Книга пятая

At the beginning of this book, Bl. Augustine refutes the belief in fate, on the assumption that there will probably be people who will want to attribute the power and growth of the Roman state to fate: since in the previous book he proved that both cannot be attributed to false gods. Having touched upon the question of divine foreknowledge in connection with this, he proves that our free will is not destroyed by this foreknowledge. Then he talks about the ancient Roman morals, and about what merits of the Romans or by what divine judgment it happened that the true God himself, whom they did not honor, contributed to the strengthening of their power. In conclusion, he teaches what the true well-being of Christian emperors should be believed to be. It is known that everything we desire comes down to happiness, which is not a goddess, but a gift from God. Therefore, people should not worship any other god except the One who can make them happy; and if happiness were a goddess, it would be fair to say that this goddess alone should be revered. Therefore, we must now consider the reasons why God, who can bestow such blessings as even unkind and therefore unhappy people can have, deigned that the Roman state was so great and existed for such a long time. That it was not the multitude of false gods whom the Romans worshiped that did this, we have already said a lot about this and will say it again where it turns out to be appropriate. Chapter I. The Roman state and all kingdoms in general are not a matter of chance, and do not depend on the position of the stars So, the greatness of the Roman state was not a matter of chance or fate, according to the opinion of those who call a matter of chance that which has no causes or occurs not due to any rational order, but a matter of fate - that which happens due to some inevitable order, contrary to the will of God and the will of man. Human kingdoms are arranged by divine providence; If someone attributes this to fate on the basis that he calls the divine will and power itself fate, let him retain this thought, but correct its expression. For why shouldn’t he say right away what he will say later, when someone asks him what he understands by fate? After all, when people hear this word, they, according to its usual use, understand by it nothing more than the influence of a certain position of the stars at the moment when someone is born or conceived. Some present this influence as independent of the will of God, and some argue that it is based precisely on it. Those who believe that the stars, apart from the will of God, determine what we will do, what blessings we will have, or what disasters we will endure, should inspire just disgust in everyone: not only those who profess the true religion, but also those who wish to be worshipers of any, even false gods. For what other consequence does this opinion lead to, if not to the fact that absolutely no god needs to be revered and worshiped? However, our reasoning is directed not against such people, but against those who, for the sake of protecting imaginary gods, are hostile to the Christian religion. Those who make dependent on the will of God the position of the stars, which in a certain way determine what someone will be like and what will happen to him, good or bad, those - if they think that the highest divine power has granted the stars such rights that they determine what is mentioned of their own free will - inflict a great insult on heaven: for according to their ideas it turns out that in a kind of the brightest heavenly senate and the most brilliant heavenly curia it is determined that what must be done and atrocities. If any earthly city had decreed something similar, it would have been destroyed by the decision of the human race. Then, what place is left for the judgment of God in the decision of human affairs, which are given a kind of heavenly necessity, while the Lord is the Lord of both the stars and people? If they say that the stars, although they receive power from the Supreme God, determine what is mentioned not according to their own arbitrariness, but under a certain combination of inevitable conditions carry out only His commands, in this case, will it not be necessary to think about God himself that which turned out to be extremely unworthy of attributing to the will of the stars? They will say that the stars rather denote what is mentioned than produce it, so that their known position is, as it were, a kind of phrase that predicts the future, but does not decide it. Indeed, this opinion was held by some very learned people. Although mathematicians are not in the habit of speaking like this, they do not say, for example: “Mars in such and such a position means a murderer”; but they say: “Mars produces a murderer,” let us assume that they do not speak as they should, and that in order to explain what they think they find in a certain position of the stars, they would need to borrow an image of expression from philosophers. But in this case, how does it turn out that they could never really explain why, in most cases, there is such a difference in the destinies of twins: in their activities, and in adventures, and in occupations, and in the arts, and in social status, and in other circumstances of human life; so that many people, strangers in this respect, are more similar to one of them than the twins themselves are to each other, although at birth they are separated by the most insignificant period of time, and are conceived in one copulation, at the same moment? Chapter II. About the same and different health status of twins Cicero says that the famous physician Hippocrates left a note in his writings that when some brothers began to get sick together and their illness at the same time intensified and at the same time receded, he guessed that they were twins. Regarding such, the Stoic Posidonius, zealously devoted to astrology, usually asserted that they were born and conceived under the same position of the stars. Thus, what, in the opinion of the doctor, indicated the closest similarity in the state of health, in the opinion of the philosopher-astrologer related to the influence and location of the stars at the time of their conception and birth. In such a matter, the doctor’s guess is more worthy of attention and much more likely. For whatever was the physical state of the parents at the time of copulation, the same could be the state of the rudiments of the embryos, so that they could be born with the first inclinations of equal health received from the mother's body. Then came upbringing in the same house, the same food; According to medicine, air, location and quality of water, as well as the habit of the same exercises, have a great influence on health; all this forms bodies so similar that the same reasons equally dispose them to the same disease. To make the simultaneity of a disease dependent on the location of the sky and stars at the time they were conceived or born, when at the same time on a strip of earth, located under the same celestial signs, many people of the most different classes, the most different characters and with different fates could be conceived and born, in my opinion, is extremely wild. On the other hand, we knew twins who not only differed in their activities and wanderings, but were also exposed to different diseases. In my opinion, Hippocrates would most naturally explain this by saying that the difference in their state of health could arise from a difference in nutrition and in those exercises that depend not on the physical constitution, but on the mental will. But it would be surprising if Posidonius, or any other defender of the theory of the fatal influence of stars, had anything to say on this subject, if he did not take it into his head to mock ignorant minds in those things that they do not understand. The same conclusions that they try to draw from the insignificant period of time separating the twins from each other at the time of their birth, taking into account the part of the sky in which the observation of the hour is made, which they call a horoscope, these conclusions either indicate a smaller difference than is found in the will, in the actions, in the morals and in the accidents of the life of the twins; or they assume even greater than that which exists between twins, given the identity of their low or noble origin, the difference in which they mainly make dependent on the hour of birth. Because of this, if twins are born one after the other so soon that the indication of the horoscope remains the same, I demand that such identity be observed in everything, which no twins can imagine; if the slowdown of the second-born changes the horoscope, I also demand different parents, which twins cannot have. Chapter III. On the argument that the mathematician Nigidius borrowed from the potter's wheel in the question of twins In vain, therefore, they refer to the famous experiment with the potter's wheel, which they say was invented by Nigidius in response to this question that troubled him, which is why he received the nickname Figulus (potter). Turning the potter's wheel as hard as he could, while spinning it, he quickly touched it twice with black paint, as if in the same place. When the movement of the wheel stopped, the signs it had made were found on the outskirts of the wheel at a considerable distance from one another. Just as accurately, he said, with a certain speed of celestial rotation, at least one after the other was born at the same speed with which I touched the wheel twice, this makes a big difference in celestial space. From this, he explained, there turns out to be a very significant difference in the morals and vicissitudes of the life of the twins. This argument is more fragile than the vessels that are molded by that wheel. After all, if observing the sky is so difficult that it is impossible to understand from the constellations why one of the twins gets an inheritance and the other does not, then how can they, looking at the constellations of others who are not twins, dare to predict what is an incomprehensible mystery, and to time it to the minutes of birth? It will be said that they make similar predictions about others born because these predictions are based on the observation of longer periods of time; and those insignificant parts of minutes that can separate twins from each other at the time of birth refer to empty circumstances about which mathematicians are usually not asked (who, for example, would ask when he will sit, when he will walk, when or what to eat?). But are we really talking about such things when we point out the many and very important differences in the morals, activities and incidents of life of twins? Chapter IV. About the twins Esau and Jacob, who are far from similar to each other in terms of their morals and activities According to ancient history, two twins were born (I will focus only on particularly outstanding cases) one after the other so that the second held the foot of the first. And yet in their lives and morals there was such a contrast, in their actions such a difference, in their parental love for them such a dissimilarity that all this made them enemies. Is this dissimilarity of such a kind that when one walked, the other sat; or when one was asleep, the other was awake; or when he spoke, this one was silent? Such things would be among those little things that cannot be noted by those who determine the position of the stars under which everyone is born and on the basis of which mathematicians give their answers. But one of them was a slave for wages, the other was not a slave; the mother loved one, and did not love the other; one lost honor, which was considered great among them, the other gained it. What difference does it make when it comes to wives, sons, property? So, if this depends on those insignificant periods of time by which twins are separated from each other (at birth), and is not determined by the constellations, then on what basis are such things predicted when the constellations of others (non-twins) are considered? If they are predicted on the basis that they relate not to elusive moments, but to certain spaces of time that are possible for observation and marking, then what does the potter’s wheel have to do with it? Or with its help to turn the clay heads of people and not give them the opportunity to be convinced of the idle talk of mathematicians? Chapter V. How it is indisputably proven that mathematicians teach false meanings The same ones that Hippocrates recognized as twins, observing as a doctor their illness, which in both of them simultaneously intensified and then receded - don’t these same ones sufficiently refute those who attribute to the stars what depended on the similarity in bodily organization? For why did they get sick equally at the same time, and not one before, the other after, as they were born (after all, they could in no way be born together)? If the fact that they were not born at the same time did not cause them to get sick at different times, then on what basis do they claim that the difference in the time of birth has an impact on the difference in other conditions of life? Why could they travel at different times, take wives at different times, give birth to children at different times, and so on, due to the fact that they were born at different times, but could not, due to the same thing, get sick at different