Книга первая

Refutes the pagans who attributed the disasters of the empire, especially the last devastation of Rome by the Goths, to the Christian religion, which prohibits the cult of the gods. He talks about the prosperity and adversity that were at that time, as usual, common to both good and evil people. It curbs the arrogance of those who reproached Christianity with the rape of Christian women by soldiers. Preface. About the purpose and content of the undertaken essay In this work, my dear son Marcellinus, conceived by you, and for me, by virtue of the promise I made, obligatory, I set it as my task to defend the city of God, most glorious both in this course of time, when it wanders among the wicked, “living by faith” (Habakk. 2:4), and in that eternal life, which now it “awaits with patience” (Rom. 8:25), believing that “judgment will return to righteousness” (Ps. 93:15), and which he will acquire, due to its undoubted superiority, to defend against those who place their gods above his Founder. This work is great and hard; but “God is our refuge” (Ps. 61:9). I know what strength is needed to convince the proud, how great is the valor of humility, thanks to which all earthly greatness, wavering from the impermanence of time, is surpassed not by the height assigned to itself by human arrogance, but by that which is bestowed by divine grace. For the King and Founder of this city, about which we are planning to talk, revealed to His people in Scripture the definition of the divine law, which says: “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6; 1 Pet. 5:5). But what belongs to God alone, the arrogant spirit of a proud soul also tries to appropriate to itself, and loves to be credited with glory. Spare the humble, overthrowing the proud. 5 Therefore, as far as the work I have undertaken requires it and as far as it seems possible, it is impossible to pass over in silence the earthly city, which, striving for domination, is itself under the power of this passion to dominate, although people worship it. Chapter 1. About the enemies of the name of Christ, whom the barbarians during the devastation of Rome spared for the sake of Christ From this city come the enemies from whom we must defend the city of God. Many of them, however, having corrected the error of wickedness, become quite respectable citizens of the city, but many are so inflamed with hatred of it and so ungrateful to the obvious benefits of its Redeemer that they now raise their tongues against him even because, by avoiding the enemy’s sword, they saved a life of which they are proud in its sacred places. 6 Are it not precisely those Romans whom the barbarians spared for the sake of Christ who turn out to be hostile to the name of Christ? This is evidenced by the places of martyrs and the basilica of the apostles, which during the devastation of Rome protected both their own and strangers. A bloodthirsty enemy was raging at their doorstep; there the murderer's fury stopped; there, compassionate enemies brought those who were spared outside these places, so that others who did not have such compassion would not attack them. Even among those of them who killed and savaged enemies in other places according to the custom, and among those who, after they came to places where things were prohibited that were permitted in other places by the law of war, all their ferocity was tamed and their greed for spoils of war disappeared. In this way, many survived, now humiliating Christian times and blaming Christ for all the disasters that their city experienced, and attribute those blessings of life that were given to them in honor of Christ not to our Christ, but to their fate. Meanwhile, if they had at least some common sense, they would have to attribute everything that they suffered from their harsh and cruel enemies to divine providence, which usually corrects and smoothes out the morals of people corrupted by wars, while at the same time exercising the just and praiseworthy life of mortals through these defeats and, after testing, either transfers them to a better world, or keeps them on this earth for the benefit of others. And the fact that the bloodthirsty barbarians, contrary to the custom of war, spared them for the sake of the name of Christ in places dedicated to the name of Christ - this should have been attributed to them by Christian times. And for this they should have thanked God, and in order to avoid punishment by eternal fire, sincerely resort to His name, a name that many used falsely, in order to avoid inevitable death. Indeed, among those whom you see so boldly and brazenly mocking the servants of Christ, there are very many who would not have escaped this death and extermination if they had not falsely presented themselves as the servants of Christ. And so, in their ungrateful pride and the most wicked madness, in order to receive punishment with eternal darkness, they rebel with their perverted hearts against His name, the name to which they resorted with their crafty lips in order to use temporary light! Chapter 2. That no wars have ever been waged in such a way that the victors spared the conquered for the sake of the gods of those whom they defeated Many wars are described that were fought both before the founding of Rome and after, including during the times of the empire: let them read and say whether any city was taken by foreigners in such a way that the enemies who took it spared those who were found hiding in the churches of their gods; or that some barbarian leader, having burst into a city, command not to kill anyone who would flee to this or that church? Didn't Aeneas see how Priam did on the altar? For after that Did he desecrate the consecrated fire with his blood? 7 Or is it not Diomedes and Ulysses The guards of the sacred church were killed and stolen The most holy image; hands covered in blood, Did you dare touch the goddess’s clean bandages? 8 And yet, it was not true, as stated below: After that, the hope of the Achaeans weakened, for after that they were victorious; after that they destroyed Troy with fire and sword; after that they beheaded Priam, who sought refuge at the altars. What then did Minerva herself lose before this, that she died? Aren't they their guards? Indeed, it could only be taken away after they were killed. After all, it was not the statue that protected the people, but the people – the statue. Why then did they pray to her to protect her homeland and citizens, if she did not even have the strength to preserve her guards? Chapter 3. How foolishly the Romans believed that the gods of the Penates, who could not save Troy, could benefit them And the Romans were consoled that they entrusted their city to such gods for protection! Oh, what a pitiful delusion! And at the same time they are offended at us for saying such things about their gods, but not at our writers; Moreover, a reward was awarded for studying them, and the teachers themselves, moreover, were considered worthy of both public salary and high rank. Meanwhile, in Virgil, whom small children read because he is the greatest of poets, the most famous and the best, and therefore it is necessary to study him at a tender age, since what is learned by young souls is remembered more firmly, as Horace says in his famous saying: A new clay vessel can hold for a long time - in this same Virgil, Juno, who hates the Trojans, is represented speaking to Aeolus, the king of the winds, the following words, aimed at arousing his anger against them: A hostile race is sailing on the Tyrrhenian Sea, Three sons who carry the defeated Penates. 10 Should wise men have entrusted Rome to these defeated Penates in order to make it invincible? But Juno, they will object to us, said this like an irritated woman who does not know what she is saying. And Aeneas himself, called pious in all respects, says this: Here is Panteas Otriad, the church and Phoebus servant With his sacred hand he drags the vanquished gods and his grandson Small; Having lost his way, he heads towards home? 11 Is it not the gods, whom he has no doubt about calling vanquished, that he represents rather as being entrusted to him than himself as being entrusted to them, when they address him with such a speech: Does Ilion entrust you with both its penates and its shrine? 12 If, then, Virgil says that the gods are such that they were conquered, that they were entrusted to man, so that, as conquered, they could depart in any way, how foolish it is to consider it wisdom that Rome was entrusted to such guardians: as if it could not have been devastated if it had not abandoned them? And to worship defeated gods as rulers and protectors, doesn’t it mean, instead of good hopes for a deity, to become under bad omens? It is much more reasonable to believe not that Rome would not have reached such a disaster if they had not perished first, but that they would have perished a long time ago if Rome itself had not protected them as best it could. For who, having delved into the essence of the matter, will not understand how frivolously the prejudice was formed that Rome could not be defeated under the protection of the vanquished and therefore perished because it lost its guardian gods, when a sufficient cause of death could even be the fact that it wanted to have guardians who were threatened with death. So, when the above was written and sung about the gods, it was not an invention of the poets: it was the truth itself that forced reasonable people to say. But we will talk about this in more detail elsewhere. In the present case, I will dwell in more detail on the behavior of those ungrateful people who blasphemously blame Christ for the evil they deservedly endured due to the depravity of their morals, and do not deign to pay attention to the fact that they, even such, were given mercy for the sake of Christ; in the madness of sacrilegious insolence they exercise their tongues, blaspheming the name of Christ, the tongues with which they falsely pronounced this holy name in order to remain alive, or at least to keep them in places dedicated to Him, so that where for His sake the enemies left them inviolable, they would be safe under His protection; but as soon as the danger had passed, they hastened to get out of there and come out with hostile slander against Him. Chapter 4. About the refuge of Juno in Troy, which did not save anyone from the Greeks, and about the basilicas of the apostles, which protected from the barbarians all who sought refuge in them As I said, Troy itself, the mother of the Roman people, could not protect the townspeople from the fire and sword of the Greeks in the sacred places of their gods; although the Greeks worshiped the same gods. Because in Juno's hideout Phoenix and the fierce Ulysses guarded the Achaeans' spoils, Standing on guard: they were rushing there from everywhere from Troy Shrines from the churches of the lost city: Funeral feasts for the gods, bowls made of massive gold, Mountains of precious clothes are copies of the enemy’s property; Small children and their mothers, frozen with fear, It is obvious that the sacred place of such a great goddess was chosen not so that it would not be possible to take captives from there, but so that prisoners could be imprisoned there. Now compare this refuge, the sacred place not of some ordinary god or one of the crowd of lower gods, but the sister and wife of Jupiter himself and the queen of all the gods - compare with the places dedicated to the memory of our apostles. The loot, looted from the burning churches and from the gods, was brought to that refuge, not to be returned to the vanquished, but to be divided among the victors; here, what was taken in another place, but turned out to belong to these places, was returned to them with honor and reverent respect. There freedom was lost; here it was preserved. What was taken away was stored there; It was forbidden to take here. The ruling enemy drove there for slavery; compassionate enemies were brought here for liberation. Finally, that church of Juno was chosen by the greed and pride of the frivolous Greeks, and these basilicas of Christ were chosen by the mercy and humility of the most unbridled barbarians. But perhaps, in fact, during this victory the Greeks spared the churches of the gods common to them and did not dare to kill and take captive the unfortunate defeated Trojans who fled there, and Virgil, as is often the case with poets, invented all of the above? But he described the custom of enemies destroying cities. Chapter 5. Caesar's opinion on the general custom of enemies destroying a city Even Caesar (as Sallust, a historian known for his truthfulness, writes about this) did not fail to mention this custom in his speech, which he delivered in the Senate regarding the conspirators: “To kidnap maidens and youths; snatching children from their parents' arms; mothers of families are forced to endure whatever the winners want; rob churches and houses; commit murders and fires; finally fill everything with the sound of weapons, corpses, blood and screams.” 