captiui ducti sunt. Hoc sane miserrimum est, si aliquo duci potuerunt, ubi Deum suum non inuenerunt. Sunt in scripturis sanctis huius etiam cladis magna solacia.

[14] But many, they say, Christians were even led away as captives. This is indeed most wretched, if they could be led to some place where they did not find their God. In the holy Scriptures there are great solaces even for this calamity.

Fuerunt in captiuitate 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 uisceribus beluae. Haec quoque illi, cum quibus agimus, malunt inridere quam credere, qui tamen suis litteris credunt Arionem Methymnaeum, nobilissimum citharistam, cum esset deiectus e naui, exceptum delphini dorso et ad terras esse peruectum.

There were in captivity three boys, there was Daniel, there were other prophets; nor was God lacking as a comforter. Thus therefore he did not desert his faithful under the dominion of a nation, though barbarian, yet human—he who did not desert a prophet even in the entrails of the beast. These things too those with whom we are dealing prefer to deride rather than to believe, who yet in their own letters believe that Arion of Methymna, a most noble citharist, when he had been cast down from a ship, was taken up on a dolphin’s back and conveyed to the lands.

Verum illud nostrum de Iona propheta incredibilius est. Plane incredibilius quia mirabilius, et mirabilius quia potentius.

But that account of ours about the prophet Jonah is more incredible. Plainly more incredible because more marvelous, and more marvelous because more powerful.

[XV] Habent tamen isti de captiuitate religionis causa etiam sponte toleranda et in suis praeclaris uiris nobilissimum exemplum. Marcus Regulus, imperator populi Romani, captiuus apud Carthaginienses fuit. Qui cum sibi mallent a Romanis suos reddi quam eorum tenere captiuos, ad hoc impetrandum etiam istum praecipue Regulum cum legatis suis Romam miserunt, prius iuratione constrictum, si quod uolebant minime peregisset, rediturum esse Carthaginem.

[15] Yet these men have, concerning captivity to be endured for the cause of religion even of one’s own accord, in their own most illustrious men a most noble example. Marcus Regulus, a commander of the Roman people, was a captive among the Carthaginians. Since they preferred to have their own returned to themselves by the Romans rather than to hold the Romans’ captives, to obtain this they even sent this very Regulus to Rome with their envoys, first bound by an oath that, if he in no way accomplished what they wanted, he would return to Carthage.

Perrexit ille atque in senatu contraria persuasit, quoniam non arbitrabatur utile esse Romanae rei publicae mutare captiuos. Nec post hanc persuasionem a suis ad hostes redire compulsus est, sed quia iurauerat, id sponte compleuit. At illi eum excogitatis atque horrendis cruciatibus necauerunt.

He proceeded and in the Senate persuaded the contrary, since he did not judge it useful to the Roman Republic to exchange captives. Nor after this persuasion was he compelled by his own people to return to the enemies, but because he had sworn, he fulfilled it of his own accord. But they killed him with torments contrived and horrendous.

Inclusum quippe angusto ligno, ubi stare cogeretur, clauisque acutisimis undique confixo, ut se in nullam eius partem sine poenis atrocissimis inclinaret, etiam uigilando peremerunt. Merito certe laudant uirtutem tam magna infelicitate maiorem. Et per deos ille iurauerat, quorum cultu prohibito has generi humano clades isti opinantur infligi.

Indeed, they shut him up in a narrow wooden frame, where he was compelled to stand, and, with very sharp nails fastened on every side, so that he could not incline himself toward any part of it without most atrocious punishments, they even slew him by wakefulness. Deservedly, to be sure, they praise a virtue made greater by so great ill-fortune. And he had sworn by the gods, whose cult, when prohibited, those men suppose these disasters to be inflicted upon the human race.

Qui ergo propterea colebantur, ut istam uitam prosperam redderent, si uerum iuranti has inrogari poenas seu uoluerunt seu permiserunt, quid periuro grauius 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.

Therefore those who were worshiped for this reason, to render this life prosperous—if, upon one swearing truly, they either willed or permitted these penalties to be inﬂicted—what, in their wrath, could they do more grievous to a perjurer? But why should I not rather conclude my ratiocination so as to include both alternatives? Certainly he thus honored the gods that, on account of the faith of an oath, he would neither remain in his fatherland nor go from there wherever he pleased, but did not in the least hesitate to return to his most bitter enemies.

Hoc si huic uitae 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 uictus et captiuus abductus et, quia noluit aliter quam per eos iurauerat facere, nouo ac prius inaudito nimiumque horribili supplicii genere cruciatus extinctus est. Si autem deorum cultus post hanc uitam uelut 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?

If he reckoned this useful for this life—whose end he deserved to be so horrendous—he was without doubt deceived. For by his own example he taught that the gods avail nothing to their worshipers for this temporal felicity, since indeed he, devoted to their cult, was conquered and led away captive, and, because he refused to act otherwise than he had sworn by them to do, was tortured and put to death by a new and previously unheard-of and exceedingly horrible kind of punishment. But if the worship of the gods renders felicity after this life as though a recompense, why do they calumniate the Christian times, saying for this reason that that calamity befell the City, because it ceased to worship its gods, when even while worshiping them most diligently one could become as unfortunate as that Regulus was?

Nisi forte contra clarissimam ueritatem tanta quisquam dementia mirae caecitatis obnititur, ut contendere audeat uniuersam ciuitatem deos colentem infelicem esse non posse, unum uero hominem posse, quod uidelicet potentia deorum suorum multos potius sit idonea conseruare quam singulos, cum multitudo constet ex singulis.

Unless perhaps someone, against the most manifest truth, with such dementia of wondrous blindness sets himself in opposition, as to dare to contend that an entire city worshiping the gods cannot be unhappy, but that a single man can—on the ground that the power of their gods is more suitable to conserve many rather than individuals, since a multitude consists of individuals.

Si autem dicunt M. Regulum etiam in illa captiuitate illisque cruciatibus corporibus animi uirtute beatum esse potuisse, uirtus potius uera quaeratur, qua beata esse possit et ciuitas. Neque enim aliunde beata ciuitas, aliunde homo, cum aliud ciuitas non sit quam concors hominum multitudo. Quam ob rem nondum interim disputo, qualis in Regulo uirtus fuerit; sufficit nunc, quod isto nobilissimo exemplo coguntur fateri non propter corporis bona uel earum rerum, quae extrinsecus homini accidunt, colendos deos, quando quidem ille carere his omnibus maluit quam deos per quos iurauit offendere.

But if they say that M. Regulus, even in that captivity and in those torments of the body, could have been blessed by the virtue of the mind, let true virtue rather be sought, by which the city also may be able to be blessed. For the city is not blessed from one source and the man from another, since the city is nothing other than a concordant multitude of men. Wherefore I do not for the present yet dispute what sort of virtue there was in Regulus; it is enough for now that by this most noble example they are forced to admit that the gods are not to be worshiped on account of the goods of the body or of those things which befall a man from without, since he preferred to be without all these rather than to offend the gods by whom he had sworn.

Sed quid faciamus hominibus, qui gloriantur se talem habuisse ciuem, qualem timent habere ciuitatem? Quod si non timent, tale ergo aliquid, quale accidit Regulo, etiam ciuitati tam diligenter quam ille deos colenti accidere potuisse fateantur et Christianis temporibus non calumnientur. Verum quia de illis Christianis orta quaestio est, qui etiam captiuati 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 seruaret, patria caruit, cum aliam non haberet, captiuusque apud hostes per longam mortem supplicio nouae crudelitatis occisus est, multo minus nomen criminandum est Christianum in captiuitate sacratorum suorum, qui supernam patriam ueraci fide expectantes etiam in suis sedibus peregrionos se esse nouerunt.

But what shall we do with men who boast that they had such a citizen as they fear to have for a city? And if they do not fear it, then let them admit that something of the sort that befell Regulus could also have happened to a city worshiping the gods as diligently as he did, and let them not calumniate Christian times. Yet since the question has arisen about those Christians who were even taken captive, let those who impudently and imprudently mock the most salubrious religion on this account consider this and be silent: because, if it was no reproach to their gods that their most attentive cultor of them, while keeping to them the faith of an oath, was deprived of his fatherland—since he had no other—and, a captive among enemies, was slain by a long death in the punishment of a new cruelty, much less is the Christian name to be incriminated on account of the captivity of its consecrated ones, who, awaiting the supernal fatherland with veracious faith, have known themselves to be pilgrims even in their own seats.

[XVI] Magnum sane crimen se putant obicere Christianis, cum eorum exaggerantes captiuitatem addunt etiam stupra commissa, non solum in aliena matrimonia uirginesque nupturas, sed etiam in quasdam sanctimoniales. Hic uero non fides, non pietas, non ipsa uirtus, 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.

[16] They indeed think they are alleging a great crime against the Christians, when, exaggerating their captivity, they add also rapes committed, not only upon others’ marriages and upon virgins about to be wed, but even upon certain sanctimonials. Here, however, not faith, not piety, not the very virtue which is called chastity, but rather our own disputation is constrained within certain straits between modesty and reason. Nor do we here so much care to render a response to outsiders as to give consolation to our own.