times? After all, if the relative slowdown in birth changed the horoscope and introduced differences in other conditions of life, then why, in relation to diseases, did the identity that took place at the same time of conception remain in force? And if the causes that fatally determine health lie in conception, and the causes that determine other circumstances of life are considered to depend on birth, then they should not, based on the observation of the constellations at the moment of birth, give any predictions regarding health, since the hour of conception is not subject to their observation. If, without observing the horoscope of conception, they predict illnesses on the basis that they are indicated by the moments of birth, then how, on the basis of the hour of birth, would they predict for any of the mentioned twins the time when he would fall ill, since the other, who did not have the same hour of birth, should have fallen ill at the same time? Then I ask: if the difference in the time of birth of twins is of such importance that, because of it, they should be under different constellations and therefore have a different horoscope, and with it different combinations of all the planets, in which (combinations) such a power is assumed that the difference in destinies depends on them, then how could this happen if their conception could not occur at different times? If the one moment at which both were conceived did not prevent one from being born before, and the other after, then why, if both were born at the same moment, would anything prevent one from dying before, and the other after? If the simultaneity of conception allows twins in the womb to have a different outcome, then why would not the simultaneity of birth allow any two people to have a different outcome, even if this destroys all the fictions of art, or rather nonsense, in question? Why, in fact, is it that those conceived at the same time, at the same moment, with the same position of the palate, have a different fate, which gives them different hours of birth, and two, equally born at the same moment of time, with the same position of the palate, but from two mothers, cannot have a different fate, which would make them live and die in different ways? Or do those who are conceived not yet have a destiny and cannot have it until they are born? In this case, why claim that these prophets can predict a lot if the hour of conception is determined? Some even say that some sage specially selected a certain hour to lie with his wife, and as a result gave birth to an amazing son. Finally, the fact that the mentioned twins were sick at the same time is explained by the great astrologer, who is also the philosopher Posidonius, precisely by the fact that they were born at the same time and conceived at the same time. He added conception, of course, so that he would not be told that the simultaneity of birth of those undoubtedly conceived at the same time cannot be considered undoubted, and so that he would not be forced to naturally explain the coincidence that they were sick equally and together by the same organization of bodies, but could make the same state of health dependent on the constellations. So, if conception has such an influence on the sameness of destinies, then those born should not have changed these destinies by the time of their birth. If the destinies of twins change because they are born at different times, then why not consider these destinies to have already changed, since they were born at different times? Doesn’t the fate of birth and the will of the living change the same way that the order of those born changes the fate of conception? Chapter VI. About twins of different sexes But even during the very conception of twins, in which, undoubtedly, the moments of time are identical for both, how does it happen that one is conceived by a man and the other by a woman? We know twins of different sexes: both of them are still living, both are still in their prime. In their physical appearance, as far as this is possible given the difference in gender, they are similar to each other, but in their way of life and goals of life they are very different from each other. I’m not talking about the inevitable difference between male and female activities, such as, for example, the fact that one is in the service of the committee and is almost constantly outside his home, while the other lives hopelessly in her father’s house, in her own village; but what is most surprising, if you believe the fatal predestination of the stars, and not surprising at all, if you take into account the human will and the gifts of God, is that one is married, and the other is among the consecrated virgins; he gave birth to numerous offspring, but this one did not marry. Is the influence of the horoscope very strong this time? How insignificant it is, I have already shown enough. Whatever it is, they say, it occurs at birth. Won't they say the same at conception? After all, this time there was clearly only one copulation: the property of nature is such that once a woman has conceived, she cannot (before giving birth) conceive again; therefore, twins are conceived at the same moment. But maybe, since they were born under different horoscopes, during the birth itself one changed into a man, and the other into a woman? Without risking the inevitable stupidity, it could be argued that the influence of the stars extends only to bodily differences, just as the approach and retreat of the sun changes the seasons, and the waxing and waning of the moon increases and decreases certain kinds of things: for example, sea urchins, shells and the amazing tides of the ocean; but that mental dispositions are not subject to the position of the stars. In this case, these gentlemen, who are trying to make our very actions dependent on it, let us advise us how to explain the fact that this principle turns out to be inapplicable even to bodies. For what is more closely related to the body than gender? Meanwhile, twins of opposite sexes can be conceived under the same constellation. And then, is it possible to say or think anything more senseless than that the certain position of the stars, which was the same for both at the hour of conception, could not make it so that a sister who had the same constellation with her brother would not have a different sex with him; but the position of the stars, which was at the hour of their birth, could make her so different from him in her virgin holiness. Chapter VII. About choosing a day for marriage or for planting and sowing something in the field Further, who will find common sense in the efforts of these people to create for their actions in some way new destinies by choosing certain days for them? He, if you please, was not born in such a way that he could have an amazing son, but rather in such a way that he should have given birth to a son deserving contempt; and therefore, as a learned man, he chooses a certain hour to connect with his wife. Thus, he creates a destiny that he did not have, and his action gives rise to a fate that did not exist in his birth. Wonderful stupidity! A famous day is chosen for marriage; This is done, I think, so that otherwise you will not have a bad day and marry unhappily. In this case, where did what was already determined by the stars at birth go? Or can a person, by choosing a certain day, change what is already predetermined for him, and then what he has predetermined for himself by choosing a certain day can no longer be changed by any other power? Then, if only people, and not everything that exists under the sun, are subordinate to the constellations, why do they choose known, as it were, the most favorable days for planting vines, trees and sowing fields, and others, also as the most suitable, for circling animals, for mating when fertilizing mares and cows, etc.? If the choice of certain days for these things is important because a certain position of the stars at different moments of time dominates all earthly bodies, animate or inanimate, then let us pay attention to the countless number of things that are born, arise, conceived at the same moment of time, and, however, have a different outcome; their observations will make even a toddler laugh. In fact, who would be so crazy as to dare to assert that all trees, all herbs, all animals, reptiles, birds, fish, worms, each individual individual have different moments of birth? Nevertheless, famous people have the custom, to test the art of mathematicians, to present for their consideration constellations of dumb animals, carefully observing for this purpose their birth at home, and prefer to all others those mathematicians who, having examined the constellations, will say that an animal was born, and not a person. The latter even have the courage to determine the qualities of the animal and what it is suitable for: whether for wool, or for riding, or for the plow, or for guarding the house. They also try to determine the fate of dogs and give the above-mentioned answers to loud exclamations from surprised listeners. So people go crazy, believing that at the time when a person is born, the appearance of other objects is suspended so that even a fly is not born along with a person under the same strip of heaven. If they assume the latter, conclusions will emerge that will gradually and imperceptibly lead them from flies to camels and elephants. They also do not want to pay attention to the fact that after choosing a certain day for sowing a field, an extraordinary number of grains fall into the ground at the same time, which vegetate together, together, when they sprout, they turn green, together they grow, and turn golden; and yet, of the ears of grain, which are all (sown) at the same time, all, so to speak, have grown together, as it were, some die from rust, others are destroyed by birds, others are plucked by people. How will they assert that these grains, which had such a different end, also had special constellations? Will they really be annoyed that they chose certain days for these things, and argue that heavenly predestination does not concern them, but that only people are subject to the stars - people to whom alone on earth God gave free will? Having weighed all this, you will inevitably come to the conclusion that when astrologers give many predictions that are amazing in their truth, it happens due to the secret suggestion of unkind spirits who try to introduce and confirm in human minds these false and harmful beliefs in stellar destinies, and not by virtue of the art of marking and examining the horoscope - an art that in reality does not exist. Chapter VIII. About those who call the name of fate not the position of the stars, but a certain connection of causes depending on the will of God There are also those who call the name fate not the known position of the stars that occurs during someone’s conception, birth or appearance, but the connection and sequence of all causes in general that produce everything that happens. With such people there is no need to reason and argue for a long time over the name, since they make the very sequence and known connection of causes dependent on the will and power of God, who, according to the beautiful and completely true belief, knows everything before it happens and does not leave it disordered; God, from whom all power comes, although all desires do not come from Him. The latter serves as proof that they call fate mainly the will of the Supreme God, whose power irresistibly extends over everything. If I'm not mistaken, these are poems by Anneus Seneca: Lord on high, father, indicate Where should I go - I follow immediately, Yours truly. If I don’t want to, then There, sinner, I will be drawn, groaning, Enduring everything that a righteous person would endure. Fate leads the humble, but drags the obstinate 61. In this verse, he most obviously calls destinies what he above called the will of the heavenly father. He says that he is ready to obey him in order to be led voluntarily, and not drawn against his will, because Fate leads the humble, but drags the obstinate. The same idea can be heard in the famous verses of Homer, which Cicero translated into Latin as follows: Tales sunt hominum mentes, quali pater ipse Iuppiter auctiferas lustrarit lumine terras. 