14 If he had kept silent about the churches in this case, we might still have thought that the enemies had the custom of sparing the residence of the gods. And this kind of danger threatened the Roman churches not from foreign enemies, but from Catiline and his allies, the noblest senators and Roman citizens. But these are lost people and parricides of the fatherland... Chapter 6. That the Romans themselves did not take any cities so that the vanquished were spared in their churches But why do we need to go through the many peoples who waged war among themselves and never gave mercy to the vanquished in the churches of their gods? Let's look at the Romans themselves; let us remember, I say, and reconsider these very Romans, who attributed special glory to themselves. Sparing the humble, overthrowing the proud, and who allegedly preferred to forgive the insults received rather than avenge them. To spread their rule, they destroyed so many large cities taken by force of arms. Let them read to us what churches they had the custom of setting aside in order to free anyone who took refuge in them? Or did they do it, but historians kept silent about it? Did historians, who were specifically looking for something that they could praise, pass over in silence such, in their own opinion, the most brilliant evidence of piety? It is said about the famous Roman Marcus Marcellus, who took the glorious city of Syracuse, that before the assault he cried about the destruction that threatened the city. He also took care of protecting chastity, even in relation to the enemy. For before, as the winner, he ordered the invasion of the city, he ordered by edict that no one should commit violence against a free body. Nevertheless, the city was destroyed according to the custom of war, and we do not read anywhere that such a chaste and merciful commander gave the order to leave inviolable the one who fled to this or that church. And this would in no way be passed over in silence; they found it possible to remain silent either about his crying or about the prohibition issued by him to insult chastity. Fabius, the destroyer of Tarentum, is praised for not wanting to turn idols into spoils of war. When the scribe asked him what he would order to do with the statues of the gods, of which there were many, he covered his moderation with a joke. He asked what they were like, and when he was told that many of them were not only great, but also armed, he said: “Let us leave the wrathful gods to the Tarentines.” So, if the cry of this and the laughter of that, the chaste compassion of the first and the playfully expressed nobility of the latter were not passed over in silence by the Roman historians, then how could it be omitted by them if they showed some people mercy in honor of any of their gods in the sense of forbidding murder and robbery in some church. Chapter 7. That everything that was cruel during the destruction of Rome happened according to the custom of war; and what was done condescendingly came from the power of the name of Christ So, all these devastations, murders, robberies, fires, sufferings that occurred during the last Roman defeat - all this was generated by the custom of war. And what happened according to the new custom: that the barbaric unbridledness turned out to be meek in a way unusual for war; that as a refuge for the people who were to receive mercy, the most extensive basilicas were chosen and indicated, where no one was killed, from where no one was taken captive, where compassionate enemies brought many for liberation, from where even the most cruel of them did not take anyone captive - all this should be attributed to the name of Christ; all this should be attributed to Christian times. He who does not see this is blind. He who sees but does not praise is ungrateful. And whoever objects to someone praising is foolish. A prudent person will under no circumstances explain this by the barbarity of his enemies. He frightened the bloodthirsty and cruel souls, He curbed them, He moderated them in the most amazing way, Who long before predicted through the prophet: “I will visit their iniquity with a rod, and their iniquity with blows; But I will not take My mercy from him” (Ps. 89:33–34). Chapter 8. About prosperity and misfortune, which for the most part are common to both good and evil Someone will say: why did this divine mercy extend to the wicked and ungrateful? Therefore, I believe that it was provided by the One who daily “commands His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). Although some of them, reflecting on this, are corrected from their wickedness by repentance, and some, as the apostle says, despising the riches of the goodness and long-suffering of God, out of their cruelty and unrepentant heart, store up for themselves “wrath for the day of wrath and revelation of righteous judgment from God, who will reward everyone according to his deeds” (Rom. 2:4-6); however, the patience of God calls the wicked to repentance, just as the scourge of God teaches the patience of the good. In the same way, God’s patience embraces the good with its protection, just as divine severity watches over the punishment of the wicked. For such benefits for the just, which the unjust would not enjoy, and such disasters for the wicked, from which the good would not suffer, Divine Providence wants to prepare in the future life. And it wanted to make these temporary blessings and disasters common to both. This is so that there is no too greedy desire for goods that are at the disposal of evil people, and moral disgust from the disasters from which good people very often suffer. But there is quite a big difference in how people use what is called happiness and what is called unhappiness. For the good is neither exalted by temporary blessings, nor crushed by temporary evil; and the evil one is executed by this kind of misfortune because he becomes spoiled by happiness. However, God often reveals His action with greater clarity in the distribution of this kind of objects. For, if every sin were now punishable in an obvious way, one would think that there was nothing left for the final judgment; and vice versa, if the Divine did not openly punish any sin in life, they would think that there is no divine providence at all. The same applies to happiness: if God, with obvious generosity, did not give it to some who ask, we would say that it does not depend on Him; and if he gave to everyone who asked, they would think that He should be served only because of such rewards; Such service would not make us pious, but selfish and greedy. If this is so, and if some good and evil are equally exposed to disasters, from the fact that it is not distinguished what both suffer, it does not at all follow that there is no difference between them themselves. The difference between those who suffer remains even with the similarity of what they endure; and under the same instrument of torture, virtue and vice are not made one and the same. How in the same fire gold glitters and straw smokes; and in the same thresher the stems are broken and the grains are cleaned; and the oily sludge does not mix with the oil only because it is squeezed out by the same weight of the press: so the same force, befalling disasters, tests the good, cleanses, strains out, and reveals, devastates and eradicates the evil. Therefore, suffering the same calamity, the evil curse and blaspheme God, and the good pray to Him and praise Him. It is not important what the test is, but only what the test subject is like, because with the same movement, shaken, the manure stinks unbearably, and the incense smells fragrant. Chapter 9. About the reasons why both good and evil are equally exposed to disasters And what did Christians endure in this social disaster that, with a more correct view of the matter, would not have served to improve them? Firstly, humbly reflecting on the sins themselves, in anger at which God filled the world with such calamities, they (although far removed from evildoers, dissolute and wicked people) do not so recognize themselves as alien to all sorts of offenses as to seriously believe that they have no reason to be subjected to temporary deprivations for them. I am not saying that everyone, even if he has led a commendable life, in some cases succumbs to carnal inclination: if not to immeasurable atrocities, not to extreme debauchery and not to the abomination of wickedness, then at least to some sins, either rare, or as frequent as they are insignificant; I'm not talking about this. But is it easy to find such a person who would, to these very persons, because of disgusting pride, licentiousness and greed, because of the disgusting untruths and wickedness of which God, as he threateningly predicted, would destroy the lands (Isa. 24, etc.), would you treat them the way you should treat them, would you live with them the way you should live with them? For the most part, they inappropriately refrain from teaching them, reprimanding them, and sometimes reproaching them and punishing them in a certain way: sometimes such work seems difficult, sometimes we are embarrassed to insult them to their face, sometimes we avoid hostility so that they do not interfere or harm us in these temporary things, the acquisition of which our greed is still striving for, or the loss of which our weakness is afraid of. Thus, although the good do not like the life of the wicked, and they will not be subjected to the condemnation that is destined for them after this life, however, since they spare their sins worthy of condemnation, although they are afraid for their own, even light and excusable ones, they are justly subjected to temporary punishments along with them, although they will not be punished in eternity. Enduring divine punishments with them, they rightly taste the bitterness of this life, since, loving its sweetness, they did not want to make it bitter for the mentioned sinners. Of course, if someone refrains from rebuking and curbing those who do wrong, either because he is looking for a more convenient time for this, or because he is afraid for themselves, lest they become even worse from this, or lest they hinder the teaching of a good and just life to others, weaker ones, exert a bad influence on them and turn them away from the faith, then this reveals not greed, but a wise rule of love. It is sinful when those who lead a good life and turn away from the deeds of bad people treat the sins of others condescendingly, from which they should be weaned off or which should be denounced - they treat condescendingly because they are afraid of insults from bad people, afraid of harm in those things that they themselves, as good and innocent, use in a permissible manner, but with more greed than it should be for those who wander in this world, trusting at the same time in the mountainous fatherland. Indeed, it is not only the weakest, leading married life, having or wishing to have children, owning houses and farms (to such the apostle addresses his speech in the churches when he teaches and convinces how wives should live with husbands, husbands with wives, children with parents, parents with children, servants with masters and masters with servants) gain willingly and lose with chagrin many things that are temporary and earthly, and therefore do not dare to offend people whose depraved and atrocious lives excite them with disgust; but even those who lead a higher kind of life, are not bound by the bonds of marriage, are content with little in food and clothing - and those, too concerned about their good name and