Sit igitur in primis positum atque firmatum uirtutem, qua recte uiuitur, ab aanimi sede membris corporis imperare sanctumque corpus usu fieri sanctae uoluntatis, qua inconcussa ac stabili permanente, quidquid alius de corpore uel in corpore fecerit, quod sine peccato proprio non ualeat euitari, praeter culpam esse patientis. Sed quia non solum quod ad dolorem, uerum 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 uoluntate, quod fieri fortasse sine carnis aliqua uoluptate non potuit.

Therefore let it be laid down and established first of all that the virtue by which one lives rightly, from the seat of the mind, commands the members of the body, and that the body becomes holy by the use of the holy will; with this remaining unshaken and stable, whatever another may do concerning the body or in the body, which cannot be avoided without one’s own sin, lies beyond the blame of the sufferer. But because not only what pertains to pain, but also what pertains to libido, can be perpetrated upon another’s body: whatever such thing shall have been done, even if it does not shake the pudicity kept with a most steadfast mind, nevertheless it infuses pudor, lest it be believed to have been done with the will of the mind as well, which perhaps could not have been done without some carnal voluptuousness.

[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 deuitarent, quisquis hoc crimini dederit, ipse crimen insipientiae non cauebit. Nam utique si non licet priuata potestate hominem occidere uel 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 putauit.

[17] And therefore, as for those who killed themselves, lest they might suffer anything of this sort, what humane feeling would not wish them to be forgiven? And those who were unwilling to kill themselves, lest by their own crime they should avoid another’s disgrace, whoever assigns this as a crime to them will not himself avoid the crime of foolishness. For surely, if it is not permitted by private authority to kill a man even though guilty, to whose killing no law grants license, assuredly even he who kills himself is a homicide; and he becomes the more guilty, when he has killed himself, the more innocent he was in that cause on account of which he thought himself to be killed.

Nam si Iudae factum merito detestamur eumque ueritas 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, uerum etiam suae mortis reus finiuit hanc uitam, 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?

For if we rightly detest the deed of Judas, and truth judges that, when he hanged himself with a noose, he increased rather than expiated the committed crime of that wicked betrayal, since by despairing of God’s mercy, perniciously repenting, he left himself no place for healthful penitence: how much more ought he to abstain from his own killing, who by such a punishment has nothing in himself that he may punish! For Judas, when he killed himself, killed a criminal man; and yet he ended this life guilty not only of Christ’s death but also of his own, in that, on account of his crime, he was slain by another crime of his own. But why should a man who has done no evil do evil to himself and, by killing himself, kill an innocent man, lest he suffer another who is guilty, and perpetrate in himself a sin of his own, lest an alien sin be perpetrated in him?

[XVIII] At enim, ne uel aliena polluat libido, metuitur. Non polluet, si aliena erit; si autem polluet, aliena non erit. Sed cum pudicitia uirtus 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 uel renuat: quis eadem sana mente putauerit perdere se pudicitiam, si forte in adprehensa et oppressa carne sua exerceatur et expleatur libido non sua?

[18] But indeed, it is feared lest even another’s libido pollute. It will not pollute, if it is another’s; but if it does pollute, it will not be another’s. But since pudicity is a virtue of the mind and has fortitude as companion, by which it determines rather to tolerate any evils than to consent to evil, and since no magnanimous and chaste person has in his power what is done with his flesh, but only what he assents to or refuses with his mind: who, in the same sound mind, would think that he loses his pudicity, if perhaps, in his seized and oppressed flesh, a libido not his own is exercised and fulfilled?

Si enim hoc modo pudicitia perit, profecto pudicitia uirtus animi non erit, nec pertinebit ad ea bona, quibus bene uiuitur, sed in bnois corporis numerabitur, qualia sunt uires pulchritudo sana ualetudo, ac si quid huius modi est; quae bona, etiamsi minuantur, bonam iustamque uitam 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.

For if in this way pudicity perishes, surely pudicity will not be a virtue of the mind, nor will it pertain to those goods by which one lives well, but it will be numbered among the goods of the body, such as strength, beauty, sound health, and whatever of this kind there is; which goods, even if they are diminished, do not at all diminish a good and just life. But if pudicity is something of such a sort, why is toil undertaken on behalf of it, lest it be lost, even when labor is endured with peril to the body? But if it is a good of the mind, even with the body oppressed it is not lost.

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 uoluntas et, quantum est in ipso, etiam facultas.

Nay rather, when the good of holy continence does not yield to the uncleanness of carnal concupiscences, even the body itself is sanctified; and therefore, when it persists with an unshaken intention in not yielding to them, holiness does not perish from the body itself, because the will to use it in a holy way perseveres and, so far as lies in it, even the capacity.

Neque enim eo corpus sanctum est, quod eius membra sunt integra, aut eo, quod nullo contrectantur adtactu, cum possint diuersis casibus etiam uulnerata uim perpeti, et medici aliquando saluti opitulantes haec ibi faciant, quae horret aspectus. Obstetrix uirginis cuiusdam integritatem manu uelut explorans siue maleuolentia siue inscitia siue 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.

Nor indeed is a body holy on this account, that its members are intact, or on this account, that they are not touched at all, since in various contingencies they can, even when wounded, undergo force; and physicians, sometimes aiding to health, do there things at which the gaze shudders. A midwife, as if exploring with her hand the integrity of a certain virgin, whether by malevolence or by ignorance or by chance, while she inspects, destroyed it. I do not suppose anyone so foolishly wise as to think that for her anything has perished even of the sanctity of the body itself, although the integrity of that member has already been lost.

Quocirca proposito animi permanente, per quod etiam corpus sanctificari meruit, nec ipsi corpori aufert sanctitatem uiolentia libidinis alienae, quam seruat perseuerantia continentiae suae. An uero si aliqua femina mente corrupta uiolatoque proposito, quod Deo uouerat, pergat uitianda ad deceptorem suum, ad hoc eam pergentem sanctam uel 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 uiolata animi sanctitate etiam corpore intacto.

Wherefore, with the purpose of mind remaining steadfast—by which the body too deserved to be sanctified—the violence of another’s libido does not take away sanctity from the body itself, which the perseverance of her own continence preserves. Or truly, if some woman, with her mind corrupted and with the purpose she had vowed to God violated, goes to her deceiver to be debauched, shall we say that she, going to this, is holy even in body, with that sanctity of mind—by which the body was being sanctified—lost and destroyed? Far be this error; and from this let us rather be admonished that the sanctity of the body is not lost, the sanctity of the mind remaining, even when the body is overpowered, just as the sanctity of the body is lost when the sanctity of the mind is violated, even with the body untouched.

Quam ob rem non habet quod in se morte spontanea puniat femina sine ulla sua consensione uiolenter oppressa et alieno conpressa peccato; quanto minus antequam hoc fiat! ne admittantur homicidium certum, cum ipsum flagitium, quamuis alienum, adhuc pendet incertum.

Wherefore a woman who, without any consent of her own, has been violently oppressed and overborne by another’s sin has nothing that she should punish in herself by spontaneous death; how much less before this takes place! Let not certain homicide be admitted, when the very flagitious act, although another’s, still hangs uncertain.

[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 uoluntate consenserit, contradicere audebunt hi, contra quos feminarum Christianarum in captiuitate oppressarum non tantum mentes, uerum etiam corpora sancta defendimus? Lucretiam certe, matronam nobilem ueteremque Romanam, pudicitiae magnis efferunt laudibus. Huius corpore cum uiolenter oppresso Tarquinii regis filius libidinose potitus esset, illa scelus improbissimi iuuenis marito Collatino et propinquo Bruto, uiris clarissimis et fortissimis, indicauit eosque ad uindicatam constrinxit.

[19] Or will those, against whom we defend, in the case of Christian women oppressed in captivity, not only their minds but even their holy bodies, dare to contradict this perspicuous reasoning, whereby we say that, the body being overpowered, with the purpose of chastity by no consent changed into evil, the shameful crime is only that of him who, as oppressor, has lain with her, not of her who, being oppressed, with no will consented to the one lying with her? They certainly extol Lucretia, a noble matron of old Rome, with great praises for pudicity. When, her body having been violently overpowered, the son of King Tarquin had lecherously taken possession of her, she disclosed the crime of that most wicked youth to her husband Collatinus and to her kinsman Brutus, men most illustrious and most brave, and constrained them to vengeance.

Deinde foedi in se commissi aegra atque inpatiens e peremit. Quid dicemus? Adultera haec an casta iudicanda est?

Then, heartsick and impatient of the foul deed committed upon her, she slew herself. What shall we say? Is this woman to be judged an adulteress or chaste?

Quis in hac controuersia laborandum putauerit? Egregie quidam ex hoc ueraciterque declamans ait: "Mirabile dictu, duo fuerunt et adulterium unus admisit." Splendide atque uerissime. Intuens enim in duorum corporum commixtione unius inquinatissimam cupiditatem, alterius castissimam uoluntatem, et non quid coniunctione membrorum, sed quid animorum diuersitate ageretur adtendens: "Duo, inquit, fuerunt, et adulterium unus admisit."

Who would have thought there was any labor in this controversy? Admirably, someone, declaiming on this point and truthfully, said: "Marvelous to say, there were two, and one alone committed adultery." Splendidly and most truly. For, looking in the commixture of two bodies at the most defiled desire of the one and the most chaste will of the other, and attending not to what was being done by the conjunction of limbs, but to what was being done by the diversity of minds, he said: "There were two, and one alone committed adultery."

Sed quid est hoc, quod in eam grauius uindicatur, 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.

But what is this, that a more grievous punishment is exacted upon her who did not commit adultery? For he was driven from his fatherland along with his father; she was put to death with the supreme penalty. If that is not impudicity by which an unwilling woman is overpowered, this is not justice by which a chaste woman is punished.

Vos appello, leges iudicesque Romani. Nempe post perpetrata facinora nec quemquam scelestum indemnatum inpune uoluistis occidi. Si ergo ad uestrum iudicium quisquam deferret hoc crimen uobisque probaretur non solum indemnatam, uerum etiam castam et innocentem interfectam esse mulierem, nonne eum, qui id fecisset, seueritate congrua plecteretis?

I appeal to you, Roman laws and judges. Indeed, after crimes have been perpetrated, you have not wished that any criminal be killed uncondemned and with impunity. If therefore anyone should bring this charge to your judgment, and it were proved to you that a woman was killed not only uncondemned, but also chaste and innocent, would you not punish, with congruent severity, the man who had done this?

hoc fecit illa Lucretia; illa, illa sic praedicata Lucretia innocentem, castam, uim 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?

That Lucretia did this; that, that so-proclaimed Lucretia moreover put to death Lucretia—innocent, chaste, having endured violence. Bring forth your sentence. But if for that reason you cannot, because she whom you could punish does not stand here, why do you with such great proclamation laud the murderess of the innocent and the chaste?

Quam certe apud infernos iudices etiam tales, quales poetarum uestrorum carminibus cantitantur, nulla ratione defenditis, constitutam scilicet inter illos,

Whom, assuredly, before the infernal judges—even such as are chanted in the songs of your poets—you defend by no reason, namely as constituted among them,

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 iuueni uiolenter inruenti etiam sua libidine inlecta consensit idque in se puniens ita doluit, ut morte putaret expiandum?

who with their own hand procured death for themselves, the innocent, and, loathing the light, cast away their souls; for whom, desiring to return to the supernal realms, Fas stands in the way, and the sad marsh, unlovely in its wave, binds fast. Or perhaps for that reason she is not there, because she did not slay an innocent, but, ill at conscience with herself, slew herself? What if indeed (which she alone could know) although to a youth violently rushing in, even allured by her own libido she consented, and, punishing this in herself, so grieved that she thought it must be expiated by death?

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 inuenitur exitus, ubi dicitur: "Si adulterata, cur laudata; si pudica, cur occisa?"

Although not even thus ought she to have killed herself, if she could conduct a fruitful penitence among the false gods. Yet, however, if perchance it is so and that statement is false—that there were two and one alone admitted the adultery—but rather both committed adultery, the one by manifest invasion, the other by latent consent, she did not kill herself as innocent, and therefore it can be said by her literate defenders that she is not among the infernal dead among those “who, innocent, brought death upon themselves by their own hand.” But the case is so constrained from both sides, that, if the homicide is extenuated, the adultery is confirmed; if the adultery is purged, the homicide is heaped up; nor is any exit at all found, where it is said: “If adulterous, why praised; if chaste, why slain?”

Nobis tamen in hoc tam nobili feminae huius exemplo ad istos refutandos, qui Christianis feminis in captiuitate 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 auida nimium, uerita est ne putaretur, quod uiolenter est passa cum uiueret, libenter passa si uiueret.

For us, however, in this so noble example of that woman to refute those who, alien from every thought of sanctity, insult Christian women compressed in captivity, it suffices that among her most illustrious praises it has been said: "There were two, and one admitted the adultery." For such a Lucretia has rather been believed by them, who could not maculate herself by any adulterous consent. The fact, therefore, that she killed herself—since she endured the adulterer—though not an adulteress, is not a love of pudicity, but an infirmity of pudor. For she was ashamed of another’s turpitude committed upon herself, even if not with her; and, being a Roman woman, too greedy for praise, she feared lest it be thought that what she had suffered by violence while alive, if she should live, she had suffered willingly.

Unde ad oculos hominum testem mentis suae illam poenam adhibendam putauit, 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 uiuunt 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.

Whence she thought that that punishment should be applied before the eyes of men as a witness of her mind, to whom she could not demonstrate her conscience. For she blushed to be believed a partner of the deed, if she herself should bear patiently what another had done dishonorably upon her. Christian women have not done this, who, having suffered similar things, nevertheless live and have not in themselves avenged another’s crime, lest they add their own to the crimes of others, if, since enemies had committed rapes upon them by concupiscence, they themselves should commit homicides upon themselves by being ashamed.

Habent quippe intus gloriam castitatis, testimonium conscientiae; habent autem coram oculis Dei sui nec requirunt amplius, ubi quid recte faciant non habent amplius, ne deuient ab auctoriate legis diuinae, cum male deuitant offensionem suspicionis humanae.

For they have within the glory of chastity, the testimony of conscience; and they have it before the eyes of their God and do not seek anything further, when they have nothing further that they might do rightly, lest they deviate from the authority of the divine law, while badly avoiding the offense of human suspicion.

[XX] Neque enim frustra in sanctis canonicis libris nusquam nobis diuinitus praeceptum permissumue reperiri potest, ut uel ipsius adipiscendae inmortalitatis uel ullius cauendi carendiue 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 aduersus proximum tuum. Nec ideo tamen si aduersus se ipsum quisquam falsum testimonium dixerit, ab hoc crimine se putauerit alienum, quoniam regulam diligendi proximum a semet ipso dilector accepit, quando quidem scriptum est: Diliges proximum tuum tamquam te ipsum.

[20] For neither in vain can it anywhere be found in the holy canonical books that we are divinely commanded or permitted to inflict death upon ourselves, either for the sake of attaining immortality itself or for the sake of avoiding or being without any evil. For it must be understood that we too are prohibited, where the Law says: You shall not kill, especially because it did not add: “your neighbor,” just as when it forbade false testimony: “You shall not speak false testimony against your neighbor.” Nor therefore, if someone should speak false testimony against himself, would he think himself alien from this crime, since the lover has received the rule of loving the neighbor from himself, seeing that it is written: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Porro si falsi testimonii non minus reus est qui de se ipso falsum fatetur, quam si aduersus proximum hoc faceret, cum in eo praecepto, quo falsum testimonium prohibetur, aduersus proximum prohibeatur possitque non recte intellegentibus uideri non esse prohibitum, ut aduersus 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?

Furthermore, if he who confesses a falsehood about himself is no less guilty of false testimony than if he did this against his neighbor—since in that precept whereby false testimony is prohibited, it is prohibited “against your neighbor,” and it can seem to those not understanding rightly that it is not prohibited for anyone to stand as a false witness against himself: how much more must it be understood that it is not licit for a human being to kill himself, since in that which is written, “You shall not kill,” with nothing then added—no one—nor, of course, even the very one to whom it is enjoined, is to be understood as excepted! Whence certain persons try to extend this precept even to beasts and to cattle, so that from this it would not be licit to kill any of them. Why not therefore also herbs and whatever is nourished and fixed root-and-branch in the soil?

Nam et hoc genus rerum, quamuis non sentiat, dicitur uiuere ac per hoc potest et mori, proinde etiam, cum uis adhibetur, occidi. Unde et apostolus, cum de huius modi seminibus loqueretur: Tu, inquit, quod seminas non uiuificatur, nisi moriatur; et in psalmo scriptum est: Occidit uites eorum in grandine. Num igitur ob hoc, cum audimus: Non occides, uirgultum uellere nefas ducimus et Manichaeorum errori insanissime adquescimus?

For even this kind of things, although it does not feel, is said to live and therefore can also die, and accordingly also, when force is applied, to be killed. Whence also the apostle, when he was speaking about seeds of this kind: "You," says he, "what you sow is not vivified unless it dies"; and in the Psalm it is written: "He slew their vines in the hail." Are we then on account of this, when we hear: "You shall not kill," to reckon it a sacrilege to pluck up a shrub, and most insanely to acquiesce in the error of the Manichaeans?

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, uolatilibus natatilibus, ambulatilibus reptilibus, quia nulla nobis ratione sociantur, quam non eis datum est nobiscum habere communem (unde iustissima ordinatione creatoris et uita 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.

With these ravings therefore removed, when we read: You shall not kill, if for that reason we do not take this to have been said of shrubbery, because it has no sense, nor of irrational animals—winged, swimming, walking, creeping—because they are not associated with us by reason, which it has not been given them to have in common with us (whence by the most just ordination of the Creator both their life and their death are subjected to our uses): it remains that we understand as concerning the human being what was said: You shall not kill, neither another therefore nor yourself. For the one who kills himself kills nothing other than a human being.

[XXI] Quasdam uero exceptiones eadem ipsa diuina fecit auctoritas, ut non liceat hominem occidi. Sed his exceptis, quos Deus occidi iubet siue data lege siue 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, uerum etiam laudatus est nomine pietatis, quod uoluit 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 uouisset immolaturum Deo, quod ei redeunti de proelio uictori 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 uel lex iusta generaliter uel ipse fons iustitiae Deus specialiter occidi iubet, quisquis hominem uel se ipsum uel quemlibet occiderit, homicidii crimine innectitur.

[21] The very same divine authority, however, has made certain exceptions, to the effect that it is not lawful for a human to be killed. But with these excepted—those whom God commands to be killed, whether by a given law or by an express command to a person for a time—(nor does he himself kill who owes ministry to the one commanding, just as the sword is an aid to the one using it; and therefore by no means did they act against this precept, wherein it is said: “You shall not kill,” who, with God as author, have waged wars, or, bearing the person of the public authority according to its laws—that is, the empire of most just reason—have punished the wicked with death; and Abraham not only was not blamed with the crime of cruelty, but even was praised under the name of piety, in that he willed to kill his son not wickedly, but obediently; and it is rightly inquired whether it ought to be held as by the command of God that Jephthah killed his daughter who met her father, since he had vowed that he would immolate to God whatever should first meet him as he returned from the battle victorious; nor is Samson otherwise excused for having crushed himself with the enemies by the ruin of the house, except because the Spirit, who wrought miracles through him, had secretly commanded this)—with these, then, excepted, whom either a just law generally or God himself, the fount of justice, specially commands to be killed, whoever kills a human being—either himself or anyone whatsoever—is entangled in the crime of homicide.

[XXII] Et quicumque hoc in se ipsis perpetrauerunt, animi magnitudine fortasse mirandi, non sapientiae sanitate laudandi sunt. Quamquam si rationem diligentius consulas, ne ipsa quidem animi magnitudo recte nominabitur, ubi quisque non ualendo tolerare uel quaeque aspera uel aliena peccata se ipse interemerit. Magis enim mens infirma deprehenditur, quae ferre non potest uel duram sui corporis seruitutem uel stultam uulgi opinionem, maiorque animus merito dicendus est, qui uitam aerumnosam magis potest ferre quam fugere et humanum iudicium maximeque uulgare, quod plerumque caligine erroris inuoluitur, prae conscientiae luce ac puritate contemnere.

[22] And whoever have perpetrated this upon themselves are perhaps to be marveled at for greatness of spirit, but not to be praised for the soundness of wisdom. Although, if you consult reason more diligently, not even the very “greatness of spirit” will be rightly so named, where someone, being unable to endure either hardships of whatever sort or the sins of others, has slain himself. For rather a weak mind is detected, which cannot bear either the harsh servitude of its own body or the foolish opinion of the crowd; and a greater spirit is deservedly so called which can endure a life full of hardships rather than flee it, and can despise human judgment—especially the common sort, which is for the most part wrapped in the murk of error—in comparison with the light and purity of conscience.

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 disputauit, se praecipitem dedisse de muro atque ita ex hac uita emigrasse ad eam, quam credidit esse meliorem. Nihil enim urguebat aut calamitatis aut criminis seu uerum seu falsum, quod non ualendo ferre se auferret; sed ad capessendam mortem atque <ad> huius uitae suauia uincla 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 uel etiam praecepisset, nisi ea mente, qua inmortalitatem animae uidit, nequaquam faciendum, quin etiam prohibendum esse iudicasset.

Wherefore, if it must be thought an act of great spirit when a man thrusts death upon himself, rather is that Theombrotus found in this greatness of spirit, of whom they say that, having read Plato’s book, where he disputed about the immortality of the soul, he hurled himself headlong from a wall and thus emigrated from this life to that which he believed to be better. For nothing was pressing him either of calamity or of crime, whether true or false, on account of which, being unable to bear it, he should remove himself; but for taking hold of death and for breaking the sweet bonds of this life, there was present the greatness of spirit alone. Yet that it was done rather greatly than well, Plato himself, whom he had read, could be a witness for him; who assuredly would have done that most especially, or even have prescribed it, unless, with that mind with which he saw the immortality of the soul, he had judged it by no means to be done, nay even to be prohibited.

At enim multi se interemerunt, ne in manus hostium peruenirent. 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.

But indeed many have slain themselves, lest they should fall into the hands of enemies. We ask not only whether it has been done, but whether it ought to have been done. For sound reason is to be preferred even to examples, to which indeed examples themselves agree—but those which are so much the more worthy of imitation as they are more excellent in piety.

Non fecerunt patriarchae, non prophetae, non apostoli, quia et ipse Dominus Christus, quando eos, si persecutionem paterentur, fugere admonuit de ciuitate in ciuitatem, potuit admonere ut sibi manus inferrent, ne in manus persequentium peruenirent. Porro si hoc ille non iussit aut monuit, ut eo modo sui ex hac uita emigrarent, quibus migrantibus mansiones aeternas praeparaturum esse se promisit, quaelibet exempla proponant gentes, quae ignorant Deum, manifestum est hoc non licere colentibus unum uerum Deum.

The patriarchs did not do this, nor the prophets, nor the apostles; for even the Lord Christ, when he admonished them, if they should suffer persecution, to flee from city to city, could have admonished them to lay hands upon themselves, lest they come into the hands of their persecutors. But if he did not command or admonish this—that in that way they should migrate out of this life, to whom, as they migrate, he promised that he would prepare eternal mansions—let the nations which are ignorant of God propose whatever examples they please: it is manifest that this is not permitted to those who worship the one true God.

[XXIII] Sed tamen etiam illi praeter Lucretiam, de qua supra satis quod uidebatur diximus, non facile reperiunt de cuius auctoritate praescribant, nisi illum Catonem, qui se Vticae occidit; non quia solus id fecit, sed quia uir doctus et probus habebatur, ut merito putetur etiam recte fieri potuisse uel posse quod fecit. De cuius facto quid potissimum dicam, nisi quod amici eius etiam docti quidam uiri, qui hoc fieri prudentius dissuadebant, inbecillioris quam fortioris animi facinus esse censuerunt, quo demonstraretur non honestas turpia praecauens, sed infirmitas aduersa non sustinens? Hoc et ipse Cato in suo carissimo filio iudicauit.

[23] Yet even those men, besides Lucretia—about whom above we have said enough of what seemed fit—do not easily find one by whose authority they may prescribe, unless it be that Cato who killed himself at Utica; not because he alone did this, but because he was held to be a learned and upright man, so that it is with reason thought that what he did either could have been done rightly or can be. Of whose deed what above all shall I say, except that his friends, even certain learned men, who more prudently dissuaded this from being done, judged it a crime of a weaker rather than a stronger mind, whereby it was shown to be not honor that fore-guards against disgraceful things, but weakness that does not sustain adversities? This even Cato himself judged in the case of his own dearest son.

Nam si turpe erat sub uictoria Caesaris uiuere, 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 pugnauerat, etiam uictorem laudabiliter Torquatus occidit, cur uictus uicto filio pepercit Cato, qui non pepercit sibi?

For if it was disgraceful to live under Caesar’s victory, why was he the author of this turpitude for his son, whom he instructed to hope for everything from Caesar’s benignity? Why did he not also compel him, along with himself, to death? For if Torquatus laudably slew his son who had fought against orders upon the enemy, even though he was victorious, why did Cato, being conquered, spare his conquered son, he who did not spare himself?

An turpius erat contra imperium esse uictorem, quam contra decus ferre uictorem? Nullo modo igitur Cato turpe esse iudicauit sub uictore Caesare uiuere; alioquin ab hac turpitudine paterno ferro filium liberaret. Quid ergo, nisi quod filium quantum amauit, cui parci a Caesare et sperauit et uoluit, tantum gloriae ipsius Caesaris, ne ab illo etiam sibi parceretur, ut ipse Caesar dixisse fertur, inuidit, ut aliquid nos mitius dicamus, erubuit?

Or was it baser to be a victor against command, than to endure a victor against honor? In no wise, therefore, did Cato judge it shameful to live under the victor Caesar; otherwise he would have freed his son from this turpitude by a father’s sword. What then, except that, as much as he loved his son—whom he both hoped and wished to be spared by Caesar—so much he envied Caesar’s own glory, lest he too be spared by him, as Caesar himself is reported to have said; or, to say something milder, he was ashamed?

[XXIV] Nolunt autem isti, contra quos agimus, ut sanctum uirum Iob, qui tam horrenda mala in sua carne perpeti maluit quam inlata sibi morte omnibus carere cruciatibus, uel alios sanctos ex litteris nostris summa auctoritate celsissimis fideque dignissimis, qui captiuitatem 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 uicerat, cui uictus dedignatus est subici et, ne subiceretur, a se ipso elegit occidi: Regulus autem Poenos iam uicerat imperioque Romano Romanus imperator non ex ciuibus dolendam, sed ex hostibus laudandam uictoriam reportauerat; ab eis tamen postea uictus maluit eos ferre seruiendo quam eis se auferre moriendo. Proinde seruauit et sub Carthaginiensium dominatione patientiam et in Romanorum dilectione constantiam, nec uictum auferens corpus ab hostibus nec inuictum animum a ciuibus.

[24] But those, against whom we contend, do not want us to prefer to Cato the holy man Job, who preferred to endure such horrendous evils in his own flesh rather than, by death inflicted upon himself, be free from all torments, nor other saints from our writings, most lofty in authority and most worthy of faith, who preferred to bear captivity and the domination of enemies rather than to bring death upon themselves; but from their writings I would prefer that same Marcus Regulus to Marcus Cato. For Cato had never conquered Caesar, to whom, once conquered, he disdained to be subjected, and, lest he be subjected, chose to be slain by himself; but Regulus had already conquered the Carthaginians, and, as a Roman imperator, had brought back to the Roman imperium a victory not to be lamented over citizens but to be lauded over enemies; yet afterward, conquered by them, he preferred to bear them by serving than to remove himself from them by dying. Accordingly he preserved both patience under the domination of the Carthaginians and constancy in affection for the Romans, removing neither his conquered body from the enemies nor his unconquered spirit from his fellow citizens.

Nec quod se occidere noluit, uitae huius amore fecit. Hoc probauit, cum causa promissi iurisque iurandi ad eosdem hostes, quos grauius in senatu uerbis quam <in> bello armis offenderat, sine ulla dubitatione remeauit. Tantus itaque uitae huius contemptor, cum saeuientibus hostibus per quaslibet poenas eam finire quam se ipse perimere maluit, magnum scelus esse, si se homo interimat, procul dubio iudicauit.

Nor did he refuse to kill himself out of love for this life. He proved this when, for the sake of his promise and of his sworn oath, he returned without any hesitation to those same enemies, whom he had offended more grievously in the senate by words than in war by arms. So great a despiser, therefore, of this life—since, with the enemies raging, he preferred to end it through whatever punishments rather than to destroy himself—without doubt he judged it to be a great crime if a man does away with himself.

Inter omnes suos laudabiles et uirtutis insignibus inlustres uiros non proferunt Romani meliorem, quem neque felicitas corruperit, nam in tanta uictoria mansit pauperrimus; nec infelicitas fregerit, nam ad tanta exitia reuertit intrepidus. Porro si fortissimi et praeclarissimi uiri terrenae patriae defensores deorumque licet falsorum, non tamen fallaces cultores, sed ueracissimi etiam iuratores, qui hostes uictos more ac iure belli ferire potuerunt, hi ab hostibus uicti se ipsos ferire noluerunt et, cum mortem minime formidarent, uictores tamen dominos ferre quam eam sibi inferre maluerunt: quanto magis Christiani, uerum Deum colentes et supernae patriae suspirantes, ab hoc facinore temperabunt, si eos diuina dispositio uel probandos uel emendandos ad tempus hostibus subiugauerit, quos in illa humilitate non deserit, qui propter eos tam humiliter altissimus uenit, praesertim quos nullius militaris potestatis uel talis militiae iura constringunt ipsum hostem ferire superatum. Quis ergo tam malus error obrepit, ut homo se occidat, uel quia in eum peccauit, uel ne in eum peccet inimicus, cum uel peccatorem uel peccaturum ipsum occidere non audeat inimicum?

Among all their praiseworthy men and illustrious with the insignia of virtue, the Romans do not bring forward a better—one whom neither felicity corrupted (for amid so great a victory he remained most impoverished), nor infelicity broke (for to such destructions he returned undaunted). Moreover, if the bravest and most preclarified men, defenders of their earthly fatherland and worshippers of the gods—albeit false, yet not deceitful worshippers, but most truthful even as swearers—who could smite conquered enemies by the custom and law of war, when conquered by enemies were unwilling to smite themselves, and, though they least dreaded death, preferred to bear victors as masters rather than to inflict it upon themselves: how much more will Christians, worshipping the true God and sighing for the supernal fatherland, refrain from this crime, if the divine disposition should for a time subject them to enemies either to be proved or to be amended—those whom, in that humility, He does not desert, who, being Most High, so humbly came on their account—especially those whom the rights of no military power or of such soldiery constrain to strike the enemy himself when overcome. What, then, so evil an error creeps in, that a man should kill himself, either because the enemy has sinned against him or lest the enemy should sin against him, when he does not dare to kill the enemy himself, whether a sinner or about to sin?

[XXV] At enim timendum est et cauendum, ne libidini subditum corpus inlecebrosissima uoluptate 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.

[25] But indeed it must be feared and guarded against, lest a body subjected to lust, by the most alluring pleasure, entice the soul to consent to sin. Accordingly, they say, not now on account of another’s, but on account of his own sin, before anyone commits this, he ought to kill himself. By no means, however, will the soul do this—namely, consent to the libido of its flesh, stirred by another’s libido—which is subject rather to God and to his wisdom than to the body and to its concupiscence.

Verum tamen si detestabile facinus et damnabile scelus est etiam se ipsum hominem occidere, sicut ueritas 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 uel eas, quae non alieni, sed proprii peccati deuitandi causa, ne sub alterius libidine etiam excitatae suae forte consentiant, uim sibi, qua moriantur, inferendam putant.

But yet, if it is a detestable deed and a damnable crime even for a man to kill himself, as manifest truth proclaims, who is so foolish as to say: "Let us sin now, lest perchance we sin afterwards; let us now perpetrate homicide, lest perchance we later fall into adultery"? If iniquity so dominates that not innocence but sins are rather chosen, is it not more advisable to prefer the uncertain adultery of the future to the certain homicide of the present? Is it not better to commit a disgrace which can be healed by repenting, than such a crime where no place for health-giving penitence is left? I have said these things for the sake of those men or women who, not for the avoidance of another’s sin but of their own, lest under another’s lust they too, being aroused, perhaps consent of their own, think that violence is to be inflicted upon themselves, by which they may die.

Ceterum absit a mente Christiana, quae Deo suo fidit in eoque spe posita eius adiutorio nititur, absit, inquam, ut mens talis quibuslibet carnis uoluptatibus ad consensum turpitudinis cedat. Quod si illa concupiscentialis inoboedientia, quae adhuc in membris moribundis habitat, praeter nostrae uoluntatis legem quasi lege sua mouetur, quanto magis absque culpa est in corpore non consentientis, si absque culpa est in corpore dormientis!

Nevertheless, let it be far from the Christian mind, which trusts in its God and, with hope placed in him, leans on his aid—far be it, I say—that such a mind should yield, to whatever voluptuous pleasures of the flesh, to the consent of turpitude. But if that concupiscential inobedience, which still inhabits the moribund members, is moved beyond the law of our will as though by its own law, how much more is it without fault in the body of one not consenting, if it is without fault in the body of one sleeping!

[XXVI] Sed quaedam, inquiunt, sanctae feminae tempore persecutionis, ut insectatores suae pudicitiae deuitarent, in rapturum atque necaturum se fluuium proiecerunt eoque modo defunctae sunt earumque martyria in catholica ecclesia ueneratione celeberrima frequentantur. De his nihil temere audeo iudicare. Vtrum enim ecclesiae aliquibus fide dignis testificationibus, ut earum memoriam sic honoret, diuina persuaserit auctoritas, nescio; et fieri potest ut ita sit.

[26] But certain, they say, holy women in time of persecution, in order to avoid the pursuers of their chastity, threw themselves into a river that was about to snatch them away and kill them, and in that way they died; and their martyrdoms are celebrated in the catholic church with most renowned veneration. Concerning these I dare to judge nothing rashly. For whether by some testimonies worthy of faith the divine authority has persuaded the church thus to honor their memory, I do not know; and it can be that it is so.

Quid si enim hoc fecerunt, non humanitus deceptae, sed diuinitus 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 uocet?

But what if they did this, not deceived humanly, but divinely commanded, not erring, but obeying? just as concerning Samson it is not permitted for us to believe otherwise. And when God commands and intimates without any ambiguities that he is commanding, who would call obedience a crime?

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 ciuitatis 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.

Who would accuse the obedience of piety? But not therefore does whoever has resolved to immolate his son to God act without crime, because Abraham also did this laudably. For even a soldier, when obedient to authority, under whatever authority he is legitimately constituted, if he kills a man, by no law of his state is he guilty of homicide; nay rather, unless he does it, he is guilty of a command deserted and despised; but if he had done it of his own accord and authority, he would have incurred the crime of shed human blood.

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 uideat utrum diuina iussio nullo nutet incerto.

Therefore, on the same grounds on which he is punished if he has done it unbidden, on those grounds he will be punished unless he has done it when bidden. And if this is so with the emperor commanding, how much more with the Creator commanding! Whoever therefore hears that it is not permitted to kill, let him do it, if he who may not have his commands contemned has ordered it; only let him see whether the divine command does not waver in any uncertainty.

Nos per aurem conscientiam conuenimus, 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 uelut fugiendo molestias temporales, ne incidat in perpetuas; neminem propter aliena peccata, ne hoc ipso incipiat habere grauissimum proprium, quem non polluebat alienum; neminem propter sua peccata praeterita, propter quae magis hac uita opus est, ut possint paenitendo sanari; neminem uelut desiderio uitae melioris, quae post mortem speratur, quia reos suae mortis melior post mortem uita non suscipit.

By the ear of conscience we come to agreement; we do not usurp for ourselves the judgment of hidden things. No one knows what is done in a human being except the spirit of the human being which is in him. This we say, this we assert, this by all means we approve: that no one ought to inflict voluntary death upon himself as though fleeing temporal troubles, lest he fall into perpetual ones; no one on account of others’ (alien) sins, lest by this very act he begin to have a most grievous one of his own, whom the alien did not pollute; no one on account of his own past sins, for which rather there is need of this life, that they may be healed by repenting; no one as if from desire of a better life, which is hoped for after death, because a better life after death does not receive those guilty of their own death.

[XXVII] Restat una causa, de qua dicere coeperam, qua utile putatur, ut se quisque interficiat, scilicet ne in peccatum inruat uel blandiente uoluptate uel dolore saeuiente. Quam causam si uoluerimus admittere, eo usque progressa perueniet, ut hortandi sint homines tunc se potius interimere, cum lauacro sanctae regenerationis abluti uniuersorum remissionem acceperint peccatorum. Tunc enim tempus est cauendi omnia futura peccata, cum sunt omnia deleta praeterita.

[27] One cause remains, of which I had begun to speak, by which it is thought useful that one should put oneself to death—namely, lest one rush into sin either with coaxing voluptuousness or with raging pain. If we should be willing to admit that cause, it will have advanced so far as to arrive at this: that men ought then rather to be urged to kill themselves when, washed in the laver of holy regeneration, they have received the remission of all sins. For then is the time of guarding against all future sins, when all past ones have been obliterated.

Quod si morte spontanea recte fit, cur non tunc potissimum fit? Cur baptizatus sibi quisque parcit? Cur liberatum caput tot rursus uitae huius periculis inserit, cum sit facillimae potestatis inlata sibi nece omnia deuitare scriptumque sit: Qvti amat periculum, incidet in illud?

But if by spontaneous death it is rightly done, why is it not then above all done? Why does each baptized person spare himself? Why does he, his head liberated, insert it again into so many perils of this life, since it is within the very easiest power to avoid all things by death inflicted upon oneself, and it is written: He who loves danger will fall into it?

Cur ergo amantur tot et tanta pericula uel certe, etiamsi non amantur, suscipiuntur, cum manet in hac uita, cui abscedere licitum est? An uero tam insulsa peruersitas cor euertit et a consideratione ueritatis auertit, ut, si se quisque interimere debet, ne unius captiuantis dominatu conruat in peccatum, uiuendum sibi existimet, ut ipsum perferat mundum per omnes horas temptationibus plenum, et talibus, qualis sub uno domino formidatur, et innumerabilibus ceteris, sine quibus haec uita non ducitur? Quid igitur causae est, cur in eis exhortationibus tempora consumamus, quibus baptizatos adloquendo studemus accendere siue ad uirginalem integritatem siue ad continentiam uidualem siue 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?

Why, then, are so many and so great dangers loved, or at least, even if they are not loved, undertaken, when there remains this life, from which it is permitted to withdraw? Or truly does so insipid a perversity overturn the heart and turn it away from the consideration of truth, that, if each man ought to kill himself lest he collapse into sin under the dominion of a single captor, he deems he must live so as to endure the world itself, at every hour full of temptations—both such as are feared under one lord, and innumerable others, without which this life is not carried on? What cause, then, is there why we should consume our time in those exhortations by which, addressing the baptized, we strive to inflame them either to virginal integrity, or to widowed continence, or to the very fidelity of the conjugal bed, when we have better compendia, removed from all dangers of sin: namely, that, to whomever after the most recent remission of sins we shall have been able to persuade that death is to be seized and inflicted upon themselves, we may send them to the Lord sounder and purer?

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 grauius, dum uiuis sub domino barbaris moribus inpudico," qui non potest nisi sceleratissime dicere: "Interfice te peccatis tuis omnibus absolutis, ne rursus talia uel etiam peiora committas, dum uiuis in mundo tot inpuris uoluptatibus 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 uero nec ista est, ergo nulla est.

Moreover, if anyone who thinks this ought to be undertaken and urged—I do not say is senseless, but is insane: with what face does he say to a man, “Kill yourself, lest you add something graver to your small sins, while you live under a master of barbarous manners, unchaste,” he who cannot say except most criminally, “Kill yourself, with all your sins absolved, lest you again commit such things or even worse, while you live in a world alluring with so many impure pleasures, raging with so many nefarious cruelties, hostile with so many errors and terrors”? Since it is nefarious to say this, it is assuredly nefarious to kill oneself. For if any just cause could exist for doing this of one’s own accord, none would be more just than this. But since not even this is [just], therefore none is.

[XXVIII] Non itaque uobis, o fideles Christi, sit taedio uita uestra, si ludibrio fuit hostibus castitas uestra. Habetis magnam ueramque consolationem, si fidam conscientiam retinetis non uos consensisse peccatis eorum, qui in uos peccare permissi sunt. Quod si forte, cur permissi sint, quaeritis, alta quidem est prouidentia creatoris mundi atque rectoris, et inscrowtabilia sunt iudicia eius et inuestigabiles uiae eius.. uerum tamen interrogate fideliter animas uestras, ne forte de isto integritatis et continentiae uel pudicitiae bono uos inflatius extulistis et humanis laudibus delectatae in hoc etiam aliquibus inuidistis.

[28] Therefore, let not your life, O faithful of Christ, be a tedium to you, if your chastity has been for derision to enemies. You have great and true consolation, if you retain a faithful conscience that you did not consent to the sins of those who were permitted to sin against you. But if perchance you ask why they were permitted, high indeed is the providence of the creator and rector of the world, and his judgments are inscrutable and his ways uninvestigable.. yet nevertheless question your souls faithfully, lest perhaps, on account of this good of integrity and continence or pudicity, you have exalted yourselves more inflatedly, and, delighted by human praises, have even envied certain persons in this.

Non accuso quod nescio, nec audio quod uobis interrogata uestra corda respondent. Tamen si ita esse responderint, nolite admirari hoc uos amisisse, unde hominibus placere gestistis, illud uobis remansisse, quod ostendi hominibus non potest. Si peccantibus non consensistis, diuinae gratiae, ne amitteretur, diuinum accessit auxilium; humanae gloriae, ne amaretur, humanum successit opprobrium.

I do not accuse what I do not know, nor do I hear what your hearts, when questioned by you, answer. Yet if they have answered that it is so, do not marvel that you have lost that whereby you were eager to please men, while that has remained to you which cannot be shown to men. If you did not consent to those sinning, to divine grace—lest it be lost—there was added divine aid; to human glory—lest it be loved—there ensued human opprobrium.

In utroque consolamini, pusillanimes, illinc probatae hinc castigatae, illinc iustificatae hinc eme

In both take consolation, faint-hearted ones, from there approved, from here chastised, from there justified, from here eme

atae. Quarum uero corda interrogata respondent numquam se de bono uirginitatis uel uiduitatis uel 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 ueluti pondera malarum cupiditatum et per occultum praesens diuinum iudicium relaxantur et manifesto ultimo reseruantur.

mended. But those whose hearts, when questioned, answer that they have never grown proud because of the good of virginity or widowhood or conjugal pudicity, but, by consenting with the humble, have exulted with trembling over the gift of God; and that they have not envied anyone the equal excellence of sanctity and chastity, but, with human praise set aside—which is wont to be bestowed the greater, the rarer is the good that demands praise—have rather wished that their number be larger than that they themselves should stand out more in their fewness: not even these, who are such, if barbaric lust has also overpowered some of them, should plead that this was permitted, nor therefore believe that God neglects such things, because he permits what no one commits with impunity. For certain, as it were, weights of evil cupidities are both relaxed by the present hidden divine judgment and reserved for the manifest final one.

Fortassis autem istae, quae bene sibi sunt consciae non se ex isto castitatis bono cor inflatum extulisse, et tamen uim 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 ui raptum est, ne prosperitas mutaret modestiam earum. Vtrisque igitur, quae de carne sua, quod turpem nullius esset perpessa contactum, uel iam superbiebant uel superbire, si nec hostium uiolentia contrectata esset, forsitan poterant, non ablata est castitas, sed humilitas persuasa; illarum tumori succursum est inmanenti, istarum occursum est inminenti.

Perhaps, however, those women who are well conscious in themselves that they did not, from this good of chastity, lift up an inflated heart, and yet have suffered hostile force in the flesh, had some latent infirmity which could be raised into the arrogance of superbia, if they had escaped that devastation with this humility. Just as, therefore, certain persons have been snatched away by death, lest malice should change their intellect, so a certain thing was snatched by force from these, lest prosperity should change their modesty. To both, then—who, concerning their flesh, on the ground that it had suffered the foul contact of no one, either were already becoming proud, or could perhaps become proud, if it had not been handled by the enemies’ violentia—chastity was not taken away, but humility was persuaded; for those, aid was brought to a swelling that was abiding; for these, it was met as imminent.

Quamquam et illud non sit tacendum, quod quibusdam, quae ista perpessae sunt, potuit uideri continentiae bonum in bonis corporalibus deputandum et tunc manere, si nullius libidine corpus adtrectaretur; non autem esse positum in solo adiuto diuinitus robore uoluntatis, 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, uident esse consequens nequaquam illum fuisse permissurum, ut haec acciderent sanctis suis, si eo modo perire posset sanctitas, quam contulit eis et diligit in eis.

Although this too should not be kept silent: that to certain ones who have suffered these things it could have seemed that the good of continence ought to be reckoned among corporal goods and to remain then, if the body were not handled by anyone’s lust; but that it is not set in the strength of the will aided by divinity alone, so that both body and spirit be holy; nor that it is such a good as cannot be carried off against an unwilling mind; which error perhaps has been removed from them. For when they consider with what conscience they have served God, and with unshaken faith do not think this of him—that he could in any way have deserted those thus serving him and invoking him—and cannot doubt how greatly chastity is pleasing to him, they see it to follow that by no means would he have permitted these things to befall his saints, if in that way the sanctity could perish which he has conferred upon them and loves in them.

[XXIX] Habet itaque omnis familia summi et ueri Dei consolationem suam, non fallacem nec in spe rerum nutantium uel labentium constitutam, uitamque etiam ipsam temporalem minime paenitendam, in qua eruditur ad aeternam, bonisque terrenis tamquam peregrina utitur nec capitur, malis autem aut probatur aut emendatur. Illi uero, 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 euitandis eos uel colunt uel colendos esse contendunt. Nam ista respondet: Deus meus ubique praesens, ubique totus, nusquam inclusus, qui possit

[29] Therefore every household of the Most High and true God has its own consolation, not fallacious nor established in the hope of things wavering or slipping, and even temporal life itself is by no means to be repented of, in which it is instructed for the eternal, and it uses earthly goods as a pilgrim and is not captured, while by evils it is either proved or amended. But those who insult its probity and say to it, when perhaps it has come into some temporal evils: Where is your God? let them themselves say where their gods are, when they suffer such things, to avoid which they either worship them or contend that they are to be worshiped. For this one replies: My God, present everywhere, entire everywhere, enclosed nowhere, who can

adesse secretus, abesse non motus; ille cum me aduersis rebus exagitat, aut merita examinat aut peccata castigat mercedemque mihi aeternam pro toleratis pie malis temporalibus seruat; uos 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.

to be present in secret, to be absent unmoved; when he buffets me with adverse affairs, he either examines merits or chastises sins, and he keeps for me an eternal reward for temporal evils piously endured; but who are you, with whom it is worthy to speak at least about your gods, how much less about my God, who is terrible over all gods, since <all> the gods of the nations are demons, but the Lord made the heavens.

[XXX] Si Nasica ille Scipio uester quondam pontifex uiueret, quem sub terrore belli Punici in suscipiendis Phrygiis sacris, cum uir optimus quaereretur, uniuersus senatus elegit, cuius os fortasse non auderetis aspicere, ipse uos ab hac inpudentia cohiberet. Cur enim adflicti rebus aduersis 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 uarietas uoluptatum insanis effusionibus exquiratur, secundisque rebus ea mala oriantur in moribus, quae saeuientibus peiora sunt hostibus.

[XXX] If that Nasica Scipio of yours, once a pontiff, were living—whom, under the terror of the Punic war, when a “best man” was being sought for the undertaking of the Phrygian rites, the whole senate chose, whose countenance perhaps you would not dare to look upon—he himself would restrain you from this impudence. For why, when you are afflicted by adverse circumstances, do you complain about Christian times, if not because you desire to have your luxury secure, and to let your most depraved morals flow loose, every asperity of troubles removed? For you do not therefore desire to have peace and to abound in every kind of supplies, in order that you may use these goods honestly—that is, modestly, soberly, temperately, piously—but rather that an infinite variety of pleasures may be sought out by insane effusions, and that in prosperous conditions there may arise in morals those evils which are worse than enemies in their rage.

At ille Scipio pontifex maximus uester, ille iudicio totius senatus uir optimus, istam uobis metuens calamitatem nolebat aemulam tunc imperii Romani Carthaginem dirui et decernenti ut dirueretur contradicebat Catoni, timens infirmis animis hostem securitatem et tamquam pupillis ciuibus idoneum tutorem necessarium uidens esse terrorem. Nec eum sententia fefellit: re ipsa probatum est quam uerum 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 saeuis cruentisque seditionibus, deinde mox malarum conexione causarum bellis etiam ciuilibus tantae strages ederentur, tantus sanguis effunderetur, tanta cupiditate proscriptionum ac rapinarum ferueret inmanitas, ut Romani illi, qui uita integriore mala metuebant ab hostibus, perdita integritate uitae crudeliora paterentur a ciuibus; eaque ipsa libido dominandi, quae inter alia uitia generis humani meracior inerat uniuerso populo Romano, postea quam in paucis potentioribus uicit, obtritos fatigatosque ceteros etiam iugo seruitutis oppressit.

But that Scipio, your pontifex maximus, that man, by the judgment of the whole senate the best man, fearing this calamity for you, did not wish Carthage—then the emulous rival of the Roman imperium—to be destroyed, and he contradicted Cato when he decreed that it should be destroyed, fearing that security is an enemy to weak souls, and seeing that for citizens as if wards terror was a suitable and necessary guardian. Nor did his opinion deceive him: in the very fact it was proved how truly he spoke. For Carthage having been destroyed, with the great terror of the Roman res publica of course repelled and extinguished, such great evils, arising from prosperous affairs, immediately followed in succession that, concord being first corrupted and torn apart by savage and bloody seditions, then soon, by the linkage of evil causes, even by civil wars such slaughters were wrought, so much blood was poured out, such inhumanity boiled with the lust for proscriptions and rapines, that those Romans who, with a more integral life, had feared evils from enemies, with the integrity of life lost, suffered more cruel things from their own citizens; and that very libido of dominating, which, more unadulterated than among other vices of the human race, was inherent in the whole Roman people, after it prevailed in a few more powerful men, crushed and wearied the rest and oppressed them also with the yoke of servitude.

[XXXI] Nam quando illa quiesceret in superbissimis mentibus, donec continuatis honoribus ad potestatem regiam perueniret? Honorum porro continuandorum facultas non esset, nisi ambitio praeualeret. Minime autem praeualeret ambitio, nisi in populo auaritia luxuriaque corrupto.

[31] For when would that lust of domination come to rest in the most arrogant minds, until, by honors continued in succession, it should arrive at royal power? Moreover, the facility for continuing honors would not exist, unless ambition prevailed. And by no means would ambition prevail, unless the people were corrupted by avarice and luxury.

Auarus uero luxuriosusque populus secundis rebus effectus est, quas Nasica°Å ille prouidentissime cauendas esse censebat, quando ciuitatem hostium maximam fortissimam opulentissimam nolebat auferri, ut timore libido premeretur, libido pressa non luxuriaretur luxuriaque cohibita nec auaritia grassaretur; quibus uitiis obseratis ciuitati utilis uirtus floreret et cresceret eique uirtuti libertas congrua permaneret. Hinc etiam erat et ex hac prouidentissima patriae caritate ueniebat, quod idem ipse uester pontifex maximus, a senatu illius temporis (quod saepe dicendum est) electus sine ulla sententiarum discrepantia uir optimus, caueam theatri senatum construere molientem ab hac dispositione et cupiditate compescuit persuasitque oratione grauissima, ne Graecam luxuriam uirilibus patriae moribus paterentur obrepere et ad uirtutem labefactandam eneruandamque Romanam peregrinae consentire nequitiae, tantumque auctoritate ualuit, ut uerbis eius commota senatoria prouidentia etiam subsellia, quibus ad horam congestis in ludorum spectaculo iam uti ciuitas 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!

A truly avaricious and luxurious people is produced by prosperous circumstances—circumstances which that Nasica most providently judged ought to be guarded against, in that he did not wish the greatest, bravest, most opulent city of the enemies to be removed, so that libido might be pressed by fear, libido when pressed might not luxuriate, and luxury being restrained, neither might avarice run rampant; with which vices barred, a useful virtue for the commonwealth would flower and grow, and for that virtue a congruent liberty would abide. Hence too, and from this most provident love of the fatherland, it came that this same your pontifex maximus—chosen by the senate of that time (as must often be said), without any discrepancy of opinions, a most excellent man—restrained the senate, which was attempting to construct the cavea of a theater, from this arrangement and cupidity, and by a most weighty oration persuaded them not to allow Greek luxury to creep into the manly morals of the fatherland, and not to consent to foreign naughtiness for the undermining and enervating of Roman virtue; and he so prevailed by his authority that, the senatorial providence being moved by his words, it even forbade thereafter that the benches be set out, which, piled up for the hour, the city had already begun to use in the spectacle of the games. With how great zeal would that man have removed from the city of Rome the very scenic games, if he dared to resist the authority of those whom he supposed to be gods—whom he did not understand to be noxious demons, or, if he did understand it, he judged that they ought even by himself to be appeased rather than despised!

Nondum enim fuerat declarata gentibus superna doctrina, quae fide cor mundans ad caelestia uel supercaelestia capessenda humili pietate humanum mutaret affectum et a dominatu superborum daemonum liberaret.

For the supernal doctrine had not yet been declared to the peoples, which, cleansing the heart by faith, by humble piety would transform the human affection to the undertaking of the celestial or even the supercelestial, and would free humankind from the dominion of proud demons.

[XXXII] Verum tamen scitote, qui ista nescitis et qui uos scire dissimulatis, aduertite, qui aduersus liberatorem a talibus dominis murmuratis: ludi scaenici, spectacula turpitudinum et licentia uanitatum, non hominum uitiis, sed deorum uestrorum iussis Romae instituti sunt. Tolerabilius diuinos honores deferretis illi Scipioni quam deos huius modi coleretis. Neque enim erant illi dii suo pontifice meliores.

[32] But nevertheless know this, you who do not know these things and you who pretend not to know; take heed, you who murmur against the liberator from such masters: the scenic games, spectacles of turpitudes and the license of vanities, were instituted at Rome not by the vices of men, but by the orders of your gods. More tolerably would you confer divine honors upon that Scipio than worship gods of this sort. For those gods were not better than their own pontiff.

Ecce adtendite, si mens tam diu potatis erroribus ebria uos aliquid sanum cogitare permittit! Dii propter sedandam corporum pestilentiam ludos sibi scaenicos exhiberi iubebant; pontifex autem propter animorum cauendam cauendam pestilentiam ipsam scaenam constitui prohibebat. Si aliqua luce mentis animum corpori praeponitis, eligite quem colatis!

Behold, attend, if a mind inebriated by errors, after so long a quaffing, permits you to think anything sound! The gods, for the soothing of the pestilence of bodies, were commanding that theatrical games be exhibited for themselves; but the pontiff, for the pestilence of souls to be guarded, to be guarded, was forbidding that the stage itself be constituted. If with any light of mind you set the soul before the body, choose whom you will worship!

Neque enim et illa corporum pestilentia ideo conquieuit, quia populo bellicoso et solis antea ludis circensibus adsueto ludorum scaenicorum delicata subintrauit insania; sed astutia spirituum nefandorum praeuidens illam pestilentiam iam fine debito cessaturam aliam longe grauiorem, qua plurimum gaudet, ex [hac] occasione non corporibus, sed moribus curauit inmittere, quae animos miserorum tantis obcaecauit tenebris, tanta deformitate foedauit, 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 peruenire potuerunt, in theatris cotidie certatim pro histrionibus insanirent.

For neither did that pestilence of bodies therefore grow quiet because, into a bellicose people accustomed previously only to the circus games, there stealthily insinuated itself the delicate madness of scenic games; but the astuteness of abominable spirits, foreseeing that pestilence about to cease at its due end, took care from [this] occasion to inject another far more grievous one—which it greatly delights in—not into bodies, but into morals; which so blinded the minds of the wretched with such great darkness, so befouled them with such great deformity, that even now (which perhaps will be incredible, if it is heard by our posterity), with the Roman city laid waste, those whom that pestilence possessed and who, fleeing thence, were able to arrive at Carthage, in the theaters daily vied in frenzy for the actors.

[XXXIII] O mentes amentes! quis est hic tantus non error, sed furor, ut exitium uestrum, sicut audiuimus, plangentibus orientalibus populis et maximis ciuitatibus in remotissimis terris publicum luctum maeroremque ducentibus uos theatra quaereretis intraretis impleretis et multo insaniora quam fuerant antea faceretis? Hanc animorum labem ac pestem, hanc probitatis et honestatis euersionem uobis Scipio ille metuebat, quando construi theatra prohibebat, quando rebus prosperis uos facile corrumpi atque euerti posse cernebat, quando uos securos esse ab hostili terrore nolebat.

[33] O demented minds! what is this so great—not error, but fury—that your destruction, as we have heard, while the eastern peoples were lamenting, and the greatest cities in the most remote lands were leading public mourning and grief, you would seek, enter, fill the theaters, and make them much more insane than they had been before? This taint and pestilence of souls, this overthrow of probity and honesty, that Scipio feared for you, when he forbade theaters to be built, when he discerned that in prosperous circumstances you could easily be corrupted and overturned, when he did not wish you to be secure from hostile terror.

Neque enim censebat ille felicem esse rem publicam stantibus moenibus, ruentibus moribus. Sed in uobis plus ualuit quod daemones impii seduxerunt, quam quod homines prouidi praecauerunt. Hinc est quod mala, quae facitis, uobis inputari non uultis, mala uero, quae patimini, Christianis temporibus inputatis.

For he did not deem that republic happy with the walls standing and the morals collapsing. But in you, what impious demons have seduced has prevailed more than what provident men have taken precautions against. Hence it is that you do not wish the evils which you do to be imputed to yourselves, but the evils which you suffer you impute to the Christian times.

Neque enim in uestra securitate pacatam rem publicam, sed luxuriam quaeritis inpunitam, qui deprauati rebus prosperis nec corrigi potuistis aduersis. Volebat uos 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.

Nor indeed in your security do you seek a pacified republic, but an unpunished luxury, you who, depraved by prosperous circumstances, could not be corrected by adverse ones. That Scipio wanted you to be terrified by the enemy, lest you flow into luxury: nor, crushed by the enemy, did you repress luxury; you lost the utility of calamity, and you have become most miserable and have remained most wicked.

[XXXIV] Et tamen quod uiuitis Dei est, qui uobis parcendo admonet, ut corrigamini paenitendo; qui uobis etiam ingratis praestitit ut uel sub nomine seruorum eius uel 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 ciuitatis. Mirandum in honorem Christi processit exemplum.

[34] And yet that you live is of God, who by sparing you admonishes you, that you may be corrected by repenting; who has also, even to you ungrateful, granted that either under the name of his servants or in the places of his martyrs you might evade hostile hands. Romulus and Remus are reported to have constituted an asylum, to which whoever fled would be free from all harm, seeking to augment the multitude of the city to be created. A wondrous example has come forth in honor of Christ.

Hoc constituerunt euersores Vrbis, quod constituerant antea conditores. Quid autem magnum, si hoc fecerunt illi, ut ciuium suorum numerus suppleretur, quod fecerunt isti, ut suorum hostium numerositas seruaretur?

This the overthrowers of the City constituted, which the founders had previously constituted. And what great thing is it, if those men did this so that the number of their citizens might be supplemented, which these men did so that the numerosity of their enemies might be preserved?

[XXXV] Haec et alia, si qua uberius et commodius potuerit, respondeat inimicis suis redempta familia domini Christi et peregrina ciuitas regis Christi. Meminerit sane in ipsis inimicis latere ciues futuros, ne infructuosum uel apud ipsos putet, quod, donec perueniat ad confessos, portat infensos; sicut ex illorum numero etiam Dei ciuitas 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 aduersus 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 aduersarios praedestinati amici latitant, adhuc ignoti etiam sibi.

[35] Let the redeemed household of the Lord Christ and the peregrine city of the King Christ answer to its enemies these things and others, if it can do so more abundantly and more commodiously. Let it surely remember that in those very enemies future citizens lie hidden, lest it deem fruitless, even with them, that which, until it reaches the confessors, bears with the hostile; just as from their number also the City of God has with it, so long as it sojourns in the world, men connected by the communion of the sacraments, yet not going to be with it in the eternal lot of the saints—who are partly in secret, partly in the open, who also, together with those very enemies, do not hesitate to murmur against God, whose sacrament they bear, now filling theaters with them, now churches with us. But concerning the correction of certain even such as these, there is much less reason to despair, if among the most open adversaries predestined friends lie hidden, as yet unknown even to themselves.

Perplexae quippe sunt istae duae ciuitates in hoc saeculo inuicemque permixtae, donec ultimo iudicio dirimantur; de quarum exortu et procursu et debitis finibus quod dicendum arbitror, quantum diuinitus adiuuabor, expediam propter gloriam ciuitatis Dei, quae alienis a contrario comparatis clarius eminebit.

For indeed these two cities are entangled and mutually intermixed in this age, until they are separated by the last judgment; about whose origin and course and due boundaries I will set forth what I judge should be said, insofar as I shall be divinely aided, for the glory of the City of God, which will stand out more clearly when compared with alien things set in contrary array.

[XXXVI] Sed adhuc mihi quaedam dicenda sunt aduersus eos, qui Romanae rei publicae clades in religionem nostram referunt, qua diis suis sacrificare prohibentur. Commemoranda sunt enim quae et quanta occurrere poterunt uel satis esse uidebuntur mala, quae illa ciuitas pertulit uel ad eius imperium prouinciae pertinentes, antequam eorum sacrificia prohibita fuissent; quae omnia procul dubio nobis tribuerent, si iam uel illis clareret nostra religio, uel ita eos a sacris sacrilegis prohiberet. Deinde monstrandum est, quos eorum mores et quam ob causam Deus uerus ad augendum imperium adiuuare dignatus est, in cuius potestate sunt regna omnia, quamque nihil eos adiuuerint hi, quos deos putant, et potius quantum decipiendo et fallendo nocuerint.

[36] But still certain things must be said by me against those who refer the disasters of the Roman commonwealth to our religion, by which they are forbidden to sacrifice to their gods. For there must be commemorated the evils—what and how great— that can occur or will seem sufficient to recall, which that city endured, as also the provinces pertaining to its imperium, before their sacrifices had been prohibited; all of which, without doubt, they would attribute to us, if already either our religion were clear to them, or in such a way prohibited them from sacrilegious rites. Then it must be shown what their mores were, and for what cause the true God deigned to aid in augmenting the empire, in whose power are all kingdoms, and how those whom they think gods have helped them not at all, and rather how much by deceiving and deluding they have harmed them.

Postremo aduersus eos dicetur, qui manifestissimis documentis confutati atque conuicti conantur asserere non propter uitae 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 uerus mundum condiderit et de prouidentia eius, qua uniuersum 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 uiribus, quas Deus inpertiet, asseramus ciuitatem Dei ueramque pietatem et Dei cultum, in quo uno ueraciter sempiterna beatitudo promittitur.

Finally, there will be speech against those who, confuted and convicted by most manifest proofs, strive to assert that the gods are to be worshiped not on account of the utility of the present life, but on account of that which will be after death. Which question, unless I am mistaken, will be much more laborious and more worthy of a subtler disputation, so that therein discussion may be carried on also against the philosophers—not just any, but those who among them are renowned with most excellent glory and agree with us on many points: both concerning the immortality of the soul, and that the true God founded the world, and concerning His providence, by which He rules the whole universe that He founded. But since they too must be refuted in those matters wherein they think against us, we ought not to be lacking to this office, so that, the impious contradictions having been refuted, to the extent of our powers, which God will impart, we may assert the City of God and true piety and the worship of God, in which alone everlasting beatitude is truly promised.

Hic itaque modus sit huius uoluminis, ut deinceps disposita ab alio sumamus exordio.

Let this, then, be the limit of this volume, that hereafter we may take up the arranged matters from another exordium.