Augustine the Blessed. Augustine's doctrine of the city of God and the city of earth

Refutes the pagans who attributed the disasters of the empire, especially the last devastation of Rome by the Goths, to the Christian religion, which prohibits the cult of the gods. He talks about the prosperity and adversity that were at that time, as usual, common to both good and evil people. It curbs the arrogance of those who reproached Christianity with the rape of Christian women by soldiers.

Preface

In this work, my dear son Marcellinus, conceived by you, and for me, by virtue of the promise I made, obligatory, I set it as my task to defend the city of God, most glorious as in this passage of time, when it wanders among the wicked, “living by faith” ( ), and in that eternal life that he now "wait patiently"(), believing that "the court will return to the truth"(), and which he will gain by virtue of its undoubted superiority, to defend against those who place their gods above his Founder. This work is great and hard; But "God is our refuge" ().

I know what strength is needed to convince the proud, how great is the valor of humility, thanks to which all earthly greatness, wavering from the impermanence of time, is surpassed not by the height assigned to itself by human arrogance, but by that which is bestowed by divine grace. For the King and Founder of this city, about which we are planning to speak, revealed to His people in Scripture the definition of the divine law, which says: “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble”(; ). But what belongs to God alone, the arrogant spirit of a proud soul also tries to appropriate to itself, and loves to be credited with glory.

Spare the humble, overthrowing the proud.

Therefore, as far as the work I have undertaken requires it and as far as it seems possible, it is impossible to pass over in silence the earthly city, which, striving for domination, is itself under the power of this passion to dominate, although people worship it.

Chapter 1. About the enemies of the name of Christ, whom the barbarians during the devastation of Rome spared for the sake of Christ

From this city come the enemies from whom we must defend the city of God. Many of them, however, having corrected the error of wickedness, become quite decent citizens of the city, but many are so inflamed with hatred of it and so ungrateful to the obvious benefits of its Redeemer that they are now raising their tongues against him even because , avoiding the enemy's sword, saved a life that they are proud of in its sacred places.

Are it not precisely those Romans whom the barbarians spared for the sake of Christ who turn out to be hostile to the name of Christ? This is evidenced by the places of martyrs and the basilica of the apostles, which during the devastation of Rome protected both their own and strangers. A bloodthirsty enemy was raging at their doorstep; there the murderer's fury stopped; there, compassionate enemies brought those who were spared outside these places, so that others who did not have such compassion would not attack them. Even among those of them who killed and raged, according to the custom of enemies, in other places, and among those, after they came to places where things were prohibited that were permitted in other places by the law of war, all their ferocity was tamed and their greed for war disappeared. mining In this way, many survived, now humiliating Christian times and blaming Christ for all the disasters that their city experienced, and attribute those blessings of life that were given to them in honor of Christ not to our Christ, but to their fate.

Meanwhile, if they had any common sense, they would have to attribute everything that they suffered from their harsh and cruel enemies to divine providence, which usually corrects and smoothes out the corrupted morals of people through wars, and a just and commendable life mortals at the same time are trained by these defeats and after the test either transfers them to a better world, or keeps them on this earth for the benefit of others. And the fact that the bloodthirsty barbarians, contrary to the custom of war, spared them for the sake of the name of Christ in places dedicated to the name of Christ - this should have been attributed to them by Christian times, and for this they should have thanked God, and, in order to avoid punishment by eternal fire, sincerely resorted to to His name, a name that many have used falsely to avoid certain destruction. Indeed, among those whom you see so boldly and brazenly mocking the servants of Christ, there are very many who would not have escaped this death and extermination if they had not falsely presented themselves as the servants of Christ. And so, in their ungrateful pride and the most wicked madness, in order to receive punishment with eternal darkness, they rebel with their perverted hearts against His name, the name to which they resorted with their crafty lips in order to use temporary light!

Chapter 2. That no wars have ever been waged in such a way that the victors spared the conquered for the sake of the gods of those whom they defeated

Many wars have been described that were fought both before the founding of Rome and after, including during the times of the empire: let them read and say whether any city was taken by foreigners in such a way that the enemies who took it spared those whom they found hiding in the temples of their gods; or that some barbarian leader, having burst into a city, command not to kill anyone who would flee to this or that temple? Didn't Aeneas see how Priam did on the altar? For after that

Did he desecrate the consecrated fire with his blood?

Or is it not Diomedes and Ulysses

The guards of the sacred temple were killed and stolen

The most holy image; hands covered in blood,

Did you dare touch the goddess’s clean bandages?

And yet, it was not true, as stated below:

After that, the hope of the Achaeans weakened,

for after that they were victorious; after that they destroyed Troy with fire and sword; after that they beheaded Priam, who sought refuge at the altars. What then did Minerva herself lose before this, that she died? Aren't they their guards? Indeed, it could only be taken away after they were killed. After all, it was not the statue that protected the people, but the people – the statue. Why then did they pray to her to protect her homeland and citizens, if she did not have the strength to even protect her guards?

Chapter 3. How foolishly the Romans believed that the gods of the Penates, who could not save Troy, could benefit them

And the Romans were consoled that they entrusted their city to such gods for protection! Oh, what a pitiful delusion! And at the same time they are offended at us for saying such things about their gods, but not at our writers; Moreover, a reward was awarded for studying them, and the teachers themselves, moreover, were considered worthy of both public salary and high rank. Meanwhile, in Virgil, whom small children read because he is the greatest of poets, the most famous and the best, and therefore it is necessary to study him at a tender age, since what is learned by young souls is remembered more firmly, as Horace also says in his famous saying:

A new clay vessel can hold for a long time

- in this same Virgil, Juno, who hates the Trojans, is represented speaking to Aeolus, the king of the winds, the following words, aimed at arousing his anger against them:

A hostile race is sailing on the Tyrrhenian Sea,

Three sons who carry the defeated Penates.

Should wise men have entrusted Rome to these defeated Penates in order to make it invincible? But Juno, they will object to us, said this like an irritated woman who does not know what she is saying. And Aeneas himself, called pious in all respects, says this:

Here is Panteas Otriad, the temple and Phoebus servant

With his sacred hand he drags the vanquished gods and his grandson

Small; Having lost his way, he heads towards home?

Is it not the gods, whom he has no doubt to call conquered, that he imagines as being entrusted to him rather than himself as being entrusted to them, when they address him with such a speech:

Does Ilion entrust you with both its penates and its shrine?

So, if Virgil says that the gods are such, that they were defeated, that they were entrusted to man, so that, being defeated, they could leave in any way, then how crazy it is to consider it wisdom that Rome was entrusted to such guardians: as as if he could not have been devastated if he had not abandoned them? And to worship defeated gods as rulers and protectors, doesn’t it mean, instead of good hopes for a deity, to become under bad omens? It is much more reasonable to believe not that Rome would not have reached such a disaster if they had not died first, but that they would have died a long time ago if Rome itself had not protected them as best it could. For who, having delved into the essence of the matter, will not understand how frivolously the prejudice was formed that Rome could not be defeated under the protection of the vanquished and therefore perished because it lost its guardian gods, when even the mere fact that it wanted to have could have been a sufficient cause of death guards who were in danger of death. So, when the above was written and sung about the gods, it was not the imagination of the poets: it was forced to say reasonable people truth itself. But we will talk about this in more detail elsewhere.

In the present case, I will dwell in more detail on the behavior of those ungrateful people who blasphemously impute the evil they deservedly endured due to the depravity of their morals to Christ, and do not honor the fact that they, even such, were given mercy for the sake of Christ. pay attention; in the madness of sacrilegious insolence they exercise their tongues, blaspheming the name of Christ, the tongues with which they falsely pronounced it holy name, to remain alive, or at least kept them in places dedicated to Him, so that where for His sake their enemies left them untouched, they could be safe under His protection; but as soon as the danger had passed, they hastened to get out of there and come out with hostile slander against Him.

Chapter 4. About the refuge of Juno in Troy, which did not save anyone from the Greeks, and about the basilicas of the apostles, which protected from the barbarians all who sought refuge in them

As I said, Troy itself, the mother of the Roman people, could not protect the townspeople from the fire and sword of the Greeks in the sacred places of their gods; although the Greeks worshiped the same gods. Because in Juno's hideout

Phoenix and the fierce Ulysses guarded the Achaeans' spoils,

Standing on guard: they were rushing there from everywhere from Troy

Shrines from the temples of the lost city:

Funeral feasts for the gods, bowls made of massive gold,

Mountains of precious clothes are copies of the enemy’s property;

Small children and their mothers, frozen with fear,

It is obvious that the sacred place of such a great goddess was chosen not so that it would not be possible to take captives from there, but so that prisoners could be imprisoned there. Now compare this refuge, the sacred place not of some ordinary god or one of the crowd of lower gods, but the sister and wife of Jupiter himself and the queen of all the gods - compare with the places dedicated to the memory of our apostles. The loot, looted from the burning temples and from the gods, was brought to that refuge, not to be returned to the vanquished, but to be divided among the victors; here, too, what was taken in another place, but turned out to belong to these places, was returned to them with honor and reverent respect. There freedom was lost; here it was preserved. What was taken away was stored there; It was forbidden to take here. The ruling enemy drove there for slavery; compassionate enemies were brought here for liberation. Finally, that temple of Juno was chosen by the greed and pride of the frivolous Greeks, and these basilicas of Christ were chosen by the mercy and humility of the most unbridled barbarians. But perhaps, in fact, during this victory the Greeks spared the temples of their common gods and did not dare to kill and take captive the unfortunate defeated Trojans who fled there, and Virgil, as is often the case with poets, invented all of the above? But he described the custom of enemies destroying cities.

Chapter 5. Caesar's opinion on the general custom of enemies destroying a city

Even Caesar (as Sallust, a historian known for his truthfulness, writes about this) did not fail to mention this custom in his speech, which he delivered in the Senate regarding the conspirators: “To kidnap maidens and youths; snatching children from their parents' arms; mothers of families are forced to endure whatever the winners want; rob temples and houses; commit murders and fires; finally fill everything with the sound of weapons, corpses, blood and screams.”

If he had kept silent about the temples in this case, we might still have thought that the enemies had the custom of sparing the residence of the gods. And this kind of danger threatened the Roman temples not from foreign enemies, but from Catiline and his allies, the noblest senators and Roman citizens. But these are lost people and parricides of the fatherland...

Chapter 6. That the Romans themselves did not take any cities so that the vanquished were spared in their temples

But why do we need to go through the many peoples who waged war among themselves and never gave mercy to the vanquished in the temples of their gods? Let's look at the Romans themselves; let us remember, I say, and reconsider these very Romans, who attributed special glory to themselves.

Sparing the humble, overthrowing the proud,

and who allegedly preferred to forgive the insults received rather than avenge them. To spread their rule, they destroyed so many large cities taken by force of arms. Let them read to us what temples they had the custom of setting aside in order to free anyone who took refuge in them? Or did they do it, but historians kept silent about it? Did historians, who were specifically looking for something that they could praise, pass over in silence such, in their own opinion, the most brilliant evidence of piety?

It is said about the famous Roman Marcus Marcellus, who took the glorious city of Syracuse, that before the assault he cried about the destruction that threatened the city. He also took care of protecting chastity, even in relation to the enemy. For before, as the winner, he ordered to invade the city, he ordered by edict that no one should commit violence against free body. Nevertheless, the city was destroyed according to the custom of war, and we do not read anywhere that such a chaste and merciful commander gave the order to leave inviolable the one who fled to this or that temple. And this would in no way be passed over in silence; they found it possible to remain silent either about his crying or about the prohibition issued by him to insult chastity. Fabius, the destroyer of Tarentum, is praised for not wanting to turn idols into spoils of war. When the scribe asked him what he would order to do with the statues of the gods, of which there were many, he covered his moderation with a joke. He asked what they were like, and when he was told that many of them were not only great, but also armed, he said: “Let us leave the wrathful gods to the Tarentines.” So, if the cry of this and the laughter of that, the chaste compassion of the first and the humorously expressed nobility of the latter were not passed over in silence by the Roman historians, then how could it be omitted by them if they showed mercy to some people in honor of any of their gods in in the sense that they would prohibit committing murders and robberies in any temple.

Chapter 7. That everything that was cruel during the destruction of Rome happened according to the custom of war; and what was done condescendingly came from the power of the name of Christ

So, all these devastations, murders, robberies, fires, sufferings that occurred during the last Roman defeat - all this was generated by the custom of war. And what happened according to the new custom: that the barbaric unbridledness turned out to be meek in a way unusual for war; that as a refuge for the people who were supposed to receive mercy, the most extensive basilicas were chosen and indicated, where no one was killed, from where no one was taken prisoner, where compassionate enemies brought many for liberation, from where even the most cruel of them did not take anyone captive , - all this should be attributed to the name of Christ; all this should be attributed to Christian times. He who does not see this is blind. He who sees but does not praise is ungrateful. And whoever objects to someone praising is foolish. A prudent person will under no circumstances explain this by the barbarity of his enemies. He frightened the bloodthirsty and cruel souls, He curbed them, He moderated them in the most amazing way, Who long before predicted through the prophet: “I will visit their iniquity with a rod, and their iniquity with blows; But I will not take My mercy from him." ().

Chapter 8. About prosperity and misfortune, which for the most part are common to both good and evil

Someone will say: why did this divine mercy extend to the wicked and ungrateful? Therefore, I believe that it was provided by the One who daily “He makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.”(). Although some of them, reflecting on this, are corrected from their wickedness by repentance, and some, as the apostle says, despising the wealth of God’s kindness and long-suffering, out of their cruelty and unrepentant heart, collect for themselves “wrath for the day of wrath and revelation of righteous judgment from God, who will reward everyone according to his deeds”(); however, the patience of God calls the wicked to repentance, just as the scourge of God teaches the patience of the good. In the same way, God’s patience embraces the good with its protection, just as divine severity watches over the punishment of the wicked. For such benefits for the just, which would not be enjoyed by the unjust, and such disasters for the wicked, from which the good would not suffer, Divine Providence wants to prepare in the future life. And it wanted to make these temporary blessings and disasters common to both. This is so that there is no too greedy desire for goods that are at the disposal of evil people, and moral disgust from the disasters from which good people very often suffer.

But there is quite a big difference in how people use what is called happiness and what is called unhappiness. For the good is neither exalted by temporary blessings, nor crushed by temporary evil; and the evil one is executed by this kind of misfortune because he becomes spoiled by happiness. However, God often reveals His action with greater clarity in the distribution of this kind of objects. For if everyone were currently punished in an obvious way, one would think that there was nothing left for the final judgment; and vice versa, if the Divine did not openly punish any sin in life, they would think that there is no divine providence at all. The same is true in relation to happiness: if God, with obvious generosity, did not give it to some who ask, we would say that it does not depend on Him; and if he gave to everyone who asked, they would think that He should be served only because of such rewards; such service would not make us pious, but selfish and greedy.

If this is so, and if some good and evil are equally exposed to disasters, from the fact that it is not distinguished what both suffer, it does not at all follow that there is no difference between them themselves. The difference between those who suffer remains even with the similarity of what they endure; and under the same instrument of torture, virtue and vice are not made one and the same. How in the same fire gold glitters and straw smokes; and in the same thresher the stems are broken and the grains are cleaned; and the oily sludge does not mix with the oil only because it is squeezed out by the same weight of the press: so the same force, befalling disasters, tests the good, cleanses, strains out, and discovers the evil, devastates and eradicates. Therefore, suffering the same calamity, the evil curse and blaspheme God, and the good pray to Him and praise Him. It is not important what the test is, but only what the test subject is like, because with the same movement, shaken, the manure stinks unbearably, and the incense smells fragrant.

Chapter 9. About the reasons why both good and evil are equally exposed to disasters

And what did Christians endure in this social disaster that, with a more correct view of the matter, would not have served to improve them? Firstly, humbly reflecting on the sins themselves, angry at which the world has been filled with such disasters, they (although they are far removed from evildoers, dissolute and wicked people) do not so recognize themselves as alien to all kinds of offenses as to seriously believe that they have nothing to do with it. be subject to temporary deprivation for them. I’m not saying that everyone, even if he led a praiseworthy life, in some cases succumbs to carnal inclination: if not to immeasurable atrocities, not to extreme debauchery and not to the abomination of wickedness, then at least to some sins, either rare, or as frequent as it is insignificant; I'm not talking about this. But is it easy to find a person who would treat these very persons, because of disgusting pride, debauchery and greed, because of the disgusting untruths and wickedness of which God, as he predicted with a threat, would erase the lands (etc.), would treat the way one should treat them, lived with them the way one should live with such people? For the most part, we inappropriately refrain from teaching them, reprimanding them, and sometimes reproaching them and punishing them in a certain way: sometimes such work seems difficult, sometimes we are embarrassed to insult them to their face, sometimes we avoid hostility so that they do not interfere or harm us in these temporary things, the acquisition of which our greed still strives to acquire, or the loss of which our weakness fears. Thus, although the good do not like the life of the evil, and they will not be subjected to the condemnation that is destined for them after this life, however, since they spare their sins worthy of condemnation, although they are afraid for their own, even light and excusable ones, then they are justly subject to temporary punishments along with them, although they will not be punished in eternity. Enduring divine punishments with them, they rightly taste the bitterness of this life, since, loving its sweetness, they did not want to make it bitter for the mentioned sinners.

Of course, if someone refrains from rebuking and curbing those who do evil, either because he is looking for a more convenient time for this, or because he fears for themselves, lest they become even worse from this or lest they hinder the teaching of good and just the lives of others, weaker ones, did not have a bad influence on them and did not turn them away from the faith, then this reveals not greed, but a wise rule of love. It is sinful when those who lead a good life and turn away from the deeds of bad people treat other people’s sins condescendingly, which they should wean off or which should expose them - they treat them condescendingly because they are afraid of insults from bad people, they are afraid of harm in those things. which they themselves, as good and innocent, use permissibly, but with greater greed than should be done by those who wander in this world, while relying on the mountainous fatherland.

Indeed, not only the weakest, leading married life, having or wishing to have children, owning houses and farms (to such the apostle addresses his speech in churches when he teaches and convinces how wives should live with husbands, husbands with wives, children with parents , parents with children, servants with masters and masters with servants) gain with pleasure and lose with grief much that is temporary and earthly, and therefore do not dare to insult people whose depraved and full of atrocities life arouses their disgust; but even those who lead a higher kind of life, are not bound by the bonds of marriage, are content with little in food and clothing - and those, too concerned about their good name and safety, fearing treachery and attacks from bad people, refrain from denunciations. Although they are not so afraid of the latter that, yielding to any of their threats and obscenities, they themselves act in the same way, but for the most part they do not want to condemn what they do not do with them, although with their denunciation, perhaps, would fix some. They are afraid that in case of failure their own well-being and good name will suffer; and they are afraid of this not because they consider their good name and prosperity necessary for the benefit of people who require instruction, but rather because of that weakness that loves a caressing tongue and human day (), fears the judgment of the mob, torture and mortification of the flesh, i.e. because of some bonds of lust, and not because of the duties of love.

So, I see in this a sufficient reason why, along with the evil, the good are also exposed to disasters, when God is pleased to inflict temporary plagues on corrupt morals. They are punished together not because they led a bad life together, but because together (albeit unevenly, but nevertheless together) they loved temporary life, which the good should have despised, so that the bad, being exposed and corrected, would inherit life eternal (and if they did not want to be allies in inheriting it, let them be tolerated and loved as enemies: for while they live there is always hope that they will change their will for the better). In this matter they bear not the same, but much greater responsibility than those to whom it was said through the prophet: “He will be captured for his own, but I will require his blood at the hand of the guard.”(Ezek. 33:6). This is why guardians of the nations, that is, leaders in the churches, were established, so that they would not spare sins by their denunciations. But at the same time, he is no stranger to guilt of this kind, who, although he is not a primate, sees in those persons with whom he is connected by the necessary conditions of this life much that deserves warning and reproach, but leaves it without attention, avoiding hatred for the sake of it. , what he uses in this life as it should, but enjoys more than he should. Then, there is another reason why the good are subjected to temporary disasters - such as occurred in relation to Job: so that the human soul tests itself and finally realizes how much it, by virtue of piety alone, selflessly loves God.

Chapter 10. That with the loss of temporary things the saints do not lose anything

Having considered and discussed what has been said in due manner, pay attention to whether any evil happens to the faithful and pious that would not turn into good for them? Unless we recognize as empty words the well-known saying of the Apostle, in which he says: “We know that all things work together for good to those who love God.” ()...

Have they lost everything they had? Is it really faith? Is it really piety? Is it really the good of the inner man, rich before God ()? All these are the riches of a Christian, the possessor of which the apostle said: “It is a great gain to be pious and content. For we have brought nothing into the world; It’s obvious that we can’t take anything out of it. Having food and clothing, we will be content with that. But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and into many foolish and harmful lusts that plunge people into disaster and destruction; for the love of money is the root of all evil, to which some have abandoned the faith and subjected themselves to many sorrows.” ().

So, those whose earthly riches were lost during this devastation, if they looked at these riches as this outwardly poor but inwardly rich man taught, could say, as Job, sorely tested but undefeated, said: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, naked I will return. The Lord gave, the Lord also took away; as the Lord pleased, so it was done; Blessed be the name of the Lord!”(). A good servant, he considered his greatest wealth to be fulfilling the will of the Lord, following which he became richer in mind, and was not upset when he lost during his lifetime those things that he should have lost along with. Those weaker ones, who, although they did not prefer these earthly blessings to Christ, were nevertheless attached to them with some passion, those, losing them, felt how much they had sinned while loving them. For they suffered to the extent that they subjected themselves to sorrows, as stated in the above-mentioned words of the apostle. They needed to add a lesson of experience, since they had neglected the verbal lesson for a long time. For when the apostle said: “But those who want to get rich fall into temptation, etc.”(), then he condemned, of course, the addiction to wealth, and not wealth itself, because elsewhere he gives the following command: “Admonish the rich in this age not to think highly of themselves and to put their trust not in unfaithful riches, but in the living God, who richly gives us all things for our enjoyment: that they do good, be rich in good deeds, be generous and sociable, laying up treasure for themselves, a good foundation for the future to achieve eternal life" ().

Those who used their wealth in this way covered their insignificant losses with great profits; and they were more delighted that, by willingly giving, they were more likely to save, than they were saddened by the fact that, timidly saving, they were more easily lost. It could have died on earth, which was a pity to convey on earth. Having accepted the advice of his Lord, who said: “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break through and steal; For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”(), in a time of disaster they were convinced by experience how prudently they acted, that they did not neglect the advice of the most truthful Mentor and the most faithful and invincible Guardian of their treasure. If many rejoiced that they had their wealth in places where the enemy did not happen to reach, then couldn’t they rejoice even more truly and more carefree if, on the advice of God, they transferred their wealth to places where the enemy could not penetrate at all?

Therefore, our Peacock, Bishop of Nola, who voluntarily became the poorest from the rich, but the most abundant in holiness, when the barbarians devastated Nola, detained by them, prayed (as we later learned from him) in his heart like this: “Let them not torture me, Lord, by trying, where the gold and silver are: You know where.” He had all of his things where he was persuaded to hide and hoard them by the One who predicted these disasters that have now befallen the world. Therefore, whoever listened to the admonitions of his Lord regarding where and how to collect treasures did not lose the earthly riches themselves during the invasion of the barbarians; and whoever had to repent for not listening, learned, if not from the previous instructions of wisdom, then from subsequent experience, how to deal with such things.

But, they say, some good Christians were tortured so that they would hand over their property to the enemies. But they could neither give away nor lose the good that made them good. And if they wanted to be tortured rather than betray mammon of lies, then they were not kind. Those who suffered so much for gold received a lesson about how much they must endure for Christ. They learned that they should love the One who will enrich those who suffered for Him with eternal bliss, and not gold and silver, for the sake of which it was stupid to suffer, which could only be hidden by resorting to lies, but which had to be given away if the truth was told. For in torture no one lost Christ through his confession, and no one preserved gold except through his denial. Therefore, torture could be very useful: they taught to love the incorruptible good instead of those goods, because of the love for which their owners were tortured without any benefit for themselves.

But some, they say, even if they had nothing to give away, were subjected to torture because of distrust in them. But it is possible that these wanted to have and were poor not of their own free will. Such people had to be shown that it is not property, but the addiction to it that is worthy of such torture. If, pinning their hopes on a better life, they did not have hidden gold and silver here - although I do not know whether any of these happened to be subjected to torture, but if it happened - then there is no doubt that those who confessed holy poverty during torture Christ. Therefore, if one of them did not deserve the trust of the enemies, he could not, however, as a confessor of holy poverty, endure torture without heavenly reward.

It is also said that many Christians were exhausted by long-term famine. But the good faithful, enduring this piously, turned it to their advantage. For whomever hunger killed, it freed him from the evils of this life, just as a bodily illness frees him; and whoever he did not kill, he taught him to live more moderately and fast longer.

Chapter 11. About the end of temporary life, whether it is longer or shorter

But (they will object to us) many Christians were killed, many were exterminated by various types of terrible deaths. This may be something to mourn, but this is the common lot of all who were born for this life. I know one thing: no one died who was not supposed to die sooner or later. And the end of life is the same: both long life and short life. One is not better, and the other is not worse, or: one is not more, and the other is not less, since both no longer exist in equal measure. And what is the importance of what kind of death this life ends, since the one for whom it ends will not be forced to die again? And if each of the mortals, due to the daily accidents of this life, is somehow threatened by countless types of death, while it remains unknown which one of them will befall him: then, pray tell, is it not better to experience one of them by dying than to be afraid of them all? continuing to live? I know that our feelings prefer it better to live a long time under the fear of so many deaths, than, having died once, not to be afraid of a single one. But it is one thing to do what a fearful carnal feeling avoids due to weakness, and quite another thing to do what a carefully verified indication of reason convinces of. That death should not be considered evil, which was preceded by a good life. Death only makes evil what follows. Therefore, those who are about to die should not worry much about what exactly will happen to them, what they will die from, but should care about where, when they die, they will be forced to go. So, if Christians know that the death of a godly poor man under the tongues of dogs licking his scabs was much better than the death of a wicked rich man in purple and fine linen (), then what harm did these terrible types of death cause to those who lived well?

Chapter 12. About the burial of human bodies, and that depriving Christians of burial did not take anything away from them

But with such a mass of corpses, they could not even be buried! And pious faith is not particularly afraid of this, remembering the prediction that even animals devouring corpses will not interfere with the resurrection of bodies, not even a hair will be lost from the head (). I wouldn't say: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul.”(), if what the enemies would decide to do over the bodies of the dead could bring any harm to the future life. Unless someone will be so stupid as to assert that those who kill a body should not be afraid to death, lest they kill the body, but should be afraid after death, lest they be prohibited from burying the murdered body. Well, what Christ says is false: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body and then cannot do anything.”(), since the killers can do something with the corpse? Let it not be: what is said by the Truth cannot be a lie. This is said because in a living body, that is, before it is killed, there are feelings; after the murder there are no feelings in the body.

So, many bodies of Christians were not committed to the earth, but because of this no one will separate them from heaven and earth, which are filled with His presence by the One who knows from where to resurrect what He has created. Indeed, the psalm says: “The corpses of Your servants were given to the birds of the air to be devoured, the bodies of Your saints to the beasts of the earth; They shed their blood like water around Jerusalem, and there was no one to bury them.”(), but this is said in order to emphasize the cruelty of those who did this, and not in order to increase pity for the victims. Although in the eyes of people all this seems something terrible, but "The way is in the sight of the Lord of His saints"(). Therefore, everything is like this: washing and dressing the body, the funeral ceremony, the pomp of seeing off - all this is more likely to console the living than to help the dead. If an expensive burial could benefit the wicked deceased during his lifetime, then a poor or no burial could harm the righteous. But we remember: the rich man dressed in purple was given a magnificent farewell by his numerous servants, according to the judgment of the crowd, and, meanwhile, in the opinion of the Lord, much better ones were given to the poor man covered with sores by the service of angels, who carried him not to a marble crypt, but transferred him to Abraham's bosom.

Those from whose attacks we set out to defend the city of God laugh at this. But even their own philosophers neglected concerns about burial. Often entire troops, dying for their earthly fatherland, did not care about where they would lie later or what animals they would serve as food. And poets very often spoke of such people with praise:

For those who do not lie in urns, the entire firmament is a tombstone.

How much less reason do they have to laugh at the burial of the bodies of Christians, who are promised in time not only the transformation from the earth of their flesh with all its members, but also their return and restoration from the bosom of other elements into which the decomposed corpses have turned!

Chapter 13. What is the reason for burying the bodies of saints

From what has been said, however, one should not conclude that the bodies of the dead should be neglected, leaving them where necessary, especially if we are talking about the bodies of the righteous, who were, as it were, vessels of the Holy Spirit, destined for all good deeds. If the father’s clothes, rings and other things are more dear to the children, the more they loved him, then the bodies, which, of course, were much closer and dearer to the deceased than their clothes, should not be despised. After all, they are not luxury items or things created for convenience, but belong to human nature itself. Therefore, in the way the bodies of the righteous are washed and dressed, how their solemn removal is carried out, how carefully the burials are arranged, one should see nothing more than the fulfillment of the duty of love. Some of them, even during their lifetime, gave orders to their sons regarding the burial and even the transfer of their bodies () . And Tobiah, as the angel testifies, earned God’s favor by burying the dead (). And the Lord himself, who was supposed to rise on the third day, calls the good deed of the pious woman who poured precious myrrh on His members, thereby preparing Him for burial (). Also mentioned with praise in the Gospel are those who took the trouble to remove from the cross, cover and bury His body with honor (etc.).

All these testimonies do not, of course, indicate that corpses have any feelings, but they show that the providence of God, which pleases deeds of piety, also takes care of the bodies of the dead in order to strengthen faith in the resurrection. From these same testimonies, it is soul-savingly visible how great the reward for the alms that we show to the living and feeling can be, if what is given to lifeless human bodies out of duty and love does not perish before God.

There is, however, something else that the holy patriarchs wanted to make clear with their sayings and prophecies regarding the burial and transfer of their bodies. But it is inappropriate to dwell on this now: what has been said is enough. But if even the absence of such things as food and clothing necessary for maintaining life, although it causes suffering, does not destroy the strength of the good to endure and endure hardships and does not tear piety out of their souls, but, on the contrary, makes it even more fruitful, then Moreover, the absence of everything that is usually done during burial cannot make those already reposed in the secret abodes of the righteous unhappy. Therefore, if all these rituals were not performed over the corpses of Christians during the certain devastation of the capital or other cities, then this is not the fault of the living, who could not do this, and not a punishment for the dead, who are already deprived of all feelings.

Chapter 14. Concerning the Captivity of the Saints, Who Never Lacked Divine Consolations

But many Christians, they say, were carried away into captivity. Indeed, it would be a great misfortune if they were taken to some place where they could not find their Lord! In case of captivity, there are great consolations in our Holy Scriptures. There were three youths in captivity, there was Daniel, there were other prophets, and God the Comforter was always with them. He who did not leave His prophet even in the belly of a whale will not leave His faithful under the domination of a barbarian but humane-loving people. Those to whom we say this are disposed to laugh at it rather than to believe it. However, in their writings they believe that Orion Methymnaeus, the noblest zither player, when thrown overboard a ship, was taken on the back of a dolphin and carried to the ground. But our story about the prophet Jonah is more incredible! Indeed, more incredible, because more wonderful; and it is more wonderful because it speaks of greater power.

Chapter 15. About Regulus, who is an example of the fact that captivity should be endured even voluntarily for the sake of religion; although such captivity could not bring benefit to this worshiper of the gods

In the history of their famous husbands, they have the noblest example of the fact that for the sake of faith one should endure captivity even voluntarily. Marcus Attilius Regulus, the commander of the Roman people, was captured by the Carthaginians. The latter, wanting to exchange these prisoners for compatriots captured by the Romans, sent their ambassadors to Rome with this proposal, accompanied by Regulus, having previously taken an oath from him to return to Carthage if he did not achieve the fulfillment of their desires. He went, but in the Senate he insisted on the opposite, because he considered the exchange of prisoners unprofitable for the Roman Republic. His compatriots, convinced of this, did not force him to return to the enemies, but he himself voluntarily fulfilled what he swore. And they killed him with unheard of and terrible tortures: confining him in a narrow wooden space, in which he was forced to stand, and having driven sharp nails on all sides so that he could not lean, they killed him with insomnia. The valor he demonstrated is, of course, deservedly praised. Meanwhile, he swore by those gods, due to the prohibition of whose cult, it is believed that the world is stricken with real disasters. But if they were revered so that they would make this life happy, then, having wished or allowed to subject to such executions those who swore in the truth, what more serious thing could they, angry, do to the perjurer?

However, why don’t I draw a double conclusion from this? He truly honored the gods to such an extent that, for the sake of fulfilling his oath, he did not stay in his fatherland or leave it for any other place, but, without a moment’s hesitation, returned to his cruelest enemies. If he considered this useful for his present life, which he ended so horribly, then he was, without any doubt, mistaken. By his own example he proved that the gods do not bring any benefit to their worshipers for this temporary happiness: because he himself, devoted to their cult, was defeated, taken prisoner, and because he did not want to act otherwise than as they swore, was killed by the torture of a new execution, hitherto unheard of and extremely terrible. If the cult of the gods gives happiness in the form of a reward after this life, then why are they slandering Christian times, claiming that a real disaster befell Rome because it stopped to honor their gods, if such a zealous admirer of them as Regulus could be unhappy? Unless some monstrously blind madness arms itself against the most obvious truth to such an extent that it dares to assert that an entire civil society that honors the gods cannot be unhappy, but one person can; that is, that the power of their gods is more likely to protect many than individuals, although the multitude is made up of units.

But they, perhaps, will say that Regulus, both in captivity and in the very physical tortures, could be happy with spiritual virtue. In this case, one should first of all care about virtue, which can make civil society happy. After all, society is not one happy thing, and a person is completely different: because society is nothing more than a union of many people. In view of this, I will not yet go into consideration of what kind of virtue was in Regulus. This time it is enough for me that this most noble example forces them to admit that the gods should not be worshiped for the sake of bodily goods or such things as come to a person from without: because Regulus wished better to lose all this than to offend the gods by whom he swore. But what can you do with people who boast that they had such a citizen as the whole civil society is afraid to have? After all, if they were not afraid, they would agree that what happened to Regulus could happen to the state, just like Regulus, which zealously worshiped the gods, and would not blaspheme Christian times. But since the question has been raised about those Christians who were taken into captivity, let those who shamelessly and senselessly laugh at saving religion be silent, paying attention to the following: if their gods were not ashamed that their most zealous admirer, remaining faithful to the oath given to them, lost his fatherland , having no other, and in captivity of the enemies suffered a painful execution from a newly invented cruel execution, then all the less should Christianity be blamed for the captivity of its saints, who, with undeceitful faith awaiting a higher homeland, recognize themselves as strangers even in their permanent places of residence.

Chapter 16. Can spiritual virtue be defiled by the violence to which holy virgins were subjected in captivity without their permission?

They think that they are reproaching Christians for a great crime when, exaggerating the disasters of captivity, they add that not only other people’s wives and unmarried girls, but also some nuns were forcibly desecrated. In fact, this puts in a delicate position not faith, not piety, and not that virtue called chastity, but our reasoning itself, which has before it, on the one hand, modesty, on the other, reason. And in this case we care not so much about giving an answer to strangers, but about bringing comfort to our own. One can, of course, first of all, recognize as undoubted and proven that virtue, which makes life just, commands the bodily members, being itself in the soul, and that the body is holy from the guidance of the holy will, with the immutability and firmness of which, no matter what anyone else done with the body or in the body will be beyond the guilt of the victim, if he could not avoid it without sin on his part. But since one can do something to someone else’s body not only that causes illness, but also something that relates to voluptuous pleasure, then when something like this is done, although it does not destroy chastity, maintained by the firm constancy of the soul, it shakes feeling of shyness; They may think that something happened, not without some assent of thought, that, perhaps, could not have happened without some carnal pleasure.

Chapter 17. About voluntary death for fear of punishment or dishonor

Therefore, what human feeling will refuse to excuse those who killed themselves in order not to suffer something of this kind? But if some did not want to kill themselves in order to avoid through their crime the crime of others against themselves, then the one who blamed them for this would not have escaped the accusation of unreasonableness. After all, if in general it is not permissible for a private person to kill a person with his power, even if he commits a crime (no law gives the right to such a murder), then he who kills himself is undoubtedly a murderer; and when he kills himself, it is all the more criminal the more innocent he is in the matter for which he considers it necessary to kill himself. We rightly abhor the act of Judas, and according to the judgment of truth, he rather increased than atoned for the crime of his villainous betrayal by hanging himself: because, despairing of God’s mercy, he, in a feeling of destructive repentance, did not leave himself any room for saving repentance. But shouldn’t he who has nothing in himself that would deserve such punishment abstain all the more from committing suicide? When Judas killed himself, he killed a man stained by crime, and yet he ended this life as guilty not only of the death of Christ, but also of his own, because he was killed, although for his own crime, but through his own other crime. Why on earth would a person who has not done any evil commit a crime against himself and, by killing himself, kill an innocent person solely in order to prevent another from becoming guilty? Why commit it on yourself only so that someone else’s sin will not be committed on us?

Chapter 18. About someone else's violent voluptuousness, which the soul is forced to endure in an exhausted body

Is it not out of fear that someone else’s voluptuousness might defile it? It will not defile if it is someone else's; and if he defiles it, it will not be someone else’s. If chastity constitutes a spiritual virtue and has as its companion courage, which makes it its rule to endure any kind of evil rather than to sympathize with evil; and if no one courageous and chaste has in his power what is done to his body, but has only what he deigns or what he denies with his thought, then who, while maintaining the same purity of thought, will consider himself to have lost his chastity if it happens that over his flesh, deprived of freedom and weakened, will it not be his voluptuousness that begins to exercise and seek satisfaction for itself? If chastity perished in this way, chastity would not at all be a spiritual virtue and would not belong to those goods that make up good life, but would be considered one of the bodily blessings, such as: strength, beauty, strong and intact health, and others of the same kind. Such benefits, even if they are subject to decline, do not in the least diminish a good and just life. If chastity is something of the same kind, then why, in order not to lose it, bother about it even at the risk of your life? And if it is a spiritual benefit, then it cannot be lost even if the body is weakened. On the contrary, the benefit of holy abstinence, as long as it does not succumb to the impurity of carnal desires, sanctifies the body itself; and therefore, when one continues not to succumb to them with unfailing constancy, holiness is not taken away from the body itself; for the disposition of the will to use it holy remains, and even, as far as it depends on it, the possibility of this remains.

The body is not holy because its members are not damaged, nor because they are not contaminated by any touch. They may be subject to violent damage on various occasions; and it happens that doctors, trying to restore health, do things to us that seem terrible at first glance. The midwife, carrying out a manual examination of the innocence of one girl, either through malice, or ignorance, or accident, destroyed her integrity during the examination. I don’t think anyone would be so stupid as to think that the girl had lost anything even in the sense of the sanctity of the body itself, although the integrity of the famous member was destroyed. Therefore, while the spiritual vow remains unchanged, thanks to which the body also received sanctification, the violence of someone else’s voluptuousness does not take away from the body itself the holiness that the firm determination of abstinence preserves. And vice versa, if some mentally damaged woman, having broken the vow she made to God, clings to her seducer for the sake of crime, shall we say that she continues to be holy in body, since she has lost and destroyed that spiritual holiness by which she is also holy? body? God save us from such delusion; Let us better be convinced by the example of this that while maintaining spiritual holiness, bodily holiness is not lost, even if the body has undergone violence; when spiritual holiness is violated, bodily holiness is also lost, even if the body remains inviolable. Therefore, a woman, without any consent on her part, forcibly captured and turned into an instrument of someone else’s sin, has nothing in herself that could punish voluntarily. And even less so before this happens to her; in the latter case, she would have committed certain murder at a time when the villainy, and that of someone else, was still in doubt.

Chapter 19. About Lucretia, who killed herself because of the dishonor inflicted on her

When we say that in the case of violence committed against the body, if the vow of purity is not violated by any desire for evil, the crime is committed only by the one who rapes, and not by the one who, having been subjected to violence, does not contribute in any way to the rapist, this is a completely clear position Perhaps those against whom we defend not only the thoughts of Christian women who were subjected to violence in captivity, but also the very holiness of their bodies, will dare to contradict? Indeed, they in every possible way extol the chastity of Lucretia, the noble ancient Roman matron. When the son of King Tarquinius committed violence against her body, thus satisfying his voluptuousness, she announced the villainy of the depraved young man to her husband Callatinus and relative Brutus, brave and famous men, and called on them to take revenge. And then, suffering in soul and not being able to bear the shame, she killed herself. What do we say to this? Should she be considered guilty of adultery or chaste? Who would argue about this? Someone quite rightly remarked on this matter: “It’s amazing, there were two of them, but only one committed adultery!” Seeing in the copulation of these two the most vile voluptuousness and the will of only one of them and taking into account not what was done by the copulation of members, but what came from the difference of souls, he says: “There were two of them, but one committed adultery.”

But why does a more severe punishment befall the one who did not commit adultery? After all, he and his father were only expelled from the fatherland, but this one suffered death penalty? If involuntarily enduring violence is not debauchery, then what is the justice when she, the chaste one, is punished? I appeal to you, Roman laws and judges. Even after a crime has actually been committed, you do not allow the villain to be killed with impunity until he is convicted. So, if this crime were brought by someone to your court and you found that a woman was killed not only not convicted, but also pure and innocent, would you really not subject the one who did it to the appropriate severe punishment? And Lucrezia did this, she herself, the illustrious Lucretia, killed the innocent, pure Lucretia who had suffered violence! Say your sentence. If you cannot pronounce it because there is no one present whom you could punish, then why do you speak with such praise about the murderer of this innocent and pure woman? Before the underground judges, even the ones your poets portray them in their poems, you will not, of course, defend her with any reason, because she stands, of course, among those

That being innocent,

They killed themselves by interrupting overnight

Their lives, because the light has become hateful to them all.

And when one of these has a desire to return to the light,

Fate rises up against him, holds him tightly in place

Impenetrable waves of the sad sea.

Perhaps she is not there at all, because she killed herself, although she was innocent, but felt there was a crime behind her? What if she (which could only be known to herself), carried away by the voluptuousness of the young man, sympathized with him, although he used violence against her; and not forgiving herself for this, she regretted to such an extent that she considered it possible to atone for her crime only? Although in this case she should not have killed herself if she could have usefully repented before the false gods. But if this is really so, and it is false that there were two of them, but one committed adultery, but on the contrary, both committed adultery, one with the use of obvious force, the other with secret consent: then she did not kill herself, an innocent one. In this case, her learned defenders can say that she is not in the underworld among those

That being innocent,

They killed themselves.

Thus, the matter boils down to the fact that by denying homicide, adultery is affirmed, and by justifying adultery, the charge of homicide is raised. There is absolutely no way out, as long as the question is posed like this: “If she committed adultery, then why is she praised; and if she remained chaste, then why was she killed?

But for us, in refuting those who, being alien to any thought of holiness, laugh at Christian women who suffered violence in captivity - for us, in the example of this noble woman, what is so beautifully said in her praise is enough: “There were two of them.” but he committed adultery alone.” After all, this is exactly how Lucretia is usually imagined: that she could not defile herself by any complicity in adultery. And the fact that she, without committing adultery, killed herself for becoming an instrument of adultery, this did not express love for chastity, but a painful feeling of modesty. She was ashamed that someone else's indecency had been committed on her, although without her participation; and the Roman woman, who was extremely thirsty for a good opinion of herself, was afraid that it would be thought of her that what she suffered through violence, she suffered voluntarily. And so, not being able to show people her conscience, she decided to present this execution to their eyes as a witness to her thoughts. She blushed at the thought that she might be considered an accomplice to the crime if she patiently endured what another had done to her.

This was not done by Christian women who, having endured this, continue to live. They did not punish themselves for someone else’s crime, so as not to add their own to other people’s crimes; and this would be so if, for the reason that their enemies, surrendering to passion, dishonored them, they, out of shame, committed murder against themselves. They have the inner glory of chastity, the testimony of conscience. They have it in the face of their God and do not seek more where there is no more that they could do in good conscience - they do not seek so as to avoid insults from human suspicion to deviate from the prescriptions of the divine law.

Chapter 20. There is not a single authority that would give Christians in any case the right to commit suicide.

In fact, it is no coincidence that in the sacred canonical books one cannot find a divine prescription or permission for us to inflict on ourselves even for the sake of acquiring immortality or for the sake of avoiding and liberation from evil. When the law says: “Thou shalt not kill” (), it must be understood that it also prohibits suicide, for, having said this, it does not add “thy neighbor,” just as, prohibiting false testimony, it says: "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"(). However, the one who gave false testimony against himself should not consider himself free from this crime. Because the rule of loving one’s neighbor must be applied to oneself, as it were, for it is written: "Love your neighbor as yourself"(). If the one who gives false testimony about himself is no less guilty of false testimony than if he gave it against his neighbor (although the commandment prohibiting false testimony specifically prohibits false testimony against his neighbor, and it may seem to people who are not reasonable enough that it does not prohibit bearing false witness against oneself), then how much more clearly is the idea expressed that it is not permissible for a person to kill himself, since in the commandment “thou shalt not kill,” to which no further addition has been made, no one seems to be an exception, not even the one to whom is this commanded?

Some try to extend this commandment even to animals, considering it impermissible to kill any of them. But in this case, why not extend it to herbs and to everything that feeds and grows from the earth? After all, objects of this kind, although they do not have feelings, are called living, and therefore can die - and can, therefore, be killed, as long as violence is used against them. Therefore the apostle, speaking of their seeds, writes: “What you sow will not come to life unless it dies.”(). And in the psalm it is written: "Kill their grapes with hail" ().

Will we really, hearing the commandment “thou shalt not kill,” consider uprooting a bush a crime and agree with the errors of the Manichaeans? So, if we, having rejected these nonsense, reading the commandment: “Thou shalt not kill,” we agree that it is not about plants, for none of them has feelings, and not about irrational animals that fly, swim, walk or crawl , for they cannot enter into communication with us by reason, which they are not given to have on an equal basis with us, why their life and death, by the most just order of the Creator, serve for our benefit, then the commandment “thou shalt not kill” remains to be understood in application to man : Do not kill anyone else or yourself. For whoever kills himself kills a person.

Chapter 21. On the killing of people, which does not relate to the crime of homicide

However, the same divine authority also allows some exceptions to the prohibition of killing a person. But this applies to those cases when God himself commands to kill, either through the law, or by a special order regarding this or that person. In this case, it is not the one who kills who is obliged to serve the commanded, just as the sword serves as a tool for the one who uses it. And therefore, the commandment “do not kill” is by no means transgressed by those who wage war at the command of God or, being by virtue of His laws, that is, by virtue of the most reasonable and fair order, representatives of public authority, punish evildoers. And Abraham is not only not reproached for cruelty, but, on the contrary, is praised for his piety because he wanted to kill his son not as a villain, but in obedience to the will of God (). The question is also rightly raised whether it should not be considered a divine command that Jephthah killed his daughter who came out to meet him, since he vowed to sacrifice to God that which would be the first to come out to meet him from the gates of his house when he returned victorious from the war ( ). And Samson justifies himself in the fact that he buried himself and his guests under the ruins of the house precisely because the Spirit, who worked miracles through him, secretly commanded him to do so (). So, with the exception of those who are commanded to kill either by the just law, or directly by God himself, the source of justice, everyone who kills either himself or someone else becomes guilty of murder.

Chapter 22. Voluntary death in no case can relate to the greatness of the soul

And if those who have done this to themselves can sometimes cause surprise at the greatness of their spirit, then they cannot in any way be praised for their prudence. Although, if you look at the matter more carefully, it turns out that the greatness of the spirit should not be seen when someone kills himself only because he is unable to endure some everyday difficulties or the sins of others. Indeed, if the weakest mind is considered to be the one that is unable to endure either the brutal slavery to which its body is subjected, or the ignorant opinion of the crowd, then the greatest in justice should be called the spirit that is able to endure the most miserable life, than to run away from it, and who, being in the purity and impeccability of his conscience, despises human opinion, especially the opinion of the crowd, which is usually wrong. Therefore, if greatness of spirit could be seen in what a person does to himself, then this greatness would first of all be visible in Cleombrotus; they say that, having read Plato’s work, in which he discusses the immortality of the soul, he threw himself from the wall and thus passed from this life to the one he considered better. In fact, he was not depressed by anything calamitous or criminal, true or false, which he could not bear and therefore was forced to kill himself; but in his acceptance of death and in the destruction of the sweet shackles of real life, only the greatness of his spirit was revealed. Nevertheless, the fact that his act was rather great than good is evidenced by Plato himself, whom he read: without a doubt, Plato himself either would have acted in the same way, or at least would have prescribed to do so if I would not be of the opinion that from the point of view of the mind contemplating the immortality of the soul, this should not be done, and even moreover, this should be prohibited.

They say that many allegedly killed themselves so as not to fall into the hands of enemies. But we are not talking about why this was done, but about whether it should be done. For common sense is preferable to a hundred examples. However, examples also agree with him, but only those that are much more worthy of imitation, because they are higher in piety. Neither the patriarchs, nor the prophets, nor the apostles did this. And Christ our Lord himself, commanding the apostles if they were persecuted in one city to flee to another (), could command that they commit themselves to death so as not to fall into the hands of their persecutors. But since He did not command that those to whom He promised eternal abodes () should move to Him from this life in this way, then no matter what examples people who do not believe in God oppose to us, it is clear that those who honor the one true God should do so impermissible.

Chapter 23. How to look at the example of Cato, who killed himself, unable to bear the victory of Caesar

However, for them, besides Lucretia, about whom, as it seems, we have said enough above, it is not easy to point out a person whose authority would prescribe (suicide), with the exception of Cato, who killed himself in Utica; this is not because he alone did this, but because he was considered a wise and kind man so much that there was every reason to think: such a person could not do wrong. What can be said first of all about his action, if not that his friends, among whom were many learned people, wisely persuaded him not to do this, considering his action to be a manifestation of a spirit rather weak than strong, for it was not so much an assertion of honor, avoiding the dishonest, but weakness, unable to endure misfortune. Cato himself proved this by the example of his beloved son. After all, if it was a dishonor to live under the rule of the victorious Caesar, then why did the father make his son an accomplice in this dishonor, inspiring him to rely in everything on Caesar’s favor? Why didn't he force him to die with him?

If Torquatus acted commendably by killing his son, who, contrary to orders, fought with the enemy and even defeated him, then why did the defeated Cato, without sparing himself, spare the defeated son? Is it really more dishonorable to be a winner, contrary to orders, than to endure a victorious enemy? Thus, Cato did not at all consider it dishonorable to live under the rule of the victorious Caesar; otherwise he would have freed his son from this dishonor with his father's sword. So, what does his action mean, if not that as much as he loved his son, whose mercy he wished and expected from Caesar, he was just as jealous of the glory of Caesar himself, fearing that he would not spare himself, as he said about this, they say , Caesar himself; or (to put it more charitably) he was ashamed of this glory.

Chapter 24. In the virtue in which Regulus surpassed Cato, Christians are much more superior

Those against whom our speech is directed do not want us to prefer the righteous man Job to Cato, who considered it better to humbly endure such terrible sufferings than to get rid of them at once by accepting a violent death, or other saints about whom our people invested with the highest authority speak. sacred books that deserve absolute trust - which courageously endured captivity and the dominion of enemies and did not commit suicide. Of the same men who are described in their works, we prefer Marcus Regulus to this very Marcus Cato. Cato never defeated Caesar, whom he did not want to submit to, and, in order not to submit, he decided to kill himself. Meanwhile, Regulus defeated the Carthaginians, and as a Roman commander delivered to the Roman state victory not over his fellow citizens, such a victory would deserve sorrow, but over his enemies; but then, defeated by them, he wanted to endure them better, enduring slavery, rather than free himself from them through death. Therefore, while under the dominion of the Carthaginians, he remained patient and unchangeable in his love for Rome, leaving his defeated body to the enemies and his invincible spirit to the citizens. If he did not want to kill himself, then he did not do it out of love for life. He proved this when, in order to fulfill the oath he had taken, he returned to the same enemies whom he had done much more harm in the Senate with words than in battle with weapons. So, if this man, who did not value life to such an extent, preferred to end it among fierce enemies in any executions than to kill himself, then he undoubtedly considered suicide a great crime.

Among all their praiseworthy and famous men, the Romans will not point out the best, whom neither happiness spoiled, for despite all his great victories he remained a poor man, nor was misfortune broken, for he fearlessly went towards such great disasters. If the most famous and courageous defenders of the earthly fatherland and admirers of false gods, albeit false gods, but honest and faithful guardians of their oaths, having the right, according to the customs of war, to kill themselves in case of defeat and at the same time not at all afraid of death, preferred to endure the rule of the victors rather than commit suicide; then how much more should Christians who honor the true God and sigh for the heavenly fatherland refrain from this atrocity if the divine will, either for the sake of testing or correction, temporarily subjects them to the power of enemies - Christians, who will not be abandoned in this humiliation by the One Who, being the Highest, he appeared for them in such humiliation - who, moreover, are not forced by any orders of military power or the law of war to kill even a defeated enemy? So, what harmful delusion forces a person to kill himself only because an enemy has sinned against him or has not sinned, when he does not dare to kill this enemy himself, who has already sinned or is about to sin?

Chapter 25. Sin should not be avoided by sin.

But one should beware and fear lest the body, which has become the object of the enemy’s voluptuousness, evoke in the spirit permission to sin, luring him to it with the charm of pleasure. Therefore, they say, a person must kill himself before someone does it to him: not because of someone else’s sin, but so as not to commit his own. Of course, a spirit more devoted to God and His wisdom than to bodily desires will in no way allow itself to respond to the lust of its flesh, excited by the lust of others. However, if the obvious truth considers it a heinous crime and an atrocity worthy of condemnation when a person kills himself, then who would be so mad as to say: “It is better to sin now, so as not to sin later; It’s better to commit murder now, so that later, God forbid, you don’t fall into adultery.” If untruth reigns to such an extent that one has to make a choice not between innocence and sin, but between sin and sin, then in this case, possible adultery in the future is better than certain murder in the present. Is it really worse to commit such a sin, which can be atoned for by subsequent repentance, than to commit such an atrocity, after which there is no longer room for saving repentance?

I say this for those men and women who believe that they should commit themselves to violent death in order to avoid not the sin of others, but their own, for fear that, under the influence of the lust of another, they might indulge in the lust of their own flesh. However, I don’t think that the Christian mind, which believes in its Lord and, having placed its trust in Him, hopes for His help, I don’t think, I say, that such a mind would respond to the pleasures of its own or someone else’s flesh with indecent consent. And if that disobedience of lust, which dwells in mortal members, moves beyond the law of our will, as if according to its own law, then, being excusable in the body of a sleeping person, is it not much more excusable in the body of one who does not respond to it with consent?

Chapter 26

But, they say, many holy women, escaping the persecutors of their chastity during persecution, threw themselves into the river so that it would carry them away and drown them; and although they died in this way, their martyrdom is nevertheless highly revered Catholic Church. I don’t dare judge this rashly. Whether it is the order of divine authority that the church honor their memory in this way, I do not know; may be so. What if these women did this not by mistake, but in the name of fulfilling the divine command, not in error, but in obedience, just as we should think of Samson? And when He commands and leaves no doubt about what He commands, who will consider obedience a crime? Who can blame godly submission? But it does not follow from this that anyone who decided to sacrifice his son to God would not have committed a crime just because Abraham did the same. For even a soldier, when he kills a person, obeying the legal authority placed over him, does not, according to the laws of his state, become guilty of murder; on the contrary, if he had not done this, he would have been guilty of disobedience and neglect of authority. But if he had done it without permission, he would have committed a crime. Thus, in one case he will be punished for doing it without an order, in the other - for not doing the same after receiving an order to do it. And if this happens when the commander orders, then how many times more should it happen when the Creator commands?

So, whoever hears that it is impermissible to kill himself, let him kill, since He has commanded him, whose orders cannot be ignored, let him only look at whether he really has this undoubted divine command. We judge conscience by what we hear; We do not take upon ourselves the right to judge the secrets of our conscience. “What man knows what is in a man except the spirit of man which dwells in him?”(). We say one thing, we affirm one thing, we prove one thing in every possible way: that no one should arbitrarily inflict death on himself, either to avoid temporary sorrow, because otherwise he is exposed to eternal sorrow; not because of the sins of others, because otherwise, not yet defiled by the sin of others, he will commit his own, and the most serious sin; not because of your previous sins, for the sake of which present life is especially necessary, so that they can be healed by repentance; nor because of the desire for a better life, which he hopes to acquire after death: because for those guilty of own death there is no better life after death.

Chapter 27. Should one resort to suicide to avoid sin?

There remains one more reason - I have already said a few words about it - for which it is considered useful for everyone to take their own life, namely: the fear of falling under the influence of either seductive voluptuousness or unbearably heavy grief. But if this reason is admitted, then upon further consideration it will lead to the fact that people should be advised to kill themselves at a time when, having been washed in the bath of regeneration, they receive remission of all their sins. It is then that it is time to fear future sins, for all past ones have been forgiven. If voluntary death is a good thing, then why doesn’t it happen then? Why, in this case, should the baptized person continue to live? Why should a justified person expose himself again to so many dangers of this life, when he has the opportunity to avoid them by suicide, especially since it is known: “Whoever loves danger will fall into it”()? Why love, or, if not love, then at least risk being exposed to so many dangers by continuing this life, when it is permissible to stop it? Or has senseless debauchery corrupted hearts to such an extent and deprived them of the sense of truth to such an extent that at a time when everyone should kill himself for fear of falling into sin, this same everyone, nevertheless, thinks What should he live to endure this world, full of hourly trials, without which not a single Christian life passes? So, why do we waste time on exhortations, through which we try to incite those baptized either to virginal purity, or to widowed continence, or even to fidelity to the marital bed, since we have better means that eliminate all danger of sin: after all, we could lead to the Lord, purer and healthier, all those whom they could persuade to submit to voluntary death following the remission of sins they had just received!

But if someone really believed that this is exactly what should be done, I would call him not even stupid, but crazy. How much shamelessness, in fact, is needed to say to a person: “Dead yourself, so that, living under the power of a dissolute barbarian, you do not add grave sins to your small sins.” Who else, except with the most criminal thought, can say: “Death yourself, so that after all your sins have been resolved, you will not commit the same or even worse ones if you continue to live in a world in which so many unclean pleasures seduce, so many outrageous cruelties rage, so many errors and horrors exist.” If you say so - it’s criminal, then it’s criminal, of course, to kill yourself. For, if there could be any legal reason for killing oneself voluntarily, then, in any case, it would be no more legal than the one that we are now examining. But since this latter is not such, it means that there is no legal one at all.

Chapter 28. Why God allowed the voluptuousness of enemies to commit sin over the bodies of abstinent women

So, faithful ones of Christ, let your life not be a burden to you if your integrity has been desecrated by your enemies. If your conscience is clear, you have great and true consolation in the fact that you had no permission against those who were allowed to sin against you. And if you ask why it is allowed, then know that there is some higher providence of the Creator and Provider of the world, and “His fates are incomprehensible, and His ways are unsearchable.”(). Nevertheless, ask your soul sincerely whether you were not too proud of the blessings of your purity, abstinence or chastity and, carried away by human praise, did you not envy some even in this? I do not accuse you of what I do not know, and I do not hear what your hearts answer to your question. However, if they answered that this is so, then do not be surprised that you have lost what you thought people would like and were left with something that you cannot show to people. If you had no desire to sin, then divine help was sent down to you so that you would not lose divine grace; but you were subjected to human reproach, so that you would not love human glory. Be comforted, faint-hearted ones, by both: tested in one, purified from the other; in this they are justified, in this they are corrected. Those of you whose hearts will answer that you have never been exalted in the good of virginity, or widowhood, or marital fidelity, but "followed the humble"(); they rejoiced at the gift of God with fear, did not envy anyone else's superiority in the same purity and holiness, but despising human praise, which is usually all the more squandered the less they desire what deserves praise - and those who are such if they were subjected to barbaric violence voluptuousness, let them not criticize the fact that this is permissible; Let them not think that they do not attach importance to this if they allow something that no one does with impunity.

There are, so to speak, a kind of loads of evil lusts that are left unpunished by the current secret divine judgment and are postponed until the final, obvious judgment. But it is quite possible that such, who were well aware that their hearts had never been arrogantly exalted in the blessing of purity, and yet who had experienced hostile violence in their flesh, had some secret sweetness, which might have turned into a proud arrogance if they had, during the devastation of Rome escaped this humiliation. And that's how some people admire it “anger has not changed the mind” them (), and from these too something is stolen by force, so that their humility is not changed by happiness. Thus, both of them, already proud that they had not experienced anyone’s shameful touch of their flesh, and those who could have become proud if they had not been subjected to hostile violence, both of them did not lose purity, but learned humility; the former freed themselves from pre-existing pride, the latter from threatening pride.

However, one should not pass over in silence the fact that some of the victims might have thought that the benefit of abstinence is a bodily benefit and that it remains only if the body does not experience the touch of anyone’s lust, and does not consist solely in the power of the will, supported by the divine help so that both body and spirit are holy together, being at the same time such a good that can be lost precisely because of the lust of the spirit. It is possible that this misconception has been corrected. For, taking into account the feeling with which they served God, undoubtedly believing that those who serve Him and call upon Him with a clear conscience could never leave, finally, without doubting how pleasing purity is to Him, they must also see that what follows from this, namely, that God would never have allowed this to happen to His saints, if the holiness which He had imparted to them, and which He loved in them, could perish in this manner.

Chapter 29. How should a Christian family respond to the infidels’ reproach that Christ did not free it from the fury of its enemies

So, the children of the highest and true God have their own consolation - a true consolation, consisting of hope not in objects that fluctuate and transitory; They do not find earthly life itself, in which they are raised for heavenly life, worthy of regret, and they enjoy earthly blessings like strangers, without being captivated by them; evil is either tested or corrected. Those who laugh at their trials, and when it happens that one of them is exposed to some temporary misfortunes, they say to him: “Where is yours?” (), let them say for themselves where their gods are when they undergo the same misfortunes, for the sake of avoiding which these gods are revered, or claim that for this reason they should be revered. The first will answer: “Ours is present everywhere and everywhere indivisibly and nowhere and in nothing; He can be secretly present and absent without leaving; when He subjects us to misfortunes, He either tests our merits or cleanses our sins, and at the same time prepares in advance for us an eternal reward for the temporary misfortunes we have piously endured. Who are you that it’s worth talking to you about your gods, and even more so about our God, who “more terrible than all the gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord created the heavens.” ().

Chapter 30. In what shameful prosperity would those who complain about Christian times wish to drown?

If your famous Scipio were still alive, who was once the high priest, whom the entire Senate chose when they were looking for the most worthy man to administer the Phrygian cult during the terrible time of the Punic War, whom you would not have dared to look into the eyes, he himself kept would save you from this shamelessness. For why, being oppressed by misfortunes, do you complain about Christian times, if not because you would like to calmly enjoy your luxury and indulge in the debauchery of depraved morals, without being disturbed by anything unpleasant? After all, you do not want to preserve peace and an abundance of riches of all kinds, in order to use these benefits honestly, that is, modestly, soberly, moderately and piously, but in order to experience an endless variety of pleasures at the cost of insane extravagance, because of which in your morals, in the midst of prosperity, such evil would arise that would be much worse than the most ferocious enemies.

And that Scipio, your great high priest, the most worthy man, in the opinion of the entire Senate, fearing this kind of disaster, did not want Carthage, then a rival of the Roman state, to be destroyed, and objected to Cato, who demanded its destruction, for he feared carelessness, this eternal enemy of weak souls, while believing that fear is as necessary for citizens as a guardian is for orphans. And his opinion turned out to be correct: history showed that he was telling the truth. For when Carthage was destroyed, that is, when the great threat of the Roman state was scattered and destroyed, this was immediately followed by so many evils arising from prosperity that, first by cruel and bloody rebellions, then by the interweaving of unfortunate circumstances and even by internecine wars, so many murders, so much blood was shed, so much cruel greed was generated for the confiscation of property and robberies that those same Romans who feared evil from their enemies during an unspoiled life, with the loss of this uncorruption suffered much worse evil from their fellow citizens. And that very passion to dominate, which, more than other vices of the human race, was inherent in the entire Roman people, having won victory in the person of the strongest few, crushed the rest, exhausted from effort and exhaustion, with the yoke of slavery.

Chapter 31. With what gradual corruption the passion for domination grew in the Romans

Has this passion ever calmed down in the souls of the extremely proud, until it reached royal power through a continuous series of honors? But this continuous transition to new and new honors would not exist if ambition did not outweigh everything. Ambition outweighs only in a people corrupted by the love of money and luxury. And the people became money-loving and prone to luxury as a result of that prosperity, which Scipio very prudently considered dangerous when he did not want a very extensive, fortified and rich enemy city to be destroyed, so that lust would be curbed by fear, and, curbed, would not develop luxury, and with by eliminating luxury, the love of money did not appear; with the elimination of these vices, virtue useful to the state would flourish and increase, and freedom consistent with virtue would exist.

Proceeding from the same prudent love for the fatherland, this great high priest of yours, unanimously elected by the senate of that time, as the best of men, restrained the senate when it wanted to build a theatrical stall, and with his stern speech convinced not to allow Greek luxury to penetrate the courageous morals of the fatherland and not to sympathize with foreign licentiousness, which would lead to relaxation and decline of Roman valor. His authority was so great that the Senate, inspired by his words, from then on even forbade the installation of benches, which citizens began to use in the theater, bringing them in during performances. With what zeal would he have expelled the theatrical spectacles themselves from Rome if he had dared to oppose those whom he considered gods! But he did not yet understand that these gods were demons, or, if he did understand, he thought that they should be appeased rather than despised. At that time, the heavenly teaching had not yet been revealed to the pagans, which, purifying the heart to seek heavenly and extra-heavenly objects, would change the passionate movements of human feeling into humble piety and free them from the domination of proud demons.

Chapter 32. On the establishment of theatrical performances

Yes, you who do not yet know or pretend that you do not know, know, and who murmur against the Liberator from such masters, keep in mind that stage games, obscene shows and vain revelry were established in Rome not thanks to the vices of people, but at the behest of yours gods. It would be better if you paid divine honors to Scipio than worshiped gods of this kind; for these gods were far worse than their high priest. If only your mind, which has been reveling in delusions for so long, can allow you to understand something sensibly, pay attention to the following. The gods, to stop the bodily infection, ordered stage games to be given to them; meanwhile, Scipio, in order to eliminate the spiritual infection, forbade the construction of the stage itself. If you have the common sense to prefer the soul to the body, then you yourself will understand who you should rather honor. After all, even that bodily infection stopped not because the refined madness of stage games penetrated into the warlike people, accustomed only to circus games; but the cunning of evil spirits, foreseeing that this infection would cease by itself at a certain time, tried to unleash - and this time not on bodies, but on morals - another infection, much worse, with which it amuses itself most of all. This latter blinded the poor souls with such darkness, reduced them to such disgrace that (to our descendants this will perhaps seem incredible) while Rome was devastated, those whom she took possession of and who, having fled from it, managed to reach Carthage, Every day in theaters they frantically competed with each other as comedians.

Chapter 33. About the vices of the Romans, which the ruin of the fatherland did not correct

Crazy minds! What is this, not an error, but an extravagance, that while the eastern nations, as we have heard, mourn your misfortune, and the greatest cities of the most distant countries impose public mourning on themselves, you are busy with theatres, go to them and indulge in much more madness than before? It was this mental ulcer and infection, this loss of conscience and honor in you that Scipio was afraid of when he forbade the building of theaters, when he thought that prosperity could easily spoil and corrupt you, when he did not want you to be safe from enemies. He did not think that the state could be happy if its walls stood and its morals fell. But for you, what the dishonest demons seduced you with is of much greater importance than what prudent people warned you about. Therefore, you do not want to blame yourself for the evil that you commit, and you blame Christian times for the evil that you endure. In your security, you are not looking for peace for the state, but impunity for your licentiousness; being spoiled by happiness, you could not be corrected by disasters. Scipio wanted to keep you in fear of the enemy, so that you would not indulge in licentiousness; but you, even crushed by the enemy, did not curb yourselves. The disaster did you no good; you have become the most unfortunate, and, at the same time, remained the most evil.

Chapter 34. About the mercy of God, which set limits to the destruction of Rome

And yet, the fact that you live is the work of God. It is He who, by His mercy, convinces you to correct yourself through repentance; It was He who gave it to you, ungrateful ones, so that you might escape the hands of the enemy, either under the name of His servants, or in the places of His martyrs. They say that Romulus and Remus, trying to increase the population of the city they founded, established a refuge so that everyone who ran there would be freed from any punishment. But the amazing example of this in honor of Christ is much more excellent. The destroyers of Rome established what had not previously been instituted by its builders, for the latter did it to increase the number of their citizens, and the former to spare the great multitude of their enemies.

Chapter 35. About the secret sons of the church among the wicked and about false Christians within the church

All this and the like, if it can be answered more extensively and better, let the redeemed family of the Lord Christ and the wandering city of the King Christ answer their enemies. Let her only remember that future citizens are hiding among enemies, and do not consider it useless for them what they are hostile to until they have become confessors; in the same way the city of God: while it wanders in this world, it has enemies united with it by the communion of the sacraments, but not having the opportunity to inherit the lot of the saints; among them there are secret enemies, and there are also open ones; the latter do not even hesitate to murmur against God, to whom they swore, filling theaters with other enemies, and with us, churches. But one should not despair of correcting some of them, since even among the most notorious enemies, sometimes predestined friends are hidden, still unknown even to themselves. For these two cities are intertwined and mutually mixed in the present age, until they are separated at the last judgment. About their origin, success and final destinies I will try, with the help of God, to say what, in my opinion, should be said for the sake of the glory of the city of God, which, when compared with what opposes it, will appear in a clearer light.

Chapter 36. What subjects should be discussed in further discussion?

But I need to say something more against those who attribute the fall of the Roman state to our religion, which forbids them to make sacrifices to their gods. First of all, they should be reminded how many misfortunes could be pointed out that the Roman state and the provinces belonging to it suffered before they were prohibited their sacrifices to them: they would undoubtedly have attributed all these disasters to us if our religion had been known to them even then or if it had already forbidden them their sacrilegious sacred rites. Then it should be shown for what their morals and for what reason God, in whose power all kingdoms are, was pleased to help increase their power, and how those whom they call gods did not help them in anything, or rather, even in They were harmed in many ways by seducing and deceiving. Finally, it will be said against those who, having been refuted and exposed on the basis of the most obvious documents, try to assert that the gods should be worshiped not in view of the benefits of this life, but for the sake of the life that will come after death.

If I am not mistaken, this question will be both much more difficult and worthy of a more elevated study, for we will have to speak against their philosophers, and not just any, but those who enjoy excellent fame among them and who agree with us on many points, for example , regarding the immortality of the soul and what the world created, and regarding His providence, by which He governs all created things. But since they too must be refuted in that they hold views contrary to ours, we must not shirk this duty, so that, having repelled wicked objections to the best of our ability by God, we defend the city of God, true piety and reverence for God, which alone falsely promises eternal bliss. So, let’s end this book here, so that what we intend to talk about can be presented in the next one.

ESSAY “About the City of God”

1. Historical context and mentality…1 page.

2. “On the City of God” as Augustine’s answer to the pagans...1-2pp.

3. Picture of the world...2page

4. Aurelius Augustine as a patristic...2-4 pages

5. Structure of the work...4-19

6. Purpose of a person. Some contradictions in the work and the reason for the “longevity of the book”

1. The beginning of the 5th century was one of the most disastrous times in the history of the Roman state. The attacks of wild neighboring tribes, which began from this time, were almost continuous. The Roman Empire, even earlier upset and weakened by the cowardice and carelessness of its former sovereigns, was unable to successfully resist the attacks of wild tribes. In 410, Rome was taken by Alaric and subjected to terrible plunder by his soldiers. The city itself is destroyed; the inhabitants were beaten and dishonored, some were taken prisoner; property, gold and precious stones were taken away; monuments of art were burned and destroyed. Great Rome turned into heaps of ruins. The impression made by the fall of Rome on Christians, and especially pagans, was stunning. What is the reason for this terrible event? The question lies in the shocked minds of the pagans, accustomed to seeing in all the events of their history the punishment or blessings of the gods. There could be two reasons: one - the gods are punishing their admirers for allowing Christianity, which does not recognize the gods; the other is that the Christian God punishes the pagans for their enmity towards Christians. But the pagans could not accept the second reason, because along with them the Christians were also subjected to the disasters of destruction. One thing remains - Rome fell due to the fault of Christians. And accusations rained down on these latter. Everything has rebelled against Christ and Christianity. There seemed to be no end in sight for the denunciations, blasphemies, slander, reproaches, and ridicule. The position of Christianity was dangerous. Previously, paganism attacked individual points of Christian doctrine and discussed them calmly. Now, with all its strength, with irritation, it attacked all of Christianity in its internal meaning, as the cause of the fall of Rome, and turned to all its points, “condemning and blaming them, as if they did not agree with common sense, or with the conditions of state and social life", at the same time "and opposing them with his own rational and mystical doctrines." The veneration of the Roman gods is the reason for the greatness and glory of the empire; Christianity, which blasphemously denies those gods, is the cause of the fall of Rome.

2. The clergy of that time was distinguished only by ignorance, inextricably linked with it superstition, luxury, wealth, greed, due to all this, unclean life and even instability in the faith itself. Aurelius Augustine is the only defender of Christianity. In his essay “On the City of God,” he showed the pagans that Christianity not only does not contradict common sense and meets the needs, because especially and beneficial for the private and public life of people. Christianity not only was not the reason for the fall of the empire, but Christ also benefited the Roman pagans. Paganism is a lie, it was precisely what led Roman citizens to physical and spiritual corruption, and the Roman empire to destruction. Only the City of God stands forever. You need to live in it.

3. There are two cities: the earthly one (where vice reigns - Rome) and the divine one (the good, true, eternal - the church). Eternal life near God is the real City of God, in contrast to the symbolic name of the earthly community of the righteous chosen for salvation. But in eternity, beyond time, there is no history. Human activity, our everyday empirical life, takes place only on this side of the City of God, and in the City itself, according to Augustine, “endless leisure” awaits man. Thus, in accordance with the Holy Scriptures, history in the teachings of Augustine begins with man’s falling away from God and ends with his return to God, to the City of God. Following the days of the creation of the world, the Christian thinker divides it all into six centuries. The first age extends from Adam to the flood; the second - from the flood to Abraham; the third - from Abraham to David; the fourth - from David to the Babylonian captivity; fifth - from the Babylonian captivity to the birth of Christ; finally, the sixth - from Christ to the end of the world and the Last Judgment. The purpose of human history is to improve goodness and increase the number of citizens of the City of God. The history of mankind is the process of improving future citizens of the City of God and identifying those unworthy of it. After this, eternal peace will come for the human spirit and body. Empirically, the historical process proceeds linearly. In it, time acts as an irresistible force, ensuring the continuous change and uniqueness of events. From a metaphysical point of view, the historical process turns out to be a circular movement, the beginning and end of which are limited by eternity. A person returning to eternity is no longer the same as when he left the hands of the Creator. Now he knows the truth that he suffered through the painful experience of earthly life. History begins with a catastrophe of world-historical significance: the first man carried out his first free act for evil, went against the highest commandments. The fall of Adam necessitated the coming to earth of Christ, sent to save mankind. And at the end of history, the Last Judgment awaits people. Everyone has to answer for all their thoughts and deeds. At the same time, the entire historical process takes place under the sign of freedom, but everything that happened was foreseen by God. God knew about the future fall of man and knows that “the devil, who plunged the first people into temptation, with the assistance of grace, will be defeated by man.” The temporary life of humanity is the threshold of eternal life. This ultimate goal fills the entire earthly history with meaning. “For what other goal is ours,” Augustine concludes his historical theory, “than to achieve a kingdom that has no end.”

4. The significance of the works of St. Augustine for the subsequent cultural development of the West is incomparable in scale with other works of patristics. He can be considered the true father of Western Christianity. In the western part of the former Roman Empire the works of the eastern Church Fathers were not very well known. Getting to know each other was made difficult by language difficulties: there were not many experts in Greek among the leaders of the Western Church. Against this background, Augustine, who wrote in Latin, was, of course, more accessible and understandable, since Latin was (and still remains) the official language of the Roman Catholic Church. While there were many great theologians in the East, in the West Augustine had no equal, and his teaching dominated Latin theological thought until the emergence of medieval scholasticism (Thomas Aquinas). The most famous of his works: "Confessions", polemical writings against Manichaeism, Donatists, Pelageya, Academicians, “On the Trinity”, “On the City of God”, “On the Blessed Life”, “On Order”, “Immortality of the Soul”, “Renunciation”.

Ontology. Augustine's doctrine of being is a synthesis of Christian doctrine and Neoplatonic philosophy. He identifies the highest idea of ​​Platonism and Neoplatonism - the idea of ​​the One = Good - with God, who turns out to be the source of being and good and who is the all-perfect truth, goodness and beauty. The Divine Trinity - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit - are identified with the Platonic triad: the ideas of the One, the Logos (World Mind) and the World Soul.

It is precisely because of its origin from God that everything that exists in the world is good. Evil is understood as a lack, damage, damage.

Cosmology and cosmogony. God created the world out of nothing (out of non-existence), and the existence of the world is constantly maintained by God. If the creative power of God dried up, the world would immediately disappear (cease to exist).

The world is limited in space and time, and space and time themselves are created by God only together with the world (i.e., before the emergence of the world, time did not exist). There is only one world, and there were no other worlds before the creation of our world. The created world has a strict hierarchical structure, where each object occupies a specific and appropriate place in the general plan of the universe. At the bottom of the created world are inanimate objects and irrational beings, and at the top are rational beings, whose approach or distance from God depends on their own will. So, the devil, of his own free will, fell away from God, and then plunged people into sin.

Epistemology. The fallen can emerge from the state of sin only by uniting with God. There are two ways for this: the path of reason and the path of authority.

All the ancients (pre-Christian philosophers) followed the first path, the best of whom was Plato. Since the world is the creation of God, studying the world allows us to get closer to understanding God.

The second way is possible only under the condition of faith in God, which is given to us with God's help and primarily through Revelation (Holy Scripture, i.e. the Bible), given by God to all people. Only on this path is true comprehension of God possible; thus, Augustine proclaims the primacy of faith over knowledge (“believe in order to understand”).

In Augustine, the Neoplatonic doctrine of ecstasy as the highest way of knowledge develops into the Christian doctrine of illumination.

The doctrine of the soul and soteriology. The soul is immaterial, it is an independent substance, it is immortal. Before their Fall, Adam and Eve were free to choose: to sin or not to sin. After the Fall, both they and all their descendants could not help but sin. After the atoning sacrifice of Christ, God's chosen ones again received the opportunity to live without sin.

In the teachings of Augustine important place occupies the concept of Divine predestination and grace. God, even before the birth of each person, predestined some people to good, salvation and bliss, and others to evil, destruction and torment. A person receives good will (i.e. the will to salvation) only thanks to the grace given to him by God

"About the City of God" (lat. De Civitate Dei) is one of the main works of the philosopher and theologian Aurelius Augustine, in which he presented a detailed concept of the philosophy of history. The work “On the City of God” was written in 413-427, a few years after the capture of Rome by the Visigoths. This event had a great influence on Augustine, who wrote that earthly states are unstable and short-lived compared to communities created on the basis of spiritual unity. At the same time, he believed that secular state power was given to people from above in order for there to be at least some order in the world, therefore, in accordance with the principle “God’s things are with God, Caesar’s things are with Caesar,” people must obey the legal ruler.

Another important theme of the book is the fight against heresies. Augustine justifies repressive measures against heretics and forced conversion to orthodox Christianity, describing it with the phrase “Force to enter [the bosom of the Church]!” (lat. Coge intrare!).

Criticism of paganism

Augustine begins by criticizing Roman customs and pagan religious and philosophical ideas. He emphasizes that the pagan gods were not particularly favorable to the Romans. For example, they did not save them from the Ephesian Vespers (3:22) or from the civil war between Marius and Sulla (3:29). Moreover, the pagan gods were not at all concerned with morality (2:6). In the Christian God, Augustine notes “divine mercy” (lat. diuina misericordia - 1:8).

Relation to Plato

He further notes that Plato is closest to Christianity (8:5). At the same time, the Platonists (Apulei), honoring God the Creator, made sacrifices to demons as intermediaries. Augustine resolutely rejects these errors.

Criticism of Stoicism

Augustine affirms the virtue of love and condemns the apathy of the Stoics (14:9). The beginning of sin (lat. peccati) he does not call the flesh, but the evil will, which is guided by pride (lat. superbia) (14:13-14).

Political philosophy

Following Plato, Augustine argues that the state is based on the idea of ​​justice (lat. iustitia), without which it turns into a “band of robbers” (lat. latrocinia- 4:4). From here Augustine derives the concept of “just war” (lat. iusta bella- 4:15; 19:7). It is noteworthy that he classifies murders, robberies and fires as customs of war (lat. consuetudo bellorum; 1:7). Reflecting on the commandment “thou shalt not kill,” Augustine emphasizes that it does not apply to soldiers and executioners, since they kill not of their own free will, but out of necessity to fulfill their service (1:21)

In politics, Augustine distinguishes a triad: family - city - state (19:7). He cites the difference in languages ​​as the reason for interhuman strife. However, true peace in earthly world no, because even righteous kings are forced to fight just wars. The Roman Republic as a people's work never existed (19:21). Augustine explains slavery as a consequence of sin (19:15). True virtue does not come from government education, but from true religion (19:25).

City of God and City of Earth

Augustine describes the history of mankind as the coexistence of two communities - the City of God (lat. civitas Dei) and the Earthly City (lat. civitas terrena). Some are destined to “reign forever with God,” while others are “destined to be punished forever with the devil” (15:1). The very term “city of God” (1:21) Augustine borrows from the Psalms (Ps. 87:3). The first citizen of the earthly city was Cain. The citizens of the higher city are born by grace, and the lower ones by nature corrupted by sin (15:2). Augustine compares Noah's ark with Jesus Christ, and the hole of the first with the wound of the second (15:26). However, he rejects the extremes of both literal and allegorical understandings of Scripture (15:27). Among the citizens of the City of God, Augustine names the Edomite Job (18:47), who lived three generations later than the patriarch Jacob.

Story

Augustine believes that no more than 6 thousand years passed from the time of Adam to the decline of the Roman Empire (12:10). He also strongly rejects the “co-eternality” of creation to the Creator (12:16)

Augustine connects the time of Abraham with the era of Assyria under Semiramis (18:2) and Egypt under Isis (18:3). The following describes Moses (18:8), who received the Old Testament on Mount Sinai (18:11). Augustine connects the era of the Trojan War with the period of the Israelite Judges (18:19). The founding of Rome as the second Babylon dates back to the reign of King Hezekiah (18:22). Augustine believes that the Sibyls also predicted the coming of Jesus Christ (18:23). The Babylonian captivity dates back to the time of Romulus and Thales of Miletus (18:24). Augustine also mentions the translation of 70 interpreters into Greek (18:42-43) and the birth of Jesus Christ (18:47).

Ecclesiology

In theology, Augustine condemns the chiliasts (20:7). Kingdom of Christ (lat. Regnum Christi) is the current Church (lat. ecclesia- 20:9). The first resurrection of the dead, which is spoken of in the Apocalypse, is nothing more than a spiritual resurrection (20:10). The Antichrist will sit to seduce people either in the Church or in Solomon's Temple (20:19). Augustine insists on the reality of eternal torment in fire for sinners (21:2) and justifies it with reference to the Bible (Exodus 66:24). Nature was created good, but was corrupted by sin (22:1). Augustine devotes a lot of space to refuting the impossibility of the resurrection of the dead (22:12) and their ascension to heaven. This, he believes, is possible even for unborn babies (22:13). Women will be resurrected in women's bodies, although not for carnal pleasures (22:17)

Write a review of the article “About the City of God”

Notes

Links

• (Latin Texts)

Literature

• Mayorov, G. G. (link unavailable since 05/26/2013 (2111 days)), With. 129-138.
• Bychkov, V.V. Aesthetics of Aurelius Augustine. M., 1984. P.23-29
• Armstrong A. X. Origins of Christian theology. Introduction to ancient philosophy. St. Petersburg, 2006. pp. 241-242

Excerpt characterizing the City of God

Its thin long fingers shone through with a bright pulsating emerald light!.. The light poured more and more, as if alive, filling the dark night space...
Radomir opened his palm - an amazingly beautiful green crystal rested on it...
- What is this??? – as if afraid to frighten away, Magdalena also quietly whispered.
“The Key of the Gods,” Radomir answered calmly. - Look, I'll show you...
(I am talking about the Key of the Gods with the permission of the Wanderers, whom I was lucky enough to meet twice in June and August 2009, in the Valley of the Magicians. Before that, the Key of the Gods had never been spoken of openly anywhere).
The crystal was material. And at the same time truly magical. It was carved from very beautiful stone, similar to a surprisingly transparent emerald. But Magdalena felt that it was something much more complex than a simple gem, even the purest one. It was diamond-shaped and elongated, the size of Radomir’s palm. Each cut of the crystal was completely covered with unfamiliar runes, apparently even more ancient than those that Magdalene knew...
– What is he “talking about,” my joy?.. And why aren’t these runes familiar to me? They are a little different than those that the Magi taught us. And where did you get it from?!
“It was once brought to Earth by our wise Ancestors, our Gods, to create here the Temple of Eternal Knowledge,” Radomir began, looking thoughtfully at the crystal. – So that he helps worthy Children of the Earth find Light and Truth. It was HE who gave birth on earth to the caste of Magi, Veduns, Sages, Darins and other enlightened ones. And it was from him that they drew their KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING, and from it they once created Meteora. Later, leaving forever, the Gods left this Temple to people, bequeathing to keep and take care of it, as they would take care of the Earth itself. And the Key to the Temple was given to the Magi, so that it would not accidentally fall into the hands of the “dark-minded” and the Earth would not perish from them evil hands. So since then, this miracle has been kept for centuries by the Magi, and they pass it on from time to time to a worthy person, so that a random “guardian” does not betray the order and faith abandoned by our Gods.

– Is this really the Grail, Sever? – I couldn’t resist, I asked.
- No, Isidora. The Grail was never what this amazing Smart Crystal is. People simply “attributed” what they wanted to Radomir... like everything else, “alien.” Radomir, all his adult life, was the Guardian of the Key of the Gods. But people, naturally, could not know this, and therefore did not calm down. First, they were looking for the Chalice that supposedly “belonged” to Radomir. And sometimes his children or Magdalene herself were called the Grail. And all this happened only because the “true believers” really wanted to have some kind of proof of the veracity of what they believe in... Something material, something “holy” that could be touched... (which, Unfortunately, this is happening even now, after many hundreds of years). So the “dark ones” came up with a beautiful story for them at that time in order to ignite sensitive “believing” hearts with it... Unfortunately, people always needed relics, Isidora, and if they didn’t exist, someone simply made them up. Radomir never had such a cup, because he did not have the “Last Supper” itself... at which he supposedly drank from it. The cup of the “Last Supper” was with the prophet Joshua, but not with Radomir.
And Joseph of Arimathea actually once collected a few drops of the prophet’s blood there. But this famous “Grail Cup” was really just a simple clay cup, which all Jews usually drank from at that time, and which was not so easy to find later. A golden or silver bowl, completely strewn precious stones(as the priests like to portray it) never existed in reality, neither in the time of the Jewish prophet Joshua, nor even more so in the time of Radomir.
But this is another, albeit most interesting, story.

You don't have much time, Isidora. And I think you will want to know something completely different, something that is close to your heart, and that perhaps will help you find more strength within yourself to endure. Well, in any case, this tangled tangle of two lives that are alien to each other (Radomir and Joshua), too closely tied by “dark” forces, cannot be unraveled so soon. Like I said, you simply don't have enough time for this, my friend. Forgive me...
I just nodded in response, trying not to show how much I was interested in this whole real true Story! And how I wanted to know, even if I was dying, all the incredible amount of lies brought down by the church on our gullible earthly heads... But I left it to the North to decide what exactly he wanted to tell me. It was his free will to tell me or not tell me this or that. I was already incredibly grateful to him for his precious time, and for his sincere desire to brighten up our sad remaining days.
We again found ourselves in the dark night garden, “eavesdropping” on the last hours of Radomir and Magdalena...
– Where is this Great Temple, Radomir? – Magdalena asked in surprise.
– In a wonderful, distant country... At the very “top” of the world... (meaning North Pole, former country Hyperborea - Daaria), Radomir whispered quietly, as if going into the infinitely distant past. “There stands a holy man-made mountain, which neither nature, nor time, nor people can destroy. For this mountain is eternal... This is the Temple of Eternal Knowledge. Temple of our old Gods, Mary...
Once upon a time, a long time ago, their Key sparkled on the top of the holy mountain - this green crystal that gave the Earth protection, opened souls, and taught the worthy. Only now our Gods have left. And since then, the Earth has plunged into darkness, which man himself has not yet been able to destroy. There is still too much envy and anger in him. And laziness too...

– People need to see the light, Maria. – After a short silence, Radomir said. – And YOU are the one who will help them! – And as if not noticing her protesting gesture, he calmly continued. – YOU will teach them KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING. And give them real FAITH. You will become their Guiding Star, no matter what happens to me. Promise me!.. I have no one else to trust with what I had to do myself. Promise me, my darling.
Radomir carefully took her face in his hands, carefully peering into her radiant blue eyes and... unexpectedly smiled... How much endless love shone in those wondrous, familiar eyes!.. And how much deepest pain there was in them... He knew how scared and lonely she was. Knew how much she wanted to save him! And despite all this, Radomir could not help but smile - even in such a terrible time for her, Magdalena somehow remained as amazingly bright and even more beautiful!.. Like a clean spring with life-giving clear water...

For the first time in European philosophy, the work sets out the linear concept of historical time and the ideas of moral progress.

About the City of God
De Civitate Dei
Manuscript "On the City of God", c. 1470
Genre	theology and philosophy
Author	Aurelius Augustine
Original language	Latin
Date of writing	413-427

The work “On the City of God” was written in 413-427, a few years after the capture of Rome by the Visigoths. This event had a great influence on Augustine, who wrote that earthly states are unstable and short-lived compared to communities created on the basis of spiritual unity. At the same time, he believed that secular state power was given to people from above in order for there to be at least some order in the world, therefore, in accordance with the principle “God’s to God, Caesar’s to Caesar,” people must obey the legal ruler.

Another important theme of the book is the fight against heresies. Augustine justifies repressive measures against heretics and forced conversion to orthodox Christianity, describing it with the phrase “Force to enter [the bosom of the Church]!” (lat. Coge intrare! ). [ ]

Criticism of paganism

Augustine begins by criticizing Roman customs and pagan religious and philosophical ideas. He emphasizes that the pagan gods were not particularly favorable to the Romans. For example, they did not save them from the Ephesian Vespers (3:22) or from the civil war between Marius and Sulla (3:29). Moreover, the pagan gods were not at all concerned with morality (2:6). In the Christian God, Augustine notes “divine mercy” (Latin: Divina misericordia - 1:8).

Relation to Plato

He further notes that Plato is closest to Christianity (8:5). At the same time, the Platonists (Apulei), honoring God the Creator, made sacrifices to demons as intermediaries. Augustine resolutely rejects this error.

Criticism of Stoicism

Augustine affirms the virtue of love and condemns the apathy of the Stoics (14:9). He calls the beginning of sin (lat. peccati) not the flesh, but the evil will, which is guided by pride (lat. superbia) (14:13-14).

Political philosophy

Following Plato, Augustine argues that the state is based on the idea of ​​justice (lat. iustitia), without which it turns into a “band of robbers” (lat. latrocinia - 4:4). From here Augustine derives the concept of “just war” (Latin iusta bella - 4:15; 19:7). It is noteworthy that he classifies murders, robberies and fires as customs of war (Latin consuetudo bellorum; 1:7). Reflecting on the commandment “thou shalt not kill,” Augustine emphasizes that it does not apply to soldiers and executioners, since they do not kill of their own free will, but out of necessity to fulfill their service (1:21)

In politics, Augustine distinguishes a triad: family - city - state (19:7). He cites the difference in languages ​​as the reason for interhuman strife. However, there is no true peace in the earthly world, since even righteous kings are forced to wage just wars. The Roman Republic as a people's work never existed (19:21). Augustine explains slavery as a consequence of sin (19:15). True virtue does not come from government education, but from true religion (19:25).

City of God and City of Earth

Augustine describes the history of mankind as the coexistence of two communities - the City of God (lat. civitas Dei) and the Earthly City (lat. civitas terrena). Some are destined to “reign forever with God,” while others are “destined to be punished forever with the devil” (15:1). The very term “city of God” (1:21) Augustine borrows from the Psalms (Ps.). The first citizen of the earthly city was Cain. The citizens of the higher city are born by grace, and the lower ones by nature corrupted by sin (15:2). Augustine compares Noah's ark with Jesus Christ, and the hole of the first with the wound of the second (15:26). However, he rejects the extremes of both literal and allegorical understandings of Scripture (15:27). Among the citizens of the City of God, Augustine names the Edomite Job (18:47), who lived three generations later than the patriarch Jacob.

Story

Augustine believes that no more than 6 thousand years passed from the time of Adam to the decline of the Roman Empire (12:10). He also strongly rejects the “co-eternality” of creation to the Creator (12:16)

Augustine connects the time of Abraham with the era of Assyria under Semiramis (18:2) and Egypt under Isis (18:3). The following describes

24.01.2010

Augustine

About the City of God

BOOK ELEVEN

CHAPTER I

We call the city of God the city to which that very Scripture testifies, which, by the will of the highest providence, rising above all without exception the writings of all peoples by divine authority, and not by an accidental impression on human souls, has subdued all kinds of human minds. This Scripture says, “Glorious things are proclaimed about you, O city of God!” (Ps. KХХХУ1, 3). And in another psalm we read: “Great is the Lord and highly praised in the city of our God, on His holy mountain” (Ps. HUP, 2). In the same psalm, a little lower: “As we heard, so we saw in the city of the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God; God will establish it forever” (Ps. HUY, 9). And in another psalm: “River streams make glad the city of God, the holy dwelling of the Most High, God is in the midst of it; he will not be shaken" (Ps. HU, 5, 6) From these and other testimonies of the same kind, which would take too long to cite, we know that there is a certain city of God, of which we passionately desire to be citizens because of that love, which its Founder breathed into us.

The citizens of the earthly city prefer their gods to this Founder of the holy city, not knowing that He is the God of gods - not false gods, that is, wicked and proud, who, having been deprived of His unchangeable and common light to all and limited to pitiful power, create for themselves in some way, private possessions demand divine honors from seduced subjects, and the gods of the pious and holy, who find more pleasure in subordinating themselves to God alone,

than many - to ourselves, and to honor God ourselves, rather than to be worshiped instead of God. But we responded to the enemies of this holy city with the help of our Lord and King as best we could in the previous ten books. Now, knowing what is expected of me, and not forgetting my duty, I will begin to speak with ever-present hope in the help of the same Lord and our King about the beginning, spread and destined end of both cities, earthly and heavenly, about which I said that in the present century they are in some way intertwined and mixed with each other; and first of all I will say about the original foundations of these two cities in the division of angels that preceded them.

CHAPTER II

It is a great and extremely difficult task, having understood and learned from experience the variability of all creation in general, corporeal and incorporeal, to abstract from it by the effort of the mind and rise to the unchangeable essence of God, and there to learn from God himself that all nature, which is not that, that He, by Him, was created. In this case, God does not speak to man through any corporeal creature, making a noise in the bodily ears by the vibration of the air space located between the speaker and the listener, and not through anything sensible that would take a form similar to bodies, as in dreams, or in any other similar manner; for even in this case He speaks as if to bodily ears, because He speaks as if through the body and as if there were gaps between the places of the bodies, since visions of this kind are in many ways similar to bodies. But He speaks with the truth itself, if anyone is able to listen with the mind and not with the body. In this case, He speaks to that part of a person that is better in a person than the rest, of which, as we know, a person consists, and which is better

only God himself. For if there is a direct conviction, or if that is impossible, then at least a belief, that man is created in the image of God, then the part by which he comes closest to the supreme God will, of course, be that part of him by which he rises above his inferiors. parts he has in common even with animals.

But since the mind itself, which by nature has reason and understanding, is weakened by certain obscuring and inveterate vices, not only so that this unchanging light attracts it, giving it pleasure, but even so that it can simply endure it , the mind must first of all be watered and purified by faith until, day by day renewed and healed, it becomes capable of perceiving such great happiness. But so that in this faith man would more reliably move towards the truth, Truth itself - God, the Son of God, having assumed humanity and without losing the Divinity, strengthened and established this very faith, so that it would be the path to God for man through the God-man. He is the Mediator between God and man - the man Jesus Christ. That is why He is the mediator, why He is the man and why He is the way. If there is a path between the one who strives to achieve something and the goal towards which he strives, then there is hope of achieving the goal. And if there is no way or the path that should be taken is unknown, then what is the use of knowing where to go? The only completely reliable path is that He is both God and man: as God, He is the goal towards which they go, as man, He is the path along which they walk.

CHAPTER III

He, who spoke as far as he considered sufficient, first through the prophets, then personally, and then through the apostles, also produced Scripture, which is called canonical and has great authority. This Scripture

we trust in those things, ignorance of which is harmful, but also the knowledge of which we are not able to achieve ourselves. For if, on the basis of our own testimony, we can cognize that which is not removed from our senses, internal or even external, and which is therefore called subject to the senses (prosepsis) in the same sense as what is called subject to vision is what is before the eyes; then in relation to that which is removed from our senses, since we cannot know it by means of our own testimony, we certainly require extraneous evidence and believe those about whom we do not doubt that it is not removed or has not been removed from their senses. So, just as in relation to visible objects that we do not see ourselves, we trust those who have seen them and do the same in relation to other things that are subject to one or another bodily sense, so in relation to what is felt by the soul or mind (for this too it is quite rightly called a feeling (zepyiz); where does the word itself come from (zepgeppa)), i.e. in relation to those invisible things that are removed from our inner feeling, we must believe those who have cognized what is placed in this incorporeal light and contemplate what abides in it.

CHAPTER IV

Of all visible things, the greatest is the world; Of all the invisible things, the greatest is God. That the world exists, we see, that there is God, we believe. And that God created the world, here we cannot believe anyone except God himself. But where did they hear Him? So far, nowhere better than in the Holy Scriptures, in which His prophet said: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). But was the prophet present?

when God created heaven and earth? At the same time, there was no prophet, but there was the Wisdom of God, through which everything was created, which then dwells in holy souls, instructs the friends of God and the prophets, and in an internal way, wordlessly tells them about His deeds. The angels of God also speak to them, who “always see the face of the Father” (Matthew XVIII: 10) and proclaim to whom it belongs the will of the Father. Among them was the prophet who said and wrote: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This prophet was such a reliable witness that one could believe God through him, that by the same Spirit of God, from Whom by revelation he learned what was mentioned, he long ago predicted our future faith itself.

But why did the eternal God at some time come up with the idea of ​​creating heaven and earth, which He had not created before? If those who say this wish to present the world as eternal, without any beginning, and not created by God, then they have strayed far from the truth and are going mad in the mortal disease of godlessness. For, in addition to the prophetic words, the world itself, in some way, silently, with its highly harmonious mobility and changeability and the most beautiful appearance of everything visible, broadcasts both that it was created, and that it could only be created inexpressibly and invisibly great and ineffably and an invisibly beautiful God. Those who, although they recognize that the world was created by God, do not want to imagine it as temporary, but only as having a beginning that produced it; so that he was created in some barely understandable way from eternity, - although they express something with which they supposedly think to protect God from the reproach of an accidental accident, so that, they say, who would not think that it suddenly occurred to Him to create a world about which He had not thought before, and it was as if He had made a new decision, while He Himself does not change anything; how can they justify this?

I don’t understand my basic position as applied to other things.

If they claim that the soul is co-eternal with God, then they in no way can explain where a new misfortune came from for it, which it had never known before from eternity. If they say that her happiness and unhappiness have alternated from eternity, then they must inevitably say that she herself has been subject to change from eternity. From here follows the absurdity that the soul, even when it is called blessed, is not at all blessed if it foresees the misfortune and shame that awaits it; and if she does not foresee that she will be subject to shame and unhappy, and believes that she will be eternally blessed, then she is blessed due to a false idea. Nothing more stupid can be said than this.

But if they believe that although the misfortune of the soul together with its bliss alternated during previous boundless centuries, but that now, having once been liberated, the soul is no longer subject to misfortune: then they must agree that before it was never truly blessed , and now she began to be blessed with some new, untrue bliss and, therefore, to recognize that something new had happened to her, and, moreover, something greatest and most beautiful, which had never happened to her before from eternity. If at the same time they begin to deny that this new state of the soul has its basis in the eternal council of God, then at the same time they will deny that He is the author of its bliss; which is characteristic of godless wickedness. If they say that God made a new decision so that the soul would be eternally blessed in the future, then how will they prove that He is alien to change, which they also do not want to allow? Further, if they admit that although the soul was created in time, it will not cease to exist at any point in time, just as a number has a beginning,

but has no end; and that as a result of this, having once experienced misfortune, she, being freed from it, will never be unhappy; then they, of course, will not doubt that this is possible only with the immutability of God’s advice. In this case, let them believe that the world could have been created in time, but that God, while creating the world, nevertheless did not change His eternal advice and will because of this.

CHAPTER V

Further, those who agree that God is the Creator of the world, but ask what we can answer regarding the time of creation of the world, should think that they themselves will answer regarding the space occupied by the world. For just as the question is possible about why the world was created precisely then, and not before, so the question is also possible about why the world is here, and not somewhere else. If they imagine limitless spaces of time before the world, in which, as it seems to them, God could not remain inactive, then in the same way they can imagine limitless spaces of place; and if anyone says that the Almighty could not be inactive in them, will they not be forced, along with Epicurus, to rave about countless worlds? The only difference will be that Epicurus claims that worlds are born and destroyed as a result of the random movement of atoms; and they, if they do not want God to remain idle in the boundless immeasurability of spaces stretched outside and around the world, will claim that these worlds were created by the action of God and, just like, in their opinion, the real world, cannot be destroyed by any means. for what reason? For we are speaking with those who think with us that God is incorporeal and is the Creator of all creatures that are not what He is.

yourself, it is absolutely not worthwhile to enter into such discussions about religion with others, especially in view of the fact that among those who consider it necessary to worship many gods, the first surpass other philosophers in fame and authority for no other reason than because they, although very far from the truth, are still closer to it than the rest

Will they not say that the essence of God, which they do not contain, do not limit, do not extend in space, but which they recognize, as is proper to think about God, is indivisibly present everywhere in the incorporeal presence? that this essence is not present in such great spaces outside the world, but occupies only one, in comparison with its own infinity, too insignificant space in which the world exists? But I don’t think that they would reach such idle talk. So, if they say that one world was created, although it is extremely huge in its bodily mass, but the world is finite, limited by its space, and was created by the action of God, then what will they answer about boundless spaces outside the world, in order to explain why God ceased to act in them, let them answer the same thing about endless times before the world, in order to explain why God remained without action during these times.

From the fact that from the endless and open spaces in all directions there was no reason to prefer this and not another, it does not necessarily follow that God by chance, and not by divine consideration, created the world in no other place, but precisely in that in which it exists, although the divine reason for which this happened cannot be understood by any human mind. Also precisely from the fact that the times preceding the world flowed equally into the boundless spaces of the past and there was no difference that would give reason to prefer one time to another,

It should not be that something unexpected happened to God, that He created the world precisely at this time, and not at a previous time. If they say that people puzzle over trifles when they imagine infinite spaces, since there is no space outside the world, then we will answer them that in the same way people imagine nonsense when they imagine past times in which God remained without action : because before the world there was no time

CHAPTER VI

Indeed, if it is true that eternity and time differ in that time does not exist without some moving variability, and in eternity there is no change, then who will not understand that time would not exist if there were no creation that changed something by some movement ? The moments of this movement and change, since they cannot coincide, ending and being replaced by other shorter or more at long intervals, and form time. So, if God, in Whose eternity there is no change, is the Creator and Organizer of time, then I do not understand how it can be argued that He created the world after a certain amount of time." Except to say that before the world there was some creation, the movement of which gave the passage of time? But if the sacred and most reliable Scriptures say: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” to indicate that before He did not create anything, because if He created something before all that He created, then it would be said that He created precisely this something in the beginning, then there is no doubt that the world was created not in time, but together with time. For what happens in time happens after one time and before another - after that which has passed, and before that,

which must come; but there could be no past time, because there was no creature whose movement and change would determine time. But it is certain that the world was created along with time, if during its creation there was a changing movement, as is represented by the order of the first six or seven days, in which morning and evening are mentioned, until everything that God created in these six days was completed the seventh day, and until the seventh day, indicating great secret, there is no mention of the rest of God. What kind of days these are - it is either extremely difficult for us to imagine, or even completely impossible, and even more so it is impossible to talk about it.

CHAPTER VII

We see that our ordinary days have evening due to sunset, and morning due to sunrise; but the first three of those days passed without the sun, the creation of which is spoken of on the fourth day. It is true that from the very first, light was created by the word of God, and that God separated light from darkness and called this light day and darkness night. But what kind of property this light was, what kind of movement it was and what kind of evening and morning it produced - this is inaccessible to our understanding and cannot be understood by us according to how it is; although we must believe it without hesitation. Perhaps this is some corporeal light located in the higher parts of the world far from our sight, or the one with which the sun was subsequently burned; or perhaps the name of light denotes the holy city, consisting of holy angels and blessed spirits, about which the apostle says: “Jerusalem above is free: she is the mother of us all” (Gal. GU, 26). For in another place he says: “You are all sons of light and sons of day: we are not sons of night, nor

darkness" (I Thess. V, 5). We can, perhaps to a certain extent, correctly mean by this the morning and evening of the last day. For the knowledge of the creature, in comparison with the knowledge of the Creator, is a kind of twilight, which then brightens and turns into morning, when this knowledge turns to the glorification and love of the Creator; and there is no night where the Creator is not abandoned by the love of the creature.

By the way, Scripture never uses the word night when listing the days of creation in order. It nowhere says that it was night, but “there was evening, and there was morning: one day” (Gen. I, 5). Such is the second day, such are the other days. The knowledge of creation in itself is much, so to speak, dimmer than when it is acquired in the light of the Wisdom of God - with the help, as it were, of the very art by which it was created. That is why it can more decently be called evening than night; although, as I said, it passes into the morning, when it refers to the glorification and love of the Creator. And when it appears as consciousness of itself, then it is day one; when he moves on to the knowledge of the firmament, which is called heaven, between the higher and lower waters - the second day; when he moves on to the knowledge of the earth, the sea and everything that is born, connected with the earth by roots - the third day; when to the knowledge of the luminaries, the greater and the lesser, and all the stars - the fourth day; when to the knowledge of all animals that come from water and animals that fly - the fifth day; and when to the knowledge of all the animals of the earth and man himself - the sixth day.

CHAPTER VIII

When God rested on the seventh day from all His works and sanctified it, this rest should not at all be understood in a childish way, as if God, who “commanded, and it was done” (Ps. SHYUSH, 5), became tired while creating, - commanded with an intelligent and eternal Word, and not sounding and

temporary. The rest of God means the rest of those who rest in God. So the joy of the house means the joy of those having fun in the house, even if it was not the house itself that made them happy, but something else. If the house itself cheers the inhabitants with its beauty, then it is called cheerful not only because of the word usage by which we designate the contents through the content, as, for example, when we say: theaters applaud, meadows roar, while in theaters people applaud, but in bulls roar in the meadows; but also according to the (word usage) in which an action is denoted through a cause, as, for example, we call a letter joyful to denote the joy of those whom it pleases when reading it.

So, the prophet uses a completely appropriate expression when he narrates that God rested, denoting by this the peace of those who rest in Him and whom He Himself calms. The prophecy promises the people to whom it is addressed and for whose sake it is written that after they have completed the good works that God does in them and through them, they will have eternal rest in God if first, in this present life, they draw closer to Him in some way through faith. This very thing among the ancient people of God was typified, according to the commandment of God, by the rest of the Sabbath day; which I consider necessary to talk about in more detail in its own place.

CHAPTER IX

Since I proposed to talk about the origin of the holy city and first considered it necessary to say about what relates to the holy angels, who make up the largest and most blessed part of this city because it never wandered in a foreign land, now, with the help of God, I will try explain as far as it seems necessary,

available divine evidence on this subject. When the Holy Scripture speaks of the creation of the world, it does not speak in an obvious way either about whether angels were created, or about the order in which they were created. But if they are not completely omitted, then they are understood either under the name of heaven, when it is said, “In the beginning he created God of heaven and earth"; or rather under the name of that light which I have mentioned. And that they are not omitted, I believe on the basis that it is written that on the seventh day God rested from all His works that He had done; while the book begins with the words: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” to make it clear that before heaven and earth nothing else was created

So, if God began with heaven and earth, and this earth, created by Him in the beginning, as Scripture subsequently tells, was formless and empty, and there was darkness over the abyss, that is, over some indistinguishable mixture of earth and water; because light had not yet been created, and where there is no light, there must be darkness; and if further creation later ordered everything that, as it is related, was accomplished in six days, then how could the angels be omitted, as if they were not among the works of God, from whom He rested on the seventh day? And that angels are the creations of God, although in this place, without being completely bypassed, this is expressed unclearly, but in other places the Holy Scripture is expressed unambiguously. Thus, (in the book of Daniel) in the song of the three youths in the fiery furnace, when listing the works of God, angels are also mentioned. And the psalm says: “Praise the Lord from heaven, praise Him in the highest. Praise Him, all His Angels; praise Him, all His army. Praise Him, sun and moon, praise Him, all stars of light. Praise Him, heavens of heavens and waters that are above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the Lord, for He spoke, and they commanded, and it was done” (Ps. CH1USH, 1-5). And here, by revelation from above, it is said very clearly that the angels

created by God, because they are mentioned among the heavenly creatures and the words apply to all: “He commanded, and it was created.”

Who dares to think that angels were created after all that is listed in the six-day creation? And if anyone is crazy in this way, then his vanity is refuted by another Scripture that has the same authority, in which God says: “When the morning stars rejoiced in common, when all the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job. XXXVIII, 7). Consequently, , the angels were already there when the stars were created. They (the stars) were created when it was the fourth day. So, shall we say that they (the angels) were created on the third day? No! For before our eyes is what was created on this day. Then the earth was separated from the water, these two elements took on various forms characteristic of them, and the earth produced everything that was connected with its roots. But were they not created on the second day? And this could not be: for then between the lower and higher water the firmament was created, called heaven, on which the stars were created on the fourth day.

So, if angels belong to the creations of God created in those days, then they are undoubtedly the light that received the name of day, but a day that, to designate its unity, was not called “day one,” but “day one,” and not any other day - whether the second, or the third, or others - but the same day is repeated, one to replenish the sixfold and sevenfold number, for the sake of sixfold and sevenfold knowledge: sixfold - in relation to the creations created by God , sevenfold - regarding the peace of God. For when God said: “Let there be light, and there was light,” then if under

·  Augustine does not talk about rejoicing, but about the creation of the stars (in this case we are talking about the “position of the foundation of the earth”) and the exclamation of the angels.

this light rightly implies the creation of angels, they are undoubtedly created participants in the eternal Light, which is the unchangeable Wisdom of God itself, which created everything and is called by us the only begotten Son of God; so that, enlightened by the Light by which they were created, they became light and were called day by participation in the unchangeable Light and Day, which is the Word of God, by which they themselves were created. For that “true Light, which enlightens every man who comes into the world” (John 1:9), also enlightens every pure angel; so that the latter is light not in itself, but in God. But if an angel turns away from Him, then he becomes unclean, like all those called unclean spirits, who are no longer light in the Lord, but darkness in themselves, as deprived of participation in the eternal Light. For evil is not any essence; but the loss of good is called evil.

CHAPTER X

There is only one simple and therefore the only unchangeable Good - God. By this Good all goods were created, but not simple ones, and therefore changeable. I say created, that is, made, and not begotten. For what is born from a simple good is equally simple and is the same as that from which it is born. We call these two Father and Son, and these two, together with the Holy Spirit, are one God. This Spirit of the Father and the Son in Holy Scripture is called the Holy Spirit in some special sense of the word. And He is other than the Father and the Son, because He is neither the Father nor the Son; but I say - another, and not another, because this Good is equally simple, unchangeable and co-eternal. And this Trinity is one God and does not lose its simplicity because it is a Trinity. For we call this nature of the Good simple not because in it there is either one

Father, or one Son, or one Holy Spirit; and not because this Trinity exists only in name without the independence of persons, as the Sabellian heretics thought. But She is called simple for the reason that what she has is She herself, except for what is said about each person in relation to another. For although the Father has a Son, yet He is not the Son; and the Son has the Father, and yet He is not the Father. So, as far as any of them is spoken of in relation to Him, He is what He has; for example, He himself is called alive, as having life, and this life is He himself.

Therefore, simple is that nature that is not in the nature of having anything that it could lose; or in which something else contains and something else is content: such as, for example, a vessel and some liquid, or body and color, or air and light, or warmth, or soul and wisdom. For none of these things is what it has or contains. Neither the vessel is liquid, nor the body is color, nor the air is light or warmth, nor the soul is wisdom. Therefore, they can lose these things that they have, go into other states or change properties: a vessel, for example, can be freed from the liquid with which it is filled; the body may lose color; the air may become dark or cool; the soul - to become unreasonable. But if the body is incorruptible, as is promised to the saints in the resurrection, then although it will have the incorruptible property of incorruptibility itself, however, since the bodily substance remains, there will not be incorruption itself. For incorruption in each separate part of the body will be whole and will not be greater there, but less here: because no part will be more incorruptible than the other; but the body itself as a whole will be larger than in part; however, although one part of it will be larger, the other smaller, the larger part will not be more incorruptible than the smaller one.

So, one thing is a body, which is not in every part a whole body; and the other is incorruptibility, which in each part is a whole: because each part of the incorruptible body, although it is not equal to the other parts, is equally incorruptible. For example: due to the fact that the finger is smaller than the whole hand, the hand will not be more incorruptible than the finger. So, although the hand and the finger are not equal, the incorruptibility of the hand and the finger are the same. Therefore, although incorruptibility is inseparable from the incorruptible body, the substance called body is one thing, and its property called incorruptibility is another. And, therefore, she herself is not what she has. Likewise, the soul, when it is liberated forever, will nevertheless be wise through communication with unchangeable wisdom, which is not the same as the soul itself. For even the air, if it had never been left behind by the light poured into it, would not have ceased to be different in relation to the light with which it is illuminated. I do not mean by this that the soul is air; This is what some thought, unable to imagine an incorporeal entity. But the soul and the air, despite the great difference between them, have some similarities, so it will not be incongruous to say that the incorporeal soul is illuminated by the incorporeal light of the simple Wisdom of God just as the corporeal air is illuminated by the corporeal light; and just as the air left by this light becomes darkened (for the so-called darkness of any bodily place is nothing more than air that does not have light), so the soul, deprived of the light of Wisdom, becomes darkened.

So, according to this, the truly divine is called simple because in it there is not one thing about property, and something completely different about substance; and that it is not by communication with another that it is divine, wise and blessed. However, in the Holy Scriptures the Spirit of wisdom is called many-parted (Wisdom VII, 22), because He has many things in himself; but what He has is also the Father, and it is all one. For there are not many, but one

Wisdom, which contains within Herself some immeasurable and endless treasures of rational things, including all the invisible and unchangeable foundations of things, visible and invisible, created through Her. For God did not create anything without knowing, just as, strictly speaking, even any human artist does not create; if He created everything knowing, then, without a doubt, He created what He knew. From this follows something surprising, but nevertheless true, namely: that this world could not be known to us if it did not exist; but if he were not known to God, he could not exist.

CHAPTER XI

If this is so, then those spirits whom we call angels were in no way originally, at a certain period of time, spirits of darkness; but at the same time as they were created, they were created by light. For they were created not only so that they could somehow exist and somehow live, but at the same time they were enlightened so that they could live wisely and blissfully. Turning away from this enlightenment, some of the angels did not retain the benefits of a rational and blessed life, which, without any doubt, due to the fact that it is eternal, is carefree and calm regarding its eternity; but they also have a smart, albeit unreasonable life, in such a way that they cannot lose it even if they wanted to. To what extent were they participants in the above-mentioned wisdom before they sinned? Can anyone determine this? How could we say that in terms of participation in this wisdom they were equal to those angels who are truly and completely blessed because they are not mistaken in the eternity of their bliss? May they be equal in it with

Those, and they would also equally remain blessed for the eternity of this bliss; because they would be equally confident in her. One could call this life life while it lasted, but one could not call it eternal life if it had to end. After all, (eternal) life is called life because a being lives, and eternal because it has no end.

Therefore, although not everything that is eternal is certainly and blessed (for the fire appointed for punishment is also called eternal), nevertheless, if a truly and completely blessed life is only eternal life, then such a life was not the life of these spirits: because it ceased and, therefore, was not eternal, whether they knew about it or, not knowing, imagined something else. If they knew, fear would not allow them to be blessed, and if they did not know, the delusion that they are blessed would not allow them. If their ignorance was of such a kind that they did not believe the false and untrue, but did not have an accurate idea either of whether their bliss would last forever, or that it would ever have its end; that very doubt in such great happiness excluded that fullness of blissful life, which, as we believe, is characteristic of the holy angels. For we do not attach such an extremely narrow meaning to the word blessed life as to call God alone blessed, Who, of course, is truly so blessed that there cannot be greater blessedness. What compared to Him is the bliss of the angels, blessed in their kind with the highest bliss that is possible for angels?

CHAPTER XII

As for rational and intelligent creatures, we believe that not only angels should be called blessed. For who dares to deny that

the first people were blessed in paradise before sin, although they were not sure whether their bliss would last or whether it would be eternal (and it would have been eternal if they had not sinned); when, even now, without any thought of exaltation, we call blessed those about whom we know that, in the hope of future immortality, they spend their earthly life righteously and piously, without crime burdening their conscience, and easily incline God’s mercy to the sins of their weakness? Although they are convinced of the reward for their constancy, they are not sure about constancy itself. For who of the people can know that he will remain steadfast to the end in strengthening and progressing in justice, if through some revelation he is not encouraged by Him who, although He does not forewarn everyone with His righteous and mysterious judgment, does not forewarn anyone, however, isn't he cheating? So, as for the enjoyment of real good, the first man in paradise was more blessed than every righteous man in real mortal weakness; but as far as the hope of the future is concerned, anyone who knows, not conjecturally, but with certain truth, that he will dwell in the society of angels, alien to all sorrow, without end, while enjoying at the same time communion with the highest God - anyone in whom regardless of bodily suffering, he will be happier than that first man was, not confident in the great happiness of paradise.

CHAPTER XIII

From here it is already clear to everyone that bliss, to which rational nature strives as its true goal, is determined by the combination of both, namely: it must blithely enjoy the unchangeable Good, which is God, and in

at the same time should not be subjected to any doubt, nor deceived by any error regarding what will eternally abide in Him. With pious faith we think that the angels of light have this blessedness; but it naturally follows that the angels who sinned, and were deprived of this light due to their corruption, did not possess it even before they fell; although it must be assumed that they possessed some, although unknown regarding future fate, bliss if they lived for some time before the fall. And if it seems incongruous that when the angels were created, some of them were created in such a way that they did not receive foreknowledge regarding their constancy or fall, and others so that with the most positive certainty they knew the eternity of their bliss, and yet all from the beginning were created with equal bliss and remained so until those angels who are now evil fell of their own free will from this light mental and moral purity, then, of course, it is even more incongruous to think that the holy angels are not confident in their eternal bliss and do not know about themselves what we were able to learn about them with the help of the Holy Scriptures. For who among the Orthodox Christians does not know that there will no longer be any new devil among the good angels, as well as the fact that the devil will no longer return to the community of good angels?

In the Gospel, truth promises the saints and the faithful that they will be equal to the angels of God (Matt. XXII, 30); they are also promised that they will enter eternal life (Matt. XXII, 4b). Thus, if we are sure that we will never fall away from this immortal happiness, but they are not sure, then we will already have an advantage over them, and will not be equal to them. But since the truth never deceives and we will be equal to them, then, undoubtedly, they are confident in the eternity of their happiness. Because those others (fallen spirits)

did not have accurate knowledge about this; for their happiness, in which they were confident, was not eternal, since it had to have an end, then it remains to assume that the angels were unequal among themselves, or, if equal, then the good angels only after the fall of the evil ones achieved a certain knowledge regarding their eternal happiness.

Is it possible that someone will say that what the Lord said about the devil in the Gospel: “He was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth” (John VIII, 44) should be understood not only in the sense that he was a murderer from the beginning , that is, from the beginning of the human race, from the moment when man was created, whom he could kill through seduction. But he did not stand in the truth from the beginning of his creation, and therefore was never blessed along with the holy angels; since he refused to be in submission to his Creator, found proud pleasure, as it were, in his special personal power, and through this he was hypocritical and deceitful, because he could never escape the power of the Almighty and did not want to preserve in pious submission what really exists, intensified by proud arrogance to falsely depict something that did not happen. It is in this sense that what the blessed Apostle John said should be understood: “The devil sinned from the beginning” (I John III, 8), i.e., that from the moment he was created, he renounced the truth, which only a pious woman can possess. and a will devoted to God.

Whoever is satisfied with such an opinion is still not of one mind with the well-known heretics, i.e., the Manichaeans. However, some other harmful heresies also adhere to the way of thinking that the devil, as if from some principle opposite (to God), received his own, in a certain way, evil nature. In their vanity they reach such madness that, although they respect us equally

The above Gospel words do not pay attention to the fact that the Lord did not say: “The devil was a stranger to the truth,” but said: “He did not stand in the truth.” By this He wanted to make it clear that the devil had fallen away from the truth; and if he had remained in it, then, having become a participant in it, he would have remained blessed along with the holy angels.

CHAPTER XIV

Then, as if answering our question: where is it clear that the devil did not stand in the truth, the Lord shows where it comes from and says: “For there is no truth in him” (John VIII, 44). She would have been in him if he had remained in her. The turn of phrase is quite rare. The words that he did not stand in the truth, because there was no truth in him, seem to convey the idea that he did not stand in the truth because there was no truth in him; while the main reason that there is no truth in him is that he did not stand in the truth. A similar phrase is used in the psalm: “I cry to You, for You will hear me” (Ps. XVI, 6). Apparently, one should say: “Hear me, for I cry to You.” But he said: “I cry to You, for You will hear me”; and then, as if answering the question: how will he prove that he called, indicates the effect produced by his appeal to God - that God heard him. He seems to say this: I show here that I called because You heard me.

CHAPTER XV

Likewise, regarding the well-known words of John about the devil: “First the devil sinned,” they do not understand that if this is a natural thing, then it in no way constitutes sin. And in this case, what can be said regarding the prophetic testimonies, whether what Isaiah says,

bringing out the devil under the image of the prince of Babylon: “How you fell from heaven, Lucifer, son of the dawn!” (Isa. XIV, 12); or what Ezekiel says: “Thou wast in Eden, in the garden of God; were your garments adorned with all kinds of precious stones” (Ezek. XXVIII, 13)? From these words it is clear | that he was once without sin. For a little further! It is said to him with greater emphasis: “You have been perfect in your ways from the day you were created” (Ezek. XXVIII, 15). If these words cannot have another, more precise meaning, then we must understand “did not remain in the truth” in the sense that he was in the truth, but did not remain in it. And on the basis of this, the expression “First the devil sinned” should be understood to mean that he sins not from the beginning when he was created, but from the beginning of sin, because sin received its beginning from his pride.

Likewise, what is written in the book of Job, when it comes to the devil: “This is the height of the ways of God: only He who created him can bring His sword closer to him” * (Job. XI, 14), according to which, according to - apparently, the psalm in which we read: “There is this leviathan, whom You created to play in it” (Ps. S1I, 26), says, should not be understood by us in the sense that from the very beginning he was created such that over The angels mocked him, but the fact was that he fell to this punishment after sin. So, in his beginning he is the creation of the Lord; for even among the last and lowest animals there is no nature that He did not create: from Him is every measure, every form, every order, without which it is impossible to indicate or imagine a single thing, and even more so - an angelic creature, which has the dignity its nature surpasses everything else created by God.

·  Augustine: “Created to be the reproach of angels.”

CHAPTER XVI

For in the series of things that exist in some way, but which are not God by whom they were created, the living is placed above the non-living, just as that which has the power to give birth and even to desire is placed above that which does not have such an impulse. And among living beings, sentient beings are placed above non-sentient ones, just as animals, for example, are placed above trees. And among sentient beings the rational are placed above the unreasonable, just as people, for example, are superior to animals. And among the rational, immortals are placed above mortals, just as angels are above people. All this is placed one above the other due to the order of nature. But there are other standards for evaluating things by the personal benefit they bring to one or another. It so happens that we prefer other insensitive things to others that have feelings, and to such an extent that if it were in our power, we would decide to completely destroy them in nature, either out of ignorance of the place they occupy in it, or with knowledge of it places because we place them below our convenience. For who would not prefer to have bread in his house rather than mice, money rather than fleas? And what is surprising when, when valuing even people whose nature is truly distinguished by high dignity, for the most part a horse is valued more highly than a slave, and a precious stone more valuable than a maidservant?

Thus, with freedom of judgment, there is a great difference between the rational basis of the thinker and the need of the needy or the pleasure of the desiring; while the former is directed towards that which in itself has value in various degrees of things, need directs attention to that towards which it tends; the first seeks what is revealed as true by the light of the mind, and pleasure seeks what pleasantly caresses the bodily senses. However, among rational natures, a certain kind of weight of will and love is of such great importance that

that although in the order of nature angels are preferred to men, yet according to the law of justice good people preferred to evil angels.

CHAPTER XVII

So, we are mistaken when we believe that the expression: “This is the height of the ways of God” refers not to nature, but to the malice of the devil; because there is no doubt that the vice of malice was preceded by an intact nature. Vice is so disgusting to nature that it does not harm it. To depart from God would not be a vice if the nature for which it constitutes a vice were no longer consistent with being with God. That is why even an evil will serves as a strong evidence of a good nature. But God is both the best Creator of good nature and the fairest dispenser of evil will: when it abuses good nature. He uses evil will for the very good. As a result of this, He arranged it in such a way that the devil, who was created good by Him, but became evil of his own will, is humiliated, and is humiliated by His angels in the sense that his temptations serve to benefit the saints whom he wants to harm with them. And since God, when creating him, undoubtedly knew his future evil and foresaw what benefits He would derive from his evil deeds, the psalm says: “There is this leviathan, whom You created to play in him,” to make it clear that in the very time when He created him, and in His goodness made him good, He, in His foresight, was already preparing in advance how to use him and the evil.

CHAPTER XVIII

God did not create anyone - I do not say from the angels, but even from people, about whom He knew in advance that he would become evil, and at the same time would not know what good benefit

He will extract from it and thus decorate a number of centuries, like some most excellent verse, with its kind of antitheses. For the so-called antitheses, which in Latin are called opposites, or even more expressively - oppositions, serve as the best decoration for speech. We do not use this word, although decorations of this kind are used not only by Latin speech, but also by the languages ​​of all nations. With such antitheses, the Apostle Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians fascinatingly says in the place where we read: “In the word of truth, in the power of God, with the weapon of righteousness in the right and left hand, in honor and dishonor, in reproaches and praises: we are considered deceivers , but we are faithful; we are unknown, but we are recognized; we are considered dead, but behold, we are alive; we are punished, but we do not die; we are saddened, but we always rejoice; We are poor, but we enrich many; we have nothing, but we possess everything” (II Cor. VI, 7-10). So, just as the mutual comparison of opposites gives beauty to speech, so from the comparison of opposites, from a kind of eloquence not of words, but of things, the beauty of the world is formed. This is very clearly expressed in the book of Ecclesiastes, when it is said that just as the evil is opposed to the good and death to life, so the sinner is opposed to the virtuous: one is always opposed to the other (Sir. XXXIII, 15).

CHAPTER XIX

The darkness of divine speech is useful in that it leads to very many true judgments and introduces the light of knowledge, when one understands it one way, another another. But it is necessary that the meaning contained in a dark place be confirmed either by the evidence of things, or by other places that are less dubious; or, if a lot is said, that-

the thought that the writer had in mind would flow out; and if it eludes, then the clarification of the dark place will give some other truths. Therefore, it does not seem to me inconsistent with the works of God that the creation of the first light means the creation of angels, and the division between holy and unclean angels is where it is said: “And God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light day and the darkness night” (Gen. 1:4, 5).

Such a division could have been made by one One Who was able, before they fell, to foresee that they would fall and remain in gloomy pride, deprived of the light of truth. For the division between day and night known to us, that is, between earthly light and earthly darkness, He commanded to make the heavenly luminaries so familiar to our senses: “Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to illuminate the earth and to separate day from night.” And a little further: “And God created two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the stars; and God set them in the expanse of the heaven to give light on the earth, and to rule the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness” (Genesis I, 14, 16-18). But between that light, which is the holy society of angels, shining spiritually in the light of truth, and the darkness opposite to it, that is, the most disgusting souls of evil angels who have deviated from the light of truth, only He himself could put a division, for Whom it could not be secret or unknown future evil - evil not of nature, but of will.

CHAPTER XX

Then one should not pass over in silence the fact that after what God said, “Let there be light. And there was light,” immediately added: “And God saw the light, that it was good,” and not after He put a division

between light and darkness and called light day and darkness night. This is so that it would not seem that, along with the light, He gave evidence of His favor to such darkness. For where we are talking about impeccable darkness, between which and the light visible to our eyes the heavenly bodies are considered to be divided, it is not before, but after, that it is noted that God saw that it was good: “And God set them in the firmament of the heavens.” to give light to the earth, and to rule the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.” Both are pleasing to him, because both are without sin. But where God said, “Let there be light. And there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good,” and after this it is noted: “And God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light day and the darkness night,” without adding after this: “And God saw that it was good.” This is in order not to call both good, since one of them was evil due to its own fault, and not by nature. Therefore, in this case, the Creator is pleased only with light; and the angelic darkness, although it should have entered the world order, should not, however, receive encouragement.

CHAPTER XXI

What is expressed in the saying used on every occasion: “God saw that it was good,” if not the approval of a creation created in accordance with the art, which is the Wisdom of God? But God not only knew that it was good when it was created: none of this would have happened if it had not been known to Him. So, when God sees that good is something that would never have happened if He had not seen it before it appeared, then He teaches, but does not learn, that it is good. Plato uses an even bolder expression, namely, that God was delighted and delighted at the completion of the creation of the universe.

And in this case, he is not so crazy as to think that God has become more blessed as a result of His new creation; he wanted to show by this that the artist was pleased with what had already been created, with which he was pleased in the idea, according to which it was to be created.

The knowledge of God is by no means so diverse that it represents differently what is not yet present, differently what already exists, and differently what will be. For God despises the future, looks at the present and surveys the past not in our way, but in some other way, far superior to the way we think. Without moving in thought from one to another, He sees in a completely unchanging way. From what happens in time, the future, for example, does not yet exist, the present seems to exist, the past no longer exists; but He embraces all this in a constant and eternal present. And He contemplates in no other way with the eyes, and in another way with the mind: because He does not consist of soul and body; not otherwise now, not otherwise - before, and not otherwise - after: because His knowledge does not change, like ours, according to the difference of time: present, past and future, for with Him “there is no variation or shadow of turning” (James I, 17). The intention of Him does not pass from thought to thought, in whose incorporeal contemplation everything that He knows exists simultaneously and together. He knows times without any representations of the temporal property, just as he sets the temporal in motion without any movements of the temporal property. And therefore, where He saw good what He created, there He also saw good in order to create it. And what He saw created did not double His knowledge or increase it in some part, since He would have had less knowledge before He created what He saw: He would not have acted with such perfection, if it had not been so perfect His knowledge, to which nothing was added by His works.

That is why, if we needed to give an idea of ​​the One who created light, it would be enough to say: “God created light.” But if it is necessary to give an idea not only of the One who created, but also of that by means of which he created, it is necessary to express it this way: “God said: let there be light. And there was light,” so that we would know not only that God created light, but also that He created it through His Word. But since we needed to point out three things that are especially important for the knowledge of creation, namely: who created it, through what he created it, why he created it; then it is said: “God said let there be light. And there was light. And God saw the light that he was good.” So if we ask who created? the answer will be: God. If we ask: through what did he create? said: yes it will be. If we ask: why did he create? because it's good. There is no creator more excellent than God, no art more valid than the Word of God, no reason better than that good should be created by the good God. And Plato herself main reason creation of the world recognizes that good creations had to come from a good God - whether he read this, or perhaps learned from those who read, or with his very insightful mind he saw the invisible of God, visible through creation, or learned from those who thought of it before.

CHAPTER XXII

This reason, that is, the goodness of God, which strived to create goods, this, I say, reason, so just and so sufficient that it, carefully weighed and piously considered, puts an end to all the disputes of researchers about the beginning of the world, some heretics did not recognize. This is on the grounds that the poor and fragile mortality of the present flesh, which was the result of just punishment, is harmed very much when it is not

corresponds, for example, to fire, or cold, or wild animals, or something of the same kind. They do not even pay attention to what significance these things have in their place and by their nature, in what beautiful order they are located and how much each one contributes its share of beauty to a kind of common republic, or how much benefit they bring to ourselves, if we use them wisely and appropriately; so that even poisons, harmful when used improperly, turn into life-saving medicines when used appropriately; and vice versa, those things that give pleasure, for example: food, drink, even the light itself, can turn out to be harmful if used immoderately and inappropriately.

By this, divine providence teaches us not to condemn things recklessly, but to diligently examine their benefits; and where our reason or our weakness proves insufficient, consider this benefit to be hidden, just as those things were hidden that we could hardly obtain. For the very concealment of benefit is either an exercise of our modesty, or a humiliation of arrogance - because absolutely no nature is evil, and this very name (evil) shows only the deprivation of good; but in the transition from earthly things to heavenly things and from visible to invisible, there are some goods that are better than others, so that there are different ones. God is just as great an Artist in the great as He is no less in the small. This small thing should be measured not by its size, which is insignificant, but by the wisdom of the Artist. An example is a person's appearance. It seems that almost nothing is taken away from the body if one eyebrow is cut off, and yet how much is taken away from beauty, which lies not in mass, but in the equality and symmetry of the members!

One should not, of course, be especially surprised that those who think that there is some evil nature that arose and spread from some of its opposite principles do not want to admit the mentioned reason for the creation of things - that a good God created good - believing that He was rather externally forced into great world activity by the evil warring against Him; that in order to curb and overcome evil He mixed His good nature with evil, which, most shamefully stained and subjected to the most severe captivity and oppression, with great difficulty barely cleanses and liberates, although not all: what He could not cleanse from this defilement, will be a cover and a bond for the defeated and imprisoned enemy. The Manichaeans would not have gone mad, or rather, would not have been so extravagant, if they had believed that the nature of God, such as it is, is unchangeable and completely incorruptible, and therefore nothing can harm it; and the soul, which of its own free will could change for the worse and, as a result of sin, be damaged and deprived of the light of unchangeable truth, with Christian common sense would be recognized not as a part of God and not of the same nature as God, but as created by Him and far from equal to the Creator.

CHAPTER XXIII

But it is much more surprising that even some of those who believe with us that there is only one beginning of all things and that every nature that is not what God could have been created only by Him - even of these some did not want to directly and simply believe in such a good and simple reason creation of the world, that is, that a good God created good and that what came after God was not the same as God, although it was good, which could only be created by a good God. They

they say that souls, although not parts of God and created by God, sinned by departing from the Creator and, in varying degrees, according to the difference in sins, during the transition from heaven to earth, received various bodies as punishment, like prisons; that this is how the world came to be and the reason for the creation of the world was not that good was created, but that evil was curbed.

Origen is rightly reproached for this. This he asserted and wrote in books, which he calls tschp Arkhyuu, i.e. “On the Beginnings.” At the same time, I cannot be sufficiently amazed that such a learned man, who has practiced so much in the church scriptures, did not first of all pay attention to the fact that this contradicts the direct intention of Scripture, which has such great authority, which adds to all the works of God: “And God saw that it was good”; and at the end of everything he says: “And God saw everything that He had created, and, behold, it was very good” (Gen. I, 31). It wanted to make it clear that there is no other reason for the creation of the world except that good came from the good God. If no one sinned, the world would be decorated and filled with only good natures; and if there is sin, then everything is not yet filled with sin, because a much larger number of good beings in heaven observe the order of their nature. And the evil will, which did not want to observe the order of nature, will not, as a result, escape the laws of the righteous God, who directs everything to good. For just as a picture with the color black placed in its proper place, so the totality of things, if anyone can look at it, appears beautiful even with sinners, although their ugliness, when viewed in themselves, makes them vile *.

·  “You shouldn’t be like those ignoramuses who scold the artist: they say why not all the colors in his painting are juicy and bright, why there is light there and shadow here. Are they really better at painting than he is, and the painting would have won better if it had been, say, all bright red? And any city, no matter how well governed, could not exist if its inhabitants were equal in everything. There are also those who are sincerely indignant when the characters in a drama are not entirely heroes, but also servants, peasants, and jesters. But they, too, are an integral part of the action: leave the heroes alone, and what will be left of the drama itself? Plotinus. Enneads. “On Providence (I)” (III, 2.11).

Then Origen and others who adhered to the same way of thinking should have paid attention to the fact that if this opinion were true, then the world would have been created in order for souls to receive bodies as a kind of straitjacket, in which they were imprisoned according to the measure of their sins: the highest and lightest are those who sinned less, and the lowest and heavier are those who sinned more; earthly bodies, of which there is nothing lower and heavier, would rather have demons, who are worse than even evil people. Meanwhile, to make us understand that the moral qualities of souls should not be assessed by the properties of bodies, the worst demons received airy bodies; man, although evil at the present time, but whose anger is much less and more moderate, undoubtedly received a body of dust even before sin.

Is it possible to say a greater stupidity than that, for example, that when creating this sun so that it was one in one world, the artist-God did not have in mind the beauty or even the well-being of bodily things, but that this happened rather because one soul sinned like this, that she deserved to be imprisoned in such a body? If it happened that not one, but two, and not even two, but ten or a hundred souls sinned in a similar way and in the same way, this world, therefore, would have a hundred suns. That this did not happen did not depend on the amazing foresight of the Creator aimed at

the well-being and beauty of bodily things, but from simple chance - from the fact that the fall of one soul stopped at such a degree that it alone deserved such a body. To put it bluntly, it is not the fallen souls, about whom they do not know what they are saying, who need to be curbed, but they themselves, who think so, deviating too far from the truth. So, in these three answers that I indicated above, to questions about any creature: who created it, through what he created it and why he created it - in the answers: God, through the Word, because it is good, is there not a deep instruction to us? on the Trinity itself, that is, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? Or, perhaps, is there something that does not allow for understanding in the mentioned passage of Scripture? This question requires a long conversation and we should not be expected to explain everything in one book.

CHAPTER XXIV

We believe, we unshakably hold and sincerely preach that the Father begat the Word, that is, Wisdom, through whom all things were created, the only begotten Son, one - one, eternal - co-eternal, supremely good - equally good; and that the Holy Spirit is together the Spirit of the Father and the Son and is Himself consubstantial and coeternal with both; and that all this is a Trinity according to the property of persons, and one God according to the indivisible deity, as well as one omnipotent according to the indivisible omnipotence; but so, however, that when asked about one of Them, we say in response that each of Them is both God and omnipotent, and when we talk about all of them together, then not three Gods or three omnipotents, but one omnipotent God: This is the indivisible unity of the three, and this is how it should be confessed. But whether the Holy Spirit of the good Father and the good Son, on the basis that He is common to both of them, can correctly be called the goodness of both - about this I do not dare to hastily express a rash judgment:

with greater boldness I would call Him the holiness of both, - not in the sense of the property of both, but imagining that He is also the substance and third person in the Trinity.

What most likely leads me to the latter is that although the Father is spirit and the Son is spirit, the Father is holy and the Son is holy, yet the Spirit itself is called the Holy Spirit, as holiness is substantial and co-substantial with both. But if divine goodness is holiness, then it will be a direct logical conclusion, and not a bold assumption, to think that in the narrative of God’s creations, when it comes to who created this or that creature, through what he created, why he created, some mysterious way of expression; those who arouse our attention are given to us to understand the same Trinity. It is, of course, the Father of the Word, Who said: “Let it be.” And what was created when He spoke was, without a doubt, created through the Word. The expression “God saw that it was good” shows quite clearly that God, without any necessity, without any consideration of any personal benefit, but out of His goodness alone, created what was created, that is, He created because Fine. This is why this is said after creation, to show that what was created corresponds to the goodness for which it was created. If this goodness is rightly understood as the Holy Spirit, then the entire Trinity is revealed to us in God’s creations. Hence, in the holy city of God, which in heaven consists of the holy angels, the beginning, formation and blessedness are distinguished. Ask where he is from? - God enlightens him; where does his bliss come from? - He enjoys God. Existing, has a certain type of being; contemplating, he is enlightened; clinging, having fun. Eats, contemplates, loves. In the eternity of God he receives strength; in the truth of God he shines with light, in the goodness of God he rejoices.

CHAPTER XXV

Because of this, the philosophers, as far as can be understood, decided to divide the system of philosophy into three parts, or rather, they managed to notice that it was divided into three parts (for it was not they themselves who established that this was so, but rather found that - so ), of which the first is called physics, the other logic, the third ethics. Translated into Latin, the names of these parts have been so often used in the writings of many that they can be called natural, rational and moral: we briefly touched on them in the eighth book. It does not follow from this that the philosophers in these three parts thought anything worthy of God about the Trinity; although it is known that the first to discover and put into use this division of philosophy was Plato, who recognized only God as the creator of all beings, and the giver of knowledge, and the inspirer of love, with which life is well and blissfully spent. But although different philosophers have thought differently about the nature of things, and about the methods of investigating truth, and about the final good towards which we should direct everything that we do, nevertheless, all the efforts of their thought revolve around these three great and general questions.

There is much disagreement in the opinions of each of them on each of these questions; yet none of them doubts that there is some cause of nature, a form of knowledge, the highest good of life. In the same way, for every human artist, in order for him to create something, three conditions are set: nature, art, benefit; nature is measured by natural talents, art by knowledge, usefulness by fruit. I know that the word fruit indicates use, and benefit indicates use, and that the difference between them is that what we use gives us pleasure in itself, without regard to anything else; and what is the benefit -

we eat, then we need it for something else. Therefore, temporal things should be used rather than consumed (for pleasure) in order to gain the right to enjoy eternal things. One should not do as some corrupt people do, who want to use money (for pleasure), but to use God: they do not spend money for the sake of God, but honor God Himself for the sake of money. However, in more ordinary speech we say that we both use the fruits and find the fruit in the benefits. Even in the proper sense we call the fruits of the fields, which, in any case, we all use temporarily.

So, in this last sense I used the word benefit, speaking about those three conditions that are set for a person, such as nature, art and benefit. Accordingly, to achieve a blissful life, philosophers, as I said, invented a three-part system: natural according to nature, rational according to knowledge and moral according to benefit. If our nature were from us, we, of course, would give birth to our wisdom ourselves, and would not try to acquire it through science, studying it; If our love had a source in ourselves and related to us, it would be sufficient for a blissful life and there would be no need for any other good for our enjoyment. Under these conditions, since our nature has God as the author of its existence, we, undoubtedly, in order to know the truth, must consider Him as our teacher; In order to be blessed, we must look for the giver of inner pleasure in Him.

CHAPTER XXVI

And we ourselves recognize in ourselves the image of God, that is, the highest Trinity - an image, however, unequal, even very different, not co-eternal and, to briefly express everything, not of the same essence as God, although in the things He created , most by nature towards God

approaching - an image that still requires improvement in order to be closest to God and in likeness. For we also exist, and we know that we exist, and we love this being and knowledge of ours. Regarding these three things that I have just enumerated, we are not afraid of being deceived by any lie that has the appearance of plausibility. We do not feel them with any bodily sense, as we feel those things that are outside of us, as we feel, for example, color - by sight, sound - by hearing, smell - by smell, what we eat - by taste, hard and soft - by touch. They are not one of these sensual things, the images of which, very similar to them, although no longer corporeal, rotate in our thoughts, are retained in our memory and arouse in us a desire for them. Without any fantasies and without any deceptive games of ghosts, it is extremely certain for me that I exist, that I know it, that I love. I am not afraid of any objections to these truths from academics who might say: “What if you are being deceived?” If I am deceived, that is why I already exist. For he who does not exist cannot, of course, be deceived: I, therefore, exist if I am deceived.

So, since I exist, if I am deceived, then how am I deceived in the fact that I exist, if I undoubtedly exist, since I am deceived? Since I must exist in order to be deceived, there is no doubt that I am not deceived in what I know about my existence. It follows from this that I am not deceived in the fact that I know what I know. For just as I know that I exist, so I also know that I know. Since I love these two things, then to these two things that I know, I add this same love as a third, equal in dignity, for I am not deceived that I love, if I am not deceived

and in what I love; although even if the latter were false, in any case it would be true that I love what is false. On what basis would they reproach me for loving something false or restrain me from this love if it were false that I love him? If what is mentioned is true and reliable, then who can doubt that when he is loved, the love for him is also true and reliable? Then, there is no one who does not want to exist, just as there is no one who does not want to be blessed. For how can anyone be blessed if he does not exist?

CHAPTER XXVII

By some natural attraction, existence itself is so attractive that even the unfortunate do not want to be destroyed, and when they feel unhappy, they want the end not of their existence, but of their misfortune. Even if those who seem most unhappy to themselves are, in fact, so, and not only wise as fools, but even those who consider themselves blessed, are recognized as unhappy because they are poor and poor - even if this someone proposed immortality, with which their misfortune itself would not die, warning that if they do not wish to remain in this misfortune forever, they will turn into insignificance and will never return to existence, but will perish completely, then, probably, they too would rejoice and would prefer eternal existence on this condition to complete non-existence.

The best witness to this is their own feeling. For why are they afraid to die and prefer to live in this need, and not end it with death, if not because nature obviously avoids non-existence? And therefore, knowing that they will die, they, as a great blessing,

deeds expect that they will be shown that mercy, that they will live longer in this very misfortune and later die. By this they prove with what great joy they would accept even such immortality as would not put an end to their misfortune. And the most unreasonable animals, from the huge dragons | New to insignificant worms, not endowed with the gift of understanding this, do not they show with all kinds of movements that they want to exist and therefore avoid destruction? And trees and all young shoots, which have no ability to avoid death through obvious movements, in order to safely spread their branches through the air, don’t they sink their roots deeper into the ground in order to extract nutrition from there and thereby preserve their existence in a certain way? Finally, those bodies that do not only have feelings, but even no plant life, sometimes rise up, sometimes go down, sometimes stay in the middle spaces in order to preserve their existence where they can exist in accordance with their nature.

And how great the love of knowledge is and how much human nature does not want to be deceived can be understood from the fact that everyone would rather cry in a state of sound mind than rejoice in a state of insanity. This great and amazing ability is not characteristic of any mortal animate being except man. Some of the animals have a much keener sense of vision than we do for contemplating ordinary daylight; but this disembodied light is inaccessible to them, which in a certain way illuminates our mind, so that we can correctly judge all these things: for us this is possible to the extent that we perceive this light.

However, the feelings of irrational animals are inherent, if not knowledge, then at least some semblance of knowledge. Other bodily things are named

sensual not because they feel, but because they are subject to feelings. Of these, in trees something similar to feelings represents what they feed and give birth to. And all these bodily things have their reasons hidden in nature. They present their forms, which add beauty to the structure of this visible world, for purification of the senses; so that they seem to desire to be known in exchange for that which they themselves cannot know. But we perceive them with our bodily senses in such a way that we no longer judge them with our bodily senses. For we have another sense - (the feeling) of the inner man, far superior to others, through which we distinguish between just and unjust: fair - when it has a certain form contemplated by the mind, unjust - when it does not have it. For the activity of this sense, neither the sharpness of the eye pupil, nor the opening of the ear, nor the opening of the nostrils, nor testing with the mouth, nor any other bodily touch are needed. Thanks to him I am convinced that I exist and that I know about it; thanks to him I love it and I'm sure I do.

CHAPTER XXVIII

Regarding these two, being and knowledge, to what extent they constitute the object of love in us and to what extent some similarity of them is found even in other things below us, we have said enough, as far as this was required by the task of the work we have undertaken. But we have not yet said about the love with which they are loved, whether this love itself should be loved. She is loved; and we see this from the fact that in people who are deservedly loved, she herself is loved most of all. It is not the person who is rightly called good who knows what good is, but the one who loves. Why do we feel within ourselves that we love the very love with which we love what

what good things we love. There is also love with which we love what should not be loved; and he who loves that love, that loves, that should love, hates this love in himself. Both of these loves can be in one person, and the good for a person is that he develops in himself that which we live well, and destroys that which we live poorly, until he is completely cured and everything that we live changes into good. we live. If we were animals, then we would love carnal life and everything that corresponds to the feelings of the flesh; this would be a sufficient good for us and we, content with this good, would not look for anything else. In the same way, if we were trees, we, of course, would not love anything with the movement of feeling, although we would seem to strive for it if we were more fertile. And if we were stones, or waves, or wind, or flames, or anything else of the same kind without any feeling or life, then we would not lack some desire for our place and order. For something like love is the specific gravity of bodies, according to which they either fall down from heaviness, or tend upward through lightness. Specific gravity carries away the body in the same way as love carries away the soul, wherever it may be carried away.

So, since we are people created in the image of our Creator, with whom eternity is true, and truth is eternal, and love is eternal and true, and who himself is the eternal, true and praiseworthy Trinity, unfused and indivisible; then in those things that are lower than us, but which themselves could neither exist in any way, nor maintain any form, nor strive for any order, nor maintain it, if they had not been created by Him, Who is characterized by the highest existence, Who is most wise, most good - in these things, tirelessly running through everything He created, we must look for some traces of Him, as it were,

imprinted by Him in one place more, in another - less; contemplating His image in ourselves, let us return to ourselves, like the famous younger son of the Gospel (Luke XV, 18), and rise up in order to return to Him from Whom we have departed as a result of sin. There our existence will not have death; there our knowledge will not go astray; there our love will not stumble.

While we consider these three things to be undoubted and ours and regarding them we do not believe other witnesses, but ourselves feel them directly and contemplate them with the most reliable inner gaze; but how long will all this continue and whether it will ever stop, and what it will come to, if it goes well or badly - for all this, since we ourselves cannot know this, we require or have other witnesses. Why there can be no doubt about the reliability of these witnesses - we will talk about this more carefully later. In this book, as far as possible, we will continue what we began to talk about the city of God, which does not wander in this mortal life, but is always immortal in heaven, that is, about the holy angels devoted to God, who never were and never will be apostates, between whom and those who became darkness, having departed from the eternal light, God from the beginning, as we have already said, created division.

CHAPTER XXIX

These holy angels know God not through audible words, but through the very presence of the unchangeable Truth, that is, through His only begotten Word; they come to know the Word itself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. And that this Trinity is undivided, that the individual Persons constitute a single being in it, that they are all not three Gods, but one God - they know this better than we know ourselves.

And they recognize creation itself there, that is, in the wisdom of God, as in the idea according to which it was created, better than in itself; and accordingly, they know themselves there better than in themselves, although they also know themselves in themselves. For they are created and are other than He who created them. Therefore, there they recognize themselves as if in daytime consciousness, and in themselves - as if in evening consciousness, as we said above. For the great difference lies in whether something is known in the idea by which it is created, or in itself. Thus, the correctness of lines or the truth of figures is known in one way when it is mentally contemplated, and in another when it is drawn in the dust; in one way justice is in the unchangeable Truth, and in another way in the soul of the just. This is how they come to know other things, for example, the firmament between the higher and lower waters, called heaven; the collection of waters below, the exposure of the earth and the growth of grass and trees; creation of the sun, moon and stars; the birth of animals from water, that is, birds, fish and beasts, as well as the creation of all those who walk on the earth, and man himself, who surpasses all things on earth. All this is known differently by the angels in the Word of God, in which it has its unchangeable foundations and laws according to which it was created; and is known differently in ourselves. There this knowledge is clearer, like knowledge in an idea; here it is darker, like knowledge of the work. And when these deeds relate to the glory and honor of the Creator himself, they shine with light in the minds of those who contemplate, like the morning.

CHAPTER XXX

All this, as Scripture relates, for the sake of the perfection of the number six, through the sixfold repetition of the same day, is accomplished in six days. It's not because God needed duration

time, - as if He could not create at once everything that would later produce time with appropriate movements - but because the number six denotes the perfection of creation. For the first number six is ​​made up of its parts, that is, from the sixth part, the third and the half. These parts are one, two and three; added together they make six. But in this consideration of numbers, those parts of them must be understood in relation to which it can be said what part of the number they constitute, i.e. half, third, quarter, and which then receive their name from a known number. For example, although in the number nine four constitute a certain part, four cannot be said to be a part of nine; this can be said about one thing, because one is the ninth part of it; this can also be said about three, since three constitutes the third part of nine. But both of these parts, the ninth and the third, that is, one and three, being combined into one number, do not reach the whole number, nine. Likewise, in the number ten, the number four forms a known part, but it is impossible to say which one; and this can be said about one, because one is a tenth of ten. This number also has a fifth part, which is two; has also half, which is five. But these three parts of the number ten: the tenth, the fifth and the half, that is, one, two and five, added together, do not make ten and are equal to eight. The parts of the number twelve, added to one sum, exceed this number. It has a sixth part, which is two; has a fourth part consisting of three; has a third, consisting of four, and has a half, consisting of six. But one, two, three, four and six are not twelve, but more, that is, sixteen.

I found it necessary to briefly mention this in order to show the perfection of the number six, which first, as I said, is composed of the combination of its parts into one sum. In this six-

On this date God completed His creation. Therefore, numbers should not be neglected. Those who carefully delve into them know well what great importance must be attached to them in many places of Holy Scripture. It is not in vain that in the praise of God it is said that He has ordered everything by measure, number and weight (Wis. XI, 21).

CHAPTER XXXI

On the seventh day, that is, on the same day repeated seven times, a number that is also perfect in another respect, the rest of God falls, and at the same time sanctification is mentioned for the first time. Thus, God did not want to sanctify this day in any of His works, but in a rest that has no evening: because there is no longer any creature that, knowing itself in one way in the Word of God and in another way in itself, could produce different knowledge like day and evening. Much can be said about the perfection of the number seven; but this book is already too long, and I am afraid that it might seem that, taking advantage of the opportunity, I want to throw away my knowledge more frivolously than usefully. We must observe the rules of moderation and importance, so that they do not say about us that, by talking a lot about numbers, we have forgotten measure and importance. So, it is enough to mention that three is the first completely unequal number, and four is the first completely equal: the number seven consists of these. Therefore, it is often used instead of an indefinite number, for example: “A righteous man will fall seven times and rise again” (Proverbs XXIV, 16), i.e. no matter how many times a righteous man falls, he will not perish.

This, however, must be understood not in relation to misdeeds, but in relation to misfortunes that lead to

to humility. And again: “Seven times a day I glorify You” (Ps. SHUSH, 1b4); which is elsewhere expressed in a different way: “His praise is continually in my mouth” (Ps. XXXIII, 2). And much of this kind is found in the Holy Scriptures, in which the number seven, as I said, is usually used to designate the whole totality of some thing. Therefore, the same number often denotes the Holy Spirit, about whom the Lord says: “He will guide you into all truth” (John XVI, 13). This number also denotes the peace of God, by which man also rests in God. For in the whole, that is, in complete perfection, there is peace, and in the part there is labor. We work until we know in part, “but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part will cease” (I Cor. XIII, 10). Because of this, it happens that even these Scriptures we study with difficulty. Meanwhile, the holy angels, for communication and union with whom we sigh on this most difficult journey, possess both the eternity of stay, and the ease of knowledge, and the bliss of peace. They help us without difficulty: because their spiritual, pure and free movements do not tire them.

CHAPTER XXXII

Someone may start an argument and begin to argue that it is not the holy angels who are meant in that passage of Scripture where it is said: “Let there be light. And there was light"; and he will think or say that then for the first time any corporeal light was created; the angels were created before, and not only before the firmament, created between waters and waters and called heaven, but even before that of which it is said: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”; and that the expression “in the beginning” does not mean that we are talking here about what was created first of all: because even before God created

created angels, which (means) that He created everything in Wisdom, precisely in His Word, which in “Scripture is called the Beginning, just as He himself in the Gospel, when asked by the Jews who He is, answered that He is the Beginning (John VIII, 25).

But I will not support the dispute by defending the opposite opinion, especially since I am quite pleased that already at the very beginning of the sacred book of Genesis there is an indication of the Trinity. For after it is said: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” in order to make it clear what the Father created in the Son, as evidenced by the psalm in which we read: “How many are Your works, O Lord! You have done everything wisely”* (Ps. 1P, 24) - in this post, the Holy Spirit is completely appropriately mentioned. After what was mentioned, what kind of properties did God create in the beginning of the earth, or mass, or matter for the formation of the future world, (which) He called by the name of heaven and earth, and added: “The earth was formless and empty, and darkness was upon the abyss ”, - after finishing the mention of the Trinity, it is said: “And the Spirit of God hovered over the waters” (Gen. I, 2). So, let everyone understand as they wish. The question is so profound that it can, for the exercise of readers who do not deviate from the rule of faith, provoke various solutions. Let no one doubt that there are holy angels in heaven, although not co-eternal with God, nevertheless unshakable and firm in their eternal and true bliss. Teaching that His children belong to their society, the Lord not only says: “Like the angels of God in heaven” (Matthew XXII, 30), but also shows what kind of contemplation the angels themselves enjoy, saying: “I tell you that their angels are in in heaven they always see the face of My Heavenly Father” (Matthew XVIII, 10).

·  Augustine: “Thou hast created all things by wisdom.”

CHAPTER XXXIII

The Apostle Peter clearly shows that some angels sinned and were cast into the underworld of this world, which serves as a kind of prison for them until their future final condemnation on the day of judgment, when he says that God “did not spare the angels who sinned, but, having bound them in chains of hellish darkness, handed over to be kept for judgment for punishment” (II Pet. II, 4). Who can doubt that God, either in His foreknowledge or by His very deed, established a division between these and other angels? Who will object to the fact that the latter are rightly called light, when even we, who still live in faith and still hope for equality with them, but have not achieved it, are called light by the Apostle: “You were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord?” (Eph. V, 8)? And the fallen angels are clearly called darkness - those who understand or believe that they are worse than unfaithful people know this well. Let it be in a certain place in this book where we read: “Let there be light. And there was light,” another light should also be understood; even in the place where it is written: “And God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light day, and the darkness night” (Genesis 1:2, 3), speaking of another darkness. In any case, we believe that there are two angelic societies: one enjoys God, the other boasts of pride; one, which says: “Bow down before Him, all you gods” * (Ps. HSLT, 7), another, the prince of which says: “I will give all this to You if you fall and worship me” (Matthew IV, 9); one - burning with holy love for God, the other - smoking with unclean love for one’s own greatness; the first of them, according to how it is written: “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (James IV, 6), dwells in the heaven of heaven, and the other, cast down from there, rushes about in this lower airy heaven;

" From Augustine: "Worship Him, all His angels."

the first enjoys peace in bright piety, while the second is agitated by dark passions; the first, at the behest of God, humbly comes to the rescue and takes righteous revenge, while the other burns with a passion to enslave and harm; the first is a servant of God's goodness to help at will, and the other is curbed by the power of God so that it does not harm as much as it wants to harm; the first mocks the second, for the latter, against its will, brings benefit with its persecutions, and the latter envies the first, gathering its wanderers to its fatherland.

So, if we expressed the opinion that in the famous book, which is called the book of Genesis, by the name of light and darkness are meant these two angelic societies, unequal and opposite to each other, of which one is good by nature and righteous by the direction of the will, and another - good by nature, but perverted by the direction of the will - societies, the clearest indications of which are contained in other places of the Divine Scriptures, then, even if in the given place the writer meant something else, the darkness of his expressions in any case has been explored by us not without benefit .

Although we were not able to accurately understand the thought of the writer of this book, we did not deviate from the rule of faith, which is sufficiently known to believers on the basis of other sacred Scriptures of the same authority. Let only the bodily creations of God be mentioned here; but they, nevertheless, have some resemblance to the spiritual, as a result of which the apostle says: “For you are all sons of light and sons of day: we are not sons of night nor of darkness” (I Thess. V, 5). If the writer meant exactly this, then the task of our research has been completed as well as possible: we must assume that the man of God, endowed with unusual and divine wisdom, or better

God's, perfected, according to him, in six days, he could in no way omit the angels. “In the beginning (whether because He created them first, or, as it is more decent to understand “in the beginning,” because He created them in the only begotten Word), says Scripture, God created the heavens and the earth.” These words designate the entire totality of creatures, or, what is more likely, the spiritual and physical creation, or the two great parts of the world, which embrace all created things; so that the writer first wanted to speak about the whole totality of creation, and then traced its parts in order of the mysterious number of days.

CHAPTER XXXIV

Some thought that numerous hosts of angels were named after the waters, and the meaning of the words: “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters” (Gen. I, 6) supposedly that by water above the firmament should be understood angels, and below it are either these visible waters, or a mass of evil angels, or the tribes of all people. If this is so, then this passage indicates not when the angels were created, but when they were separated. But some (which is characteristic of the most perverse and ungodly vanity) even deny that waters were created by God, on the grounds that Scripture nowhere says: “And God said: Let there be water.” They can say the same thing and with similar vanity about the earth; because nowhere is it written: “God said: let there be earth.” But, they say, it is written: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” In this case, water should also be understood here: both are designated together by one name. “His is the sea,” as we read in the psalm, “and He created it, and His hands formed the dry land” (Ps. KSGU, 5).

But those who, under the name of waters above the heavens, want to understand angels, accept

They take into account the weight of the elements and therefore do not think that the liquid and heavy nature of water can be placed in the highest spaces of the world. If they themselves had the opportunity to create man in their own way, they would not have put mucus in his head, which in Greek is called fHeutsa and which replaces water in the elements of our body. The art of God indicated here the most suitable room for mucus; and according to their assumption, this is so absurd that if we did not know this, and in the mentioned book it would be written that God placed moisture, liquid and cold, and therefore heavy, in the part of the human body that is higher than all the rest, - these testers the elements would absolutely not believe it; and if we submitted to the authority of the same Scripture, we would argue that something else should be understood here. But if we diligently began to examine and consider separately everything that is written in this divine book about the creation of the world, then we would have to talk a lot and deviate far from the plan of the work undertaken. As far as it seemed necessary, we have already said enough about those two different and mutually opposed societies of angels, which represent the well-known fundamental principles of the two cities in the human environment, about which I proposed to speak further. Therefore, let us finally finish the real book.