safety, fearing treachery and attacks from bad people, refrain from denunciations. Although they are not so afraid of the latter that, yielding to any of their threats and obscenities, they themselves would act in the same way, but for the most part they do not want to condemn what they do not do with them, although with their reproof they would perhaps correct some. They are afraid that in case of failure their own well-being and good name will suffer; and they are afraid of this not because they consider their good name and prosperity necessary for the benefit of people who require instruction, but rather because of that weakness that loves a caressing tongue and the human day (1 Cor. 4:3), fears the judgment of the mob, torture and mortification of the flesh, that is, because of some bonds of lust, and not because of the duties of love. So, I see in this a sufficient reason why, along with the evil, the good are also exposed to disasters, when God is pleased to inflict temporary plagues on corrupt morals. They are subjected to punishment together, not because they led a bad life together, but because together (albeit unevenly, but nevertheless jointly) they loved temporary life, which the good should have despised, so that the bad, having been convicted and corrected, would inherit eternal life (and if they did not want to be allies in inheriting it, let them be tolerant and loved as enemies: for while they live there is always hope that they change their will for the better). In this matter, they bear not the same, but much greater responsibility than those to whom it was said through the prophet: “This man will be captured for his sin, but his blood will I require at the hand of the guard” (Ezek. 33:6). This is why guardians of the nations, that is, leaders in the churches, were established, so that they would not spare sins with their denunciations. But at the same time, he is no stranger to guilt of this kind, who, although he is not a primate, sees in those persons with whom he is connected by the necessary conditions of this life much that deserves warning and reproach, but leaves it without attention, avoiding hatred for the sake of what he uses in this life as his due, but enjoys more than he should. Then, there is another reason why the good are subjected to temporary disasters - such as occurred in relation to Job: so that the human soul tests itself and finally realizes how much it, by virtue of piety alone, selflessly loves God. Chapter 10. That with the loss of temporary things the saints do not lose anything Having considered and discussed what has been said in due manner, pay attention to whether any evil happens to the faithful and pious that would not turn into good for them? Unless we recognize as empty words the well-known saying of the Apostle, in which he says: “We know that all things work together for good to those who love God” (Rom. 8:28)... Have they lost everything they had? Is it really faith? Is it really piety? Is it really also good for the inner man to be rich before God (1 Pet. 3:4)? All these are the riches of a Christian, the possessor of which the apostle said: “It is a great gain to be pious and content. For we have brought nothing into the world; It’s obvious that we can’t take anything out of it. Having food and clothing, we will be content with that. But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and into many foolish and harmful lusts that plunge people into disaster and destruction; for the love of money is the root of all evil, which, having given themselves over, some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows” (1 Tim. 6:6-10). So, those whose earthly riches were lost during this devastation, if they looked at these riches as this outwardly poor but inwardly rich man taught, could say, as Job, sorely tested but unconquered, said: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, naked will I return. The Lord gave, the Lord also took away; as the Lord pleased, so it was done; Blessed be the name of the Lord!” ( Job 1:21 ). A good servant, he considered his greatest wealth to be fulfilling the will of the Lord, following which he became richer in mind, and was not upset when he lost during his life those things that he should have lost with death. Those weaker ones, who, although they did not prefer these earthly blessings to Christ, were nevertheless attached to them with some passion, those, losing them, felt how much they had sinned while loving them. For they suffered to the extent that they subjected themselves to tribulation, as stated in the above-mentioned words of the apostle. They needed to add a lesson of experience, since they had neglected the verbal lesson for a long time. For when the apostle said: “But those who desire to get rich fall into temptation, etc.” (1 Tim. 6:9) *, then he condemned, of course, the addiction to wealth, and not the wealth itself, because in another place he gives the following command: “Admonish those who are rich in this present age, so that they do not think highly of themselves and trust not in unfaithful wealth, but in the living God, who richly gives us everything for our enjoyment: that they do good, be rich in good deeds, be generous and sociable, collecting for themselves treasure, a good foundation for the future, so that we may attain eternal life” (1 Tim. 6:17–19). Those who used their wealth in this way covered their insignificant losses with great profits; and they were more delighted that, by willingly giving away, they were more likely to save, than they were saddened by the fact that, timidly saving, they were more easily lost. It could have died on earth, which was a pity to convey on earth. Having accepted the advice of your Lord, who says: “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in and steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:19-21), in the time of disaster they were convinced by experience how prudently they acted, that they did not neglect the advice of the most truthful Mentor and the most faithful and invincible Guardian of their treasure. If many rejoiced that they had their wealth in places where the enemy did not happen to reach, then couldn’t they rejoice even more truly and more carefree if, on the advice of God, they transferred their wealth to places where the enemy could not penetrate at all? Therefore, our Peacock, Bishop of Nola, who voluntarily became the poorest from the rich, but the most abundant in holiness, when the barbarians devastated Nola, detained by them, prayed (as we later learned from himself) in his heart like this: “Let them not torture me, Lord, trying to find out where the gold and silver are: You know where.” He had everything of his own where he was urged to hide and hoard it by the One who predicted these disasters that have now befallen the world. Therefore, whoever listened to the admonitions of his Lord regarding where and how to collect treasures did not lose the earthly riches themselves during the invasion of the barbarians; and whoever had to repent for not listening, learned, if not from the previous instructions of wisdom, then from subsequent experience, how to deal with such things. But, they say, some good Christians were tortured so that they would hand over their property to the enemies. But they could neither give away nor lose the good that made them good. And if they wanted to be tortured rather than betray mammon of lies, then they were not kind. Those who suffered so much for gold received a lesson about how much they must endure for Christ. They learned that they should love the One who will enrich those who suffered for Him with eternal bliss, and not gold and silver, for the sake of which it was stupid to suffer, which could only be hidden by resorting to lies, but which had to be given away if the truth was told. For in torture no one lost Christ through his confession, and no one preserved gold except through his denial. Therefore, torture could be very useful: they taught to love the incorruptible good instead of those goods, because of the love for which their owners were tortured without any benefit for themselves. But some, they say, even if they had nothing to give away, were subjected to torture because of distrust in them. But it is possible that these wanted to have and were poor not of their own free will. Such people had to be shown that it is not property, but the addiction to it that is worthy of such torture. If, pinning their hopes on a better life, they did not have hidden gold and silver here - although I do not know whether any of these happened to be subjected to torture, but if it happened - then there is no doubt that those who confessed holy poverty under torture confessed Christ. Therefore, even if one of them did not deserve the trust of his enemies, he could not, however, as a confessor of holy poverty, endure torture without heavenly reward. It is also said that many Christians were exhausted by long-term famine. But the good faithful, enduring this piously, turned it to their advantage. For whomever hunger killed, it freed him from the evils of this life, just as a bodily illness frees him; and whoever he did not kill, he taught him to live more moderately and fast longer. Chapter 11. About the end of temporary life, whether it is longer or shorter But (they will object to us) many Christians were killed, many were exterminated by various types of terrible deaths. This may be something to mourn, but this is the common lot of all who were born for this life. I know one thing: no one died who was not supposed to die sooner or later. And the end of life is the same: both long life and short life. One is not better, and the other is not worse, or: one is not more, and the other is not less, since both no longer exist in equal measure. And what is the importance of what kind of death this life ends, since the one for whom it ends will not be forced to die again? And if each of the mortals, in the daily accidents of this life, is threatened in some way by countless types of death, while it remains unknown which one will befall him: then, pray tell, isn’t it better to experience one of them while dying than to be afraid of all of them while continuing to live? I know that our feelings prefer it better to live a long time under the fear of so many deaths, than, having died once, not to be afraid of a single one. But it is one thing to do what a fearful carnal feeling avoids due to weakness, and quite another thing to do what a carefully verified indication of reason convinces of. That death should not be considered evil, which was preceded by a good life. Death makes evil only what follows death. Therefore, those who are about to die should not worry much about what exactly will happen to them, what they will die from, but should care about where, when they die, they will be forced to go. So, if Christians know that the death of a godly poor man under the tongues of dogs licking his scabs was much better than the death of a wicked rich man in purple and fine linen (Luke 16:19–26), then what harm did these terrible types of death cause to those who lived well? Chapter 12. About the burial of human bodies, and that the deprivation of burial of Christians did not take anything away from them But with such a mass of corpses, they could not even be buried! And pious faith is not especially afraid of this, remembering the prediction that even animals devouring corpses will not interfere with the resurrection of bodies, not a hair of which will perish from the head (Luke 21:18). The truth would not say: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul” (Matthew 10:28), if what the enemies decided to do over the bodies of the killed could bring any harm to the future life. Unless someone would be so stupid as to assert that those who kill a body should not be afraid to death, lest they kill the body, but should be afraid after death, lest they be prohibited from burying the murdered body. Well, is it false what Christ says: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body and then are unable to do anything” (Luke 12:4), since the murderers can do something with the corpse? Let it not be: what is said by the Truth cannot be a lie. This is said because in a living body, that is, before it is killed, there are feelings; after the murder there are no