62 The poetically expressed thought does not, of course, have decisive significance in the present matter. But he says that the Stoics, in confirming the meaning of fate, were in the habit of quoting these Homeric verses. Consequently, we are not talking about the opinion of the poet, but about the opinion of those philosophers; because with these verses, which they cite in their discussions of fate, they express with complete clarity their idea of ​​​​what fate is, for they name Jupiter, whom they consider the supreme god, and make the interweaving of destinies dependent on him. Chapter IX. About the foreknowledge of God and about man's own will, against the definition of Cicero Cicero tries so hard to refute them that he finds nothing better than to oppose all divination in general. He so wants to destroy this fortune-telling that he denies the meaning of the future and proves in every possible way that it does not exist at all, either in God or in man, and that, thus, no predictions exist. Thus, he denies both the foreknowledge of God and every prophecy, even the clearest of the day; tries to refute with empty argumentation and analysis some fairly easily refuted predictions; although, however, it does not sufficiently refute them either. His speech is aimed mainly at refuting the assumptions of mathematicians; this is because their assumptions are indeed such that they undermine and refute themselves. But in essence, it is much easier to reconcile with those who invent at least stellar destinies than with him, who denies foreseeing the future. For to admit that God exists, and at the same time to deny in him the foresight of the future, is pure madness. He saw this himself, and even tried to affirm what was written about: “The fool said in his heart: “There is no God”” (Ps. XIII, 1), but not on his own behalf. He knew what anger and frustration this would cause; therefore, in the books “On the Nature of the Gods,” he forced Cotta to defend this idea against the Stoics and decided to speak out better in favor of Lucilius Balbus, whom he presented as a defender of the Stoics, than in favor of Cotta, who argued that the divine nature does not exist at all. In the books “On Fortune-telling,” he personally, in the most frank manner, rejects the prediction of the future. He does all this, obviously, in order not to admit the existence of fate and not to give up free will. He believes that if we assume the prediction of the future, then the existence of fate will follow so logically that there will be absolutely no possibility of denying it. But no matter how tortuous the reasoning and debate of philosophers may be, we, for our part, just as we confess the highest and true God, so we also confess His highest will, power and foreknowledge. We are not afraid to recognize our voluntary actions as involuntary because He Whom foresight cannot deceive knew in advance that we would do so. This is what Cicero feared when he rejected foresight; The Stoics were also afraid of this when they argued that not everything is done out of necessity, although they argued that everything happens according to the determination of fate. In fact, what did Cicero find dangerous in foreseeing the future that he tried so hard to refute it with his disgusting reasoning? And the fact is that if the entire future is foreseen, then it will happen in the order in which it is foreseen; and if it happens in this order, then for God’s foreknowledge there is a certain order of things; if there is a definite order of things, then there is a definite order of causes: for nothing can happen that is not preceded by some cause that causes it; and if there is a certain order of causes from which everything that happens comes, then, he says, everything that happens happens according to the determination of fate. If this is so, then there is nothing in our power, and the arbitrariness of free will does not exist; and if we allow the latter, he says, then all human life is overthrown: laws are passed in vain, blame, praise, reproaches, admonitions are used in vain; There is no justice in the fact that rewards are established for the good and punishments for the evil. To avoid such undesirable, absurd and disastrous consequences for human life, he does not want to allow foresight of the future and puts the religious soul in the need to choose one of two things: either some freedom of our will, or the existence of foreknowledge of the future. Together, both, in his opinion, cannot exist. If one is allowed, the other is destroyed. If we allow foreknowledge of the future, free will is destroyed; if free will is allowed, foreknowledge of the future is destroyed. And so he, as a great and learned man who treats human life with the greatest care and experienced wisdom, chooses the freedom of human will, and in order to recognize its existence, rejects prediction of the future. Thus, out of a desire to make people free, he made them blasphemers. But the religious soul chooses both; he confesses both; The faith of piety recognizes both as truth. How, he objects? After all, if foreknowledge of the future exists, then all the above conclusions and those that follow from this are valid, including the one that there is nothing in our will. If there is anything in our will, then through reverse conclusions we will reach the conclusion that foreknowledge of the future does not exist. The reverse order of these conclusions is as follows: if free will exists, then not everything happens according to the determination of fate; if not everything happens according to the determination of fate, then there is no definite order of causes; if there is no definite order of causes, then for God's foreknowledge there is no definite order of things in which they can exist only if there are causes that precede them and cause them; and if for God’s foreknowledge there is no definite order of things, then not everything happens in such a way that He knows in advance how it will happen; then, if everything does not happen in such a way that He knows how it will happen, then, he says, foreknowledge of the entire future does not exist in God. In contrast to these sacrilegious and impious attempts, we affirm that God knows everything before it happens, and we do of our own free will everything that we feel and recognize as our voluntary action. But we do not say that everything happens according to the determination of fate; Moreover, we affirm that there is no fate at all. We say, based on the essence of the matter itself, that the word "fate" has no meaning where it is usually used in colloquial language, that is, when applied to the position of the stars at the time of someone's conception or birth. We do not deny the order of causes in which the great power of God’s will is manifested, but we do not call it fate; unless we derive the word “fate” (fatum) from the word “to speak” (fando). In the latter case, we cannot but admit that in the sacred books it is written: “Once God said, and twice I heard it, that with God is power, and with You, O Lord, is mercy, for You reward everyone according to his deeds” (Ps. LXI, 12-13). The expression “once said” means: said unshakably, i.e. invariably, as he invariably knew everything that would be and that He himself would accomplish. In this sense, deriving fatum from fando, we could use the word “fate” if other ideas were not usually associated with this word, which we do not want to evoke in human minds. The same conclusion, that if for God there is a certain order of causes, then there is nothing for the choice of our free will, does not follow from this at all. For our will itself is in the order of causes, which, as a determined order, is contained in the foreknowledge of God; because human will is also the cause of human actions. And therefore, He who knows in advance the causes of all things cannot in any way fail to know our will among these causes, since he knows the reasons for our actions. To refute Cicero in this matter, it is enough that he agreed with himself, saying that nothing happens that is not preceded by a cause that causes it 63. What benefit does his reasoning bring to him that nothing supposedly happens without a reason, but not every supposed reason is fatal: because there is supposedly a random reason, there is a natural one, there is an arbitrary one? It is enough to recognize that everything that happens does not happen otherwise than as a result of a cause that precedes it. For those causes that are called random (fortuitae) - from where the very name of fortune comes - we do not call those causes non-existent, but only hidden, and we attribute them to the will of either the true God, or some spirits; and we by no means imagine natural causes themselves to be independent of the will of Him Who is the Creator and Maker of all nature. Arbitrary causes are the property of either God, or angels, or people, or some animals (if only one can call such movements of dumb animals that they perform according to the demands of their nature, striving for something or avoiding something, manifestations of the will). By the will of angels I mean the will of both the good angels, whom we call the angels of God, and the evil angels, whom we call the angels of the devil, or demons, as well as the will of people, both good and evil. From this follows the conclusion that there are no other causes that cause everything that happens, except those depending on the will - on the will of that nature, which represents the spirit of life. For natural air, or wind, is called spirit: but since it represents a body, it is not the spirit of life. So, the Spirit of life, Who animates everything, is the Creator of every body and the Spirit of every creation - God himself, the Spirit in all respects uncreated. In His will is the supreme power, which helps the good dispositions of the will of the created spirits, judges the evil dispositions, puts everything in order, and gives power to some and does not give it to others. Being the Creator of all nature, He is also the Giver of all power, but not of every disposition of the will. Evil dispositions of the will are not from Him, because they are contrary to nature, which received its existence from Him. So, bodies are primarily subject to will - some to our will, that is, to the will of all animate mortals, and more to the will of people than of animals; some - to the will of the angels; but all are primarily subordinate to the will of God, to whom the will of all is subordinate, since it has no power other than that which He gives. Thus, the cause of things, which produces but is not itself produced, is God. Others both produce and are produced, such as, for example, all created spirits, especially rational ones. Bodily causes, which are produced more than they produce, should not be placed among the causes that cause phenomena; for they can only do what the will of the spirits makes of them. So, how does it follow from the existence of an order of causes, which is a definite order for God’s foreknowledge, that there is nothing in our will, when our will occupies a significant place in the very order of causes? Let Cicero argue with those who call this order of causes fatal, or, more precisely, it is precisely this that is called fate 64; we are far from such an opinion, especially because of the word used in ordinary speech in a false sense. But when he denies that for God's foreknowledge there is a most definite and clear order of all causes, we disagree with him more than the Stoics. Let him at least deny the existence of God, as he tries to do through a figurehead in the books “On the Nature of the Gods”; if he acknowledges the existence of God, but denies the foreknowledge of the future in him, then he says essentially the same thing as the famous madman who “said in his heart: “There is no God”” (Ps. 13:1). For he who does not have foreknowledge of the entire future is not God. And the will itself has as much power as God willed and as far as God knew in advance. Therefore, to the extent that it has power, it has it in the most definite way, and what it has to do, it will certainly do: because He Whom foresight cannot deceive knew in advance that it would have power and would do. Therefore, if I decided to call something by the name of fate, I would rather call the fate of the weakest the will of the strongest, who has it in his power, than I would agree that the freedom of our will is destroyed by the order of causes that the Stoics are in the habit of, contrary to the generally accepted use of the word, calling fate. Chapter X. Is the human will governed by any necessity? Therefore, there is no need to be afraid of that necessity, out of fear of which the Stoics tried to distinguish the causes of things in such a way that some of them were freed from necessity, and some were subordinated to it; Moreover, our will was also included among those who did not want to leave it subordinate to necessity, based, obviously, on the consideration that it would not be free if it were subordinated to necessity. For if necessity in relation to us must be called something that is not in our power and, contrary to our desire, does what it can, such as, for example, the necessity of death, then it is obvious that our will, which determines our life well or badly, is not under such necessity. We do a lot of things that we would never do if we didn’t want to. This includes, first of all, desire itself: it is there if we want, and it is not there if we don’t want it; we wouldn't want to if we didn't want to. If we are talking about the necessity that we mean when we say that it is necessary for this to be so or to be done so, then I do not understand why we should be afraid that this necessity would take away our free will. After all, we do not subordinate either the life of God or the foreknowledge of God to necessity when we say that it is necessary for God to live forever and know everything in advance; just as His power is not diminished when they say that He can neither die nor make mistakes. For Him this is impossible to such an extent that His power would rather be diminished in all respects if it were possible for Him. He is rightly called omnipotent, although he cannot die and cannot be deceived. He is called omnipotent because he does what he wants and does not tolerate what he does not want; if the latter had happened to Him, He would in no way be omnipotent. That is why something is impossible for Him, because He is omnipotent. In the same way, when we say that we necessarily desire of our own free will, when we desire something, we are certainly speaking the truth, and by this we are not subordinating our good will to necessity, which deprives us of freedom. So, our free will exists, and it does everything that we do at will and that would not be done if we did not wish. If someone, contrary to his will, endures something at the will of other people, the will in this case does not lose its meaning; although it is not the will of this person that is carried out, but the power of God. For if there is only will, and it cannot accomplish what it wants, encountering an obstacle from a more powerful will, then in this case it does not cease to be the will, and the will of not someone else, but namely the one who wants, although he is not able to fulfill what he wants. Therefore, whatever a person endures against his will, he should not attribute to the will of either human, or angelic, or any other created spirit, but to the will of Him who gives power to those who have the will. Thus, it is impossible to assert that there is nothing in our will on the sole basis that God knew in advance what would be in our will; for it cannot be said that he who foresaw this foresaw nothing. Then, if he who knew what was to be in our will foresaw not nothing, but something, then there is no doubt that even with His foresight there is something in our will. Therefore, we do not find ourselves in the least forced either to reject free will, having assumed God’s foreknowledge, or to deny (which is wicked) God’s foreknowledge of the future, having assumed free will. We accept both; We confess both firmly and correctly: one - in order to believe well, the other - in order to live well. Life, however, is bad if faith in God is not good. Therefore, let it be far from us to think, out of a desire for freedom, to deny the foresight of Him with whose help we use or will enjoy freedom. In the same way, laws, and censures, and admonitions, and praises, and reproaches are not in vain: He knew in advance that they should be, and they have the greater power because He knew in advance what kind of power they would have. Prayers also have power to ask for that which He knew in advance, which is given through the prayers of those who ask. Rewards for good deeds and punishments for sins are also fairly established. For a person does not sin because God knew in advance that he would sin; on the contrary, this is why there is no doubt that it is he who sins when he sins, because He, whose foresight cannot be deceived, knew in advance that it was not fate, not fortune or anything else, but it was he who would sin. If he doesn't want to, he certainly won't sin; but God also knew in advance about his reluctance to sin. Chapter XI. About the universal providence of God, on whose laws everything is based So, in no way can one think that God, the highest and true with His Word and the Holy Spirit, which three are one, God is the one and omnipotent Creator and Creator of every soul and every body, with whose communication all are happy, who are truly and not vainly happy; God, who created man as a rational animal from soul and body, did not allow him to go unpunished when he sinned, but did not deprive him of His mercy; who gave good and evil a common essence with stones, plant life – common with trees, sensory life – common with animals, intellectual life – common with some angels; From whom is every image, every form, every order; from Whom is measure, number and weight; from whom are all things that occur naturally, of whatever kind or significance they may be; from whom come the elements of forms, the forms of elements, the movement of elements and forms; who gave the flesh its origin, beauty, good health, proportionate arrangement of members, proper harmony; who gave the irrational soul memory, feelings, the ability to desire, and the rational soul, moreover, intelligence, understanding, will; who did not leave not only heaven and earth, not only angel and man, but also the entrails of the smallest and most despised animate, and the feather of a bird, and the flower of grass, and the leaf of a tree, without giving them a certain proportionality in their parts and in a kind of mutual peace - in no way can it be thought that God judged to leave outside the laws and providence of His kingdoms of men and their positions, dominant and subordinate. Chapter XII. By what morals did the ancient Romans deserve that the true God exalted their state, although they did not honor Him? Now let's see for what morals of the Romans and for what reason the true God, in whose power all earthly kingdoms are, deigned to promote the spread of their power. So that we could speak about this more decisively, we also wrote a previous book related to the same subject, showing that in this case those gods whom they considered it necessary to honor with meaningless rites have no power; The previous chapters of this book up to this point were also written in order to eliminate the question of fate, so that someone, having already become convinced that the Roman Empire did not spread and was preserved due to the veneration of those gods, would not attribute this to some kind of fate instead of the most powerful will of the Supreme God. Yes, the ancient and primitive Romans, although they, like other peoples, with the exception of the Jewish, honored false gods and made sacrifices not to God, but to demons, nevertheless, as their history testifies and proves, “out of the desire for a good opinion of themselves, they did not value money, they sought great glory and honest wealth” 65. They loved this glory most ardently, they wanted to live for it, they did not hesitate to die for it. They subordinated all their other passions to this great passion. Since the subordinate position seemed inglorious to them, while the dominant and commanding position seemed glorious, they wanted to see their fatherland itself, first of all, free, and then dominant. That is why, not being able to tolerate royal power, they established for themselves a one-year rule and two rulers, who were called consuls from consulendo, and not kings or lords from reign and domination. Although it is possible that kings (reges) got their name from government (regendo), so that the word “kingdom” comes from the word “king”, and the word “king” from the word “to rule”; but the situation of royal power, which gave it the character of inaccessibility, was considered the pride of the ruling power, and not the order of government, and even less - the favor of the power that governs through councils (consulentis). So, when King Tarquinius was expelled and consuls were installed, then what happened was that, as the same author says, listing the virtues of the Romans, “the city, it’s hard to believe, having become free, strengthened in a short time to such an extraordinary degree that it was carried away by an extraordinary thirst for glory.”66 It was this thirst for a good opinion of oneself, this passionate desire for glory that gave rise to many amazing deeds, deeds, by human standards, commendable and glorious. The same Sallust praises the great and famous men of his time, Marcus Cato and Gaius Caesar, saying that the Roman Republic for a long time did not have great ones in their valor, but in his memory there were these two, great in valor, but different in character. While listing Caesar's virtues, he includes among them the fact that Caesar passionately desired for himself great power, troops and a new war in which he could show off his valor 67 . Thus, the cherished desire of men of great valor was that Bellona would incite poor peoples to war and torment them with a bloody scourge, if only there would be an opportunity to show off her valor to them. It was a matter of thirst for a good opinion of oneself and a passionate desire for fame. So, the Romans accomplished many great things, first out of the love of freedom, and then out of the love of domination and out of a passionate desire for a good opinion of themselves and glory. Their famous poet also testifies to both; he says: Tarquin will be banished, and Porsena, Having accepted it, he will put Rome under siege. Aeneas child, valuing freedom, Then they will hastily engage in battle 68 . Then it was a great thing for them either to die, as brave men should, or to live free. But when freedom was secured, they were overcome by such a passionate desire for glory that freedom alone, without acquiring at the same time dominion, was not enough for them. Then what the same poet says, as if on behalf of Jupiter, began to be considered great for them: But Juno will finally come to her senses, What now keeps everything around in fear, And with me she will strengthen the power of the Romans, Masters of the universe, toga-wearing people: It's decided. When are minutes years The house of Assarak will conquer Feiya, On glorious Mycenae the yoke of slavery Will impose, subjugate Argos 69. Although Virgil, depicting Jupiter as supposedly predicting the future, was in fact talking about what had already happened and had in mind the present: nevertheless, I considered it necessary to quote his words in order to show that after freedom the Romans especially highly valued power; so that it was ranked among their great virtues. Therefore, the same poet places the art of reigning, commanding, conquering and suppressing peoples, characteristic of the Romans, above the arts of other peoples, saying: Almost living faces will appear from marble, And they will make a speech, count all the stars in the orbit, Giving the stars names; but you, son of Rome, remember What are you most skilled at: ruling the world, In your ability to give laws, Spare the humble, casting down the proud 70. They applied these arts to their work the more successfully, the less they indulged in sensual pleasures and the less they relaxed their soul and body, chasing wealth and increasing it, thus spoiling morals, robbing poor citizens, wasting (wealth) on vile actors. And since such moral ulcers had already become dominant and common at the time when Sallust wrote the above and Virgil sang the above, the Romans then achieved honor and glory not through those arts, but through cunning and deception. Therefore, the same Sallust says: “But originally the motivation for human souls was ambition rather than greed. This vice is close, however, to virtue. For both a good person and a wicked one desire glory, honor, and power equally; but the first (adds Sallust) goes to this in a direct way, and the last, not mastering good arts, achieves it by cunning and deception" 71 . These good arts consist in achieving honor, glory and power through virtue, and not through crafty ambition. Both the good and the bad man desire them alike; but the first one, i.e. kind, goes to them directly. This path is virtue, which leads, as to its direct goal, to glory, honor, power. That these concepts were instilled in the Romans is indicated by the churches of their gods. Considering the gifts of God to be gods, they erected churches of Virtue and Honor nearby. From this one can see what goal they indicated for virtue, what good people directed it towards - namely, towards honor. For the evil ones did not have it, and although they wanted to have honor, they tried to achieve it with bad arts, that is, with cunning and deceit. The best review is made about Cato. Sallust says about him: “The less he sought fame, the sooner it followed him” 72. The fame they craved was the judgment of men who thought well of men. Therefore, better is that virtue which is not satisfied by human judgment, but only by the judgment of one’s own conscience. Accordingly, the apostle says: “This praise of ours is the testimony of our conscience” (II Cor. I, 12). And in another place: “Let each one test his own work, and then he will have praise only in himself, and not in another” (Gal. VI, 4). So, it is not virtue that should pursue fame, honor and power, which they desired for themselves and which good people tried to achieve with good arts, but, on the contrary, they should pursue virtue. The only true virtue is that which strives towards the goal in which lies the good of man, which has nothing better in comparison with itself. Therefore, he should not have asked for the honor that Cato asked for, but society should have given it to him for his virtue without his request. But of these two great virtuous men of that time, Caesar and Cato, Cato's virtue was obviously much more similar to real virtue than the virtue of Caesar. Then, what society was like at that time and what it was like before, we learn from the speech of Cato himself. “Do not think,” he says, “that our ancestors made a republic from a small one to a great one through weapons. If this were so, we would have it (now) incomparably better. We have much more allies and citizens than they do, not to mention weapons and war horses. There was another thing that made them great and which we do not have: this is diligence in internal affairs, fair governance outside Rome, but in deliberations about state affairs - judgment is free and not involved in either crime or passion. Instead, we have extravagance and greed, public poverty, wealth in private hands: we give honor to wealth, we love inactivity; We have no distinction between good and bad people; everything that should be the reward of virtue is possessed by deceit among us. Therefore, it is not surprising that when each of you thinks only of himself, when at home you indulge in pleasures, and outside of it you subservient to money or influential people, the attack on the republic does not meet with resistance.” 73 He who listens to these words of Cato or Sallust will think that all the ancient Romans, or at least most of them, were at that time such as they are described. But in reality it was different. Otherwise, what Sallust writes about and what I already spoke about in the second book of this work would be unfair. 74 He says that from the very beginning there was oppression from the strongest, and because of this there was enmity between the people and the patricians and other internal dissensions; that justice and impartiality were observed only while, after the expulsion of the kings, Tarquin was feared and until the cruel war started with Etruria because of him was over; and then the patricians began to treat the people as slaves, subject them, like kings before, to torture, deprive them of land and, having eliminated others, rule alone; The discord that arose because of this, when some wanted to dominate and others did not want to be slaves, was put an end to by the second Punic War, for it again brought great fear, kept restless minds from previous unrest, giving them another, greater concern, and returned them to civil harmony. Great things have been accomplished by a few who were good people in their own way; and when the said evil became bearable and did not cross certain boundaries, the state was strengthened by the care of these few good ones, as the same historian asserts. He says that, reading and hearing about the many famous deeds that the Roman people accomplished at home and in war, at sea and on land, he wanted to pay special attention to what primarily determined these famous deeds; since he knew that the Romans very often fought with a small army against large legions of enemies, and heard that wars were waged with small means against the richest kings, then after a comprehensive discussion, he says, it became clear to him that all this was accomplished by the amazing valor of a few citizens and that thanks to it poverty defeated riches, small numbers - crowdedness. But after, he continues, how society was spoiled by luxury and inaction, the republic, with its greatness, began to support only the vices of the military and civilian leaders. So, Cato also praises the virtue of those few who go to glory, honor and power in a direct way, that is, through virtue itself. The prudence in internal affairs, which Cato mentioned, depended on this, as he strove to ensure that the state treasury was rich and private property meager. Therefore, when morals deteriorated, vice created the opposite order of things: poverty of the state and wealth of private individuals. Chapter XIII. About ambition, which, although it is a vice, is considered a virtue because it prevents greater vices So, in accordance with how famous kingdoms existed for a long time in the East, God wanted a kingdom to appear in the West, which was later in time, but more famous in terms of the extent of its power and greatness. To curb the grave atrocities of many new peoples, He gave power to such people who cared about their homeland for the sake of honor, praise and glory, while not hesitating to prefer the glory and well-being of their homeland to their own well-being and for the sake of this one vice, that is, ambition, suppressing in themselves the greed for money and many other vices. For he who sees ambition as a vice looks at things more sensibly. This did not escape the poet Horace, who says: Ambition drives you to eliminate this disease, Follow the right remedy - read books 75. In order to curb the passion for domination, he wrote in lyrical poetry: Your kingdom will expand more if you curb your greed, Than when you round off distant Cadiz with Libyan land And both Phoenicians 76 will serve as your slaves. But it is also true that people who have not asked for the piety of the Holy Spirit by faith and do not curb their most vile lusts with love for spiritual beauty, out of a passionate desire for human honor and glory, become, if not saints, then at least less vile. Tullius could not remain silent about this. In his books on the Republic, when discussing the establishment of a head of state, he says that he should be nourished by glory; and then mentions that his ancestors accomplished many amazing and famous deeds due to a passionate desire for fame. However, even in the philosophical books themselves he does not hide this ulcer, but exposes it to the light. Speaking about such scientific pursuits, which should be indulged in for the sake of true good, and not empty human honor, he cites the following maxim, universally and shared by everyone: “Science and art are nourished by honor; everyone eagerly takes up glorious pursuits, leaving in complete neglect those that are not approved by anyone” 77 . Chapter XIV. That the love of human glory should be suppressed, because all the glory of the righteous is in God There is no doubt, then, that this passion for fame is better resisted than yielded to. For everyone becomes more like God the more clean he is from this dirt. Although in this life, as a rule, it is not completely eradicated from the heart, because it does not cease to tempt even those souls sufficiently established in goodness, the passion for glory must at least be overcome by the love of truth, so that if something were to be neglected due to the disapproval of some, and yet it was good and just, then human ambition itself would be ashamed and yield to the love of truth. This prophet becomes an enemy of God when the passion for glory is stronger in the heart than the fear or love of God, as the Lord said: “How can you believe when you receive glory from each other, but do not seek the glory that comes from God alone?” (John V, 44). In the same way, about some who believed in Him, but were afraid to openly confess their faith, the evangelist says: “They loved the glory of men more than the glory of God” (John XII, 43). The apostles did not do this. They preached the name of Christ even where it was not only disapproved (according to what Cicero says, “leaving in complete neglect those (occupations) that are not approved by anyone”), but also cursed. They firmly adhered to what they heard from the good Teacher and, at the same time, the Healer of souls: “Whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Heavenly Father” (Matthew X, 33). Under curses and curses, during the most severe persecutions and cruel executions, the howl of human hatred did not deter them from preaching salvation. The consequence of their divine deeds and words, the consequence of their divine life - when hard hearts were in some way won and the peace of justice established - was the great glory of Christ in the Church. They did not rest, however, on her as the final goal of their virtue; but relating it itself to the glory of God, by whose grace they were such, they, in those for whom they cared, ignited with this spark love for Him, thanks to Whom they themselves were such. For the Teacher taught them to be good not for the sake of human glory, saying: “See that you do not do your alms before people so that they see you: otherwise you will have no reward from your Heavenly Father” (Matthew VI, 1). But at the same time, so that they would not be afraid, having understood these words incorrectly, to please people and not bring less benefit by hiding their kindness, He spoke to them, indicating the purpose for which they were to gain fame: “Let your light so shine before people, so that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew V, 16). So, not “so that they see you,” that is, not in the way you would like to turn their gaze to yourself, because you do not represent something through yourself; but so that they “glorify your Father in heaven,” by turning to Whom they will become the same as you. They were followed by martyrs who did not subject themselves to executions, but endured those assigned to them and surpassed both the Scaevoli, the Curtii, and the Decii, both in true virtue - because it was conditioned by true piety - and in their countless numbers. But since the Scaevoli, Curtii and Decii belonged to the earthly city (since all their duties in relation to this city were aimed at its well-being and kingdom not in heaven, but on earth, not in eternal life, but in the succession of those who die), what did they have to love if not glory, through which they wanted to continue their life in some way after death in the memory of the people glorifying them? Chapter XV. About the temporary reward that God gave to good Roman morals So, if God, who had not given eternal life with His holy angels in His heavenly city, to participation in which true piety leads to religious worship, called by the Greeks λατρείαν, only to the one true God - if, I say, God had not granted the Romans even this earthly glory to create a most excellent state, then to their good arts, i.e. the virtues by which they tried to achieve this glory would not have been given the reward they deserved. For about those who do something good in order to find glory among people, the Lord himself says: “Truly I say to you, they have already received their reward” (Matthew VI, 2). So they did: they neglected for the sake of the common property, i.e. for the sake of the republic and its treasury, with their private property; suppressed greed; gave a free voice in meetings about the affairs of the fatherland; have not stained themselves in the face of their laws either with misdeeds or passion; and with all these arts, as if on a direct path, they went to honor, power and glory: for this they acquired respect for themselves among almost all nations; They subordinated many of them to the laws of their state and are now famous among almost all nations for their literature and history. Yes, they cannot complain about the injustice of the supreme true God: they have received “their reward.” Chapter XVI. About the reward awaiting the holy citizens of the eternal city, for whom examples of Roman virtues are not useless A completely different reward awaits the saints who endure reproach here for the city of God, hated by the adherents of this world. That city is eternal. No one is born in it because no one dies. In him is true and complete happiness - not a goddess, but a gift from God. From there we received a pledge of faith, encouraging us while, while wandering, we sigh at its beauty. There the sun does not rise on the good and the evil (Matt. V, 45), but the sun of righteousness shines only on the good. And there will be no particular need to enrich the public treasury at the expense of private property where the common treasure is the treasure of truth. Therefore, the spread The Roman state, which made it glorious among men, was accomplished not only so that such a reward would be given to similar people, but also so that the citizens of the eternal city, while wandering on earth (2 Cor. V, 6), would not ignore and discuss such examples and see how great their love for the heavenly homeland should be for the sake of eternal life, if the earthly homeland was so loved by its citizens for the sake of human glory. Chapter XVII. How much benefit did the Romans receive from the wars they fought, and how much benefit did they bring to those they defeated? After all, as far as the real short-term life of mortals is concerned, does it really matter under whose authority a person who must die lives, unless those who command him force him to dishonor and injustice? Did the Romans in any way harm those peoples to whom, after conquering them, they gave their laws, except that this was done at the cost of a cruel military defeat? If this had happened by mutual agreement, it would have had much better consequences: there would have been no glory for the triumphants. After all, the Romans themselves lived by the same laws that they gave to others. If all this had happened without the participation of Mars and Bellona, ​​if there had been no victory (where no one fights, there is no one to win), would not the Romans have lived in the same conditions as all other peoples? This would be all the more true if from the very beginning what was done with great willingness and the highest degree of philanthropy was subsequently done, namely, that all belonging to the Roman state should have a share in civil life and be Roman citizens; Then what was previously the property of a few would become the property of all. Only the mob, who did not have their own fields, would be supported at the expense of the state; but this content would be provided by the good rulers of the state much more willingly with the consent between them and the people than at a time when they were forced to do so by force. In fact, I absolutely do not see what difference in the sense of integrity, good morals, even the very social status of people is made by the fact that some won and others were defeated, with the exception of this empty arrogance of human glory, in which those who burned with a strong passion for it and waged desperate wars received their reward. Aren't their fields taxed? Or are they allowed to study something that others are prohibited from? Are there not many senators in other regions who have never even seen Rome? Throw away the swagger, and what will all people be if not people? If the moral laxity of the time allowed the best people to be the most honorable, then even in this case human honor should not be considered anything particularly important; because smoke has no weight. But let us also take advantage of the good deed of our Lord our God this time: let us pay attention to how much they neglected, what they endured, what passions they pacified in themselves for the sake of human glory, which they received as a reward for these virtues. This will be enough for us to suppress our pride. If the city in which we are promised to reign is as different from this as heaven is from earth, as temporary joy is from eternal life, as lasting glory is from empty praise, as the company of angels is from the company of mortals, as the light of Him who created the sun and moon is from the light of the moon and the sun, then the citizens of such a fatherland obviously did not do anything great, if they did anything good or suffered some evil to acquire it, since they did so much and so much they endured for the sake of this earthly thing, which was already their property of the fatherland. And this despite the fact that the remission of sins, which attracts citizens to the eternal fatherland, has something with which the well-known right of refuge of Ramulus, which gathered the mass of the people who built Rome, had some similarities for the sake of impunity for all kinds of crimes. Chapter XVIII. How far should Christians be from boasting of anything done out of love for the eternal fatherland, if the Romans did so much for the sake of human glory and earthly citizenship So, what great feat is it to neglect, for the sake of the eternal and heavenly fatherland, even all the temptations of this world, if even for the sake of the present and temporary fatherland, Brutus could kill his sons without being forced to do so by anyone? After all, it is in any case more difficult to kill your children than to distribute what is collected or saved for children - as it should be done for the sake of the heavenly fatherland - to the poor, or to lose it if it turns out to be necessary to do so for the sake of faith and truth. For what makes both us and our children happy is not the wealth that we can lose during our lifetime or that after our death can pass into the possession of people we do not know or those we do not want. It is God who makes us happy, who is the true wealth of the soul. The poet himself sees the murder of his sons by Brutus as proof of his misfortune. He says: And children stirring up new wars, Putting to death the father who defends the good of freedom, No matter how posterity judges it - unfortunate! And in the next verse he consoles the unfortunate: Thus, love and an immeasurable thirst for glory for the fatherland won 78. Freedom and the thirst for human glory were two motives that forced the Romans to do amazing things. So, if a father could kill his children for the sake of the freedom of citizens who could die, and out of a thirst for glory expected from mortals, then what great feat is if for the sake of true freedom, which frees us from the dominion of untruth, death and the devil, and not out of a thirst for human glory, but out of love for people who are to be liberated not from King Tarquin, but from demons and the prince of demons, not children are killed, but are numbered among the children of the poor of Christ? Another famous Roman man, nicknamed Torquatus, put his son to death because, out of youthful fervor, having been summoned by the enemy, he fought not against the fatherland, but for the fatherland, only against its power, that is, contrary to the order made by the father-military leader, although he remained victorious. Torquatus feared that the example of disregard for authority would bring more harm than the glory of killing the enemy would bring good. After this, what can those who despise earthly blessings, at least much less beloved than children, boast about for the sake of the laws of their immortal fatherland? Furius Camillus, who freed his fatherland from the yoke of the most powerful enemies, the Veyens, and was subjected to trial and condemnation by envious people, liberated his ungrateful fatherland another time from the Gauls, because he did not have a better fatherland in which he could live, enjoying glory. On what basis will he extol himself, as if he had accomplished something great, the one who, being most unjustly deprived of honor in the Church by carnal enemies, did not go over to the side of her heretical enemies and did not himself begin to invent any heresy hostile to her, but, as far as he could, defended her from the most destructive heretical fabrications? After all, there is no other Church - not one in which one could live with human glory, but one in which eternal life could be acquired. In order to have peace from King Porsena, who oppressed the Romans with a cruel war, Mucius, who did not have the opportunity to kill Porsena himself, but instead killed another by mistake, extended his right hand to the burning altar in front of his eyes, saying that many, like him, had sworn a mutual oath to destroy him. Porsena, fearful of the courage of Mucius and the conspiracy of others like him, immediately made peace. Who after this would put his merits into account for the kingdom of heaven if he had to, not doing this on himself, but enduring it as a result of someone else’s persecution, put not one hand, but his whole body on fire for this kingdom? Curtius, having fired up his horse, rushed headlong, fully armed, into the abyss. He obeyed the prophecies of his gods. They ordered the Romans to throw there the best they had. The Romans could understand this only in the sense that, by command of the gods, an armed man should throw himself into this abyss. What great thing will he consider himself to have done for the sake of the eternal fatherland if, having been persecuted by some enemy of his faith, he does not voluntarily inflict a similar death on himself, but dies by his hand; especially since he heard such a true saying from his Lord and King of that fatherland: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul” (Matthew X, 28)? If the Decii, devoting themselves to death with well-known words, made a certain vow, by virtue of which their death and the taming of the wrath of the gods by their blood were to ensure victory for the Roman army, then the holy martyrs do not at all have to be proud, as if of something special, done by them to acquire that fatherland in which eternal and true happiness awaits them, in the fact that they, by faith of love and by the love of faith, fought until the shedding of their blood, not only for the brothers for whom the blood shed, but also for the enemies with whom she shed? Marcus Pulville, during the dedication of the church to Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, received from envious people false news of the death of his son, transmitted with the purpose that, shocked by it, he would stop the ceremony and thus the honor of dedication would pass to his comrade. Pulville received the news so coldly that he ordered his son to be left without burial. The thirst for honor defeated in his heart the grief over the loss of his son. Who will dare to say that he accomplished a great feat in preaching the holy Gospel, liberating and gathering citizens from various errors to the heavenly fatherland - he to whom the Lord said, when he was preoccupied with the burial of his father: “Follow Me and let the dead bury their dead” (Matthew VIII, 22)? Regulus, in order not to deceive his most cruel enemies with an oath, returned to them from Rome. They say that when the Romans did not want to let him go, he answered them that he could not use the name of an honest citizen in Rome after he had been enslaved by Africans. The Carthaginians then killed him through the most terrible tortures. Are there any torments after this that should not be despised in order to maintain fidelity to that fatherland, to the bliss of which this fidelity itself leads? Or what kind of reward will it be “to the Lord for all His good deeds” (Ps. 116:3), if for the loyalty that a person owes to Him, he will endure as much as Regulus endured for the loyalty that he pledged to his most evil enemies? In the same way, will a Christian dare to be proud of voluntary poverty, taken upon himself in order to, during his life’s wanderings, more unhinderedly follow the path leading to the fatherland, in which God himself represents true wealth, when he hears or reads about Valery, who died during his consulate and turned out to be so poor that his burial was arranged with the money collected from the people? When will he hear or read about Cincinnatus, who owned four jugeras of land and cultivated them with his own hands, who was taken from the plow to make a dictator, at least higher in rank than a consul, and who, after defeating his enemies and covering himself with great glory, remained in the same poverty? Or will he glorify as a great feat on his part the fact that no gifts of this world could distract him from his heavenly fatherland, when he learns that the many great gifts of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, even the promised fourth part of the kingdom, did not shake Fabricius’s loyalty to the Roman state and that the latter chose to remain a poor but honest man? Yes, at that time, when the republic, that is, the property of the people, the property of the fatherland, the common property, was the most powerful and richest among them, they themselves were so poor in their home life that one of them, who had already been consul twice, was expelled from this senate of the poor by censor order for having, as it turned out, ten pounds of silver in vessels. So poor were they, enriching the public treasury with their triumphs! Isn’t it clear to all Christians who, for higher purposes, turn their wealth into common wealth, so that, according to what is written in the Acts of the Apostles, they are distributed to everyone, depending on the need of each (Acts 2:45), and so that no one calls anything his own, but they have everything in common (Acts 4:32), - isn’t it clear that they should not be proud at all, doing this to gain community with the angels, when the Romans did almost the same thing to preserve the glory of the Roman people? This and many other things that we can read about from their writers, didn’t it become especially famous and became the subject of gossip when the Roman Empire, having expanded its borders widely and far, developed its power with remarkable success? Therefore, we believe that in this empire, so vast and so durable, famous and glorious for the virtues of such great men, and the efforts of these men received their reward, which they sought, and we are given the necessary examples to follow: so that we should be ashamed if we do not adhere to those virtues that have, in any case, similarities with Christian ones, which they firmly adhered to for the sake of the glory of the earthly city, so that we do not boast of pride. For, as the apostle says: “The sufferings of this present time are not worth anything in comparison with the glory that will be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18). For human glory and for the glory of the present time, their life was considered sufficiently worthy. Therefore, the Jews who killed Christ were quite rightly sacrificed to their glory, since the New Testament revealed what was hidden in the Old, namely: that the one and true God should be worshiped not for the sake of earthly and temporary blessings, which divine providence distributes indifferently to both good and evil, but for the sake of eternal life, for the sake of unceasing gifts and for the sake of union with the heavenly city; so that those who sought and achieved earthly glory by whatever virtues defeated those who, being infected with great vices, killed and rejected the Giver of true glory and the eternal Citizen. Chapter XIX. What is the difference between the passion for glory and the passion for domination? There is, however, a difference between the passion for fame and the passion for domination. Although it usually happens that someone who is carried away to the extreme by a passion for glory passionately seeks dominance, those who desire true, even human glory, try to be in good standing with right-thinking people. There are many good things in morals that many people look at very well, although they often do not observe them themselves. It is through this goodness in morals that those whom Sallust says are trying to achieve fame, power and dominion are on the straight path 79 . And whoever strives for dominance and power without the desire for glory, which makes a person fear being in bad standing with right-thinking people, will begin to achieve his goal through atrocities open to the point of impudence. Therefore, someone who passionately desires fame either goes the direct route to it, or at least tries to achieve it through cunning and deception, wanting to appear as kind as he really is not. Therefore, in a person who has virtues, contempt for glory is a great virtue, because his contempt is known to God, but hidden from human judgment. Even if he did, for example, something for human eyes from which one could see his contempt for glory: they might think that he did it for greater praise, that is, to achieve greater glory, and then he has no means of presenting himself to the feelings of people who suspect him other than what they imagine him to be. But the court that despises people who lavish praise also despises the recklessness of those who suspect; although, if he is truly good, he does not despise their salvation. For he who has virtues from the Spirit of God is just to such an extent that he loves even his enemies, and he loves so much that he wants his haters and detractors to correct themselves and become participants with him not in the earthly, but in the heavenly fatherland. In his praisers, although he does not respect the fact that he is praised, he respects the fact that he is loved; and does not want to deceive those who praise, so as not to deceive those who love. And therefore he ardently insists that praise be given to Him from Whom a person receives what in him justly deserves praise. And the one who, despising glory, greedily strives for dominance, surpasses even animals in both cruelty and immoderation. Such were some of the Romans. Having ceased to care about people's opinions, they did not cease to passionately desire dominance. History tells us that there were many of these. But Nero Caesar was the first to occupy the pinnacle and, as it were, a kind of Capitol of this vice. His promiscuity was such that it seemed that he did not consider it necessary to stop at absolutely nothing; and the cruelty is such that one would think, if it were not known, that there is nothing good in him. However, even to such people the power of dominion is given solely by the providence of the highest God, when He finds humanity deserving of such masters. There is a divine saying concerning this subject. The wisdom of God says: “By me kings reign and rulers legitimize righteousness” (Prov. VIII, 15). But so that by rulers we mean the worst and most unkind kings, and not the most powerful, in accordance with the ancient meaning of this name ***, which is why Virgil says: Peace is my destiny, I cling to the right hand of the tyrant 80, - in another place it is said in the clearest way: “Who appoints a hypocrite as king because of the obstinacy of the people” (Job 34:30). Therefore, although I, as far as I could, have sufficiently shown for what reason the one true and righteous God assisted the Romans, good according to the well-known idea of ​​​​an earthly state, to create such a glorious empire, nevertheless, there may be another, more secret reason for this, which consisted in various kinds of merits and misdeeds of the human race, known more to God than to us. All pious people know that without true piety, that is, without true reverence for the true God, no one can have true virtue; and that that virtue is not true virtue, which submits to human glory. Those who are not citizens of the eternal state, called in our scriptures the city of God (Ps. 46:5: 47:2–3:86: 3), are more useful for the earthly state when they have at least such virtue than none. But if those who, by virtue of true piety, lead a virtuous life, master the art of governing nations, then nothing could be happier for humanity if, by the mercy of God, they receive power. Such people attribute all their virtues that they can have in this life solely to the grace of God, which gave them to them according to their desires, faith, and prayers, and at the same time they understand how much they lack in perfection in truth, which constitutes belonging to that community of angels into which they strive to enter. However much that virtue may be praised and extolled, which, without true piety, submits to human glory, it cannot compare even with the little shoots of virtue in the saints, who find their hope in the grace and mercy of the true God. Chapter XX. The servility of virtues to human glory is as shameful as the servility of bodily lust Philosophers who place the pinnacle of human good in virtue itself - in order to shame those of the philosophers who, although they praise virtues, point out their goal in bodily pleasure, and consider pleasure to be desirable for its own sake, and virtues for the sake of pleasure - tend to paint in their speeches the following picture: human lust sits on the royal throne, like some kind of pampered queen. In the form of maids, she is surrounded by virtues who observe her slightest respect to do whatever she commands. And so she orders prudence to carefully examine how lust could reign and be safe; justice commands that if possible, do good deeds to acquire friendship necessary for bodily comforts, and not cause offense to anyone, because lust could not enjoy safety if it violated the laws; he instructs courage so that if the body were to develop any illness that does not lead to death, it would courageously hold its mistress, i.e. lust, in the realm of spiritual thoughts, so that the memory of her former joys softens the severity of present sorrow; He orders abstinence to take food, even pleasant food, in such quantities that excess does not cause any harm to health and that sensual pleasure does not suffer, which the Epicureans primarily believe in a healthy state of the body. Thus, the virtues, in all the greatness of their glory, servile before lust, as if before some power-hungry and insignificant woman. They say that there is nothing more shameful and uglier than this picture and that it is least bearable for the eyes of good people - and they say rightly. But I don’t think that the picture would have turned out to be of proper beauty even if it depicted the subservience of virtues to human glory. Although this glory does not look like an effeminate woman, it is nevertheless pompous and characterized by extreme emptiness. Therefore, to serve it in such a way that prudence does not provide for anything, justice does not distribute anything, temperance does not moderate anything, and courage does not endure anything other than what can please people and serve the windy glory, is incompatible with a serious character and a kind of inflexibility of the virtues. Even those who, despising the judgments of others due to an alleged disregard for glory, seem wise to themselves and admire themselves, cannot protect themselves from shameful weakness of this kind. For their virtue, if it exists, is also subject, only somewhat differently, to human praise. After all, he himself, admiring himself, is a man. The one who believes and places his hope in God, whom he loves because of true piety, pays more attention to what he does not like himself than to the fact that there is something in him that is pleasant not so much for himself as for the truth; and even the very thing that he might be pleased with, he attributes exclusively to the mercy of God, whom he is afraid of not pleasing; for one thing that he has corrected in himself, he gives thanks, for another thing that he has to correct, he prays. Chapter XXI. The Roman kingdom owes its existence to the true God, from whom all power derives and by whose providence everything is governed. If this is so, then we must attribute the power to distribute kingships and reigns only to the true God, who in the kingdom of heaven gives happiness to the pious alone, and the kingdom of the earth to both the pious and the wicked, as it pleases Him, to whom nothing unjust pleases. Although, as we said, there is something that He was pleased to reveal to us, it would be too much for us and would exceed our strength too much if we decided to explore the secrets of men and subject the merits and misdeeds of kingdoms to a decisive discussion. So, this one true God, who did not abandon the human race with his judgment and help, gave, when he wanted and as far as he wanted, the kingdom to the Romans, as he gave it to the Assyrians or even to the Persians, who, as their writings show, worshiped only two gods: one good and the other evil. (I will keep silent about the Jewish people, about whom, as far as necessary, I have already spoken, and who during their reign worshiped only one God.) So, this true God gave the Persians harvests without their worshiping the goddess Segetia; He also gave other earthly gifts without honoring the multitude of gods that the Romans placed one over each individual thing, or even several over individual things; He also gave them a kingdom without the veneration of those gods, thanks to whose veneration the Romans considered themselves to have achieved kingship. It is the same in relation to individuals: having given power to Mary, He also gave it to Gaius Caesar; having given to Augustus, he also gave to Nero, giving to the Vespasians, both father and son, emperors distinguished by extremely attractive qualities, He also gave to Domitian, distinguished by extreme cruelty; Having given (so as not to go through everyone sequentially) the reign of Constantine the Christian, He also gave it to Julian the Apostate. The sacrilegious and damned passion for fortune-telling, to the emptiness of which the latter indulged, deceived his excellent natural talents with dreams of domination, when, in the hope of an undoubted victory, he burned the ships carrying the necessary food supplies; and then, ardently carried away by bold undertakings and being very quickly killed, he left the army in the enemy countries in extreme distress, so that it could not leave there except on the condition of moving the borders of the Roman Empire, contrary to the well-known prophecy of the god Terminus, which we mentioned in the previous book. God Terminus thus yielded to necessity, although he did not yield to Jupiter. All this is controlled and disposed of according to His discretion by the one and true God. The reasons for this management and order are mysterious, but are they really unjust? Chapter XXII. The times and outcomes of wars depend on the judgment of God The same applies to the duration of wars. Whether He deigns, in His fair judgment and mercy, to subject the human race to disasters or to give it consolation, some wars end faster, others drag on for a long time. The war with the pirates by Pompey and the third Punic War by Scipio were ended with incredible speed in a very short time. Likewise, the gladiator uprising, although during it many leaders of the Roman troops and two consuls were defeated, and Italy was terribly ruined and devastated, ended, however, after many casualties in the third year. After a long and most submissive slavery under the Roman yoke, when many peoples were already subjugated to the Roman state and Carthage was destroyed, it was not outsiders who tried to achieve freedom, but the Italian peoples: the Picenti, Marsi and Peligni. During this Italian war the Romans suffered very frequent defeats; Two consuls and many other noble senators perished in it. This disaster did not last, however, for very long: it ended in the fifth year. But the second Punic War, accompanied by the greatest devastation and disasters of the republic, exhausted and almost destroyed the Roman forces for eighteen years: about seventy thousand Romans fell in two battles. The First Punic War lasted twenty-three years; war with Mithridates - forty years. And lest anyone, hearing the praise of past times for all kinds of virtues, think that the Romans of the early period of Roman history, due to great courage, ended wars faster, I will remind you of the Samnite war, which lasted almost fifty years, during which the Romans suffered such a defeat that they were forced to bow their heads under the yoke. But since they did not love glory for the sake of justice, but they loved justice for the sake of glory, they violated the established peace and the concluded conditions. I remind you of this because many, not knowing past events, when in Christian times any war lasts for any length of time, most shamelessly blame the Christian religion for it, shouting that if it supposedly did not exist and if the deities were revered by the ancient cult, then the famous Roman valor, which ended so many wars with extreme speed with the help of Mars and Bellona, ​​would have ended this war long ago. So, let those who have read remember what long wars were waged by the ancient Romans, how varied their outcome was, how deplorable they were accompanied by defeats, how whirlwinds of disasters of this kind shook the earth like a stormy sea; and having remembered, let them admit what they did not want to admit before, and let them not destroy themselves with their crazy speeches against God, and not deceive ignorant people. Chapter XXIII. About the war during which Radagais, king of the Goths, worshipers of demons, with his huge army was defeated in one day But they do not remember with gratitude the amazing things that God has done out of His mercy in our very recent memory, but try in every possible way, as far as possible, to make them forgotten. We would be as ungrateful as they were if we kept silent about this. When Radagaisus, the king of the Goths, stationed with a huge and fierce army in the outskirts of Rome, held a sword over the heads of the Romans, he suffered such a defeat in one day with extraordinary speed that at that time, not only not one of the Romans was killed, but even wounded, more than a hundred thousand of his troops fell, and he himself, being captured with his sons, was subjected to the deserved punishment - death. If he, so wicked and with so many wicked troops, had entered Rome, who would he have spared? Which places of martyrs would he salute? In whose person would you honor God? Whose blood would he not shed and whose chastity would he leave intact? And yet, how they shouted about their gods, with what impudence they divulged that he allegedly won because he had such great power that with daily sacrifices he appeased and attracted the gods to himself, which the Christian religion supposedly did not allow the Romans? When he was already approaching these places, where, at the behest of the heavenly majesty, his death befell him, and the rumor about him grew everywhere, we were told in Carthage that the pagans believed, told, shouted that with the protection and help of the gods disposed towards him, to whom he was said to make sacrifices every day, he was absolutely impossible to defeat by those who themselves did not perform similar sacred rites to the Roman gods, and did not allow anyone else to perform them. And for such mercy the unfortunate do not thank God, although He, intending to correct human morals, which deserved a more severe punishment, by the invasion of the barbarians, initially softened his anger with such meekness that he granted the Romans a miraculous victory over Radagaisus; this was so that the demons he worshiped would not take advantage of his fame to corrupt weak souls. And then He left Rome to be taken by such barbarians, who, contrary to every custom of previous wars, respectfully guarded those who sought refuge in the sacred places of the Christian religion, and against the very demons and impious sacrifices on which Radagais founded his hopes, armed themselves in the name of Christianity to such an extent that they seemed to wage a more cruel war against them than against people. Thus the true Lord and Ruler of the world both subjected the Romans to merciful punishment and by a victory beyond all possibility over the demon worshipers showed that for the well-being of the present life there is no need for the sacrifices mentioned; so that not those who stubbornly dispute, but those who delve into the matter with prudence, do not abandon true religion because of present needs, but, on the contrary, hold on to it even more in the surest expectation of eternal life. Chapter XXIV. What is and how true is the happiness of Christian emperors? We call some Christian emperors happy not because they ruled for a long time, or, having died a peaceful death, left behind their sons as governors, or conquered the enemies of the state, or were able to avoid and pacify the citizens who rebelled against them. Some of the demon worshipers who do not belong to the kingdom of God, to which the Christian emperors belong, were honored to receive such and other rewards or consolations from this multi-rebellious life. This happened by the mercy of God so that those who believe in God would not covet this as the highest good. But we call Christian princes happy if they rule justly; if those surrounded by flattery and extreme servility do not become exalted, but remember that they are people; if they use their power to spread the worship of God and serve His greatness; if they fear, love and honor God; if they love more the kingdom in which they are not afraid to have accomplices; if they hesitate with punishments and willingly show mercy; if these punishments themselves are used as necessary means for governing and protecting the state, and not as satisfaction of one’s hatred of enemies; if pardon is not granted in order to leave injustice unpunished, but in the hope of correction; if, when circumstances force them to pronounce a severe sentence, they soften it with mercy and charity; if the situation and type of their life are the more modest, the more luxurious they could be; if they wish better to rule over evil inclinations than over any nations, and do all this not out of a desire for some empty glory, but out of love for eternal happiness; if they do not neglect to offer God the sacrifice of humility, regret and prayer for their sins. We call such Christian emperors happy, that is, happy for now in hope, and who will then be happy in reality when what we expect comes. Chapter XXV. About the prosperity that God gave to the Christian emperor Constantine And so that people who believe that God should be revered for the sake of eternal life do not come to the idea that earthly greatness and earthly reign cannot be achieved by anyone except those who honor demons, and that these spirits manifest great power in such people, the all-good God showered the Emperor Constantine, who did not worship demons, but who revered the true God, with such earthly gifts that no one even dared to dream of. He gave him the opportunity to create a city 81 allied to the Roman state, as if the daughter of Ancient Rome, but without any demonic church and without any idol. In the person of Constantine he reigned for a long time, ruled the entire Roman Empire and was defended by Augustus alone. His military campaigns and battles were accompanied by the most brilliant victories; to suppress the tyrants, all circumstances favored him; He died at a very advanced age from illness and old age, leaving his sons as rulers of the empire. But, on the other hand, so that some emperor would not be a Christian just to take advantage of Constantine’s happiness, God deigned to recall Jovian from this life much sooner than Julian; allowed Gratian to fall from the tyrant’s sword, although His judgment in relation to Gratian was much more comforting to the feeling than in relation to the great Pompey, an admirer of the supposedly Roman gods. Cato, whom Pompey left in some way as heir to the civil war, could not take revenge for Pompey; and Gratian was avenged (although pious souls do not seek this kind of consolation) by Theodosius, whom Gratian, having a little brother, made co-ruler of the kingdom, because he desired an alliance of faith more than excessive power. Chapter XXVI. About the faith and piety of the great Theodosius Therefore, Theodosius not only during Gratian’s life remained faithful to him, which he should have maintained, but also after his death, when his little brother Valentinian was expelled by his murderer Maximus, he gave, as a Christian, shelter to an orphan in the regions of his empire, cared for him with fatherly love, although he could have freed himself from him, deprived of all support, without any difficulty, if he had been guided more by a passion for expanding his royal power than by love to provide benefits; Guided by this love, he preserved the imperial dignity of the adopted orphan and consoled him with his philanthropy and good attitude. Then, when the aforementioned success made Maxim dangerous, Theodosius, in his grave worries, did not resort to sacrilegious and illicit fortune-telling, but sent to John, who lived in the Egyptian desert, whom he learned from popular rumor as a servant of God, gifted with the spirit of prophecy, and received from him a notification of victory that was not subject to any doubt. Having scarcely destroyed the tyrant Maximus, he restored with the most merciful respect the youth Valentinian to those regions of his empire from which he had been expelled; and when very soon this youth died from treachery or some other, perhaps accidental, reason, and another tyrant Eugene, Theodosius, was illegally elected in his place as emperor, again receiving a prophetic answer and, strengthened by faith, destroyed this tyrant too, fighting against his strongest army more with prayer than with the sword. Warriors who were in the battle told us that a strong wind, rising from the direction of Theodosius and attacking his opponents, tore thrown spears and arrows from their hands and not only carried with extraordinary force everything that was launched at them, but also turned their own arrows on their own bodies. Therefore, the poet Claudian, although he was not a Christian, said in his panegyric: Oh, dear God! To you from the dens of Aeolus The storm sends weapons, the ether acts in alliance And the conspiratorial winds send a signal for battle 82. Having become the winner, he, as he thought and said earlier, overthrew the idols of Jupiter, which, I don’t know by what rituals, were allegedly conspired to his death and placed in the Alps, and their lightning, made of gold, was complacently and benevolently presented to the messengers when they jokingly (which allowed the joy of that time) said that these lightnings wanted to strike them. The children of his enemies, exterminated not by his command, but by the fury of war, when these children, not yet Christians, sought refuge in the church, he wished on this occasion to see them as Christians and fell in love with Christian love: he did not deprive them of their property, but surrounded them with even greater honor. After the victory, he did not allow personal enmity to act against anyone. He did not want to end civil wars the way Cinna, Marius, Sulla and others like them ended them; but he grieved more that they arose than he wanted to harm anyone when they ended. In between all this, from the very beginning of his reign, he did not cease to help the church with the most just and merciful laws in its struggle against the wicked. The heretic Valens, patronizing the Arians, cruelly oppressed her; and he wished better to be a member of the church than to reign on earth. Everywhere he commanded to overthrow pagan idols, well understanding that earthly gifts are not in the power of demons, but of the true God. And what could be more amazing than his religious humiliation, when, having promised, as a result of the petition of the bishops, forgiveness to the Thessalonians for a grave crime, he, due to the indignation of some involved in that crime, could not resist and took revenge, and then, forced by church rules, brought public repentance so that the people, asking for him, wept much more, seeing the imperial greatness humiliated, than they feared him when it was sinfully angry? These and similar good deeds, which would take a long time to mention, he took with him from the present temporary smoke of all kinds of human heights and greatness; the reward of these deeds is eternal happiness, which God gives only to the truly pious. All the other gifts of real life, whether virtues or means, as well as the world itself, light, air, earth, water, fruits, the soul of man himself, body, feelings, mind, life, are distributed without distinction to both good and evil. Among these gifts is any kind of greatness of power, which is given for temporary control. Now I find it necessary to answer those who, having seen, on the basis of the clearest evidence, that in the achievement of temporal goods, which only fools strive for, the multiplicity of false gods does not bring any benefit, they are trying to prove that the gods should be worshiped not for the benefit of this present life, but for the sake of that which will be after death. For those who honor vanity out of love for this world and, out of childish foolishness, complain that they are not allowed this, I believe I have answered enough in the five books written. When I published the first three of them and they were distributed among many hands, I heard that some were preparing some kind of written objection to them. Then they told me that this objection had already been written, but the time was awaited when it could be published without fear. I advise them not to desire anything that will not benefit them. It will seem easy to object to anyone who does not want to remain silent. For what is more chatty than emptiness? Chatter is possible for her not because it is the truth: if she wishes, she can shout even louder than the truth. Let them examine everything carefully; and if, during an impartial discussion, they suddenly find something that they could not refute, but rather subject to ridicule through shameless talkativeness and satirical or clownish frivolity, let them moderate their idle talk: let them be better corrected by the wise than praised by the foolish. If they are waiting for the right time not for the freedom to speak the truth, but for unbridled slander, then what Tullius says would not happen to them, mentioning one man who called himself happy because he had the opportunity to sin: “Unhappy, he could have sinned.” Therefore, if there is someone who considers himself happy because he has the opportunity to slander, then he will be much happier if such an opportunity does not exist for him at all. Leaving aside empty boasting, even in our time he can put forward, as if out of a desire to receive an explanation of the question he has outlined, various kinds of objections; and from those to whom in a friendly interview one honestly, seriously and freely turns for clarification, hear what needs to be heard. “The thoughts of people are such as the day on which Father Jupiter himself illuminated the fertile lands.” Odyss. 18, vers. 136:137. De Fato, cap. 10 et seqq. Sallust. in Catil., cap. 7. A_Eneid. VIII. v. 646 – 648. A_Eneid. I.v. 279 – 285. A_Eneid. VI. v. 847 – 853 Sallust. in Catil. c. 11. Sallust. in Catil. cap. 52. Epist. lib. I. epist. 1, v. 36:37. Carm. lib. II. carm. 2.v. 9 – 12. Tuscul. Qua_est. lib. 1. page 2. In the Septuagint, in place of “lords” there is “δύνασται”, from the word “power”. (In this quote from Augustine “...et tyranni per me tenent terram” - ...and tyrants hold the earth with me. “Tyrant” is one who has taken power by force.) – Editorial “The ABCs of Faith” Claudian. in panegyr...de III. Honorii consulatu. You might be interested in: