Augustine, Against Faustus the Manichaean, BOOK 22, 69-76

 TWELVE

Augustine, Against Faustus the Manichaean, BOOK 22, 69-76

22.69.

Contra Faustum Manichaeum, 22. 69 – 76, PL 42, Cols. 444 – 449

Book 22.69. So Moses, too, who was so faithful a servant of God in all his house; the minister of the holy, just, and good law; of whose character the apostle speaks in the words here quoted; Hebrews 3:5 the minister also of the symbols which, though not conferring salvation, promised the Saviour, as the Saviour Himself shows, when He says, “If you believed Moses, you would also believe me, for he wrote of me,”— from which passage we have already sufficiently answered the presumptuous cavils of the Manichæans — this Moses, the servant of the living, the true, the most high God, that made heaven and earth, not of a foreign substance, but of nothing — not from the pressure of necessity, but from plenitude of goodness — not by the suffering of His members, but by the power of His word — this Moses, who humbly put from him this high ministry, but obediently accepted it, and faithfully kept it, and diligently fulfilled it; who ruled the people with vigilance, reproved them with vehemence, loved them with fervor, and bore with them in patience, standing for his subjects before God to receive His counsel, and to appease His wrath — this great and good man is not to be judged of from Faustus’ malicious representations, but from what is said by God, whose word is a true expression of His true opinion of this man, whom He knew because He made him. For the sins of men are also known to God, though He is not their author; but He takes notice of them as a judge in those who refuse to own them, and pardons them as a father in those who make confession. His servant Moses, as thus described, we love and admire and to the best of our power imitate, coming indeed far short of his merits, though we have killed no Egyptian, nor plundered any one, nor carried on any war; which actions of Moses were in one case prompted by the zeal of the future champion of his people, and in the other cases commanded by God.

22.69. Sic et Moysen famulum Dei fidelissimum in tota domo ejus, ministrum legis sanctae, et mandati sancti, justi, et boni, cui Apostolus attestatur (Hebr. III, 5, et Rom. VII, 12); nam ejus haec verba sunt quae commemoravi: ministrum etiam sacramentorum, non jam praestantium salutem, sed adhuc promittentium Salvatorem: quod et Salvator ipse confirmat, dicens, Si crederetis Moysi, crederetis et mihi; de me enim ille scripsit (Joan. V, 46): unde suo loco, quantum satis visum est, contra impudentes Manichaeorum calumnias disseruimus; hunc ergo Moysen famulum Dei vivi, Dei veri, Dei summi, fabricatoris coeli et terrae, non de alieno, sed de nihilo, non premente necessitate, sed affluente bonitate, non per sui membri poenam, sed per sui verbi potentiam: hunc, inquam, Moysen, humilem in recusando tam magnum ministerium (Exod. IV, 10), subditum in suscipiendo, fidelem in servando, strenuum in exsequendo; in regendo populo vigilantem, in corrigendo vehementem, in amando ardentem, in sustinendo patientem; qui pro eis quibus praefuit, Deo se interposuit consulenti, opposuit irascenti: hunc itaque talem ac tantum virum, absit a nobis ut ex maledico Fausti ore pensemus; sed ex ore plane veridici Dei, qui veraciter hominem, quem fecerat, noverat: quandoquidem etiam peccata hominum, quae ipse non facit, et in diffitentibus ut judex agnoscit, et in confitentibus ut pater ignoscit. Ex ore omnino ejus Moysen servum ejus et amamus, et admiramur, et quantum possumus imitamur, cum simus longe illius meritis inferiores, etiam nullo Aegyptio vel occiso, vel exspoliato, nullo bello gesto, quorum ille aliud futuri indole defensoris, alia imposito imperio Dei fecit.

70. It might be shown that, though Moses slew the Egyptian, without being commanded by God, the action was divinely permitted, as, from the prophetic character of Moses, it prefigured something in the future. Now however, I do not use this argument, but view the action as having no symbolic meaning. In the light, then, of the eternal law, it was wrong for one who had no legal authority to kill the man, even though he was a bad character, besides being the aggressor. But in minds where great virtue is to come, there is often an early crop of vices, in which we may still discern a disposition for some particular virtue, which will come when the mind is duly cultivated. For as farmers, when they see land bringing forth huge crops, though of weeds, pronounce it good for grain; or when they see wild creepers, which have to be rooted out, still consider the land good for useful vines; and when they see a hill covered with wild olives, conclude that with culture it will produce good fruit: so the disposition of mind which led Moses to take the law into his own hands, to prevent the wrong done to his brother, living among strangers, by a wicked citizen of the country from being unrequited, was not unfit for the production of virtue, but from want of culture gave signs of its productiveness in an unjustifiable manner. He who afterwards, by His angel, called Moses on Mount Sinai, with the divine commission to liberate the people of Israel from Egypt, and who trained him to obedience by the miraculous appearance in the bush burning but not consumed, and by instructing him in his ministry, was the same who, by the call addressed from heaven to Saul when persecuting the Church, humbled him, raised him up, and animated him; or in figurative words, by this stroke He cut off the branch, grafted it, and made it fruitful. For the fierce energy of Paul, when in his zeal for hereditary traditions he persecuted the Church, thinking that he was doing God service, was like a crop of weeds showing great signs of productiveness. It was the same in Peter, when he took his sword out of its sheath to defend the Lord, and cut off the right ear of an assailant, when the Lord rebuked him with something like a threat, saying, “Put up your sword into its sheath; for he that takes the sword shall perish by the sword.” Matthew 26:51-52 To take the sword is to use weapons against a man’s life, without the sanction of the constituted authority. The Lord, indeed, had told His disciples to carry a sword; but He did not tell them to use it. But that after this sin Peter should become a pastor of the Church was no more improper than that Moses, after smiting the Egyptian, should become the leader of the congregation. In both cases the trespass originated not in inveterate cruelty, but in a hasty zeal which admitted of correction. In both cases there was resentment against injury, accompanied in one case by love for a brother, and in the other by love, though still carnal, of the Lord. Here was evil to be subdued or rooted out; but the heart with such capacities needed only, like good soil, to be cultivated to make it fruitful in virtue.

LXX. Ut interim omittam, quod cum percussisset Aegyptium (Exod. II, 12), quanquam illi Deus non praeceperit, in persona tamen prophetica ad hoc divinitus fieri permissum est, ut futurum aliquid praesignaret: unde nunc non ago, sed omnino tanquam nihil significaverint facta illa discutio; consultaque illa aeterna lege reperio non debuisse hominem ab illo, qui nullam ordinatam potestatem gerebat, quamvis injuriosum et improbum, occidi. Verumtamen animae virtutis capaces ac fertiles praemittunt saepe vitia, quibus hoc ipsum indicent, cui virtuti sint potissimum accommodatae, si fuerint praeceptis excultae. Sicut enim et agricolae quam terram viderint, quamvis inutiles, tamen ingentes herbas progignere, frumentis aptam esse pronuntiant; et ubi filicem aspexerint, licet eradicandam sciant, validis vitibus habilem intelligunt; et quem montem oleastris silvescere aspexerint, oleis esse utilem cultura accedente non dubitant: sic ille animi motus, quo Moyses peregrinum fratrem a cive improbo injuriam perpetientem, non observato ordine potestatis, inultum esse non pertulit, non virtutum fructibus inutilis erat, sed adhuc incultus, vitiosa quidem, sed magnae fertilitatis signa fundebat. Ipse denique per angelum suum divinis Moysen vocibus evocavit in monte Sina, per quem liberaretur ex Aegypto populus Israel; eumque miraculo visionis in rubo flammante et non ardente, verbisque dominicis ad frugem obedientiae praeparavit (Id. III, 4): qui etiam Saulum Ecclesiam persequentem, de coelo vocavit, prostravit, erexit, implevit; tanquam percussit, amputavit, inseruit, fecundavit (Act. IX, 4). Illa namque Pauli saevitia, cum secundum aemulationem paternarum traditionum persequebatur Ecclesiam (Galat. I, 14), putans officium Deo se facere, tanquam silvestre erat vitium, sed magnae feracitatis indicium. Hinc erat etiam illud Petri, cum evaginato gladio volens defendere Dominum, aurem persecutoris abscidit: quod factum Dominus satis minaciter cohibuit, dicens, Reconde gladium; qui enim gladio usus fuerit, gladio cadet (Matth. XXVI, 51, 52). Ille autem utitur gladio, qui nulla superiore ac legitima potestate vel jubente vel concedente, in sanguinem alicujus armatur. Nam utique Dominus jusserat ut ferrum discipuli ejus ferrent, sed non jusserat ut ferirent. Quid ergo incongruum, si Petrus post hoc peccatum factus est pastor Ecclesiae, sicut Moyses post percussum Aegyptium factus est rector illius Synagogae? Uterque enim non detestabili immanitate, sed emendabili animositate justitiae regulam excessit: uterque odio improbitatis alienae, sed ille fraterno, iste dominico, licet adhuc carnali, tamen amore peccavit. Resecandum hoc vitium vel eradicandum; sed tamen tam magnum cor, tanquam terra frugibus, ita ferendis virtutibus excolendum.

71. Then, as for Faustus’ objection to the spoiling of the Egyptians, he knows not what he says. In this Moses not only did not sin, but it would have been sin not to do it. It was by the command of God, who, from His knowledge both of the actions and of the hearts of men, can decide on what every one should be made to suffer, and through whose agency. The people at that time were still carnal, and engrossed with earthly affections; while the Egyptians were in open rebellion against God, for they used the gold, God’s creature, in the service of idols, to the dishonor of the Creator, and they had grievously oppressed strangers by making them work without pay. Thus the Egyptians deserved the punishment, and the Israelites were suitably employed in inflicting it. Perhaps, indeed, it was not so much a command as a permission to the Hebrews to act in the matter according to their own inclinations; and God, in sending the message by Moses, only wished that they should thus be informed of His permission. There may also have been mysterious reasons for what God said to the people on this matter. At any rate, God’s commands are to be submissively received, not to be argued against. The apostle says, “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counsellor?” Romans 11:34 Whether, then, the reason was what I have said, or whether in the secret appointment of God, there was some unknown reason for His telling the people by Moses to borrow things from the Egyptians, and to take them away with them, this remains certain, that this was said for some good reason, and that Moses could not lawfully have done otherwise than God told him, leaving to God the reason of the command, while the servant’s duty is to obey.

LXXI. Quid ergo jam de exspoliatis Aegyptiis Faustus objicit, nesciens quid loquatur? Quod faciendo Moyses usque adeo non peccavit, ut non faciendo peccaret. Deus enim jusserat (Exod. III, 21, 22; XI, 2, et XII, 35, 36), qui utique novit non solum secundum facta, verum etiam secundum cor hominis, quid unusquisque, vel per quem perpeti debeat. Carnalis itaque adhuc ille populus erat, et rerum terrenarum cupiditate occupatus: Aegyptii vero sacrilegi et iniqui; nam et auro illo, hoc est, Dei creatura male utentes ad Creatoris injuriam, suis idolis serviebant, et homines peregrinos labore gratuito injuste ac vehementer afflixerant. Digni ergo erant et isti quibus talia juberentur, et illi qui talia paterentur: et forte secundum suas voluntates et cogitationes Hebraei magis permissi sunt facere ista, quam jussi; sed eis Deus permissionem suam per famulum suum Moysen innotescere voluit, quando mandavit ut diceret. Fieri autem potest ut sint aliae causae occultissimae, cur hoc illi populo divinitus dictum sit: sed divinis imperiis cedendum obtemperando, non resistendum est disputando. Apostolus dixit: Quis enim cognovit sensum Domini? aut quis consiliarius ejus fuit (Rom. XI, 34)? Sive ergo ista sit causa, quam dixi, sive alia quaelibet in secreta et abdita dispositione Dei lateat, cur hoc per Moysen illi populo dixerit, ut ab Aegyptiis sibi commodanda peterent quae auferrent; hoc tamen confirmo, nec frustra nec inique dictum esse, nec licuisse Moysen aliter quam Deus dixerat facere, ut penes Dominum esset consilium jubendi, penes famulum autem obsequium peragendi.

72. But, says Faustus, it cannot be admitted that the true God, who is also good, ever gave such a command. I answer, such a command can be rightly given by no other than the true and good God, who alone knows the suitable command in every case, and who alone is incapable of inflicting unmerited suffering on any one. This ignorant and spurious goodness of the human heart may as well deny what Christ says, and object to the wicked being made to suffer by the good God, when He shall say to the angels, “Gather first the tares into bundles to burn them.” The servants, however, were stopped when they wished to do this prematurely: “Lest by chance, when you would gather the tares, you root up the wheat also with them.” Matthew 13:29-30 Thus the true and good God alone knows when, to whom, and by whom to order anything, or to permit anything. In the same way, this human goodness, or folly rather, might object to the Lord’s permitting the devils to enter the swine, which they asked to be allowed to do with a mischievous intent, Matthew 8:31-32 especially as the Manichæans believe that not only pigs, but the vilest insects, have human souls. But setting aside these absurd notions, this is undeniable, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the only son of God, and therefore the true and good God, permitted the destruction of swine belonging to strangers, implying loss of life and of a great amount of property, at the request of devils. No one can be so insane as to suppose that Christ could not have driven the devils out of the men without gratifying their malice by the destruction of the swine. If, then, the Creator and Governor of all natures, in His superintendence, which, though mysterious, is ever just, indulged the violent and unjust inclination of those lost spirits already doomed to eternal fire, why should not the Egyptians, who were unrighteous oppressors, be spoiled by the Hebrews, a free people, who would claim payment for their enforced and painful toil, especially as the earthly possessions which they thus lost were used by the Egyptians in their impious rites, to the dishonor of the Creator? Still, if Moses had originated this order, or if the people had done it spontaneously, undoubtedly it would have been sinful; and perhaps the people did sin, not in doing what God commanded or permitted, but in some desire of their own for what they took. The permission given to this action by divine authority was in accordance with the just and good counsel of Him who uses punishments both to restrain the wicked and to educate His own people; who knows also how to give more advanced precepts to those able to bear them, while He begins on a lower scale in the treatment of the feeble. As for Moses, he can be blamed neither for coveting the property, nor for disputing, in any instance, the divine authority.

LXXII. Sed Deus, inquit, verus et bonus nullo modo talia jussisse credendus est. Imo vero talia recte non jubet, nisi Deus verus et bonus, qui et solus novit quid cuique jubendum sit, et solus neminem quidquam incongruum perpeti sinit. Caeterum ista imperita et falsa bonitas cordis humani contradicat et Christo, ne Deo bono jubente impii mali aliquid patiantur, cum dicturus est Angelis: Colligite primum zizania, et alligate fasciculos ad comburendum. Qui tamen hoc ipsum inopportune facere volentes servos prohibuit, dicens: Ne forte, cum vultis colligere zizania, eradicetis simul et triticum (Matth. XIII, 30, 29). Ita solus Deus verus et bonus novit quid, quando, quibus, per quos fieri aliquid vel jubeat vel permittat. Poterat etiam ista humana, non bonitas, sed plane vanitas eidem Domino contradicere, cum desiderio noxio daemones in porcos ire volentes petentesque permisit (Id. VIII, 31, 32): praesertim quia Manichaei non solum porcos, verum etiam minuta et abjecta animalia, hominum animas habere crediderunt. Qua vanitate improbata et abjecta, illud tamen constat, Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum Dei unicum Filium, ac per hoc Deum verum et bonum, mortem pecorum alienorum, perniciem qualiumcumque animantium, et grave damnum hominum, desiderio daemonum concessisse. Quis autem dementissimus dixerit quod eos ab hominibus non potuisset excludere, etiamsi eorum noxiae voluntati nec porcorum exitium praestare voluisset? Porro si spirituum damnatorum et igni aeterno jam destinatorum, quamvis saeva et iniqua cupiditas, a Creatore atque ordinatore omnium naturarum, occulto quidem, sed ubique justo moderamine, in id quo se inclinaverat, relaxata est; quid absurdum est, si Aegyptii ab Hebraeis, homines inique dominantes ab hominibus liberis, quorum etiam mercedis pro eorum tam duris et injustis laboribus fuerant debitores, rebus terrenis, quibus etiam ritu sacrilego in injuriam Creatoris utebantur, privari meruerunt? Quod tamen si Moyses sua sponte jussisset, aut hoc Hebraei sua sponte fecissent, profecto pecassent: quanquam illi, non quidem hoc faciendo, quod vel jusserat vel permiserat Deus, sed tamen talia fortasse cupiendo peccaverunt. Quod autem hoc facere divina dispensatione permissi sunt, illius judicio justo bonoque permissi sunt, qui novit et poenis vel coercere improbos, vel erudire subjectos; et praecepta validiora dare sanioribus, et quosdam medicinales gradus infirmioribus ordinare. Moyses vero nec cupiditatis arguendus est in illis rebus desideratis, nec contumaciae in divinis imperiis quibuscumque contemptis.

73. According to the eternal law, which requires the preservation of natural order, and forbids the transgression of it, some actions have an indifferent character, so that men are blamed for presumption if they do them without being called upon, while they are deservedly praised for doing them when required. The act, the agent, and the authority for the action are all of great importance in the order of nature. For Abraham to sacrifice his son of his own accord is shocking madness. His doing so at the command of God proves him faithful and submissive. This is so loudly proclaimed by the very voice of truth, that Faustus, eagerly rummaging for some fault, and reduced at last to slanderous charges, has not the boldness to attack this action. It is scarcely possible that he can have forgotten a deed so famous, that it recurs to the mind of itself without any study or reflection, and is in fact repeated by so many tongues, and portrayed in so many places, that no one can pretend to shut his eyes or his ears to it. If, therefore, while Abraham’s killing his son of his own accord would have been unnatural, his doing it at the command of God shows not only guiltless but praiseworthy compliance, why does Faustus blame Moses for spoiling the Egyptians? Your feeling of disapproval for the mere human action should be restrained by a regard for the divine sanction. Will you venture to blame God Himself for desiring such actions? Then “Get behind me, Satan, for you understand not the things which be of God, but those which be of men.” Would that this rebuke might accomplish in you what it did in Peter, and that you might hereafter preach the truth concerning God, which you now, judging by feeble sense, find fault with! As Peter became a zealous messenger to announce to the Gentiles what he objected to at first, when the Lord spoke of it as His intention.

LXXIII. Quaedam enim facta, lex illa aeterna quae ordinem naturalem conservari jubet, perturbari vetat, ita medio quodam loco posuit hominibus, ut in eis usurpandis merito reprehendatur audacia, in exsequendis autem obedientia jure laudetur. Tantum interest in ordine naturali, quid a quo agatur, et sub quo quisque agat. Abraham si filium sponte immolaret, quid, nisi horribilis et insanus? Deo autem jubente, quid, nisi fidelis et devotus apparuit (Gen. XXII, 10)? Quod usque adeo ipsa veritas clamat, ut ejus voce deterritus Faustus, cum in ipsum Abraham quid diceret, unguibus et dentibus quaerens, usque ad calumniosum mendacium perveniret, hoc tamen reprehendere non auderet: nisi forte non ei veniret in mentem factum ita nobile, ut non lectum, nec quaesitum animo occurreret, ut denique tot linguis cantatum, tot locis pictum, et aures et oculos dissimulantis feriret. Quapropter, si in occidendo filio spontaneus motus exsecrabilis, Deo autem jubente obsecundans famulatus, non solum inculpabilis, verum etiam laudabilis invenitur; quid Moysen, Fauste, reprehendis, quod exspoliarit Aegyptios? Si te irritat velut humana facientis improbitas, divina terreat jubentis auctoritas. An talia fieri volentem etiam ipsum Deum vituperare paratus es? Redi ergo retro, satanas; neque enim sapis quae Dei sunt, sed quae sunt hominum (Matth. XVI, 23). Atque utinam hoc sicut Petrus audire dignus fuisses, atque id quod in Deo sensu infirmo reprehendis, postea praedicasses; quemadmodum ille glorioso praeconio postea gentibus annuntiabat, quod ei primo, cum Dominus vellet fieri, displicebat.

74. Now, if this explanation suffices to satisfy human obstinacy and perverse misinterpretation of right actions of the vast difference between the indulgence of passion and presumption on the part of men, and obedience to the command of God, who knows what to permit or to order, and also the time and the persons, and the due action or suffering in each case, the account of the wars of Moses will not excite surprise or abhorrence, for in wars carried on by divine command, he showed not ferocity but obedience; and God in giving the command, acted not in cruelty, but in righteous retribution, giving to all what they deserved, and warning those who needed warning. What is the evil in war? Is it the death of some who will soon die in any case, that others may live in peaceful subjection? This is mere cowardly dislike, not any religious feeling. The real evils in war are love of violence, revengeful cruelty, fierce and implacable enmity, wild resistance, and the lust of power, and such like; and it is generally to punish these things, when force is required to inflict the punishment, that, in obedience to God or some lawful authority, good men undertake wars, when they find themselves in such a position as regards the conduct of human affairs, that right conduct requires them to act, or to make others act in this way. Otherwise John, when the soldiers who came to be baptized asked, What shall we do? Would have replied, Throw away your arms; give up the service; never strike, or wound, or disable any one. But knowing that such actions in battle were not murderous but authorized by law, and that the soldiers did not thus avenge themselves, but defend the public safety, he replied, “Do violence to no man, accuse no man falsely, and be content with your wages.” Luke 3:14 But as the Manichæans are in the habit of speaking evil of John, let them hear the Lord Jesus Christ Himself ordering this money to be given to Cæsar, which John tells the soldiers to be content with. “Give,” He says, “to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s.” Matthew 22:21 For tribute-money is given on purpose to pay the soldiers for war. Again, in the case of the centurion who said, “I am a man under authority, and have soldiers under me: and I say to one, Go, and he goes; and to another, Come, and he comes; and to my servant, Do this, and he does it,” Christ gave due praise to his faith; Matthew 8:9-10 He did not tell him to leave the service. But there is no need here to enter on the long discussion of just and unjust ways.

LXXIV. Quamobrem, si jam tandem intelligit humana duritia atque in rebus rectis voluntas prava atque perversa, plurimum interesse, utrum aliquid humana cupiditate vel temeritate admittatur, an Dei pareatur imperio, qui novit quid, quando, quibus permittat aut jubeat, quid cuique facere patique conveniat; nec bella per Moysen gesta miretur aut horreat, quia et in illis divina secutus imperia, non saeviens, sed obediens fuit: nec Deus, cum jubebat ista, saeviebat: sed digna dignis retribuebat, dignosque terrebat. Quid enim culpatur in bello? An quia moriuntur quandoque morituri, ut domentur in pace victuri? Hoc reprehendere timidorum est, non religiosorum. Nocendi cupiditas, ulciscendi crudelitas, impacatus atque implacabilis animus, feritas rebellandi, libido dominandi, et si qua similia, haec sunt quae in bellis jure culpantur; quae plerumque ut etiam jure puniantur, adversus violentiam resistentium, sive Deo, sive aliquo legitimo imperio jubente, gerenda ipsa bella suscipiuntur a bonis, cum in eo rerum humanarum ordine inveniuntur, ubi eos vel jubere tale aliquid, vel in talibus obedire juste ordo ipse constringit. Alioquin Joannes, cum ad eum baptizandi milites venirent, dicentes, Et nos quid faciemus? responderet eis, Arma abjicite, militiam istam deserite; neminem percutite, vulnerate, prosternite. Sed quia sciebat eos, cum haec militando facerent, non esse homicidas, sed ministros legis; et non ultores injuriarum suarum, sed salutis publicae defensores: respondit eis, Neminem concusseritis, nulli calumniam feceritis, sufficiat vobis stipendium vestrum (Luc. III, 14). Sed quia Manichaei Joannem aperte blasphemare consueverunt, ipsum Dominum Jesum Christum audiant hoc stipendium jubentem reddi Caesari, quod Joannes dicit debere sufficere militi. Reddite, inquit, Caesari quae Caesaris sunt, et Deo quae Dei sunt (Matth. XXII, 21). Et ad hoc enim tributa praestantur, ut propter bella necessario militi stipendium praebeatur. Merito et illius Centurionis dicentis, Et ego homo sum sub potestate constitutus, habens sub me milites; et dico huic, Vade, et vadit; et alii, Veni, et venit; et servo meo, Fac hoc, et facit; fidem laudavit (Id. VIII, 9, 10), non illius militiae desertionem imperavit. Sed de justis quidem injustisque bellis nunc disputare longum est, et non necessarium.

75. A great deal depends on the causes for which men undertake wars, and on the authority they have for doing so; for the natural order which seeks the peace of mankind, ordains that the monarch should have the power of undertaking war if he thinks it advisable, and that the soldiers should perform their military duties in behalf of the peace and safety of the community. When war is undertaken in obedience to God, who would rebuke, or humble, or crush the pride of man, it must be allowed to be a righteous war; for even the wars which arise from human passion cannot harm the eternal well-being of God, nor even hurt His saints; for in the trial of their patience, and the chastening of their spirit, and in bearing fatherly correction, they are rather benefited than injured. No one can have any power against them but what is given him from above. For there is no power but of God, Romans 13:1 who either orders or permits. Since, therefore, a righteous man, serving it may be under an ungodly king, may do the duty belonging to his position in the State in fighting by the order of his sovereign — for in some cases it is plainly the will of God that he should fight, and in others, where this is not so plain, it may be an unrighteous command on the part of the king, while the soldier is innocent, because his position makes obedience a duty, — how much more must the man be blameless who carries on war on the authority of God, of whom every one who serves Him knows that He can never require what is wrong?

LXXV. Interest enim quibus causis quibusque auctoribus homines gerenda bella suscipiant: ordo tamen ille naturalis mortalium paci accommodatus hoc poscit, ut suscipiendi belli auctoritas atque consilium penes Principem sit; exsequendi autem jussa bellica ministerium milites debeant paci salutique communi. Bellum autem quod gerendum Deo auctore suscipitur, recte suscipi, dubitare fas non est, vel ad terrendam, vel ad obterendam, vel ad subjugandam mortalium superbiam: quando ne illud quidem quod humana cupiditate geritur, non solum incorruptibili Deo, sed nec sanctis ejus obesse aliquid potest; quibus potius ad exercendam patientiam, et ad humiliandam animam, ferendamque paternam disciplinam etiam prodesse invenitur. Neque enim habet in eos quisquam ullam potestatem, nisi cui data fuerit desuper. Non est enim potestas nisi a Deo (Rom. XIII, 1), sive jubente, sive sinente. Cum ergo vir justus, si forte sub rege homine etiam sacrilego militet, recte poscit illo jubente bellare civicae pacis ordinem servans; cui quod jubetur, vel non esse contra Dei praeceptum certum est, vel utrum sit, certum non est, ita ut fortasse reum regem faciat iniquitas imperandi, innocentem autem militem ostendat ordo serviendi: quanto magis in administratione bellorum innocentissime diversatur, qui Deo jubente belligerat, quem male aliquid jubere non posse, nemo qui ei servit ignorat.

76. If it is supposed that God could not enjoin warfare, because in after times it was said by the Lord Jesus Christ, “I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but if any one strike you on the right cheek, turn to him the left also,” Matthew 5:39 the answer is, that what is here required is not a bodily action, but an inward disposition. The sacred seat of virtue is the heart, and such were the hearts of our fathers, the righteous men of old. But order required such a regulation of events, and such a distinction of times, as to show first of all that even earthly blessings (for so temporal kingdoms and victory over enemies are considered to be, and these are the things which the community of the ungodly all over the world are continually begging from idols and devils) are entirely under the control and at the disposal of the one true God. Thus, under the Old Testament, the secret of the kingdom of heaven, which was to be disclosed in due time, was veiled, and so far obscured, in the disguise of earthly promises. But when the fullness of time came for the revelation of the New Testament, which was hidden under the types of the Old, clear testimony was to be borne to the truth, that there is another life for which this life ought to be disregarded, and another kingdom for which the opposition of all earthly kingdoms should be patiently borne. Thus the name martyrs, which means witnesses, was given to those who, by the will of God, bore this testimony, by their confessions, their sufferings, and their death. The number of such witnesses is so great, that if it pleased Christ — who called Saul by a voice from heaven, and having changed him from a wolf to a sheep, sent him into the midst of wolves — to unite them all in one army, and to give them success in battle, as He gave to the Hebrews, what nation could withstand them? What kingdom would remain unsubdued? But as the doctrine of the New Testament is, that we must serve God not for temporal happiness in this life, but for eternal felicity hereafter, this truth was most strikingly confirmed by the patient endurance of what is commonly called adversity for the sake of that felicity. So in fullness of time the Son of God, made of a woman, made under the law, that He might redeem them that were under the law, made of the seed of David according to the flesh sends His disciples as sheep into the midst of wolves, and bids them not fear those that can kill the body, but cannot kill the soul, and promises that even the body will be entirely restored, so that not a hair shall be lost. Peter’s sword He orders back into its sheath, restoring as it was before the ear of His enemy that had been cut off. He says that He could obtain legions of angels to destroy His enemies, but that He must drink the cup which His Father’s will had given Him. He sets the example of drinking this cup, then hands it to His followers, manifesting thus, both in word and deed, the grace of patience. Therefore God raised Him from the dead, and has given Him a name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and of things in earth, and of things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:9-11 The patriarchs and prophets, then, have a kingdom in this world, to show that these kingdoms, too, are given and taken away by God: the apostles and martyrs had no kingdom here, to show the superior desirableness of the kingdom of heaven. The prophets, however, could even in those times die for the truth, as the Lord Himself says, “From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharia; Matthew 23:35 and in these days, since the commencement of the fulfillment of what is prophesied in the psalm of Christ, under the figure of Solomon, which means the peacemaker, as Christ is our peace, Ephesians 2:14 “All kings of the earth shall bow to Him, all nations shall serve Him,” we have seen Christian emperors, who have put all their confidence in Christ, gaining splendid victories over ungodly enemies, whose hope was in the rites of idolatry and devil-worship. There are public and undeniable proofs of the fact, that on one side the prognostications of devils were found to be fallacious, and on the other, the predictions of saints were a means of support; and we have now writings in which those facts are recorded.

LXXVI. Si autem propterea putant non potuisse Deum bellum gerendum jubere, quia Dominus postea Jesus Christus, Ego, inquit, dico vobis, non resistere adversus malum; sed si quis te percusserit in maxillam tuam dextram, praebe illi et sinistram (Matth. V, 39); intelligant hanc praeparationem non esse in corpore, sed in corde: ibi est enim sanctum cubile virtutis, quae in illis quoque antiquis justis nostris patribus habitavit: sed eam rerum dispensationem ac distributionem temporum ordo poscebat, ut prius appareret etiam ipsa bona terrena, in quibus et humana regna et ex hostibus victoriae deputantur, propter quae maxime civitas impiorum diffusa per mundum supplicare idolis et daemonibus solet, non nisi ad unius Dei veri potestatem atque arbitrium pertinere. Unde et Vetus Testamentum secretum regni coelorum tempore opportuno aperiendum promissionibus terrenis operuit, et quodam modo umbrosius opacavit. Ubi autem venit plenitudo temporis, ut Novum Testamentum revelaretur, quod figuris Veteris velabatur, evidenti testificatione jam demonstrandum erat, esse aliam vitam pro qua debet haec vita contemni, et aliud regnum pro quo oportet omnium terrenorum regnorum adversitatum patientissime sustineri. Proinde per quorum confessiones, passiones, et mortes hoc Deo placuit attestari, martyres appellantur, qui latine testes interpretantur: quorum numerus tantus effloruit, ut si eos Christus, qui coelo Saulum vocavit, et ex lupo factum ovem, in medium luporum misit (Act. IX), congregatos vellet armare atque adjuvare pugnantes, sicut Hebraeos patres adjuvit, quae gentes resisterent? quae regna non cederent? Sed ut praeclarissimum testimonium veritati perhiberetur, qua jam docendum erat, non propter temporalem in hac vita, sed propter aeternam post hanc vitam felicitatem Deo esse serviendum, ea quae vulgo infelicitas dicitur, pro illa felicitate subeunda fuerat et ferenda. Itaque in plenitudine temporum Filius Dei factus ex muliere, factus sub Lege, ut eos qui sub Lege erant redimeret (Galat. IV, 4, 5), factus ex semine David secundum carnem (Rom. I, 3), mittit discipulos velut oves in medium luporum, et monet ne timeant eos qui corpus occidunt, animam autem non possunt occidere; promittit etiam ipsius corporis renovandam integritatem usque ad capilli reparationem (Matth. X, 16, 28, 30): Petri gladium revocat in vaginam; aurem inimici praecisam reparat ad pristinam formam: dicit se legionibus Angelorum imperare potuisse ad delendos inimicos, nisi calix bibendus esset, quem paterna voluntas dedisset (Id. XXVI, 52, 53; Luc. XXII, 51, 42, et Joan. XVIII, 11); bibit praecedens, propinat sequentibus: virtutem patientiae suo revelat praecepto, suo confirmat exemplo. Propter quod Deus illum suscitavit a mortuis, et donavit ei nomen quod est super omne nomen: ut in nomine Jesu omne genu flectatur, coelestium, terrestrium, et infernorum; et omnis lingua confiteatur quia Dominus Jesus in gloria est Dei Patris (Philipp. II, 9-11). Regnaverunt hic ergo Patriarchae et Prophetae, ut et ista regna Deum dare et auferre ostenderetur: non hic regnaverunt Apostoli et martyres, ut regnum coelorum desiderandum potius panderetur. Illi reges bella gesserunt, ut tales quoque victorias appareret Dei voluntate praestari: isti non resistendo interfecti sunt, ut potiorem esse docerent victoriam pro fide veritatis occidi. Quanquam et illic Prophetae noverant mori pro veritate, sicut ipse Dominus dicit, A sanguine Abel usque ad sanguinem Zachariae (Matth. XXIII, 35): et hic posteaquam coepit impleri, quod sub figura Salomonis (qui latine interpretatur Pacificus) de Domino Christo (ipse est enim pax nostra (Ephes. II, 14)) in Psalmo prophetatum est, Et adorabunt eum omnes reges terrae, omnes gentes servient illi (Psal. LXXI, 11); christiani quoque imperatores plenam gerentes fiduciam pietatis in Christo, de inimicis sacrilegis, qui spem suam in sacramentis idolorum daemonumque posuerant, gloriosissimam victoriam perceperunt; cum apertissimis notissimisque documentis, de quibus nonnulli jam scriptum memoriae commendarunt, illos fallerent vaticinia daemoniorum, hos firmarent praedicta sanctorum.

 Questions on the Heptateuch, BOOK 6, Quest.10

 TWELVE

Augustine, Questions on the Heptateuch, BOOK 6, Quest.10

Liber VI

QUESTIONUM IN HEPTATEUCHUM LIBRI SEPTEM S. Aurelii Augustini OPERA OMNIA - editio latina > PL 34

 Here, Augustine defines a just war as one that “avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly”.

BOOK 6. QUESTION 10

 TWELVE

Augustine, The City of God

In this passage, Augustine addresses the necessities of war, arguing that while war is a “misery,” it is sometimes compelled by the wrongdoing of opposing parties and can be waged by the wise man with the goal of restoring peace.

Misery of War: Augustine emphasizes that even just wars are a “misery” that should be lamented, noting that if they were not just, the wise man would not wage them.

Purpose of War: The aim of a just war is to achieve a stable peace (tranquillitas ordinis), not to destroy peace, but to correct an “evil peace”.

Compulsion by Wrongdoing: Just wars are forced upon a ruler or nation by the wrongful actions of the enemy, making it a necessary act.

Book IV, Chapter 15: Discusses the justice of expanding empires that are not necessarily unjust and how war can be us

Book III, Chapter 14: Argues that the real evils in war are not the deaths of those who would die anyway, but rather the “love of violence, revengeful cruelty, [and] fierce and implacable enmity”.ed to achieve peace.

The City of God, BOOK 19. CHAPTER 6

What shall I say of these judgments which men pronounce on men, and which are necessary in communities, whatever outward peace they enjoy? Melancholy and lamentable judgments they are, since the judges are men who cannot discern the consciences of those at their bar, and are therefore frequently compelled to put innocent witnesses to the torture to ascertain the truth regarding the crimes of other men. What shall I say of torture applied to the accused himself? He is tortured to discover whether he is guilty, so that, though innocent, he suffers most undoubted punishment for crime that is still doubtful, not because it is proved that he committed it, but because it is not ascertained that he did not commit it. Thus the ignorance of the judge frequently involves an innocent person in suffering. And what is still more unendurable-a thing, indeed, to be bewailed, and, if that were possible, watered with fountains of tears-is this, that when the judge puts the accused to the question, that he may not unwittingly put an innocent man to death, the result of this lamentable ignorance is that this very person, whom he tortured that he might not condemn him if innocent, is condemned to death both tortured and innocent. For if he has chosen, in obedience to the philosophical instructions to the wise man, to quit this life rather than endure any longer such tortures, he declares that he has committed the crime which in fact he has not committed. And when he has been condemned and put to death, the judge is still in ignorance whether he has put to death an innocent or a guilty person, though he put the accused to the torture for the very purpose of saving himself from condemning the innocent; and consequently he has both tortured an innocent man to discover his innocence, and has put him to death without discovering it. If such darkness shrouds social life, will a wise judge take his seat on the bench or no? Beyond question he will. For human society, which he thinks it a wickedness to abandon, constrains him and compels him to this duty. And he thinks it no wickedness that innocent witnesses are tortured regarding the crimes of which other men are accused; or that the accused are put to the torture, so that they are often overcome with anguish, and, though innocent, make false confessions regarding themselves, and are punished; or that, though they be not condemned to die, they often die during, or in consequence of, the torture; or that sometimes the accusers, who perhaps have been prompted by a desire to benefit society by bringing criminals to justice, are themselves condemned through the ignorance of the judge, because they are unable to prove the truth of their accusations though they are true, and because the witnesses lie, and the accused endures the torture without being moved to confession. These numerous and important evils he does not consider sins; for the wise judge does these things, not with any intention of doing harm, but because his ignorance compels him, and because human society claims him as a judge. But though we therefore acquit the judge of malice, we must none the less condemn human life as miserable. And if he is compelled to torture and punish the innocent because his office and his ignorance constrain him, is he a happy as well as a guiltless man? Surely it were proof of more profound considerateness and finer feeling were he to recognize the misery of these necessities, and shrink from his own implication in that misery; and had he any piety about him, he would cry to God “From my necessities deliver Thou me.”

Quid ipsa iudicia hominum de hominibus, quae civitatibus in quantalibet pace manentibus deesse non possunt, qualia putamus esse, quam misera, quam dolenda? Quando quidem hi iudicant, qui conscientias eorum, de quibus iudicant, cernere nequeunt. Vnde saepe coguntur tormentis innocentium testium ad alienam causam pertinentem quaerere veritatem. Quid cum in sua causa quisque torquetur et, cum quaeritur utrum sit nocens, cruciatur et innocens luit pro incerto scelere certissimas poenas, non quia illud commisisse detegitur, sed quia non commisisse nescitur? Ac per hoc ignorantia iudicis plerumque est calamitas innocentis. Et quod est intolerabilius magisque plangendum rigandumque, si fieri possit, fontibus lacrimarum, cum propterea iudex torqueat accusatum, ne occidat nesciens innocentem, fit per ignorantiae miseriam, ut et tortum et innocentem occidat, quem ne innocentem occideret torserat. Si enim secundum istorum sapientiam elegerit ex hac vita fugere quam diutius illa sustinere tormenta: quod non commisit, commisisse se dicit. Quo damnato et occiso, utrum nocentem an innocentem iudex occiderit, adhuc nescit, quem ne innocentem nesciens occideret torsit; ac per hoc innocentem et ut sciret torsit, et dum nesciret occidit. In his tenebris vitae socialis sedebit iudex ille sapiens an non audebit? Sedebit plane. Constringit enim eum et ad hoc officium pertrahit humana societas, quam deserere nefas ducit. Hoc enim nefas esse non ducit, quod testes innocentes in causis torquentur alienis; quod hi, qui arguuntur, vi doloris plerumque superati et de se falsa confessi etiam puniuntur innocentes, cum iam torti fuerint innocentes; quod, etsi non morte puniantur, in ipsis vel ex ipsis tormentis plerumque moriuntur; quod aliquando et ipsi, qui arguunt, humanae societati fortasse, ne crimina inpunita sint, prodesse cupientes et mentientibus testibus reoque ipso contra tormenta durante inmaniter nec fatente probare quod obiciunt non valentes, quamvis vera obiecerint, a iudice nesciente damnantur. Haec tot et tanta mala non deputat esse peccata; non enim haec facit sapiens iudex nocendi voluntate, sed necessitate nesciendi, et tamen, quia cogit humana societas, necessitate etiam iudicandi. Haec est ergo quam dicimus miseria certe hominis, etsi non malitia sapientis. An vero necessitate nesciendi atque iudicandi torquet insontes, punit insontes, et parum est illi, quod non est reus, si non sit insuper et beatus? Quanto consideratius et homine dignius agnoscit in ista necessitate miseriam eamque odit in se et, si pie sapit, clamat ad Deum: De necessitatibus meis erue me!

The City of God, BOOK 19. CHAPTER 7

 In this passage, Augustine addresses the necessities of war, arguing that while war is a “misery,” it is sometimes compelled by the wrongdoing of opposing parties and can be waged by the wise man with the goal of restoring peace.

Misery of War: Augustine emphasizes that even just wars are a “misery” that should be lamented, noting that if they were not just, the wise man would not wage them.

Purpose of War: The aim of a just war is to achieve a stable peace (tranquillitas ordinis), not to destroy peace, but to correct an “evil peace”.

Compulsion by Wrongdoing: Just wars are forced upon a ruler or nation by the wrongful actions of the enemy, making it a necessary act.

[Book 19] Chapter 7.— Of the Diversity of Languages, by Which the Intercourse of Men is Prevented; And of the Misery of Wars, Even of Those Called Just.

After the state or city comes the world, the third circle of human society,-the first being the house, and the second the city. And the world, as it is larger, so it is fuller of dangers, as the greater sea is the more dangerous. And here, in the first place, man is separated from man by the difference of languages. For if two men, each ignorant of the other’s language, meet, and are not compelled to pass, but, on the contrary, to remain in company, dumb animals, though of different species, would more easily hold intercourse than they, human beings though they be. For their common nature is no help to friendliness when they are prevented by diversity of language from conveying their sentiments to one another; so that a man would more readily hold intercourse with his dog than with a foreigner. But the imperial city has endeavored to impose on subject nations not only her yoke, but her language, as a bond of peace, so that interpreters, far from being scarce, are numberless. This is true; but how many great wars, how much slaughter and bloodshed, have provided this unity! And though these are past, the end of these miseries has not yet come. For though there have never been wanting, nor are yet wanting, hostile nations beyond the empire, against whom wars have been and are waged, yet, supposing there were no such nations, the very extent of the empire itself has produced wars of a more obnoxious description-social and civil wars-and with these the whole race has been agitated, either by the actual conflict or the fear of a renewed outbreak. If I attempted to give an adequate description of these manifold disasters, these stern and lasting necessities, though I am quite unequal to the task, what limit could I set? But, say they, the wise man will wage just wars. As if he would not all the rather lament the necessity of just wars, if he remembers that he is a man; for if they were not just he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered from all wars. For it is the wrongdoing of the opposing party which compels the wise man to wage just wars; and this wrong-doing, even though it gave rise to no war, would still be matter of grief to man because it is man’s wrong-doing. Let every one, then, who thinks with pain on all these great evils, so horrible, so ruthless, acknowledge that this is misery. And if any one either endures or thinks of them without mental pain, this is a more miserable plight still, for he thinks himself happy because he has lost human feeling.

Post civitatem vel urbem sequitur orbis terrae, in quo tertium gradum ponunt societatis humanae, incipientes a domo atque inde ad urbem, deinde ad orbem progrediendo venientes; qui utique, sicut aquarum congeries, quanto maior est, tanto periculis plenior. In quo primum linguarum diversitas hominem alienat ab homine. Nam si duo sibimet inuicem fiant obuiam neque praeterire, sed simul esse aliqua necessitate cogantur, quorum neuter linguam novit alterius: facilius sibi muta animalia, etiam diversi generis, quam illi, cum sint homines ambo, sociantur. Quando enim quae sentiunt inter se communicare non possunt, propter solam diversitatem linguae nihil prodest ad consociandos homines tanta similitudo naturae, ita ut libentius homo sit cum cane suo quam cum homine alieno. At enim opera data est, ut imperiosa civitas non solum iugum, verum etiam linguam suam domitis gentibus per pacem societatis inponeret, per quam non deesset, immo et abundaret etiam interpretum copia. Verum est; sed hoc quam multis et quam grandibus bellis, quanta strage hominum, quanta effusione humani sanguinis comparatum est? Quibus transactis, non est tamen eorundem malorum finita miseria. Quamuis enim non defuerint neque desint hostes exterae nationes, contra quas semper bella gesta sunt et geruntur: tamen etiam ipsa imperii latitudo peperit peioris generis bella, socialia scilicet et civilia, quibus miserabilius quatitur humanum genus, sive cum belligeratur, ut aliquando conquiescant, sive cum timetur, ne rursus exsurgant. Quorum malorum multas et multiplices clades, duras et diras necessitates si ut dignum est eloqui velim, quamquam nequaquam sicut res postulat possim: quis erit prolixae disputationis modus? Sed sapiens, inquiunt, iusta bella gesturus est. Quasi non, si se hominem meminit, multo magis dolebit iustorum necessitatem sibi extitisse bellorum, quia nisi iusta essent, ei gerenda non essent, ac per hoc sapienti nulla bella essent. Iniquitas enim partis adversae iusta bella ingerit gerenda sapienti; quae iniquitas utique homini est dolenda, quia hominum est, etsi nulla ex ea bellandi necessitas nasceretur. Haec itaque mala tam magna, tam horrenda, tam saeua quisquis cum dolore considerat, miseriam fateatur; quisquis autem vel patitur ea sine animi dolore vel cogitat, multo utique miserius ideo se putat beatum, quia et humanum perdidit sensum.

In our present wretched condition we frequently mistake a friend for an enemy, and an enemy for a friend. And if we escape this pitiable blindness, is not the unfeigned confidence and mutual love of true and good friends our one solace in human society, filled as it is with misunderstandings and calamities? And yet the more friends we have, and the more widely they are scattered, the more numerous are our fears that some portion of the vast masses of the disasters of life may light upon them. For we are not only anxious lest they suffer from famine, war, disease, captivity, or the inconceivable horrors of slavery, but we are also affected with the much more painful dread that their friendship may be changed into perfidy, malice, and injustice. And when these contingencies actually occur,-as they do the more frequently the more friends we have, and the more widely they are scattered,-and when they come to our knowledge, who but the man who has experienced it can tell with what pangs the heart is torn? We would, in fact, prefer to hear that they were dead, although we could not without anguish hear of even this. For if their life has solaced us with the charms of friendship, can it be that their death should affect us with no sadness? He who will have none of this sadness must, if possible, have no friendly intercourse. Let him interdict or extinguish friendly affection; let him burst with ruthless insensibility the bonds of every human relationship; or let him contrive so to use them that no sweetness shall distil into his spirit. But if this is utterly impossible, how shall we contrive to feel no bitterness in the death of those whose life has been sweet to us? Hence arises that grief which affects the tender heart like a wound or a bruise, and which is healed by the application of kindly consolation. For though the cure is affected all the more easily and rapidly the better condition the soul is in, we must not on this account suppose that there is nothing at all to heal. Although, then, our present life is afflicted, sometimes in a milder, sometimes in a more painful degree, by the death of those very dear to us, and especially of useful public men, yet we would prefer to hear that such men were dead rather than to hear or perceive that they had fallen from the faith, or from virtue,-in other words, that they were spiritually dead. Of this vast material for misery the earth is full, and therefore it is written, “Is not human life upon earth a trial?” Job 7:1 And with the same reference the Lord says, “Woe to the world because of offenses!” Matthew 17:7 and again, “Because iniquity abounded, the love of many shall wax cold.” Matthew 24:12 And hence we enjoy some gratification when our good friends die; for though their death leaves us in sorrow, we have the consolatory assurance that they are beyond the ills by which in this life even the best of men are broken down or corrupted, or are in danger of both results.

BOOK XIX [VIII] Si autem non contingat quaedam ignorantia similis dementiae, quae tamen in huius vitae misera condicione saepe contingit, ut credatur vel amicus esse, qui inimicus est, vel Inimicus, qui amicus est: quid nos consolatur in hac humana societate erroribus aerumnisque plenissima nisi fides non ficta et mutua dilectio verorum et bonorum amicorum? Quos quanto plures et in locis pluribus habemus, tanto longius latiusque metuimus, ne quid eis contingat mali de tantis malorum aggeribus huius saeculi. Non enim tantummodo solliciti sumus, ne fame, ne bellis, ne morbis, ne captivitatibus affligantur, ne in eadem seruitute talia patiantur, qualia nec cogitare sufficimus; verum etiam, ubi timor est multo amarior, ne in perfidiam malitiam nequitiamque mutentur. Et quando ista contingunt (tanto utique plura, quanto illi sunt plures) et in nostram notitiam perferuntur, quibus cor nostrum flagris uratur, quis potest, nisi qui talia sentit, advertere? Mortuos quippe audire mallemus, quamvis et hoc sine dolore non possimus audire. Quorum enim nos vita propter amicitiae solacia delectabat, unde fieri potest, ut eorum mors nullam nobis ingerat maestitudinem? Quam qui prohibet, prohibeat, si potest, amica conloquia, interdicat amicalem vel intercidat affectum, humanarum omnium necessitudinum vincula mentis inmiti stupore disrumpat aut sic eis utendum censeat, ut nulla ex eis animum dulcedo perfundat. Quod si fieri nullo modo potest, etiam hoc quo pacto futurum est, ut eius nobis amara mors non sit, cuius dulcis est vita? Hinc enim est et luctus quoddam non inhumani cordis quasi uulnus aut ulcus, cui sanando adhibentur officiosae consolationes. Non enim propterea non est quod sanetur, quoniam quanto est animus melior, tanto in eo citius faciliusque sanatur. Cum igitur etiam de carissimorum mortibus, maxime quorum sunt humanae societati officia necessaria, nunc mitius, nunc asperius affligatur vita mortalium: mortuos tamen eos, quos diligimus, quam vel a fide vel a bonis moribus lapsos, hoc est in ipsa anima mortuos, audire seu videre mallemus. Qua ingenti materia malorum plena est terra, propter quod scriptum est: Numquid non temptatio est vita humana super terram? et propter quod ipse Dominus ait: Vae mundo ab scandalis, et iterum: Quoniam abundavit, inquit, iniquitas, refrigescet caritas multorum. Ex quo fit, ut bonis amicis mortuis gratulemur et, cum mors eorum nos contristet, ipsa nos certius consoletur, quoniam caruerunt malis, quibus in hac vita etiam boni homines vel conteruntur vel deprauantur vel in utroque periclitantur.

The City of God, BOOK 4. CHAPTER 15

BOOK 4. Chapter 15.— Whether It is Suitable for Good Men to Wish to Rule More Widely.

Let them ask, then, whether it is quite fitting for good men to rejoice in extended empire. For the iniquity of those with whom just wars are carried on favors the growth of a kingdom, which would certainly have been small if the peace and justice of neighbors had not by any wrong provoked the carrying on of war against them; and human affairs being thus more happy, all kingdoms would have been small, rejoicing in neighborly concord; and thus there would have been very many kingdoms of nations in the world, as there are very many houses of citizens in a city. Therefore, to carry on war and extend a kingdom over wholly subdued nations seems to bad men to be felicity, to good men necessity. But because it would be worse that the injurious should rule over those who are more righteous, therefore even that is not unsuitably called felicity. But beyond doubt it is greater felicity to have a good neighbor at peace, than to conquer a bad one by making war. Your wishes are bad, when you desire that one whom you hate or fear should be in such a condition that you can conquer him. If, therefore, by carrying on wars that were just, not impious or unrighteous, the Romans could have acquired so great an empire, ought they not to worship as a goddess even the injustice of foreigners? For we see that this has cooperated much in extending the empire, by making foreigners so unjust that they became people with whom just wars might be carried on, and the empire increased. And why may not injustice, at least that of foreign nations, also be a goddess, if Fear and Dread and Ague have deserved to be Roman gods? By these two, therefore — that is, by foreign injustice, and the goddess Victoria, for injustice stirs up causes of wars, and Victoria brings these same wars to a happy termination — the empire has increased, even although Jove has been idle. For what part could Jove have here, when those things which might be thought to be his benefits are held to be gods, called gods, worshipped as gods, and are themselves invoked for their own parts? He also might have some part here, if he himself might be called Empire, just as she is called Victory. Or if empire is the gift of Jove, why may not victory also be held to be his gift? And it certainly would have been held to be so, had he been recognized and worshipped, not as a stone in the Capitol, but as the true King of kings and Lord of lords.

BOOK IV [XV] Videant ergo ne forte non pertineat ad viros bonos gaudere de regni latitudine. Iniquitas enim eorum, cum quibus iusta bella gesta sunt, egnum adivuit ut cresceret, quod utique paruum esset, si quies et iustitia finitimorum contra se bellum geri nulla prouocaret iniuria ac sic felicioribus rebus humanis omnia regna parua essent concordi vicinitate laetantia et ita essent in mundo regna plurima gentium, ut sunt in urbe domus plurimae civium. Proinde belligerare et perdomitis gentibus dilatare regnum malis videtur felicitas, bonis necessitas. Sed quia peius esset, ut iniuriosi iustioribus dominarentur, ideo non incongrue dicitur etiam ista felicitas. Sed procul dubio felicitas maior est vicinum bonum habere concordem quam vicinum malum subiugare bellantem. Mala vota sunt optare habere quem oderis vel quem timeas, ut possit esse quem vincas. Si ergo iusta gerendo bella, non impia, non iniqua. Romani imperium tam magnum adquirere potuerunt, numquid tamquam aliqua dea colenda est eis etiam iniquitas aliena? Multum enim ad istam latitudinem imperii eam cooperatam videmus, quae faciebat iniuriosos, ut essent cum quibus iusta bella gererentur et augeretur imperium. Cur autem et iniquitas dea non sit vel externarum gentium, si Pauor et Pallor et Febris dii Romani esse meruerunt? His igitur duabus, id est aliena iniquitate et dea Victoria, dum bellorum causas iniquitas excitat, Victoria eadem bella feliciter terminat, etiam feriato Iove crevit imperium. Quas enim hic partes Iuppiter haberet, cum ea, quae possent beneficia eius putari, dii habentur, dii vocantur, dii coluntur, ipsi pro suis partibus inuocantur? Haberet hic autem etiam ille aliquam partem, si Regnum etiam ipse appellaretur, sicut appellatur illa Victoria. Aut si regnum munus est Iovis, cur non et victoria munus eius habeatur? Quod profecto haberetur, si non lapis in Capitolio, sed verus rex regum et dominus dominantium cognosceretur atque coleretur.

The City of God, BOOK 3. CHAPTER 14

BOOK 3 Chapter 14.— Of the Wickedness of the War Waged by the Romans Against the Albans, and of the Victories Won by the Lust of Power.

But what happened after Numa’s reign, and under the other kings, when the Albans were provoked into war, with sad results not to themselves alone, but also to the Romans? The long peace of Numa had become tedious; and with what endless slaughter and detriment of both states did the Roman and Alban armies bring it to an end! For Alba, which had been founded by Ascanius, son of Æneas, and which was more properly the mother of Rome than Troy herself, was provoked to battle by Tullus Hostilius, king of Rome, and in the conflict both inflicted and received such damage, that at length both parties wearied of the struggle. It was then devised that the war should be decided by the combat of three twin-brothers from each army: from the Romans the three Horatii stood forward, from the Albans the three Curiatii. Two of the Horatii were overcome and disposed of by the Curiatii; but by the remaining Horatius the three Curiatii were slain. Thus Rome remained victorious, but with such a sacrifice that only one survivor returned to his home. Whose was the loss on both sides? Whose the grief, but of the offspring of Æneas, the descendants of Ascanius, the progeny of Venus, the grandsons of Jupiter?

BOOK III [XIV] Quid deinde post Numam sub aliis regibus? Quanto malo non solum suo, sed etiam Romanorum in bellum Albani prouocati sunt, quia videlicet pax Numae tam longa viluerat! Quam crebrae strages Romani Allbanique exercitus fuerunt et utriusque comminutio civitatis! Alba namque illa, quam filius Aeneae creavit Ascanius, Romae mater propior ipsa quam Troia, a Tullo Hostilio rege prouocata conflixit, confligens autem et adflicta est et adflixit, donec multorum taederet pari defectione certaminum. Tunc euentum belli de tergeminis hinc atque inde fratribus placuit experiri: a Romanis tres Horatii, ab Albanis autem tres Curiatii processrunt; a Curiatiis tribus Horatii duo, ab uno autem Horatio tres Curiatii superati et extincti sunt. Ita Roma extitit victrix ea clade etiam in certamine extremo, ut de sex unus rediret domum. Cui damnum in utrisque, cui luctus, nisi Aeneae stirpi nisi Ascanii posteris, nisi proli Veneris nisi nepotibus Iovis?

For this, too, was a worse than civil war, in which the belligerent states were mother and daughter. And to this combat of the three twin-brothers there was added another atrocious and horrible catastrophe. For as the two nations had formerly been friendly (being related and neighbors), the sister of the Horatii had been betrothed to one of the Curiatii; and she, when she saw her brother wearing the spoils of her betrothed, burst into tears, and was slain by her own brother in his anger. To me, this one girl seems to have been more humane than the whole Roman people. I cannot think her to blame for lamenting the man to whom already she had plighted her troth, or, as perhaps she was doing, for grieving that her brother should have slain him to whom he had promised his sister. For why do we praise the grief of Æneas (in Virgil ) over the enemy cut down even by his own hand? Why did Marcellus shed tears over the city of Syracuse, when he recollected, just before he destroyed, its magnificence and meridian glory, and thought upon the common lot of all things? I demand, in the name of humanity, that if men are praised for tears shed over enemies conquered by themselves, a weak girl should not be counted criminal for bewailing her lover slaughtered by the hand of her brother. While, then, that maiden was weeping for the death of her betrothed inflicted by her brother’s hand, Rome was rejoicing that such devastation had been wrought on her mother state, and that she had purchased a victory with such an expenditure of the common blood of herself and the Albans.

Nam et hoc plus quam civile bellum fuit, quando filia civitas cum civitate matre pugnavit. Accessit aliud huic tergeminorum pugnae ultimae atrox atque horrendum malum. Nam ut erant ambo populi prius amici (uicini quippe atque cognati), uni Curiatiorum desponsata fuerat Horatiorum soror; haec postea quam sponsi spolia in victore fratre conspexit, ab eodem fratre, quoniam flevit, occisa est. Humanior huius unius feminae quam universi populi Romani mihi fuisse videtur affectus. Illa quem virum iam fide media retinebat, aut forte etiam ipsum fratrem dolens, qui eum occiderat cui sororem promiserat, puto quod non culpabiliter fleuerit. Vnde enim aput Vergilium pius Aeneas laudabiliter dolet hostem etiam sua peremptum manu? Vnde Marcellus Syracusanam civitatem recolens eius paulo ante culmen et gloriam sub manus suas subito concidisse communem cogitans condicionem flendo miseratus est? Quaeso ab humano impetremus affectu, ut femina sponsum suum a fratre suo peremptum sine crimine fleuerit, si viri hostes a se victos etiam cum laude fleuerunt. Ergo sponso a fratre inlatam mortem quando femina illa flebat, tunc se contra matrem civitatem tanta strage bellasse et tanta hinc et inde cognati cruoris effusione vicisse Roma gaudebat.

Why allege to me the mere names and words of glory and victory? Tear off the disguise of wild delusion, and look at the naked deeds: weigh them naked, judge them naked. Let the charge be brought against Alba, as Troy was charged with adultery. There is no such charge, none like it found: the war was kindled only in order that there

Quid mihi obtenditur nomen laudis nomenque victoriae? Remotis obstaculis insanae opinionis facinora nuda cernantur, nuda pensentur, nuda iudicentur. Causa dicatur Albae, sicut Troiae adulterium dicebatur. Nulla talis nulla similis invenitur; tantum ut

Might sound in languid ears the cry
Of Tullus and of victory.

resides moveret Tullus in arma viros et iam desueta triumphis Agmina.

This vice of restless ambition was the sole motive to that social and parricidal war — a vice which Sallust brands in passing; for when he has spoken with brief but hearty commendation of those primitive times in which life was spent without covetousness, and every one was sufficiently satisfied with what he had, he goes on: But after Cyrus in Asia, and the Lacedemonians and Athenians in Greece, began to subdue cities and nations, and to account the lust of sovereignty a sufficient ground for war, and to reckon that the greatest glory consisted in the greatest empire; and so on, as I need not now quote. This lust of sovereignty disturbs and consumes the human race with frightful ills. By this lust Rome was overcome when she triumphed over Alba, and praising her own crime, called it glory. For, as our Scriptures say, the wicked boasts of his heart’s desire, and blesses the covetous, whom the Lord abhors. Away, then, with these deceitful masks, these deluding whitewashes, that things may be truthfully seen and scrutinized. Let no man tell me that this and the other was a great man, because he fought and conquered so and so. Gladiators fight and conquer, and this barbarism has its meed of praise; but I think it were better to take the consequences of any sloth, than to seek the glory won by such arms. And if two gladiators entered the arena to fight, one being father, the other his son, who would endure such a spectacle? Who would not be revolted by it? How, then, could that be a glorious war which a daughter-state waged against its mother? Or did it constitute a difference, that the battlefield was not an arena, and that the wide plains were filled with the carcasses not of two gladiators, but of many of the flower of two nations; and that those contests were viewed not by the amphitheatre, but by the whole world, and furnished a profane spectacle both to those alive at the time, and to their posterity, so long as the fame of it is handed down?

Illo itaque vitio tantum scelus perpetratum est socialis belli atque cognati, quod vitium Sallustius magnum transeunter adtingit. Cum enim laudans breviter antiquiora commemorasset tempora, quando vita hominum sine cupiditate agitabatur et sua cuique satis placebant: “Postea vero, inquit, quam in Asia Cyrus, in Graecia lacedaemonii et Athenienses coepere urbes atque nationes subigere, libidinem dominandi causam belli habere, maximam gloriam in maximo imperio putare”, et cetera quae ipse instituerat dicere. Mihi huc usque satis sit eius verba posuisse. Libido ista dominandi magnis malis agitat et conterit humanum genus. Hac libidine Roma tunc victa Albam se vicisse triumphabat et sui sceleris laudem gloriam nominabat, quoniam laudatur, inquit scriptura nostra, peccator in desideriis animae suae et qui iniqua gerit benedicitur. Fallacia igitur tegmina et deceptoriae dealbationes auferantur a rebus, ut sincero inspiciantur examine. Nemo mihi dicat: Magnus ille atque ille, quia cum illo et illo pugnavit et vicit. Pugnant etiam gladiatores, vincunt et ipsi, habet praemia laudis et illa crudelitas; sed puto esse satius cuiuslibet inertiae poenas luere quam ilorum armorum quaerere gloriam. Et tamen si in harenam procederent pugnaturi inter se gladiatores, quorum alter filius, alter esset pater, tale spectaculum quis ferret? quis non auferret? Quo modo ergo gloriosum alterius matris, alterius filiae civitatis inter se armorum potuit esse certamen? An ideo diversum fuit, quod harena illa non fuit, et latiores campi non duorum gladiatorum, sed in duobus populis multorum funeribus implebantur, nec amphitheatro cingebantur illa certamina, sed universo obri, et tunc vivis et postris, quo usque ista fama porrigitur, impium spectaculum praebebatur?

Yet those gods, guardians of the Roman empire, and, as it were, theatric spectators of such contests as these, were not satisfied until the sister of the Horatii was added by her brother’s sword as a third victim from the Roman side, so that Rome herself, though she won the day, should have as many deaths to mourn. Afterwards, as a fruit of the victory, Alba was destroyed, though it was there the Trojan gods had formed a third asylum after Ilium had been sacked by the Greeks, and after they had left Lavinium, where Æneas had founded a kingdom in a land of banishment. But probably Alba was destroyed because from it too the gods had migrated, in their usual fashion, as Virgil says:

Vim tamen patiebantur studii sui dii illi praesides imperii Romani et talium certaminum tamquam theatrici spectatores, donec Horatiorum soror propter Curiatios tres peremptos etiam ipsa tertia ex altera parte fraterno ferro dubus fratribus adderetur, ne minus haberet mortium etiam Roma quae vicerat. Deinde ad fructum victoriae Alba subuersa est, ubi post Ilium, quod Graeci euerterunt, et post Lavinium, ubi Aeneas regnum peregrinum atque fugituum constituerat, tertio loco habitaverant numina illa Troiana. Sed more suo etiam inde iam fortasse migraverant, ideo deleta est.

Gone from each fane, each sacred shrine,
Are those who made this realm divine.

Discesserant videlicet omnes adytis arisque relictis di, quibus imperium illud steterat.

Gone, indeed, and from now their third asylum, that Rome might seem all the wiser in committing herself to them after they had deserted three other cities. Alba, whose king Amulius had banished his brother, displeased them; Rome, whose king Romulus had slain his brother, pleased them. But before Alba was destroyed, its population, they say, was amalgamated with the inhabitants of Rome so that the two cities were one. Well, admitting it was so, yet the fact remains that the city of Ascanius, the third retreat of the Trojan gods, was destroyed by the daughter-city. Besides, to effect this pitiful conglomerate of the war’s leavings, much blood was spilled on both sides. And how shall I speak in detail of the same wars, so often renewed in subsequent reigns, though they seemed to have been finished by great victories; and of wars that time after time were brought to an end by great slaughters, and which yet time after time were renewed by the posterity of those who had made peace and struck treaties? Of this calamitous history we have no small proof, in the fact that no subsequent king closed the gates of war; and therefore with all their tutelar gods, no one of them reigned in peace.

Discesserant sane ecce iam tertio, ut eis quarta Roma providentissime crederetur. Displicuerat enim et Alba, ubi Amulius expulso fratre, et Roma placuerat, ubi Romulus occiso fratre regnaverat. Sed antequam Alba dirueretur, transfusus est, inquiunt, populus eius in Romam, ut ex tutraque una civitas fieret. Esto, ita factum sit; urbs tamen illa, Ascanii regnum et tertium domicilium Troianorum deorum, ab urbe filia mater euersa est; ut autem belli reliquiae ex duobus populis unum facerent, miserabile coagulum multus ante fusus utriusque sanguis fuit. Quid iam singillatim dicam sub ceteris regibus totiens eadem bella renouata, quae victoriis finita videbantur, et tantis stragibus iterum iterumque confecta, iterum iterumque post foedus et pacem inter soceros et generos et eorum stirpem posterosque repetita? non paruum indicium calamitatis huius fuit, quod portas belli nullus clausit illorum. Nullus ergo illorum sub tot diis praesidibus in pace regnavit.

PL

 TWELVE

Augustine, Confessions, BOOK TWELVE

Liber XII

CHAPTER II

Heaven of Heavens: 12.2;  12.9;  12.13;  12.15;  12.21;  13.5

[12.]2. In lowliness my tongue confesses to your exaltation, for you made heaven and earth. This heaven which I see, and this earth on which I walk--from which came this “earth” that I carry about me--you did make.