feelings in the body. So, many bodies of Christians were not committed to the earth, but because of this no one will separate them from heaven and earth, which are filled with His presence by the One who knows from where to resurrect what He has created. True, the psalm says: “The corpses of Your servants were given to the birds of the air to be devoured, the bodies of Your saints to the beasts of the earth; they shed their blood like water around Jerusalem, and there was no one to bury them” (Ps. 79:2-3), but this is said in order to emphasize the cruelty of those who did this, and not in order to increase pity for the victims. Although in the eyes of people all this seems something terrible, but “the death of His saints is dear in the sight of the Lord” (Ps. 116:6). Поэтому все такое: омытие и наряжение тела, обряд похорон, пышность проводов, – все это скорее утешение живых, чем помощь умершим. If an expensive burial could benefit the wicked deceased during his lifetime, then a poor or no burial could harm the righteous. But we remember: the rich man dressed in purple was given a magnificent farewell by his numerous servants, according to the judgment of the crowd, and, meanwhile, in the opinion of the Lord, much better ones were given to the poor man covered with sores by the service of angels, who carried him not to a marble crypt, but transferred him to Abraham’s bosom. Those from whose attacks we set out to defend the city of God laugh at this. But even their own philosophers neglected the concerns of burial. Often entire troops, dying for their earthly fatherland, did not care about where they would lie later or what animals they would serve as food. And poets very often spoke of such people with praise: For those who do not lie in urns, the entire firmament is a tombstone 15. How much less reason do they have to laugh at the burial of the bodies of Christians, who are promised in time not only the transformation from the earth of their flesh with all its members, but also their return and restoration from the bosom of other elements into which the decomposed corpses have turned! Chapter 13. What is the reason for burying the bodies of saints From what has been said, however, one should not conclude that the bodies of the dead should be neglected, leaving them where necessary, especially if we are talking about the bodies of the righteous, who were, as it were, vessels of the Holy Spirit, destined for all good deeds. If the father’s clothes, rings and other things are more dear to the children, the more they loved him, then the bodies, which, of course, were much closer and dearer to the deceased than their clothes, should not be despised. After all, they are not luxury items or things created for convenience, but belong to human nature itself. Therefore, in how the bodies of the righteous are washed and dressed, how their ceremonial removal is carried out, how carefully the burials are arranged, one should see nothing less than the fulfillment of the duty of love. Some of them, even during their lifetime, gave orders to their sons regarding the burial and even the transfer of their bodies (Gen. 47:30: 50:2: 25). And Tobiah, as the angel testifies, earned God’s favor by burying the dead (Tob. 12:12). And the Lord himself, who was to rise on the third day, calls the good deed of the pious woman who poured precious myrrh on His members, thereby preparing Him for burial (Matthew 26:10). Also mentioned with praise in the Gospel are those who took the trouble to remove from the cross, cover and bury His body with honor (John 19:38 et seq.). All these testimonies do not, of course, indicate that corpses have any feelings, but they show that the providence of God, which pleases deeds of piety, also takes care of the bodies of the dead in order to strengthen faith in the resurrection. From these same testimonies, it is soul-savingly visible how great the reward for the alms that we show to the living and feeling can be, if what is shown to lifeless human bodies out of duty and love does not perish before God. There is, however, something else that the holy patriarchs wanted to make clear with their sayings and prophecies regarding the burial and transfer of their bodies. But it is inappropriate to dwell on this now: what has been said is enough. But even if the absence of such things necessary for maintaining life as food and clothing, although it causes suffering, does not destroy the strength of the good to endure and endure hardships and does not snatch piety from their souls, but, on the contrary, makes it even more fruitful, then even more so the absence of everything that is usually done during burial cannot make those who have already rested in the secret abodes of the righteous unhappy. Therefore, if all these rituals were not performed over the corpses of Christians during the certain devastation of the capital or other cities, then this is not the fault of the living, who could not do this, and not a punishment for the dead, who are already deprived of all feelings. Chapter 14. Concerning the Captivity of the Saints, Who Never Lacked Divine Consolations But many Christians, they say, were carried away into captivity. Indeed, it would be a great misfortune if they were taken to some place where they could not find their Lord! In case of captivity, there are great consolations in our Holy Scriptures. There were three youths in captivity, there was Daniel, there were other prophets, and God the Comforter was always with them. He who did not leave His prophet even in the belly of a whale will not leave His faithful under the domination of a barbarian but humane-loving people. Those to whom we say this are disposed to laugh at it rather than to believe it. However, in their writings they believe that Orion Methymnaeus, the noblest zither player, when thrown overboard a ship, was taken on the back of a dolphin and carried to the ground. But our story about the prophet Jonah is more incredible! Indeed, more incredible, because more wonderful; and it is more wonderful because it speaks of greater power. Chapter 15. About Regulus, who is an example of the fact that captivity should be endured even voluntarily for the sake of religion; although such captivity could not bring benefit to this worshiper of the gods In the history of their famous husbands, they have the noblest example of the fact that for the sake of faith one should endure captivity even voluntarily. Marcus Attilius Regulus, the commander of the Roman people, was captured by the Carthaginians. The latter, wanting to exchange these prisoners for compatriots captured by the Romans, sent their ambassadors to Rome with this proposal, accompanied by Regulus, having previously taken an oath from him to return to Carthage if he did not achieve the fulfillment of their desires. He went, but in the Senate he insisted on the opposite, because he considered the exchange of prisoners unprofitable for the Roman Republic. His compatriots, convinced of this, did not force him to return to the enemies, but he himself voluntarily fulfilled what he swore. And they killed him with unheard-of and terrible tortures: confining him in a narrow wooden space in which he was forced to stand, and driving sharp nails on all sides so that he could not lean, they killed him with insomnia. The valor he demonstrated is, of course, deservedly praised. Meanwhile, he swore by those gods, due to the prohibition of whose cult, it is believed that the world is stricken with real disasters. But if they were revered so that they would make this life happy, then, having wished or allowed to subject to such executions those who swore in the truth, what more serious thing could they, angry, do to the perjurer? However, why don’t I draw a double conclusion from this? He truly honored the gods to such an extent that, for the sake of fulfilling his oath, he did not stay in his fatherland or leave it for any other place, but, without a moment’s hesitation, returned to his cruelest enemies. If he considered this useful for his present life, which he ended so horribly, then he was, without any doubt, mistaken. By his own example he proved that the gods do not bring any benefit to their worshipers for this temporary happiness: because he himself, devoted to their cult, was defeated, taken prisoner, and because he did not want to act otherwise than as he swore to them, he was killed by tortures of a new, hitherto unheard of and extremely terrible kind. If the cult of the gods gives happiness in the form of a reward after this life, then why do they slander Christian times, claiming that a real disaster befell Rome because it stopped honoring its gods, if such a zealous admirer of them as Regulus could be unhappy? Unless some monstrously blind madness arms itself against the most obvious truth to such an extent that it dares to assert that an entire civil society that honors the gods cannot be unhappy, but one person can; that is, that the power of their gods is more likely to protect many than individuals, although the multitude is made up of units. But they, perhaps, will say that Regulus, both in captivity and in the very physical tortures, could be happy with spiritual virtue. In this case, one should first of all take care of virtue, which can make civil society happy. After all, society is not happy in one way, and a person is completely different: because society is nothing more than a union of many people. In view of this, I will not yet go into consideration of what kind of virtue was in Regulus. This time it is enough for me that this most noble example forces them to admit that the gods should not be worshiped for the sake of bodily goods or such things as come to a person from without: because Regulus wished better to lose all this than to offend the gods by whom he swore. But what can you do with people who boast that they had such a citizen as the whole civil society is afraid to have? After all, if they were not afraid, they would agree that what happened to Regulus could happen to the state, just like Regulus, which zealously worshiped the gods, and would not blaspheme Christian times. But since the question has been raised about those Christians who were taken into captivity, let those who shamelessly and senselessly laugh at saving religion be silent, paying attention to the following: if their gods were not ashamed that their most zealous admirer, remaining faithful to the oath given to him, lost his fatherland, having no other, and in captivity of the enemies suffered a painful death from a newly invented cruel execution, then all the less should Christianity be blamed for captivity its saints, who, with unfaithful faith awaiting a higher homeland, recognize themselves as strangers even in their permanent places of residence. Chapter 16. Can spiritual virtue be defiled by the violence to which holy virgins were subjected in captivity without their permission? They think that they are reproaching Christians for a great crime when, exaggerating the disasters of captivity, they add that not only other people’s wives and unmarried girls, but also some nuns were forcibly desecrated. In fact, this puts in a delicate position not faith, not piety, and not that virtue that is called chastity, but our reasoning itself, which has before it, on the one hand, modesty, on the other, reason. And in this case we care not so much about giving an answer to strangers, but about bringing comfort to our own. One can, of course, first of all recognize it as undoubted and proven that virtue, which makes life just, commands the bodily members, being itself in the soul, and that the body is holy from the guidance of the holy will, with the immutability and firmness of which, no matter what anyone else does to the body or in the body, will be beyond the guilt of the victim, if he could not avoid it without sin on his part. But since something can be done to someone else’s body not only that causes illness, but also something that relates to voluptuous pleasure, then when something like this is done, although it does not destroy chastity, maintained by the firm constancy of the soul, it shakes the feeling of modesty; They may think that something happened, not without some assent of thought, that, perhaps, could not have happened without some carnal pleasure. Chapter 17. About voluntary death for fear of punishment or dishonor Therefore, what human feeling will refuse to excuse those who killed themselves in order not to suffer something of this kind? But if some did not want to kill themselves in order to avoid through their crime the crime of others against themselves, then the one who blamed them for this would not have escaped the accusation of unreasonableness. After all, if it is generally not permissible for a private individual to kill a person with his power, even if he is committing a crime (no law gives the right to such a murder), then he who kills himself is undoubtedly a murderer; and when he kills himself, the more criminal he is, the more innocent he is in the matter for which he considers it necessary to kill himself. We rightly abhor the act of Judas, and according to the judgment of truth, he rather increased than atoned for the crime of his villainous betrayal by hanging himself: because, despairing of God’s mercy, he, in a feeling of destructive repentance, did not leave himself any room for saving repentance. But shouldn’t he who has nothing in himself that would deserve such punishment abstain all the more from committing suicide? When Judas killed himself, he killed a man stained by crime, and yet he ended this life as guilty not only of the death of Christ, but also of his own, because he was killed, although for his own crime, but through his own other crime. Why on earth would a person who has not done any evil commit a crime against himself and, by killing himself, kill an innocent person solely in order to prevent another from becoming guilty? Why commit a sin on yourself only so that someone else’s sin will not be committed on us? Chapter 18. About someone else's violent voluptuousness, which the soul is forced to endure in an exhausted body Is it not out of fear that someone else’s voluptuousness might defile it? It will not defile if it is someone else's; and if he defiles it, it will not be someone else’s. If chastity constitutes a spiritual virtue and has as its companion courage, which makes it its rule to endure any kind of evil rather than to sympathize with evil; and if no one courageous and chaste has in his power what is done to his body, but has only what he deigns or what he denies with his thought, then who, maintaining the same purity of thought, will consider himself to have lost his chastity if it happens that over his flesh, deprived of freedom and weakened, it is not his voluptuousness that begins to exercise and seek satisfaction for himself? If chastity were to perish in this way, chastity would not at all be a spiritual virtue and would not belong to those goods that make up a good life, but would be considered one of the bodily goods, such as: strength, beauty, strong and intact health, and others of the same kind. Such benefits, even if they are subject to decline, do not in the least diminish a good and just life. If chastity is something the same, then why, in order not to lose it, bother about it even at the risk of your life? And if it is a spiritual benefit, then it cannot be lost even if the body is weakened. On the contrary, the benefit of holy abstinence, since it does not succumb to the impurity of carnal desires, sanctifies the body itself; and therefore, when one continues not to succumb to them with unfailing constancy, holiness is not taken away from the body itself; for the disposition of the will to use it holy remains, and even, as far as it depends on it, the possibility of this remains. The body is not holy because its members are not damaged, nor because they are not contaminated by any touch. They may be subject to violent damage in various cases; and it happens that doctors, trying to restore health, do things to us that seem terrible at first glance. The midwife, carrying out a manual examination of the innocence of one girl, either through malice, or ignorance, or accident, destroyed her integrity during the examination. I don’t think anyone would be so stupid as to think that the girl had lost anything even in the sense of the sanctity of the body itself, although the integrity of the famous member was destroyed. Therefore, while the spiritual vow remains unchanged, thanks to which the body also received sanctification, the violence of someone else’s voluptuousness does not take away from the body itself the holiness that the firm determination of abstinence preserves. And vice versa, if some mentally damaged woman, having broken the vow she made to God, clings to her seducer for the sake of crime, will we say that she continues to be holy in body, since she has lost and destroyed that spiritual holiness by which the body is also holy? God save us from such delusion; Let us better be convinced by the example of this that while maintaining spiritual holiness, bodily holiness is not lost, even if the body has undergone violence; when mental holiness is violated, bodily holiness is also lost, even if the body remains inviolable. Therefore, a woman, without any consent on her part, forcibly captured and turned into an instrument of someone else’s sin, has nothing in herself that could be punished by voluntary death. And even less so before this happens to her; in the latter case, she would have committed certain murder at a time when the villainy, and that of someone else, was still in doubt. Chapter 19. About Lucretia, who killed herself because of the dishonor caused to her When we say that in the case of violence committed against the body, if the vow of purity is not violated by any desire for evil, the atrocity is committed only by the one who rapes, and not by the one who, having been subjected to violence, does not contribute in any way to the rapist - perhaps this completely clear position will be dared to be contradicted by those against whom we defend not only the thoughts of Christian women who were subjected to violence in captivity, but also the very sanctity of their bodies? Indeed, they in every possible way extol the chastity of Lucretia, the noble ancient Roman matron. When the son of King Tarquinius committed violence against her body, thus satisfying his voluptuousness, she announced the villainy of the depraved youth to her husband Callatinus and relative Brutus, brave and famous men, and called on them to take revenge. And then, suffering in soul and not being able to bear the shame, she killed herself. What do we say to this? Should she be considered guilty of adultery or chaste? Who would argue about this? Someone quite rightly remarked on this matter: “It’s amazing, there were two of them, but only one committed adultery!” Seeing in the copulation of these two the most vile voluptuousness and the will of only one of them and taking into account not what was done by the copulation of members, but what came from the difference of souls, he says: “There were two of them, but one committed adultery.” But why does a more severe punishment befall the one who did not commit adultery? After all, he and his father were only expelled from the fatherland, and this one suffered the death penalty? If involuntarily enduring violence is not debauchery, then what is the justice when she, the chaste one, is punished? I appeal to you, Roman laws and judges. Even after a crime has actually been committed, you do not allow the villain to be killed with impunity until he is convicted. So, if this crime were brought by someone to your court and you found that a woman was killed not only not convicted, but also pure and innocent, would you really not subject the one who did it to the appropriate severe punishment? And Lucrezia did this, she herself, the illustrious Lucretia, killed the innocent, pure Lucrezia, who had suffered violence, in addition to everything else! Say your sentence. If you cannot pronounce it because there is no one present whom you could punish, then why do you speak with such praise about the murderer of this innocent and pure woman? Before the underground judges, even the ones your poets portray them in their poems, you will not, of course, defend her with any reason, because she stands, of course, among those They killed themselves by interrupting overnight Their lives, because the light has become hateful to them all. 16 And when one of these has a desire to return to the light, Fate rises up against him, holds him tightly in place Impenetrable waves of the sad sea. 17 Perhaps she is not there at all, because she killed herself, although she was innocent, but felt a crime behind her? What if she (which could only be known to herself), carried away by the voluptuousness of the young man, sympathized with him, although he used violence against her; and without forgiving herself for this, she repented to such an extent that she believed it was possible to atone for her crime only by death? Although in this case she should not have killed herself if she could have usefully repented before the false gods. But if this is really so, and it is false that there were two of them, but one committed adultery, but on the contrary, both committed adultery, one with the use of obvious force, the other with secret consent: then she did not kill herself, an innocent one. In this case, her learned defenders can say that she is not in the underworld among those Thus, the matter boils down to the fact that by denying homicide, adultery is affirmed, and by justifying adultery, the charge of homicide is raised. There is absolutely no way out, since the question is posed like this: “If she committed adultery, then why is she praised; and if she remained chaste, then why was she killed? But for us, in refuting those who, being alien to any thought of holiness, laugh at Christian women who suffered violence in captivity, for us in the example of this noble woman it is enough that it is so beautifully said in her praise: “There were two of them, but one committed adultery.” After all, this is exactly how Lucretia is usually imagined: that she could not defile herself by any complicity in adultery. And the fact that she, without committing adultery, killed herself for becoming an instrument of adultery, this did not express love for chastity, but a painful feeling of modesty. She was ashamed that someone else's indecency had been committed on her, although without her participation; and the Roman woman, who was extremely thirsty for a good opinion of herself, was afraid that it would be thought of her that what she suffered through violence, she suffered voluntarily. And so, not being able to show people her conscience, she decided to present this execution to their eyes as a witness to her thoughts. She blushed at the thought that she might be considered an accomplice to the crime if she patiently endured what another had done to her. This was not done by Christian women who, having endured this, continue to live. They did not punish themselves for someone else’s crime, so as not to add their own to other people’s crimes; and this would be so if, for the reason that their enemies, surrendering to passion, dishonored them, they, out of shame, committed murder against themselves. They have the inner glory of chastity, the testimony of conscience. They have it in the face of their God and do not seek more where there is no more that they could do in good conscience - they do not seek so as to avoid insults from human suspicion to deviate from the prescriptions of the divine law. Chapter 20. There is not a single authority that would give Christians in any case the right to commit suicide. In fact, it is no coincidence that in the sacred canonical books one cannot find a divine order or permission for us to inflict death on ourselves, even for the sake of acquiring immortality or for the sake of avoiding and liberation from evil. When the law says: “You shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13), it must be understood that it also prohibits suicide, for having said this, it does not add “your neighbor,” just as when prohibiting false testimony, it says: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16). However, the one who gave false testimony against himself should not consider himself free from this crime. Because the rule of loving your neighbor must be applied to yourself, as it were, for it is written: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39). If the one who gives false testimony about himself is no less guilty of false testimony than if he gave it against his neighbor (although the commandment prohibiting false testimony specifically prohibits false testimony against one’s neighbor, and it may seem to people who are not reasonable enough that it does not prohibit false testimony against oneself), then how much more clearly is the idea expressed that a person is not allowed to kill himself, since the commandment “not kill" to which no further addition is made, no one seems to be an exception, not even the one to whom it is commanded? Some try to extend this commandment even to animals, considering it impermissible to kill any of them. But in this case, why not extend it to herbs and to everything that feeds and grows from the earth? After all, objects of this kind, although they do not have feelings, are called living, and therefore can die - they can, therefore, be killed, as long as violence is used against them. Therefore, the apostle, speaking about their seeds, writes: “What you sow will not come to life unless it dies” (1 Cor. 15:36). And in the psalm it is written: “Kill their grapes with hail” (Ps. 77:47). Will we really, hearing the commandment “thou shalt not kill,” consider uprooting a bush a crime and agree with the errors of the Manichaeans? So, if we, having rejected these nonsense, reading the commandment: “Thou shalt not kill,” we agree that it is not about plants, for none of them has feelings, and not about irrational animals, flying, swimming, walking or crawling, for they cannot enter into communication with us by reason, which they are not given to have on an equal basis with us, why their life and death, by the most just order Creator, serve for our benefit, then the commandment “thou shalt not kill” remains to be understood as applied to man: do not kill either another or yourself. For whoever kills himself kills a person. Chapter 21. On the killing of people, which does not relate to the crime of homicide However, the same divine authority also allows some exceptions to the prohibition of killing a person. But this applies to those cases when God himself commands to kill, either through the law, or by a special order regarding this or that person. In this case, it is not the one who kills who is obliged to serve the commanded, just as the sword serves as a tool for the one who uses it. And therefore, the commandment “do not kill” is by no means transgressed by those who wage wars at the command of God or, being by virtue of His laws, that is, by virtue of the most reasonable and fair order, representatives of public authority, punish evildoers with death. And Abraham is not only not reproached for cruelty, but, on the contrary, is praised for his piety because he wanted to kill his son not as a villain, but in obedience to the will of God (Gen. 22). The question is also rightly raised whether it should not be considered a divine command that Jephthah killed his daughter who came out to meet him, since he vowed to sacrifice to God that which would be the first to come out to meet him from the gates of his house when he returned victorious from the war (Judges 11). And Samson is justified in the fact that he buried himself and his guests under the ruins of the house precisely because the Spirit, who worked miracles through him, secretly commanded him to do so (Judges 16). So, with the exception of those who are commanded to kill either by the just law, or directly by God himself, the source of justice, everyone who kills either himself or someone else becomes guilty of murder. Chapter 22. Voluntary death in no case can relate to the greatness of the soul And if those who have done this to themselves can sometimes cause surprise at the greatness of their spirit, then they cannot in any way be praised for their prudence. Although, if you look at the matter more carefully, it turns out that the greatness of the spirit should not be seen when someone kills himself only because he is unable to endure some everyday difficulties or the sins of others. In fact, if the weakest mind is considered to be that which is unable to endure either the brutal slavery to which its body is subjected, or the ignorant opinion of the crowd, then the greatest in justice should be called that spirit that is able to endure a disastrous life rather than flee from it, and which, being in the purity and impeccability of conscience, despises human opinion, especially the opinion of the crowd, as a rule, the wrong one. Therefore, if greatness of spirit could be seen in the fact that a person causes death to himself, then this greatness would first of all be visible in Cleombrotus; they say that after reading Plato’s work, in which he discusses the immortality of the soul, he threw himself from the wall and thus passed from this life to the one he considered better. In fact, he was not depressed by anything calamitous or criminal, true or false, which he could not bear and therefore was forced to kill himself; but in his acceptance of death and in the destruction of the sweet shackles of real life, only the greatness of his spirit was revealed. Nevertheless, the fact that his act was rather great than good is evidenced by Plato himself, whom he read: without a doubt, Plato himself either would have acted in the same way, or at least would have prescribed to do so, if he had not been of the opinion that from the point of view of the mind, contemplating the immortality of the soul, this should not be done, and even moreover, such a thing should be prohibited. They say that many allegedly killed themselves so as not to fall into the hands of enemies. But we are not talking about why this was done, but about whether it should be done. For common sense is preferable to a hundred examples. However, examples also agree with him, but only those that are much more worthy of imitation, because they are higher in piety. Neither the patriarchs, nor the prophets, nor the apostles did this. And Christ our Lord himself, commanding the apostles in case of persecution in one city to flee to another (Matthew 10:23), could have commanded that they give themselves up to death so as not to fall into the hands of the persecutors. But since He did not command that those to whom He promised eternal dwellings should move to Him from this life in this way (John 14:2), then no matter what examples people who do not believe in God oppose to us, it is clear that it is not permissible for those who worship the one true God to do so. Chapter 23. How to look at the example of Cato, who killed himself, unable to bear the victory of Caesar However, for them, besides Lucretia, about whom, as it seems, we have said enough above, it is not easy to point out a person whose authority would prescribe (suicide), with the exception of Cato, who killed himself in Utica; this is not because he was the only one who did this, but because he was considered a wise and kind man, so much so that there was every reason to think: such a person could not do wrong. What can be said first of all about his action, if not that his friends, among whom were many learned people, wisely persuaded him not to do this, considering his action to be a manifestation of a spirit rather weak than strong, for it was not so much an affirmation of honor, avoiding dishonor, but weakness, unable to endure misfortune. Cato himself proved this by the example of his beloved son. After all, if it was a dishonor to live under the rule of the victorious Caesar, then why did the father make his son an accomplice in this dishonor, inspiring him to rely in everything on Caesar’s favor? Why didn't he force him to die with him? If Torquatus acted commendably by killing his son, who, contrary to orders, fought with the enemy and even defeated him, then why did the defeated Cato, without sparing himself, spare the defeated son? Is it really more dishonorable to be a winner, contrary to orders, than to endure a victorious enemy? Thus, Cato did not at all consider it dishonorable to live under the rule of the victorious Caesar; otherwise he would have freed his son from this dishonor with his father's sword. So, what does his act mean, if not that as much as he loved his son, whose mercy he wished and expected from Caesar, he was just as jealous of the glory of Caesar himself, fearing that he would not spare himself, as Caesar himself, they say, said about this; or (to put it more charitably) he was ashamed of this glory. Chapter 24. In the virtue in which Regulus surpassed Cato, Christians are much more superior Those against whom our speech is directed do not want us to prefer to Cato the righteous man Job, who considered it better to humbly endure such terrible sufferings than to get rid of them at once by accepting a violent death, or other saints about whom our sacred books, endowed with the highest authority and deserving absolute trust, speak, who courageously endured captivity and the dominion of enemies and did not commit suicide. Of the same men who are described in their works, we prefer Marcus Regulus to this very Marcus Cato. Cato never defeated Caesar, whom he did not want to submit to, and, in order not to submit, he decided to kill himself. Meanwhile, Regulus defeated the Carthaginians, and, as a Roman commander, brought victory to the Roman state not over his fellow citizens, such a victory would deserve sorrow, but over his enemies; but then, defeated by them, he wanted to endure them better, enduring slavery, rather than free himself from them through death. Therefore, while under the dominion of the Carthaginians, he remained patient and unchangeable in his love for Rome, leaving his defeated body to the enemies and his invincible spirit to the citizens. If he did not want to kill himself, then he did not do it out of love for life. This he proved when, in order to fulfill the oath he had taken, he returned to the same enemies, whom he had done much more harm in the Senate with words than in battle with weapons. So, if this man, who did not value life to such an extent, preferred to end it among fierce enemies in any kind of executions than to kill himself, then he undoubtedly considered suicide a great crime. Among all their praiseworthy and famous men, the Romans will not point out the best, whom neither happiness spoiled, for despite all his great victories he remained a poor man, nor was misfortune broken, for he fearlessly went towards such great disasters. If the most famous and courageous defenders of the earthly fatherland and admirers of even false gods, but honest admirers and faithful guardians of their oaths, having the right, according to the customs of war, to kill themselves in case of defeat and at the same time not at all afraid of death, preferred to endure the rule of the victors rather than commit suicide; then how much more should Christians, who honor the true God and sigh for the heavenly fatherland, refrain from this atrocity, if the divine will, for the sake of testing or correction, temporarily subjects them to the power of enemies - Christians, who will not be abandoned in this humiliation by the One who, being the Highest, appeared for them in such humiliation - whom, moreover, no orders of military power or the law of war are forced to kill even and a defeated enemy? So, what harmful delusion forces a person to kill himself only because an enemy has sinned against him or has not sinned, when he does not dare to kill this enemy himself, who has already sinned or is about to sin? Chapter 25. Sin should not be avoided by sin. But one should beware and fear lest the body, which has become the object of the enemy’s voluptuousness, evoke in the spirit permission to sin, luring him to it with the charm of pleasure. Therefore, they say, a person must kill himself before someone does it to him: not because of someone else’s sin, but so as not to commit his own. Of course, a spirit more devoted to God and His wisdom than to bodily desires will in no way allow itself to respond to the lust of its flesh, excited by the lust of others. However, if the obvious truth considers it a heinous crime and an atrocity worthy of condemnation when a person kills himself, then who would be so mad as to say: “It is better to sin now, so as not to sin later; It’s better to commit murder now, so that later, God forbid, you don’t fall into adultery.” If untruth reigns to such an extent that one has to make a choice not between innocence and sin, but between sin and sin, then in this case, possible adultery in the future is better than certain murder in the present. Is it really worse to commit such a sin, which can be atoned for by subsequent repentance, than to commit such an atrocity, after which there is no longer room for saving repentance? I say this for those men and women who believe that they should commit themselves to violent death in order to avoid not the sin of others, but their own, for fear that, under the influence of the lust of another, they might indulge in the lust of their own flesh. However, I don’t think that the Christian mind, which believes in its Lord and, having placed its trust in Him, hopes for His help, I don’t think, I say, that such a mind would respond to the pleasures of its own or someone else’s flesh with indecent consent. And if that disobedience of lust, which dwells in mortal members, moves beyond the law of our will, as if according to its own law, then, being excusable in the body of a sleeping person, is it not much more excusable in the body of one who does not respond to it with consent? Chapter 26 But, they say, many holy women, escaping the persecutors of their chastity during persecution, threw themselves into the river so that it would carry them away and drown them; and although they died in this manner, their martyrdom is nevertheless highly venerated by the Catholic Church. I don’t dare judge this rashly. Whether it is the order of divine authority that the church honor their memory in this way, I don’t know; maybe - and so. What if these women did this not by mistake, but in the name of fulfilling the divine command, not in error, but in obedience, just as we should think of Samson? And when God commands and leaves no doubt about what He commands, who will consider obedience a crime? Who can blame godly submission? But it does not follow from this that anyone who decided to sacrifice his son to God would not have committed a crime just because Abraham did the same. For even a soldier, when he kills a person, obeying the legal authority placed over him, does not, according to the laws of his state, become guilty of murder; on the contrary, if he had not done this, he would have been guilty of disobedience and neglect of authority. But if he had done it without permission, he would have committed a crime. Thus, in one case he will be punished for doing it without an order, in the other - for not doing the same after receiving an order to do it. And if this happens when the commander orders, then how many times more should it happen when the Creator commands? So, whoever hears that it is impermissible to kill himself, let him kill, since He has commanded him, whose orders cannot be ignored, let him only look at whether he really has this undoubted divine command. We judge conscience by what we hear; We do not take upon ourselves the right to judge the secrets of our conscience. “What man knows what is in a man except the spirit of man which dwells in him?” (1 Cor. 2:11). We say one thing, we affirm one thing, we prove one thing in every possible way: that no one should arbitrarily cause death to himself, either to avoid temporary sorrow, because otherwise he is exposed to eternal sorrow; not because of the sins of others, because otherwise, not yet defiled by the sin of others, he will commit his own, and the most serious sin; not because of your previous sins, for the sake of which present life is especially necessary, so that they can be healed by repentance; nor because of the desire for a better life, which he hopes to acquire after death: because for those who are guilty of their own death, there is no better life even after death. Chapter 27. Should one resort to suicide to avoid sin? There remains one more reason - I have already said a few words about it - for which it is considered useful for everyone to take their own life, namely: fear of falling into sin under the influence of either seductive voluptuousness or unbearably heavy sorrow. But if this reason is admitted, then upon further consideration it will lead to the fact that people should be advised to kill themselves at a time when, having been washed in the bath of regeneration, they receive remission of all their sins. It is then that it is time to fear future sins, for all past ones are forgiven. If voluntary death is a good thing, then why doesn’t it happen then? Why, in this case, should the baptized person continue to live? Why should a justified person expose himself again to so many dangers of this life, when he has the opportunity to avoid them by suicide, especially since it is known: “whoever loves danger will fall into it” (Sir. 3:25)? Why love, or, if not love, then at least risk being exposed to so many dangers by continuing this life, when it is permissible to stop it? Or has senseless debauchery so corrupted hearts and deprived them of the sense of truth to such an extent that at a time when everyone should kill himself for fear of falling into sin, this same everyone nevertheless thinks that he should live to endure this world, full of hourly trials, without which not a single Christian life passes? So, why do we waste time on exhortations, by means of which we try to incite those who are baptized either to virginal purity, or to widowed continence, or even to fidelity to the marital bed, since we have better means that eliminate all danger of sin: after all, we could bring to the Lord purer and healthier everyone whom we could persuade to subject themselves to voluntary death following the forgiveness of sins just received! But if someone really believed that this is exactly what should be done, I would call him not even stupid, but crazy. How much shamelessness, in fact, is needed to say to a person: “Dead yourself, so that, living under the power of a debauched barbarian, you do not add the gravest sins to your small sins.” Who else, except with the most criminal thought, can say: “Death yourself, so that after all your sins have been resolved, you will not commit the same or even worse ones, if you continue to live in a world in which so many unclean pleasures seduce, so many outrageous cruelties are raging, so many misconceptions and horrors exist.” If you say so - it’s criminal, then it’s criminal, of course, to kill yourself. For, if there could be any legal reason for killing oneself voluntarily, then, in any case, it would be no more legal than the one that we are now examining. But since this latter is not such, it means that there is no legal one at all. Chapter 28. Why God allowed the voluptuousness of enemies to commit sin over the bodies of abstinent women So, faithful ones of Christ, do not let your life be a burden to you if your integrity has been desecrated by your enemies. If your conscience is clear, you have great and true consolation in the fact that you did not have permission for the sin of those who were allowed to sin against you. And if you ask why it is allowed, then know that there is a certain higher providence of the Creator and Provider of the world, and “His destinies are incomprehensible, and His ways are unsearchable” (Rom. 11:33). Nevertheless, ask your soul sincerely whether you were not too proud of the blessings of your purity, abstinence or chastity and, carried away by human praise, did you not envy some even in this? I do not accuse you of what I do not know, and I do not hear what your hearts answer to your question. However, if they answered that this is so, then do not be surprised that you have lost what you thought to please people, and were left with something that you cannot show to people. If you had no desire to sin, then divine help was sent down to you so that you would not lose divine grace; but you were subjected to human reproach, so that you would not love human glory. Be comforted, faint-hearted ones, by both: tested in one, purified from the other; in this they are justified, in this they are corrected. Those of you whose hearts will answer that you never exalted yourself in the good of virginity, or widowhood, or marital fidelity, but “followed the humble” (Rom. 12:16); they rejoiced at the gift of God with fear, did not envy anyone else's superiority in the same purity and holiness, but despising human praise, which is usually more squandered the less they desire what deserves praise - and those who are such, if they were subjected to the violence of barbaric voluptuousness, should not blame what is so permitted; Let them not think that God does not attach importance to this if he allows something that no one does with impunity. There are, so to speak, a kind of loads of evil lusts that are left unpunished by the current secret divine judgment and are postponed until the final, obvious judgment. But it is quite possible that such, well aware that their hearts had never been arrogantly exalted in the blessing of purity, and yet having experienced hostile violence in their flesh, had a certain secret sweetness, which might have turned into a proud arrogance, if they had escaped this humiliation during the devastation of Rome. And so, just as some admire death so that “malice does not change their mind” (Wis. 4:11), so something is stolen from these by force so that their humility is not changed by happiness. Thus, both of them, already proud that they had not experienced anyone’s shameful touch of their flesh, and those who could have become proud if they had not been subjected to hostile violence, both of them did not lose purity, but learned humility; the former freed themselves from pre-existing pride, the latter from threatening pride. However, we should not pass over in silence the fact that some of the victims might have thought that the benefit of abstinence is a bodily benefit and that it remains only if the body does not experience the touch of anyone’s lust, and does not consist solely in the power of the will, supported by divine help, so that both the body and the spirit are holy together, being at the same time such a benefit that can be lost precisely because of the lust of the spirit. It is possible that this misconception has been corrected. For, considering the feeling with which they served God, undoubtedly believing that God could never leave those who serve Him and call upon Him with a clear conscience, and finally, without doubting how much purity is pleasing to Him, they should also see what follows from this, namely, that God would never allow this to happen to His saints, if the holiness that He communicated to them and which He loves in them could perish in the same way. Chapter 29. How should a Christian family respond to the infidels’ reproach that Christ did not free it from the fury of its enemies So, the children of the highest and true God have their own consolation - a true consolation, consisting of hope not in objects that fluctuate and transitory; They do not find earthly life itself, in which they are raised for heavenly life, worthy of regret, and they enjoy earthly blessings like strangers, without being captivated by them; evil is either tested or corrected. Those who laugh at their trials, and when it happens that one of them is exposed to some temporary misfortunes, say to him: “Where is your God?” (Ps. 41:11), let them say for themselves where their gods are when they undergo the same misfortunes, for the sake of avoiding which these gods are revered, or claim that for this reason they should be revered. The first will answer: “Our God is present everywhere and everywhere indivisibly and nowhere and in nothing; He can be secretly present and absent without leaving; when He subjects us to misfortunes, He either tests our merits or cleanses our sins, and at the same time prepares in advance for us an eternal reward for the temporary misfortunes we have piously endured. And who are you that it’s worth talking to you about your gods, and even more so about our God, who is “more terrible than all gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord created the heavens” (Ps. 96:4-5). Chapter 30. In what shameful prosperity would those who complain about Christian times wish to drown? If your famous Scipio, who was once a high priest, was still alive, whom the entire Senate chose when they were looking for the most worthy man to perform the Phrygian cult 18 in the terrible time of the Punic War, whom you would not have dared to look into the eyes, he himself would have restrained you from this shamelessness. For why, being oppressed by misfortunes, do you complain about Christian times, if not because you would like to calmly enjoy your luxury and indulge in the debauchery of depraved morals, without being disturbed by anything unpleasant? After all, you do not want to preserve peace and an abundance of wealth of all kinds, in order to use these benefits honestly, that is, modestly, soberly, moderately and piously, but in order to experience an endless variety of pleasures at the cost of insane extravagance, because of which such evil would arise in your morals in the midst of prosperity that would be much worse than the most ferocious enemies. And that Scipio, your great high priest, the most worthy man, in the opinion of the entire Senate, fearing this kind of disaster, did not want Carthage, the then rival of the Roman state, to be destroyed, and objected to Cato, who demanded its destruction, for he feared carelessness, this eternal enemy of weak souls, believing at the same time that fear is as necessary for citizens as a guardian for orphans. And his opinion turned out to be correct: history showed that he was telling the truth. For when Carthage was destroyed, that is, when the great threat of the Roman state was scattered and destroyed, so many evils arising from prosperity immediately followed that, first by cruel and bloody rebellions, then by the interweaving of unfortunate circumstances and even by internecine wars, so many murders were carried out, so much blood was shed, so much cruel greed was generated for the confiscation of property and robberies that the very Romans who feared unspoiled life of evil from enemies, with the loss of this unspoiled life they suffered much worse evil from their fellow citizens. And that very passion to dominate, which, more than other vices of the human race, was inherent in the entire Roman people, having won victory in the person of the strongest few, crushed the rest, exhausted from effort and exhaustion, with the yoke of slavery. Chapter 31. With what gradual corruption the passion for domination grew in the Romans Has this passion ever calmed down in the souls of the extremely proud, until it reached royal power with a continuous series of honors? But this continuous transition to new and new honors would not exist if ambition did not outweigh everything. Ambition outweighs only in a people corrupted by the love of money and luxury. And the people became money-loving and prone to luxury as a result of that prosperity, which Scipio very prudently considered dangerous when he did not want a very extensive, fortified and rich enemy city to be destroyed, so that lust would be curbed by fear, and, curbed, would not develop luxury, and with the elimination of luxury, the love of money would not appear; with the elimination of these vices, virtue, useful for the state, would flourish and increase, and freedom consistent with virtue would exist. Proceeding from the same prudent love for the fatherland, this great high priest of yours, unanimously elected by the senate of that time, as the best of men, restrained the senate when it wanted to build a theater stall, and with his strict speech convinced not to allow Greek luxury to penetrate the manly morals of the fatherland and not to sympathize with foreign licentiousness, which would lead to the relaxation and decline of Roman valor. His authority was so great that the Senate, inspired by his words, from then on even forbade the installation of benches, which citizens began to use in the theater, bringing them in during performances. With what zeal would he have expelled the theatrical spectacles themselves from Rome if he had dared to oppose those whom he considered gods! But he did not yet understand that these gods were demons, or, if he did understand, he thought that they should be appeased rather than despised. At that time, the heavenly teaching had not yet been revealed to the pagans, which, purifying the heart to seek heavenly and extra-heavenly objects, would change the passionate movements of human feeling into humble piety and free them from the domination of proud demons. Chapter 32. On the establishment of theatrical performances Yes, you who do not yet know or pretend that you do not know, know, and who murmur against the Liberator from such masters, keep in mind that stage games, obscene shows and vain revelry were established in Rome not thanks to the vices of people, but at the behest of your gods. It would be better if you paid divine honors to Scipio than worshiped gods of this kind; for these gods were far worse than their high priest. If only your mind, which has been reveling in delusions for so long, can allow you to understand something sensibly, pay attention to the following. The gods, to stop the bodily infection, ordered stage games to be given to them; meanwhile, Scipio, in order to eliminate the spiritual infection, forbade the construction of the stage itself. If you have the common sense to prefer the soul to the body, then you yourself will understand who you should rather honor. After all, even that bodily infection stopped not because the refined madness of stage games penetrated into the warlike people, accustomed only to circus games; but the cunning of evil spirits, foreseeing that this infection would cease by itself at a certain time, tried to unleash - and this time not on bodies, but on morals - another infection, much worse, with which it amuses itself most of all. This latter blinded the poor souls with such darkness, brought them to such disgrace that (to our descendants this will perhaps seem incredible) while Rome was devastated, those whom she took possession of and who, having fled from it, managed to reach Carthage, frantically competed with each other as comedians every day in the theaters. Chapter 33. About the vices of the Romans, which the ruin of the fatherland did not correct Crazy minds! What is this, not an error, but an extravagance, that while the eastern nations, as we have heard, mourn your misfortune, and the greatest cities of the most distant countries impose public mourning on themselves, you are busy with theatres, going to them and indulging in much greater madness than before? It was this mental ulcer and infection, this loss of conscience and honor in you that Scipio was afraid of when he forbade the building of theaters, when he thought that prosperity could easily spoil and corrupt you, when he did not want you to be safe from enemies. He did not think that the state could be happy if its walls stood and its morals fell. But for you, what the dishonest demons seduced you with is of much greater importance than what prudent people warned you about. Therefore, you do not want to blame yourself for the evil that you commit, and you blame Christian times for the evil that you endure. In your security, you are not looking for peace for the state, but impunity for your licentiousness; being spoiled by happiness, you could not be corrected by disasters. Scipio wanted to keep you in fear of the enemy, so that you would not indulge in licentiousness; but you, even crushed by the enemy, did not curb yourselves. The disaster did you no good; you have become the most unfortunate, and, at the same time, remained the most evil. Chapter 34. About the mercy of God, which set limits to the destruction of Rome And yet, the fact that you live is the work of God. It is He who, by His mercy, convinces you to correct yourself through repentance; It was He who gave it to you, ungrateful ones, so that you might escape the hands of the enemy, either under the name of His servants, or in the places of His martyrs. They say that Romulus and Remus, trying to increase the population of the city they founded, established a refuge so that everyone who ran there would be freed from any punishment. But the amazing example of this in honor of Christ is much more excellent. The destroyers of Rome established what had not previously been instituted by its builders, for the latter did it to increase the number of their citizens, and the former to spare the great multitude of their enemies. Chapter 35. About the secret sons of the church among the wicked and about false Christians within the church All this and the like, if it can be answered more extensively and better, let the redeemed family of the Lord Christ and the wandering city of the King Christ answer their enemies. Let her only remember that future citizens are hiding among enemies, and do not consider it useless for them what they are hostile to until they have become confessors; in the same way the city of God: while it wanders in this world, it has enemies united with it by the communion of the sacraments, but not having the opportunity to inherit the lot of the saints; среди них есть враги тайные, а есть и явные; the latter do not even hesitate to murmur against God, to whom they swore, filling theaters with other enemies, and with us, churches. But one should not despair of correcting some of them, since even among the most notorious enemies, sometimes predestined friends are hidden, still unknown even to themselves. For these two cities are intertwined and mutually mixed in the present age, until they are separated at the last judgment. About their origin, success and final destinies I will try, with the help of God, to say what, in my opinion, should be said for the sake of the glory of the city of God, which, when compared with what opposes it, will appear in a clearer light. Chapter 36. What subjects should be discussed in further discussion? But I need to say something more against those who attribute the fall of the Roman state to our religion, which forbids them to offer sacrifices to their gods. First of all, they should be reminded how many misfortunes could be pointed out that the Roman state and the provinces belonging to it suffered before their sacrifices were forbidden to them: all these disasters they would undoubtedly attribute to us if our religion had already been known to them or if it had already forbidden them their sacrilegious sacred rites. Then it should be shown for what their morals and for what reason God, in whose power all kingdoms are, was pleased to help increase their power, and how those whom they call gods did not help them in anything, but rather, even harmed them in many ways, deceiving and deceiving. Finally, it will be said against those who, having been refuted and exposed on the basis of the most obvious documents, try to assert that the gods should be worshiped not in view of the benefits of this life, but for the sake of the life that will come after death. If I am not mistaken, this question will be much more difficult and worthy of a more elevated study, for we will have to speak against their philosophers, and not just any, but those who enjoy the most excellent fame among them and who agree with us on many points, for example, regarding the immortality of the soul and the fact that God created the world, and regarding His providence, by which He governs all created things. But since they too must be refuted in that they hold views contrary to ours, we must not shirk this duty, so that, having repelled wicked objections to the best of our ability by God, we defend the city of God, true piety and reverence for God, which alone falsely promises eternal bliss. So, let’s end this book here, so that what we intend to talk about can be presented in the next one. Virg. A_Eneid, 6, v. 853. Here and further we are talking about the capture and plunder of Rome by the Visigoths under the leadership of Alaric in 410. Being mostly Christians, the Visigoths did not touch Christian shrines and spared the townspeople who took refuge there. Horat. Epist. lib. I. Epist. II. v. 69–70. Sallust. de Catilina_e conjurat. In the original "Qui volunt divites fieri, incidunt in temptationem". In the “modern edition” the following verse of Scripture is given here, in contrast to the 1905 edition - Ed. ABCs of Faith Virg. A_Eneid. 6, v. 434–436. This refers to the cult of Cybele - the Great Mother. You might be interested in: