# City of God

- Author: [Augustine of Hippo](https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/authors/augustine-of-hippo/)
- Latin title: *De civitate Dei*
- Date: 413–426 (approximate)
- Source: Emanuel Hoffmann, ed., Sancti Aureli Augustini De civitate dei libri XXII, CSEL 40.1–2 (Vienna: Tempsky; Leipzig: Freytag, 1899–1900) (Latin text: Dombart and Hoffmann, De civitate dei (CSEL 40, 1899-1900), digitized by Open Greek and Latin (csel-dev, University of Leipzig), CC BY-SA 4.0)

- Translation: Claude, from the original text, unless a passage says otherwise; each passage below gives the translator
- Editions and translations: Bernhard Dombart and Alphons Kalb, eds., Aurelii Augustini De civitate dei libri XXII, 2 vols., CCSL 47-48 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1955)
- Work page: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/
- Passages: 660

## City of God 1.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-1
- Source: CSEL 40:4–6
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine introduces the pagan enemies of the city of God, many of whom survived the sack of Rome only by taking refuge in Christian churches, yet now blame Christ for the disaster.

### Latin text

CAPUT I. De aduersariis nominis Christi, quibus in uastatione Urbis propter Christum barbari pepercerunt. Ex hac namque existunt inimici, aduersus quos defendenda est Dei ciuitas, quorum tamen multi correcto inpietatis errore ciues in ea fiunt satis idonei; multi uero in eam tantis exardescunt ignibus odiorum tamque manifestis beneficiis redemtoris eius ingrati sunt, ut hodie contra eam linguas non mouerent, nisi ferrum hostile fugientes in sacratis eius locis uitam, de qua superbiunt, inuenirent. An non etiam illi Romani Christi nomini infesti sunt, quibus propter Christum barbari pepercerunt? Testantur hoc martyrum loca et basilicae apostolorum, quae in illa uastatione Urbis ad se confugientes suos alienosque receperunt. Huc usque cruentus saeuiebat inimicus, ibi accipiebat limitem trucidatoris furor, illo ducebantur a miserantibus hostibus, quibus etiam extra ipsa loca pepercerant, ne in eos incurrerent, qui similem misericordiam non habebant. Qui tamen etiam ipsi alibi truces adque hostili more saeuientes posteaquam ad loca illa ueniebant, ubi fuerat interdictum quod alibi belli iure licuisset, tota feriendi refrenabatur inmanitas et captiuandi cupiditas frangebatur. Sic euaserunt multi, qui nunc Christianis temporibus detrahunt et mala, quae illa ciuitas pertulit, Christo inputant; bona uero, quae in eos ut uiuerent propter Christi honorem facta sunt. non inputant Christo nostro sed fato suo, cum potius deberent, si quid recti saperent, illa, quae ab hostibus aspera et dura perpessi sunt, illi prouidentiae diuinae tribuere, quae solet corruptos hominum mores bellis emendare adque conterere itemque uitam mortalium iustam adque laudabilem talibus adflictionibus exercere probatamque uel in meliora transferre uel in his adhuc terris propter usus alios detinere: illud uero, quod eis uel ubicumque propter Christi nomen uel in locis Christi nomini dicatissimis et amplissimis ac pro largiore misericordia ad capacitatem multitudinis electis praeter bellorum morem truculenti barbari pepercerunt, hoc tribuere temporibus Christianis, hinc Deo agere gratias, hinc ad eius nomen ueraciter currere, ut effugiant poenas ignis aeterni, quod nomen multi eorum mendaciter usurparunt, ut effugerent poenas praesentis exitii. Nam quos uides petulanter et procaciter insultare seruis Christi, sunt in eis plurimi, qui illum interitum clademque non euasissent, nisi seruos Christi se esse finxissent. Et nunc ingrata superbia adque inpiissima insania eius nomini resistunt corde peruerso, ut sempiternis tenebris puniantur, ad quod nomen ore uel subdolo confugerunt, ut temporali luce fruerentur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. On the enemies of the name of Christ, whom the barbarians spared for Christ's sake when the City was laid waste.

From this world, then, come the enemies against whom the city of God must be defended. Many of them, however, once they have corrected the error of their ungodliness, become quite worthy citizens in it; but many burn against it with such fires of hatred, and are so ungrateful for the plain benefits of its Redeemer, that today they would not be moving their tongues against it had they not found in its sacred places, as they fled the enemy's sword, the very life they are so proud of. Are not even those Romans hostile to the name of Christ whom the barbarians spared for Christ's sake? The shrines of the martyrs and the basilicas of the apostles bear witness to it: in that devastation of the City they received those who fled to them, their own people and strangers alike. Up to that point the bloodthirsty enemy raged; there the butcher's fury met its limit; to those places the enemies who had mercy led those whom they had spared even outside those places, so that they would not fall in with others who had no such mercy. Even those who elsewhere were savage and raged in the manner of an enemy, once they came to those places, where what the law of war would have allowed elsewhere was forbidden, found all their brutality in striking restrained and their greed for taking captives broken. So many escaped who now disparage these Christian times and blame Christ for the evils that the City suffered; but the good that was done them for the honor of Christ, so that they might live, they do not credit to our Christ but to their own fate. Yet if they had any right judgment, they ought rather to ascribe the harsh and bitter things they suffered from their enemies to that divine providence which is accustomed to correct and crush the corrupt morals of men by wars, and likewise to exercise the just and praiseworthy life of mortals by such afflictions, and, once it is proved, either to transfer it to better things or to keep it still on this earth for other purposes. And the fact that the savage barbarians, contrary to the custom of war, spared them, whether anywhere for the name of Christ or in the places dedicated to the name of Christ, places very large and chosen, in more generous mercy, to hold a multitude, this they ought to ascribe to the Christian times; for this they ought to give thanks to God; for this they ought to run truly to his name, so as to escape the punishment of eternal fire, the name that many of them usurped falsely so as to escape the punishment of present destruction. For among those whom you see insulting the servants of Christ with such insolence and impudence there are very many who would not have escaped that slaughter and disaster had they not pretended to be servants of Christ. And now, with ungrateful pride and most ungodly madness, they resist his name with a perverse heart, so as to be punished with eternal darkness, the name to which they fled with a mouth that was at least deceitful, so as to enjoy the light of this passing life.

### Translation notes

- The opening sentence (“From this world, then …”) continues the preface to Book 1, which is not part of this staged text. The chapter headings (capitula) are printed with the text in this edition and are translated with it.
- “The City” (Urbs) is Rome, sacked by the Goths under Alaric in August 410.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.1 (CSEL 40:4–6; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-1).

## City of God 1.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-2
- Source: CSEL 40:6–7
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues from Virgil's account of Troy that conquerors never spared the defeated for the sake of the defeated people's gods, whose images could not even protect themselves.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. Quod nulla umquam bella ita gesta sint, ut uictores propter deos eorum, quos uicerunt, parcerent uictis. Tot bella gesta conscripta sunt uel ante conditam Romam uel ab eius exortu et imperio: legant et proferant sic ab alienigenis aliquam captam esse ciuitatem, ut hostes, qui ceperant, parcerent eis, quos ad deorum suorum templa confugisse compererant, aut aliquem ducem barbarorum praecepisse, ut inrupto oppido nullus feriretur, qui in illo uel illo templo fuisset inuentus. Nonne uidit Aeneas Priamum per aras Sanguine foedantem quos ipse sacrauerat ignes? Nonne Diomedes et Ulixes caesis summae custodibus arcis Corripuere sacram effigiem manibusque cruentis Virgineas ausi diuae contingere uittas? Nec tamen quod sequitur uerum est: Ex illo fluere ac retro sublabsa referri Spes Danaum. Postea quippe uicerunt, postea Troiam ferro ignibusque deleuerunt, postea confugientem ad aram Priamum obtruncauerunt. Nec ideo Troia periit, quia Mineruam perdidit. Quid enim prius ipsa Minerua perdiderat, ut periret? an forte custodes suos? Hoc sane uerum est; illis quippe interemtis potuit auferri. Neque enim homines a simulacro, sed simulacrum ab hominibus seruabatur. Quo modo ergo colebatur, ut patriam custodiret et ciues, quae suos non ualuit custodire custodes?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. That no war was ever waged in which the victors spared the vanquished for the sake of the gods of those they had conquered.

So many wars are on record, whether before Rome was founded or since its rise and rule: let them read and produce a case in which a city was taken by foreigners and the enemies who took it spared those they found had fled to the temples of their gods, or in which some barbarian commander ordered that, once the town was stormed, no one found in this or that temple should be struck down. Did not Aeneas see Priam “at the altars, defiling with his blood the fires he himself had hallowed”? Did not Diomedes and Ulysses, “having slain the guards of the citadel's height, seize the sacred image, and with bloody hands dare to touch the virgin goddess's fillets”? And yet what follows is not true: “From that time the hopes of the Greeks ebbed and slipped back.” For afterwards they conquered; afterwards they destroyed Troy with sword and fire; afterwards they cut down Priam as he fled to the altar. Nor did Troy perish because it lost Minerva. For what had Minerva herself lost first, that she should perish? Her guards, perhaps? That is certainly true: once they were slain she could be carried off. For the men were not protected by the image; the image was protected by the men. How then was she worshipped so that she might guard the country and its citizens, when she could not guard her own guards?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 2.501–502 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 2.166–170 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations from Virgil, Aeneid 2.501–502, 2.166–168, and 2.169–170. The image is the Palladium of Minerva.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.2 (CSEL 40:6–7; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-2).

## City of God 1.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-3
- Source: CSEL 40:7–9
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine mocks the belief that Rome depended on the conquered household gods of Troy, since Virgil himself shows those gods needing human protection.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. Quam inprudenter Romani deos penates, qui Troiam custodire non potuerant, sibi crediderint profuturos. Ecce qualibus dis Urbem Romani seruandam se commisisse gaudebant! o nimium miserabilem errorem! Et nobis suscensent, cum de dis eorum talia dicimus; nec suscensent auctoribus suis, quos ut ediscerent mercedem dederunt doctoresque ipsos insuper et salario publico et honoribus dignissimos habuerunt. Nempe aput Vergilium, quem propterea paruuli legunt, ut uidelicet poeta magnus omniumque praeclarissimus adque optimus teneris ebibitus animis non facile obliuione possit aboleri, secundum illud Horatii: Quo semel est inbuta recens seruabit odorem Testa diu - aput hunc ergo Vergilium nempe Iuno inducitur infesta Troianis Aeolo uentorum regi aduersus eos inritando dicere: Gens inimica mihi Tyrrhenum nauigat aequor Ilium in Italiam portans uictosque penates. Itane istis penatibus uictis Romam, ne uinceretur. prudentes commendare debuerunt? Sed haec Iuno dicebat uelut irata mulier, quid loqueretur ignorans. Quid Aeneas ipse, pius totiens appellatus, nonne ita narrat: Panthus Othryades, arcis Phoebique sacerdos, Sacra manu uictosque deos paruumque nepotem Ipse trahit cursuque amens ad limina tendit? Nonne deos ipsos, quos uictos non dubitat dicere, sibi potius quam se illis perhibet commendatos, cum ei dicitur: Sacra suosque tibi commendat Troia penates? Si igitur Vergilius tales deos et uictos dicit et, ut uel uicti quoquo modo euaderent, homini commendatos: quae dementia est existimare his tutoribus Romam sapienter fuisse commissam et nisi eos amisisset non potuisse uastari? Immo uero uictos deos tamquam praesides ac defensores colere, quid est aliud quam tenere non numina bona, sed nomina mala? Quanto enim sapientius creditur, non Romam ad istam cladem non fuisse uenturam, nisi prius illi periissent, sed illos potius olim fuisse perituros, nisi eos quantum potuisset Roma seruasset! Nam quis non, cum aduerterit, uideat quanta sit uanitate praesumtum non posse uinci sub defensoribus uictis et ideo periisse, quia custodes perdidit deos, cum uel sola esse potuerit causa pereundi custodes habere uoluisse perituros? Non itaque, cum de dis uictis illa conscriberentur adque canerentur, poetas libebat mentiri, sed cordatos homines cogebat ueritas confiteri. Verum ista opportunius alio loco diligenter copioseque tractanda sunt: nunc, quod institueram de ingratis hominibus dicere, parumper expediam ut possum, qui ea mala, quae pro suorum morum peruersitate merito patiuntur, blasphemantes Christo inputant; quod autem illis etiam talibus propter Christum parcitur, nec dignantur adtendere et eas linguas aduersus eius nomen dementia sacrilegae peruersitatis exercent, quibus linguis usurpauerunt mendaciter ipsum nomen, ut uiuerent, uel quas linguas in locis ei sacratis metuendo presserunt, ut illic tuti adque muniti, ubi propter eum inlaesi ab hostibus fuerunt, inde in eum maledictis hostilibus prosilirent.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. How imprudently the Romans believed that the household gods, who had not been able to guard Troy, would benefit them.

See to what kind of gods the Romans rejoiced to have entrusted the City for safekeeping! O most pitiable error! And they are angry with us when we say such things about their gods; yet they are not angry with their own authors, whom they paid money to learn by heart, and whose teachers they even held most worthy of a public salary and honors. Indeed, in Virgil, whom small boys read precisely so that this great poet, the most famous and the best of all, drunk in by tender minds, may not easily be blotted out by forgetfulness, according to that saying of Horace: “The jar will long keep the scent with which it was once steeped when new”, in this Virgil, I say, Juno is brought on, hostile to the Trojans, saying to Aeolus, king of the winds, as she stirs him up against them: “A race hateful to me sails the Tyrrhenian sea, carrying Ilium and its conquered household gods into Italy.” Ought prudent men to have entrusted Rome to these conquered household gods, so that it might not be conquered? But, they say, Juno said this like an angry woman, not knowing what she was saying. What of Aeneas himself, so often called “dutiful”: does he not tell it thus: “Panthus, son of Othrys, priest of the citadel and of Phoebus, himself drags along in his hand the sacred things, the conquered gods, and his little grandson, and runs frantic to the threshold”? Does he not declare that these very gods, whom he does not hesitate to call conquered, were entrusted to him rather than he to them, when it is said to him: “To you Troy commends its sacred things and its household gods”? If, then, Virgil says that such gods were both conquered and, so that even when conquered they might somehow escape, entrusted to a man, what madness it is to think that Rome was wisely committed to these guardians and could not have been laid waste unless it had lost them! Indeed, what else is it to worship conquered gods as protectors and defenders than to hold not good deities but bad omens? How much wiser to believe, not that Rome would not have come to this disaster unless they had perished first, but rather that they would have perished long ago had Rome not preserved them as far as it could! For who, if he pays attention, does not see how empty the presumption is that Rome could not be conquered under conquered defenders, and that it perished because it lost its guardian gods, when the only cause of its perishing could well have been its willingness to have guardians who were bound to perish? So when these things were written and sung about the conquered gods, it was not that poets liked to lie, but that truth compelled men of sense to confess it. But these matters will be treated carefully and at length more fittingly in another place. Now I shall briefly, as best I can, finish what I had begun to say about ungrateful men, who blasphemously blame Christ for the evils they suffer deservedly for the perversity of their morals. That they are spared for Christ's sake, even such as they are, they do not deign to notice; and in the madness of sacrilegious perversity they use against his name the very tongues with which they falsely usurped that name so as to live, or the tongues they held in check out of fear in the places consecrated to him, so that, safe and protected there, where for his sake they were unharmed by the enemy, they might leap out from there against him with hostile curses.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Horace, Ep. 1.2.69–70 (Horace): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 1.67–68 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 2.319–321 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 2.293 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Horace, Epistles 1.2.69–70; Virgil, Aeneid 1.67–68, 2.319–321, 2.293.
- “Not good deities but bad omens” renders a wordplay in the Latin: non numina bona, sed nomina mala.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.3 (CSEL 40:7–9; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-3).

## City of God 1.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-4
- Source: CSEL 40:9–10
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine contrasts Juno's sanctuary at Troy, used by the Greeks to hold captives and plunder, with the basilicas of the apostles, where the Goths spared refugees and restored property.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. De asylo Iunonis in Troia, quod neminem liberauit a Graecis, et basilicis apostolorum, quae omnes ad se confugientes a barbaris defenderunt. Ipsa, ut dixi, Troia, mater populi Romani, sacratis locis deorum suorum munire non potuit ciues suos ab ignibus ferroque Graecorum, eosdem ipsos deos colentium; quin etiam Iunonis asylo Custodes lecti, Phoenix et dirus Ulixes, Praedam adseruabant; huc undique Troia gaza Incensis erepta adytis mensaeque deorum Crateresque auro solidi captiuaque uestis Congeritur. Pueri et pauidae longo ordine matres Stant circum. Electus est uidelicet locus tantae deae sacratus, non unde captiuos non liceret educere, sed ubi captiuos liberet includere. Conpara nunc asylum illud non cuiuslibet dei gregalis uel de turba plebis, sed Iouis ipsius sororis et coniugis et reginae omnium deorum cum memoriis nostrorum apostolorum. Illuc incensis templis et dis erepta spolia portabantur, non donanda uictis, sed diuidenda uictoribus; huc autem et quod alibi ad ea loca pertinere conpertum est cum honore et obsequio religiosissimo reportatum est. Ibi amissa, hic seruata libertas; ibi clausa, hic interdicta captiuitas; ibi possidendi a dominantibus hostibus premebantur, huc liberandi a miserantibus ducebantur: postremo illud Iunonis templum sibi elegerat auaritia et superbia leuium Graeculorum, istas Christi basilicas misericordia et humilitas etiam inmanium barbarorum. Nisi forte Graeci quidem in illa sua uictoria templis deorum communium pepercerunt adque illo confugientes miseros uictosque Troianos ferire uel captiuare non ausi sunt, sed Vergilius poetarum more illa mentitus est. Immo uero morem hostium ciuitates euertentium ille descripsit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. On the sanctuary of Juno at Troy, which freed no one from the Greeks, and the basilicas of the apostles, which protected from the barbarians all who fled to them.

Troy itself, as I said, the mother of the Roman people, could not protect its citizens by the consecrated places of its gods from the fire and sword of the Greeks, who worshipped those same gods. On the contrary, “in Juno's sanctuary chosen guards, Phoenix and dread Ulysses, kept watch over the booty. Here from every side the treasure of Troy, torn from the burning shrines, the tables of the gods, bowls of solid gold, and captured garments are heaped together. Boys and trembling mothers stand around in a long line.” Evidently a place consecrated to so great a goddess was chosen, not as a place from which it was unlawful to lead captives away, but as a place in which it pleased them to shut captives up. Compare now that sanctuary, not of some common god or one of the rank and file, but of the sister and wife of Jupiter himself and queen of all the gods, with the memorial shrines of our apostles. To the one the spoils snatched from the burnt temples and from the gods were carried, not to be given back to the vanquished but to be divided among the victors; to the other, even what was found elsewhere to belong to those places was carried back with honor and the most reverent respect. There liberty was lost, here preserved; there captivity was confined, here forbidden; there people were herded to be possessed by enemies who were their masters, here they were led to be set free by enemies who had pity on them. In short, the avarice and pride of the fickle Greeks had chosen that temple of Juno for themselves; the mercy and humility of even savage barbarians chose these basilicas of Christ. Unless perhaps the Greeks in their victory did spare the temples of the gods they shared, and did not dare to strike down or take captive the wretched and conquered Trojans who fled there, and Virgil lied in the manner of poets! No, he described the custom of enemies who overthrow cities.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 2.761–767 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Virgil, Aeneid 2.761–767. The “memorial shrines” (memoriae) are the churches built over the apostles' tombs; church treasures found elsewhere were restored to St Peter's during the sack.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.4 (CSEL 40:9–10; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-4).

## City of God 1.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-5
- Source: CSEL 40:10–11
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine cites Cato's speech in Sallust, which lists the plundering of shrines among the ordinary horrors of a captured city.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. De generali consuetudine hostium uictas ciuitates euertentium quid Cato senserit. Quem morem etiam Cato, sicut scribit Sallustius, nobilitatae ueritatis historicus, sententia sua, quam de coniuratis in senatu habuit, conmemorare non praetermittit: rapi uirgines pueros, diuelli liberos a parentum conplexu, matres familiarum pati quae uictoribus conlibuisset, fana adque domos spoliari, caedem incendia fieri: postremo armis cadaueribus cruore adque luctu omnia conpleri. Hic si fana tacuisset, deorum sedibus solere hostes parcere putaremus. Et haec non ab alienigenis hostibus, sed a Catilina et sociis eius, nobilissimis senatoribus et Romanis ciuibus, Romana templa metuebant. Sed hi uidelicet perditi et patriae parricidae.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. What Cato thought of the general custom of enemies who overthrow conquered cities.

This custom Cato too, as Sallust, a historian of celebrated truthfulness, writes, does not fail to mention in the speech he gave in the senate about the conspirators: “maidens and boys are carried off, children torn from their parents' embrace, mothers of families suffer whatever the victors please, shrines and houses are plundered, slaughter and burning are done; in short, everything is filled with weapons, corpses, blood, and mourning.” Had he said nothing about shrines here, we might suppose that enemies usually spare the dwellings of the gods. And the Roman temples feared these things, not from foreign enemies, but from Catiline and his associates, senators of the highest nobility and Roman citizens. But these, no doubt, were abandoned men and parricides of their country.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sallust, Cat. 51.9 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sallust, Catiline 51.9. In Sallust these words belong to Caesar's speech, not Cato's; Augustine assigns them to Cato.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.5 (CSEL 40:10–11; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-5).

## City of God 1.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-6
- Source: CSEL 40:11–12
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine shows from the examples of Marcellus at Syracuse and Fabius at Tarentum that even the most restrained Roman conquerors never granted asylum in temples.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. Quod ne Romani quidem ita ullas ceperint ciuitates, ut in templis earum parcerent uictis. Quid ergo per multas gentes, quae inter se bella gesserunt et nusquam uictis in deorum suorum sedibus pepercerunt, noster sermo discurrat? Romanos ipsos uideamus, ipsos, inquam, recolamus respiciamusque Romanos, de quorum praecipua laude dictum est: Parcere subiectis et debellare superbos, et quod accepta iniuria ignoscere quam persequi malebant: quando tot tantasque urbes, ut late dominarentur, expugnatas captasque euerterunt, legatur nobis quae templa excipere solebant, ut ad ea quisquis confugisset liberaretur. An illi faciebant et scriptores earundem rerum gestarum ista reticebant? Ita uero, qui ea quae laudarent maxime requirebant, ista praeclarissima secundum ipsos pietatis indicia praeterirent? Egregius Romani nominis Marcus Marcellus. qui Syracusas urbem ornatissimam cepit, refertur eam prius fleuisse ruituram et ante eius sanguinem suas illi lacrimas effudisse. Gessit et curam pudicitiae etiam in hoste seruandae. Nam priusquam oppidum uictor iussisset inuadi, constituit edicto, ne quis corpus liberum uiolaret. Euersa est tamen ciuitas more bellorum, nec uspiam legitur ab imperatore tam casto adque clementi fuisse praeceptum, ut quisquis ad illud uel illud templum fugisset haberetur inlaesus. Quod utique nullo modo praeteriretur, quando nec eius fletus nec quod edixerat pro pudicitia minime uiolanda potuit taceri. Fabius, Tarentinae urbis euersor, a simulacrorum depraedatione se abstinuisse. laudatur. Nam cum ei scriba suggessisset quid de signis deorum, quae multa capta fuerant, fieri iuberet, continentiam suam etiam iocando condiuit. Quaesiuit enim cuius modi essent, et cum ei non solum multa grandia, uerum etiam renuntiarentur armata, <relinquamus>, inquit <Tarentinis deos iratos. Cum igitur nec illius fletum nec huius risum, nec illius castam misericordiam nec huius facetam continentiam Romanarum rerum gestarum scriptores tacere potuerint: quando praetermitteretur. si aliquibus hominibus in honorem cuiuspiam deorum suorum sic pepercissent, ut in quoquam templo caedem uel captiuitatem fieri prohiberent?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. That not even the Romans took any cities in such a way as to spare the vanquished in their temples.

Why then should our discourse run through the many nations that have waged war on one another and nowhere spared the vanquished in the dwellings of their gods? Let us look at the Romans themselves; the Romans themselves, I say, let us recall and consider, of whom it was said, as their special praise, “to spare the subject and subdue the proud”, and that when wronged they preferred to pardon rather than to avenge. When they stormed, took, and overthrew so many great cities to extend their rule, let someone read us which temples they used to exempt, so that whoever fled to them was set free. Or did they do so, and the writers of their history kept silent about it? Would those writers, who sought out above all things to praise, pass over what by their own standards are the most brilliant signs of piety? Marcus Marcellus, a man who did honor to the Roman name, who took the magnificent city of Syracuse, is reported to have wept for it before it fell and to have shed his tears for it before its blood. He also took care to preserve chastity even in the enemy. For before, as victor, he ordered the town to be entered, he laid down by edict that no one should violate a free person's body. Yet the city was overthrown in the manner of wars, and nowhere do we read that so chaste and merciful a commander ordered that whoever fled to this or that temple should be held unharmed. Such a thing would certainly not have been passed over, when neither his weeping nor his edict for the protection of chastity could go unmentioned. Fabius, who overthrew the city of Tarentum, is praised for having refrained from plundering the images. For when his clerk asked him what he ordered to be done with the statues of the gods, many of which had been captured, he seasoned his restraint even with a jest. He asked what they were like, and when he was told that many were not only large but even armed, he said: “Let us leave the Tarentines their angry gods.” Since, then, the writers of Roman history could not keep silent about the one man's weeping or the other's laughter, about the one's chaste mercy or the other's witty restraint, how would it have been passed over if they had spared any people in honor of one of their gods by forbidding slaughter or captivity in some temple?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 6.853 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Sallust, Cat. 9.5 (Sallust): quotation, medium confidence
- Livy, 25.24 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence
- Livy, 27.16.8 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Virgil, Aeneid 6.853; the Romans' preference for pardon echoes Sallust, Catiline 9.5. The stories of Marcellus and Fabius are in Livy 25.24 and 27.16.8.
- The digital text reads “deos i1 at08)” and “c:Rtam”, clear OCR slips for iratos (“angry”) and castam (“chaste”), corrected.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.6 (CSEL 40:11–12; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-6).

## City of God 1.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-7
- Source: CSEL 40:12–13
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that the cruelty of the sack came from the custom of war, but the unprecedented mercy of the barbarians must be credited to Christ.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. Quod in euersione Urbis, quae aspere gesta sunt. de consuetudine acciderint belli; quae uero clementer, de potentia prouenerint nominis Christi. Quidquid ergo uastationis trucidationis depraedationis concremationis adflictionis in ista recentissima Romana clade commissum est, fecit hoc consuetudo bellorum; quod autem nouo more factum est, quod inusitata rerum facie inmanitas barbara tam mitis apparuit, ut amplissimae basilicae inplendae populo cui parceretur eligerentur et decernerentur, ubi nemo feriretur, unde nemo raperetur, quo liberandi multi a miserantibus hostibus ducerentur, unde captiuandi ulli nec a crudelibus hostibus abducerentur: hoc Christi nomini, hoc Christiano tempori tribuendum quisquis non uidet, caecus, quisquis uidet nec laudat, ingratus, quisquis laudanti reluctatur, insanus est. Absit, ut prudens quisquam hoc feritati inputet barbarorum. Truculentissimas et saeuissimas mentes ille terruit, ille frenauit. e mirabiliter temperauit, qui per prophetam tanto ante dixit: Visitabo in uirga iniquitates eorum et in flagellis peccata eorum; misericordiam autem meam non dispergam ab eis.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. That in the overthrow of the City what was done harshly came from the custom of war, but what was done mercifully came from the power of the name of Christ.

Whatever devastation, slaughter, plundering, burning, and affliction was committed in this most recent Roman disaster, the custom of war did it. But what was done in a new way, that barbarian savagery, in an unheard-of turn of events, appeared so gentle that the largest basilicas were chosen and designated to be filled with people who were to be spared, where no one would be struck down, from which no one would be carried off, to which many were led by merciful enemies to be set free, and from which none were led away into captivity even by cruel enemies: whoever does not see that this must be credited to the name of Christ, to the Christian era, is blind; whoever sees it and does not praise it is ungrateful; whoever resists one who praises it is mad. Far be it from any sensible person to credit this to the ferocity of the barbarians. The most savage and cruel minds were terrified, bridled, and wonderfully tempered by him who said through the prophet so long before: “I will visit their iniquities with a rod and their sins with scourges; but my mercy I will not scatter from them.”

### Scripture references

- Ps 89:32–33 (88:33-Ps LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Psalm 89:32–33 (LXX/Vulgate 88:33–34), Old Latin wording.
- The digital text reads “frenauit. e mirabiliter”; the lone “e” is probably a remnant of ille (“he terrified, he bridled, he tempered”). Translated by sense; the text is left as printed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.7 (CSEL 40:12–13; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-7).

## City of God 1.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-8
- Source: CSEL 40:13–15
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that temporal goods and evils fall on good and bad alike, but the same suffering purifies the good and destroys the wicked.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. De commodis adque incommodis, quae bonis ac malis plerumque communia sunt. Dicet aliquis: Quur ergo ista diuina misericordia etiam ad inpios ingratosque peruenit? Quur putamus, nisi quia eam ille praebuit, qui cottidie facit oriri solem suum super bonos et malos et pluit super iustos et iniustos? Quamuis enim quidam eorum ista cogitantes paenitendo ab inpietate se corrigant, quidam uero, sicut apostolus dicit, diuitias bonitatis et longanimitatis Dei contemnentes secundum duritiam cordis sui et cor inpaenitens thesaurizent sibi iram in die irae et reuelationis iusti iudicii Dei, qui reddet unicuique secundum opera eius: tamen patientia Dei ad paenitentiam inuitat malos, sicut flagellum Dei ad patientiam erudit bonos; itemque misericordia Dei fouendos amplectitur bonos, sicut seueritas Dei puniendos corripit malos. Placuit quippe diuinae prouidentiae praeparare in posterum bona iustis, quibus non fruentur iniusti, et mala inpiis, quibus non excruciabuntur boni; ista uero temporalia bona et mala utrisque uoluit esse communia, ut nec bona cupidius adpetantur, quae mali quoque habere cernuntur; nec mala turpiter euitentur, quibus et boni plerumque adficiuntur. Interest autem plurimum, qualis sit usus uel earum rerum, quae prosperae, uel earum, quae dicuntur aduersae. Nam bonus temporalibus nec bonis extollitur nec malis frangitur; malus autem ideo huiusce modi infelicitate punitur, quia felicitate corrumpitur. Ostendit tamen Deus saepe etiam in his distribuendis euidentius operationem suam. Nam si nunc omne peccatum manifesta plecteret poena, nihil ultimo iudicio seruari putaretur; rursus si nullum nunc peccatum puniret aperta diuinitas, nulla esse diuina prouidentia crederetur. Similiter in rebus secundis, si non eas Deus quibusdam petentibus euidentissima largitate concederet, non ad eum ista pertinere diceremus; itemque si omnibus eas petentibus daret, non nisi propter talia praemia seruiendum illi esse arbitraremur, nec pios nos faceret talis seruitus, sed potius cupidos et auaros. Haec cum ita sint, quicumque boni et mali pariter adflicti sunt, non ideo ipsi distincti non sunt, quia distinctum non est quod utrique perpessi sunt. Manet enim dissimilitudo passorum etiam in similitudine passionum, et licet sub eodem tormento non est idem uirtus et uitium. Nam sicut sub uno igne aurum rutilat palea fumat, et sub eadem tribula stipulae comminuuntur frumenta purgantur, nec ideo cum oleo amurca confunditur, quia eodem praeli pondere exprimitur: ita una eademque uis inruens bonos probat purificat eliquat, malos damnat uastat exterminat. Unde in eadem adflictione mali Deum detestantur adque blasphemant, boni autem precantur et laudant. Tantum interest, non qualia, sed qualis quisque patiatur. Nam pari motu exagitatum et exhalat horribiliter caenum et suauiter fragrat unguentum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. On the advantages and disadvantages that are for the most part common to the good and the wicked.

Someone will say: Why then did this divine mercy reach even the ungodly and ungrateful? Why do we think, if not because it was granted by him who daily “makes his sun rise on the good and the evil and sends rain on the just and the unjust”? For though some of them, reflecting on these things, correct themselves from ungodliness by repentance, while others, as the apostle says, “despising the riches of God's goodness and long-suffering, according to the hardness of their heart and impenitent heart store up for themselves wrath on the day of wrath and of the revelation of the just judgment of God, who will render to each according to his works”, still the patience of God invites the wicked to repentance, just as the scourge of God trains the good to patience; and likewise the mercy of God embraces the good to cherish them, just as the severity of God rebukes the wicked to punish them. For it has pleased divine providence to prepare for the future good things for the righteous which the unrighteous will not enjoy, and evil things for the ungodly by which the good will not be tormented; but these temporal goods and evils it has willed to be common to both, so that the good things which the wicked are also seen to have may not be sought too greedily, and the evil things by which the good too are very often afflicted may not be shamefully avoided. But it makes a very great difference how one uses both the things called prosperous and those called adverse. For the good man is neither lifted up by temporal goods nor broken by temporal evils; but the wicked man is punished by misfortune of this kind precisely because he is corrupted by good fortune. Yet God often shows his working more plainly even in distributing these things. For if every sin were now punished with manifest penalty, nothing would be thought to be kept for the last judgment; again, if the Godhead punished no sin openly now, it would be believed that there is no divine providence. Similarly in prosperity: if God did not grant it to some who ask with the most evident generosity, we would say these things do not belong to him; and again, if he gave it to all who ask, we would think he must be served only for such rewards, and such service would make us not godly but covetous and greedy. This being so, when good and wicked have been afflicted alike, they are not therefore undistinguished because what both suffered is undistinguished. For the unlikeness of the sufferers remains even in the likeness of the sufferings, and though under the same torment, virtue and vice are not the same. For as under one fire gold glows and chaff smokes, and under the same threshing-sledge the straw is crushed and the grain is cleaned, and the lees are not mixed with the oil because they are pressed out by the same weight of the press, so one and the same force falling upon them proves, purifies, and refines the good, but condemns, ruins, and destroys the wicked. So in the same affliction the wicked curse and blaspheme God, while the good pray and praise. So much does it matter, not what things one suffers, but what kind of person suffers them. For stirred by the same motion, filth gives off a horrible stench and ointment a sweet fragrance.

### Scripture references

- Matt 5:45: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 2:4–6: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Matthew 5:45; Romans 2:4–6.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.8 (CSEL 40:13–15; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-8).

## City of God 1.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-9
- Source: CSEL 40:15–18
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine gives reasons why good Christians suffered with the wicked: their own lesser sins, their failure to rebuke sinners out of attachment to temporal things, and the testing of their love for God.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. De causis correptionum, propter quas et boni et mali pariter flagellantur. Quid igitur in illa rerum uastitate Christiani passi sunt, quod non eis magis fideliter ista considerantibus ad prouectum ualeret? Primum quod ipsa peccata, quibus Deus indignatus inpleuit tantis calamitatibus mundum, humiliter cogitantes, quamuis longe absint a facinerosis flagitiosis adque inpiis. tamen non usque adeo se a delictis deputant alienos, ut nec temporalia pro eis mala perpeti se iudicent dignos. Excepto enim quod unusquisque quamlibet laudabiliter uiuens cedit in quibusdam carnali concupiscentiae, etsi non ad facinorum inmanitatem et gurgitem flagitiorum adque inpietatis abominationem, ad aliqua tamen peccata uel rara uel tanto crebriora, quanto minora — hoc ergo excepto quis tandem facile reperitur, qui eosdem ipsos, propter quorum horrendam superbiam luxuriamque et auaritiam adque execrabiles iniquitates et inpietates Deus, sicut minando praedixit, conterit terras, sic habeat, ut habendi sunt? sic cum eis uiuat, ut cum talibus est uiuendum? Plerumque enim ab eis docendis ac monendis, aliquando etiam obiurgandis et corripiendis male dissimulatur, uel cum laboris piget, uel cum os eorum uerecundamur offendere, uel cum inimicitias deuitamus, ne inpediant et noceant in istis temporalibus rebus, siue quas adipisci adhuc adpetit nostra cupiditas, siue quas amittere formidat infirmitas, ita ut, quamuis bonis malorum uita displiceat et ideo cum eis non incidant in illam damnationem, quae post hanc uitam talibus praeparatur, tamen, quia propterea peccatis eorum damnabilibus parcunt, dum eos in suis licet leuibus et ueniabilibus, metuunt, iure cum eis temporaliter flagellantur, quamuis in aeternum minime puniantur, iure istam uitam, quando diuinitus adfliguntur cum eis, amaram sentiunt, cuius amando dulcedinem peccantibus eis amari esse noluerunt. Nam si propterea quisque obiurgandis et corripiendis male agentibus parcit, quia opportunius tempus inquirit uel eisdem ipsis metuit, ne deteriores ex hoc efficiantur, uel ad bonam uitam et piam erudiendos inpediant alios infirmos et premant adque auertant a fide: non uidetur esse cupiditatis occasio, sed consilium caritatis. Illud est culpabile, quod hi, qui dissimiliter uiuunt et a malorum factis abhorrent, parcunt tamen peccatis alienis, quae dedocere aut obiurgare deberent, dum eorum offensiones cauent, ne sibi noceant in his rebus, quibus licite boni adque innocenter utuntur, sed cupidius, quam oportebat eos, qui in hoc mundo peregrinantur et spem supernae patriae prae se gerunt. Non solum quippe infirmiores, uitam ducentes coniugalem, filios habentes uel habere quaerentes, domos ac familias possidentes, (quos apostolus in ecclesiis adloquitur docens et monens quem ad modum uiuere debeant et uxores (cum maritis et mariti cum uxoribus, et filii cum parentibus et parentes cum filiis, et serui cum dominis et domini cum seruis) multa temporalia, multa terrena libenter adipiscuntur et moleste amittunt, propter quae non audent offendere homines, quorum sibi uita contaminatissima et consceleratissima displicet; uerum etiam hi, qui superiorem uitae gradum tenent nec coniugalibus uinculis inretiti sunt et uictu paruo ac tegimento utuntur, plerumque, suae famae ac saluti dum insidias adque impetus malorum timent, ab eorum reprehensione sese abstinent, et quamuis non in tantum eos metuant, ut ad similia perpetranda quibuslibet eorum terroribus adque inprobitatibus cedant, ea ipsa tamen, quae cum eis non perpetrant, nolunt plerumque corripere, cum fortasse possint aliquos corripiendo corrigere, ne, si non potuerint, sua salus ac fama in periculum exitiumque perueniat, nec ea consideratione, qua suam famam ac salutem uident esse necessariam utilitati erudiendorum hominum, sed ea potius infirmitate, qua delectat lingua blandiens et humanus dies et reformidatur uulgi iudicium et carnis excruciatio uel pereratio, hoc est propter quaedam cupiditatis uincula, non propter officia caritatis. Non mihi itaque uidetur haec parua esse causa, quare cum malis flagellentur et boni, quando Deo placet perditos mores etiam temporalium poenarum adflictione punire. Flagellantur enim simul, non quia simul agunt malam uitam, sed quia simul amant temporalem uitam, non quidem aequaliter, sed tamen simul, quam boni contemnere deberent, ut illi correpti adque correcti consequerentur aeternam, ad quam consequendam si nollent esse socii, ferrentur et diligerentur inimici, quia donec uiuunt semper incertum est utrum uoluntatem sint in melius mutaturi. Qua in re non utique parem, sed longe grauiorem habent causam, quibus per prophetam dicitur: Ille quidem in suo peccato morietur, sanguinem autem eius de manu speculatoris requiram. Ad hoc enim speculatores, hoc est populorum praepositi, constituti sunt in ecclesiis, ut non parcant obiurgando peccata. Nec ideo tamen ab huius modi culpa penitus alienus est, qui, licet praepositus non sit, in eis tamen, quibus uitae huius necessitate coniungitur, multa monenda uel arguenda nouit et neglegit, deuitans eorum offensiones propter illa quibus in hac uita non indebitis utitur, sed plus quam debuit delectatur. Deinde habent aliam causam boni, quare temporalibus adfligantur malis, qualem habuit Iob: ut sibi ipse humanus animus sit probatus et cognitus, quanta uirtute pietatis gratis Deum diligat.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. On the reasons for the chastisements by which both good and wicked are scourged alike.

What, then, did the Christians suffer in that general devastation that did not serve rather for their advancement, if they considered these things faithfully? First, because, humbly reflecting on the very sins in anger at which God has filled the world with such calamities, even if they are far from the criminal, the depraved, and the ungodly, they still do not count themselves so free of faults as to judge themselves unworthy to suffer temporal evils for them. For, apart from the fact that everyone, however praiseworthily he lives, yields in some things to carnal desire, if not to monstrous crimes, the abyss of depravity, and the abomination of ungodliness, then at least to some sins, whether rare or more frequent the smaller they are, apart from this, I say, who can easily be found who treats those very people, for whose horrible pride, luxury, and avarice, and whose detestable iniquities and impieties God, as he foretold in his threats, crushes the earth, as they ought to be treated, and lives with them as one ought to live with such people? For very often we wrongly hold back from teaching and admonishing them, and sometimes also from reproving and rebuking them, either because the labor irks us, or because we are ashamed to offend them to their face, or because we avoid their enmity, lest they hinder and harm us in these temporal things, whether things our greed still seeks to gain or things our weakness fears to lose. So although the life of the wicked displeases the good, and therefore they do not fall with them into the damnation prepared for such people after this life, yet, because they spare their damnable sins for this reason, fearing for their own sins, even though light and pardonable, they are rightly scourged with them in time, although they are by no means punished in eternity; rightly they find this life bitter when they are afflicted by God along with them, because, loving its sweetness, they were unwilling to be bitter to them when they sinned. For if someone holds back from reproving and rebuking wrongdoers because he looks for a more suitable time, or fears for them lest they become worse through it, or lest they hinder others who are weak from being trained in a good and godly life, oppress them, and turn them from the faith, this seems not an occasion of greed but a counsel of love. What is blameworthy is that those who live differently and shrink from the deeds of the wicked nevertheless spare other people's sins, which they ought to correct or rebuke, while they guard against offending them lest they harm themselves in those things which the good use lawfully and innocently, but more greedily than befits those who are pilgrims in this world and profess the hope of a heavenly homeland. For not only the weaker ones, who lead married lives, have children or seek to have them, and possess houses and households (those whom the apostle addresses in the churches, teaching and admonishing how they ought to live, wives with husbands and husbands with wives, children with parents and parents with children, slaves with masters and masters with slaves), gladly acquire many temporal and earthly things and lose them with distress, and for their sake do not dare to offend people whose most defiled and wicked life displeases them; but even those who hold a higher rank of life, are not entangled in the bonds of marriage, and make do with little food and clothing, very often abstain from reproving the wicked while they fear their plots and attacks against their reputation and safety. And though they do not fear them so much as to yield to any of their threats and wickedness so as to commit similar things, still they are often unwilling to rebuke the very things they do not commit with them, when perhaps they could correct some by rebuking them, lest, if they fail, their own safety and reputation come into danger and ruin. And this is not from the consideration by which they see that their reputation and safety are needed for the good of instructing people, but rather from that weakness which delights in the flattering tongue and the day of human approval, and dreads the judgment of the crowd and the torment or destruction of the flesh; that is, because of certain bonds of greed, not because of the duties of love. This, then, seems to me no small reason why the good too are scourged with the wicked, when it pleases God to punish depraved morals even by the affliction of temporal penalties. For they are scourged together, not because they lead an evil life together, but because they love the temporal life together, not equally, yet together; the life which the good ought to despise, so that the wicked, rebuked and corrected, might attain eternal life; and if they would not be companions in attaining it, they should be borne with and loved as enemies, since as long as they live it is always uncertain whether they will change their will for the better. In this matter those to whom it is said through the prophet have not an equal but a far heavier case: “He indeed shall die in his sin, but his blood I will require at the hand of the watchman.” For watchmen, that is, those set over the peoples, have been appointed in the churches for this purpose, that they may not spare to rebuke sins. Yet one who is not a leader is not therefore entirely free of this kind of fault, if among those with whom the needs of this life join him he knows of many things to be admonished or reproved and neglects them, avoiding offending them for the sake of things which he uses in this life not wrongly, but in which he takes more delight than he ought. Then the good have another reason for being afflicted by temporal evils, such as Job had: that the human spirit may be proved and known to itself, how great the strength of its godliness is in loving God for nothing.

### Scripture references

- Eph 5:22–6:9: allusion, medium confidence
- Col 3:18–4:1: allusion, medium confidence
- Ezek 33:6: quotation, high confidence
- Job 1:9: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The household instructions allude to Ephesians 5:22–6:9 and Colossians 3:18–4:1; the prophet is Ezekiel 33:6; Job is the example of loving God “for nothing” (Job 1:9).
- “Torment or destruction of the flesh”: the digital text reads pereratio, probably an OCR slip for peremptio; translated by sense.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.9 (CSEL 40:15–18; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-9).

## City of God 1.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-10
- Source: CSEL 40:18–22
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that Christians who lost property, were tortured, or starved in the sack lost nothing essential, and that those who had stored their treasure in heaven were not harmed.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. Quod sanctis in amissione rerum temporalium nihil pereat. Quibus recte consideratis adque perspectis adtende utrum aliquid mali acciderit fidelibus et piis, quod eis non in bonum uerteretur, nisi forte putandum est apostolicam illam uacare sententiam, ubi ait: Scimus quia diligentibus Deum omnia cooperatur in bonum. Amiserunt omnia quae habebant Numquid fidem? numquid pietatem? numquid interioris hominis bona, qui est ante Deum diues? Hae sunt opes Christianorum, quibus opulentus dicebat apostolus: Est autem quaestus magnus pietas cum sufficientia. Nihil enim intulimus in hunc mundum, sed nec auferre aliquid possumus. Habentes autem uictum et tegumentum his contenti sumus. Nam qui uolunt diuites fieri, incidunt in tentationem et laqueum et desideria multa stulta et noxia, quae mergunt homines in interitum et perditionem. Radix enim est omnium malorum auaritia, quam quidam adpetentes a fide pererrauerunt et inseruerunt se doloribus multis. Quibus ergo terrenae diuitiae in illa uastatione perierunt, si eas sic habebant, quem ad modum ab isto foris paupere, intus diuite audierant, id est, si mundo utebantur tamquam non utentes, potuerunt dicere, quod ille grauiter tentatus et minime superatus: Nudus exiui de utero matris meae, nudus reuertar in terram. Dominus dedit, Dominus abstulit, sicut Domino placuit, ita factum est; sit nomen Domini benedictum; ut bonus seruus magnas facultates haberet ipsam sui Domini uoluntatem, cui pedisequus mente ditesceret, nec contristaretur eis rebus uiuens relictus, quas cito fuerat moriens relicturus. Illi autem infirmiores, qui terrenis his bonis, quamuis ea non praeponerent Christo, aliquantula tamen cupiditate cohaerebant, quantum haec amando peccauerint, perdendo senserunt. Tantum quippe doluerunt, quantum se doloribus inseruerant, sicut apostolum dixisse supra commemoraui. Oportebat enim ut eis adderetur etiam experimentorum disciplina, a quibus tam diu fuerat neglecta uerborum. Nam cum dixit apostolus: Qui uolunt diuites fieri, incidunt in tentationem et cetera, profecto in diuitiis cupiditatem reprehendit, non facultatem, quoniam praecepit alibi dicens: Praecipe diuitibus huius mundi non superbe sapere neque sperare in incerto diuitiarum, sed in Deo uiuo, qui praestat nobis omnia abundanter ad fruendum; bene faciant, diuites sint in operibus bonis, facile tribuant, communicent, thesaurizent sibi fundamentum bonum in futurum, ut adprehendant ueram uitam. Haec qui de suis diuitiis faciebant, magnis sunt lucris leuia damna solati plusque laetati ex his, quae facile tribuendo tutius seruauerunt, quam contristati ex his, quae timide retinendo facilius amiserunt. Hoc enim potuit in terra perire, quod piguit inde transferre. Nam qui receperunt consilium Domini sui dicentis: Nolite uobis condere thesauros in terra, ubi tinea et rubigo exterminant et ubi fures effodiunt et furantur; sed thesaurizate uobis thesaurum in caelo, quo fur non accedit neque tinea corrumpit; ubi enim est thesaurus tuus, illic erit et cor tuum, tribulationis tempore probauerunt quam recte sapuerint non contemnendo ueracissimum praeceptorem et thesauri sui fidelissimum inuictissimumque custodem. Nam si multi gauisi sunt ibi se habuisse diuitias suas, quo contigit ut hostis non accederet: quanto certius et securius gaudere potuerunt, qui monitu Dei sui illuc migrauerunt, quo accedere omnino non posset! Unde Paulinus noster, Nolensis episcopus, ex opulentissimo diuite uoluntate pauperrimus et copiosissime sanctus, quando et ipsam Nolam barbari uastauerunt, cum ab eis teneretur, sic in corde suo, ut ab eo postea cognouimus, precabatur: Domine, non excrucier propter aurum et argentum; ubi enim sint omnia mea, tu scis. Ibi enim habebat omnia sua, ubi eum condere et thesaurizare ille monstrauerat, qui haec mala mundo uentura praedixerat. Ac per hoc qui Domino suo monenti oboedierant, ubi et quo modo thesaurizare deberent, nec ipsas terrenas diuitias barbaris incursantibus amiserunt. Quos autem non oboedisse paenituit. quid de talibus rebus faciendum esset, si non praecedente sapientia, certe consequente experientia didicerunt. At enim quidam boni etiam Christiani tormentis excruciati sunt, ut bona sua hostibus proderent. Illi uero nec prodere nec perdere potuerunt bonum, quo ipsi boni erant. Si autem torqueri quam mammona iniquitatis prodere maluerunt, boni non erant. Admonendi autem fuerant, qui tanta patiebantur pro auro, quanta essent sustinenda pro Christo, ut eum potius diligere discerent, qui pro se passos aeterna felicitate ditaret, non aurum et argentum, pro quo pati miserrimum fuit, seu mentiendo occultaretur, seu uerum dicendo proderetur. Namque inter tormenta nemo Christum confitendo amisit, nemo aurum nisi negando seruauit. Quocirca utiliora erant fortasse tormenta, quae bonum incorruptibile amandum docebant, quam illa bona, quae sine ullo utili fructu dominos sui amore torquebant. Sed quidam etiam non habentes quod proderent, dum non creduntur, torti sunt. Et hi forte habere cupiebant nec sancta uoluntate pauperes erant; quibus demonstrandum fuit non facultates, sed ipsas cupiditates talibus dignas esse cruciatibus. Si uero uitae melioris proposito reconditum aurum argentumque non habebant, nescio quidem utrum cuiquam talium acciderit, ut dum habere creditur torqueretur: uerum tamen etiamsi accidit, profecto, qui inter illa tormenta paupertatem sanctam confitebatur, Christum confitebatur. Quapropter etsi non meruit ab hostibus credi, non potuit tamen sanctae paupertatis confessor sine caelesti mercede torqueri. Multos, inquiunt, etiam Christianos fames diuturna uastauit. Hoc quoque in usus suos boni fideles pie tolerando uerterunt. Quos enim fames necauit, malis uitae huius, sicut corporis morbus, eripuit: quos autem non necauit, docuit parcius uiuere, docuit productius ieiunare.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. That the saints lose nothing in losing temporal things.

When these things have been rightly considered and examined, see whether anything evil happened to the faithful and godly that was not turned to their good; unless perhaps we must think that the apostle's saying is empty, where he says: “We know that for those who love God all things work together for good.” They lost everything they had. Their faith? Their godliness? The goods of the inner man, who is rich before God? These are the riches of Christians, in which the apostle was wealthy when he said: “But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, nor can we take anything out. Having food and covering, with these we are content. For those who want to become rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge men into ruin and destruction. For avarice is the root of all evils; and some, craving it, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows.” Those, then, whose earthly riches perished in that devastation, if they held them as they had heard from this man, poor outwardly and rich within, that is, if they used the world as though not using it, could say what that man said who was sorely tempted and by no means overcome: “Naked I came from my mother's womb, naked I shall return to the earth. The Lord gave, the Lord has taken away; as it pleased the Lord, so it has been done; blessed be the name of the Lord.” So a good servant would count his Lord's will itself as his great wealth; following it, he would grow rich in mind, and would not grieve, while still alive, at being left by the things he would soon have left at his death. But those weaker ones who clung to these earthly goods with some small greed, though they did not prefer them to Christ, discovered by losing them how much they had sinned by loving them. For they grieved just as much as they had pierced themselves with sorrows, as I recalled above that the apostle said. For those who had so long neglected the instruction of words needed to have the instruction of experience added. For when the apostle said, “Those who want to become rich fall into temptation” and the rest, he was certainly rebuking greed in riches, not the means, since elsewhere he commanded: “Charge the rich of this world not to be proud nor to hope in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who richly provides us with all things to enjoy; let them do good, be rich in good works, give readily, share, store up for themselves a good foundation for the future, that they may lay hold on the true life.” Those who did this with their riches were consoled for light losses by great gains, and rejoiced more over what they kept more safely by giving it readily than they grieved over what they lost more easily by keeping it fearfully. For what could perish on earth was what they had been reluctant to transfer from there. For those who accepted the counsel of their Lord when he said, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves dig through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near and no moth corrupts; for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also,” proved in the time of tribulation how rightly they had judged in not despising the most truthful teacher and the most faithful and invincible guardian of their treasure. For if many rejoiced that they had kept their riches in a place the enemy happened not to reach, how much more surely and securely could they rejoice who, at the warning of their God, had moved them to where the enemy could not come at all! So our Paulinus, bishop of Nola, who from being very wealthy became by his own choice very poor and most abundantly holy, when the barbarians laid waste Nola itself and he was held by them, prayed thus in his heart, as we afterwards learned from him: “Lord, let me not be tortured for gold and silver; for where all my things are, you know.” For he had all his things where he had been shown to store and treasure them by him who foretold that these evils would come upon the world. And so those who had obeyed their Lord's warning about where and how they ought to lay up treasure did not lose even their earthly riches when the barbarians overran them. But those who repented of not having obeyed learned what should be done with such things, if not by wisdom going before, then at least by experience following after. But, they say, some good people, even Christians, were tortured to make them hand over their goods to the enemy. They could neither hand over nor lose the good by which they themselves were good. But if they preferred to be tortured rather than hand over “the mammon of iniquity,” they were not good. They should have been admonished, since they suffered so much for gold, how much must be endured for Christ, so that they might learn rather to love him who would enrich with eternal happiness those who suffered for him, not gold and silver, for which it was most wretched to suffer, whether it was hidden by lying or handed over by telling the truth. For under torture no one lost Christ by confessing him; no one saved gold except by denying it. So perhaps the tortures were more useful, teaching them to love the incorruptible good, than those goods which tormented their owners with love of them without any useful fruit. But some, even having nothing to hand over, were tortured because they were not believed. Perhaps these too desired to have, and were not poor by holy choice; to them it had to be shown that not their means but their very desires deserved such torments. But if, by the resolve of a better life, they had no gold and silver hidden away, I do not know whether it happened to any of them to be tortured while thought to have it; but even if it did, surely whoever confessed holy poverty amid those tortures confessed Christ. Therefore, even if he did not deserve to be believed by the enemy, the confessor of holy poverty could not be tortured without a heavenly reward. Many, they say, even Christians, were destroyed by long famine. This too the good faithful turned to their use by enduring it godly. For those whom famine killed it rescued from the evils of this life, as bodily sickness does; those whom it did not kill it taught to live more sparingly and to fast longer.

### Scripture references

- Rom 8:28: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Tim 6:6–10: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 7:31: allusion, high confidence
- Job 1:21: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Tim 6:17–19: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 6:19–21: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 16:9: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Romans 8:28; 1 Timothy 6:6–10 and 6:17–19; 1 Corinthians 7:31; Job 1:21; Matthew 6:19–21; Luke 16:9 (“mammon of iniquity”). Paulinus of Nola was taken when the Goths sacked Nola in 410.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.10 (CSEL 40:18–22; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-10).

## City of God 1.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-11
- Source: CSEL 40:22–23
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that the manner of death does not matter to those who have lived well, since only what follows death makes it evil.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. De fine temporalis uitae siue longioris siue breuioris. Sed enim multi etiam Christiani interfecti sunt, multi multarum mortium foeda uarietate consumti. Hoc si aegre ferendum est, omnibus, qui in hanc uitam procreati sunt, utique commune est. Hoc scio, neminem fuisse mortuum, qui non fuerat aliquando moriturus. Finis autem uitae tam longam quam breuem uitam hoc idem facit. Neque enim aliud melius et aliud deterius, aut aliud maius et aliud breuius est, quod iam pariter non est. Quid autem interest, quo mortis genere uita ista finiatur, quando ille, cui finitur, iterum mori non cogitur? Cum autem unicuique mortalium sub cottidianis uitae huius casibus innumerabiles mortes quodam modo comminentur, quamdiu incertum est quaenam earum uentura sit, quaero utrum satius sit unam perpeti moriendo an omnes timere uiuendo. Nec ignoro quam citius eligatur diu uiuere sub timore tot mortium quam semel moriendo nullam deinceps formidare. Sed aliud est quod carnis sensus infirmiter pauidus refugit, aliud quod mentis ratio diligenter enucleata conuincit. Mala mors putanda non est, quam bona uita praecesserit. Neque enim facit malam mortem, nisi quod sequitur mortem. Non itaque multum curandum est eis, qui necessario morituri sunt, quid accidat ut moriantur, sed moriendo quo ire cogantur. Cum igitur Christiani nouerint longe meliorem fuisse religiosi pauperis mortem inter lingentium canum linguas quam inpii diuitis in purpura et bysso, horrenda illa genera mortium quid mortuis obfuerunt, qui bene uixerunt?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. On the end of temporal life, whether longer or shorter.

But, they say, many Christians too were killed; many were carried off by a hideous variety of many kinds of death. If this is hard to bear, it is certainly common to all who have been born into this life. This I know: no one has died who was not going to die at some time. The end of life makes a long life and a short one the same. For what has equally ceased to be is not one better and another worse, or one greater and another shorter. And what does it matter by what kind of death this life is ended, when he whose life is ended is not forced to die again? Since for every mortal, amid the daily accidents of this life, countless deaths in a way threaten, as long as it is uncertain which of them will come, I ask whether it is better to suffer one by dying or to fear all by living. I am not unaware how much more readily people choose to live long under the fear of so many deaths than by dying once to fear none thereafter. But what the sense of the flesh in its weak fear shrinks from is one thing; what the reasoning of the mind, carefully examined, proves is another. A death must not be thought evil which a good life has preceded. For nothing makes death evil except what follows death. So those who must necessarily die need not care much what happens to make them die, but where they are compelled to go by dying. Since, then, Christians know that the death of the godly poor man among the licking tongues of the dogs was far better than that of the ungodly rich man in purple and fine linen, how did those terrible kinds of death harm the dead who had lived well?

### Scripture references

- Luke 16:19–22: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Luke 16:19–22 (the rich man and Lazarus).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.11 (CSEL 40:22–23; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-1/#p-1-11).

## City of God 1.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-12
- Source: CSEL 40:23–25
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that lack of burial does no harm to Christians, since funerals comfort the living and God will raise every body wherever its remains have gone.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. De sepultura humanorum corporum, quae Christianis etiamsi fuerit negata nil adimit. At enim in tanta strage cadauerum nec sepeliri potuerunt. Neque istud pia fides nimium reformidat, tenens praedictum nec absumentes bestias resurrecturis corporibus obfuturas, quorum capillus capitis non peribit. Nullo modo diceret ueritas: Nolite timere eos, qui corpus occidunt, animam autem non possunt occidere, si quicquam obesset futurae uitae, quidquid inimici de corporibus occisorum facere uoluissent. Nisi forte quispiam sic absurdus est, ut contendat eos, qui corpus occidunt, non debere timeri ante mortem, ne corpus occidant, et timeri debere post mortem, ne corpus occisum sepeliri non sinant. Falsum est ergo quod ait [Christus]: Qui corpus occidunt, et postea non habent quid faciant, si habent tanta, quae de cadaueribus faciant. Absit, ut falsum sit quod ueritas dixit. Dictum est enim aliquid eos facere cum occidunt, quia in corpore sensus est occidendo; postea uero nihil habere quod faciant, quia nullus sensus est in corpore occiso. Multa itaque corpora Christianorum terra non texit, sed nullum eorum quisquam a caelo et terra separauit, quam totam inplet praesentia sui, qui nouit unde resuscitet quod creauit. Dicitur quidem in psalmo: Posuerunt mortalia seruorum tuorum escas uolatilibus caeli, carnes sanctorum tuorum bestiis terrae; effuderunt sanguinem eorum sicut aquam in circuitu Hierusalem, et non erat qui sepeliret, sed magis ad exaggerandam crudelitatem eorum, qui ista fecerunt, non ad eorum infelicitatem, qui ista perpessi sunt. Quamuis enim haec in conspectu hominum dura et dira uideantur, sed pretiosa in conspectu Domini mors sanctorum eius. Proinde ista omnia, [id est] curatio funeris, conditio sepulturae, pompa exsequiarum, magis sunt uiuorum solacia quam subsidia mortuorum. Si aliquid prodest inpio sepultura pretiosa, oberit pio. uilis aut nulla. Praeclaras exequias in conspectu hominum exhibuit purpurato illi diuiti turba famulorum, sed multo clariores in conspectu Domini ulceroso illi pauperi ministerium praebuit angelorum, qui eum non extulerunt in marmoreum tumulum, sed in Abrahae gremium sustulerunt. Rident haec illi, contra quos defendendam suscepimus ciuitatem Dei. Verum tamen sepulturae curam etiam eorum philosophi contemserunt. Et saepe uniuersi exercitus, dum pro terrena patria morerentur, ubi postea iacerent uel quibus bestiis esca fierent, non curarunt, licuitque de hac re poetis plausibiliter dicere: Caelo tegitur, qui non habet urnam. Quanto minus debent de corporibus insepultis insultare Christianis, quibus et ipsius carnis membrorumque omnium reformatio non solum ex terra, uerum etiam ex aliorum elementorum secretissimo sinu, quo dilapsa cadauera recesserunt, in temporis puncto reddenda et redintegranda promittitur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. On the burial of human bodies, which takes nothing away from Christians even if it is denied them.

But, they say, in such a slaughter the corpses could not even be buried. Godly faith does not greatly dread this either, holding the promise that even devouring beasts will not harm bodies that are to rise, bodies of which “not a hair of the head will perish.” The Truth would by no means say, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul,” if whatever enemies wished to do to the bodies of the slain could harm the life to come. Unless perhaps someone is so absurd as to argue that those who kill the body should not be feared before death, lest they kill the body, but should be feared after death, lest they prevent the slain body from being buried. Then what he said is false: “Who kill the body and afterwards have nothing more they can do,” if they have so much they can do to corpses. Far be it that what the Truth said should be false! For it is said that they do something when they kill, because there is feeling in the body as it is killed, but that afterwards they have nothing they can do, because there is no feeling in the slain body. So the earth did not cover many bodies of Christians, but no one separated any of them from heaven and earth, the whole of which he fills with his presence who knows how to raise up what he created. It is indeed said in the psalm: “They have given the mortal remains of your servants as food to the birds of the sky, the flesh of your saints to the beasts of the earth; they have poured out their blood like water around Jerusalem, and there was no one to bury them.” But this was said rather to magnify the cruelty of those who did these things than the unhappiness of those who suffered them. For though these things seem hard and dreadful in the sight of men, yet “precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.” So all these things, the care of the funeral, the manner of burial, the pomp of the procession, are consolations for the living rather than aids for the dead. If a costly burial profits the ungodly, a cheap one or none will harm the godly. A crowd of servants gave that rich man in purple a splendid funeral in the sight of men; but a far more glorious one in the sight of the Lord was given to that poor man covered with sores by the ministry of angels, who did not carry him out to a marble tomb but lifted him up into Abraham's bosom. Those against whom we have undertaken to defend the city of God laugh at this. Yet even their philosophers despised the care of burial. And often whole armies, while dying for their earthly country, did not care where they would lie afterwards or to what beasts they would become food, and poets could say of this, to applause: “He who has no urn is covered by the sky.” How much less ought they to mock Christians over unburied bodies, to whom it is promised that the flesh itself and all its members will be restored and made whole in a moment of time, not only from the earth but also from the most hidden bosom of the other elements into which dissolved corpses have withdrawn.

### Scripture references

- Luke 21:18: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 10:28: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 12:4: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 79:2–3 (78:2-Ps LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 116:15 (115:6 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Luke 16:22: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Lucan, 7.819 (Lucan, Civil War): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Luke 21:18; Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:4; Psalm 79:2–3 (LXX/Vulgate 78:2–3); Psalm 116:15 (LXX/Vulgate 115:6); Luke 16:22; Lucan, Pharsalia 7.819.
- The editor deletes “Christ” after “what he said” and “that is” before “the care of the funeral” (square brackets); both are left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.12 (CSEL 40:23–25; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-12).

## City of God 1.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-13
- Source: CSEL 40:25–27
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that the bodies of the righteous deserve honorable burial, as Scripture shows, but that lack of burial does not harm the dead.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. Quae sit ratio sanctorum corpora sepeliendi. Nec ideo tamen contemnenda et abicienda sunt corpora defunctorum maximeque iustorum adque fidelium, quibus tamquam organis et uasis ad omnia bona opera sancte usus est Spiritus. Si enim paterna uestis et anulus, ac si quid huius modi, tanto carius est posteris, quanto erga parentes maior adfectus: nullo modo ipsa spernenda sunt corpora, quae utique multo familiarius adque coniunctius quam quaelibet indumenta gestamus. Haec enim non ad ornamentum uel adiutorium, quod adhibetur extrinsecus, sed ad ipsam naturam hominis pertinent. Unde et antiquorum iustorum funera officiosa pietate curata sunt et exsequiae celebratae et sepultura prouisa, ipsique cum uiuerent de sepeliendis uel etiam transferendis suis corporibus filiis mandauerunt, et Tobias sepeliendo mortuos Deum promeruisse teste angelo commendatur. Ipse quoque Dominus die tertio resurrecturus religiosae mulieris bonum opus praedicat praedicandumque commendat, quod unguentum pretiosum super membra eius effuderit adque hoc ad eum sepeliendum fecerit. Et laudabiliter commemorantur in euangelio qui corpus eius de cruce acceptum diligenter adque honorifice tegendum sepeliendumque curarunt. Verum istae auctoritates non hoc admonent, quod insit ullus cadaueribus sensus, sed ad Dei prouidentiam, cui placent etiam talia pietatis officia, corpora quoque mortuorum pertinere significant propter fidem resurrectionis adstruendam. Ubi et illud salubriter discitur, quanta possit esse remuneratio pro elemosynis, quas uiuentibus et sentientibus exhibemus, si neque hoc aput Deum perit, quod exanimis hominum membris officii diligentiaeque persoluitur. Sunt quidem et alia, quae sancti patriarchae de corporibus suis uel condendis uel transferendis prophetico spiritu dicta intellegi uoluerunt; non autem hic locus est, ut ea pertractemus, cum sufficiant ista, quae diximus. Sed si ea, quae sustentandis uiuentibus sunt necessaria, sicut uictus et amictus, quamuis cum graui adflictione desint, non frangunt in bonis perferendi tolerandique uirtutem nec eradicant ex animo pietatem, sed exercitatam faciunt fecundiorem: quanto magis, cum desunt ea, quae curandis funeribus condendisque corporibus defunctorum adhiberi solent, non efficiunt miseros in occultis piorum sedibus iam quietos! Ac per hoc quando ista cadaueribus Christianorum in illa magnae urbis uel etiam aliorum oppidorum uastatione defuerunt, nec uiuorum culpa est, qui non potuerunt ista praebere, nec poena mortuorum, qui non possunt ista sentire.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. The reason for burying the bodies of the saints.

Yet the bodies of the dead, especially of the righteous and faithful, are not for that reason to be despised and cast away, bodies which the Spirit has used in holiness as organs and vessels for every good work. For if a father's garment and ring, or anything of that kind, is dearer to his descendants the greater their affection for their parents, then the bodies themselves are by no means to be spurned, which we wear far more intimately and closely than any clothing. For these belong not to ornament or to an aid applied from outside, but to the very nature of man. Hence the funerals of the righteous of old were cared for with dutiful devotion, their obsequies celebrated and their burial provided; and they themselves, while they lived, gave their sons instructions about burying or even moving their bodies; and Tobit, on the angel's testimony, is commended for having won God's favor by burying the dead. The Lord himself too, who was to rise on the third day, proclaims the good work of a devout woman and commends it to be proclaimed, because she poured precious ointment over his limbs and did this for his burial. And those who took his body from the cross and took care that it was wrapped and buried with diligence and honor are mentioned with praise in the gospel. These authorities, however, do not teach that there is any feeling in corpses; they signify that the bodies of the dead too belong to the providence of God, who is pleased even by such offices of devotion, and this to support faith in the resurrection. And here we also learn, to our benefit, how great the reward can be for the alms we give to the living who can feel, if not even what is paid in duty and care to the lifeless limbs of men is lost with God. There are indeed other things that the holy patriarchs said about the burial or moving of their bodies which they wished to be understood as spoken by a prophetic spirit; but this is not the place to treat them, since what we have said is enough. But if the things needed to sustain the living, such as food and clothing, even when they are lacking with severe affliction, do not break the strength of the good to bear and endure, nor root godliness out of their soul, but make it more fruitful by exercising it, how much less, when the things usually applied to caring for funerals and burying the bodies of the dead are lacking, do they make wretched those who already rest in the hidden dwellings of the godly! And so, when these things were lacking to the corpses of Christians in that devastation of the great City or of other towns as well, it is neither the fault of the living, who could not provide them, nor the punishment of the dead, who cannot feel them.

### Scripture references

- Gen 47:29–30: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 50:24–25: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 26:10–13: allusion, high confidence
- John 19:38–42: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Tob 12:12 (Tobit): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: the patriarchs' instructions about their bones (Genesis 47:29–30; 50:24–25); Tobit 12:12; the anointing at Bethany (Matthew 26:10–13); the burial of Jesus (John 19:38–42).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.13 (CSEL 40:25–27; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-13).

## City of God 1.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-14
- Source: CSEL 40:27
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine consoles Christian captives with the examples of the three young men, Daniel, and Jonah, and contrasts pagan belief in the legend of Arion.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. De captiuitate sanctorum, quibus numquam diuina solacia defuerunt. Sed multi, inquiunt, Christiani etiam captiui ducti sunt. Hoc sane miserrimum est, si aliquo duci potuerunt, ubi Deum suum non inuenerunt. Sunt in scripturis sanctis huius etiam cladis magna solacia. Fuerunt in captiuitate tres pueri, fuit Daniel, fuerunt alii prophetae; nec Deus defuit consolator. Sic ergo non deseruit fideles suos sub dominatione gentis, licet barbarae, tamen humanae, qui prophetam non deseruit nec in uisceribus beluae. Haec quoque illi, cum quibus agimus, malunt inridere quam credere, qui tamen [in] suis litteris credunt Arionem Methymnaeum, nobilissimum citharistam, cum esset deiectus e naui, exceptum delphini dorso et ad terras esse peruectum. Verum illud nostrum de Iona propheta incredibilius est. Plane incredibilius quia mirabilius, et mirabilius quia potentius.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. On the captivity of the saints, who never lacked divine comfort.

But, they say, many Christians were even led away captive. This would indeed be most wretched if they could be led anywhere where they did not find their God. In the holy Scriptures there are great comforts for this disaster too. The three young men were in captivity; Daniel was; other prophets were; and God was not lacking as their comforter. So he who did not desert the prophet even in the belly of the beast has not deserted his faithful under the rule of a nation that is barbarian, yet human. These things too the people we are dealing with prefer to mock rather than believe; yet they believe their own literature when it says that Arion of Methymna, the famous lyre-player, when he was thrown from a ship, was taken up on a dolphin's back and carried to land. But, they say, our story of the prophet Jonah is more incredible. Certainly more incredible, because more wonderful; and more wonderful, because more powerful.

### Scripture references

- Dan 3:1–30: allusion, high confidence
- Dan 1:1–6: allusion, medium confidence
- Jonah 1:17–2:10: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Herodotus, Hist. 1.23–24 (Herodotus, Histories): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Daniel 1–3; Jonah 1:17–2:10. The story of Arion is told in Herodotus 1.23–24 and in Latin authors.
- The editor deletes “in” before “their own literature” (square brackets); left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.14 (CSEL 40:27; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-14).

## City of God 1.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-15
- Source: CSEL 40:27–30
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues from the story of Regulus, tortured to death by the Carthaginians after keeping his oath to the gods, that worship of the gods does not secure temporal happiness.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. De Regulo, in quo captiuitatis ob religionem etiam sponte tolerandae extat exemplum, quod tamen illi deos colenti prodesse non potuit. Habent tamen isti de captiuitate religionis causa etiam sponte toleranda et in suis praeclaris uiris nobilissimum exemplum. M. Regulus, imperator populi Romani, captiuus aput Carthaginienses fuit. Qui cum sibi mallent a Romanis suos reddi quam eorum tenere captiuos, ad hoc inpetrandum etiam istum praecipue Regulum cum legatis suis Romam miserunt, prius iuratione constrictum, si quod uolebant minime peregisset, rediturum esse Carthaginem. Perrexit ille adque in senatu contraria persuasit, quoniam non arbitrabatur utile esse Romanae rei publicae mutare captiuos. Nec post hanc persuasionem a suis ad hostes redire conpulsus est, sed quia iurauerat, id sponte conpleuit. At illi eum excogitatis adque horrendis cruciatibus necauerunt. Inclusum quippe angusto ligno, ubi stare cogeretur, clauisque acutissimis undique confixo, ut se in nullam eius partem sine poenis atrocissimis inclinaret, etiam uigilando peremerunt. Merito certe laudant uirtutem tam magna infelicitate maiorem. Et per deos ille iurauerat, quorum cultu prohibito has generi humano clades isti opinantur infligi. Qui ergo propterea colebantur, ut istam uitam prosperam redderent, si uerum iuranti has inrogari poenas seu uoluerunt seu permiserunt, quid periuro grauius irati facere potuerunt? Sed quur non ratiocinationem meam potius ad utrumque concludam? Deos certe ille sic coluit, ut propter iuris iurandi fidem nec maneret in patria, nec inde quolibet ire, sed ad suos acerrimos inimicos redire minime dubitaret. Hoc si huic uitae utile existimabat, cuius tam horrendum exitum meruit, procul dubio fallebatur. Suo quippe docuit exemplo nihil deos ad istam temporalem felicitatem suis prodesse cultoribus, quando quidem ille eorum deditus cultui et uictus et captiuus abductus et, quia noluit aliter quam per eos iurauerat facere, nouo ac prius inaudito nimiumque horribili supplicii genere cruciatus extinctus est. Si autem deorum cultus post hanc uitam uelut mercedem reddit felicitatem, quur calumniantur temporibus Christianis, ideo dicentes Urbi accidisse illam calamitatem, quia deos suos colere destitit, cum potuerit etiam illos diligentissime colens tam infelix fieri, quam ille Regulus fuit? Nisi forte contra clarissimam ueritatem tanta quisquam dementia mirae caecitatis obnititur, ut contendere audeat uniuersam ciuitatem deos colentem infelicem esse non posse, unum uero hominem posse, quod uidelicet potentia deorum suorum multos potius sit idonea conseruare quam singulos, cum multitudo constet ex singulis. Si autem dicunt M. Regulum etiam in illa captiuitate illisque cruciatibus corporis animi uirtute beatum esse potuisse, uirtus potius uera quaeratur, qua beata esse possit et ciuitas. Neque enim aliunde beata ciuitas, aliunde homo, cum aliud ciuitas non sit quam concors hominum multitudo. Quam ob rem nondum interim disputo, qualis in Regulo uirtus fuerit: sufficit nunc, quod isto nobilissimo exemplo coguntur fateri non propter corporis bona uel earum rerum, quae extrinsecus homini accidunt, colendos deos, quando quidem ille carere his omnibus maluit quam deos per quos iurauit offendere. Sed quid faciamus hominibus, qui gloriantur se talem habuisse ciuem, qualem timent habere ciuitatem? Quod si non timent, tale ergo aliquid, quale accidit Regulo, etiam ciuitati tam diligenter quam ille deos colenti accidere potuisse fateantur et Christianis temporibus non calumnientur. Verum quia de illis Christianis orta quaestio est, qui etiam captiuati sunt, hoc intueantur et taceant, qui saluberrimae religioni hinc inpudenter adque inprudenter inludunt, quia, si dis eorum probro non fuit, quod adtentissimus cultor illorum, dum eis iuris iurandi fidem seruaret, patria caruit, cum aliam non haberet, captiuusque aput hostes per longam mortem supplicio nouae crudelitatis occisus est, multo minus nomen criminandum est Christianum in captiuitate sacratorum suorum, qui supernam patriam ueraci fide expectantes etiam in suis sedibus peregrinos se esse nouerunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. On Regulus, who offers an example of captivity endured even voluntarily for the sake of religion, which yet could not profit him though he worshipped the gods.

Yet these people have among their own famous men a most noble example of captivity endured even voluntarily for religion's sake. Marcus Regulus, a commander of the Roman people, was a captive among the Carthaginians. Since they preferred to have their own men returned by the Romans rather than to keep the Romans' men as captives, they sent this Regulus above all to Rome with their envoys to obtain this, having first bound him by an oath that, if he did not accomplish what they wanted, he would return to Carthage. He went, and in the senate he argued for the opposite, because he did not think it was in the interest of the Roman state to exchange captives. After this argument he was not compelled by his own people to return to the enemy, but because he had sworn, he did so of his own will. And they killed him with elaborate and horrible tortures. For they shut him up in a narrow wooden box, where he was forced to stand, studded on every side with very sharp nails, so that he could not lean in any direction without the most atrocious pain, and they killed him by keeping him awake as well. They are right, surely, to praise a virtue greater than so great a misfortune. And he had sworn by the gods, the prohibition of whose worship, these people think, is inflicting these disasters on the human race. If, then, these gods, who were worshipped so that they would make this life prosperous, either willed or permitted these punishments to be inflicted on a man who kept his oath, what worse could they have done in their anger to a perjurer? But why should I not conclude my reasoning both ways? He certainly worshipped the gods in such a way that, for the sake of keeping his oath, he would neither stay in his homeland nor go anywhere else from there, but did not hesitate at all to return to his bitterest enemies. If he thought this was useful for this life, whose end he found so horrible, he was without doubt mistaken. For by his own example he taught that the gods do not help their worshippers at all toward this temporal happiness, since he, devoted to their worship, was both conquered and led away captive, and, because he would not act otherwise than he had sworn by them, was tormented and killed by a new, previously unheard-of, and exceedingly horrible kind of punishment. But if the worship of the gods gives happiness after this life as a reward, why do they slander the Christian times, saying that the disaster befell the City because it stopped worshipping its gods, when even worshipping them most diligently it could have become as unhappy as Regulus was? Unless perhaps someone struggles against the plainest truth with such madness of astonishing blindness as to dare to argue that a whole city worshipping the gods cannot be unhappy, but one man can, because the power of their gods is suited to preserve many rather than individuals, when a multitude consists of individuals. But if they say that Marcus Regulus, even in that captivity and those bodily torments, could be happy by the virtue of his mind, then let true virtue rather be sought, by which a city too can be happy. For a city is not happy from one source and a man from another, since a city is nothing other than a multitude of men in concord. For this reason I do not yet discuss what kind of virtue there was in Regulus; it is enough for now that by this most noble example they are compelled to admit that the gods are not to be worshipped for bodily goods or for the things that happen to a man from outside, since he preferred to lack all these things rather than offend the gods by whom he had sworn. But what are we to do with people who boast of having had such a citizen as they fear to have as a city? And if they do not fear it, then let them admit that something like what befell Regulus could have befallen a city too that worshipped the gods as diligently as he did, and let them not slander the Christian times. But since the question arose about those Christians who were even taken captive, let those who impudently and imprudently mock the most wholesome religion on this ground consider this and be silent: if it was no disgrace to their gods that their most attentive worshipper, while keeping faith with his oath to them, lost his homeland, having no other, and as a captive among the enemy was killed by a long death through a punishment of new cruelty, much less is the Christian name to be accused on account of the captivity of its consecrated people, who, awaiting the heavenly homeland with true faith, know that they are pilgrims even in their own dwellings.

### Scripture references

- Heb 11:13–16: echo, low confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Off. 3.99–100 (Cicero): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- The story of Marcus Atilius Regulus (First Punic War) was widely told, e.g. in Cicero, On Duties 3.99–100, and in the lost books of Livy.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.15 (CSEL 40:27–30; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-15).

## City of God 1.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-16
- Source: CSEL 40:30–31
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine begins to answer pagan taunts about women, including consecrated virgins, raped during the sack, holding that chastity is a virtue of the will which another's violence cannot take away.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. An stupris, quae etiam sacrarum forte uirginum est passa captiuitas, contaminari potuerit uirtus animi sine uoluntatis adsensu. Magnum sane crimen se putant obicere Christianis, cum eorum exaggerantes captiuitatem addunt etiam stupra commissa, non solum in aliena matrimonia uirginesque nupturas, sed etiam in quasdam sanctimoniales. Hic uero non fides, non pietas, non ipsa uirtus, quae castitas dicitur, sed nostra potius disputatio inter pudorem adque rationem quibusdam coartatur angustiis. Nec tantum hic curamus alienis responsionem reddere, quantum ipsis nostris consolationem. Sit igitur in primis positum adque firmatum uirtutem, qua recte uiuitur, ab animi sede membris corporis imperare sanctumque corpus usu fieri sanctae uoluntatis, qua inconcussa ac stabili permanente, quidquid alius de corpore uel in corpore fecerit, quod sine peccato proprio non ualeat euitari, praeter culpam esse patientis. Sed quia non solum quod ad dolorem, uerum etiam quod ad libidinem pertinet, in corpore alieno perpetrari potest: quidquid tale factum fuerit, etsi retentam constantissimo animo pudicitiam non excutit, tamen pudorem incutit, ne credatur factum cum mentis etiam uoluntate, quod fieri fortasse sine carnis aliqua uoluptate non potuit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. Whether the violations which captivity, even of consecrated virgins, may have suffered could defile the virtue of the mind without the consent of the will.

They certainly think they are bringing a great charge against the Christians when, exaggerating their captivity, they add the violations committed not only against other men's wives and girls about to marry, but even against some consecrated women. Here it is not faith, not godliness, not the virtue itself that is called chastity, but rather our discussion that is squeezed into a tight place between modesty and reason. Nor are we so much concerned here to give an answer to outsiders as to give consolation to our own. Let it be laid down and established first, then, that the virtue by which one lives rightly rules the members of the body from its seat in the mind, and that the body is made holy by the exercise of a holy will; and while that will remains unshaken and steadfast, whatever another does with the body or in the body, which cannot be avoided without sin on one's own part, is no fault of the one who suffers it. But since not only what pertains to pain but also what pertains to lust can be perpetrated on another's body, whatever of that kind has been done, even if it does not strike out the chastity held fast by a most constant mind, still strikes in shame, lest it be believed that what perhaps could not happen without some pleasure of the flesh was done with the consent of the mind as well.

### Translation notes

- Stuprum, rendered “sexual immorality” elsewhere on this site, here refers to rape in war and is rendered “violation”.
- “Does not strike out … strikes in shame” renders the wordplay non excutit … incutit.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.16 (CSEL 40:30–31; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-16).

## City of God 1.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-17
- Source: CSEL 40:31–32
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine holds that suicide is homicide, forbidden even to avoid rape, and illustrates this with the despairing suicide of Judas.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. De morte uoluntaria ob metum poenae siue dedecoris. Ac per hoc et quae se occiderunt, ne quidquam huius modi paterentur, quis humanus adfectus eis nolit ignosci ( et quae se occidere noluerunt, ne suo facinore alienum flagitium deuitarent, quisquis [eis] hoc crimini dederit, ipse crimen insipientiae non cauebit. Nam utique si non licet priuata potestate hominem occidere uel nocentem, cuius occidendi licentiam lex nulla concedit, profecto etiam qui se ipsum occidit homicida est, et tanto fit nocentior cum se occiderit, quanto innocentior in ea causa fuit, qua se occidendum putauit. Nam si Iudae factum merito detestamur eumque ueritas iudicat, cum se laqueo suspendit, sceleratae illius traditionis auxisse potius quam expiasse commissum, quoniam Dei misericordiam desperando exitiabiliter paenitens nullum sibi salubris paenitentiae locum reliquit: quanto magis a sua nece se abstinere debet, qui tali supplicio quod in se puniat non habet. Iudas enim cum se occidit, sceleratum hominem occidit, et tamen non solum Christi, uerum etiam suae mortis reus finiuit hanc uitam, quia licet propter suum scelus alio suo scelere occisus est. Quur autem homo, qui mali nihil fecit, sibi malefaciat et se ipsum interficiendo hominem interficiat innocentem, ne alium patiatur nocentem, adque in se perpetret peccatum proprium, ne in eo perpetretur alienum?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. On voluntary death through fear of punishment or disgrace.

And so, as for those women who killed themselves so as not to suffer anything of this kind, what human feeling would refuse to forgive them? And as for those who refused to kill themselves, so as not to avoid another's outrage by their own crime, whoever counts this against them will not escape the charge of folly himself. For certainly, if it is not lawful to kill a man on private authority, even a guilty one, since no law grants leave to kill him, then surely he who kills himself is also a homicide, and he becomes the more guilty in killing himself the more innocent he was in the matter for which he thought he should be killed. For if we rightly detest the deed of Judas, and the Truth judges that when he hanged himself with a noose he increased rather than expiated the guilt of that wicked betrayal, since, despairing of God's mercy, he repented to his destruction and left himself no room for saving repentance, how much more should one who has nothing in himself to punish by such a penalty abstain from killing himself! For when Judas killed himself he killed a wicked man, and yet he ended this life guilty not only of Christ's death but of his own, because, though he was killed on account of his crime, he was killed by another crime of his own. Why then should a man who has done no wrong do wrong to himself, and by killing himself kill an innocent man so as not to suffer a guilty one, and commit his own sin against himself so that another's may not be committed against him?

### Scripture references

- Matt 27:3–5: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Matthew 27:3–5. Augustine treats with pity women who killed themselves to avoid rape, while arguing that suicide is not lawful.
- The editor deletes “them” (eis) in the second sentence (square brackets); left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.17 (CSEL 40:31–32; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-17).

## City of God 1.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-18
- Source: CSEL 40:32–34
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that chastity, as a virtue of the mind, is not lost when the body is violated against the will, so a raped woman has nothing to punish in herself by suicide.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. De aliena uiolentaque libidine, quam in oppresso corpore mens inuita perpetitur. At enim, ne uel aliena polluat libido, metuitur. Non polluet, si aliena erit; si autem polluet, aliena non erit. Sed cum pudicitia uirtus sit animi comitemque habeat fortitudinem, qua potius quaelibet mala tolerare quam malo consentire decernit, nullus autem magnanimus et pudicus in potestate habeat, quid de sua carne fiat, sed tantum quid adnuat mente uel renuat: quis eadem sana mente putauerit perdere se pudicitiam, si forte in adprehensa et oppressa carne sua exerceatur et expleatur libido non sua? Si enim hoc modo pudicitia perit, profecto pudicitia uirtus animi non erit, nec pertinebit ad ea bona, quibus bene uiuitur, sed in bonis corporis numerabitur, qualia sunt uires pulchritudo sana ualetudo, ac si quid huius modi est; quae bona, etiamsi minuantur, bonam iustamque uitam omnino non minuunt. Quod si tale aliquid est pudicitia, ut quid pro illa, ne amittatur, etiam periculo corporis laboratur? Si autem animi bonum est, etiam obpresso corpore non amittitur. Quin etiam sanctae continentiae bonum cum inmunditiae carnalium concupiscentiarum non cedit, et ipsum corpus sanctificatur, et ideo, cum eis non cedere inconcussa intentione persistit, nec de ipso corpore perit sanctitas, quia eo sancte utendi perseuerat uoluntas et, quantum est in ipso, etiam facultas. Neque enim eo corpus sanctum est, quod eius membra sunt integra, aut eo, quod nullo contrectantur adtactu, cum possint diuersis casibus etiam uulnerata uim perpeti, et medici aliquando saluti opitulantes haec ibi faciant, quae horret aspectus. Obstetrix uirginis cuiusdam integritatem manu uelut explorans siue maleuolentia siue inscitia siue casu, dum inspicit, perdidit. Non opinor quemquam tam stulte sapere, ut huic perisse aliquid existimet etiam de ipsius corporis sanctitate, quamuis membri illius integritate iam perdita. Quocirca proposito animi permanente, per quod etiam corpus sanctificari meruit, nec ipsi corpori aufert sanctitatem uiolentia libidinis alienae, quam seruat perseuerantia continentiae suae. An uero si aliqua femina mente corrupta uiolatoque proposito, quod Deo uouerat, pergat uitianda ad deceptorem suum, ad hoc eam pergentem sanctam uel corpore dicimus, ea sanctitate animi, per quam corpus sanctificabatur, amissa adque destructa? Absit hic error et hinc potius admoneamur ita non amitti corporis sanctitatem manente animi sanctitate etiam corpore obpresso, sicut amittitur et corporis sanctitas uiolata animi sanctitate etiam corpore intacto. Quam ob rem non habet quod in se morte spontanea puniat femina sine ulla sua consensione uiolenter obpressa et alieno conpressa peccato; quanto minus antequam hoc fiat! ne admittatur homicidium certum, cum ipsum flagitium, quamuis alienum, adhuc pendet incertum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. On another's violent lust, which the mind suffers unwillingly in a body overpowered.

But, it is said, the fear is that even another's lust may pollute. It will not pollute if it is another's; if it pollutes, it will not be another's. But since chastity is a virtue of the mind, and has courage as its companion, by which it resolves to endure any evils rather than consent to evil, and since no one, however great of soul and chaste, has it in his power what is done with his flesh, but only what he assents to or refuses in his mind, who in his right mind would think that he loses his chastity if perhaps in his seized and overpowered flesh a lust not his own is exercised and satisfied? For if chastity perishes in this way, then chastity will not be a virtue of the mind, nor will it belong to the goods by which one lives well; it will be counted among the goods of the body, such as strength, beauty, sound health, and anything of that kind, goods which, even if they are diminished, do not diminish a good and just life at all. But if chastity is something of that kind, why do people struggle for it, lest it be lost, even at the peril of the body? If, however, it is a good of the mind, it is not lost even when the body is overpowered. Indeed, when the good of holy continence does not yield to the uncleanness of carnal desires, the body itself is also made holy; and therefore, while it persists with unshaken purpose in not yielding to them, holiness does not perish even from the body itself, because the will to use it in holiness remains, and, as far as lies in the body, the capacity as well. For the body is not holy because its members are intact, or because they are not handled by any touch, since they can suffer violence by various accidents, even wounds, and doctors, when helping toward health, sometimes do things there that make one shudder to see. A midwife, examining a certain virgin's integrity by hand, whether from malice, ignorance, or accident, destroyed it while she examined it. I do not think anyone is so foolishly wise as to think that she lost anything even of the holiness of her body, although the integrity of that member was now lost. Therefore, while the purpose of the mind remains, through which the body too was found worthy to be made holy, the violence of another's lust does not take away holiness even from the body itself, which the perseverance of its own continence preserves. Or indeed, if some woman, her mind corrupted and the vow she had made to God violated, goes to her seducer to be defiled, do we call her holy even in body as she goes, when that holiness of mind by which the body was made holy has been lost and destroyed? Far be this error from us! Let us rather be taught by this that, just as the holiness of the body is not lost while the holiness of the mind remains, even when the body is overpowered, so the holiness of the body is lost when the holiness of the mind is violated, even if the body is untouched. Therefore a woman who has been violently overpowered without any consent of her own, and forced by another's sin, has nothing to punish in herself by voluntary death; how much less before it happens, lest a certain homicide be committed while the outrage itself, though another's, is still uncertain!

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.18 (CSEL 40:32–34; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-18).

## City of God 1.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-19
- Source: CSEL 40:34–37
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine uses the story of Lucretia to show that a woman raped against her will is not guilty, and that Lucretia's suicide came from shame rather than love of chastity, unlike Christian women who chose to live.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. De Lucretia, quae se ob inlatum sibi stuprum peremit. An forte huic perspicuae rationi, qua dicimus corpore obpresso nequaquam proposito castitatis ulla in malum consensione mutato illius tantum esse flagitium, qui obprimens concubuerit, non illius, quae obpressa concumbenti nulla uoluntate consenserit, contradicere audebunt hi, contra quos feminarum Christianarum in captiuitate obpressarum non tantum mentes, uerum etiam corpora sancta defendimus? Lucretiam certe, matronam nobilem ueteremque Romanam, pudicitiae magnis efferunt laudibus. Huius corpore cum uiolenter obpresso Tarquinii regis filius libidinose potitus esset, illa scelus inprobissimi iuuenis marito Collatino et propinquo Bruto, uiris clarissimis et fortissimis, indicauit eosque ad uindictam constrinxit. Deinde foedi in se commissi aegra adque inpatiens se peremit. Quid dicemus? Adultera haec an casta iudicanda est? Quis in hac controuersia laborandum putauerit? Egregie quidam ex hoc ueraciterque declamans ait: Mirabile dictu, duo fuerunt et adulterium unus admisit. Splendide adque uerissime. Intuens enim in duorum corporum commixtione unius inquinatissimam cupiditatem, alterius castissimam uoluntatem, et non quid coniunctione membrorum, sed quid animorum diuersitate ageretur adtendens: Duo, inquit, fuerunt, et adulterium unus admisit. Sed quid est hoc, quod in eam grauius uindicatur, quae adulterium non admisit? Nam ille patria cum patre pulsus est. haec summo est mactata supplicio. Si non est illa inpudicitia qua inuita obprimitur, non est haec iustitia qua casta punitur. Vos appello, leges iudicesque Romani. Nempe post perpetrata facinora nec quemquam scelestum indemnatum inpune uoluistis occidi. Si ergo ad uestrum iudicium quisquam deferret hoc crimen uobisque probaretur non solum indemnatam, uerum etiam castam et innocentem interfectam esse mulierem, nonne eum, qui id fecisset, seueritate congrua plecteretis? Hoc fecit illa Lucretia; illa, illa sic praedicata Lucretia innocentem, castam, uim perpessam Lucretiam insuper interemit. Proferte sententiam. Quod si propterea non potestis, quia non adstat quam punire possitis, quur interfectricem innocentis et castae tanta praedicatione laudatis? Quam certe aput infernos iudices etiam tales, quales poetarum uestrorum carminibus cantitantur, nulla ratione defenditis, constitutam inter illos scilicet,. qui sibi letum Insontes peperere manu lucemque perosi Proiecere animas; cui ad superna redire cupienti Fas obstat, tristisque palus inamabilis undae Adligat. An forte ideo ibi non est, quia non insontem, sed male sibi consciam se peremit? Quid si enim (quod ipsa tantummodo nosse poterat) quamuis iuueni uiolenter inruenti etiam sua libidine inlecta consensit idque in se puniens ita doluit, ut morte putaret expiandum? Quamquam ne sic quidem se occidere debuit, si fructuosam posset aput deos falsos agere paenitentiam. Verum tamen si forte ita est falsumque est illud, quod duo fuerunt et adulterium unus admisit, sed potius ambo adulterium commiserunt, unus manifesta inuasione, altera latente consensione, non se occidit insontem, et ideo potest a litteratis eius defensoribus dici non esse aput inferos inter illos, <qui sibi letum insontes peperere manu. Sed ita haec causa ex utroque latere coartatur, ut, si extenuatur homicidium, adulterium confirmetur; si purgatur adulterium, homicidium cumuletur; nec omnino inuenitur exitus, ubi dicitur: Si adulterata, quur laudata; si pudica, quur occisa?* Nobis tamen hoc tam nobili feminae huius exemplo ad istos refutandos, qui Christianis feminis in captiuitate conpressis alieni ab omni cogitatione sanctitatis insultant, sufficit quod in praeclaris eius laudibus dictum est: Duo fuerunt et adulterium unus admisit. Talis enim ab eis Lucretia magis credita est, quae se nullo adulterino potuerit maculare consensu. Quod ergo se ipsam, quoniam adulterum pertulit, etiam non adultera occidit, non est pudicitiae caritas, sed pudoris infirmitas. Puduit enim eam turpitudinis alienae in se commissae etiamsi non secum, et Romana mulier, laudis auida nimium, uerita est ne putaretur, quod uiolenter est passa cum uiueret, libenter passa si uiueret. Unde ad oculos hominum testem mentis suae illam poenam adhibendam putauit, quibus conscientiam demonstrare non potuit. Sociam quippe facti se credi erubuit, si, quod alius in ea fecerat turpiter, ferret ipsa patienter. Non hoc fecerunt feminae Christianae, quae passae similia uiuunt tamen nec in se ultae sunt crimen alienum, ne aliorum sceleribus adderent sua, si, quoniam hostes in eis concupiscendo stupra commiserant, illae in se ipsis homicidia erubescendo committerent. Habent quippe intus gloriam castitatis, testimonium conscientiae; habent autem coram oculis Dei sui nec requirunt amplius, ubi quid recte faciant non habent amplius, ne deuient ab auctoritate legis diuinae, cum male deuitant offensionem suspicionis humanae.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. On Lucretia, who killed herself because of the violation inflicted on her.

Will they perhaps dare to contradict this clear reasoning, by which we say that when the body is overpowered, and the purpose of chastity is in no way changed by any consent to evil, the outrage belongs only to him who lay with her by force, and not to her who was forced and consented to him with no will of her own, they, I mean, against whom we are defending not only the minds but also the holy bodies of Christian women overpowered in captivity? They certainly extol Lucretia, a noble matron of old Rome, with great praise for her chastity. When the son of King Tarquin had lustfully taken possession of her body by force, she disclosed the crime of that most wicked young man to her husband Collatinus and her kinsman Brutus, men of great distinction and courage, and bound them to avenge it. Then, sick at heart and unable to bear the foul thing done to her, she killed herself. What shall we say? Is she to be judged an adulteress or chaste? Who would think this question needs much labor? Someone, declaiming on this, said excellently and truly: “Marvelous to tell, there were two, and only one committed adultery.” Brilliantly and most truly said. For looking at the most defiled desire of the one and the most chaste will of the other in the joining of two bodies, and attending not to what was done by the union of members but to what was done by the difference of minds, he said: “There were two, and only one committed adultery.” But what is this, that the heavier vengeance falls on her who did not commit adultery? For he was driven from his homeland with his father; she suffered the supreme penalty. If that is not unchastity by which she is forced against her will, this is not justice by which a chaste woman is punished. I appeal to you, laws and judges of Rome. You did not wish even a criminal to be killed with impunity after his crimes without being condemned. If, then, someone brought this charge before your court, and it were proved to you that a woman had been killed, not only uncondemned, but chaste and innocent, would you not punish the one who did it with fitting severity? This is what that Lucretia did: that Lucretia, that so celebrated Lucretia, killed the innocent, chaste Lucretia who had suffered violence as well. Pronounce sentence. If you cannot do so because the one you could punish is not present, why do you praise with such celebration the slayer of an innocent and chaste woman? Certainly you can in no way defend her before the judges of the underworld, even such as are sung of in the poems of your poets, placed as she would be among those “who, guiltless, brought death on themselves by their own hand and, hating the light, threw away their lives”; she longs to return to the world above, but “divine law forbids, and the gloomy marsh of hateful water binds her.” Or perhaps she is not there because she killed herself not guiltless but conscious of guilt? For what if (a thing she alone could know), although the young man attacked her violently, she was also enticed by her own lust and consented, and, punishing this in herself, grieved so that she thought it had to be expiated by death? Even so she ought not to have killed herself, if she could have done fruitful penance before her false gods. Yet if perhaps it is so, and that saying, “There were two and only one committed adultery,” is false, and rather both committed adultery, the one by open assault, the other by hidden consent, then she did not kill herself guiltless, and so her learned defenders can say that she is not in the underworld among those “who, guiltless, brought death on themselves by their own hand.” But this case is so hemmed in on both sides that if the homicide is lessened the adultery is confirmed, and if the adultery is cleared the homicide is increased; and there is no way out at all when it is said: “If she was defiled, why praised? If chaste, why killed?” For us, however, to refute those who, strangers to every thought of holiness, insult Christian women who were forced in captivity, it is enough, from the example of this so noble woman, that it was said in her great praise: “There were two, and only one committed adultery.” For they preferred to believe Lucretia such that she could not have stained herself by any adulterous consent. That she killed herself, then, because she had suffered an adulterer, though she was no adulteress, was not love of chastity but weakness of shame. For she was ashamed of the foul deed of another committed on her, even if not with her; and as a Roman woman, too greedy for praise, she feared that if she lived it would be thought that what she had suffered by violence while she lived she had suffered willingly. So she thought she must apply that penalty as a witness of her mind before the eyes of men, to whom she could not show her conscience. For she blushed to be believed a partner in the deed if she bore patiently what another had shamefully done in her. The Christian women did not do this, who suffered similar things and yet live, and did not avenge on themselves another's crime, lest they add their own crimes to the crimes of others, if, because enemies had committed violations on them in lust, they should commit homicides on themselves in shame. For they have within them the glory of chastity, the testimony of conscience; they have it before the eyes of their God and seek nothing more, since they have nothing more in which to act rightly, lest they turn aside from the authority of the divine law while wrongly avoiding the offense of human suspicion.

### Scripture references

- 2 Cor 1:12: echo, low confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, 1.57–59 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 6.434–439 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The story is told in Livy 1.57–59. The saying “there were two, and only one committed adultery” is from an unidentified declaimer. Virgil, Aeneid 6.434–436 and 438–439 (those who took their own lives).
- Augustine's argument is translated as written; his speculation about Lucretia's possible consent is put hypothetically in the Latin.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.19 (CSEL 40:34–37; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-19).

## City of God 1.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-20
- Source: CSEL 40:37–39
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that the commandment “You shall not kill” forbids suicide, since it applies to human beings and makes no exception for oneself.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. Nullam esse auctoritatem, quae Christianis in qualibet causa ius uoluntariae necis tribuat. Neque enim frustra in sanctis canonicis libris nusquam nobis diuinitus praeceptum permissumue reperiri potest, ut uel ipsius adipiscendae inmortalitatis uel ullius cauendi carendiue mali causa nobismet ipsis necem inferamus. Nam et prohibitos nos esse intellegendum est, ubi lex ait: Non occides, praesertim quia non addidit: proximum tuum, sicut falsum testimonium cum uetaret: Falsum, inquit, testimonium non dices aduersus proximum tuum. Nec ideo tamen si aduersus se ipsum quisquam falsum testimonium dixerit, ab hoc crimine se putauerit alienum, quoniam regulam diligendi proximum a semet ipso dilector accepit, quando quidem scriptum est: Diliges pro x i mum tuum tamquam te ipsum. Porro si falsi testimonii non minus reus est qui de se ipso falsum fatetur, quam si aduersus proximum hoc faceret, cum in eo praecepto, quo falsum testimonium prohibetur, aduersus proximum prohibeatur possitque non recte intellegentibus uideri non esse prohibitum, ut aduersus se ipsum quisque falsus testis adsistat: quanto magis intellegendum est non licere homini se ipsum occidere, cum in eo, quod scriptum est: Non occides, nihilo deinde addito, nullus, nec ipse utique cui praecipitur, intellegatur exceptus! Unde quidam hoc praeceptum etiam in bestias ac pecora conantur extendere, ut ex hoc nullum etiam illorum liceat occidere. Quur ergo non et herbas et quicquid humo radicitus alitur ac figitur? Nam et hoc genus rerum, quamuis non sentiat, dicitur uiuere ac per hoc potest et mori, proinde etiam, cum uis adhibetur, occidi. Unde et apostolus, cum de huius modi seminibus loqueretur: Tu, inquit, quod seminas non uiuificatur, nisi moriatur; et in psalmo scriptum est: Occidit uites eorum in grandine. Num igitur ob hoc, cum audimus: Non occides, uirgultum uellere nefas ducimus et Manichaeorum errori insanissime adquiescimus? His igitur deliramentis remotis cum legimus: Non occides, si propterea non accipimus hoc dictum de frutectis esse, quia nullus eis sensus est, nec de inrationabilibus animantibus, uolatilibus natatilibus, ambulatilibus reptilibus, quia nulla nobis ratione sociantur, quam non eis datum est nobiscum habere communem (unde iustissima ordinatione creatoris et uita et mors eorum nostris usibus subditur): restat ut de homine intellegamus, quod dictum est: Non occides, nec alterum ergo nec te. Neque enim qui se occidit aliud quam hominem occidit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. That there is no authority which grants Christians the right of voluntary death for any reason.

It is not for nothing that nowhere in the holy canonical books can any divine command or permission be found for us to put ourselves to death, whether to obtain immortality itself or to avoid or escape any evil. For we must understand that we are forbidden where the law says: “You shall not kill,” especially because it did not add “your neighbor,” as it did when it forbade false witness: “You shall not,” it says, “bear false witness against your neighbor.” Yet if anyone bears false witness against himself, he should not therefore think himself free of this crime, since the one who loves has received the rule for loving his neighbor from himself, as it is written: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Further, if one who confesses a falsehood about himself is no less guilty of false witness than if he did it against his neighbor, although in the commandment forbidding false witness it is forbidden against one's neighbor, and to those who do not understand rightly it might seem not to be forbidden that anyone stand as a false witness against himself, how much more must it be understood that it is not lawful for a man to kill himself, since in the words “You shall not kill,” with nothing added afterwards, no one, not even the one to whom the command is given, is understood to be excepted! Hence some try to extend this commandment even to wild beasts and cattle, so that it is not lawful to kill any of them either. Why not then also plants and whatever is nourished and fixed in the ground by roots? For this class of things too, although it does not feel, is said to live, and therefore can also die, and so, when violence is used, be killed. Hence the apostle too, speaking of seeds of this kind, says: “What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies”; and it is written in the psalm: “He killed their vines with hail.” When we hear, “You shall not kill,” do we then count it a sin to pull up a shrub, and most madly acquiesce in the error of the Manichees? Setting aside these ravings, then, when we read, “You shall not kill,” if we do not take this as said of plants, because they have no feeling, nor of irrational animals, flying, swimming, walking, or creeping, because they are not joined to us by reason, which it has not been given them to have in common with us (whence by the most just ordinance of the Creator both their life and death are subject to our use), it remains that we understand what was said, “You shall not kill,” of man: therefore neither another nor yourself. For he who kills himself kills nothing other than a man.

### Scripture references

- Exod 20:13: quotation, high confidence
- Exod 20:16: quotation, high confidence
- Lev 19:18: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 22:39: quotation, medium confidence
- 1 Cor 15:36: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 78:47 (77:47 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Exodus 20:13, 16; Leviticus 19:18 (Matthew 22:39); 1 Corinthians 15:36; Psalm 78:47 (LXX/Vulgate 77:47). The Manichees held that plants contain particles of divine light and must not be harmed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.20 (CSEL 40:37–39; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-20).

## City of God 1.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-21
- Source: CSEL 40:39–40
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine names the exceptions to the prohibition of killing, namely killing commanded by God or by just public authority, and concludes that any other killing, including of oneself, is homicide.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. De interfectionibus hominum, quae ab homicidii crimine excipiuntur. Quasdam uero exceptiones eadem ipsa diuina fecit auctoritas, ut non liceat hominem occidi. Sed his exceptis, quos Deus occidi iubet siue data lege siue ad personam pro tempore expressa iussione, (non autem ipse occidit, qui ministerium debet iubenti, sicut adminiculum gladius utenti; et ideo nequaquam contra hoc praeceptum fecerunt, quo dictum est: Non occides, qui Deo auctore bella gesserunt aut personam gerentes publicae potestatis secundum eius leges, hoc est iustissimae rationis imperium, sceleratos morte punierunt; et Abraham non solum non est culpatus crudelitatis crimine, uerum etiam laudatus est nomine pietatis, quod uoluit filium nequaquam scelerate, sed oboedienter occidere; et merito quaeritur utrum pro iussu Dei sit habendum, quod Iephte filiam, quae patri occurrit, occidit, cum id se uouisset immolaturum Deo, quod ei redeunti de proelio uictori primitus occurrisset; nec Samson aliter excusatur, quod se ipsum cum hostibus ruina domus obpressit, nisi quia spiritus latenter hoc iusserat, qui per illum miracula faciebat) — his igitur exceptis, quos uel lex iusta generaliter uel ipse fons iustitiae Deus specialiter occidi iubet, quisquis hominem uel se ipsum uel quemlibet occiderit, homicidii crimine innectitur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. On the killings of human beings which are exempted from the crime of homicide.

The same divine authority, however, has made certain exceptions to the rule that it is not lawful to kill a human being. But apart from those whom God orders to be killed, whether by a law given or by an express command to a particular person for a time (and he does not himself kill who owes his service to the one who commands, as a sword is an instrument to the one who uses it; and so those have by no means acted against this commandment, “You shall not kill,” who have waged wars on God's authority, or who, bearing the person of public power, have punished criminals with death according to his laws, that is, according to the command of most just reason; and Abraham was not only not blamed with the charge of cruelty but was even praised under the name of godliness, because he was willing to kill his son, not wickedly, but obediently; and it is rightly asked whether it must be taken as by God's command that Jephthah killed his daughter, who came to meet her father, when he had vowed that he would sacrifice to God whatever first met him as he returned victorious from battle; nor is Samson excused for crushing himself with his enemies by the fall of the house except because the Spirit, who worked miracles through him, had secretly commanded it), apart from these, then, whom either a just law in general or God himself, the fount of justice, in particular orders to be killed, whoever kills a human being, whether himself or anyone else, is bound by the charge of homicide.

### Scripture references

- Exod 20:13: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 22:1–18: allusion, high confidence
- Judg 11:30–39: allusion, high confidence
- Judg 16:28–30: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Genesis 22 (Abraham); Judges 11:30–39 (Jephthah); Judges 16:28–30 (Samson).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.21 (CSEL 40:39–40; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-21).

## City of God 1.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-22
- Source: CSEL 40:40–42
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that suicide shows weakness rather than greatness of soul, citing the man who killed himself after reading Plato, and notes that Christ told his disciples to flee persecution, not to kill themselves.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. An umquam possit mors uoluntaria ad magnitudinem animi pertinere. Et quicumque hoc in se ipsis perpetrauerunt, animi magnitudine fortasse mirandi, non sapientiae sanitate laudandi sunt. Quamquam si rationem diligentius consulas, ne ipsa quidem animi magnitudo recte nominabitur, ubi quisque non ualendo tolerare uel quaeque aspera uel aliena peccata se ipse interemerit. Magis enim mens infirma deprehenditur, quae ferre non potest uel duram sui corporis seruitutem uel stultam uulgi opinionem, maiorque animus merito dicendus est, qui uitam aerumnosam magis potest ferre quam fugere et humanum iudicium maximeque uulgare, quod plerumque caligine erroris inuoluitur, prae conscientiae luce ac puritate contemnere. Quam ob rem si magno animo fieri putandum est, cum sibi homo ingerit mortem, ille potius Theobrotus in hac animi magnitudine reperitur, quem ferunt lecto Platonis libro, ubi de inmortalitate animae disputauit, se praecipitem dedisse de muro adque ita ex hac uita emigrasse ad eam, quam credidit esse meliorem. Nihil enim urguebat aut calamitatis aut criminis seu uerum seu falsum, quod non ualendo ferre se auferret; sed ad capessendam mortem adque huius uitae suauia uincla rumpenda sola adfuit animi magnitudo. Quod tamen magne potius factum esse quam bene testis ei esse potuit Plato ipse quem legerat, qui profecto id praecipue potissimumque fecisset uel etiam praecepisset, nisi ea mente, qua inmortalitatem animae uidit, nequaquam faciendum, quin etiam prohibendum esse iudicasset. At enim multi se interemerunt, ne in manus hostium peruenirent. Non modo quaerimus utrum sit factum, sed utrum fuerit faciendum. Sana quippe ratio etiam exemplis anteponenda est, cui quidem et exempla concordant, sed illa, quae tanto digniora sunt imitatione, quanto excellentiora pietate. Non fecerunt patriarchae, non prophetae, non apostoli, quia et ipse Dominus Christus, quando eos, si persecutionem paterentur, fugere admonuit de ciuitate in ciuitatem, potuit admonere ut sibi manus inferrent, ne in manus persequentium peruenirent. Porro si hoc ille non iussit aut monuit, ut eo modo sui ex hac uita emigrarent, quibus migrantibus mansiones aeternas praeparaturum esse se promisit, quaelibet exempla proponant gentes, quae ignorant Deum, manifestum est hoc non licere colentibus unum uerum Deum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. Whether voluntary death can ever belong to greatness of soul.

And those who have done this to themselves may perhaps be admired for greatness of soul, but not praised for soundness of wisdom. Yet if you consult reason more carefully, it will not even rightly be called greatness of soul when someone kills himself because he cannot bear some hardships or the sins of others. For a mind is rather shown to be weak if it cannot bear either the harsh slavery of its body or the foolish opinion of the crowd; and that soul is rightly called greater which can bear a life of troubles rather than flee it, and can despise human judgment, especially that of the crowd, which is mostly wrapped in the fog of error, in comparison with the light and purity of conscience. Therefore, if it must be thought a work of great soul when a man inflicts death on himself, that Theombrotus is the better instance of this greatness of soul, who, they say, having read Plato's book in which he discussed the immortality of the soul, threw himself headlong from a wall and so departed from this life to the one he believed to be better. For nothing pressed on him, whether calamity or crime, true or false, which he could not bear and so removed himself; only greatness of soul was present for seizing death and breaking the sweet bonds of this life. Yet that this was done greatly rather than well, Plato himself, whom he had read, could have witnessed to him; Plato would surely have done it first and foremost, or even commanded it, had he not judged, with the very mind by which he saw the immortality of the soul, that it must by no means be done, and indeed must be forbidden. But, they say, many have killed themselves so as not to come into the hands of enemies. We are not now asking whether it was done, but whether it ought to have been done. For sound reason is to be preferred even to examples; and examples do agree with it, but those which are the more worthy of imitation the more excellent they are in godliness. The patriarchs did not do it, nor the prophets, nor the apostles; for the Lord Christ himself, when he warned them, if they suffered persecution, to flee from city to city, could have warned them to lay hands on themselves so as not to come into the hands of their persecutors. Further, if he did not command or advise that his own should depart from this life in that way, those for whom he promised to prepare eternal dwellings when they departed, whatever examples the nations who do not know God may put forward, it is plain that this is not lawful for those who worship the one true God.

### Scripture references

- Matt 10:23: allusion, high confidence
- John 14:2: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Phaedo (Plato (works)): allusion, high confidence
- Callimachus, Epigr. 23 (Callimachus (hymns and fragments)): allusion, medium confidence
- Cicero, Tusc. 1.84 (Cicero): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The man is usually called Cleombrotus (Callimachus, Epigrams 23; Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 1.84); the book is Plato's Phaedo. Matthew 10:23; John 14:2.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.22 (CSEL 40:40–42; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-12/#p-1-22).

## City of God 1.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-23
- Source: CSEL 40:42–43
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that Cato's suicide at Utica came from weakness or envy of Caesar's glory, since Cato told his own son to hope for Caesar's mercy.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. Quale exemplum sit Catonis, qui se uictoriam Caesaris non ferens interemit. Sed tamen etiam illi praeter Lucretiam, de qua supra [satis] quod uidebatur diximus, non facile reperiunt de cuius auctoritate praescribant, nisi illum Catonem, qui se Uticae occidit; non quia solus id fecit, sed quia uir doctus et probus habebatur, ut merito putetur etiam recte fieri potuisse uel posse quod fecit. De cuius facto quid potissimum dicam, nisi quod amici eius etiam docti quidam uiri, qui hoc fieri prudentius dissuadebant, inbecillioris quam fortioris animi facinus esse censuerunt, quo demonstraretur non honestas turpia praecauens, sed infirmitas aduersa non sustinens? Hoc et ipse Cato in suo carissimo filio iudicauit. Nam si turpe erat sub uictoria Caesaris uiuere, quur auctor huius turpitudinis filio fuit, quem de Caesaris benignitate omnia sperare praecepit? Quur non et illum secum coegit ad mortem? Nam si eum filium, qui contra imperium in hostem pugnauerat, etiam uictorem laudabiliter Torquatus occidit, quur uictus uicto filio pepercit Cato, qui non pepercit sibi? An turpius erat contra imperium esse uictorem, quam contra decus ferre uictorem? Nullo modo igitur Cato turpe esse iudicauit sub uictore Caesare uiuere; alioquin ab hac turpitudine paterno ferro filium liberaret. Quid [est] ergo, nisi quod filium quantum amauit, cui parci a Caesare et sperauit et uoluit, tantum gloriae ipsius Caesaris, ne ab illo etiam sibi parceretur, ut ipse Caesar dixisse fertur, inuidit — [aut] ut aliquid nos mitius dicamus, erubuit?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. What kind of example Cato is, who killed himself because he could not bear Caesar's victory.

But besides Lucretia, about whom we have said above what seemed right, they do not easily find anyone on whose authority they can lay down a rule, except that Cato who killed himself at Utica; not because he alone did it, but because he was considered a learned and upright man, so that it may rightly be thought that what he did could have been, or could be, done rightly. What shall I say of his deed above all, except that his friends, some of them learned men, who more wisely tried to dissuade him from doing it, judged it the act of a weaker rather than a stronger soul, showing not honor guarding against disgrace but weakness unable to bear adversity? Cato himself judged the same in the case of his dearly loved son. For if it was disgraceful to live under Caesar's victory, why was he the author of this disgrace to his son, whom he told to hope for everything from Caesar's kindness? Why did he not force him to die with him? For if Torquatus laudably killed his son, who had fought the enemy against orders, even though he was victorious, why did Cato, conquered himself, spare his conquered son when he did not spare himself? Was it more disgraceful to be a victor against orders than to bear a victor against honor? In no way, then, did Cato judge it disgraceful to live under Caesar as victor; otherwise he would have freed his son from this disgrace with a father's sword. What then, except that as much as he loved his son, whom he both hoped and wished to be spared by Caesar, so much did he envy the glory of Caesar himself, lest he should be spared by him too, as Caesar himself is reported to have said, or, to put it more mildly, was ashamed of it?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plutarch, Cato Min. 66, 72 (Plutarch): allusion, medium confidence
- Livy, 8.7 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Marcus Porcius Cato the Younger (d. 46 BC). The details of his death and Caesar's remark are in Plutarch, Cato the Younger 66 and 72. Torquatus: Titus Manlius Torquatus (Livy 8.7).
- The editor deletes satis (“enough”), est, and aut (“or”) in this chapter (square brackets); left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.23 (CSEL 40:42–43; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-23).

## City of God 1.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-24
- Source: CSEL 40:43–44
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine prefers Regulus, who endured captivity rather than kill himself, to Cato, and argues that Christians should all the more refrain from suicide when subjected to enemies.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIIII, Quod in ea uirtute, qua Regulus Catone praestantior fuit, multo magis emineant Christiani. Nolunt autem isti, contra quos agimus, ut sanctum uirum Iob, qui tam horrenda mala in sua carne perpeti maluit quam inlata sibi morte omnibus carere cruciatibus, uel alios sanctos ex litteris nostris summa auctoritate celsissimis fideque dignissimis, qui captiuitatem dominationemque hostium ferre quam sibi necem inferre maluerunt, Catoni praeferamus; sed ex litteris eorum eundem illum M. Catoni Regulum praeferam. Cato enim numquam Caesarem uicerat, cui uictus dedignatus est subici et, ne subiceretur, a se ipso elegit occidi: Regulus autem Poenos iam uicerat imperioque Romano Romanus imperator non ex ciuibus dolendam, sed ex hostibus laudandam uictoriam reportauerat; ab eis tamen postea uictus maluit eos ferre seruiendo quam eis se auferre moriendo. Proinde seruauit et sub Carthaginiensium dominatione patientiam et in Romanorum dilectione constantiam, nec uictum auferens corpus ab hostibus nec inuictum animum a ciuibus. Nec quod se occidere noluit, uitae huius amore fecit. Hoc probauit, cum causa promissi iurisque iurandi ad eosdem hostes, quos grauius in senatu uerbis quam bello armis offenderat, sine ulla dubitatione remeauit. Tantus itaque uitae huius contemtor, cum saeuientibus hostibus per quaslibet poenas eam finire quam se ipse perimere maluit, magnum scelus esse, si se homo interimat, procul dubio iudicauit. Inter omnes suos laudabiles et uirtutis insignibus inlustres uiros non proferunt Romani meliorem, quem neque felicitas corruperit, nam in tanta uictoria mansit pauperrimus, nec infelicitas fregerit, nam ad tanta exitia reuertit intrepidus. Porro si fortissimi et praeclarissimi uiri terrenae patriae defensores deorumque licet falsorum, non tamen fallaces cultores, sed ueracissimi etiam iuratores, qui hostes uictos more ac iure belli ferire potuerunt, hi ab hostibus uicti se ipsos ferire noluerunt et, cum mortem minime formidarent, uictores tamen dominos ferre quam eam sibi inferre maluerunt: quanto magis Christiani, uerum Deum colentes et supernae patriae suspirantes, ab hoc facinore temperabunt, si eos diuina dispositio uel probandos uel emendandos ad tempus hostibus subiugauerit, quos in illa humilitate non deserit, qui propter eos tam humiliter altissimus uenit, praesertim quos nullius militaris potestatis uel talis militiae iura constringunt ipsum hostem ferire superatum. Quis ergo tam malus error obrepit, ut homo se occidat, uel quia in eum peccauit, uel ne in eum peccet inimicus, cum uel peccatorem uel peccaturum ipsum occidere non audeat inimicum?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 24. That in that virtue in which Regulus surpassed Cato, Christians excel far more.

The people we are arguing against do not want us to prefer to Cato the holy man Job, who chose to suffer such horrible evils in his own flesh rather than to be rid of all his torments by bringing death on himself, or other saints from our writings, which stand highest in authority and are most worthy of belief, who chose to bear captivity and the rule of enemies rather than put themselves to death. But from their own writings I will prefer that same Marcus Regulus to Marcus Cato. For Cato had never conquered Caesar; conquered by him, he scorned to submit to him, and so as not to submit, he chose to be killed by himself. But Regulus had already conquered the Carthaginians and, a Roman commander for the Roman empire, had won a victory not to be mourned, over citizens, but to be praised, over enemies; yet, conquered by them afterwards, he chose to bear them by serving rather than to remove himself from them by dying. So he kept both patience under the rule of the Carthaginians and constancy in his love for the Romans, neither removing his conquered body from the enemy nor his unconquered mind from his fellow citizens. Nor was it from love of this life that he would not kill himself. He proved this when, for the sake of his promise and oath, he returned without any hesitation to the same enemies whom he had offended more gravely by his words in the senate than by his arms in war. So, being such a despiser of this life, when he chose to end it through whatever tortures raging enemies might inflict rather than to kill himself, he undoubtedly judged it a great crime for a man to kill himself. Among all their praiseworthy men, illustrious for the distinctions of virtue, the Romans cannot produce a better one, whom neither good fortune corrupted, for he remained very poor after so great a victory, nor misfortune broke, for he returned undaunted to so great a death. Further, if the bravest and most famous men, defenders of an earthly homeland, worshippers of gods who, though false, they worshipped without falsehood, and even most truthful keepers of oaths, men who could strike down conquered enemies by the custom and law of war, being conquered by enemies would not strike themselves down, and, though they had no fear of death, still chose to bear victors as masters rather than inflict death on themselves, how much more will Christians, who worship the true God and long for the heavenly homeland, refrain from this crime, if the divine ordering subjects them for a time to enemies either to test or to correct them, enemies in whose power he does not desert them in that humiliation, he who, the Most High, came so humbly for their sake; especially since no laws of any military power or of such military service bind them to strike down even a defeated enemy? What evil error, then, creeps in, that a man should kill himself either because an enemy has sinned against him or so that an enemy may not sin against him, when he does not dare to kill the enemy himself, whether he has sinned or is about to sin?

### Scripture references

- Job 2:9–10: allusion, medium confidence
- Phil 2:6–8: echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Job 2:9–10 is in view. On Regulus see 1.15.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.24 (CSEL 40:43–44; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-24).

## City of God 1.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-25
- Source: CSEL 40:44–46
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine rejects suicide as a way to avoid possible consent to sin, since a certain homicide is worse than an uncertain adultery that could be repented of.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXV. Quod peccatum non per peccatum debeat declinari. At enim timendum est et cauendum, ne libidini subditum corpus inlecebrosissima uoluptate animum adliciat consentire peccato. Proinde, inquiunt, non iam propter alienum, sed propter suum peccatum, antequam hoc quisque committat, se debet occidere. Nullo modo quidem hoc faciet animus, ut consentiat libidini carnis suae aliena libidine concitatae, qui Deo potius eiusque sapientiae quam corpori eiusque concupiscentiae subiectus est. Verum tamen si detestabile facinus et damnabile scelus est etiam se ipsum hominem occidere, sicut ueritas manifesta proclamat, quis ita desipiat ut dicat: Iam nunc perpetremus homicidium, ne postea forte incidamus in adulterium? Nonne si tantum dominatur iniquitas, ut non innocentia, sed peccata potius eligantur, satius est incertum de futuro adulterium quam certum de praesenti homicidium? Nonne satius est flagitium committere, quod paenitendo sanetur, quam tale facinus, ubi locus salubris paenitentiae non relinquitur? Haec dixi propter eos uel eas, quae non alieni, sed proprii peccati deuitandi causa, ne sub alterius libidine etiam excitatae suae forte consentiant, uim sibi, qua moriantur, inferendam putant. Ceterum absit a mente Christiana, quae Deo suo fidit in eoque spe posita eius adiutorio nititur, absit, inquam, ut mens talis quibuslibet carnis uoluptatibus ad consensum turpitudinis cedat. Quod si illa concupiscentialis inoboedientia, quae adhuc in membris moribundis habitat, praeter nostrae uoluntatis legem quasi lege sua mouetur, quanto magis absque culpa est in corpore non consentientis, si absque culpa est in corpore dormientis!

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 25. That sin must not be avoided by sin.

But, they say, one must fear and beware lest the body, subjected to lust, entice the mind by a most seductive pleasure to consent to the sin. Therefore, they say, a person ought to kill himself before committing it, no longer because of another's sin but because of his own. A mind that is subject to God and his wisdom rather than to the body and its desire will by no means do this, that is, consent to the lust of its own flesh when it is aroused by another's lust. But if it is a detestable deed and a damnable crime for a man to kill even himself, as the plain truth proclaims, who would be so foolish as to say: Let us commit homicide now, lest we perhaps fall into adultery later? If iniquity has so much dominion that not innocence but sins are to be chosen, is not an uncertain adultery in the future better than a certain homicide in the present? Is it not better to commit an outrage that may be healed by repentance than such a crime as leaves no room for saving repentance? I have said this for the sake of those men or women who think they must do themselves the violence of death in order to avoid, not another's sin, but their own, lest under another's lust they perhaps consent to their own when it has been aroused. But far be it from a Christian mind, which trusts in its God and, placing its hope in him, relies on his help, far be it, I say, that such a mind should yield to any pleasures of the flesh so as to consent to shameful acts. And if that disobedience of desire which still dwells in our dying members moves as if by its own law, apart from the law of our will, how much more is it without fault in the body of one who does not consent, if it is without fault in the body of one who is asleep!

### Scripture references

- Rom 7:23: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The “law in the members” alludes to Romans 7:23.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.25 (CSEL 40:44–46; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-25).

## City of God 1.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-26
- Source: CSEL 40:46–47
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine declines to judge holy women honored as martyrs who drowned themselves to escape violation, allowing that God may have commanded them, but concludes that no one may kill himself for any ordinary reason.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVI. De his, quae fieri non licent, cum a sanctis facta noscuntur, qua ratione facta credenda sint. Sed quaedam, inquiunt, sanctae feminae tempore persecutionis, ut insectatores suae pudicitiae deuitarent, in rapturum adque necaturum se fluuium proiecerunt eoque modo defunctae sunt earumque martyria in catholica ecclesia ueneratione celeberrima frequentantur. De his nihil temere audeo iudicare. Utrum enim ecclesiae aliquibus fide dignis testificationibus, ut earum memoriam sic honoret, diuina persuaserit auctoritas, nescio; et fieri potest ut ita sit. Quid si enim hoc fecerunt, non humanitus deceptae, sed diuinitus iussae, nec errantes, sed oboedientes? sicut de Samsone aliud nobis fas non est credere. Cum autem Deus iubet seque iubere sine ullis ambagibus intimat, quis oboedientiam in crimen uocet? quis obsequium pietatis accuset? Sed non ideo sine scelere facit, quisquis Deo filium immolare decreuerit, quia hoc Abraham etiam laudabiliter fecit. Nam et miles cum oboediens potestati, sub qualibet legitime constitutus est, hominem occidit, nulla ciuitatis suae lege reus est homicidii, immo, nisi fecerit, reus est imperii deserti adque contemti; quod si sua sponte adque auctoritate fecisset, crimen effusi humani sanguinis incidisset. Itaque unde punitur si fecit iniussus. inde punietur nisi fecerit iussus. Quod si ita est iubente imperatore, quanto magis iubente creatore! Qui ergo audit non licere se occidere, faciat, si iussit cuius non licet iussa contemnere; tantummodo uideat utrum diuina iussio nullo nutet incerto. Nos per aurem conscientiam conuenimus, occultorum nobis iudicium non usurpamus. Nemo scit quid agatur in homine nisi spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est. Hoc dicimus, hoc adserimus, hoc modis omnibus adprobamus, neminem spontaneam mortem sibi inferre debere uelut fugiendo molestias temporales, ne incidat in perpetuas; neminem propter aliena peccata, ne hoc ipse incipiat habere grauissimum proprium, quem non polluebat alienum; neminem propter sua peccata praeterita, propter quae magis hac uita opus est, ut possint paenitendo sanari; neminem uelut desiderio uitae melioris, quae post mortem speratur, quia reos suae mortis melior post mortem uita non suscipit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 26. On things that are not lawful, when saints are known to have done them: for what reason they must be believed to have been done.

But, they say, certain holy women in time of persecution, to escape those who sought to violate their chastity, threw themselves into a river that would sweep them away and drown them, and died in that way, and their martyrdoms are celebrated in the catholic church with very well attended veneration. About these I dare not judge anything rashly. For I do not know whether divine authority has persuaded the church, by some trustworthy testimonies, to honor their memory in this way; and it may be so. For what if they did this not deceived as humans, but commanded by God, not erring but obeying? As we may not believe otherwise of Samson. When God commands, and makes known without any ambiguity that he commands, who will call obedience a crime? Who will accuse the compliance of godliness? But it does not follow that whoever resolves to sacrifice his son to God does it without crime because Abraham did this too, and laudably. For a soldier too, when he kills a man in obedience to the authority under which he is lawfully placed, is not guilty of homicide by any law of his city; on the contrary, if he does not do it he is guilty of deserting and despising command; whereas if he had done it on his own will and authority, he would have incurred the crime of shedding human blood. So he will be punished if he does not do when ordered the very thing for which he is punished if he does it unordered. And if this is so when a general commands, how much more when the Creator commands! Let him, then, who hears that it is not lawful to kill himself do it, if he has commanded it whose commands may not be despised; only let him see whether the divine command wavers with no uncertainty. We reach the conscience through the ear; we do not claim for ourselves the judgment of hidden things. “No one knows what goes on in a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him.” This we say, this we affirm, this we approve in every way: that no one ought to inflict a voluntary death on himself as if fleeing temporal troubles, lest he fall into everlasting ones; no one because of another's sins, lest by this he begin to have a most grievous sin of his own, when another's did not pollute him; no one because of his own past sins, on account of which he needs this life all the more, so that they may be healed by repentance; no one as if from desire for the better life hoped for after death, because the better life after death does not receive those guilty of their own death.

### Scripture references

- Judg 16:28–30: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 22:1–18: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 2:11: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 8.12.3–4 (Church History): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Such women are recorded, e.g., in Eusebius, Church History 8.12.3–4 (a mother and her daughters at Antioch). Samson: Judges 16:28–30; Abraham: Genesis 22. 1 Corinthians 2:11.
- Augustine's hesitant acceptance of these cases is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.26 (CSEL 40:46–47; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-26).

## City of God 1.27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-27
- Source: CSEL 40:47–49
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reduces to absurdity the argument that suicide is right to avoid sin, since it would require urging the newly baptized to kill themselves.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVII. An propter declinationem peccati mors spontanea adpetenda sit. Restat una causa, de qua dicere coeperam, qua utile putatur ut se quisque interficiat, scilicet ne in peccatum inruat uel blandiente uoluptate uel dolore saeuiente. Quam causam si uoluerimus admittere, eo usque progressa perueniet, ut hortandi sint homines tunc se potius interimere, cum lauacro sanctae regenerationis abluti uniuersorum remissionem acceperint peccatorum. Tunc enim tempus est cauendi omnia futura peccata, cum sunt omnia deleta praeterita. Quod si morte spontanea recte fit, quur non tunc potissimum fit? Quur baptizatus sibi quisque parcit? Quur liberatum caput tot rursus uitae huius periculis inserit, cum sit facillimae potestatis inlata sibi nece omnia deuitare scriptumque sit: Qui amat periculum, incidet in illud? Quur ergo amantur tot et tanta pericula uel certe, etiamsi non amantur, suscipiuntur, cum manet in hac uita, cui abscedere licitum est? An uero tam insulsa peruersitas cor euertit et a consideratione ueritatis auertit, ut, si se quisque interimere debet, ne unius captiuantis dominatu conruat in peccatum, uiuendum sibi existimet, ut ipsum perferat mundum per omnes horas tentationibus plenum, et talibus, qualis sub uno domino formidatur, et innumerabilibus ceteris, sine quibus haec uita non ducitur? Quid igitur causae est, quur in eis exhortationibus tempora consumamus. quibus baptizatos adloquendo studemus accendere siue ad uirginalem integritatem siue ad continentiam uidualem siue ad ipsam tori coniugalis fidem, cum habeamus meliora et ab omnibus peccandi periculis remota conpendia, ut, quibuscumque post remissionem recentissimam peccatorum adripiendam mortem sibique ingerendam persuadere potuerimus, eos ad Dominum saniores purioresque mittamus? Porro si, quisquis hoc adgrediendum et suadendum putat, non dico desipit, sed insanit: qua tandem fronte homini dicit: <Interfice te, ne paruis tuis peccatis adicias grauius, dum uiuis sub domino barbaris moribus inpudico, qui non potest nisi sceleratissime dicere: Interfice te peccatis tuis omnibus absolutis, ne rursus talia uel etiam peiora committas, dum nimis in mundo tot inpuris uoluptatibus inlecebroso, tot nefandis crudelitatibus furioso, tot erroribus et terroribus inimico? Hoc quia nefas est dicere, nefas est profecto se occidere. Nam si hoc sponte faciendi ulla causa iusta esse posset, procul dubio iustior quam ista non esset. Quia uero nec ista est, ergo nulla est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 27. Whether voluntary death should be sought in order to avoid sin.

There remains one reason, which I had begun to speak of, for which it is thought useful for a person to kill himself: namely, so as not to rush into sin, whether through flattering pleasure or raging pain. If we are willing to admit this reason, it will go so far that people must be urged to kill themselves rather at the moment when, washed in the font of holy regeneration, they have received the remission of all their sins. For that is the time to guard against all future sins, when all past ones have been blotted out. If this is done rightly by voluntary death, why is it not done then above all? Why does any baptized person spare himself? Why does he thrust his freed head back into so many dangers of this life, when he has it very easily in his power to avoid them all by inflicting death on himself, and it is written: “He who loves danger will fall into it”? Why then are so many and so great dangers loved, or at least, even if they are not loved, accepted, when a man remains in this life who is permitted to leave it? Or does so senseless a perversity overturn the heart and turn it from the consideration of truth, that, if a man must kill himself so as not to fall into sin under the dominion of one captor, he thinks he must live so as to bear the world itself, full of temptations at every hour, both such as are feared under one master and countless others without which this life is not lived? Why then should we spend our time on those exhortations with which, addressing the baptized, we try to kindle them either to virginal integrity, or to widowed continence, or to faithfulness in the marriage bed itself, when we have better short cuts, far from all dangers of sinning, so that we may send to the Lord in better health and purity all those whom we can persuade, after the most recent remission of sins, to seize death and inflict it on themselves? Further, if anyone who thinks this should be attempted and urged is, I do not say foolish, but mad, with what face does he say to a man: “Kill yourself, so as not to add a graver sin to your small sins while you live under a master of barbarous and shameless morals,” when he cannot say, except most wickedly: “Kill yourself, now that all your sins are absolved, so as not to commit such or even worse ones again while you live in a world so enticing with so many impure pleasures, so raging with so many unspeakable cruelties, so hostile with so many errors and terrors”? Since it is wicked to say this, it is certainly wicked to kill oneself. For if there could be any just reason for doing this voluntarily, there would undoubtedly be none more just than this one. Since not even this one is just, therefore there is none.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sir 3:26 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sirach 3:26 (Vulgate 3:27).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.27 (CSEL 40:47–49; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-27).

## City of God 1.28

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-28
- Source: CSEL 40:49–51
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine consoles Christian women who were raped, suggesting that God permitted it to humble hidden pride or to correct the error that chastity belongs to the body rather than the will.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIII. Quo iudicio Dei in corpora continentium libido hostilis peccare permissa sit. Non itaque uobis, o fideles Christi, sit taedio uita uestra, si ludibrio fuit hostibus castitas uestra. Habetis magnam ueramque consolationem, si fidam conscientiam retinetis non uos consensisse peccatis eorum, qui in uos peccare permissi sunt. Quod si forte, quur permissi sint, quaeritis, alta quidem est prouidentia creatoris mundi adque rectoris, et inscrutabilia sunt iudicia eius et inuestigabiles uiae eius; uerum tamen interrogate fideliter animas uestras, ne forte de isto integritatis et continentiae uel pudicitiae bono uos inflatius extulistis et humanis laudibus delectatae in hoc etiam aliquibus inuidistis. Non accuso quod nescio, nec audio quod uobis interrogata uestra corda respondent. Tamen si ita esse responderint, nolite admirari hoc uos amisisse, unde hominibus placere gestistis, illud uobis remansisse, quod ostendi hominibus non potest. Si peccantibus non consensistis, diuinae gratiae, ne amitteretur, diuinum accessit auxilium; humanae gloriae, ne amaretur, humanum successit obprobrium. In utroque consolamini, pusillanimes, illinc probatae hinc castigatae, illinc iustificatae hinc emendatae. Quarum uero corda interrogata respondent numquam se de bono uirginitatis uel uiduitatis uel coniugalis pudicitiae superbisse, sed humilibus consentiendo de dono Dei cum tremore exultasse, nec inuidisse cuiquam paris excellentiam sanctitatis et castitatis, sed humana laude postposita, quae tanto maior deferri solet, quanto est bonum rarius quod exigit laudem, optasse potius ut amplior earum numerus esset, quam ut ipsae in paucitate amplius eminerent: nec istae, quae tales sunt, si earum quoque aliquas barbarica libido conpressit, permissum hoc esse causentur, nec ideo Deum credant ista neglegere, quia permittit quod nemo inpune committit. Quaedam enim ueluti pondera malarum cupiditatum et per occultum praesens diuinum iudicium relaxantur et manifesto ultimo reseruantur. Fortassis autem istae, quae bene sibi sunt consciae non se ex isto castitatis bono cor inflatum extulisse, et tamen uim hostilem in carne perpessae sunt, habebant aliquid latentis infirmitatis, quae posset in superbiae fastum. si hanc humilitatem in uastatione illa euasissent, extolli. Sicut ergo quidam morte rapti sunt, ne malitia mutaret intellectum eorum, ita quiddam ab istis ui raptum est, ne prosperitas mutaret modestiam earum. Utrisque igitur, quae de carne sua, quod turpem nullius esset perpessa contactum, uel iam superbiebant uel superbire, si nec hostium uiolentia contrectata esset, forsitan poterant, non ablata est castitas, sed humilitas persuasa; illarum tumori succursum est inmanenti, istarum occursum est inminenti. Quamquam et illud non sit tacendum, quod quibusdam, quae ista perpessae sunt, potuit uideri continentiae bonum in bonis corporalibus deputandum et tunc manere, si nullius libidine corpus adtrectaretur; non esse autem positum in solo adiuto diuinitus robore uoluntatis, ut sit sanctum et corpus et spiritus; nec tale bonum esse, quod inuito animo non possit auferri: qui error eis fortasse sublatus est. Cum enim cogitant. qua conscientia Deo seruierint, et fide inconcussa non de illo sentiunt, quod ita sibi seruientes eumque inuocantes deserere ullo modo potuerit, quantumque illi castitas placeat dubitare non possunt, uident esse consequens nequaquam illum fuisse permissurum, ut haec acciderent sanctis suis, si eo modo perire posset sanctitas, quam contulit eis et diligit in eis.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 28. By what judgment of God the lust of the enemy was permitted to sin against the bodies of the continent.

So, faithful of Christ, do not let your life be a weariness to you if your chastity was made sport of by the enemy. You have a great and true consolation if you keep a faithful conscience that you did not consent to the sins of those who were permitted to sin against you. And if perhaps you ask why they were permitted, the providence of the Creator and Ruler of the world is deep indeed, and “his judgments are unsearchable and his ways past finding out.” Yet question your own souls faithfully, whether perhaps you were too puffed up by this good of integrity and continence or chastity, and, delighting in human praise, even envied some others in this. I do not accuse what I do not know, nor do I hear what your hearts answer you when questioned. Yet if they answer that it is so, do not wonder that you have lost that by which you desired to please men, and that there has remained to you that which cannot be shown to men. If you did not consent to those who sinned, divine help was added to divine grace so that it would not be lost; human reproach succeeded to human glory so that it would not be loved. Be consoled in both, you fainthearted: proved on the one side, chastened on the other; justified on the one side, corrected on the other. But as for those whose hearts, when questioned, answer that they never took pride in the good of virginity or widowhood or marital chastity, but, agreeing with the humble, rejoiced with trembling over the gift of God, and did not envy anyone the excellence of equal holiness and chastity, but, setting aside human praise, which is usually offered the more the rarer the good that calls for praise, wished rather that their number were larger than that they themselves should stand out more among a few: let not even these, being such, complain that this was permitted if barbarian lust has overpowered some of them too, nor let them believe that God neglects these things because he permits what no one commits with impunity. For certain burdens, as it were, of evil desires are both released by God's present hidden judgment and reserved for his last, open one. And perhaps these women, who are well aware that their hearts were not puffed up by this good of chastity, and yet suffered the enemy's violence in the flesh, had some hidden weakness which might have been lifted up into haughty pride if they had escaped this humiliation in that devastation. Just as some, then, were snatched away by death, “lest wickedness should change their understanding,” so something was snatched from these women by force, lest prosperity should change their modesty. So for both groups, those who were already proud of their flesh because it had suffered no one's shameful touch, and those who perhaps could have been proud if it had not been handled even by the violence of enemies, chastity was not taken away, but humility was taught: the swelling of the former was relieved when it was already present, that of the latter was met when it was threatening. Yet this too should not be passed over: that some who suffered these things may have thought that the good of continence should be counted among bodily goods and would remain only if the body were not handled by anyone's lust, and that it did not lie solely in the strength of the will, helped by God, so that both body and spirit may be holy, nor that it was a good which cannot be taken away against the mind's will. This error has perhaps been removed from them. For when they consider with what conscience they have served God, and with unshaken faith do not think of him that he could in any way desert those who served him so and called on him, and cannot doubt how much chastity pleases him, they see that it follows that he would never have permitted these things to happen to his saints if holiness could perish in that way, the holiness which he bestowed on them and loves in them.

### Scripture references

- Rom 11:33: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 2:11: allusion, medium confidence
- Rom 12:16: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 4:11 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Romans 11:33; Romans 12:16 (“agreeing with the humble”); Psalm 2:11 (“rejoice with trembling”); Wisdom 4:11.
- Augustine's pastoral suggestions about why God permitted the violence are translated as written; he states them tentatively (“perhaps”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.28 (CSEL 40:49–51; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-28).

## City of God 1.29

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-29
- Source: CSEL 40:51–52
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine gives the Christian answer to the taunt “Where is your God?”: God is everywhere, and uses adversity to test or correct his people.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIIII. Quid familia Christi respondere debeat infidelibus, cum exprobrant, quod eam a furore hostium non liberauerit Christus. Habet itaque omnis familia summi et ueri Dei consolationem suam, non fallacem nec in spe rerum nutantium uel labentium constitutam, uitamque etiam ipsam temporalem minime paenitendam, in qua eruditur ad aeternam, bonisque terrenis tamquam peregrina utitur nec capitur, malis autem aut probatur aut emendatur. Illi uero, qui probitati eius insultant eique dicunt, cum forte in aliqua temporalia mala deuenerit: Ubi est Deus tuus? ipsi dicant, ubi sint di eorum, cum talia patiuntur, pro quibus euitandis eos uel colunt uel colendos esse contendunt. Nam ista respondet: Deus meus ubique praesens, ubique totus, nusquam inclusus, qui possit adesse secretus, abesse non motus; ille cum me aduersis rebus exagitat, aut merita examinat aut peccata castigat mercedemque mihi aeternam pro toleratis pie malis temporalibus seruat; uos autem qui estis, cum quibus loqui dignum sit saltem de dis uestris, quanto minus de Deo meo, qui terribilis est super omnes deos, quoniam di gentium daemonia, Dominus autem caelos fecit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 29. What the household of Christ should answer unbelievers when they reproach it that Christ did not free it from the fury of the enemy.

So the whole household of the supreme and true God has its own consolation, not deceptive nor founded on the hope of wavering or failing things; and it has no reason at all to regret even this temporal life, in which it is trained for eternal life; it uses earthly goods like a pilgrim, without being captured by them, and by evils it is either proved or corrected. As for those who insult its uprightness and say to it, when it happens to fall into some temporal evils, “Where is your God?”, let them say where their own gods are when they suffer the very things for the avoidance of which they either worship them or argue that they must be worshipped. For this household answers: My God is present everywhere, whole everywhere, enclosed nowhere; he can be present in secret and absent without moving. When he troubles me with adversity, he either tests my merits or chastises my sins, and keeps for me an eternal reward for temporal evils borne in godliness. But who are you, that it should be worth speaking with you even about your gods, much less about my God, who “is to be feared above all gods; for the gods of the nations are demons, but the Lord made the heavens”?

### Scripture references

- Ps 42:3 (41:4 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 96:4–5 (95:4-Ps LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Psalm 42:3, 10 (LXX/Vulgate 41:4, 11); Psalm 96:4–5 (LXX/Vulgate 95:4–5), where the Greek and Latin read “demons”.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.29 (CSEL 40:51–52; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-29).

## City of God 1.30

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-30
- Source: CSEL 40:52–53
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine recalls Scipio Nasica's opposition to destroying Carthage for fear that security would corrupt Rome, a fear borne out by the civil wars that followed.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXX. Quam pudendis prosperitatibus afluere uelint, qui de Christianis temporibus conqueruntur. Si Nasica ille Scipio uester quondam pontifex uiueret, quem sub terrore belli Punici in suscipiendis Phrygiis sacris, cum uir optimus quaereretur, uniuersus senatus elegit, cuius os fortasse non auderetis aspicere, ipse uos ab hac inpudentia cohiberet. Quur enim adflicti rebus aduersis de temporibus querimini Christianis, nisi quia uestram luxuriam cupitis habere securam et perditissimis moribus remota omni molestiarum asperitate diffluere? Neque enim propterea cupitis habere pacem et omni genere copiarum abundare, ut his bonis honeste utamini, hoc est modeste sobrie, temperanter pie, sed ut infinita uarietas uoluptatum insanis effusionibus exquiratur, secundisque rebus ea mala oriantur in moribus, quae saeuientibus peiora sunt hostibus. At ille Scipio pontifex maximus uester, ille iudicio totius senatus uir optimus, istam uobis metuens calamitatem nolebat aemulam tunc imperii Romani Carthaginem dirui et decernenti ut dirueretur contradicebat Catoni, timens infirmis animis hostem securitatem, et tamquam pupillis ciuibus idoneum tutorem necessarium uidens esse terrorem. Nec eum sententia fefellit: re ipsa probatum est quam uerum diceret. Deleta quippe Carthagine magno scilicet terrore Romanae rei publicae depulso et extincto tanta de rebus prosperis orta mala continuo subsecuta sunt, ut corrupta diruptaque concordia prius saeuis cruentisque seditionibus, deinde mox malarum conexione causarum bellis etiam ciuilibus tantae strages ederentur, tantus sanguis effunderetur, tanta cupiditate proscriptionum ac rapinarum ferueret inmanitas, ut Romani illi, qui uita integriore mala metuebant ab hostibus, perdita integritate uitae crudeliora paterentur a ciuibus; eaque ipsa libido dominandi, quae inter alia uitia generis humani meracior inerat uniuerso populo Romano, postea quam in paucis potentioribus uicit, obtritos fatigatosque ceteros etiam iugo seruitutis obpressit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 30. In what shameful prosperity those who complain of the Christian times wish to wallow.

If that Scipio Nasica of yours were alive, once your pontiff, whom the whole senate chose, under the terror of the Punic war, when the best man was sought to receive the Phrygian sacred rites, a man whose face you would perhaps not dare to look at, he himself would restrain you from this impudence. For why, when afflicted by adversity, do you complain of the Christian times, unless because you desire to have your luxury secure and to dissolve in the most depraved morals, with every harshness of trouble removed? For you do not desire to have peace and to abound in every kind of wealth in order to use these goods honorably, that is, with moderation and sobriety, temperance and godliness, but so that an endless variety of pleasures may be sought out with mad extravagance, and in prosperity those evils may arise in your morals which are worse than raging enemies. But that Scipio, your pontifex maximus, judged the best man by the whole senate, fearing this calamity for you, did not want Carthage, then Rome's rival for empire, to be destroyed, and opposed Cato when he moved that it be destroyed, fearing security as the enemy of weak souls and seeing that fear was necessary as a fit guardian for citizens who were like wards. Nor was he mistaken in his judgment: the event itself proved how truly he spoke. For when Carthage was destroyed, and the great terror of the Roman state was thus driven off and extinguished, such evils arising from prosperity followed at once that, concord being corrupted and broken, first by savage and bloody seditions, then soon, by a chain of evil causes, by civil wars as well, such slaughter was done, so much blood was shed, and savagery burned with such greed for proscriptions and plunder, that those Romans who, when their life was purer, feared evils from their enemies, now that the purity of their life was lost, suffered crueler things from their fellow citizens; and that very lust for domination, which among the other vices of the human race was present in a purer strain in the whole Roman people, after it had prevailed in a few more powerful men, crushed the rest, worn down and exhausted, under the yoke of slavery as well.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, 29.14 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence
- Plutarch, Cat. Maj. 27 (Plutarch): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica was chosen as the best man to receive the image of the Mother of the Gods (Livy 29.14); his opposition to Cato's demand to destroy Carthage is reported by Plutarch, Cato the Elder 27, and others. Augustine conflates two men of the same name here, as later writers note.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.30 (CSEL 40:52–53; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-30).

## City of God 1.31

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-31
- Source: CSEL 40:53–55
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine traces the Roman lust for power to avarice and luxury born of prosperity, and recalls Nasica's success in stopping the building of a theater in Rome.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXI. Quibus uitiorum gradibus aucta sit in Romanis cupido regnandi. Nam quando illa quiesceret in superbissimis mentibus, donec continuatis honoribus ad potestatem regiam perueniret? Honorum porro continuandorum facultas non esset, nisi ambitio praeualeret. Minime autem praeualeret ambitio, nisi in populo auaritia luxuriaque corrupto. Auarus uero luxuriosusque populus secundis rebus effectus est, quas Nasica ille prouidentissime cauendas esse censebat, quando ciuitatem hostium maximam fortissimam opulentissimam nolebat auferri, ut timore libido premeretur, libido pressa non luxuriaretur luxuriaque cohibita nec auaritia grassaretur; quibus uitiis obseratis ciuitati utilis uirtus floreret et cresceret eique uirtuti libertas congrua permaneret. Hinc etiam erat et ex hac prouidentissima patriae caritate ueniebat, quod idem ipse uester pontifex maximus, a senatu illius temporis (quod saepe dicendum est) electus sine ulla sententiarum discrepantia uir optimus, caueam theatri senatum construere molientem ab hac dispositione et cupiditate conpescuit persuasitque oratione grauissima, ne Graecam luxuriam uirilibus patriae moribus paterentur obrepere et ad uirtutem labefactandam eneruandamque Romanam peregrinae consentire nequitiae, tantumque auctoritate ualuit, ut uerbis eius commota senatoria prouidentia etiam subsellia, quibus ad horam congestis in ludorum spectaculo iam uti ciuitas coeperat, deinceps prohiberet adponi. Quanto studio iste ab urbe Roma ludos ipsos scaenicos abstulisset, si auctoritati eorum, quos deos putabat, resistere auderet, quos esse noxios daemones non intellegebat aut, si intellegebat, placandos etiam ipse potius quam contemnendos existimabat. Nondum enim fuerat declarata gentibus superna doctrina, quae fide cor mundans ad caelestia uel supercaelestia capessenda humili pietate humanum mutaret adfectum et a dominatu superborum daemonum liberaret.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 31. By what steps of vice the desire to rule grew among the Romans.

For when would that lust rest in the proudest minds until, by continuous offices, it arrived at royal power? And there would be no way of holding offices continuously unless ambition prevailed. But ambition would not prevail at all except in a people corrupted by avarice and luxury. And the people was made avaricious and luxurious by prosperity, which that Nasica judged, with great foresight, must be guarded against, when he did not want the greatest, strongest, and wealthiest city of the enemy to be removed, so that lust might be held in check by fear, lust held in check might not run riot in luxury, and luxury restrained might not let avarice rampage; so that, with these vices barred, virtue useful to the city might flourish and grow, and liberty suited to that virtue might endure. From this too, and from this most farsighted love of country, it came about that this same pontifex maximus of yours, chosen without a single dissenting vote by the senate of that time as the best man (which must often be repeated), stopped the senate from its plan and desire when it was undertaking to build a seated theater, and persuaded it by a most weighty speech not to allow Greek luxury to creep into the manly morals of the country, nor to consent to foreign vice for the weakening and enervation of Roman virtue; and he prevailed so much by his authority that the senate's foresight, moved by his words, forbade from then on even the setting out of the benches which the citizens had begun to use, piled up for the occasion, at the spectacle of the games. With what zeal he would have removed the stage plays themselves from the city of Rome if he had dared to resist the authority of those whom he thought gods, not understanding that they were harmful demons, or, if he did understand, thinking that even he must appease rather than despise them! For the heavenly teaching had not yet been made known to the nations, which, cleansing the heart by faith, would change human affection with humble godliness to seek heavenly or even supercelestial things, and free it from the domination of proud demons.

### Scripture references

- Acts 15:9: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, Per. 48 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The theater affair is recorded in Livy, Periochae 48, and Valerius Maximus 2.4.2. Acts 15:9 (“cleansing their hearts by faith”) is echoed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.31 (CSEL 40:53–55; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-31).

## City of God 1.32

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-32
- Source: CSEL 40:55–56
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine notes that the gods themselves ordered stage plays to end a plague, while the pontiff Scipio forbade theaters to protect morals, and that Roman refugees at Carthage still flocked to the theaters.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXII. De scaenicorum institutione ludorum. Verum tamen scitote, qui ista nescitis et qui uos scire dissimulatis, aduertite, qui aduersus liberatorem a talibus dominis murmuratis: ludi scaenici, spectacula turpitudinum et licentia uanitatum, non hominum uitiis, sed deorum uestrorum iussis Romae instituti sunt. Tolerabilius diuinos honores deferretis illi Scipioni quam deos huius modi coleretis. Neque enim erant illi di suo pontifice meliores. Ecce adtendite, si mens tam diu potatis erroribus ebria uos aliquid sanum cogitare permittit! Di propter sedandam corporum pestilentiam ludos sibi scaenicos exhiberi iubebant; pontifex autem propter animorum cauendam pestilentiam ipsam scaenam constitui prohibebat. Si aliqua luce mentis animum corpori praeponitis, eligite quem colatis! Neque enim et illa corporum pestilentia ideo conquieuit, quia populo bellicoso et solis antea ludis circensibus adsueto ludorum scaenicorum delicata subintrauit insania; sed astutia spirituum nefandorum praeuidens illam pestilentiam iam fine debito cessaturam aliam longe grauiorem, qua plurimum gaudet, ex hac occasione non corporibus, sed moribus curauit inmittere, quae animos miserorum tantis obcaecauit tenebris, tanta foedauit deformitate, ut etiam modo (quod incredibile forsitan erit, si a nostris posteris audietur) Romana urbe uastata, quos pestilentia ista possedit adque inde fugientes Carthaginem peruenire potuerunt, in theatris cottidie certatim pro histrionibus insanirent.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 32. On the institution of the stage plays.

But know, you who do not know it, and take note, you who pretend not to know, you who murmur against the one who freed you from such masters: the stage plays, spectacles of indecency and license of vanities, were instituted at Rome not by the vices of men but by the commands of your gods. It would be more tolerable for you to give divine honors to that Scipio than to worship gods of this kind. For those gods were not better than their pontiff. Look, pay attention, if a mind drunk for so long on the errors it has swallowed allows you to think anything sane! The gods ordered stage plays to be put on for them to allay a pestilence of bodies; but the pontiff forbade the stage itself to be built to guard against a pestilence of souls. If by any light of the mind you set the soul above the body, choose whom you should worship! For that pestilence of bodies did not subside because the delicate madness of stage plays crept into a warlike people accustomed before only to the games of the circus; but the cunning of the unspeakable spirits, foreseeing that that pestilence would soon end in due course, took this occasion to send another far more serious, in which they delight most, not on bodies but on morals; and it blinded the minds of the wretched with such darkness and defiled them with such deformity that even now (a thing that will perhaps be incredible if our descendants hear of it), after the city of Rome was laid waste, those whom this pestilence possessed, and who, fleeing from there, managed to reach Carthage, went mad every day in the theaters, competing in their enthusiasm for the actors.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, 7.2 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The introduction of stage plays at Rome to avert a plague (364 BC) is told in Livy 7.2.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.32 (CSEL 40:55–56; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-32).

## City of God 1.33

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-33
- Source: CSEL 40:56
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine rebukes the Roman refugees who crowded the theaters while the whole world mourned Rome's fall, showing that calamity had not corrected them.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXIII. De uitiis Romanorum, quos patriae non correxit euersio. O mentes amentes! quis est hic tantus non error, sed furor, ut exitium uestrum, sicut audiuimus, plangentibus orientalibus populis et maximis ciuitatibus in remotissimis terris publicum luctum maeroremque ducentibus uos theatra quaereretis intraretis inpleretis, et multo insaniora quam fuerant antea faceretis? Hanc animorum labem ac pestem, hanc probitatis et honestatis euersionem uobis Scipio ille metuebat, quando construi theatra prohibebat, quando rebus prosperis uos facile corrumpi adque euerti posse cernebat, quando uos securos esse ab hostili terrore nolebat. Neque enim censebat ille felicem esse rem publicam stantibus moenibus, ruentibus moribus. Sed in uobis plus ualuit quod daemones inpii seduxerunt, quam quod homines prouidi praecauerunt. Hinc est quod mala, quae facitis, uobis inputari non uultis, mala uero, quae patimini, Christianis temporibus inputatis. Neque enim in uestra securitate pacatam rem publicam, sed luxuriam quaeritis inpunitam. qui deprauati rebus prosperis nec corrigi potuistis aduersis. Volebat uos ille Scipio terreri ab hoste, ne in luxuriam flueretis: nec contriti ab hoste luxuriam repressistis, perdidistis utilitatem calamitatis, et miserrimi facti estis et pessimi permansistis.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 33. On the vices of the Romans, which the overthrow of their country did not correct.

O minds out of your minds! What is this, not error but madness, so great that, while the peoples of the East, as we have heard, were lamenting your destruction, and the greatest cities in the most distant lands were keeping public grief and mourning, you were seeking out the theaters, entering them, filling them, and behaving far more madly than before? This corruption and plague of souls, this overthrow of uprightness and decency, is what that Scipio feared for you when he forbade theaters to be built, when he saw that you could easily be corrupted and overthrown by prosperity, when he did not want you to be secure from the terror of the enemy. For he did not think a state happy with its walls standing and its morals falling. But with you the seductions of ungodly demons have prevailed more than the precautions of farsighted men. Hence it is that you do not want the evils you do to be charged to you, but you charge the evils you suffer to the Christian times. For in your security you seek not a peaceful state but unpunished luxury; depraved by prosperity, you could not be corrected by adversity. That Scipio wanted you to be terrified by the enemy so that you would not flow into luxury; you, crushed by the enemy, have not checked your luxury; you have lost the benefit of calamity; you have become most wretched and remained most wicked.

### Translation notes

- “O minds out of your minds” renders the wordplay O mentes amentes.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.33 (CSEL 40:56; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-33).

## City of God 1.34

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-34
- Source: CSEL 40:56–57
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine compares the asylum of Romulus and Remus with the sanctuary the Goths granted in Christian churches, which preserved the lives of Rome's pagans.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXIIII. De clementia Dei, quae Urbis excidium temperauit. Et tamen quod uiuitis Dei est, qui uobis parcendo admonet, ut corrigamini paenitendo; qui uobis etiam ingratis praestitit, ut uel sub nomine seruorum eius uel in locis martyrum eius hostiles manus euaderetis. Romulus et Remus asylum constituisse perhibentur, quo quisquis confugeret ab omni noxa liber esset, augere quaerentes creandae multitudinem ciuitatis. Mirandum in honorem Christi processit exemplum. Hoc constituerunt euersores Urbis, quod constituerant antea conditores. Quid autem magnum, si hoc fecerunt illi, ut ciuium suorum numerus subpleretur, quod fecerunt isti, ut suorum hostium numerositas seruaretur?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 34. On the mercy of God, which moderated the destruction of the City.

And yet that you are alive is God's doing, who, by sparing you, warns you to be corrected by repentance; who granted to you, ungrateful as you are, that you should escape the hands of the enemy either under the name of his servants or in the places of his martyrs. Romulus and Remus are said to have established a sanctuary where anyone who took refuge would be free of all guilt, seeking to increase the population of the city they were founding. A wonderful example came forth in honor of Christ. What the founders of the City had once established, its destroyers established. But what great thing is it if the founders did this to fill up the number of their citizens, when the destroyers did it to preserve a great number of their enemies?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, 1.8.5–6 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The asylum of Romulus: Livy 1.8.5–6.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.34 (CSEL 40:56–57; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-34).

## City of God 1.35

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-35
- Source: CSEL 40:57–58
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine notes that future citizens of the city of God are hidden among its enemies and false members within the church, since the two cities are mixed until the last judgment, and announces his plan to treat their origin, progress, and ends.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXV. De latentibus inter inpios ecclesiae filiis et de falsis intra ecclesiam Christianis. Haec et talia, si qua uberius et commodius potuerit, respondeat inimicis suis redemta familia domini Christi et peregrina ciuitas regis Christi. Meminerit sane in ipsis inimicis latere ciues futuros, ne infructuosum uel aput ipsos putet, quod, donec perueniat ad confessos, portat infensos; sicut ex illorum numero etiam Dei ciuitas habet secum, quamdiu peregrinatur in mundo, conexos communione sacramentorum, nec secum futuros in aeterna sorte sanctorum, qui partim in occulto, partim in aperto sunt, qui etiam cum ipsis inimicis aduersus Deum, cuius sacramentum gerunt, murmurare non dubitant, modo cum illis theatra, modo ecclesias nobiscum replentes. De correctione autem quorundam etiam talium multo minus est desperandum, si aput apertissimos aduersarios praedestinati amici latitant, adhuc ignoti etiam sibi. Perplexae quippe sunt istae duae ciuitates in hoc saeculo inuicemque permixtae, donec ultimo iudicio dirimantur; de quarum exortu et procursu et debitis finibus quod dicendum arbitror, quantum diuinitus adiuuabor, expediam propter gloriam ciuitatis Dei, quae alienis a contrario comparatis clarius eminebit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 35. On the church's sons hidden among the ungodly, and on false Christians within the church.

These answers and such as these, and any fuller and more fitting ones it can find, let the redeemed household of the Lord Christ and the pilgrim city of Christ the King give to its enemies. Let it remember indeed that among those very enemies future citizens lie hidden, so that it may not think it fruitless, even with regard to them, that it bears with them as hostile until it reaches them as confessors; just as the city of God, as long as it is a pilgrim in the world, has with it some from among their number, joined to it by communion in the sacraments, who will not be with it in the eternal lot of the saints. Some of these are hidden, some are open; they do not even hesitate to murmur, with our enemies themselves, against God, whose sacrament they bear, filling now the theaters with them, now the churches with us. But one must despair much less of the correction even of some such people, if predestined friends lie hidden among the most open adversaries, as yet unknown even to themselves. For these two cities are entangled and mixed with each other in this age until they are separated at the last judgment; and concerning their origin, progress, and due ends, I shall set out what I think must be said, so far as I am helped by God, for the glory of the city of God, which will shine out more clearly when compared with its opposite.

### Scripture references

- Matt 13:24–30: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The mixture of the two cities recalls the parable of the wheat and weeds (Matthew 13:24–30).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.35 (CSEL 40:57–58; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-35).

## City of God 1.36

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-36
- Source: CSEL 40:58–59
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine outlines the plan of the following books: Rome's calamities before Christ, the true God's role in Rome's rise, and a refutation of the philosophers who worship gods for the life after death.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXVI. De quibus causis sequenti disputatione sit disserendum. Sed adhuc mihi quaedam dicenda sunt aduersus eos, qui Romanae rei publicae clades in religionem nostram referunt, qua dis suis sacrificare prohibentur. Commemoranda sunt enim quae et quanta occurrere potuerint uel satis esse uidebuntur mala, quae illa ciuitas pertulit uel ad eius imperium prouinciae pertinentes, antequam eorum sacrificia prohibita fuissent; quae omnia procul dubio nobis tribuerent, si iam uel illis clareret nostra religio, uel ita eos a sacris sacrilegis prohiberet. Deinde monstrandum est, quos eorum mores et quam ob causam Deus uerus ad augendum imperium adiuuare dignatus est, in cuius potestate sunt regna omnia, quamque nihil eos adiuuerint hi, quos deos putant, et potius quantum decipiendo et fallendo nocuerint. Postremo aduersus eos dicetur, qui manifestissimis documentis confutati adque conuicti conantur adserere non propter uitae praesentis utilitatem, sed propter eam, quae post mortem futura est, colendos deos. Quae, nisi fallor, quaestio multo erit operosior et subtiliore disputatione dignior, ut et contra philosophos in ea disseratur, non quoslibet, sed qui aput illos excellentissima gloria clari sunt et nobiscum multa sentiunt, et de animae inmortalitate et quod Deus uerus mundum condiderit et de prouidentia eius, qua uniuersum quod condidit regit. Sed quoniam et ipsi in illis, quae contra nos sentiunt, refellendi sunt, deesse huic officio non debemus, ut refutatis inpiis contradictionibus pro uiribus, quas Deus impertiet, adseramus ciuitatem Dei ueramque pietatem et Dei cultum, in quo uno ueraciter sempiterna beatitudo promittitur. Hic itaque modus sit huius uoluminis, ut deinceps disposita ab alio sumamus exordio.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 36. On the subjects to be discussed in the following argument.

But some things still remain for me to say against those who blame the disasters of the Roman state on our religion, because it forbids them to sacrifice to their gods. For I must recall what and how great evils, as many as can come to mind or as will seem sufficient, that city or the provinces belonging to its empire suffered before their sacrifices were forbidden; all of which they would undoubtedly blame on us if our religion had already been shining on them then, or had forbidden them their sacrilegious rites in the same way. Then I must show what morals of theirs, and for what reason, the true God, in whose power are all kingdoms, deigned to help for the increase of their empire, and how those whom they think gods helped them not at all, and rather how much harm they did by deceiving and misleading them. Finally I shall speak against those who, refuted and convicted by the plainest proofs, try to maintain that the gods are to be worshipped not for the advantage of the present life but for the life that will come after death. This question, unless I am mistaken, will be much more laborious and worthy of subtler discussion, since in it I must argue against philosophers, not just any, but those who are most gloriously famous among them and agree with us in many things, both about the immortality of the soul, and that the true God made the world, and about his providence, by which he rules the whole of what he made. But since they too must be refuted in those points in which they hold views against us, we must not fail in this duty, so that, having refuted ungodly objections with the strength God will give, we may assert the city of God and true godliness and the worship of God, in which alone eternal blessedness is truly promised. Let this, then, be the limit of this book, so that we may take up what follows from another beginning.

### Scripture references

- Dan 4:17: echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Daniel 4:17, 25 (the Most High rules the kingdoms) is echoed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 1.36 (CSEL 40:58–59; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-1-36).

## City of God 2.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-2-1
- Source: CSEL 40:59–60
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that he must argue at length against obstinate opponents but will not answer every contradiction, and asks Marcellinus and his readers not to demand endless replies.

### Latin text

CAPUT I. De modo, qui necessitati disputationis adhibendus est. Si rationi perspicuae ueritatis infirmus humanae consuetudinis sensus non auderet obsistere, sed doctrinae salubri languorem suum tamquam medicinae subderet, donec diuino adiutorio fide pietatis inpetrante sanaretur, non multo sermone opus esset ad conuincendum quemlibet uanae opinationis errorem his, qui recte sentiunt et sensa uerbis sufficientibus explicant. Nunc uero quoniam ille est maior et taetrior insipientium morbus animorum, quo inrationabiles motus suos, etiam post rationem plene redditam, quanta homini ab homine debetur, siue nimia caecitate, qua nec aperta cernuntur, siue obstinatissima peruicacia, qua et ea quae cernuntur non feruntur, tamquam ipsam rationem ueritatemque defendunt, fit necessitas copiosius dicendi plerumque res claras, uelut eas non spectantibus intuendas, sed quodam modo tangendas palpantibus et coniuentibus offeramus. Et tamen quis disceptandi finis erit et loquendi modus, si respondendum esse respondentibus semper existimemus? Nam qui uel non possunt intellegere quod dicitur, uel tam duri sunt aduersitate mentis, ut, etiamsi intellexerint, non oboediant, respondent, ut scriptum est, et loquuntur iniquitatem adque infatigabiliter uani sunt. Quorum dicta contraria si totiens uelimus refellere, quotiens obnixa fronte statuerint non cogitare quid dicant, dum quocumque modo nostris disputationibus contradicant, quam sit infinitum et aerumnosum et infructuosum uides. Quam ob rem, nec te ipsum, [mi] fili Marcelline, nec alios, quibus hic labor noster in Christi caritate utiliter ac liberaliter seruit, tales meorum scriptorum uelim iudices, qui responsionem semper desiderent. cum his quae leguntur audierint aliquid contradici, ne fiant similes earum muliercularum, quas commemorat apostolus semper discentes et numquam ad ueritatis scientiam peruenientes.,

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. On the limit that must be set to the need for argument.

If the weak understanding of human habit did not dare to resist the reasoning of plain truth, but submitted its sickness to sound teaching as to medicine until it was healed by divine help obtained by the faith of godliness, there would be no need of long discourse to refute any error of empty opinion for those who think rightly and set out their thoughts in adequate words. But as things are, the greater and fouler disease of foolish minds is that by which they defend their irrational impulses as if they were reason and truth itself, even after as full a reason has been given as one man owes another, whether from excessive blindness, by which even what is open is not seen, or from most obstinate stubbornness, by which even what is seen is not accepted. So it becomes necessary to speak at greater length about things that are for the most part clear, as if we were offering them, not for people to look at, but in some way to be touched by people groping with their eyes shut. And yet what end will there be to debate, what limit to talk, if we think we must always answer those who answer back? For those who either cannot understand what is said, or are so hardened by the perversity of their mind that even if they have understood they do not obey, answer back, as it is written, and “speak iniquity,” and are tirelessly vain. If we wished to refute their contrary statements as often as they resolved, with shameless faces, not to think what they say so long as they contradict our arguments in any way at all, you see how endless, wearisome, and fruitless it would be. For this reason, Marcellinus my son, I would not want either you or others for whom this labor of mine is usefully and freely at service in the love of Christ to be the kind of judges of my writings who always want a reply when they hear something said against what they read, lest they become like those silly women whom the apostle mentions, “always learning and never arriving at the knowledge of the truth.”

### Scripture references

- Ps 94:4 (93:4 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- 2 Tim 3:6–7: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Psalm 94:4 (LXX/Vulgate 93:4); 2 Timothy 3:6–7. Marcellinus, the imperial commissioner in Africa, is the dedicatee of the work.
- The editor deletes mi (“my”) before “son” (square brackets); the English “my son” renders fili alone.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.1 (CSEL 40:59–60; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/1-23/#p-2-1).

## City of God 2.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-2
- Source: CSEL 40:60–62
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine summarizes Book 1 and announces that Book 2 will recount the evils Rome suffered before Christianity.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. De his, quae primo uolumine expedita sunt. Superiore itaque libro, cum de ciuitate Dei dicere instituissem, unde hoc uniuersum opus illo adiuuante in manus sumtum est, occurrit mihi resistendum esse primitus eis, qui haec bella, quibus mundus iste conteritur, maximeque Romanae urbis recentem a barbaris uastationem Christianae religioni tribuunt, qua prohibentur nefandis sacrificiis seruire daemonibus, cum potius hoc tribuere deberent Christo, quod propter eius nomen contra institutum moremque bellorum eis, quo confugerent, religiosa et amplissima loca barbari libera praebuerunt, adque in multis famulatum deditum Christo non solum uerum, sed etiam timore confictum sic honorauerunt, ut, quod in eos belli iure fieri licuisset, inlicitum sibi esse iudicarent. Inde incidit quaestio, quur haec diuina beneficia et ad inpios ingratosque peruenerint, et quur itidem illa dura, quae hostiliter facta sunt, pios cum inpiis pariter adflixerint? Quam quaestionem per multa diffusam (in omnibus enim cottidianis uel Dei muneribus uel hominum cladibus, quorum utraque bene ac male uiuentibus permixte adque indiscrete saepe accidunt, solet multos mouere) ut pro suscepti operis necessitate dissoluerem, aliquantum inmoratus sum maxime ad consolandas sanctas feminas et pie castas, in quibus ab hoste aliquid perpetratum est, quod intulit uerecundiae dolorem, etsi non abstulit pudicitiae firmitatem, ne paeniteat eas uitae, quas non est unde possit paenitere nequitiae. Deinde pauca dixi in eos, qui Christianos aduersis illis rebus adfectos et praecipue pudorem humiliatarum feminarum quamuis castarum adque sanctarum proteruitate inpudentissima exagitant, cum sint nequissimi et inreuerentissimi, longe ab eis ipsis Romanis degeneres, quorum praeclara multa laudantur et litterarum memoria celebrantur, immo illorum gloriae uehementer aduersi. Romam quippe partam ueterum auctamque laboribus foediorem stantem fecerant quam ruentem, quando quidem in ruina eius lapides et ligna, in istorum autem uita omnia non murorum, sed morum munimenta adque ornamenta ceciderunt, cum funestioribus eorum corda cupiditatibus quam ignibus tecta illius urbis arderent. Quibus dictis primum terminaui librum. Deinceps itaque dicere institui, quae mala ciuitas illa perpessa sit ab origine sua siue aput se ipsam siue in prouinciis sibi iam subditis, quae omnia Christianae religioni tribuerent, si iam tunc euangelica doctrina aduersus falsos et fallaces eorum deos testificatione liberrima personaret.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. On the matters dealt with in the first book.

In the previous book, then, when I had resolved to speak of the city of God, from which this whole work, with his help, has been taken in hand, it occurred to me that I must first resist those who attribute these wars by which the world is being crushed, and above all the recent devastation of the city of Rome by the barbarians, to the Christian religion, by which they are forbidden to serve demons with unspeakable sacrifices; whereas they ought rather to attribute it to Christ that for his name's sake the barbarians, contrary to the practice and custom of war, provided them with religious places of great size, free, to which they could flee, and in many cases so honored service devoted to Christ, not only genuine but even feigned out of fear, that they judged unlawful for themselves what the law of war would have allowed against them. From this arose the question why these divine benefits reached even the ungodly and ungrateful, and why likewise those harsh things that were done by the enemy afflicted the godly together with the ungodly. This question spreads over many matters (for in all the daily gifts of God and disasters of men, both of which often befall those who live well and those who live ill mixed together and without distinction, it usually troubles many); and in order to resolve it, as the undertaken work required, I dwelt on it for some time, above all to console the holy and godly chaste women against whom the enemy perpetrated something that brought the pain of shame, though it did not take away the firmness of chastity, so that they may not regret their life, since they have no wickedness to regret. Then I said a little against those who, with most shameless insolence, harass Christians afflicted by those adversities, and especially the shame of the humiliated women, chaste and holy though they are; while they themselves are most wicked and irreverent, far degenerate from those very Romans whose many famous deeds are praised and celebrated in the record of literature, and indeed are violently opposed to their glory. For they had made Rome, won and enlarged by the labors of the ancients, fouler standing than falling, since in its fall stones and timbers fell, but in their lives all the defenses and ornaments, not of walls, but of morals fell, when their hearts burned with more deadly desires than the fires with which the roofs of that city burned. With these words I ended the first book. Next, then, I have resolved to speak of the evils that city suffered from its origin, whether at home or in the provinces already subject to it, all of which they would attribute to the Christian religion if the gospel teaching had already been sounding then with its most free testimony against their false and deceitful gods.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.2 (CSEL 40:60–62; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-2).

## City of God 2.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-3
- Source: CSEL 40:62–63
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine sets out to recall Rome's calamities before Christ, against the popular claim that Christians cause disasters.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. De adsumenda historia, qua ostendatur, quae mala acciderint Romanis, cum deos colerent, antequam religio Christiana obcresceret. Memento autem me ista commemorantem adhuc contra inperitos agere, ex quorum inperitia illud quoque ortum est uulgare prouerbium: Pluuia defit, causa Christiani sunt. Nam qui eorum studiis liberalibus instituti amant historiam, facillime ista nouerunt; sed ut nobis ineruditorum turbas infestissimas reddant, se nosse dissimulant adque hoc aput uulgus confirmare nituntur, clades, quibus per certa interualla locorum et temporum genus humanum oportet adfligi, causa accidere nominis Christiani, quod contra deos suos ingenti fama et praeclarissima celebritate per cuncta diffunditur. Recolant ergo nobiscum, antequam Christus uenisset in carne, antequam eius nomen ea, cui frustra inuident, gloria populis innotesceret, quibus calamitatibus res Romanae multipliciter uarieque contritae sint, et in his defendant, si possunt, deos suos, si propterea coluntur, ne ista mala patiantur cultores eorum; quorum si quid nunc passi fuerint, nobis inputanda esse contendunt. Quur enim ea, quae dicturus sum, permiserunt accidere cultoribus suis, antequam eos declaratum Christi nomen offenderet eorumque sacrificia prohiberet?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. On taking up history to show what evils befell the Romans when they worshipped the gods, before the Christian religion grew.

Remember, however, that in recalling these things I am still dealing with the uneducated, from whose ignorance that common proverb also arose: “No rain: the Christians are the cause.” For those among them who have been trained in liberal studies and love history know these things very well; but to make the crowds of the unlearned most hostile to us, they pretend not to know them, and try to confirm among the common people that the disasters by which the human race must be afflicted at certain intervals of places and times happen because of the Christian name, which is spreading everywhere against their gods with immense fame and most brilliant renown. Let them recall with us, then, by what calamities, many and various, the Roman state was crushed before Christ came in the flesh, before his name became known to the peoples with that glory which they vainly envy; and in these let them defend their gods, if they can, if they are worshipped so that their worshippers may not suffer these evils, since, if their worshippers now suffer any of them, they argue that it must be blamed on us. For why did they allow the things I am about to tell to happen to their worshippers before the proclaimed name of Christ offended them and forbade their sacrifices?

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.3 (CSEL 40:62–63; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-3).

## City of God 2.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-4
- Source: CSEL 40:63–64
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that the pagan gods gave their worshippers no moral teaching, recalling from his youth the obscene songs performed before the Mother of the gods at her festival of washing.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. Quod cultores deorum nulla umquam a dis suis praecepta probitatis acceperint et in sacris eorum turpia quaeque celebrauerint. Primo ipsos mores ne pessimos haberent, quare di eorum curare noluerunt? Deus enim uerus eos, a quibus non colebatur, merito neglexit; di autem illi, a quorum cultu se prohiberi homines ingratissimi conqueruntur, cultores suos ad bene uiuendum quare nullis legibus adiuuerunt? Utique dignum erat, ut, quo modo isti illorum sacra, ita illi istorum facta curarent. Sed respondetur, quod uoluntate propria quisque malus est. Quis hoc negauerit? Verum tamen pertinebat ad consultores deos uitae bonae praecepta non occultare populis cultoribus suis, sed clara praedicatione praebere, per uates etiam conuenire adque arguere peccantes, palam minari poenas male agentibus. praemia recte uiuentibus polliceri. Quid umquam tale in deorum illorum templis prompta et eminenti uoce concrepuit? Veniebamus etiam nos aliquando adulescentes ad spectacula ludibriaque sacrilegiorum, spectabamus arrepticios, audiebamus synphoniacos, ludis turpissimis, qui dis deabusque exhibebantur, oblectabamur, Caelesti uirgini et Berecynthiae matri omnium, ante cuius lecticam die sollemni lauationis eius talia per publicum cantitabantur a nequissimis scaenicis, qualia, non dico matrem deorum, sed matrem qualiumcumque senatorum uel quorumlibet honestorum uirorum, immo uero qualia nec matrem ipsorum scaenicorum deceret audire. Habet enim quiddam erga parentes humana uerecundia, quod nec ipsa nequitia possit auferre. Illam proinde turpitudinem obscenorum dictorum adque factorum scaenicos ipsos domi suae proludendi causa coram matribus suis agere puderet, quam per publicum agebant coram deum matre spectante adque audiente utriusque sexus frequentissima multitudine. Quae si inlecta curiositate adesse potuit circumfusa, saltem offensa castitate debuit abire confusa. Quae sunt sacrilegia, si illa sunt sacra? aut quae inquinatio, si illa lauatio? Et haec fercula appellabantur, quasi celebraretur conuiuium, quo uelut suis epulis inmunda daemonia pascerentur. Quis enim non sentiat cuius modi spiritus talibus obscenitatibus delectentur, nisi uel nesciens, utrum omnino sint ulli inmundi spiritus deorum nomine decipientes, uel talem agens uitam, in qua istos potius quam Deum uerum et optet propitios et formidet iratos?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. That the worshippers of the gods never received any precepts of goodness from their gods, and celebrated all kinds of shameful things in their rites.

First, why were their gods unwilling to take care that their morals should not be most wicked? The true God rightly neglected those by whom he was not worshipped; but those gods, from whose worship these most ungrateful men complain that they are prohibited, why did they not help their worshippers to live well by any laws? Surely it was fitting that, as these men cared for the gods' rites, the gods should care for these men's deeds. But the answer is that each man is wicked by his own will. Who would deny it? Yet it belonged to gods who counsel men not to hide the precepts of a good life from the peoples who worshipped them, but to offer them by clear proclamation, to meet and rebuke sinners through their seers too, openly to threaten punishment to evildoers and to promise rewards to those who live rightly. What of this kind ever rang out in the temples of those gods with a ready and resounding voice? We too, when we were young, used to go to the spectacles and mockeries of sacrileges; we watched the possessed, we listened to the musicians, we enjoyed the most shameful shows that were put on for the gods and goddesses, for the Heavenly Virgin and for Berecynthia, the mother of all, before whose litter, on the solemn day of her washing, such things were sung in public by the vilest actors as would not be fit, I do not say for the mother of the gods, but for the mother of any senators or of any honorable men, or indeed for the mother of the actors themselves, to hear. For human modesty has something toward parents that not even wickedness itself can take away. So the actors themselves would be ashamed to perform at home before their mothers, by way of rehearsal, that foulness of obscene words and deeds which they performed in public before the mother of the gods, while a great crowd of both sexes watched and listened. If that crowd could stand around, drawn by curiosity, it ought at least to have gone away confounded, its chastity offended. What are sacrileges, if those are sacred rites? Or what is defilement, if that is washing? And these were called “courses,” as if a banquet were being celebrated at which unclean demons were fed as on their own feast. For who does not perceive what kind of spirits delight in such obscenities, unless he either does not know whether there are any unclean spirits at all deceiving under the name of gods, or leads such a life that he both wishes these to be favorable and fears them angry rather than the true God?

### Translation notes

- The Heavenly Virgin (Caelestis) was the chief goddess of Carthage; Berecynthia is Cybele, the Mother of the gods, whose image was ritually washed each year.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.4 (CSEL 40:63–64; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-4).

## City of God 2.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-5
- Source: CSEL 40:64–66
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that Scipio Nasica would never have wanted his own mother honored with the obscenities offered to the Mother of the gods, and that her choice of him as the best man was a deception.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. De obscenitatibus, quibus mater deum a cultoribus suis honorabatur. Nequaquam istos, qui flagitiosissimae consuetudinis uitiis oblectari magis quam obluctari student, sed illum ipsum Nasicam Scipionem, qui uir optimus a senatu electus est, cuius manibus eiusdem daemonis simulacrum susceptum est in Urbemque peruectum, habere de hac re iudicem uellem. Diceret nobis, utrum matrem suam tam optime de re publica uellet mereri, ut ei diuini honores decernerentur; sicut et Graecos et Romanos aliasque gentes constat quibusdam decreuisse mortalibus, quorum erga se beneficia magnipenderant, eosque inmortales factos adque in deorum numerum receptos esse crediderant. Profecto ille tantam felicitatem suae matri. si fieri posset, optaret. Porro si ab illo deinde quaereremus. utrum inter eius diuinos honores uellet illa turpia celebrari: nonne se malle clamaret, ut sua mater sine ullo sensu mortua iaceret, quam ad hoc dea uiueret, ut illa libenter audiret? Absit, ut senator populi Romani ea mente praeditus, qua theatrum aedificari in urbe fortium uirorum prohibuit, sic uellet coli matrem suam, ut talibus dea sacris propitiaretur, qualibus matrona uerbis offenderetur. Nec ullo modo crederet uerecundiam laudabilis feminae ita in contrarium diuinitate mutari, ut honoribus eam talibus aduocarent cultores sui, qualibus conuiciis in quempiam iaculatis, cum inter homines uiueret, nisi aures clauderet seseque subtraheret, erubescerent pro illa et propinqui et maritus et liberi. Proinde talis mater deum, qualem habere matrem puderet quemlibet etiam pessimum uirum, Romanas occupatura mentes quaesiuit optimum uirum, non quem monendo et adiuuando faceret, sed quem fallendo deciperet, ei similis de qua scriptum est: Mulier autem uirorum pretiosas animas captat, ut ille magnae indolis animus hoc uelut diuino testimonio sublimatus et uere se optimum existimans ueram pietatem religionemque non quaereret, sine qua omne quamuis laudabile ingenium superbia uanescit et decidit. Quo modo igitur nisi insidiose quaereret dea illa optimum uirum, cum talia quaerat in suis sacris, qualia uiri optimi abhorrent suis adhibere conuiuiis?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. On the obscenities with which the mother of the gods was honored by her worshippers.

I would want as judge of this matter not these people, who are eager to take pleasure in the vices of a most shameful custom rather than to struggle against them, but that same Scipio Nasica who was chosen by the senate as the best man, into whose hands the image of this same demon was received and carried into the City. Let him tell us whether he would want his own mother to deserve so well of the state that divine honors should be decreed to her, just as it is known that the Greeks and Romans and other nations decreed them to certain mortals whose benefits toward them they had valued highly, and whom they had believed to have become immortal and been received into the number of the gods. Surely he would wish such happiness for his mother, if it could be. Further, if we then asked him whether he would want those foul things to be celebrated among her divine honors, would he not cry out that he would rather his mother lay dead without any feeling than live as a goddess in order to hear such things with pleasure? Far be it that a senator of the Roman people, endowed with the mind by which he forbade a theater to be built in a city of brave men, should want his mother to be worshipped in such a way that as a goddess she would be propitiated by rites whose words would offend her as a matron. Nor would he in any way believe that the modesty of a praiseworthy woman would be so changed into its opposite by divinity that her worshippers would invoke her with honors such that, if such insults had been hurled at anyone while she lived among men, her relatives, husband, and children would blush for her unless she stopped her ears and withdrew. So the mother of the gods, such a mother as even the worst man would be ashamed to have, when about to take possession of Roman minds, sought the best man, not to make him so by advice and help, but to deceive him by trickery, like her of whom it is written: “But a woman captures the precious souls of men”; so that that mind of great natural gifts, exalted by this seemingly divine testimony and truly thinking itself the best, might not seek true godliness and religion, without which every talent, however praiseworthy, vanishes and falls through pride. How then could that goddess seek the best man except treacherously, since she seeks in her rites such things as the best men shrink from bringing to their banquets?

### Scripture references

- Prov 6:26: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Proverbs 6:26.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.5 (CSEL 40:64–66; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-5).

## City of God 2.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-6
- Source: CSEL 40:66–67
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine challenges pagans to show any place where their gods taught moral precepts, as churches do wherever Christianity spreads.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. Deos paganorum numquam bene uiuendi sanxisse doctrinam. Hinc est quod de uita et moribus ciuitatum adque populorum a quibus colebantur illa numina non curarunt, ut tam horrendis eos et detestabilibus malis non in agro et uitibus, non in domo adque pecunia, non denique in ipso corpore, quod menti subditur, sed in ipsa mente, in ipso rectore carnis animo, eos inpleri ac pessimos fieri sine ulla sua terribili prohibitione permitterent. Aut si prohibebant, hoc ostendatur potius, hoc probetur. Nec nobis nescio quos susurros paucissimorum auribus anhelatos et arcana uelut religione traditos iactent, quibus uitae probitas castitasque discatur; sed demonstrentur uel commemorentur loca talibus aliquando conuenticulis consecrata, non ubi ludi agerentur obscenis uocibus et motibus histrionum, nec ubi Fugalia celebrantur effusa omni licentia turpitudinum (et uere Fugalia, sed pudoris et honestatis); sed ubi populi audirent quid di praeciperent de cohibenda auaritia, ambitione frangenda, luxuria refrenanda, ubi discerent miseri, quod discendum Persius increpat dicens: Discite, o miseri, et causas cognoscite rerum, Quid sumus et quidnam uicturi gignimur, ordo Quis datus aut metae qua mollis flexus et unde, Quis modus argenti, quid fas optare, quid asper Utile nummus habet, patriae carisque propinquis Quantum largiri deceat, quem te Deus esse Iussit et humana qua parte locatus es in re. Dicatur in quibus locis haec docentium deorum solebant praecepta recitari et a cultoribus eorum populis frequenter audiri, sicut nos ostendimus ad hoc ecclesias institutas, quaqua uersum religio Christiana diffunditur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. That the gods of the pagans never laid down a teaching for living well.

Hence it is that those deities did not care about the life and morals of the cities and peoples by whom they were worshipped, so that they allowed them, without any fearful prohibition of their own, to be filled with such horrible and detestable evils and to become utterly wicked, not in their fields and vines, not in their house and money, not even in the body itself, which is subject to the mind, but in the mind itself, in the very spirit that rules the flesh. Or if they did forbid it, let this rather be shown, let this be proved. And let them not boast to us of some whispers or other, breathed into the ears of a very few and handed down as a secret religion, by which uprightness and chastity of life might be learned; but let the places be shown or named that were ever consecrated to such gatherings; not where plays were acted with the obscene words and gestures of actors, nor where the Fugalia are celebrated with every license of foulness let loose (truly Fugalia, the flight of modesty and decency), but where the peoples might hear what the gods commanded about restraining avarice, breaking ambition, reining in luxury; where the wretched might learn what Persius rebukes them to learn, saying: “Learn, you wretched, and come to know the causes of things: what we are, and for what life we are born; what rank is given us, or where and from where the gentle turn at the goal; what measure of silver; what it is right to pray for; what use the rough coin has; how much it is fitting to bestow on country and dear kin; what God has commanded you to be, and in what part of the human world you are placed.” Let it be said in what places these precepts of teaching gods used to be recited and frequently heard by the peoples who worshipped them, as we point to churches established for this purpose wherever the Christian religion spreads.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Persius, 3.66–72 (Persius, Satires): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Persius, Satires 3.66–72. The Fugalia were a Roman festival of uncertain nature; Augustine puns on fuga, “flight”.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.6 (CSEL 40:66–67; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-6).

## City of God 2.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-7
- Source: CSEL 40:67–69
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that philosophy is human discovery, not divine precept, and that pagans imitate the immoral deeds of their gods, as in Terence's young man who cites Jupiter's example.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. Inutilia esse inuenta philosophica sine auctoritate diuina, ubi quemque ad uitia pronum magis mouet quid di fecerint, quam quid homines disputarint. An forte nobis philosophorum scholas disputationesque memorabunt? Primo haec non Romana, sed Graeca sunt; aut si propterea iam Romana, quia et Graecia facta est Romana prouincia, non deorum praecepta sunt, sed hominum inuenta, qui utcumque conati sunt ingeniis acutissimis praediti ratiocinando uestigare, quid in rerum natura latitaret, quid in moribus adpetendum esset adque fugiendum, quid in ipsis ratiocinandi regulis certa conexione traheretur, aut quid non esset consequens uel etiam repugnaret. Et quidam eorum quaedam magna, quantum diuinitus adiuti sunt, inuenerunt; quantum autem humanitus inpediti sunt, errauerunt, maxime cum eorum superbiae iuste prouidentia diuina resisteret, ut uiam pietatis ab humilitate in superna surgentem etiam istorum conparatione monstraret; unde postea nobis erit in Dei ueri Domini uoluntate disquirendi ac disserendi locus. Verum tamen si philosophi aliquid inuenerunt, quod agendae bonae uitae beataeque adipiscendae satis esse possit: quanto iustius talibus diuini honores decernerentur! Quanto melius et honestius in Platonis templo libri eius legerentur, quam in templis daemonum Galli absciderentur, molles consecrarentur, insani secarentur, et quidquid aliud uel crudele uel turpe, uel turpiter crudele uel crudeliter turpe in sacris talium deorum celebrari solet! Quanto satius erat ad erudiendam iustitia iuuentutem publice recitari leges deorum quam laudari inaniter leges adque instituta maiorum! Omnes enim cultores talium deorum, mox ut eos libido perpulerit feruenti, ut ait Persius, tincta ueneno, magis intuentur quid Iuppiter fecerit, quam quid docuerit Plato uel censuerit Cato. Hinc aput Terentium flagitiosus adulescens spectat tabulam quandam pictam in pariete, ubi inerat pictura haec, Iouem Quo pacto Danaae misisse aiunt quondam in gremium imbrem aureum, adque ab hac tanta auctoritate adhibet patrocinium turpitudini suae, cum in ea se iactat imitari deum. At quem deum! inquit; qui templa caeli summo sonitu concutit. Ego homuncio id non facerem? Ego uero illud feci ac libens.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. That the discoveries of philosophy are useless without divine authority, since what the gods have done moves anyone prone to vice more than what men have argued.

Or perhaps they will remind us of the schools and debates of the philosophers? First, these are not Roman but Greek; or if they are now Roman because Greece too has become a Roman province, they are not precepts of the gods but discoveries of men, who, endowed with very sharp minds, tried as best they could to track down by reasoning what lay hidden in the nature of things, what should be sought and what avoided in morals, what follows by sure connection in the very rules of reasoning, or what does not follow or even contradicts. And some of them discovered some great things, so far as they were helped by God; but so far as they were hindered as men, they erred, especially since divine providence justly resisted their pride, so as to show, even by comparison with them, the way of godliness rising from humility to the things above; which we shall have occasion to investigate and discuss later, by the will of the true God and Lord. Yet if the philosophers discovered anything that could suffice for leading a good life and attaining a happy one, how much more justly would divine honors be decreed to such men! How much better and more honorable it would be for Plato's books to be read in a temple of Plato than for Galli to be castrated in the temples of demons, effeminates consecrated, madmen gashed, and whatever else, cruel or foul, or foully cruel or cruelly foul, is usually celebrated in the rites of such gods! How much better it would be, for training the youth in justice, for the laws of the gods to be publicly recited than for the laws and institutions of the ancestors to be vainly praised! For all the worshippers of such gods, as soon as lust drives them on, “dipped,” as Persius says, “in burning poison,” look more at what Jupiter did than at what Plato taught or Cato judged. Hence, in Terence, a depraved young man looks at a picture painted on a wall, in which was this painting: “how Jupiter, they say, once sent a golden shower into Danae's lap,” and from this great authority he takes patronage for his own foulness, boasting that in it he imitates a god: “And what a god!” he says, “who shakes the temples of heaven with the loudest thunder. Should I, a little man, not do it? I did it, and gladly.”

### Extrabiblical texts

- Persius, 3.37 (Persius, Satires): quotation, high confidence
- Terence, Eun. 583–591 (Terence): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Persius, Satires 3.37; Terence, The Eunuch 583–591. The Galli were the castrated priests of Cybele.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.7 (CSEL 40:67–69; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-7).

## City of God 2.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-8
- Source: CSEL 40:69–70
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that the gods themselves demanded the stage plays that portrayed their vices, so they cannot be excused by blaming the poets.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. De ludis scaenicis, in quibus di non offenduntur editione suarum turpitudinum, sed placantur. At enim non traduntur ista sacris deorum, sed fabulis poetarum. Nolo dicere illa mystica quam ista theatrica esse turpiora; hoc dico, quod negantes conuincit historia, eosdem illos ludos, in quibus regnant figmenta poetarum, non per inperitum obsequium sacris deorum suorum intulisse Romanos, sed ipsos deos, ut sibi sollemniter ederentur et honori suo consecrarentur, acerbe imperando et quodam modo extorquendo fecisse; quod in primo libro breui commemoratione perstrinxi. Nam ingrauescente pestilentia ludi scaenici auctoritate pontificum Romae primitus instituti sunt. Quis igitur in agenda uita non ea sibi potius sectanda arbitretur, quae actitantur ludis auctoritate diuina institutis, quam ea, quae scriptitantur legibus humano consilio promulgatis? Adulterum Iouem si poetae fallaciter prodiderunt, di utique casti, quia tantum nefas per humanos ludos confictum est, non quia neglectum, irasci ac uindicare debuerunt. Et haec sunt scaenicorum tolerabiliora ludorum, comoediae scilicet et tragoediae, hoc est fabulae poetarum agendae in spectaculis multa rerum turpitudine, sed nulla saltem, sicut alia multa, uerborum obscenitate conpositae; quas etiam inter studia, quae honesta ac liberalia uocantur, pueri legere et discere coguntur a senibus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. On the stage plays, in which the gods are not offended but appeased by the exhibition of their foul deeds.

But, they say, these things are not handed down by the rites of the gods, but by the fables of the poets. I do not wish to say that those mysteries are fouler than these theatrical shows; I say this, which history proves against those who deny it: that those very plays in which the fictions of the poets reign were not introduced by the Romans into the rites of their gods through ignorant devotion, but that the gods themselves brought it about, by harshly commanding and in a way extorting it, that they should be solemnly exhibited to them and consecrated to their honor; I touched on this briefly in the first book. For when a pestilence was growing worse, stage plays were first instituted at Rome by the authority of the pontiffs. Who, then, in leading his life, would not think he should follow the things acted out in plays instituted by divine authority rather than the things written in laws promulgated by human counsel? If the poets falsely portrayed Jupiter as an adulterer, surely chaste gods ought to have been angry and to have avenged it because so great a wickedness was invented in human plays, not because the plays were neglected. And these are the more tolerable of the stage plays, namely comedies and tragedies, that is, poets' fables to be acted in the shows, with much foulness in their subject matter, but composed at least without any obscenity of words, as many others are; and these boys are even compelled by their elders to read and learn among the studies that are called honorable and liberal.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, 7.2 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- See 1.32 and Livy 7.2.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.8 (CSEL 40:69–70; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-8).

## City of God 2.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-9
- Source: CSEL 40:70–72
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine quotes Cicero's Republic on the Roman law against defamatory verse, contrasting it with Greek comedy's license, which followed the gods' own pleasure in being ridiculed.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. Quid Romani ueteres de cohibenda poetica licentia senserint, quam Graeci deorum secuti iudicium liberam esse uoluerunt. Quid hinc autem senserint Romani ueteres, Cicero testatur in libris, quos de re publica scripsit, ubi Scipio disputans ait: Numquam comoediae, nisi consuetudo uitae pateretur, probare sua theatris flagitia potuissent. Et Graeci quidem antiquiores uitiosae suae opinionis quandam conuenientiam seruarunt, aput quos fuit etiam lege concessum, ut quod uellet comoedia, de quo uellet, nominatim diceret. Itaque, sicut in eisdem libris loquitur Africanus, quem illa non adtigit, uel potius quem non uexauit? cui pepercit? Esto, populares homines inprobos, in re publica seditiosos, Cleonem, Cleophontem, Hyperbolum laesit. Patiamur, inquit, etsi eius modi ciues a censore melius est quam a poeta notari. Sed Periclen, cum iam suae ciuitati maxima auctoritate plurimos annos domi et belli praefuisset, uiolari uersibus et eos agi in scaena non plus decuit, quam si Plautus, inquit, noster uoluisset aut Naeuius Publio et Gn. Scipioni aut Caecilius Marco Catoni maledicere. Dein paulo post: Nostrae, inquit, contra duodecim tabulae cum perpaucas res capite sanxissent, in his hanc quoque sanciendam putauerunt, si quis occentauisset siue carmen condidisset, quod infamiam faceret flagitiumue alteri. Praeclare. Iudiciis enim magistratuum, disceptationibus legitimis propositam uitam, non poetarum ingeniis habere debemus, nec probrum audire nisi ea lege, ut respondere liceat et iudicio defendere. Haec ex Ciceronis quarto de re publica libro ad uerbum excerpenda arbitratus sum, nonnullis propter faciliorem intellectum uel praetermissis uel paululum commutatis. Multum enim ad rem pertinet, quam molior explicare, si potero. Dicit deinde alia et sic concludit hunc locum, ut ostendat ueteribus displicuisse Romanis uel laudari quemquam in scaena uiuum hominem uel uituperari. Sed, ut dixi, hoc Graeci quamquam inuerecundius, tamen conuenientius licere uoluerunt, cum uiderent dis suis accepta et grata esse obprobria non tantum hominum, uerum et ipsorum deorum in scaenicis fabulis, siue a poetis essent illa conficta, siue flagitia eorum uera commemorarentur et agerentur in theatris adque ab eorum cultoribus utinam solo risu, ac non etiam imitatione digna uiderentur. Nimis enim superbum fuit famae parcere principum ciuitatis et ciuium, ubi suae famae parci numina noluerunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. What the ancient Romans thought about restraining the license of poets, which the Greeks, following the judgment of the gods, wished to be free.

What the ancient Romans thought about this Cicero testifies in the books he wrote On the Republic, where Scipio, in the discussion, says: “Comedies could never have made their shameful deeds acceptable in the theaters had not the habits of life allowed it.” And the older Greeks kept a certain consistency in their vicious opinion, since among them it was even allowed by law for comedy to say by name what it wished about whom it wished. And so, as Africanus says in the same books, “whom did it not touch, or rather whom did it not harass? Whom did it spare? Granted, it wounded demagogues, wicked men, seditious in the state: Cleon, Cleophon, Hyperbolus. Let us allow it,” he says, “though it is better for such citizens to be branded by the censor than by a poet. But for Pericles, when he had already led his city with the greatest authority for many years in peace and war, to be insulted in verse and for such things to be acted on the stage was no more fitting than if our Plautus,” he says, “or Naevius had wished to abuse Publius and Gnaeus Scipio, or Caecilius Marcus Cato.” Then a little later: “Our Twelve Tables, on the contrary,” he says, “though they made very few things capital offenses, thought that this too should be made one: if anyone sang or composed a song that brought disgrace or shame on another. Excellently. For we ought to have our life exposed to the judgments of magistrates and to lawful trials, not to the wit of poets, and not to hear reproach except on condition that we may answer it and defend ourselves in court.” I thought I should quote this word for word from the fourth book of Cicero's On the Republic, with some things omitted or slightly altered for easier understanding. For it bears very much on the matter I am trying to explain, if I can. He then says other things and concludes this passage so as to show that it displeased the ancient Romans for any living man to be either praised or blamed on the stage. But, as I said, the Greeks wished this to be permitted, more shamelessly but more consistently, since they saw that reproaches not only of men but of the gods themselves in stage fables were acceptable and pleasing to their gods, whether they were invented by the poets or the gods' real shameful deeds were recalled and acted in the theaters; and would that their worshippers had thought them worthy only of laughter and not also of imitation! For it would have been too proud to spare the reputation of the leaders and citizens of the state when the deities did not want their own reputation spared.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Rep. 4.10–12 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Cicero, On the Republic 4.10–12 (a book known largely from such quotations). The Twelve Tables' law against defamatory songs is Table 8.1.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.9 (CSEL 40:70–72; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-9).

## City of God 2.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-10
- Source: CSEL 40:72–73
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that demons welcome both true and false tales of divine vice because such tales lend heavenly authority to human wickedness.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. Qua nocendi arte daemones uelint uel falsa de se crimina uel uera narrari. Nam quod adfertur pro defensione, non illa uera in deos dici, sed falsa adque conficta, id ipsum est scelestius, si pietatem consulas religionis; si autem malitiam daemonum cogites, quid astutius ad decipiendum adque callidius? Cum enim probrum iacitur in principem patriae bonum adque utilem, nonne tanto est indignius, quanto a ueritate remotius et a uita illius alienius? Quae igitur supplicia sufficiunt, cum deo fit ista tam nefaria, tam insignis iniuria? Sed maligni spiritus, quos isti deos putant, etiam flagitia, quae non admiserunt, de se dici uolunt, dum tamen humanas mentes his opinionibus uelut retibus induant et ad praedestinatum supplicium secum trahant, siue homines ista commiserint, quos deos haberi gaudent, qui humanis erroribus gaudent, pro quibus se etiam colendos mille nocendi fallendique artibus interponunt; siue etiam non ullorum hominum illa crimina uera sint, quae tamen de numinibus fingi libenter accipiunt fallacissimi spiritus, ut ad scelesta ac turpia perpetranda uelut ab ipso caelo traduci in terras satis idonea uideatur auctoritas. Cum igitur Graeci talium numinum seruos se esse sentirent, inter tot et tanta eorum theatrica obprobria parcendum sibi a poetis nullo modo putauerunt, uel dis suis etiam sic consimilari adpetentes, uel metuentes, ne honestiorem famam ipsi requirendo et eis se hoc modo praeferendo illos ad iracundiam prouocarent.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. By what art of harming the demons want either false or true crimes to be told of them.

For what is offered in defense, that those things are said of the gods not truly but falsely and fictitiously, is itself the more wicked if you consult the piety of religion; but if you consider the malice of demons, what could be more cunning and crafty for deceiving? For when a reproach is cast on a good and useful leader of the country, is it not the more unworthy the further it is from the truth and the more foreign to his life? What punishments then are enough when so wicked, so notable an injury is done to a god? But the malign spirits whom these people think gods want even shameful deeds they have not committed to be told of them, so long as they entangle human minds in these opinions as in nets and drag them with them to their predestined punishment; whether men committed these things, men whom these spirits, who rejoice in human errors, are glad to have considered gods, and in whose place they interpose themselves by a thousand arts of harming and deceiving so as to be worshipped themselves; or whether these crimes are not true of any men at all, and yet the most deceitful spirits are glad to have them feigned of the deities, so that an authority sufficient for committing wicked and shameful deeds may seem to be brought down to earth, as it were from heaven itself. Since, then, the Greeks felt that they were the servants of such deities, they by no means thought that the poets should spare them amid so many and so great theatrical reproaches of the gods, either desiring to be made like their gods even in this way, or fearing that by seeking a more honorable reputation for themselves and thus setting themselves above the gods they would provoke them to anger.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.10 (CSEL 40:72–73; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-10).

## City of God 2.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-11
- Source: CSEL 40:73–74
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine notes that the Greeks, consistently with their gods' tastes, honored actors and even made them statesmen and envoys.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. De scaenicis aput Graecos in rei publicae administrationem receptis, eo quod placatores deorum iniuste ab hominibus spernerentur. Ad hanc conuenientiam pertinet, quod etiam scaenicos actores earundem fabularum non paruo ciuitatis honore dignos existimarunt, si quidem, quod in eo quoque de re publica libro commemoratur, Aeschines Atheniensis, uir eloquentissimus, cum adulescens tragoedias actitauisset, rem publicam capessiuit et Aristodemum, tragicum item actorem, maximis de rebus pacis ac belli legatum ad Philippum Athenienses saepe miserunt. Non enim consentaneum putabatur, cum easdem artes eosdemque scaenicos ludos etiam dis suis acceptos uiderent, illos, per quos agerentur, infamium loco ac numero deputare. Haec Graeci turpiter quidem, sed sane dis suis omnino congruenter, qui nec uitam ciuium lacerandam linguis poetarum et histrionum subtrahere ausi sunt, a quibus cernebant deorum uitam eisdem ipsis dis uolentibus et libentibus carpi, et ipsos homines, per quos ista in theatris agebantur, quae numinibus quibus subditi erant grata esse cognouerant, non solum minime spernendos in ciuitate, uerum etiam maxime honorandos putarunt. Quid enim causae reperire possent, quur sacerdotes honorarent, quia per eos uictimas dis acceptabiles offerebant, et scaenicos probrosos haberent, per quos illam uoluptatem siue honorem dis exhiberi petentibus et, nisi fieret, irascentibus eorum admonitione didicerant? cum praesertim Labeo, quem huiusce modi rerum peritissimum praedicant, numina bona a numinibus malis ista etiam cultus diuersitate distinguat, ut malos deos propitiari caedibus et tristibus supplicationibus adserat, bonos autem obsequiis laetis adque iucundis, qualia sunt, ut ipse ait, ludi conuiuia lectisternia. Quod totum quale sit, postea, si Deus iuuerit, diligentius disseremus. Nunc ad rem praesentem quod adtinet, siue omnibus omnia tamquam bonis permixte tribuantur (neque enim esse decet deos malos, cum potius isti, quia inmundi sunt spiritus, omnes sint mali), siue certa discretione, sicut Labeoni uisum est, illis illa, istis ista distribuantur obsequia, conpetentissime Graeci utrosque honori ducunt, et sacerdotes, per quos uictimae ministrantur, et scaenicos, per quos ludi exhibentur, ne uel omnibus dis suis, si et ludi omnibus grati sunt, uel, quod est indignius, his, quos bonos putant, si ludi ab eis solis amantur, facere conuincantur iniuriam.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. On actors admitted by the Greeks to the government of the state, on the ground that those who appease the gods should not unjustly be despised by men.

It belongs to this consistency that they thought the actors of these same fables worthy of no small honor in the state; for, as is also recalled in that book On the Republic, Aeschines of Athens, a most eloquent man, after acting tragedies as a young man, took up public life, and the Athenians often sent Aristodemus, likewise a tragic actor, as envoy to Philip on the greatest matters of peace and war. For they did not think it consistent, since they saw the same arts and the same stage plays were acceptable even to their gods, to count those through whom they were performed in the rank and number of the disgraced. The Greeks did this shamefully, indeed, but quite consistently with their gods: they neither dared to shield the life of citizens from being torn by the tongues of poets and actors, when they saw the life of the gods being carped at by them with the gods' own will and pleasure, nor thought that the very men by whom these things, known to be pleasing to the deities they served, were performed in the theaters should be despised in the state; rather they should be greatly honored. For what reason could they find for honoring priests because through them they offered victims acceptable to the gods, and holding actors as disgraceful, through whom, by the gods' own admonition, they had learned that that pleasure or honor was to be offered to gods who demanded it and were angry if it was not done? Especially since Labeo, whom they proclaim most expert in matters of this kind, distinguishes good deities from evil ones even by this difference of worship, asserting that evil gods are propitiated by slaughter and grim supplications, but good ones by glad and pleasant services, such as, he says, games, banquets, and couch-feasts for the gods. What all this amounts to we shall discuss more carefully later, if God helps us. As far as the present matter is concerned, whether all these things are given to all the gods indiscriminately as if they were good (for there ought not to be evil gods, though rather these, being unclean spirits, are all evil), or whether by a definite distinction, as Labeo thought, some services are assigned to some and others to others, the Greeks most fittingly hold both in honor, both the priests through whom the victims are offered and the actors through whom the plays are shown, lest they be convicted of doing wrong either to all their gods, if the plays are pleasing to all, or, what is more unworthy, to those they think good, if the plays are loved by them alone.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Rep. 4.13 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Cicero, On the Republic 4.13. Cornelius Labeo was a Neoplatonist writer on Roman religion (3rd century?); his works are lost.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.11 (CSEL 40:73–74; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-11).

## City of God 2.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-12
- Source: CSEL 40:74–75
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine criticizes the Romans for protecting their own reputation from poets by law while allowing the poets to defame their gods.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. Quod Romani auferendo libertatem poetis in homines, quam dederunt in deos, melius de se quam de dis suis senserint. At Romani, sicut in illa de re publica disputatione Scipio gloriatur, probris et iniuriis poetarum subiectam uitam famamque habere noluerunt, capite etiam sancientes, tale carmen condere si quis auderet. Quod erga se quidem satis honeste constituerunt, sed erga deos suos superbe et inreligiose; quos cum scirent non solum patienter, uerum etiam libenter poetarum probris maledictisque lacerari, se potius quam illos huiusce modi iniuriis indignos esse duxerunt seque ab eis etiam lege munierunt, illorum autem ista etiam sacris sollemnitatibus miscuerunt. Itane tandem, Scipio, laudas hanc poetis Romanis negatam esse licentiam, ut cuiquam obprobrium infligerent Romanorum, cum uideas eos nulli deorum pepercisse uestrorum? Itane pluris tibi habenda est existimatio curiae uestrae quam Capitolii, immo Romae unius quam caeli totius, ut linguam maledicam in ciues tuos exercere poetae etiam lege prohiberentur, et in deos tuos securi tanta conuicia nullo senatore nullo censore, nullo principe nullo pontifice prohibente iacularentur? Indignum uidelicet fuit, ut Plautus aut Naeuius [Publio et] Gn. Scipioni aut Caecilius M. Catoni malediceret, et dignum fuit, ut Terentius uester flagitio Iouis optimi maximi adulescentium nequitiam concitaret?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. That the Romans, by taking away from poets the license against men which they gave them against the gods, thought better of themselves than of their gods.

But the Romans, as Scipio boasts in that discussion On the Republic, did not want their life and reputation to be exposed to the reproaches and insults of poets, even making it a capital offense if anyone dared compose such a song. They decided this quite honorably with regard to themselves, but proudly and irreligiously with regard to their gods; for though they knew the gods were torn by the reproaches and curses of the poets not only patiently but even gladly, they considered themselves rather than the gods undeserving of such insults, and even protected themselves from them by law, while they mixed the gods' insults even into their sacred solemnities. Do you really, Scipio, praise the fact that Roman poets were denied the license to inflict reproach on any Roman, when you see that they spared none of your gods? Should the esteem of your senate house really be worth more to you than that of the Capitol, indeed that of Rome alone more than that of the whole heaven, so that poets were even forbidden by law to exercise a slanderous tongue against your fellow citizens, while they hurled such great insults at your gods in safety, with no senator, no censor, no leading man, no pontiff forbidding it? It was unworthy, no doubt, for Plautus or Naevius to abuse Gnaeus Scipio, or Caecilius Marcus Cato, and worthy for your Terence to stir up the wickedness of young men by the shameful deed of Jupiter Best and Greatest?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Rep. 4.12 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The editor deletes “Publius and” before “Gnaeus Scipio” (square brackets); left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.12 (CSEL 40:74–75; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-12).

## City of God 2.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-13
- Source: CSEL 40:75–77
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine sets Greek and Roman attitudes to actors against each other in a syllogism concluding that gods who demand stage plays should not be worshipped.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. Debuisse intellegere Romanos, quod di eorum, qui se turpibus ludis coli expetebant, indigni essent honore diuino. Sed responderet mihi fortasse, si uiueret: Quo modo nos ista inpunita esse nollemus, quae ipsi di sacra esse uoluerunt, cum ludos scaenicos, ubi talia celebrantur dictitantur actitantur, et Romanis moribus inuexerunt et suis honoribus dicari exhiberique iusserunt? Quur non ergo hinc magis ipsi intellecti sunt non esse di ueri nec omnino digni, quibus diuinos honores deferret illa res publica? Quos enim coli minime deceret minimeque oporteret, si ludos expeterent agendos conuiciis Romanorum, quo modo quaeso colendi putati sunt, quo modo non detestandi spiritus intellecti, qui cupiditate fallendi inter suos honores sua celebrari crimina poposcerunt? Itemque Romani, quamuis iam superstitione noxia premerentur, ut illos deos colerent, quos uidebant sibi uoluisse scaenicas turpitudines consecrari, suae tamen dignitatis memores ac pudoris actores talium fabularum nequaquam honorauerunt more Graecorum, sed, sicut aput Ciceronem idem Scipio loquitur, cum artem ludicram scaenamque totam in probro ducerent, genus id hominum non modo honore ciuium reliquorum carere, sed etiam tribu moueri notatione censoria uoluerunt. Praeclara sane et Romanis laudibus adnumeranda prudentia; sed uellem se ipsa sequeretur, se imitaretur. Ecce enim recte, quisquis ciuium Romanorum esse scaenicus elegisset, non solum ei nullus ad honorem dabatur locus, uerum etiam censoris nota tribum tenere propriam minime sinebatur. o animum ciuitatis laudis auidum germaneque Romanum! Sed respondeatur mihi: qua consentanea ratione homines scaenici ab omni honore pelluntur, et ludi scaenici deorum honoribus admiscentur? Illas theatricas artes diu uirtus Romana non nouerat, quae si ad oblectamentum uoluptatis humanae quaererentur, uitio morum inreperent humanorum. Di eas sibi exhiberi petierunt: quo modo ergo abicitur scaenicus, per quem colitur Deus? et theatricae illius turpitudinis qua fronte notatur actor, si adoratur exactor? In hac controuersia Graeci Romanique concertent. Graeci putant recte se honorare homines scaenicos, quia colunt ludorum scaenicorum flagitatores deos; Romani uero hominibus scaenicis nec plebeiam tribum, quanto minus senatoriam curiam dehonestari sinunt. In hac disceptatione huiusce modi ratiocinatio summam quaestionis absoluit. Proponunt Graeci: Si di tales colendi sunt, profecto etiam tales homines honorandi. Adsumunt Romani: Sed nullo modo tales homines honorandi sunt. Concludunt Christiani: Nullo modo igitur di tales colendi sunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. That the Romans ought to have understood that their gods, who sought to be worshipped with foul plays, were unworthy of divine honor.

But perhaps he would answer me, if he were alive: How could we want those things to be unpunished which the gods themselves wanted to be sacred, when they both introduced into Roman custom the stage plays, in which such things are celebrated, said, and acted, and ordered them to be dedicated and shown in their honor? Why then were they not rather understood from this not to be true gods, nor at all worthy that the state should offer them divine honors? For if it would be most unfitting and most improper to worship them if they demanded plays to be acted with insults to the Romans, how, I ask, were they thought worthy of worship, how were they not recognized as detestable spirits, when in their greed for deception they demanded that their own crimes be celebrated among their honors? Likewise the Romans, although already so oppressed by harmful superstition that they worshipped those gods whom they saw had wanted stage indecencies consecrated to them, nevertheless, mindful of their dignity and modesty, by no means honored the actors of such fables in the manner of the Greeks; but, as the same Scipio says in Cicero, “since they held the art of acting and the whole stage in disgrace, they wanted that class of men not only to lack the honor of the other citizens but also to be removed from their tribe by the censor's mark.” A splendid prudence, surely, and one to be counted among the praises of the Romans; but I wish it had followed itself, imitated itself. For look: rightly, whoever of the Roman citizens had chosen to be an actor was not only given no place of honor but was not even allowed by the censor's mark to keep his own tribe. O mind of a city greedy for praise and truly Roman! But let me be answered: by what consistent reasoning are actors driven from all honor, and stage plays mixed into the honors of the gods? Roman virtue had long not known those theatrical arts; if they had been sought for the amusement of human pleasure, they would have crept in by a fault of human morals. The gods asked for them to be shown to them: how then is the actor cast out through whom a god is worshipped? And with what face is the performer of that theatrical foulness branded if the one who exacts it is adored? In this dispute let the Greeks and Romans contend. The Greeks think they rightly honor actors because they worship gods who demand stage plays; but the Romans do not allow actors to dishonor even a plebeian tribe, much less the senatorial curia. In this debate a piece of reasoning of this kind settles the whole question. The Greeks propose: If such gods are to be worshipped, surely such men are also to be honored. The Romans assume: But such men are by no means to be honored. The Christians conclude: Therefore such gods are by no means to be worshipped.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Rep. 4.10 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Cicero, On the Republic 4.10.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.13 (CSEL 40:75–77; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-13).

## City of God 2.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-14
- Source: CSEL 40:77–79
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that Plato, who banished poets from his ideal city, was better than the gods who demanded plays, and that the Romans' own laws condemned their gods.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. Meliorem fuisse Platonem, qui poetis locum in bene morata urbe non dederit, quam hos deos, qui se ludis scaenicis uoluerint honorari. Deinde quaerimus, ipsi poetae talium fabularum conpositores, qui duodecim tabularum lege prohibentur famam laedere ciuium, tam probrosa in deos conuicia iaculantes quur non ut scaenici habeantur inhonesti. Qua ratione rectum est, ut poeticorum figmentorum et ignominiosorum deorum infamentur actores, honorentur auctores? An forte Graeco Platoni potius palma danda est, qui cum ratione formaret, qualis esse ciuitas debeat, tamquam aduersarios ueritatis poetas censuit urbe pellendos? Iste uero et deorum iniurias indigne tulit et fucari corrumpique figmentis animos ciuium noluit. Confer nunc Platonis humanitatem a ciuibus decipiendis poetas urbe pellentem cum deorum diuinitate honori suo ludos scaenicos expetente. Ille, ne talia uel scriberentur, etsi non persuasit disputando, tamen suasit leuitati lasciuiaeque Graecorum; isti, ut talia etiam agerentur, iubendo extorserunt grauitati et modestiae Romanorum. Nec tantum haec agi uoluerunt, sed sibi dicari, sibi sacrari, sibi sollemniter exhiberi. Cui tandem honestius diuinos honores decerneret ciuitas? utrum Platoni haec turpia et nefanda prohibenti, an daemonibus hac hominum deceptione gaudentibus, quibus ille uera persuadere non potuit? Hunc Platonem Labeo inter semideos commemorandum putauit, sicut Herculem, sicut Romulum. Semideos autem heroibus anteponit; sed utrosque inter numina conlocat. Verum tamen istum, quem appellat semideum, non heroibus tantum, sed etiam dis ipsis praeferendum esse non dubito. Propinquant autem Romanorum leges disputationibus Platonis, quando ille cuncta poetica figmenta condemnat, isti autem poetis adimunt saltem in homines maledicendi licentiam; ille poetas ab urbis ipsius habitatione, isti saltem actores poeticarum fabularum remouent a societate ciuitatis; et si contra deos ludorum scaenicorum expeditores aliquid auderent, forte undique remouerent. Nequaquam igitur leges ad instituendos bonos aut corrigendos malos mores a dis suis possent accipere seu sperare Romani, quos legibus suis uincunt adque conuincunt. Illi enim honori suo deposcunt ludos scaenicos, isti ab honoribus omnibus repellunt homines scaenicos; illi celebrari sibi iubent figmentis poeticis obprobria deorum, isti ab obprobriis hominum deterrent inpudentiam poetarum. Semideus autem ille Plato et talium deorum libidini restitit, et ab indole Romanorum quid perficiendum esset ostendit, qui poetas ipsos uel pro arbitrio mentientes uel hominibus miseris quasi deorum facta pessima imitanda proponentes omnino in ciuitate bene instituta uiuere noluit. Nos quidem Platonem nec deum nec semideum perhibemus, nec ulli sancto angelo summi Dei nec ueridico prophetae nec apostolo alicui nec cuilibet Christi martyri nec cuiquam Christiano homini conparamus; cuius nostrae sententiae ratio Deo prosperante suo loco explicabitur. Sed eum tamen, quando quidem ipsi uolunt fuisse semideum, praeferendum esse censemus, si non Romulo et Herculi (quamuis istum nec fratrem occidisse, nec aliquod perpetrasse flagitium quisquam historicorum uel poetarum dixit aut finxit), certe uel Priapo uel alicui Cynocephalo, postremo uel Febri, quae Romani numina partim peregrina receperunt, partim sua propria sacrauerunt. Quo modo igitur tanta animi et morum mala bonis praeceptis et legibus uel inminentia prohiberent, uel insita extirpanda curarent di tales, qui etiam seminanda et augenda flagitia curauerunt, talia uel sua uel quasi sua facta per theatricas celebritates populis innotescere cupientes, ut tamquam auctoritate diuina sua sponte nequissima libido accenderetur humana, frustra hoc exclamante Cicerone, qui cum de poetis ageret: Ad quos cum accessit, inquit, clamor et adprobatio populi quasi cuiusdam magni et sapientis magistri, quas illi obducunt tenebras, quos inuehunt metus, quas inflammant cupiditates!

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. That Plato, who gave poets no place in a well-ordered city, was better than these gods who wanted to be honored with stage plays.

Next we ask why the poets themselves, the composers of such fables, who are forbidden by the law of the Twelve Tables to injure the reputation of citizens, but hurl such shameful insults at the gods, are not held dishonorable like the actors. By what reasoning is it right that the performers of poetic fictions and of disgraced gods should be disgraced, and their authors honored? Or should the palm rather be given to the Greek Plato, who, when he was forming by reason what kind of city ought to exist, judged that poets should be expelled from the city as enemies of truth? He both resented the insults to the gods and did not want the minds of citizens to be painted over and corrupted by fictions. Compare now Plato's humanity, expelling poets from the city so that the citizens would not be deceived, with the gods' divinity, demanding stage plays in its honor. He, though he did not persuade by argument that such things should not even be written, still counseled it to the levity and wantonness of the Greeks; they, by commanding, extorted from the gravity and modesty of the Romans that such things should even be acted. Nor did they want them only acted, but dedicated to themselves, consecrated to themselves, solemnly shown to themselves. To whom, then, would a city more honorably decree divine honors? To Plato, forbidding these foul and unspeakable things, or to demons rejoicing in this deception of men, whom he could not persuade of the truth? Labeo thought this Plato should be named among the demigods, like Hercules, like Romulus. He ranks demigods above heroes, but places both among the deities. Yet I do not doubt that this man whom he calls a demigod should be preferred not only to the heroes but to the gods themselves. The laws of the Romans come close to the arguments of Plato when he condemns all poetic fictions, and they at least take away from poets the license to abuse men; he removes the poets from dwelling in the city itself, they at least remove the actors of poetic fables from the fellowship of the state; and if they dared anything against the gods who demanded stage plays, they would perhaps remove them altogether. In no way, then, could the Romans receive or hope for laws to establish good morals or correct bad ones from their gods, whom they surpass and convict by their own laws. For the gods demand stage plays in their honor; the Romans drive actors from all honors. The gods order the reproaches of the gods to be celebrated for them in poetic fictions; the Romans deter the shamelessness of poets from reproaches of men. But that demigod Plato both resisted the lust of such gods and showed what the Roman character had to carry through to completion, since he did not want the poets themselves to live at all in a well-ordered city, whether they lied as they pleased or set before wretched men the worst deeds of the gods, as it were, to imitate. We, indeed, do not call Plato either a god or a demigod, nor do we compare him with any holy angel of the supreme God, or a truthful prophet, or any apostle, or any martyr of Christ, or any Christian person; the reason for this opinion of ours will be explained, God prospering us, in its place. But since they themselves want him to have been a demigod, we judge that he must be preferred, if not to Romulus and Hercules (though no historian or poet has said or invented that he killed his brother or committed any shameful deed), certainly to Priapus or to some dog-headed god, or finally to Fever, deities which the Romans partly received from abroad and partly consecrated as their own. How then would such gods either prohibit by good precepts and laws such evils of mind and morals when they threatened, or take care to root them out when they had been implanted, gods who even took care to sow and increase shameful deeds, wanting such deeds of theirs, or as if theirs, to become known to the peoples through theatrical celebrations, so that the most wicked human lust would be kindled of its own accord as if by divine authority? And Cicero cries out in vain against this, saying of the poets: “When the shouting and approval of the people is added to them, as though of some great and wise teacher, what darkness they spread, what fears they bring in, what desires they inflame!”

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Resp. 398a, 607b (Plato (works)): allusion, high confidence
- Cicero, Rep. 4.9 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Plato, Republic 398a and 607b; Cicero, On the Republic 4.9. On Labeo see 2.11. The “dog-headed” god is the Egyptian Anubis.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.14 (CSEL 40:77–79; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-14).

## City of God 2.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-15
- Source: CSEL 40:79–80
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine notes that the Romans gave Plato no shrine but made Romulus a god with his own flamen, a sign of flattery rather than reason.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. Quod Romani quosdam sibi deos non ratione, sed adulatione instituerint. Quae autem illic eligendorum deorum etiam ipsorum falsorum ratio ac non potius adulatio est? quando istum Platonem, quem semideum uolunt, tantis disputationibus laborantem, ne animi malis, quae praecipue cauenda sunt, mores corrumperentur humani, nulla sacra aedicula dignum putarunt, et Romulum suum dis multis praetulerunt, quamuis et ipsum semideum potius quam deum uelut secretior eorum doctrina commendet. Nam etiam flaminem illi instituerunt, quod sacerdotii genus adeo in Romanis sacris testante apice excelluit, ut tres solos flamines haberent tribus numinibus institutos, Dialem Ioui, Martialem Marti, Quirinalem Romulo. Nam beneuolentia ciuium uelut receptus in caelum Quirinus est postea nominatus. Ac per hoc et Neptuno et Plutoni, fratribus Iouis, et ipsi Saturno, patri eorum, isto Romulus honore praelatus est, ut pro magno sacerdotium, quod Ioui tribuerant, hoc etiam huic tribuerent, et Marti tamquam patri eius forsitan propter ipsum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. That the Romans set up certain gods for themselves not by reason but by flattery.

What reason, and not rather flattery, is there in their choice even of these false gods? For they thought this Plato, whom they want to be a demigod, and who labored in so many discussions to keep human morals from being corrupted by evils of the mind, which are above all to be guarded against, worthy of no sacred shrine at all, while they preferred their Romulus to many gods, although their more secret teaching, as it were, commends even him as a demigod rather than a god. For they even established a flamen for him, a kind of priesthood so eminent in the Roman rites, as the priest's peaked cap bears witness, that they had only three flamens, established for three deities: the flamen of Jupiter for Jupiter, the flamen of Mars for Mars, the flamen of Quirinus for Romulus. For by the goodwill of the citizens, as if received into heaven, he was afterwards named Quirinus. And so by this honor Romulus was preferred even to Neptune and Pluto, the brothers of Jupiter, and to Saturn himself, their father, in that the priesthood which they had given to Jupiter as a great thing they gave to him too, and to Mars, as his father, perhaps on his account.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.15 (CSEL 40:79–80; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-2/#p-2-15).

## City of God 2.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-16/#p-2-16
- Source: CSEL 40:80–81
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine observes that the Romans borrowed their laws from Solon's Athens and from their own kings, not from their gods, who took no care for their morals.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. Quod, si dis ulla esset cura iustitiae, ab eis Romani accipere debuerint praecepta uiuendi potius quam leges ab aliis hominibus mutuari. Si autem a dis suis Romani uiuendi leges accipere potuissent, non aliquot annos post Romam conditam ab Atheniensibus mutuarentur leges Solonis, quas tamen non ut acceperunt tenuerunt, sed meliores et emendatiores facere conati sunt, quamuis Lycurgus Lacedaemoniis leges ex Apollinis auctoritate se instituisse confinxerit, quod prudenter Romani credere noluerunt, propterea non inde acceperunt. Numa Pompilius, qui Romulo successit in regnum, quasdam leges, quae quidem regendae ciuitati nequaquam sufficerent, condidisse fertur, qui eis multa etiam sacra constituit; non tamen perhibetur easdem leges a numinibus accepisse. Mala igitur animi, mala uitae, mala morum, quae ita magna sunt, ut his doctissimi eorum uiri etiam stantibus urbibus res publicas perire confirment, di eorum, ne suis cultoribus acciderent, minime curarunt [immo uero ut augerentur, sicut supra disputatum est, omni modo curarunt].

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. That if the gods had any care for justice, the Romans ought to have received precepts for living from them rather than borrowing laws from other men.

If the Romans could have received laws for living from their gods, they would not have borrowed the laws of Solon from the Athenians some years after Rome was founded; and even these they did not keep as they received them, but tried to make them better and more correct. Lycurgus, it is true, pretended that he had established laws for the Spartans on Apollo's authority, but the Romans wisely refused to believe this and therefore did not take their laws from there. Numa Pompilius, who succeeded Romulus as king, is said to have made certain laws, which were by no means sufficient to govern the city, and he also instituted many sacred rites for them; yet he is not reported to have received these laws from the deities. So the evils of the mind, of life, and of morals, which are so great that their most learned men affirm that states perish by them even while their cities stand, their gods took no care at all to keep from befalling their worshippers.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, 3.31–32 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence
- Livy, 1.19–21 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The decemvirs' embassy to Athens is in Livy 3.31–32; Numa's institutions in Livy 1.19–21.
- The editor deletes, as a later addition, the closing words “indeed, as was argued above, they took every care that they should increase” (square brackets); left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.16 (CSEL 40:80–81; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-16/#p-2-16).

## City of God 2.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-16/#p-2-17
- Source: CSEL 40:81–82
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine ironically tests Sallust's claim that the early Romans were just by nature against the rape of the Sabine women, the expulsion of Collatinus, and the exile of Camillus.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. De raptu Sabinarum aliisque iniquitatibus, quae in ciuitate Romana etiam laudatis uiguere temporibus. An forte populo Romano propterea leges non sunt a numinibus constitutae, quia, sicut Sallustius ait, ius bonumque aput eos non legibus magis quam natura ualebat? Ex hoc iure ac bono credo raptas Sabinas. Quid enim iustius et melius quam filias alienas fraude spectaculi inductas non a parentibus accipi, sed ui, ut quisque poterat, auferri? Nam si inique facerent Sabini negare postulatas, quanto fuit iniquius rapere non datas? Iustius autem bellum cum ea gente geri potuit, quae filias suas ad matrimonium conregionalibus et confinalibus suis negasset petitas, quam cum ea, quae repetebat ablatas. Illud ergo potius fieret; ibi Mars filium suum pugnantem iuuaret, ut coniugiorum negatorum armis ulcisceretur iniuriam, et eo modo ad feminas, quas uoluerat, perueniret. Aliquo enim fortasse iure belli iniuste negatas iuste uictor auferret; nullo autem iure pacis non datas rapuit et iniustum bellum cum earum parentibus iuste suscensentibus gessit. Hoc sane utilius feliciusque successit, quod, etsi ad memoriam fraudis illius circensium spectaculum mansit, facinoris tamen in illa ciuitate et imperio non placuit exemplum, faciliusque Romani in hoc errauerunt, ut post illam iniquitatem deum sibi Romulum consecrarent, quam ut in feminis rapiendis factum eius imitandum lege ulla uel more permitterent. Ex hoc iure ac bono post expulsum cum liberis suis regem Tarquinium, cuius filius Lucretiam stupro uiolenter obpresserat. Iunius Brutus consul L. Tarquinium Conlatinum, maritum eiusdem Lucretiae, collegam suum, bonum adque innocentem uirum, propter nomen et propinquitatem Tarquiniorum coegit magistratu se abdicare nec uiuere in ciuitate permisit. Quod scelus fauente uel patiente populo fecit, a quo populo consulatum idem Conlatinus sicut etiam ipse Brutus acceperat. Ex hoc iure ac bono M. Camillus, illius temporis uir egregius, qui Veientes, grauissimos hostes populi Romani, post decennale bellum, quo Romanus exercitus totiens male pugnando grauiter adflictus est, iam ipsa Roma de salute dubitante adque trepidante facillime superauit eorumque urbem opulentissimam cepit, obtrectatorum inuidia uirtutis suae et insolentia tribunorum plebis reus factus est tamque ingratam sensit quam liberauerat ciuitatem, ut de sua damnatione certissimus in exilium sponte discederet et decem milia aeris absens etiam damnaretur, mox iterum a Gallis uindex patriae futurus ingratae. Multa commemorare iam piget foeda et iniusta, quibus agitabatur illa ciuitas, cum potentes plebem sibi subdere conarentur plebsque illis subdi recusaret, et utriusque partis defensores magis studiis agerent amore uincendi, quam aequum et bonum quidquam cogitarent.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. On the rape of the Sabine women and other iniquities that flourished in the Roman state even in its praised times.

Or perhaps laws were not established by the deities for the Roman people because, as Sallust says, “right and good prevailed among them no more by laws than by nature”? It was from this “right and good,” I suppose, that the Sabine women were carried off. For what could be more right and good than that other men's daughters, lured by the trick of a show, should not be received from their parents but carried off by force, each as he could? For if the Sabines acted unjustly in refusing them when asked, how much more unjust was it to carry them off when not given? A war could more justly have been waged with a people that had refused its daughters in marriage to their neighbors and borderers when they asked for them than with one that was demanding them back after they had been taken. So that is what should rather have been done; then Mars would have helped his son in the fight, to avenge by arms the wrong of refused marriages, and in that way to obtain the women he wanted. For by some right of war, perhaps, a victor might justly carry off women unjustly refused; but by no right of peace did he seize women not given, and he waged an unjust war with their parents, who were justly angry. This, indeed, turned out more usefully and happily in that, although the circus show remained in memory of that trick, the example of the crime did not find favor in that city and empire; and the Romans more easily erred in consecrating Romulus as a god after that iniquity than in permitting by any law or custom that his deed in carrying off women should be imitated. It was from this “right and good” that, after King Tarquin had been expelled with his children, whose son had violently forced Lucretia, the consul Junius Brutus compelled his colleague Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, the husband of that same Lucretia, a good and innocent man, to resign his office because of the name and kinship of the Tarquins, and did not allow him to live in the city. He committed this crime with the people's favor or acquiescence, the very people from whom Collatinus, like Brutus himself, had received the consulship. It was from this “right and good” that Marcus Camillus, an outstanding man of that time, who very easily overcame the Veians, the most dangerous enemies of the Roman people, after a ten-year war in which the Roman army was so often badly beaten and gravely afflicted, when Rome itself was already doubting and trembling for its safety, and who took their very wealthy city, was put on trial through the envy of those who disparaged his merit and the insolence of the tribunes of the people; and he found the city he had freed so ungrateful that, being quite certain of his condemnation, he went into exile of his own accord and was even condemned in his absence to a fine of ten thousand pounds of bronze, soon to be, once again, the avenger of his ungrateful country against the Gauls. It is wearisome now to recall the many foul and unjust things by which that city was shaken, when the powerful tried to subject the common people to themselves and the people refused to be subjected, and the champions of each side acted more from partisanship and love of winning than with any thought of what was fair and good.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sallust, Cat. 9.1 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence
- Livy, 1.9 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence
- Livy, 2.2 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence
- Livy, 5.32 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sallust, Catiline 9.1. The stories are in Livy 1.9 (the Sabine women), 2.2 (Collatinus), and 5.32 (Camillus).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.17 (CSEL 40:81–82; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-16/#p-2-17).

## City of God 2.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-16/#p-2-18
- Source: CSEL 40:82–85
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine quotes Sallust's own History to show that Rome suffered oppression and discord even in its best period and sank into utter corruption after Carthage fell, long before Christ.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. Quae de moribus Romanorum aut metu conpressis aut securitate resolutis Sallustii prodat historia. Itaque habebo modum et ipsum Sallustium testem potius adhibebo, qui cum in laude Romanorum dixisset, unde nobis iste sermo ortus est: Ius bonumque aput eos non legibus magis quam natura ualebat, praedicans illud tempus, quo expulsis regibus incredibiliter ciuitas breui aetatis spatio plurimum creuit, idem tamen in primo historiae suae libro adque ipso eius exordio fatetur etiam tunc, cum ad consules a regibus esset translata res publica, post paruum interuallum iniurias ualidiorum et ob eas discessionem plebis a patribus aliasque in Urbe dissensiones fuisse. Nam cum optimis moribus et maxima concordia populum Romanum inter secundum et postremum bellum Carthaginiense commemorasset egisse causamque huius boni non amorem iustitiae, sed stante Carthagine metum pacis infidae fuisse dixisset (unde et Nasica ille ad reprimendam nequitiam seruandosque istos mores optimos, ut metu uitia cohiberentur, Carthaginem nolebat euerti): continuo subiecit idem Sallustius et ait: (At discordia et auaritia adque ambitio et cetera secundis rebus oriri sueta mala post Carthaginis excidium maxime aucta sunt, ut intellegeremus etiam ante oriri solere et augeri: Unde subnectens quur hoc dixerit: *Nam iniuriae, inquit, ualidiorum et ob eas discessio plebis a patribus aliaeque dissensiones domi fuere iam inde a principio, neque amplius quam regibus exactis, dum metus a Tarquinio et bellum graue cum Etruria positum est, aequo et modesto iure agitatum. Vides quem ad modum etiam illo breui tempore, ut regibus exactis, id est eiectis, aliquantum aequo et modesto iure ageretur, metum dixit fuisse causam, quoniam metuebatur bellum, quod rex Tarquinius regno adque Urbe pulsus Etruscis sociatus contra Romanos gerebat. Adtende itaque quid deinde contexat: Dein, inquit, seruili imperio patres plebem exercere, de uita adque tergo regio more consulere, agro pellere et ceteris expertibus soli in imperio agere. Quibus saeuitiis et maxime faenore obpressa plebes cum adsiduis bellis tributum et militiam simul toleraret, armata montem sacrum adque Auentinum insedit, tumque tribunos plebis et alia iura sibi parauit. Discordiarum et certaminis utrimque finis fuit secundum Punicum bellum.) Cernis ex quo tempore, id est paruo interuallo post reges exactos, quales Romani fuerint, de quibus ait: (Ius bonumque aput eos non legibus magis quam natura ualebat. Porro si illa tempora talia reperiuntur, quibus pulcherrima adque optima fuisse praedicatur Romana res publica, quid iam de consequenti aetate dicendum aut cogitandum arbitramur, cum (paulatim mutata, ut eiusdem historici uerbis utar, ex pulcherrima adque optima pessima ac flagitiosissima facta est, post Carthaginis uidelicet, ut commemorauit, excidium? Quae tempora ipse Sallustius quem ad modum breuiter recolat et describat, in eius historia legi potest; quantis malis morum, quae secundis rebus exorta sunt, usque ad bella ciuilia demonstret esse peruentum. (Ex quo tempore, ut ait, maiorum mores non paulatim ut antea, sed torrentis modo praecipitati, adeo iuuentus luxu adque auaritia corrupta, ut merito dicatur genitos esse, qui neque ipsi habere possent res familiares neque alios pati. Dicit deinde plura Sallustius de Syllae uitiis ceteraque foeditate rei publicae, et alii scriptores in haec consentiunt, quamuis eloquio multum inpari. Cernis tamen, ut opinor, et quisquis aduerterit, facillime perspicit, conluuie morum pessimorum quo illa ciuitas prolapsa fuerit ante nostri superni regis aduentum. Haec enim gesta sunt non solum antequam Christus in carne praesens docere coepisset, uerum etiam antequam de uirgine natus esset. Cum igitur tot et tanta mala temporum illorum uel tolerabiliora superius, uel post euersam Carthaginem intoleranda et horrenda dis suis inputare non audeant, opiniones humanis mentibus, unde talia uitia siluescerent, astutia maligna inserentibus: quur mala praesentia Christo inputant, qui doctrina saluberrima et falsos ac fallaces deos coli uetat et istas hominum noxias flagitiosasque cupiditates diuina auctoritate detestans adque condemnans his malis tabescenti ac labenti mundo ubique familiam suam sensim subtrahit, qua condat aeternam et non plausu uanitatis, sed iudicio ueritatis gloriosissimam ciuitatem?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. What the history of Sallust reveals about the morals of the Romans, either restrained by fear or relaxed by security.

So I will keep within bounds and rather bring in Sallust himself as witness. Although he said in praise of the Romans, which is where this discussion of ours began, “Right and good prevailed among them no more by laws than by nature,” extolling that time when, after the kings had been expelled, the city grew incredibly in a short space of time, yet the same man admits in the first book of his History, at its very beginning, that even then, when the state had passed from kings to consuls, after a short interval there were wrongs done by the more powerful, and because of them a secession of the plebs from the patricians, and other dissensions in the City. For after he had recalled that the Roman people lived with the best morals and the greatest concord between the second and the last Carthaginian war, and had said that the cause of this good was not love of justice but, while Carthage stood, fear of an insecure peace (which is why that Nasica did not want Carthage destroyed, so as to check wickedness and preserve those excellent morals, that vices might be restrained by fear), the same Sallust at once added: “But discord, avarice, ambition, and the other evils that usually arise from prosperity increased greatly after the destruction of Carthage”; so that we should understand that they usually arose and increased even before. Then, adding why he said this: “For wrongs done by the more powerful,” he says, “and because of them the secession of the plebs from the patricians and other dissensions at home, existed from the very beginning; nor was there fair and moderate justice for longer than, after the kings were driven out, the fear of Tarquin and the heavy war with Etruria lasted.” You see how, even in that short time, when after the kings were driven out, that is, expelled, there was some fair and moderate justice, he said fear was the cause, because they feared the war which King Tarquin, driven from his throne and the City and allied with the Etruscans, was waging against the Romans. Notice then what he adds next: “Then the patricians began to treat the plebs as slaves, to dispose of their lives and backs in the manner of kings, to drive them from their land, and to rule alone, with the rest shut out. Oppressed by these cruelties, and above all by debt, the plebs, since it had to bear both taxes and military service in continual wars, took up arms and occupied the Sacred Mount and the Aventine, and then obtained for itself tribunes of the plebs and other rights. The end of discords and strife on both sides was the second Punic war.” You see from what time, that is, a short interval after the kings were driven out, what kind of men the Romans were of whom he says, “Right and good prevailed among them no more by laws than by nature.” Further, if those times are found to be such, in which the Roman state is proclaimed to have been most beautiful and best, what do we think must be said or thought of the following age, when, “gradually changed,” to use the words of the same historian, “from the most beautiful and best it became the worst and most shameful,” namely after the destruction of Carthage, as he recalled? How Sallust himself briefly recalls and describes those times can be read in his History: to what great evils of morals, which arose from prosperity, he shows that things came, right up to the civil wars. “From that time,” he says, “the morals of the ancestors were hurled headlong, not gradually as before, but like a torrent; the youth was so corrupted by luxury and avarice that it may rightly be said that men were born who could neither keep property themselves nor allow others to keep it.” Sallust then says more about the vices of Sulla and the other foulness of the state, and other writers agree with him, though far unequal in eloquence. Yet you see, I think, and whoever pays attention sees very easily, into what a sewer of the worst morals that city had sunk before the coming of our heavenly King. For these things happened not only before Christ, present in the flesh, had begun to teach, but even before he was born of the Virgin. Since, then, they do not dare to blame their gods for so many and such great evils of those times, whether the more tolerable earlier ones or the intolerable and horrible ones after Carthage was overthrown, gods who with malign cunning planted in human minds the opinions from which such vices grew like a forest, why do they blame the present evils on Christ, who by his most wholesome teaching forbids false and deceitful gods to be worshipped, and, detesting and condemning these harmful and shameful human desires by divine authority, is gradually withdrawing his household everywhere from this world, wasting away and sinking under these evils, so as to found with it an eternal city, most glorious not by the applause of vanity but by the judgment of truth?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sallust, Cat. 9.1 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence
- Sallust, Hist. 1.11–12 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence
- Sallust, Cat. 5.9 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence
- Sallust, Hist. 1.16 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sallust, Catiline 9.1, 5.9; Histories 1.11–12 and 1.16 (fragments preserved largely by Augustine).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.18 (CSEL 40:82–85; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-16/#p-2-18).

## City of God 2.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-16/#p-2-19
- Source: CSEL 40:85–87
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine contrasts the silence of the gods on morals with the Christian Scriptures' constant teaching against avarice and luxury, and says Christians must bear even a corrupt state while aiming at the heavenly commonwealth.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. De corruptione Romanae rei publicae, priusquam cultum deorum Christus auferret. Ecce Romana res publica (quod non ego primus dico, sed auctores eorum, unde haec mercede didicimus, tanto ante dixerunt ante Christi aduentum) paulatim mutata ex pulcherrima adque optima pessima ac flagitiosissima facta est. Ecce ante Christi aduentum, post deletam Carthaginem maiorum mores non paulatim, ut antea, sed torrentis modo praecipitati, adeo iuuentus luxu adque auaritia corrupta est. Legant nobis contra luxum et auaritiam praecepta deorum suorum populo Romano data; cui utinam tantum casta et modesta reticerent, ac non etiam ab illo probrosa et ignominiosa deposcerent, quibus per falsam diuinitatem perniciosam conciliarent auctoritatem. Legant nostra et per prophetas et per sanctum euangelium, et per apostolicos actus et per epistulas tam multa contra auaritiam adque luxuriam ubique populis ad hoc congregatis quam excellenter, quam diuine non tamquam ex philosophorum concertationibus strepere, sed tamquam ex oraculis et Dei nubibus intonare. Et tamen luxu adque auaritia saeuisque ac turpibus moribus ante aduentum Christi rem publicam pessimam ac flagitiosissimam factam non inputant dis suis; adflictionem uero eius, quamcumque isto tempore superbia deliciaeque eorum perpessae fuerint, religioni increpitant Christianae. Cuius praecepta de iustis probisque moribus si simul audirent adque curarent reges terrae et omnes populi, principes et omnes iudices terrae, iuuenes et uirgines, seniores cum iunioribus, aetas omnis capax et uterque sexus, et quos baptista Iohannes adloquitur, exactores ipsi adque milites: et terras uitae praesentis ornaret sua felicitate res publica, et uitae aeternae culmen beatissime regnatura conscenderet. Sed quia iste audit, ille contemnit, pluresque uitiis male blandientibus quam utili uirtutum asperitati sunt amiciores: tolerare Christi famuli iubentur, siue sint reges siue principes siue iudices, siue milites siue prouinciales, siue diuites siue pauperes, siue liberi siue serui, utriuslibet sexus, etiam pessimam, si ita necesse est, flagitiosissimamque rem publicam et in illa angelorum quadam sanctissima adque augustissima curia caelestique re publica, ubi Dei uoluntas lex est, clarissimum sibi locum etiam ista conparare tolerantia.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. On the corruption of the Roman state before Christ took away the worship of the gods.

See, the Roman state (I am not the first to say it; their own authors, from whom we learned these things for a fee, said it so long ago, before the coming of Christ) “gradually changed from the most beautiful and best and became the worst and most shameful.” See, before the coming of Christ, after Carthage was destroyed, “the morals of the ancestors were hurled headlong, not gradually as before, but like a torrent; the youth was so corrupted by luxury and avarice.” Let them read to us the precepts of their gods against luxury and avarice given to the Roman people; would that the gods had merely been silent about chaste and modest things, and had not also demanded from that people disgraceful and ignominious things, to which they gave a pernicious authority through their false divinity! Let them read ours, how many precepts against avarice and luxury, through the prophets, through the holy gospel, through the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles, everywhere, to peoples gathered for this purpose, sound out, how excellently, how divinely, not as if clamoring from the disputes of philosophers, but thundering as if from the oracles and clouds of God. And yet they do not blame their gods for the state's having become the worst and most shameful before the coming of Christ through luxury and avarice and cruel and foul morals; but whatever affliction their pride and self-indulgence have suffered in this time, they lay to the charge of the Christian religion. If the kings of the earth and all peoples, princes and all judges of the earth, young men and maidens, old with young, every age capable of it and both sexes, and those whom John the Baptist addresses, the tax collectors themselves and the soldiers, were to hear and heed its precepts about just and upright morals together, the state would both adorn the lands of the present life with its happiness and ascend to the height of eternal life to reign in bliss. But because one hears and another despises, and more are friends to vices that flatter to harm than to the useful harshness of virtues, the servants of Christ, whether kings or princes or judges, soldiers or provincials, rich or poor, free or slave, of either sex, are commanded to bear with even the worst and most shameful state, if necessary, and by this very endurance to win for themselves a most glorious place in that most holy and majestic senate of angels, as it were, and heavenly commonwealth, where God's will is law.

### Scripture references

- Ps 148:11–12: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 3:12–14: allusion, high confidence
- Gal 3:28: echo, low confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sallust, Cat. 5.9 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence
- Sallust, Hist. 1.16 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sallust, Catiline 5.9 and Histories 1.16, as in 2.18. Psalm 148:11–12; Luke 3:12–14.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.19 (CSEL 40:85–87; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-16/#p-2-19).

## City of God 2.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-16/#p-2-20
- Source: CSEL 40:87–88
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine satirizes the kind of state his opponents want, one devoted to wealth, pleasure, and license so long as it is safe, and compares it to the house of Sardanapalus.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. Quali uelint felicitate gaudere et quibus moribus uiuere, qui tempora Christianae religionis incusant. Verum tales cultores et dilectores deorum istorum, quorum etiam imitatores in sceleribus et flagitiis se esse laetantur, nullo modo curant pessimam ac flagitiosissimam non esse rem publicam. Tantum stet, inquiunt, tantum floreat copiis referta, uictoriis gloriosa, uel, quod est felicius, pace secura sit. Et quid ad nos? Immo id ad nos magis pertinet, si diuitias quisque augeat semper, quae cottidianis effusionibus subpetant, per quas sibi etiam infirmiores subdat quisque potentior. Obsequantur diuitibus pauperes causa saturitatis adque ut eorum patrociniis quieta inertia perfruantur, diuites pauperibus ad clientelas et ad ministerium sui fastus abutantur. Populi plaudant non consultoribus utilitatum suarum, sed largitoribus uoluptatum. Non dura iubeantur, non prohibeantur inpura. Reges non curent quam bonis, sed quam subditis regnent. Prouinciae regibus non tamquam rectoribus morum, sed tamquam rerum dominatoribus et deliciarum suarum prouisoribus seruiant, eosque non sinceriter honorent, sed [nequiter ac] seruiliter timeant. Quid alienae uineae potius quam quid suae uitae quisque noceat, legibus aduertatur. Nullus ducatur ad iudicem, nisi qui alienae rei domui saluti uel cuiquam inuito fuerit inportunus aut noxius; ceterum de suis uel cum suis uel cum quibusque nolentibus faciat quisque quod libet. Abundent publica scorta uel propter omnes, quibus frui placuerit, uel propter eos maxime, qui habere priuata non possunt. Exstruantur amplissimae adque ornatissimae domus, opipara conuiuia frequententur, ubi cuique libuerit et potuerit, diu noctuque ludatur bibatur, uomatur diffluatur. Saltationes undique concrepent, theatra inhonestae laetitiae uocibus adque omni genere siue crudelissimae siue turpissimae uoluptatis exaestuent. Ille sit publicus inimicus, cui haec felicitas displicet; quisquis eam mutare uel auferre tentauerit, eum libera multitudo auertat ab auribus, euertat a sedibus, auferat a uiuentibus. Illi habeantur di ueri, qui hanc adipiscendam populis procurauerint adeptamque seruauerint. Colantur ut uoluerint, ludos exposcant quales uoluerint, quos cum suis uel de suis possint habere cultoribus: tantum efficiant, ut tali felicitati nihil ab hoste, nihil a peste, nihil ab ulla clade timeatur. — Quis hanc rem publicam sanus, non dicam Romano imperio, sed domui Sardanapali conparauerit? qui quondam rex ita fuit uoluptatibus deditus, ut in sepulcro suo scribi fecerit ea sola se habere mortuum, quae libido eius, etiam cum uiueret, hauriendo consumserat. Quem regem si isti haberent sibi in talibus indulgentem nec in eis cuiquam ulla seueritate aduersantem, huic libentius quam Romani ueteres Romulo templum et flaminem consecrarent.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. What kind of happiness those who accuse the times of the Christian religion want to enjoy, and by what morals they want to live.

But such worshippers and lovers of these gods, whose imitators in crimes and shameful deeds they are glad to be, do not care at all that the state should not be the worst and most shameful. “Only let it stand,” they say, “only let it flourish, full of resources, glorious with victories, or, what is happier, secure in peace. And what is it to us? Rather, what concerns us more is that everyone should keep increasing his riches, so that they may be enough for daily extravagance, and so that each more powerful man may subject the weaker to himself. Let the poor court the rich for the sake of a full belly and so as to enjoy quiet idleness under their patronage; let the rich misuse the poor as clients and as servants of their own pomp. Let the peoples applaud not those who look after their interests but those who lavish pleasures on them. Let nothing hard be commanded, nothing impure forbidden. Let kings care not how good but how subject their subjects are. Let the provinces serve the kings not as rulers of morals but as lords of property and providers of their pleasures, and let them honor them not sincerely but fear them slavishly. Let the laws take notice of the harm one does to another's vineyard rather than to one's own life. Let no one be brought before a judge except one who has been a nuisance or harm to another's property, house, or safety, or to anyone against his will; otherwise let each do as he likes with his own, or with his own people, or with anyone who is willing. Let there be plenty of public prostitutes, both for all who like to enjoy them and especially for those who cannot keep private ones. Let very large and richly adorned houses be built, let sumptuous banquets be thronged, where, as each likes and is able, there may be gambling, drinking, vomiting, and dissipation day and night. Let dancing resound everywhere; let the theaters seethe with shouts of indecent merriment and every kind of pleasure, whether most cruel or most foul. Let him be a public enemy who dislikes this happiness; whoever tries to change or take it away, let the free multitude turn him from its ears, turn him out of his home, and take him from among the living. Let those be held true gods who have procured this happiness for the peoples and preserved it once procured. Let them be worshipped as they wish, let them demand what games they wish, which they can have with their worshippers or at their worshippers' expense; only let them bring it about that such happiness fears nothing from the enemy, nothing from plague, nothing from any disaster.” What sane person would compare this state, I will not say with the Roman empire, but with the house of Sardanapalus? He was once a king so given to pleasures that he had it written on his tomb that in death he had only what his lust had consumed by swallowing it down while he lived. If these people had such a king, indulgent to them in such things and opposing no one in them with any severity, they would more gladly consecrate a temple and a flamen to him than the ancient Romans did to Romulus.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Tusc. 5.101 (Cicero): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The epitaph of Sardanapalus is cited by Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 5.101.
- The editor deletes nequiter ac (“wickedly and”) before “slavishly” (square brackets); left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.20 (CSEL 40:87–88; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-16/#p-2-20).

## City of God 2.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-16/#p-2-21
- Source: CSEL 40:88–93
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine summarizes Cicero's argument in the Republic that without justice there is no true state, and Cicero's own admission that Rome had lost its state through vice before Christ, concluding that true justice exists only in the city of God.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI.. Quae sententia fuerit Ciceronis de Romana re publica. Sed si contemnitur qui Romanam rem publicam pessimam ac flagitiosissimam dixit, nec curant isti quanta morum pessimorum ac flagitiosissimorum labe ac dedecore inpleatur, sed tantummodo ut consistat et maneat: audiant eam non, ut Sallustius narrat, pessimam ac flagitiosissimam factam, sed, sicut Cicero disputat, iam tunc prorsus perisse et nullam omnino remansisse rem publicam. Inducit enim Scipionem, eum ipsum qui Carthaginem extinxerat, de re publica disputantem, quando praesentiebatur ea corruptione, quam describit Sallustius, iam iamque peritura. Eo quippe tempore disputatur, quo iam unus Gracchorum occisus fuit, a quo scribit seditiones graues coepisse Sallustius. Nam mortis eius fit in eisdem libris commemoratio. Cum autem Scipio in secundi libri fine dixisset, ut in fidibus aut tibiis adque cantu ipso ac uocibus concentus est quidam tenendus ex distinctis sonis, quem inmutatum aut discrepantem aures eruditae ferre non possunt. isque concentus ex dissimillimarum uocum moderatione concors tamen efficitur et congruens: sic ex summis et infimis et mediis interiectis ordinibus, ut sonis, moderata ratione ciuitatem consensu dissimillimorum concinere, et quae harmonia a musicis dicitur in cantu, eam esse in ciuitate concordiam, artissimum adque optimum omni in re publica uinculum incolumitatis, eamque sine iustitia nullo pacto esse posse, ac deinde cum aliquanto latius et uberius disseruisset, quantum prodesset iustitia ciuitati quantumque obesset, si afuisset, suscepit deinde Philus, unus eorum qui disputationi aderant, et poposcit, ut haec ipsa quaestio diligentius tractaretur ac de iustitia plura dicerentur, propter illud, quod iam uulgo ferebatur rem publicam regi sine iniuria non posse. Hanc proinde quaestionem discutiendam et enodandam esse adsensus est Scipio responditque nihil esse, quod adhuc de re publica dictum putaret, quo possent longius progredi, nisi esset confirmatum non modo falsum esse illud, sine iniuria non posse, sed hoc uerissimum esse, sine summa iustitia rem publicam regi non posse. Cuius quaestionis explicatio cum in diem consequentem dilata esset, in tertio libro magna conflictione res acta est. Suscepit enim Philus ipse disputationem eorum, qui sentirent sine iniustitia geri non posse rem publicam, purgans praecipue, ne hoc ipse sentire crederetur, egitque sedulo pro iniustitia contra iustitiam, ut hanc esse utilem rei publicae, illam uero inutilem, ueri similibus rationibus et exemplis uelut conaretur ostendere. Tum Laelius rogantibus omnibus iustitiam defendere adgressus est adseruitque, quantum potuit, nihil tam inimicum quam iniustitiam ciuitati nec omnino nisi magna iustitia geri aut stare [posse] rem publicam., Qua quaestione, quantum satis uisum est, pertractata Scipio ad intermissa reuertitur recolitque suam adque commendat breuem rei publicae definitionem, qua dixerat eam esse rem populi. Populum autem non omnem coetum multitudinis, sed coetum iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatum esse determinat. Docet deinde quanta sit in disputando definitionis utilitas, adque ex illis suis definitionibus colligit tunc esse rem publicam, id est rem populi, cum bene ac iuste geritur siue ab uno rege siue a paucis optimatibus siue ab uniuerso populo. Cum uero iniustus est rex, quem tyrannum more Graeco appellauit, aut iniusti optimates, quorum consensum dixit esse factionem, aut iniustus ipse populus, cui nomen usitatum non repperit, nisi ut etiam ipsum tyrannum uocaret: non iam uitiosam, sicut pridie fuerat disputatum, sed, sicut ratio ex illis definitionibus conexa docuisset, omnino nullam esse rem publicam, quoniam non esset res populi, cum tyrannus eam factioue capesseret, nec ipse populus iam populus esset, si esset iniustus, quoniam non esset multitudo iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociata, sicut populus fuerat definitus. Quando ergo res publica Romana talis erat, qualem illam describit Sallustius, non iam pessima ac flagitiosissima, sicut ipse ait, sed omnino nulla erat secundum istam rationem, quam disputatio de re publica inter magnos eius tum principes habita patefecit. Sicut etiam ipse Tullius non Scipionis nec cuiusquam alterius, sed suo sermone loquens in principio quinti libri commemorato prius Ennii poetae uersu, quo dixerat:. Moribus antiquis res stat Romana uirisque, quem quidem ille uersum, inquit, uel breuitate uel ueritate tamquam ex oraculo quodam mihi [ esse] effatus uidetur. Nam neque uiri, nisi ita morata ciuitas fuisset, neque mores. nisi hi uiri praefuissent, aut fundare aut tam diu tenere potuissent tantam et tam iuste longe lateque imperantem rem publicam. Itaque ante nostram memoriam et mos ipse patrius praestantes uiros adhibebat, et ueterem morem ac maiorum instituta retinebant excellentes uiri. Nostra uero aetas cum rem publicam sicut picturam accepisset egregiam, sed euanescentem uetustate, non modo eam coloribus isdem quibus fuerat renouare neglexit, sed ne id quidem curauit, ut formam saltem eius et extrema tamquam liniamenta seruaret. Quid enim manet ex antiquis moribus, quibus ille dixit rem stare Romanam, quos ita obliuione obsoletos uidemus, ut non modo non colantur, sed iam ignorentur? Nam de uiris quid dicam? Mores enim ipsi interierunt uirorum penuria, cuius tanti mali non modo reddenda ratio nobis, sed etiam tamquam reis capitis quodam modo dicenda causa est. Nostris enim uitiis, non casu aliquo, rem publicam uerbo retinemus, re ipsa uero iam pridem amisimus. Haec Cicero fatebatur, longe quidem post mortem Africani, quem in suis libris fecit de re publica disputare, adhuc tamen ante aduentum Christi; quae si diffamata et praeualescente religione Christiana sentirentur adque dicerentur, quis non istorum ea Christianis inputanda esse censeret? Quam ob rem quur non curarunt di eorum, ne tunc periret adque amitteretur illa res publica, quam Cicero longe, antequam Christus in carne uenisset, tam lugubriter deplorat amissam? Viderint laudatores eius etiam illis antiquis uiris et moribus qualis fuerit, utrum in ea uiguerit uera iustitia an forte nec tunc fuerit uiua moribus, sed picta coloribus; quod et ipse Cicero nesciens, cum eam praeferret, expressit. Sed alias, si Deus uoluerit, hoc uidebimus. Enitar enim suo loco, ut ostendam secundum definitiones ipsius Ciceronis, quibus quid sit res publica et quid sit populus loquente Scipione breuiter posuit (adtestantibus etiam multis siue ipsius siue eorum quos loqui fecit in eadem disputatione sententiis), numquam illam fuisse rem publicam, quia numquam in ea fuerit uera iustitia. Secundum probabiliores autem definitiones pro suo modo quodam res publica fuit, et melius ab antiquioribus Romanis quam a posterioribus administrata est; uera autem iustitia non est nisi in ea re publica, cuius conditor rectorque Christus est, si et ipsam rem publicam placet dicere, quoniam eam rem populi esse negare non possumus. Si autem hoc nomen, quod alibi aliterque uulgatum est, ab usu nostrae locutionis est forte remotius, in ea certe ciuitate est uera iustitia, de qua scriptura sancta dicit: Gloriosa dicta sunt de te, ciuitas Dei.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. What Cicero's opinion was of the Roman state.

But if the man who called the Roman state the worst and most shameful is disregarded, and these people do not care with what stain and disgrace of the worst and most shameful morals it is filled, but only that it should stand firm and last, let them hear that it had not, as Sallust relates, become the worst and most shameful, but, as Cicero argues, had even then utterly perished and no state at all remained. For he brings in Scipio, the very man who had destroyed Carthage, discussing the state at a time when it was foreseen that it would soon perish through the corruption Sallust describes. For the discussion is set at the time when one of the Gracchi had already been killed, from whom, Sallust writes, the serious seditions began; for his death is mentioned in the same books. Now at the end of the second book Scipio had said that, as with strings or pipes and in singing and voices themselves, a certain harmony must be kept among the different sounds, which trained ears cannot bear to hear altered or discordant, and this harmony is made concordant and consistent by the regulation of the most dissimilar voices, so from the highest, the lowest, and the intermediate orders, as from sounds, a city, by reasoned regulation, sounds in harmony through the agreement of the most dissimilar elements; and what musicians call harmony in singing is concord in a city, the closest and best bond of safety in every state, and this can by no means exist without justice. Then, when he had discussed at somewhat greater length and more fully how much justice benefits a city and how much it harms it if it is absent, Philus, one of those present at the discussion, took up the subject and asked that this very question be treated more carefully and more be said about justice, because of what was then commonly said, that a state cannot be governed without injustice. Scipio agreed that this question must be discussed and unraveled, and answered that nothing he thought had yet been said about the state would allow them to go further unless it were established not only that this saying, that it cannot be done without injustice, is false, but that this is most true: that a state cannot be governed without the highest justice. The treatment of this question was put off to the following day, and in the third book the matter was fought out in a great contest. For Philus himself took up the argument of those who held that a state cannot be run without injustice, protesting especially that he should not be thought to hold this himself; and he pleaded earnestly for injustice against justice, trying, as it were, to show by plausible reasons and examples that the one is useful to the state and the other useless. Then Laelius, at the request of all, undertook to defend justice, and asserted as far as he could that nothing is so hostile to a city as injustice, and that a state cannot be run or stand at all except by great justice. When this question had been treated as much as seemed sufficient, Scipio returns to what had been interrupted, recalls and commends his own brief definition of a state, in which he had said that it is the property of a people. And he defines a people not as every gathering of a multitude, but as a gathering united by agreement about right and by a partnership for the common good. He then teaches how great the usefulness of definition is in argument, and concludes from these definitions of his that a state, that is, the property of a people, exists when it is governed well and justly, whether by one king, or by a few nobles, or by the whole people. But when the king is unjust, whom he called a tyrant in the Greek fashion, or the nobles unjust, whose agreement he called a faction, or the people itself unjust, for which he found no customary name except to call it too a tyrant, then the state is no longer faulty, as had been argued the day before, but, as the reasoning connected with those definitions had taught, there is no state at all, since it is not the property of a people when a tyrant or a faction seizes it, nor is the people itself any longer a people if it is unjust, since it is no longer a multitude united by agreement about right and by a partnership for the common good, as a people had been defined. When, then, the Roman state was such as Sallust describes it, it was no longer the worst and most shameful, as he says, but no state at all, according to that reasoning which the discussion about the state held by its great leading men of that time made plain. So too Tullius himself, speaking not in the person of Scipio or anyone else but in his own words, at the beginning of the fifth book, first quotes the line of the poet Ennius in which he had said: “On ancient morals and on men the Roman state stands firm.” “This line,” he says, “seems to me to have been uttered as if by an oracle, for its brevity and its truth. For neither the men, unless the city had had such morals, nor the morals, unless these men had been in charge, could have founded or maintained for so long so great a state, ruling so justly far and wide. So before our time the ancestral custom itself brought forward outstanding men, and excellent men kept to the old custom and the institutions of their ancestors. But our age, having received the state like an excellent painting, though fading with age, not only neglected to restore it with the same colors it had had, but did not even take care to preserve at least its form and, as it were, its outlines. For what remains of the ancient morals on which he said the Roman state stands firm? We see them so worn out by forgetfulness that they are not only not practiced but no longer even known. And what shall I say of the men? For the morals themselves have perished through a lack of men, and for so great an evil we must not only give an account but even, in a way, plead our case as if accused on a capital charge. For it is by our own vices, not by some accident, that we keep the state in name but have long since lost it in reality.” Cicero admitted this long after the death of Africanus, whom he made a speaker on the state in his books, but still before the coming of Christ. If such things were thought and said when the Christian religion had been spread abroad and was prevailing, which of these people would not judge that they should be blamed on the Christians? Why then did their gods not take care that that state, whose loss Cicero laments so mournfully long before Christ came in the flesh, should not perish and be lost then? Let its praisers consider what it was like even with those ancient men and morals, whether true justice flourished in it, or whether perhaps even then it was not living in its morals but painted in colors; which Cicero himself expressed without knowing it, while extolling it. But we shall see this elsewhere, if God wills. For I shall try in its place to show, according to Cicero's own definitions, in which he briefly set out through Scipio's mouth what a state is and what a people is (supported also by many statements, whether his own or of those he made speak in the same discussion), that it never was a state, because there never was true justice in it. According to more acceptable definitions, however, it was a state in its own way, and it was better administered by the earlier Romans than by the later. But true justice exists only in that commonwealth whose founder and ruler is Christ, if we choose to call it a commonwealth too, since we cannot deny that it is the property of a people. But if this name, which is commonly used elsewhere and in other senses, is perhaps too far from our usual way of speaking, there is certainly true justice in that city of which holy Scripture says: “Glorious things are spoken of you, city of God.”

### Scripture references

- Ps 87:3 (86:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Rep. 2.42–44 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence
- Cicero, Rep. 3 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence
- Cicero, Rep. 1.39 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence
- Cicero, Rep. 5.1–2 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence
- Ennius, Ann. 156 (Ennius): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Cicero, On the Republic 2.42–44; 3 (the debate of Philus and Laelius); 1.39; 5.1–2, quoting Ennius, Annals 156 (Skutsch). Psalm 87:3 (LXX/Vulgate 86:3). Augustine returns to the definition of a people in Book 19.
- The editor deletes posse (after “stand”) and esse (in the Cicero quotation) (square brackets); left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.21 (CSEL 40:88–93; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-16/#p-2-21).

## City of God 2.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-16/#p-2-22
- Source: CSEL 40:93–95
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that the gods gave no moral laws to prevent the civil strife of the Gracchi, Marius, and Sulla, and ridicules the claim that they had abandoned Rome, recalling that the geese, not the gods, saved the Capitol.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. Quod dis Romanorum nulla umquam cura fuerit, ne malis moribus res publica deperiret. Sed quod pertinet ad praesentem quaestionem, quamlibet laudabilem dicant istam fuisse uel esse rem publicam, secundum eorum auctores doctissimos iam longe ante Christi aduentum pessima ac flagitiosissima facta erat; immo uero nulla erat adque omnino perierat perditissimis moribus. Ut ergo non periret, di custodes eius populo cultori suo dare praecipue uitae ac morum praecepta debuerunt, a quo tot templis, tot sacerdotibus et sacrificiorum generibus, tam multiplicibus uariisque sacris, tot festis sollemnitatibus, tot tantorumque ludorum celebritatibus colebantur; ubi nihil daemones nisi negotium suum egerunt, non curantes quem ad modum illi uiuerent, immo curantes ut etiam perdite uiuerent, dum tamen honori suo illa omnia metu subditi ministrarent. Aut si dederunt, proferatur ostendatur legatur, quas deorum leges illi ciuitati datas contemserint Gracchi, ut seditionibus cuncta turbarent, quas Marius et Cinna et Carbo, ut in bella etiam progrederentur ciuilia causis iniquissimis suscepta et crudeliter gesta crudeliusque finita, quas denique Sylla ipse, cuius uitam mores facta describente Sallustio aliisque scriptoribus historiae quis non exhorreat? quis illam rem publicam non tunc perisse fateatur? An forte propter huiusce modi ciuium mores Vergilianam illam sententiam, sicut solent, pro defensione deorum suorum obponere audebunt:. Discessere omnes adytis arisque relictis Di, quibus imperium hoc steterat? Primum si ita est, non habent quur querantur de religione Christiana, quod hac offensi eos di sui deseruerint, quoniam quidem maiores eorum iam pridem moribus suis ab Urbis altaribus tam multos ac minutos deos tamquam muscas abegerunt. Sed tamen haec numinum turba ubi erat, cum longe antequam mores corrumperentur antiqui a Gallis Roma capta et incensa est? An praesentes forte dormiebant? Tunc enim tota Urbe in hostium potestatem redacta collis solus Capitolinus remanserat, qui etiam ipse caperetur, nisi saltem anseres dis dormientibus uigilarent. Unde paene in superstitionem Aegyptiorum bestias auesque colentium Roma deciderat, cum anseri sollemnia celebrabant. Verum de his aduenticiis et corporis potius quam animi malis, quae uel ab hostibus uel alia clade accidunt, nondum interim disputo: nunc ago de labe morum, quibus primum paulatim decoloratis, deinde torrentis modo praecipitatis tanta quamuis integris tectis moenibusque facta est ruina rei publicae, ut magni auctores eorum eam tunc amissam non dubitent dicere. Recte autem abscesserant, ut amitteretur, omnes adytis arisque relictis di, si eorum de bona uita adque iustitia ciuitas praecepta contemserat. Nunc uero quales, quaeso, di fuerunt, si noluerunt cum populo cultore suo uiuere, quem male uiuentem non docuerant bene uiuere?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. That the gods of the Romans never took any care that the state should not perish through bad morals.

But as far as the present question is concerned, however praiseworthy they may say that state was or is, according to their most learned authors it had become the worst and most shameful long before the coming of Christ; indeed, it did not exist and had utterly perished through the most depraved morals. So that it might not perish, then, its guardian gods ought above all to have given precepts of life and morals to the people that worshipped them, by whom they were worshipped with so many temples, so many priests and kinds of sacrifices, such manifold and varied rites, so many festal solemnities, such crowded celebrations of so many great games; in all of which the demons did nothing but their own business, not caring how the people lived, but rather caring that they should live even depravedly, provided that, subject to them through fear, they performed all these things in their honor. Or if they did give them, let it be produced, shown, read: which laws of the gods given to that city did the Gracchi despise, so as to throw everything into confusion with seditions? Which did Marius and Cinna and Carbo despise, so as to go on even into civil wars undertaken for the most unjust causes, waged cruelly, and ended more cruelly still? Which, finally, did Sulla himself despise, at whose life, morals, and deeds, as Sallust and other historians describe them, who does not shudder? Who would not admit that that state perished then? Or perhaps, because of the morals of such citizens, they will dare to set against us, as they usually do in defense of their gods, that saying of Virgil: “All the gods by whom this empire had stood have departed, leaving their shrines and altars”? First, if this is so, they have no reason to complain of the Christian religion, that their gods were offended by it and deserted them, since their ancestors long ago by their morals drove away so many tiny gods, like flies, from the altars of the City. But where was this crowd of deities when, long before the ancient morals were corrupted, Rome was taken and burned by the Gauls? Perhaps they were present but asleep? For then, when the whole City had been brought into the enemy's power, only the Capitoline hill remained, and it too would have been taken had not at least the geese kept awake while the gods slept. Whence Rome nearly fell into the superstition of the Egyptians, who worship beasts and birds, when they celebrated a festival for the goose. But I am not yet discussing these external evils, which belong to the body rather than the mind and come either from enemies or from some other disaster. I am dealing now with the decay of morals, which, first gradually fading, then rushing headlong like a torrent, brought such ruin on the state, though its roofs and walls were intact, that their great authors do not hesitate to say that it was then lost. And the gods had rightly withdrawn, “all leaving their shrines and altars,” so that it might be lost, if the city had despised their precepts about a good life and justice. But now, I ask, what kind of gods were they, if they refused to live with the people that worshipped them, when they had not taught that people, living badly, to live well?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 2.351–352 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Livy, 5.47 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Virgil, Aeneid 2.351–352; the geese of the Capitol: Livy 5.47.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.22 (CSEL 40:93–95; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-16/#p-2-22).

## City of God 2.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-16/#p-2-23
- Source: CSEL 40:95–97
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues from the careers of Marius, Regulus, Metellus, and Catiline that temporal good fortune does not depend on the gods but on the hidden providence of the true God.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. Varietates rerum temporalium non ex fauore aut inpugnatione daemonum, sed ex ueri Dei pendere iudicio. Quid quod etiam uidentur eorum adfuisse cupiditatibus inplendis, et ostenduntur non praefuisse refrenandis, qui enim Marium nouum hominem et ignobilem, cruentissimum auctorem bellorum ciuilium adque gestorem, ut septiens consul fieret adiuuerunt adque ut in septimo suo consulatu moreretur senex nec in manus Syllae futuri mox uictoris inrueret. Si enim ad haec eum di eorum non iuuerunt, non parum est quod fatentur etiam non propitiis dis suis posse accidere homini istam temporalem, quam nimis diligunt, tantam felicitatem et posse homines, sicut fuit Marius, salute uiribus, opibus honoribus, dignitate longaeuitate cumulari et perfrui dis iratis; posse etiam homines, sicut fuit Regulus, captiuitate seruitute inopia, uigiliis doloribus excruciari et emori dis amicis. Quod si ita esse concedunt, conpendio nihil eos prodesse et coli superfluo confitentur. Nam si uirtutibus animi et probitati uitae, cuius praemia post mortem speranda sunt, magis contraria ut populus disceret institerunt; si nihil etiam in his transeuntibus et temporalibus bonis uel eis quos oderunt nocent, uel eis quos diligunt prosunt, ut quid coluntur, ut quid tanto studio colendi requiruntur? Quur laboriosis tristibusque temporibus, tamquam offensi abscesserint, murmuratur et propter eos Christiana religio conuiciis indignissimis laeditur? Si autem habent in his rebus uel beneficii uel maleficii potestatem, quur in eis adfuerunt pessimo uiro Mario, et optimo Regulo defuerunt? An ex hoc ipsi intelleguntur iniustissimi et pessimi? Quod si propterea magis timendi et colendi putantur, neque hoc putentur; neque enim minus eos inuenitur Regulus coluisse quam Marius. Nec ideo uita pessima eligenda uideatur, quia magis Mario quam Regulo di fauisse existimantur. Metellus enim Romanorum laudatissimus, qui habuit quinque filios consulares, etiam rerum temporalium felix fuit, et Catilina pessimus obpressus inopia et in bello sui sceleris prostratus infelix, et uerissima adque certissima felicitate praepollent boni Deum colentes, a quo solo conferri potest. Illa igitur res publica malis moribus cum periret, nihil di eorum pro dirigendis uel pro corrigendis egerunt moribus, ne periret; immo deprauandis et corrumpendis addiderunt moribus, ut periret. Nec se bonos fingant, quod uelut offensi ciuium iniquitate discesserint. Prorsus ibi erant; produntur, conuincuntur; nec subuenire praecipiendo nec latere tacendo potuerunt. Omitto quod Marius a miserantibus Minturnensibus Maricae deae in luco eius commendatus est, ut ei omnia prosperaret, et ex summa desperatione reuersus incolumis in Urbem duxit crudelem crudelis exercitum; ubi quam cruenta, quam inciuilis hostilique inmanior eius uictoria fuerit, eos qui scripserunt legant qui uolunt. Sed hoc, ut dixi, omitto, nec Maricae nescio cui tribuo Marii sanguineam felicitatem, sed occultae potius prouidentiae Dei ad istorum ora claudenda eosque ab errore liberandos, qui non studiis agunt, sed haec prudenter aduertunt, quia, etsi aliquid in his rebus daemones possunt, tantum possunt, quantum secreto omnipotentis arbitrio permittuntur, ne magnipendamus terrenam felicitatem, quae sicut Mario malis etiam plerumque conceditur, nec eam rursus quasi malam arbitremur, cum ea multos etiam pios ac bonos unius ueri Dei cultores inuitis daemonibus praepolluisse uideamus, nec eosdem inmundissimos spiritus uel propter haec ipsa bona malaue terrena propitiandos aut timendos existimemus, quia, sicut ipsi mali homines in terra, sic etiam illi non omnia quae uolunt facere possunt, nisi quantum illius ordinatione sinitur, cuius plene iudicia nemo conprehendit, iuste nemo reprehendit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. That the changes of temporal things depend not on the favor or hostility of demons but on the judgment of the true God.

What of the fact that they even seem to have been present to fulfill men's desires, while they are shown not to have presided over restraining them? For it was they who helped Marius, a new man of low birth, the bloodiest instigator and conductor of civil wars, to become consul seven times and to die an old man in his seventh consulship, without falling into the hands of Sulla, who was soon to be victor. For if their gods did not help him to these things, it is no small admission that even without the favor of their gods such great temporal happiness, which they love too much, can come to a man; and that men such as Marius can be heaped with health, strength, wealth, honors, rank, and long life, and enjoy them, while the gods are angry; and that men such as Regulus can be tormented with captivity, slavery, want, sleeplessness, and pain, and die, while the gods are friendly. If they grant this, they admit in short that the gods are of no use and are worshipped to no purpose. For if they insisted rather that the people should learn what is contrary to virtues of the mind and uprightness of life, whose rewards are to be hoped for after death; if even in these passing and temporal goods they neither harm those they hate nor help those they love, why are they worshipped, why are they sought with such zeal to be worshipped? Why is there murmuring in hard and sad times, as if they had gone away offended, and why is the Christian religion wounded with most unworthy insults on their account? But if they have power in these matters either to benefit or to harm, why did they stand by the worst of men, Marius, and fail the best, Regulus? Or are they understood from this to be most unjust and wicked themselves? But if for that reason they are thought all the more to be feared and worshipped, let them not be thought so either; for Regulus is found to have worshipped them no less than Marius. Nor should the worst life seem worth choosing because the gods are thought to have favored Marius more than Regulus. For Metellus, the most praised of the Romans, who had five sons of consular rank, was fortunate even in temporal things, and Catiline, the worst of men, oppressed by poverty and laid low in the war of his own crime, was unfortunate; and the good who worship God, by whom alone it can be conferred, excel in the truest and surest happiness. So when that state was perishing through bad morals, their gods did nothing to direct or correct its morals so that it would not perish; rather they added to the depravity and corruption of its morals so that it would perish. And let them not pretend to be good, as if they had gone away offended by the wickedness of the citizens. They were certainly there; they are exposed, convicted; they could neither help by teaching nor hide by keeping silent. I pass over the fact that Marius was commended by the Minturnians, who took pity on him, to the goddess Marica in her grove, that she might prosper all things for him, and that, returning safe from the depths of despair, he led a cruel army, cruel himself, into the City; how bloody, how uncivil, and more savage than an enemy's his victory was there, let those who wish read those who have written of it. But this, as I said, I pass over; and I do not attribute the bloody good fortune of Marius to some Marica or other, but rather to the hidden providence of God, to shut the mouths of these people and free from error those who do not act from partisanship but consider these things prudently: that even if demons have some power in these matters, they have only as much as they are permitted by the secret decision of the Almighty; so that we may not set great value on earthly happiness, which is often granted even to the wicked, as it was to Marius, nor again think it evil, since we see that many godly and good worshippers of the one true God have excelled in it in spite of the demons; nor think that these most unclean spirits must be propitiated or feared for the sake of these earthly goods or evils, because, just as wicked men on earth cannot do everything they want, so neither can they, except as far as is allowed by the ordering of him whose judgments no one fully comprehends and no one justly finds fault with.

### Scripture references

- Rom 11:33: echo, low confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plutarch, Mar. 39 (Plutarch): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Marius's flight to Minturnae and the grove of Marica: Plutarch, Marius 39. Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus had four sons who were consuls (Valerius Maximus 7.1.1); Augustine's “five” follows his source.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.23 (CSEL 40:95–97; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-16/#p-2-23).

## City of God 2.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-2-24
- Source: CSEL 40:97–100
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine recounts the omens and prophecies that promised Sulla victory, and notes that the gods foretold his success but never warned him against his crimes.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIIII. De Syllanis actibus, quorum se daemones ostentauerint adiutores. Sylla certe ipse, cuius tempora talia fuerunt, ut superiora, quorum uindex esse uidebatur, illorum conparatione quaererentur, cum primum ad Urbem contra Marium castra mouisset, adeo laeta exta immolanti fuisse scribit Liuius, ut custodiri se Postumius haruspex uoluerit capitis supplicium subiturus, nisi ea, quae in animo Sylla haberet, dis iuuantibus inpleuisset. Ecce non discesserant adytis adque aris relictis di, quando de rerum euentu praedicebant nihilque de ipsius Syllae correctione curabant. Promittebant praesagando felicitatem magnam nec malam cupiditatem minando frangebant. Deinde cum esset in Asia bellum Mithridaticum gerens, per Lucium Titium ei mandatum est a Ioue, quod esset Mithridatem superaturus, et factum est. Ac postea molienti redire in Urbem et suas amicorumque iniurias ciuili sanguine ulcisci, iterum mandatum est ab eodem Ioue per militem quendam legionis sextae, prius se de Mithridate praenuntiasse uictoriam, et tunc promittere daturum se potestatem, qua recuperaret ab inimicis rem publicam non sine multo sanguine. Tum percontatus Sylla, quae forma militi uisa fuerit, cum ille indicasset, eam recordatus est, quam prius ab illo audierat, qui de Mithridatica uictoria ab eodem mandata pertulerat. Quid hic responderi potest, quare di curauerint uelut felicia ista nuntiare, et nullus eorum curauerit Syllam monendo corrigere mala tanta facturum scelestis armis ciuilibus, qualia non foedarent, sed auferrent omnino rem publicam? Nempe intelleguntur daemones, sicut saepe dixi notumque nobis est in litteris sacris resque ipsae satis indicant, negotium suum agere, ut pro dis habeantur et colantur, ut ea illis exhibeantur, quibus hi qui exhibent sociati unam pessimam causam cum eis habeant in iudicio Dei. Deinde cum uenisset Tarentum Sylla adque ibi sacrificasset, uidit in capite uitulini iecoris similitudinem coronae aureae. Tunc Postumius haruspex ille respondit praeclaram significare uictoriam iussitque ut extis illis solus uesceretur. Postea paruo interuallo seruus cuiusdam Lucii Pontii uaticinando clamauit: <a Bellona nuntius uenio, uictoria tua est, Sylla). Deinde adiecit arsurum esse Capitolium. Hoc cum dixisset, continuo egressus e castris postero die concitatior reuersus est et Capitolium arsisse clamauit. Arserat autem re uera Capitolium. Quod quidem daemoni et praeuidere facile fuit et celerrime nuntiare. Illud sane intende, quod ad causam maxime pertinet, sub qualibus dis esse cupiant, qui blasphemant Saluatorem uoluntates fidelium a dominatu daemonum liberantem. Clamauit homo uaticinando: (uictoria tua est, Sylla, adque ut id diuino spiritu clamare crederetur, nuntiauit etiam aliquid et prope futurum et mox factum, unde longe aberat per quem ille spiritus loquebatur; non tamen clamauit: ab sceleribus parce, Sylla, quae illic uictor tam horrenda commisit, cui corona aurea ipsius uictoriae inlustrissimum signum in uitulino iecore apparuit, qualia signa si di iusti dare solerent ac non daemones inpii, profecto illis extis nefaria potius adque ipsi Syllae grauiter noxia mala futura monstrarent. Neque enim eius dignitati tantum profuit illa uictoria, quantum nocuit cupiditati; qua factum est, ut inmoderatis inhians et secundis rebus elatus ac praecipitatus magis ipse periret in moribus, quam inimicos in corporibus perderet. Haec illi di uere tristia uereque lugenda non extis, non auguriis, non cuiusquam somnio uel uaticinio praenuntiabant. Magis enim timebant ne corrigeretur quam ne uinceretur. Immo satis agebant, ut uictor ciuium gloriosus uictus adque captiuus nefandis uitiis et per haec ipsis etiam daemonibus multo obstrictius subderetur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 24. On the deeds of Sulla, of which the demons boasted that they were the helpers.

Sulla himself, certainly, whose times were such that the earlier times, of which he seemed to be the avenger, were missed by comparison with them, when he first moved his camp against Marius toward the City, found the entrails so favorable as he sacrificed, as Livy writes, that the soothsayer Postumius asked to be kept in custody, ready to undergo capital punishment if Sulla did not accomplish, with the gods' help, what he had in mind. See, the gods had not “departed, leaving their shrines and altars,” when they were foretelling the outcome of events and cared nothing for correcting Sulla himself. By their presages they promised great good fortune, and did not break his evil desire by threats. Then, when he was in Asia waging the Mithridatic war, he was told by Jupiter through Lucius Titius that he would conquer Mithridates, and so it happened. And afterward, when he was preparing to return to the City and avenge the wrongs done to himself and his friends with the blood of citizens, he was told again by the same Jupiter, through a certain soldier of the sixth legion, that he had earlier foretold the victory over Mithridates and now promised to give him power to recover the state from his enemies, not without much bloodshed. Then Sulla asked what form had appeared to the soldier, and when he described it, Sulla recalled that it was the one he had heard of earlier from the man who had brought him the message from the same god about the Mithridatic victory. What answer can be given here as to why the gods took care to announce these things as if they were fortunate, and none of them took care to correct Sulla by warning him, when he was about to do such great evils with criminal civil arms as would not merely disfigure the state but destroy it altogether? Plainly the demons are understood, as I have often said, as is known to us from the sacred writings, and as the facts themselves sufficiently show, to be doing their own business: that they may be held and worshipped as gods, and that those things may be offered to them by which those who offer them are joined with them and have one evil case with them at the judgment of God. Then, when Sulla had come to Tarentum and sacrificed there, he saw on the head of a calf's liver the likeness of a golden crown. Then that soothsayer Postumius answered that it signified a glorious victory and ordered him to eat of those entrails alone. A little later the slave of a certain Lucius Pontius cried out, prophesying: “I come as a messenger from Bellona; the victory is yours, Sulla.” Then he added that the Capitol would burn. When he had said this, he at once left the camp, and returned the next day more excited, crying out that the Capitol had burned. And the Capitol had in fact burned. It was easy for a demon both to foresee this and to announce it very quickly. But notice this above all, which bears most on the case: under what kind of gods those people want to be who blaspheme the Savior who frees the wills of the faithful from the domination of demons. The man cried out, prophesying, “Victory is yours, Sulla,” and, so that he might be believed to cry it by a divine spirit, he also announced something both near at hand and soon done, from which the man through whom that spirit spoke was far away; yet he did not cry out, “Refrain from crimes, Sulla,” the crimes so horrible which he committed there as victor, he to whom a golden crown, the most brilliant sign of that very victory, appeared on a calf's liver. If just gods, and not ungodly demons, usually gave such signs, surely in those entrails they would rather have shown the wicked evils to come, gravely harmful to Sulla himself. For that victory did not profit his rank as much as it harmed his desire; by it he came, gaping after immoderate things and lifted up and thrown headlong by prosperity, to perish more himself in his morals than he destroyed his enemies in their bodies. These truly sad and truly lamentable things those gods did not foretell by entrails, by auguries, by anyone's dream or prophecy. For they feared more that he might be corrected than that he might be conquered. Rather, they did enough to make the glorious conqueror of his fellow citizens be conquered and taken captive by unspeakable vices, and through these subjected far more tightly to the demons themselves.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, Per. 77 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, low confidence
- Plutarch, Sull. 9, 27 (Plutarch): allusion, low confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 2.351 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Livy's account of Sulla is lost (see Periochae 77); similar stories are in Plutarch, Sulla 9 and 27. The line “departed, leaving their shrines and altars” is Virgil, Aeneid 2.351, as in 2.22.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.24 (CSEL 40:97–100; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-2-24).

## City of God 2.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-2-25
- Source: CSEL 40:100–102
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine describes a vision of gods fighting on a Campanian plain before the civil wars, arguing that demons staged such sights to give divine sanction to civil war.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXV. Quantum maligni spiritus ad flagitia incitent homines, cum in committendis sceleribus quasi diuinam exempli sui interponunt auctoritatem. Illinc uero quis non intellegat, quis non uideat, nisi qui tales deos imitari magis elegit quam diuina gratia ab eorum societate separari, quantum moliantur maligni isti spiritus exemplo suo uelut diuinam auctoritatem praebere sceleribus? quod etiam in quadam Campaniae lata planitie, ubi non multo post ciuiles acies nefario proelio conflixerunt, ipsi inter se prius pugnare uisi sunt. Namque ibi auditi sunt primum ingentes fragores, moxque multi se uidisse nuntiarunt per aliquot dies duas acies proeliari. Quae pugna ubi destitit, uestigia quoque uelut hominum et equorum, quanta de illa conflictatione exprimi poterant, inuenerunt. Si ergo ueraciter inter se numina pugnauerunt, iam bella ciuilia excusantur humana; consideretur tamen quae sit talium deorum uel malitia uel miseria: si autem se pugnasse finxerunt, quid aliud egerunt, nisi ut sibi Romani bellando ciuiliter tamquam deorum exemplo nullum nefas admittere uiderentur? Iam enim coeperant bella ciuilia, et aliquot nefandorum proeliorum strages exsecranda praecesserat. Iam multos mouerat, quod miles quidam, dum occiso spolia detraheret, fratrem nudato cadauere agnouit ac detestatus bella ciuilia se ipsum ibi perimens fraterno corpori adiunxit. Ut ergo huius tanti mali minime taederet, sed armorum scelestorum magis magisque ardor incresceret, noxii daemones, quos illi deos putantes colendos et uenerandos arbitrabantur, inter se pugnantes hominibus apparere uoluerunt, ne imitari tales pugnas ciuica trepidaret adfectio, sed potius humanum scelus diuino excusaretur exemplo. Hac astutia maligni spiritus etiam ludos, unde multa iam dixi, scaenicos sibi dicari sacrarique iusserunt, ubi tanta deorum flagitia theatricis canticis adque fabularum actionibus celebrata et quisquis eos fecisse crederet et quisquis non crederet, sed tamen illos libentissime sibi talia exhiberi cerneret, securus imitaretur. Ne quis itaque existimaret in deos conuicia potius quam eis dignum aliquid scriptitasse, ubicumque illos inter se pugnasse poetae commemorarunt, ipsi ad decipiendos homines poetarum carmina firmauerunt, pugnas uidelicet suas non solum per scaenicos in theatro, uerum etiam per se ipsos in campo humanis oculis exhibentes. Haec dicere conpulsi sumus, quoniam pessimis moribus ciuium Romanam rem publicam iam antea perditam fuisse nullamque remansisse ante aduentum Christi Iesu domini nostri auctores eorum dicere et scribere minime dubitarunt. Quam perditionem dis suis non inputant, qui mala transitoria, quibus boni, seu uiuant seu moriantur, perire non possunt, Christo nostro inputant: cum Christus noster tanta frequentet pro moribus optimis praecepta contra perditos mores; di uero ipsorum nullis talibus praeceptis egerint aliquid cum suo cultore populo pro illa re publica, ne periret; immo eosdem mores uelut suis exemplis auctoritate noxia corrumpendo egerunt potius, ut periret. Quam non ideo tunc perisse quisquam, ut arbitror, iam dicere audebit, quia discessere omnes adytis arisque relictis di, uelut amici uirtutibus, cum uitiis hominum offenderentur; quia tot signis extorum auguriorum uaticiniorum, quibus se tamquam praescios futurorum adiutoresque proeliorum iactare et commendare gestiebant, conuincuntur fuisse praesentes; qui si uere abscessissent, mitius Romani in bella ciuilia suis cupiditatibus quam illorum instigationibus exarsissent.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 25. How strongly the malign spirits incite men to shameful deeds when they interpose the seemingly divine authority of their own example for committing crimes.

From this, who does not understand, who does not see, unless he has chosen rather to imitate such gods than to be separated from their company by divine grace, how hard these malign spirits labor to supply crimes with a seemingly divine authority by their own example? For in a broad plain of Campania, where not long afterward the armies of the civil war clashed in a wicked battle, they themselves were first seen fighting one another. For huge crashes were first heard there, and soon many reported that for several days they had seen two armies fighting. When the fight stopped, they even found tracks, as of men and horses, such as could be imprinted by that conflict. If, then, the deities really fought among themselves, human civil wars are now excused; yet let the malice or misery of such gods be considered. But if they pretended to have fought, what else did they do but make it seem to the Romans that in fighting civil wars they committed no wickedness, as if following the example of the gods? For civil wars had already begun, and the execrable slaughter of some unspeakable battles had gone before. Many had already been moved by the story of a certain soldier who, while stripping the spoils from a man he had killed, recognized his brother when the corpse was stripped, and, cursing civil wars, killed himself on the spot and laid himself beside his brother's body. So that men would not be sickened at all by so great an evil, but the ardor of criminal arms might grow more and more, the harmful demons, whom these people thought gods and judged to be worshipped and venerated, chose to appear to men fighting among themselves, so that the affection of citizens would not shrink from imitating such battles, but rather human crime would be excused by divine example. By this cunning the malign spirits also ordered the stage plays, about which I have already said much, to be dedicated and consecrated to them, in which such shameful deeds of the gods were celebrated in theatrical songs and the acting of fables, so that both whoever believed they had done them and whoever did not believe it, but saw that they most gladly had such things exhibited to them, might imitate them without worry. So that no one might think that the poets had written insults against the gods rather than something worthy of them, wherever the poets recorded that the gods had fought among themselves, the gods themselves confirmed the poets' songs in order to deceive men, exhibiting their battles to human eyes not only through actors in the theater but also through themselves on the field. We have been compelled to say these things because their own authors did not hesitate to say and write that the Roman state had already been ruined by the worst morals of its citizens and that none remained before the coming of Jesus Christ our Lord. This ruin they do not blame on their gods, while they blame on our Christ the passing evils by which the good, whether they live or die, cannot perish; though our Christ so often gives so many precepts for the best morals against depraved morals, while their gods did nothing by any such precepts with the people that worshipped them for that state, so that it would not perish; rather, by corrupting those same morals with harmful authority, as it were by their own examples, they acted so that it would perish. No one, I think, will now dare to say that it perished then because “the gods all departed, leaving their shrines and altars,” as friends of virtue offended by men's vices; for by so many signs from entrails, auguries, and prophecies, by which they were eager to boast and commend themselves as foreknowing the future and helping in battles, they are proved to have been present. If they had really gone away, the Romans would have been fired into civil wars more mildly by their own desires than they were by the instigations of these gods.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, Per. 79 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, low confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 2.351 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The Campanian portent and the soldier who killed his brother are reported by later writers (e.g. Julius Obsequens; Livy, Periochae 79; Tacitus, Histories 3.51 tells a similar story). Virgil, Aeneid 2.351.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.25 (CSEL 40:100–102; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-2-25).

## City of God 2.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-2-26
- Source: CSEL 40:102–104
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that any secret moral teaching in pagan mysteries was a demonic disguise, while the public festivals, like those of Caelestis he watched at Carthage, openly taught vice.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVI. De secretis daemonum monitis, quae pertinebant ad bonos mores, cum palam in sacris eorum omnis nequitia disceretur. Quae cum ita sint, cum palam aperteque turpitudines crudelitatibus mixtae, obprobria numinum et crimina, siue prodita siue conficta, ipsis exposcentibus et nisi fieret irascentibus etiam certis et statis sollemnitatibus consecrata illis et dicata claruerint adque ad omnium oculos ut imitanda proponerentur, spectanda processerint: quid est, quod idem ipsi daemones, qui se huiusce modi uoluptatibus inmundos esse spiritus confitentur, qui suis flagitiis et facinoribus, siue indicatis siue simulatis, eorumque sibi celebratione petita ab inpudentibus, extorta a pudentibus auctores se uitae scelestae inmundaeque testantur, perhibentur tamen in adytis suis secretisque penetralibus dare quaedam bona praecepta de moribus quibusdam uelut electis sacratis suis? Quod si ita est, hoc ipso callidior aduertenda est et conuincenda malitia spirituum noxiorum. Tanta enim uis est probitatis et castitatis, ut omnis uel paene omnis eius laude moueatur humana natura, nec usque adeo sit turpitudine uitiosa, ut totum sensum honestatis amiserit. Proinde malignitas daemonum, nisi alicubi se, quem ad modum scriptum in nostris litteris nouimus, transfiguret in angelos lucis, non inplet negotium deceptionis. Foris itaque populis celeberrimo strepitu inpietas inpura circumsonat, et intus paucis castitas simulata uix sonat; praebentur propatula pudendis et secreta laudandis; decus latet et dedecus patet; quod malum geritur omnes conuocat spectatores, quod bonum dicitur uix aliquos inuenit auditores, tamquam honesta erubescenda sint et inhonesta glorianda. Sed ubi hoc nisi in daemonum templis? ubi nisi in fallaciae deuersoriis? Illud enim fit, ut honestiores, qui pauci sunt, capiantur; hoc autem, ne plures, qui sunt turpissimi, corrigantur. Ubi et quando sacrati Caelestis audiebant castitatis praecepta, nescimus; ante ipsum tamen delubrum, ubi simulacrum illud locatum conspiciebamus, uniuersi undique confluentes et ubi quisque poterat stantes ludos qui agebantur intentissimi spectabamus, intuentes alternante conspectu hinc meretriciam pompam, illinc uirginem deam: illam suppliciter adorari, ante illam turpia celebrari; non ibi pudibundos mimos, nullam uerecundiorem scaenicam uidimus; cuncta obscenitatis inplebantur officia. Sciebatur uirginali numini quid placeret, et exhibebatur quod de templo domum matrona doctior reportaret. Nonnullae pudentiores auertebant faciem ab inpuris motibus scaenicorum et artem flagitii furtiua intentione discebant. Hominibus namque uerecundabantur, ne auderent inpudicos gestus ore libero cernere; sed multo minus audebant sacra eius, quam uenerabantur. casto corde damnare. Hoc tamen palam discendum praebebatur in templo, ad quod perpetrandum saltem secretum quaerebatur in domo, mirante nimium, si ullus ibi erat, pudore mortalium, quod humana flagitia non libere homines committerent, quae aput deos etiam religiose discerent iratos habituri, nisi etiam exhibere curarent. Quis enim alius spiritus occulto instinctu nequissimas agitans mentes et instat faciendis adulteriis et pascitur factis, nisi qui etiam sacris talibus oblectatur, constituens in templis simulacra daemonum, amans in ludis simulacra uitiorum, susurrans in occulto uerba iustitiae ad decipiendos etiam paucos bonos, frequentans in aperto inuitamenta nequitiae ad possidendos innumerabiles malos?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 26. On the secret admonitions of the demons that concerned good morals, while all wickedness was openly learned in their rites.

Since this is so, since foul deeds mixed with cruelties, reproaches and crimes of the deities, whether revealed or invented, were plainly and openly consecrated and dedicated to them, even at fixed and appointed festivals, at their own demand and with their anger if it was not done, and came forth to be seen by the eyes of all as if set before them for imitation, why is it that these same demons, who confess themselves unclean spirits by such pleasures, who by their shameful deeds and crimes, whether disclosed or feigned, and by the celebration of them which they sought from the shameless and extorted from the modest, testify that they are the authors of a wicked and unclean life, are nevertheless said to give certain good precepts about morals in their sanctuaries and secret inner rooms to some select initiates of theirs? If this is so, the malice of the harmful spirits must be noted and convicted as all the craftier for it. For so great is the power of uprightness and chastity that all, or nearly all, human nature is moved by its praise, and is not so vicious in its foulness as to have lost all sense of decency. So the malignity of the demons does not accomplish its business of deception unless somewhere it transforms itself, as we know it is written in our Scriptures, into angels of light. Outside, then, unclean ungodliness resounds around the peoples with loud clamor, and inside a feigned chastity barely sounds for a few; the shameful is offered in the open and the praiseworthy in secret; decency hides and indecency is displayed; the evil that is done calls all to watch, the good that is spoken scarcely finds any hearers, as if honorable things were to be blushed at and dishonorable things gloried in. But where except in the temples of demons? Where except in the lodgings of deceit? For the one is done to catch the more honorable, who are few; the other so that the many, who are most foul, may not be corrected. Where and when the initiates of Caelestis heard precepts of chastity we do not know; but before the very temple, where we saw that image placed, all of us, flowing together from every side and standing wherever each could, watched most intently the plays that were being acted, looking now at the procession of harlots, now at the virgin goddess; her we saw suppliantly adored, before her foul things were celebrated. We saw no bashful mimes there, no more modest actress; every service of obscenity was performed. It was known what pleased the virgin deity, and there was exhibited what a matron would carry home from the temple better instructed. Some of the more modest women turned their faces away from the impure movements of the actors and learned the art of shamefulness with stealthy attention. For they were ashamed before men, and did not dare to look at the immodest gestures with free eyes; but much less did they dare to condemn with a chaste heart the rites of the goddess they worshipped. Yet what was offered to be learned openly in the temple was what, to commit it, at least privacy was sought at home; while the modesty of mortals, if there was any there, wondered greatly that men did not commit freely the shameful deeds of humans which they learned religiously from the gods, gods who would be angry if they did not also take care to exhibit them. For what other spirit, stirring the most wicked minds by a hidden impulse, both urges adulteries to be done and feeds on them when done, except the one who is also delighted by such rites, setting up images of demons in the temples, loving images of vices in the plays, whispering words of justice in secret to deceive even the few good, and multiplying invitations to wickedness in the open to possess the countless wicked?

### Scripture references

- 2 Cor 11:14: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- 2 Corinthians 11:14. Caelestis: see 2.4.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.26 (CSEL 40:102–104; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-2-26).

## City of God 2.27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-2-27
- Source: CSEL 40:104–106
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine cites Cicero's own references to appeasing the gods with games, and argues that such obscene rites taught the whole city vice while any secret moral teaching remained hidden.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVII. Quanta euersione publicae disciplinae Romani dis suis placandis sacrauerint obscena ludorum. Vir grauis et philosophaster Tullius aedilis futurus clamat in auribus ciuitatis, inter cetera sui magistratus officia sibi Floram matrem ludorum celebritate placandam; qui ludi tanto deuotius, quanto turpius celebrari solent. Dicit alio loco iam consul in extremis periculis ciuitatis, et ludos per decem dies factos, neque rem ullam quae ad placandos deos pertineret praetermissam; quasi non satius erat tales deos inritare temperantia quam placare luxuria, et eos honestate etiam ad inimicitias prouocare quam tanta deformitate lenire. Neque enim grauius fuerant quamlibet crudelissima inmanitate nocituri homines, propter quos placabantur, quam nocebant ipsi, cum uitiositate foedissima placarentur. Quando quidem ut auerteretur quod metuebatur ab hoste in corporibus, eo modo di conciliabantur, quo uirtus debellaretur in mentibus, qui non obponerentur defensores obpugnatoribus moenium, nisi prius fierent expugnatores morum bonorum. Hanc talium numinum placationem petulantissimam inpurissimam inpudentissimam nequissimam inmundissimam, cuius actores laudanda Romanae uirtutis indoles honore priuauit, tribu mouit, agnouit turpes, fecit infames, hanc, inquam, pudendam ueraeque religioni auersandam et detestandam talium numinum placationem, [has] fabulas in deos inlecebrosas adque criminosas, haec ignominiosa deorum uel scelerate turpiterque facta uel sceleratius turpiusque conficta oculis et auribus publicis ciuitas tota discebat, haec commissa numinibus placere cernebat, et ideo non solum illis exhibenda, sed sibi quoque imitanda credebat, non illud nescio quid uelut bonum et honestum, quod tam paucis et tam occulte dicebatur (si tamen dicebatur), ut magis ne innotesceret, quam ne non fieret, timeretur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 27. With what overthrow of public discipline the Romans consecrated the obscenities of the games to appeasing their gods.

Tullius, a serious man and something of a philosopher, when about to become aedile, cries out in the ears of the city that among the other duties of his office he must appease Mother Flora with the celebration of games; and those games are usually celebrated the more devoutly the more foully. He says elsewhere, when already consul, in the extreme dangers of the city, that games were held for ten days and nothing was left undone that pertained to appeasing the gods; as if it were not better to provoke such gods by temperance than to appease them by debauchery, and to rouse them even to enmity by decency than to soothe them with such foulness. For the men against whom they were being appeased would not have done more grievous harm by any savagery, however cruel, than the gods themselves did when they were appeased by the foulest vice. Since, to avert what was feared from the enemy in bodies, the gods were won over in a way by which virtue was defeated in minds; they would not be set as defenders against the attackers of the walls unless they first became the conquerors of good morals. This appeasement of such deities, most wanton, most impure, most shameless, most wicked, most unclean, whose performers the praiseworthy character of Roman virtue deprived of honor, removed from their tribe, recognized as foul, made infamous: this, I say, shameful appeasement of such deities, to be shunned and detested by true religion, these alluring and criminal fables about the gods, these ignominious deeds of the gods, either done wickedly and foully or invented more wickedly and foully, the whole city learned with public eyes and ears; it saw that these things when done pleased the deities, and so believed they were not only to be exhibited to them but also imitated by itself; not that something or other supposedly good and honorable which was said to so few and so secretly (if indeed it was said at all) that it was feared more that it might become known than that it might not be done.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Verr. 2.5.36 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence
- Cicero, Cat. 3.20 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Cicero, Against Verres 2.5.36 (the games of Flora); Against Catiline 3.20 (games for ten days).
- The editor deletes has (“these”) before “alluring fables” (square brackets); the sense is unaffected.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.27 (CSEL 40:104–106; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-2-27).

## City of God 2.28

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-2-28
- Source: CSEL 40:106
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine contrasts pagan festivals with Christian worship, where the sexes are separated and Scripture and moral teaching are proclaimed to all.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIII. De Christianae religionis salubritate. Ab istarum inmundissimarum potestatum tartareo iugo et societate poenali erui per Christi nomen homines et in lucem saluberrimae pietatis ab illa perniciosissimae inpietatis nocte transferri queruntur et murmurant iniqui et ingrati et illo nefario spiritu altius obstrictiusque possessi, quia populi confluunt ad ecclesiam casta celebritate, honesta utriusque sexus discretione, ubi audiant quam bene hic ad tempus uiuere debeant, ut post hanc uitam beate semperque uiuere mereantur, ubi sancta scriptura iustitiaeque doctrina de superiore loco in conspectu omnium personante et qui faciunt audiant ad praemium, et qui non faciunt audiant ad iudicium. Quo etsi ueniunt quidam talium praeceptorum inrisores, omnis eorum petulantia aut repentina mutatione deponitur, aut timore uel pudore conprimitur. Nihil enim eis turpe ac flagitiosum spectandum imitandumque proponitur, ubi ueri Dei aut praecepta insinuantur aut miracula narrantur, aut dona laudantur aut beneficia postulantur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 28. On the wholesomeness of the Christian religion.

That men are being rescued through the name of Christ from the hellish yoke and penal fellowship of these most unclean powers, and are being brought from that night of most pernicious ungodliness into the light of most wholesome godliness, is what the unjust and ungrateful complain and murmur about, being possessed more deeply and tightly by that wicked spirit; because the peoples flock to church in chaste assembly, with an honorable separation of the two sexes, where they may hear how well they ought to live here for a time so as to be worthy to live happily and forever after this life; where, as holy Scripture and the teaching of righteousness sound out from a higher place in the sight of all, both those who do it hear to their reward and those who do not hear to their judgment. Even if some mockers of such precepts come there, all their wantonness is either laid aside by a sudden change or restrained by fear or shame. For nothing foul or shameful is set before them to watch and imitate where the precepts of the true God are instilled, or his miracles told, or his gifts praised, or his benefits asked for.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.28 (CSEL 40:106; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-2-28).

## City of God 2.29

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-2-29
- Source: CSEL 40:106–109
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine exhorts the Roman character, noble by nature, to abandon demon worship and seek citizenship in the heavenly city, whose empire has no end.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIIII. De abiciendo cultu deorum cohortatio ad Romanos. Haec potius concupisce o indoles Romana laudabilis o progenies Regulorum Scaeuolarum Scipionum Fabriciorum; haec potius concupisce, haec ab illa turpissima uanitate et fallacissima daemonum malignitate discerne. Si quid in te laudabile naturaliter eminet, non nisi uera pietate purgatur adque perficitur, inpietate autem disperditur et punitur. Nunc iam elige quid sequaris, ut non in te, sed in Deo uero sine ullo errore lauderis. Tunc enim tibi gloria popularis adfuit, sed occulto diuinae prouidentiae iudicio uera religio quam eligeres defuit. Expergiscere, dies est, sicut experrecta es in quibusdam, de quorum uirtute perfecta et pro fide uera etiam passionibus gloriamur, qui usquequaque aduersus potestates inimicissimas confligentes easque fortiter moriendo uincentes sanguine nobis hanc patriam peperere suo. Ad quam patriam te inuitamus et exhortamur, ut eius adiciaris numero ciuium, cuius quodam modo asylum est uera remissio peccatorum. Non audias degeneres tuos Christo Christianisue detrahentes et accusantes uelut tempora mala, cum quaerant tempora, quibus non sit quieta uita, sed potius secura nequitia. Haec tibi numquam nec pro terrena patria placuerunt. Nunc iam caelestem arripe, pro qua minimum laborabis, et in ea ueraciter semperque regnabis. Illic enim tibi non Vestalis focus, non lapis Capitolinus, sed Deus unus et uerus nec metas rerum nec tempora ponit, Imperium sine fine dabit. Noli deos falsos fallacesque requirere; abice potius adque contemne in ueram emicans libertatem. Non sunt di, maligni sunt spiritus, quibus aeterna tua felicitas poena est. Non tam Iuno Troianis, a quibus carnalem originem ducis, arces uidetur inuidisse Romanas, quam isti daemones, quos adhuc deos putas, omni generi hominum sedes inuident sempiternas. Et tu ipsa non parua ex parte de talibus spiritibus iudicasti, quando ludis eos placasti et per quos homines eosdem ludos fecisti, infames esse uoluisti. Patere adseri libertatem tuam aduersus inmundos spiritus, qui tuis ceruicibus inposuerant sacrandam sibi et celebrandam ignominiam suam. Actores criminum diuinorum remouisti ab honoribus tuis: supplica Deo uero, ut a te remoueat illos deos, qui delectantur criminibus suis, seu ueris, quod ignominiosissimum est, seu falsis. quod malitiosissimum. Bene, quod tua sponte histrionibus et scaenicis societatem ciuitatis patere noluisti; euigila plenius! Nullo modo his artibus placatur diuina maiestas, quibus humana dignitas inquinatur. Quo igitur pacto deos, qui talibus delectantur obsequiis, haberi putas in numero sanctarum caelestium potestatum, cum homines, per quos eadem aguntur obsequia, non putasti habendos in numero qualiumcumque ciuium Romanorum? Incomparabiliter superna est ciuitas clarior, ubi uictoria ueritas, ubi dignitas sanctitas, ubi pax felicitas, ubi uita aeternitas. Multo minus habet in sua societate tales deos, si tu in tua tales homines habere erubuisti. Proinde si ad beatam peruenire desideras ciuitatem, deuita daemonum societatem. Indigne ab honestis coluntur, qui per turpes placantur. Sic isti a tua pietate remoueantur purgatione Christiana, quo modo illi a tua dignitate remoti sunt notatione censoria. De bonis autem carnalibus, quibus solis mali perfrui uolunt, et de malis carnalibus, quae sola perpeti nolunt, quod neque in his habeant quam putantur habere isti daemones potestatem (quamquam si haberent, deberemus potius etiam ista contemnere, quam propter ista illos colere et eos colendo ad illa, quae nobis inuident, peruenire non posse), — tamen nec in istis eos hoc ualere, quod hi putant, qui propter haec eos coli oportere contendunt, deinceps uidebimus, ut hic sit huius uoluminis modus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 29. An exhortation to the Romans to cast off the worship of the gods.

Desire these things rather, O praiseworthy Roman character, O offspring of the Reguli, Scaevolae, Scipios, and Fabricii; desire these things rather; distinguish these from that most foul vanity and most deceitful malignity of the demons. If anything praiseworthy stands out in you by nature, it is purified and perfected only by true godliness, but it is destroyed and punished by ungodliness. Now choose what to follow, so that you may be praised without any error, not in yourself but in the true God. For then you had popular glory, but by the hidden judgment of divine providence you lacked the true religion to choose. Wake up, it is day, as you have awoken in some, in whose perfect virtue, and in whose sufferings too for the true faith, we glory; who, fighting everywhere against the most hostile powers and conquering them by dying bravely, “won this homeland for us with their blood.” To this homeland we invite and exhort you, that you may be added to the number of its citizens, whose sanctuary, in a way, is the true remission of sins. Do not listen to your degenerate offspring who disparage Christ or Christians and accuse them as if the times were bad, when they seek times in which life is not quiet but wickedness secure. Such things never pleased you even for your earthly homeland. Now seize the heavenly one, for which you will labor very little, and in which you will reign truly and forever. For there, not the Vestal hearth, not the Capitoline stone, but the one true God “sets no bounds to your affairs nor times; he will give empire without end.” Do not seek false and deceitful gods; rather cast them off and despise them, springing forth into true liberty. They are not gods; they are malign spirits, to whom your eternal happiness is a punishment. Juno does not seem to have begrudged the Trojans, from whom you draw your fleshly origin, the Roman citadels as much as these demons, whom you still think gods, begrudge the whole human race its everlasting seats. And you yourself have judged such spirits in no small measure, when you appeased them with games and yet willed the men through whom you put on those games to be infamous. Allow your liberty to be asserted against the unclean spirits who had laid on your necks the duty of consecrating and celebrating their own disgrace. You have removed the performers of divine crimes from your honors; pray to the true God to remove from you those gods who delight in their crimes, whether true, which is most disgraceful, or false, which is most malicious. It is well that of your own accord you refused to open the fellowship of the city to actors and players; awake more fully! The divine majesty is in no way appeased by arts by which human dignity is defiled. How then can you think that gods who delight in such services are to be counted among the holy heavenly powers, when you did not think the men through whom those same services are performed should be counted among Roman citizens of any kind? Incomparably more glorious is the city above, where victory is truth, where dignity is holiness, where peace is happiness, where life is eternity. Much less does it have such gods in its fellowship, if you blushed to have such men in yours. So if you desire to reach the blessed city, avoid the fellowship of demons. Those who are appeased through the disgraceful are unworthily worshipped by the honorable. Let these, then, be removed from your godliness by Christian purification, just as those were removed from your dignity by the censor's mark. As for the fleshly goods which alone the wicked wish to enjoy, and the fleshly evils which alone they refuse to suffer, that these demons do not have the power over them that they are thought to have (though if they had it, we ought rather to despise even these things than worship them for these things' sake, and by worshipping them be unable to reach the things they begrudge us), that even in these they do not have the power these people think, who argue that they must be worshipped for such things, we shall see next; so let this be the limit of this book.

### Scripture references

- Rom 13:11–12: echo, medium confidence
- Eph 5:14: echo, low confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 11.24–25 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 1.278–279 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Virgil, Aeneid 11.24–25 (“won this homeland for us with their blood”) and 1.278–279 (“I set no bounds … empire without end”). “Wake up, it is day” echoes Romans 13:11–12 and Ephesians 5:14.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 2.29 (CSEL 40:106–109; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-2-29).

## City of God 3.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-3-1
- Source: CSEL 40:109–110
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine turns from moral evils to the external calamities, such as war and famine, which Rome suffered while it worshipped the gods before Christ.

### Latin text

CAPUT I. De aduersitatibus, quas solas mali metuunt et quas semper passus est mundus, cum deos coleret. Iam satis dictum arbitror de morum malis et animorum, quae praecipue cauenda sunt, nihil deos falsos populo cultori suo, quo minus eorum malorum aggere premeretur, subuenire curasse, sed potius, ut maxime premeretur, egisse. Nunc de illis malis uideo dicendum, quae sola isti perpeti nolunt, qualia sunt fames morbus, bellum exspoliatio, captiuitas trucidatio, et si qua similia iam in primo libro commemorauimus. Haec enim sola mali deputant mala, quae non faciunt malos; nec erubescunt inter bona, quae laudant, ipsi mali esse qui laudant, magisque stomachantur, si uillam malam habeant, quam si uitam, quasi hoc sit hominis maximum bonum, habere bona omnia praeter se ipsum. Sed neque talia mala, quae isti sola formidant, di eorum, quando ab eis libere colebantur, ne illis acciderent obstiterunt. Cum enim uariis per diuersa temporibus ante aduentum Redemtoris nostri innumerabilibus nonnullisque etiam incredibilibus cladibus genus contereretur humanum, quos alios quam istos deos mundus colebat, excepto uno populo Hebraeo et quibusdam extra ipsum populum, ubicumque gratia diuina digni occultissimo adque iustissimo Dei iudicio fuerunt? Verum ne nimis longum faciam, tacebo aliarum usquequaque gentium mala grauissima: quod ad Romam pertinet Romanumque imperium tantum loquar, id est ad ipsam proprie ciuitatem et quaecumque illi terrarum uel societate coniunctae uel condicione subiectae sunt, quae sint perpessae ante aduentum Christi, cum iam ad eius quasi corpus rei publicae pertinerent.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. On the adversities which alone the wicked fear, and which the world always suffered while it worshipped the gods.

I think enough has now been said about the evils of morals and minds, which above all must be guarded against: that the false gods took no care to help the people that worshipped them so as to keep it from being crushed under the heap of those evils, but rather acted so that it would be crushed as much as possible. Now I see that I must speak of those evils which alone these people refuse to suffer, such as famine, disease, war, plunder, captivity, slaughter, and anything similar, which we have already mentioned in the first book. For the wicked count only those things as evils which do not make men evil; and they do not blush, among the good things they praise, to be evil themselves who praise them, and they are more annoyed if they have a bad villa than a bad life, as if this were man's greatest good: to have all things good except himself. But not even such evils, which alone these people dread, did their gods prevent from befalling them when they were freely worshipped by them. For when, at various times and places before the coming of our Redeemer, the human race was being crushed by countless disasters, some of them even incredible, what gods did the world worship other than these, except the one Hebrew people and certain persons outside that people, wherever they were found worthy of divine grace by the most hidden and most just judgment of God? But not to be too long, I will keep silent about the very grievous evils of other nations everywhere; I will speak only of what concerns Rome and the Roman empire, that is, the city proper and whatever lands were joined to it by alliance or subjected to it by conquest, what they suffered before the coming of Christ, when they already belonged, as it were, to the body of its state.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.1 (CSEL 40:109–110; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-3-1).

## City of God 3.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-3-2
- Source: CSEL 40:110–112
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine mocks the claim that Troy fell for Laomedon's perjury, pointing out that gods who could not foresee it were poor diviners and that Rome was full of perjury without being punished.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. An di, qui et a Romanis et a Graecis similiter colebantur, causas habuerint, quibus Ilium paterentur exscindi. Primum ipsa Troia uel Ilium, unde origo est populi Romani, (neque enim praetereundum aut dissimulandum est, quod et in primo libro adtigi) eosdem habens deos et colens quur a Graecis uictum, captum adque deletum est? Priamo, inquiunt, sunt reddita Laomedontea paterna periuria. Ergo uerum est, quod Apollo adque Neptunus eidem Laomedonti mercennariis operibus seruierunt? Illis quippe promisisse mercedem falsumque iurasse perhibetur. Miror Apollinem nominatum diuinatorem in tanto opificio laborasse nescientem quod Laomedon fuerat promissa negaturus. Quamquam nec ipsum Neptunum, patruum eius, fratrem Iouis, regem maris, decuit ignarum esse futurorum. Nam hunc Homerus de stirpe Aeneae, a cuius posteris [condita] Roma est, cum ante illam urbem conditam idem poeta fuisse dicatur, inducit magnum aliquid diuinantem, quem etiam nube rapuit, ut dicit, ne ab Achille occideretur, cuperet cum uertere ab imo, quod aput Vergilium confitetur, Structa suis manibus periurae moenia Troiae. Nescientes igitur tanti di, Neptunus et Apollo, Laomedontem sibi negaturum esse mercedem, structores moenium Troianorum gratis et ingratis fuerunt. Videant ne grauius sit tales deos credere quam dis talibus peierare. Hoc enim nec ipse Homerus facile credidit, qui Neptunum quidem contra Troianos, Apollinem autem pro Troianis pugnantem facit, cum illo periurio ambos fabula narret offensos. Si igitur fabulis credunt, erubescant talia colere numina; si fabulis non credunt, non obtendant Troiana periuria, aut mirentur deos periuria punisse Troiana, amasse Romana. Unde enim coniuratio Catilinae in tanta tamque corrupta ciuitate habuit etiam eorum grandem copiam, quos manus adque lingua periurio aut sanguine ciuili alebat? Quid enim aliud totiens senatores corrupti in iudiciis, totiens populus in suffragiis uel in quibusque causis, quae aput eum contionibus agebantur, nisi etiam peierando peccabant? Namque corruptissimis moribus ad hoc mos iurandi seruabatur antiquus, non ut ab sceleribus metu religionis prohiberentur, sed ut periuria quoque sceleribus ceteris adderentur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. Whether the gods, who were worshipped alike by the Romans and the Greeks, had reasons for allowing Ilium to be destroyed.

First, Troy itself, or Ilium, from which the Roman people originates (for what I touched on in the first book must not be passed over or disguised), why was it conquered, taken, and destroyed by the Greeks, when it had and worshipped the same gods? “Priam,” they say, “was paid back for his father Laomedon's perjuries.” Is it true, then, that Apollo and Neptune served that same Laomedon as hired workmen? For he is said to have promised them wages and sworn falsely. I am surprised that Apollo, famous as a diviner, labored at so great a work without knowing that Laomedon would refuse what he had promised. Though it did not befit Neptune himself either, his uncle, Jupiter's brother, king of the sea, to be ignorant of the future. For Homer, who is said to have lived before Rome was founded, brings him on predicting something great about the stock of Aeneas, from whose descendants Rome came; and he even snatched Aeneas away in a cloud, as the poet says, so that he would not be killed by Achilles, although, as he admits in Virgil, he desired to overturn from their foundations “the walls of perjured Troy, built by his own hands.” So these great gods, Neptune and Apollo, not knowing that Laomedon would refuse them their wages, were builders of the Trojan walls for nothing and for the ungrateful. Let them see whether it is not worse to believe in such gods than to perjure oneself to such gods. Homer himself did not easily believe it, since he makes Neptune fight against the Trojans but Apollo for them, though the fable relates that both were offended by that perjury. If, then, they believe the fables, let them blush to worship such deities; if they do not believe the fables, let them not plead the Trojan perjuries, or else let them wonder that the gods punished Trojan perjuries and loved Roman ones. For how did the conspiracy of Catiline, in so great and so corrupt a city, find such a large supply of men whom hand and tongue kept alive by perjury or civil bloodshed? What else were the senators doing, so often bribed in trials, and the people so often in elections or in any cases that were dealt with before them in assemblies, but sinning also by perjury? For amid the most corrupt morals the ancient custom of swearing was kept for this purpose: not that men might be restrained from crimes by religious fear, but that perjuries might be added to their other crimes.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Georg. 1.502 (Virgil): allusion, high confidence
- Homer, Il. 20.302–308 (Homer, Iliad): allusion, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 5.810–811 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- “Laomedon's perjuries”: Virgil, Georgics 1.502. Homer, Iliad 20.302–308 (Neptune/Poseidon rescues Aeneas); Virgil, Aeneid 5.810–811.
- The editor deletes condita (“founded”) after “from whose descendants Rome” (square brackets); the English gives the sense.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.2 (CSEL 40:110–112; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-3-2).

## City of God 3.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-3-3
- Source: CSEL 40:112–113
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that gods who themselves committed adultery, as Venus did with Anchises and Mars with Romulus's mother, could not have abandoned Troy to punish Paris.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. Non potuisse offendi deos Paridis adulterio, quod inter ipsos traditur frequentatum. Nulla itaque causa est, quare di, quibus, ut dicunt, steterat illud imperium, cum a Graecis praeualentibus probentur uicti, Troianis peierantibus fingantur irati. Nec adulterio Paridis, ut rursus a quibusdam defenduntur, ut Troiam desererent, suscensuerunt. Auctores enim doctoresque peccatorum esse adsolent, non ultores. Urbem Romam, inquit Sallustius, sicuti ego accepi, condidere adque habuere initio Troiani, qui Aenea duce profugi sedibus incertis uagabantur. Si ergo adulterium Paridis uindicandum numina censuerunt, aut magis in Romanis aut certe etiam in Romanis puniendum fuit, quia Aeneae mater hoc fecit. Sed quo modo in illo illud flagitium oderant, qui in sua socia Venere non oderant (ut alia omittam) quod cum Anchise commiserat, ex quo Aenean pepererat? An quia illud factum est indignante Menelao, illud autem concedente Vulcano? Di enim, credo, non zelant coniuges suas usque adeo, ut eas etiam cum hominibus dignentur habere communes. Inridere fabulas fortassis existimor nec grauiter agere tanti ponderis causam. Non ergo credamus, si placet, Aenean esse Veneris filium: ecce concedo, si nec Romulum Martis. Si autem illud, quur non et illud? An deos [fas est] hominibus feminis, mares autem homines deabus misceri nefas? Dura uel potius non credenda condicio, quod ex iure Veneris in concubitu Marti licuit, hoc in iure suo ipsi Veneri non licere. At utrumque firmatum est auctoritate Romana. Neque enim minus credidit recentior Caesar auiam Venerem quam patrem antiquior Romulus Martem.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. That the gods could not have been offended by the adultery of Paris, since it is reported to have been common among themselves.

There is no reason, then, why the gods by whom, they say, that empire had stood should be pretended to be angry with the perjured Trojans when they are proved to have been conquered by the stronger Greeks. Nor, as others again defend them, were they angry at Paris's adultery so as to desert Troy. For they are accustomed to be the authors and teachers of sins, not their avengers. “The city of Rome,” says Sallust, “as I have learned, was founded and at first inhabited by Trojans, who, fleeing under Aeneas's leadership, wandered without fixed homes.” If, then, the deities thought Paris's adultery must be avenged, it ought to have been punished rather in the Romans, or at least in the Romans too, because Aeneas's mother did it. But how could they hate that crime in him, when they did not hate in their companion Venus (to pass over other things) what she had committed with Anchises, by whom she bore Aeneas? Was it because the one was done while Menelaus was indignant, the other while Vulcan consented? For the gods, I suppose, are not so jealous of their wives as not to deign to share them even with men. Perhaps I am thought to be mocking fables and not treating seriously a cause of such weight. Then let us not believe, if you please, that Aeneas is the son of Venus: see, I grant it, provided that Romulus is not the son of Mars either. But if the one, why not the other? Or is it lawful for gods to mix with human women, but unlawful for male humans to mix with goddesses? A hard, or rather an incredible, condition, that what was allowed to Mars by the law of Venus in intercourse should not be allowed to Venus herself by her own law. But both have been confirmed by Roman authority. For the later Caesar believed no less that Venus was his ancestress than the earlier Romulus believed that Mars was his father.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sallust, Cat. 6.1 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sallust, Catiline 6.1.
- The editor deletes fas est (“is it lawful”) (square brackets); the question is translated by sense.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.3 (CSEL 40:112–113; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-3-3).

## City of God 3.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-3-4
- Source: CSEL 40:113
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reports Varro's view that it is useful for great men to believe themselves descended from gods even if it is false, and notes how much room this leaves for religious fictions.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. De sententia Varronis, qua utile esse dixit, ut se homines dis genitos mentiantur. Dixerit aliquis: Itane tu ista credis? Ego uero ista non credo. Nam et uir doctissimus eorum Varro falsa haec esse, quamuis non audacter neque fidenter, paene tamen fatetur. Sed utile ciuitatibus esse dicit, ut se uiri fortes, etiamsi falsum sit, dis genitos esse credant, ut eo modo animus humanus uelut diuinae stirpis fiduciam gerens res magnas adgrediendas praesumat audacius, agat uehementius et ob hoc inpleat ipsa securitate felicius. Quae Varronis sententia expressa, ut potui, meis uerbis cernis quam latum locum aperiat falsitati, ubi intellegamus plura iam sacra et quasi religiosa potuisse confingi, ubi putata sunt ciuibus etiam de ipsis dis prodesse mendacia.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. On Varro's opinion, in which he said that it is useful for men to pretend to be sons of gods.

Someone may say: Do you really believe these things? No, I do not believe them. For even their most learned man, Varro, almost admits that they are false, though not boldly or confidently. But he says it is useful to states for brave men to believe that they are sons of gods, even if it is false, so that in this way the human mind, bearing the confidence of a divine lineage, may undertake great enterprises more boldly, carry them out more vigorously, and through that very assurance accomplish them more successfully. You see how wide a field this opinion of Varro, expressed as well as I could in my own words, opens to falsehood; from it we may understand that many more sacred and supposedly religious things could have been invented, where lies even about the gods themselves were thought to benefit the citizens.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. frag. (Varro): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- From a lost work of Varro (probably the Antiquities).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.4 (CSEL 40:113; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-3-4).

## City of God 3.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-3-5
- Source: CSEL 40:113–114
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that if Romulus's mother, a Vestal, was not with Mars, her unchastity was a sacrilege the gods should have punished in Rome more than Paris's adultery in Troy.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. Non probari quod di adulterium Paridis punierint, quod in Romuli matre non ulti sunt. Sed utrum potuerit Venus ex concubitu Anchisae Aenean parere uel Mars ex concubitu filiae Numitoris Romulum gignere, in medio relinquamus. Nam paene talis quaestio etiam de scripturis nostris oboritur, qua quaeritur, utrum praeuaricatores angeli cum filiabus hominum concubuerint, unde natis gigantibus, hoc est nimium grandibus ac fortibus uiris, tunc terra conpleta est. Proinde ad utrumque interim modo nostra disputatio referatur. Si enim uera sunt, quae aput illos de matre Aeneae et de patre Romuli lectitantur, quo modo possunt dis adulteria displicere hominum, quae in se ipsis concorditer ferunt? Si autem falsa sunt, ne sic quidem possunt irasci ueris adulteriis humanis, qui etiam falsis delectantur suis. Huc accedit, quoniam, si illud de Marte non creditur, ut hoc quoque de Venere non credatur, nullo diuini concubitus obtentu matris Romuli causa defenditur. Fuit autem sacerdos illa Vestalis, et ideo di magis in Romanos sacrilegum illud flagitium quam in Troianos Paridis adulterium uindicare debuerunt. Nam et ipsi Romani antiqui in stupro detectas Vestae sacerdotes uiuas etiam defodiebant, adulteras autem feminas, quamuis aliqua damnatione, nulla tamen morte plectebant: usque adeo grauius quae putabant adyta diuina quam humana cubilia uindicabant.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. That it is not proved that the gods punished the adultery of Paris, since they did not avenge it in the mother of Romulus.

But whether Venus could bear Aeneas from intercourse with Anchises, or Mars beget Romulus from intercourse with Numitor's daughter, let us leave undecided. For almost such a question arises also from our Scriptures, where it is asked whether the transgressing angels lay with the daughters of men, from whom giants, that is, exceedingly large and strong men, were born, with whom the earth was then filled. So for now let our argument refer to both possibilities. For if what is read among them about Aeneas's mother and Romulus's father is true, how can the adulteries of men displease the gods, when they bear them among themselves in harmony? But if it is false, not even so can they be angry at real human adulteries, when they delight even in false ones of their own. Add to this that, if the story about Mars is not believed, so that the one about Venus may not be believed either, the case of Romulus's mother is defended by no pretext of divine intercourse. And she was a Vestal priestess, so the gods ought rather to have avenged that sacrilegious crime on the Romans than Paris's adultery on the Trojans. For the ancient Romans themselves even buried alive priestesses of Vesta detected in unchastity, while adulterous women, though they punished them with some penalty, they punished with no death: so much more severely did they avenge what they thought divine sanctuaries than human marriage beds.

### Scripture references

- Gen 6:1–4: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Genesis 6:1–4. Augustine discusses the question fully in Book 15.23.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.5 (CSEL 40:113–114; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-3-5).

## City of God 3.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-3-6
- Source: CSEL 40:114–115
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that Romulus's murder of his brother should have provoked the gods against Rome more than Paris's adultery against Troy.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. De parricidio Romuli, quod di non uindicarunt. Aliud adicio, quia, si peccata hominum illis numinibus displicerent, ut offensi Paridis facto desertam Troiam ferro ignibusque donarent, magis eos contra Romanos moueret Romuli frater occisus quam contra Troianos Graecus maritus inlusus; magis inritaret parricidium nascentis quam regnantis adulterium ciuitatis. Nec ad causam, quam nunc agimus, interest, utrum hoc fieri Romulus iusserit aut Romulus fecerit, quod multi inpudentia negant, multi pudore dubitant, multi dolore dissimulant. Nec nos itaque in ea re diligentius requirenda per multorum scriptorum perpensa testimonia demoremur: Romuli fratrem palam constat occisum, non ab hostibus, non ab alienis. Si aut perpetrauit aut imperauit hoc Romulus, magis ipse fuit Romanorum quam Paris Troianorum caput; quur igitur Troianis iram deorum prouocauit ille alienae coniugis raptor, et eorundem deorum tutelam Romanis inuitauit iste sui fratris extinctor? Si autem illud scelus a facto imperioque Romuli alienum est: quoniam debuit utique uindicari, tota hoc illa ciuitas fecit, quod tota contemsit, et non iam fratrem, sed patrem, quod est peius, occidit. Uterque enim fuit conditor, ubi alter scelere ablatus non permissus est esse regnator. Non est, ut arbitror, quod dicatur quid mali Troia meruerit, ut eam di desererent, quo posset extingui, et quid boni Roma, ut eam di inhabitarent, quo posset augeri; nisi quod uicti inde fugerunt et se ad istos, quos pariter deciperent, contulerunt; immo uero et illic manserunt ad eos more suo decipiendos, qui rursus easdem terras habitarent, et hic easdem artes fallaciae suae magis etiam exercendo maioribus honoribus gloriati sunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. On the fratricide of Romulus, which the gods did not avenge.

I add another point: if the sins of men displeased those deities, so that, offended by Paris's deed, they deserted Troy and gave it up to sword and fire, the murder of Romulus's brother would have moved them against the Romans more than the deceiving of a Greek husband against the Trojans; the fratricide of a city being born would have provoked them more than the adultery of a city reigning. Nor does it matter for the case we are now arguing whether Romulus ordered it or did it himself, which many deny from shamelessness, many doubt from shame, many disguise from grief. So we will not delay by investigating this more carefully, weighing the testimonies of many writers: it is certain that Romulus's brother was killed openly, not by enemies, not by strangers. If Romulus either committed or ordered it, he was the head of the Romans more than Paris was of the Trojans. Why then did the one, the abductor of another man's wife, provoke the anger of the gods against the Trojans, and the other, the killer of his own brother, invite the protection of the same gods for the Romans? But if that crime had nothing to do with Romulus's deed or command, then, since it certainly ought to have been avenged, the whole city committed it, because the whole city disregarded it; and it killed not a brother but, what is worse, a father. For both were founders, since one, removed by a crime, was not allowed to be a ruler. There is nothing to be said, I think, about what evil Troy deserved that the gods should desert it so that it could be destroyed, or what good Rome deserved that the gods should dwell in it so that it could grow; except that, having been conquered, they fled from there and betook themselves to these people, to deceive them likewise; or rather they stayed there too to deceive in their usual way those who again inhabited those lands, and here, practicing the same arts of their deceit even more, they gloried in greater honors.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, 1.7 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Livy 1.7 gives both versions of Remus's death.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.6 (CSEL 40:114–115; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/2-24/#p-3-6).

## City of God 3.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-7/#p-3-7
- Source: CSEL 40:115–117
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine recounts how the Marian general Fimbria destroyed Ilium for its loyalty to Sulla, showing that the gods neither protected their kin city nor had truly departed.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. De euersione Ilii, quod dux Marii Fimbria excidit. Certe enim ciuilibus iam bellis scatentibus quid miserum commiserat Ilium, ut a Fimbria, Marianarum partium homine pessimo, euerteretur, multo ferocius adque crudelius quam olim a Graecis? Nam tunc et multi inde fugerunt et multi captiuati saltem in seruitute uixerunt; porro autem Fimbria prius edictum proposuit, ne cui parceretur, adque urbem totam cunctosque in ea homines incendio concremauit. Hoc meruit Ilium non a Graecis quos sua inritauerat iniquitate, sed a Romanis quos sua calamitate propagauerat, dis illis communibus ad haec repellenda nihil iuuantibus seu, quod uerum est, nihil ualentibus. Numquid et tunc Abscessere omnes adytis arisque relictis Di, quibus illud oppidum steterat post antiquos Graecorum ignes ruinasque reparatum? Si autem abscesserant, causam requiro, et oppidanorum quidem quanto inuenio meliorem, tanto deteriorem deorum. Illi enim contra Fimbriam portas clauserant, ut Syllae seruarent integram ciuitatem; hinc eos iratus incendit uel potius penitus extinxit. Adhuc autem meliorum partium ciuilium Sylla dux fuit, adhuc armis rem publicam recuperare moliebatur; horum bonorum initiorum nondum malos euentus habuit. Quid ergo melius ciues urbis illius facere potuerunt, quid honestius, quid fidelius, quid Romana parentela dignius quam meliori causae Romanorum ciuitatem seruare et contra parricidam Romanae rei publicae portas claudere? At hoc eis in quantum exitium uerterit, adtendant defensores deorum. Deseruerint di adulteros Iliumque flammis Graecorum reliquerint, ut ex eius cineribus Roma castior nasceretur: quur et postea deseruerunt eandem ciuitatem Romanis cognatam, non rebellantem aduersus Romam nobilem filiam, sed iustioribus eius partibus fidem constantissimam piissimamque seruantem, eamque delendam reliquerunt non Graecorum uiris fortibus, sed uiro spurcissimo Romanorum? Aut si displicebat dis causa partium Syllanarum, cui seruantes urbem miseri portas clauserant: quur eidem Syllae tanta bona promittebant et praenuntiabant? An et hic agnoscuntur adulatores felicium potius quam infelicium defensores? Non ergo Ilium etiam tunc, ab eis cum desereretur, euersum est. Nam daemones ad decipiendum semper uigilantissimi, quod potuerunt, fecerunt. Euersis quippe et incensis omnibus cum oppido simulacris solum Mineruae sub tanta ruina templi illius, ut scribit Liuius, integrum stetisse perhibetur, non ut [diceretur] Di patrii, quorum semper sub numine Troia est, ad eorum laudem, sed ne diceretur: Excessere omnes adytis arisque relictis Di, ad eorum defensionem. Illud enim posse permissi sunt, non unde probarentur potentes, sed unde praesentes conuincerentur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. On the overthrow of Ilium, which Fimbria, the general of Marius, destroyed.

For surely, when the civil wars were already breaking out, what wretched thing had Ilium done that it should be overthrown by Fimbria, a most wicked man of the Marian party, far more fiercely and cruelly than once by the Greeks? For then many fled from it, and many who were taken captive at least lived in slavery; but Fimbria first published an edict that no one should be spared, and burned the whole city and all the people in it. This is what Ilium received, not from the Greeks, whom it had provoked by its own iniquity, but from the Romans, whom it had propagated by its own calamity, while those common gods did nothing to help ward these things off, or, which is the truth, could do nothing. Did then too “all the gods depart, leaving their shrines and altars,” the gods by whom that town had stood after it was rebuilt from the ancient fires and ruins of the Greeks? But if they had departed, I ask the reason; and the better I find the townspeople's cause, the worse I find the gods'. For the townspeople had shut their gates against Fimbria to preserve the city intact for Sulla; for this he burned them in his anger, or rather utterly destroyed them. Sulla was at that time still the leader of the better side in the civil strife, still trying to recover the state by arms; he had not yet had the evil outcomes of these good beginnings. What better, then, could the citizens of that city have done, what more honorable, more loyal, more worthy of their Roman kinship, than to preserve their city for the better cause of the Romans and shut their gates against a parricide of the Roman state? But let the defenders of the gods consider into what destruction this turned for them. Suppose the gods deserted adulterers and left Ilium to the flames of the Greeks, so that a chaster Rome might be born from its ashes; why did they afterwards desert the same city, kin to the Romans, not rebelling against Rome its noble daughter, but keeping most constant and dutiful faith with its juster party, and leave it to be destroyed, not by the brave men of the Greeks, but by the foulest man of the Romans? Or if the cause of Sulla's party displeased the gods, for which the wretched people shut their gates to preserve the city, why did they promise and foretell such great good things to that same Sulla? Are they not here too recognized as flatterers of the fortunate rather than defenders of the unfortunate? So Ilium was not overthrown even then because they deserted it. For the demons, always most watchful to deceive, did what they could. For when all the images had been overthrown and burned together with the town, only that of Minerva, as Livy writes, is said to have stood intact amid such great ruin of her temple; not that it might be said to their praise, “Gods of our fathers, under whose divinity Troy ever stands,” but that it might not be said in their defense, “All the gods have departed, leaving their shrines and altars.” For they were permitted to do this, not to prove them powerful, but to convict them of being present.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, Per. 83 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 2.351 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 9.247 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Livy, Periochae 83 (the destruction of Ilium in 85 BC; the account of the surviving image of Minerva is in the lost full text). Virgil, Aeneid 9.247 and 2.351.
- The editor deletes diceretur (“might be said”) in the last sentences (square brackets); the English gives the sense.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.7 (CSEL 40:115–117; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-7/#p-3-7).

## City of God 3.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-7/#p-3-8
- Source: CSEL 40:117–118
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine mocks the idea that the gods of Troy protected Rome, suggesting they were always in the wrong place.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. An debuerit dis Iliacis Roma committi. Dis itaque Iliacis post Troiae ipsius documentum qua tandem prudentia Roma custodienda commissa est? Dixerit quispiam iam eos Romae habitare solitos, quando expugnante Fimbria cecidit Ilium. Unde ergo stetit Mineruae simulacrum? Deinde, si aput Romam erant, quando Fimbria deleuit ilium, fortasse aput Ilium erant,. quando a Gallis ipsa Roma capta et incensa est; sed ut sunt auditu acutissimi motuque celerrimi, ad uocem anseris cito redierunt, ut saltem Capitolinum collem, qui remanserat, tuerentur; ceterum ad alia defendenda serius sunt redire commoniti.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. Whether Rome ought to have been entrusted to the gods of Ilium.

With what prudence, then, after the evidence of Troy itself, was Rome entrusted to the gods of Ilium for safekeeping? Someone may say that they had already become accustomed to living in Rome when Ilium fell to Fimbria's assault. Then how did the image of Minerva stand? Further, if they were at Rome when Fimbria destroyed Ilium, perhaps they were at Ilium when Rome itself was taken and burned by the Gauls; but, since they have very sharp hearing and very swift movement, they quickly returned at the voice of the goose, to protect at least the Capitoline hill, which had held out; but they were warned too late to return to defend the rest.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.8 (CSEL 40:117–118; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-7/#p-3-8).

## City of God 3.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-7/#p-3-9
- Source: CSEL 40:118–119
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that Numa's long peace was a gift of the true God, not of the gods whose rites he founded, since after those rites were established Rome was almost never at peace.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. An illam pacem, quae sub Numae regno fuit, deos praestitisse credendum sit. Hi etiam Numam Pompilium successorem Romuli adiuuisse creduntur, ut toto regni sui tempore pacem haberet et Iani portas, quae bellis patere adsolent, clauderet, eo merito scilicet, quia Romanis multa sacra constituit. Illi uero homini pro tanto otio gratulandum fuit, si modo id rebus salubribus scisset inpendere et perniciosissima curiositate neglecta Deum uerum uera pietate perquirere. Nunc autem non ei di contulerunt illud otium, sed eum minus fortasse decepissent, si otiosum minime repperissent. Quanto enim minus eum occupatum inuenerunt, tanto magis ipsi occupauerunt. Nam quid ille molitus sit et quibus artibus deos tales sibi uel illi ciuitati consociare potuerit, Varro prodit, quod, si Domino placuerit, suo diligentius disseretur loco. Modo autem quia de beneficiis eorum quaestio est: magnum beneficium est pax, sed Dei ueri beneficium est, plerumque etiam sicut sol, sicut pluuia uitaeque alia subsidia super ingratos et nequam. Sed si hoc tam magnum bonum di illi Romae uel Pompilio contulerunt, quur imperio Romano per ipsa tempora laudabilia id numquam postea praestiterunt? An utiliora erant sacra, cum instituerentur, quam cum instituta celebrarentur? Atqui tunc nondum erant, sed ut essent addebantur; postea uero iam erant, quae ut prodessent custodiebantur. Quid ergo est, quod illi quadraginta tres uel, ut alii uolunt, triginta et nouem anni in tam longa pace transacti sunt regnante Numa, et postea sacris institutis disque ipsis, qui eisdem sacris fuerant inuitati, iam praesidibus adque tutoribus uix post tam multos annos ab Urbe condita usque ad Augustum pro magno miraculo unus commemoratur annus post primum bellum Punicum, quo belli portas Romani claudere potuerunt?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. Whether it is to be believed that the gods gave that peace which existed in the reign of Numa.

These gods are also believed to have helped Numa Pompilius, the successor of Romulus, to have peace throughout the whole time of his reign and to shut the gates of Janus, which are usually open in wars, because, of course, he established many sacred rites for the Romans. That man would indeed have been fortunate in so much leisure if only he had known how to spend it on wholesome things and, neglecting a most pernicious curiosity, to seek the true God with true godliness. As it was, the gods did not give him that leisure; but perhaps they would have deceived him less if they had not found him at leisure. For the less occupied they found him, the more they occupied him themselves. For what he undertook, and by what arts he was able to associate such gods with himself or with that city, Varro reveals; this will be discussed more carefully in its place, if it pleases the Lord. Now, since the question is about their benefits: peace is a great benefit, but it is the benefit of the true God, often bestowed, like the sun, like rain, and other aids of life, even on the ungrateful and worthless. But if those gods conferred so great a good on Rome or on Pompilius, why did they never afterwards grant it to the Roman empire, even in those praiseworthy times? Were the rites more useful when they were being established than when, once established, they were celebrated? Yet then they did not yet exist, but were being added so that they might exist; afterwards they did exist and were kept so that they might be of use. Why, then, were those forty-three, or as others would have it, thirty-nine years passed in such long peace in Numa's reign, and afterwards, when the rites had been established and the gods themselves, who had been invited by those rites, were already its protectors and guardians, scarcely one year after so many years from the founding of the City to Augustus is recorded, as a great wonder, after the first Punic war, in which the Romans were able to shut the gates of war?

### Scripture references

- Matt 5:45: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, 1.19 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence
- Varro, Ant. rer. div. frag. (Varro): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Matthew 5:45 is echoed. Numa's rites and the gates of Janus: Livy 1.19–21; the closing of the gates after the First Punic War (235 BC): Livy 1.19.3. Augustine treats Numa's dealings with demons in 7.34–35.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.9 (CSEL 40:118–119; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-7/#p-3-9).

## City of God 3.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-7/#p-3-10
- Source: CSEL 40:119–121
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that Rome would have been better off small and peaceful, like Numa's Rome, than enlarged by endless wars, and that peace depended on God's higher power, not the demons.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. An optandum fuerit, ut tanta bellorum rabie Romanum augeretur imperium, cum eo studio, quo sub Numa actum est, et quietum esse potuisset et tutum. An respondent, quod nisi adsiduis sibique continuo succedentibus bellis Romanum imperium tam longe lateque non posset augeri et tam grandi gloria diffamari? Idonea uero causa! Ut magnum esset imperium, quur esse deberet inquietum? Nonne in corporibus hominum satius est modicam staturam cum sanitate habere quam ad molem aliquam giganteam perpetuis adflictionibus peruenire, nec cum perueneris requiescere, sed quanto grandioribus membris, tanto maioribus agitari malis? Quid autem mali esset, ac non potius plurimum boni, si ea tempora perdurarent, quae perstrinxit Sallustius, ubi ait: Igitur initio reges (nam in terris nomen imperii id primum fuit) diuersi pars ingenium, alii corpus exercebant; etiamtum uita hominum sine cupiditate agitabatur, sua cuique satis placebant. An ut tam multum augeretur imperium, debuit fieri quod Vergilius detestatur, dicens: Deterior donec paulatim et decolor aetas Et belli rabies et amor successit habendi? Sed plane pro tantis bellis susceptis et gestis iusta defensio Romanorum est, quod inruentibus sibi inportune inimicis resistere cogebat non auiditas adipiscendae laudis humanae, sed necessitas tuendae salutis et libertatis. Ita sit plane. Nam postquam res eorum, sicut scribit ipse Sallustius, legibus moribus agris aucta satis prospera satisque pollens uidebatur, sicut pleraque mortalium habentur, inuidia ex opulentia orta est. Igitur reges populique finitimi bello tentare; pauci ex amicis auxilio esse, nam ceteri metu perculsi a periculis aberant. At Romani domi militiaeque intenti festinare parare, alius alium hortari, hostibus obuiam ire, libertatem patriam parentesque armis tegere. Post ubi pericula uirtute propulerant, sociis adque amicis auxilia portabant magisque dandis quam accipiendis beneficiis amicitias parabant). Decenter his artibus Roma creuit. Sed regnante Numa, ut tam longa pax esset, utrum inruebant inprobi belloque tentabant, an nihil eorum fiebat, ut posset pax illa persistere? Si enim bellis etiam tum Roma lacessebatur nec armis arma obuia ferebantur: quibus modis agebatur, ut nulla pugna superati, nullo Martio impetu territi sedarentur inimici, his modis semper ageretur et semper Roma clausis Iani portis pacata regnaret. Quod si in potestate non fuit, non ergo Roma pacem habuit, quamdiu di eorum, sed quamdiu homines finitimi circumquaque uoluerunt, qui eam nullo bello prouocauerunt; nisi forte di tales etiam id homini uendere audebunt, quod alius homo uoluit siue noluit. Interest quidem iam uitio proprio, malas mentes quatenus sinantur isti daemones uel terrere uel excitare; sed si semper hoc possent nec aliud secretiore ac superiore potestate contra eorum conatum saepe aliter ageretur, semper in potestate haberent paces bellicasque uictorias, quae semper fere per humanorum animorum motus accidunt; quas tamen plerumque contra eorum fieri uoluntatem non solae fabulae multa mentientes et uix ueri aliquid uel indicantes uel significantes, sed etiam ipsa Romana confitetur historia.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. Whether it was desirable that the Roman empire should be increased by such fury of wars, when it could have been both quiet and safe by the policy followed under Numa.

Or do they answer that unless by constant wars following one another continuously the Roman empire could not have been enlarged so far and wide and spread abroad with such great glory? A fine reason indeed! Why should the empire have to be restless in order to be great? In human bodies, is it not better to have a moderate stature with health than to reach some giant bulk with perpetual afflictions, and not to rest once you have reached it, but to be troubled by greater evils the bigger your limbs? And what evil would there have been, rather than very great good, if those times had lasted which Sallust touched on when he says: “So at first the kings (for that was the first name of power on earth) differed: some exercised the mind, others the body; even then the life of men was passed without greed; each was well content with his own”? Or in order that the empire might be so greatly increased, had there to come what Virgil detests when he says: “Until little by little a worse and discolored age, and the madness of war and the love of gain, succeeded”? But clearly the Romans have a just defense for undertaking and waging so many wars, since what compelled them to resist enemies rushing upon them unprovoked was not greed for acquiring human praise but the necessity of protecting safety and liberty. Let it be so, clearly. For, as Sallust himself writes, “after their state, enlarged by laws, morals, and lands, seemed prosperous enough and powerful enough, as most human things go, envy arose from wealth. So neighboring kings and peoples tested them in war; few of their friends were of help, for the rest, struck with fear, kept away from dangers. But the Romans, intent at home and in the field, made haste, prepared, urged one another on, went to meet the enemy, protected liberty, country, and parents with arms. Afterwards, when they had driven off the dangers by courage, they brought help to allies and friends and gained friendships more by giving benefits than by receiving them.” By these arts Rome grew honorably. But in Numa's reign, so that the peace was so long, did wicked neighbors rush upon them and test them by war, or did nothing of the kind happen, so that that peace could last? For if even then Rome was provoked by wars and arms were not met with arms, then the means by which it was brought about that the enemies were quieted without being overcome in any battle or terrified by any warlike attack should always have been used, and Rome should always have reigned in peace with the gates of Janus shut. But if this was not in their power, then Rome did not have peace as long as their gods willed, but as long as the neighboring men all around willed, who provoked it with no war; unless perhaps such gods will dare to sell to one man what another man willed or did not will. It does matter, indeed, how far these demons are allowed to terrify or excite evil minds, already evil by their own fault; but if they could always do this, and nothing else were often done otherwise, against their efforts, by a more hidden and higher power, they would always have in their power peace and victories in war, which almost always come about through the movements of human minds; yet that these very often happen against their will is admitted not only by the fables, which tell many lies and scarcely indicate or signify anything true, but even by Roman history itself.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sallust, Cat. 2.1 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 8.326–327 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Sallust, Cat. 6.3–5 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sallust, Catiline 2.1 and 6.3–5; Virgil, Aeneid 8.326–327.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.10 (CSEL 40:119–121; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-7/#p-3-10).

## City of God 3.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-7/#p-3-11
- Source: CSEL 40:121–122
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine recounts the weeping statue of Apollo at Cumae, interpreted as grief for Greek defeats, and suggests Numa added new gods because the Trojan gods had proved powerless.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. De simulacro Cumani Apollinis, cuius fletus creditus est cladem Graecorum, quibus opitulari non poterat, indicasse. Neque enim aliunde Apollo ille Cumanus, cum aduersus Achiuos regemque Aristonicum bellaretur, quatriduo fleuisse nuntiatus est; quo prodigio haruspices territi cum id simulacrum in mare putauissent esse proiciendum, Cumani senes intercesserunt adque rettulerunt tale prodigium et Antiochi et Persis bello in eodem apparuisse figmento, et quia Romanis feliciter prouenisset, ex senatus consulto eidem Apollini suo dona missa esse testati sunt. Tunc uelut peritiores acciti haruspices responderunt simulacri Apollinis fletum ideo prosperum esse Romanis, quoniam Cumana colonia Graeca esset, suisque terris, unde accitus esset, id est ipsi Graeciae, luctum et cladem Apollinem significasse plorantem. Deinde mox regem Aristonicum uictum et captum esse nuntiatum est, quem uinci utique Apollo nolebat et dolebat et hoc sui lapidis etiam lacrimis indicabat. Unde non usquequaque incongrue quamuis fabulosis, tamen ueritati similibus mores daemonum describuntur carminibus poetarum. Nam Camillam Diana doluit aput Vergilium et Pallantem moriturum Hercules fleuit. Hinc fortassis et Numa Pompilius pace abundans, sed quo donante nesciens nec requirens, cum cogitaret otiosus, quibusnam dis tuendam Romanam salutem regnumque committeret, nec uerum illum adque omnipotentem summum Deum curare opinaretur ista terrena, adque recoleret Troianos deos, quos Aeneas aduexerat, neque Troianum neque Lauiniense ab ipso Aenea conditum regnum diu conseruare potuisse: alios prouidendos existimauit, quos illis prioribus, qui siue cum Romulo iam Romam transierant, siue quandoque Alba euersa fuerant transituri, uel tamquam fugitiuis custodes adhiberet uel tamquam inualidis adiutores.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. On the statue of Cumaean Apollo, whose weeping was believed to have foretold the defeat of the Greeks, whom he could not help.

For it was for no other reason that the famous Apollo of Cumae, when war was being waged against the Achaeans and King Aristonicus, was reported to have wept for four days. The soothsayers, terrified by this portent, thought the statue should be thrown into the sea; but the old men of Cumae intervened and reported that such a portent had appeared in the same image in the war against Antiochus and against Perseus, and testified that, because it had turned out well for the Romans, gifts had been sent by decree of the senate to their Apollo. Then soothsayers summoned as more expert answered that the weeping of Apollo's statue was favorable to the Romans because Cumae was a Greek colony, and Apollo by weeping signified mourning and disaster for his own lands, from which he had been brought, that is, Greece itself. Soon afterwards it was reported that King Aristonicus had been conquered and captured, whom Apollo certainly did not want to be conquered, grieved over, and showed it even by the tears of his stone. Hence it is not altogether inappropriate that the ways of demons are described in the poems of the poets, fabulous though they are, yet close to the truth. For in Virgil, Diana grieved for Camilla, and Hercules wept for Pallas when he was about to die. Hence perhaps Numa Pompilius too, abounding in peace but not knowing or asking by whose gift, when he considered at leisure to what gods he should commit the safety and kingdom of Rome to be protected, not supposing that the true, almighty, and supreme God cared for these earthly things, and recalling that the Trojan gods whom Aeneas had brought had not been able to preserve for long either the Trojan kingdom or the Lavinian kingdom founded by Aeneas himself, thought that others must be provided, to be added to those earlier ones (who had either already moved to Rome with Romulus or would move at some time when Alba was overthrown), either as guards for fugitives or as helpers for the weak.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, Per. 59 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, low confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 11.836–849 (Virgil): allusion, medium confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 10.464–465 (Virgil): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The portent of 131–130 BC is in Livy (Periochae 59; the full account is lost). Virgil, Aeneid 11.836–849 (Camilla) and 10.464–465 (Pallas).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.11 (CSEL 40:121–122; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-7/#p-3-11).

## City of God 3.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-7/#p-3-12
- Source: CSEL 40:122–124
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine notes how Rome kept adding gods, from Jupiter's Capitol to Aesculapius and the Mother of the gods, yet suffered great disasters under their protection.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. Quantos sibi deos Romani praeter constitutionem Numae adiecerint, quorum eos numerositas nihil iuuerit. Nec his sacris tamen Roma dignata est esse contenta, quae tam multa illic Pompilius constituerat. Nam ipsius summum templum nondum habebat Iouis; rex quippe Tarquinius ibi Capitolium fabricauit; Aesculapius autem ab Epidauro ambiuit ad Romam, ut peritissimus medicus in urbe nobilissima artem gloriosius exerceret; Mater etiam deum nescio unde a Pessinunte. Indignum enim erat, ut, cum eius filius iam colli Capitolino praesideret, adhuc ipsa in loco ignobili latitaret. Quae tamen si omnium deorum mater est, non solum secuta est Romam quosdam filios suos, uerum et alios praecessit etiam secuturos. Miror sane, si ipsa peperit Cynocephalum, qui longe postea uenit ex Aegypto. Utrum etiam dea Febris ex illa nata sit, uiderit Aesculapius pronepos eius; sed undecumque nata sit, non, opinor, audebunt eam dicere ignobilem di peregrini deam ciuem Romanam. Sub hoc tot deorum praesidio (quos numerare quis potest, indigenas et alienigenas, caelites terrestres infernos, marinos fontanos fluuiales, et, ut Varro dicit, certos adque incertos, in omnibusque generibus deorum, sicut in animalibus, mares et feminas?) — sub hoc ergo tot deorum praesidio constituta Roma non tam magnis et horrendis cladibus, quales ex multis paucas commemorabo, agitari adfligique debuit. Nimis enim multos deos grandi fumo suo tamquam signo dato ad tuitionem congregauerat, quibus templa altaria, sacrificia sacerdotes instituendo adque praebendo summum uerum Deum, cui uni haec rite gesta debentur, offenderet. Et felicior quidem cum paucioribus uixit, sed quanto maior facta est, sicut nauis nautas, tanto plures adhibendos putauit; credo, desperans pauciores illos, sub quibus in conparationem peioris uitae melius uixerat, non sufficere ad opitulandum granditati suae. Primo enim sub ipsis regibus, excepto Numa Pompilio, de quo iam supra locutus sum, quantum malum discordiosi certaminis fuit, quod fratrem Romuli coegit occidi!

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. How many gods the Romans added to themselves beyond those established by Numa, whose great number did not help them at all.

Yet Rome did not deign to be content with these rites, many as Pompilius had established there. For it did not yet have the chief temple of Jupiter himself; it was King Tarquin who built the Capitol there. And Aesculapius canvassed his way from Epidaurus to Rome, so that as a most skilled physician he might practice his art more gloriously in a most noble city; the Mother of the gods too came from Pessinus, from I know not where. For it was unworthy that, when her son already presided over the Capitoline hill, she herself should still lie hidden in an undistinguished place. Yet if she is the mother of all the gods, she not only followed some of her sons to Rome, but also went ahead of others who were still to follow. I would indeed be surprised if she gave birth to the Dog-headed one, who came from Egypt long afterwards. Whether the goddess Fever was also born of her, let Aesculapius, her great-grandson, see to it; but wherever she was born, the foreign gods will not, I think, dare to call a goddess who is a Roman citizen low-born. Under the protection of so many gods (who can count them, native and foreign, heavenly, earthly, and infernal, of the sea, the springs, and the rivers, and, as Varro says, certain and uncertain, and in every kind of gods, as among animals, males and females?), under the protection, then, of so many gods, Rome ought not to have been shaken and afflicted by such great and horrible disasters as those, a few out of many, that I shall recall. For with its great smoke, as if a signal had been given, it had gathered too many gods to defend it, and by establishing and providing temples, altars, sacrifices, and priests for them, it offended the supreme true God, to whom alone these things are rightly due. And it lived more happily with fewer; but the greater it became, the more gods it thought it must employ, as a ship needs more sailors; despairing, I suppose, that those fewer gods, under whom it had lived better in comparison with its worse life later, would be enough to help its greatness. For first, under the kings themselves, apart from Numa Pompilius, of whom I have already spoken above, how great an evil was the quarrelsome strife that led to the killing of Romulus's brother!

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. frag. (Varro): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Varro's distinction of “certain and uncertain” gods is from the lost Antiquities (see Book 7). The “Dog-headed one” is the Egyptian Anubis.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.12 (CSEL 40:122–124; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-7/#p-3-12).

## City of God 3.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-7/#p-3-13
- Source: CSEL 40:124–126
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine describes the rape of the Sabine women and the war it caused between Romans and their fathers-in-law, and Romulus's elimination of his co-ruler Tatius.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. Quo iure, quo foedere Romani obtinuerint prima coniugia. Quo modo nec Iuno, quae cum Ioue suo iam fouebat Romanos rerum dominos gentemque togatam, nec Venus ipsa Aeneidas suos potuit adiuuare, ut bono et aequo more coniugia mererentur, cladesque tanta inruit huius inopiae, ut ea dolo raperent moxque conpellerentur pugnare cum soceris, ut miserae feminae nondum ex iniuria maritis conciliatae iam parentum sanguine dotarentur? At enim uicerunt in hac conflictione Romani uicinos suos. Quantis et quam multis utrimque uulneribus et funeribus tam propinquorum et confinium istae uictoriae constiterunt! Propter unum Caesarem socerum et unum generum eius Pompeium iam mortua Caesaris filia, uxore Pompei, quanto et quam iusto doloris instinctu Lucanus exclamat: Bella per Emathios plus quam ciuilia campos Iusque datum sceleri canimus. Vicerunt ergo Romani, ut strage socerorum manibus cruentis ab eorum filiabus amplexus miserabiles extorquerent, nec illae auderent flere patres occisos, ne offenderent uictores maritos, quae adhuc illis pugnantibus pro quibus facerent uota nesciebant. Talibus nuptiis populum Romanum non Venus, sed Bellona donauit; aut fortassis Allecto illa inferna furia iam eis fauente Iunone plus in illos habuit licentiae, quam cum eius precibus contra Aenean fuerat excitata. Andromacha felicius captiuata est, quam illa conubia Romana nupserunt. Licet seruiles, tamen post eius amplexus nullum Troianorum Pyrrhus occidit; Romani autem soceros interficiebant in proeliis, quorum iam filias amplexabantur in thalamis. Illa uictori subdita dolere tantum suorum mortem potuit, non timere; illae sociatae bellantibus parentum suorum mortes procedentibus uiris timebant, redeuntibus dolebant, nec timorem habentes liberum nec dolorem. Nam propter interitum ciuium propinquorum, fratrum parentum aut pie cruciabantur. aut crudeliter laetabantur uictoriis maritorum. Huc accedebat, quod, ut sunt alterna bellorum, aliquae parentum ferro amiserunt uiros, aliquae utrorumque ferro et parentes et uiros. Neque enim et aput Romanos parua fuerunt illa discrimina, si quidem ad obsidionem quoque peruentum est ciuitatis clausisque portis se tuebantur; quibus dolo apertis admissisque hostibus intra moenia in ipso foro scelerata et nimis atrox inter generos socerosque pugna commissa est, et raptores illi etiam superabantur et crebro fugientes inter domos suas grauius foedabant pristinas, quamuis et ipsas pudendas lugendasque uictorias. Hic tamen Romulus de suorum iam uirtute desperans Iouem orauit ut starent, adque ille hac occasione nomen Statoris inuenit; nec finis esset tanti mali, nisi raptae illae laceratis crinibus emicarent et prouolutae parentibus iram eorum iustissimam non armis uictricibus, sed supplici pietate sedarent. Deinde [Titum] Tatium regem Sabinorum socium regni Romulus ferre conpulsus est, germani consortis inpatiens: sed quando et istum diu toleraret, qui fratrem geminumque non pertulit? Unde et ipso interfecto, ut maior deus esset, regnum solus obtinuit. Quae sunt ista iura nuptiarum, quae inritamenta bellorum, quae foedera germanitatis adfinitatis, societatis diuinitatis? quae postremo sub tot dis tutoribus uita ciuitatis? Vides quanta hinc dici et quam multa possent, nisi quae supersunt nostra curaret intentio et sermo in alia festinaret.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. By what right and by what agreement the Romans obtained their first wives.

How was it that neither Juno, who with her Jupiter was already cherishing “the Romans, lords of the world, the toga-clad race,” nor Venus herself could help her descendants of Aeneas to obtain wives in a good and fair way, and that the disaster of this want fell on them so heavily that they seized wives by trickery and were soon compelled to fight their fathers-in-law, so that the wretched women, not yet reconciled to their husbands after the wrong done them, were now dowered with their parents' blood? But, they say, the Romans conquered their neighbors in this conflict. At the cost of how many and how great wounds and deaths on both sides, among such near relatives and neighbors, were those victories won! Because of one father-in-law, Caesar, and his one son-in-law, Pompey, when Caesar's daughter, Pompey's wife, was already dead, with what great and just impulse of grief Lucan cries out: “Of wars worse than civil across the Emathian plains, and of right given to crime, we sing.” So the Romans conquered, so that with hands bloody from the slaughter of their fathers-in-law they might wring pitiful embraces from their daughters, while the women did not dare to weep for their slain fathers lest they offend their victorious husbands, and while the fighting was still going on did not know for whom to make their vows. It was not Venus but Bellona who gave the Roman people such marriages; or perhaps that infernal fury Allecto, with Juno now favoring them, had more license against them than when she was roused by Juno's prayers against Aeneas. Andromache was more happily taken captive than those Roman brides were married. Though as a slave, yet after her embraces Pyrrhus killed none of the Trojans; but the Romans were killing in battle the fathers-in-law whose daughters they were already embracing in their bedrooms. She, subject to the victor, could only grieve the death of her own people, not fear it; they, joined to the combatants, feared the deaths of their parents when their husbands went out and grieved them when they came back, having neither their fear nor their grief free. For at the death of fellow citizens, relatives, brothers, and parents they were either dutifully tormented or cruelly glad at their husbands' victories. Add to this that, as wars go back and forth, some lost their husbands by their parents' sword, some lost both parents and husbands by the swords of both. For among the Romans too those dangers were not small, since it even came to a siege of the city, and they defended themselves behind shut gates; and when these were opened by treachery and the enemy let within the walls, a wicked and most atrocious battle was fought between sons-in-law and fathers-in-law in the very forum, and those abductors were even being beaten, and, fleeing often among their houses, they defiled more grievously their earlier victories, though these too were shameful and lamentable. Here, however, Romulus, despairing now of his men's courage, prayed to Jupiter that they might stand firm, and on this occasion Jupiter gained the name of Stator; nor would there have been an end to so great an evil had not those seized women rushed out with torn hair and, throwing themselves before their parents, calmed their most just anger not with victorious arms but with suppliant devotion. Then Romulus, who could not bear a brother as partner, was compelled to endure Tatius, king of the Sabines, as partner in the kingship; but how long would he tolerate him, who could not bear his twin brother? So he too was killed, and Romulus, in order to be a greater god, held the kingdom alone. What are these rights of marriage, these incitements to war, these bonds of brotherhood, kinship, alliance, and divinity? What, finally, is this life of the city under so many guardian gods? You see how much, and how many things, could be said on this, if our purpose were not attending to what remains and our discourse hastening on to other things.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 1.281–282 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Lucan, 1.1–2 (Lucan, Civil War): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 7.323–571 (Virgil): allusion, medium confidence
- Livy, 1.9–14 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Virgil, Aeneid 1.281–282; Lucan, Pharsalia 1.1–2; Allecto: Aeneid 7.323–571. The story is in Livy 1.9–14.
- The editor deletes Titum (“Titus”) before “Tatius” (square brackets); the name is left as “Tatius”.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.13 (CSEL 40:124–126; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-7/#p-3-13).

## City of God 3.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-7/#p-3-14
- Source: CSEL 40:126–129
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine condemns Rome's war with Alba, its mother city, including the fight of the Horatii and Curiatii and the killing of the Horatian sister, as the fruit of the lust for domination.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. De inpietate belli, quod Albanis Romani intulerunt, et de uictoria dominandi libidine adepta. Quid deinde post Numam sub aliis regibus? Quanto malo non solum suo, sed etiam Romanorum in bellum Albani prouocati sunt, quia uidelicet pax Numae tam longa uiluerat! Quam crebrae strages Romani Albanique exercitus fuerunt et utriusque comminutio ciuitatis! Alba namque illa, quam filius Aeneae creauit Ascanius, Romae mater proprior ipsa quam Troia, a Tullo Hostilio rege prouocata conflixit, confligens autem et adflicta est et adflixit, donec multorum taederet pari defectione certaminum. Tunc euentum belli de tergeminis hinc adque inde fratribus placuit experiri; a Romanis tres Horatii, ab Albanis autem tres Curiatii processerunt; a Curiatiis tribus Horatii duo, ab uno autem Horatio tres Curiatii superati et extincti sunt. Ita Roma extitit uictrix ea clade etiam in certamine extremo, ut de sex unus rediret domum. Cui damnum in utrisque, cui luctus, nisi Aeneae stirpi nisi Ascanii posteris, nisi proli Veneris nisi nepotibus Iouis? Nam et hoc plus quam ciuile bellum fuit, quando filia ciuitas cum ciuitate matre pugnauit. Accessit aliud huic tergeminorum pugnae ultimae atrox adque horrendum malum. Nam ut erant ambo populi prius amici (uicini quippe adque cognati), uni Curiatiorum desponsata fuerat Horatiorum soror; haec postea quam sponsi spolia in uictore fratre conspexit, ab eodem fratre, quoniam fleuit, occisa est. Humanior huius unius feminae quam uniuersi populi Romani mihi fuisse uidetur adfectus. Illa quem uirum iam fide media retinebat, aut forte etiam ipsum fratrem dolens, qui eum occiderat cui sororem promiserat, puto quod non culpabiliter fleuerit. Unde enim aput Vergilium pius Aeneas laudabiliter dolet hostem etiam sua peremtum manu? Unde Marcellus Syracusanam ciuitatem recolens eius paulo ante culmen et gloriam sub manus suas subito concidisse communem cogitans condicionem flendo miseratus est? Quaeso ab humano inpetremus adfectu, ut femina sponsum suum a fratre suo peremtum sine crimine fleuerit, si uiri hostes a se uictos etiam cum laude fleuerunt. Ergo sponso a fratre inlatam mortem quando femina illa flebat, tunc se contra matrem ciuitatem tanta strage bellasse et tanta hinc et inde cognati cruoris effusione uicisse Roma gaudebat. Quid mihi obtenditur nomen laudis nomenque uictoriae? Remotis obstaculis insanae opinionis facinora nuda cernantur, nuda pensentur, nuda iudicentur. Causa dicatur Albae, sicut Troiae adulterium dicebatur. Nulla talis, nulla similis inuenitur; tantum ut resides moueret Tullus in arma uiros et iam desueta triumphis Agmina. Illo itaque uitio tantum scelus perpetratum est socialis belli adque cognati, quod uitium Sallustius magnum transeunter adtingit. Cum enim laudans breuiter antiquiora commemorasset tempora, quando uita hominum sine cupiditate agitabatur et sua cuique satis placebant: (Postea uero, inquit, quam in Asia Cyrus, in Graecia Lacedaemonii et Athenienses coepere urbes adque nationes subigere, libidinem dominandi causam belli habere, maximam gloriam in maximo imperio putare, et cetera quae ipse instituerat dicere. Mihi huc usque satis sit eius uerba posuisse. Libido ista dominandi magnis malis agitat et conterit humanum genus. Hac libidine Roma tunc uicta Albam se uicisse triumphabat et sui sceleris laudem gloriam nominabat, quoniam laudatur, inquit scriptura nostra, peccator in desideriis animae suae et qui iniqua gerit benedicitur. Fallacia igitur tegmina et deceptoriae dealbationes auferantur a rebus, ut sincero inspiciantur examine. Nemo mihi dicat: magnus ille adque ille, quia cum illo [et illo] pugnauit et uicit. Pugnant etiam gladiatores, uincunt etiam ipsi, habet praemia laudis et illa crudelitas; sed puto esse satius cuiuslibet inertiae poenas luere quam illorum armorum quaerere gloriam. Et tamen si in harenam procederent pugnaturi inter se gladiatores, quorum alter filius, alter esset pater, tale spectaculum quis ferret? quis non auferret? Quo modo ergo gloriosum alterius matris, alterius filiae ciuitatis inter se armorum potuit esse certamen? An ideo diuersum fuit, quod harena illa non fuit, et latiores campi non duorum gladiatorum, sed in duobus populis multorum funeribus inplebantur, nec amphitheatro cingebantur illa certamina, sed uniuerso orbe et tunc uiuis et posteris, quo usque ista fama porrigitur, inpium spectaculum praebebatur? Vim tamen patiebantur studii sui di illi praesides imperii Romani et talium certaminum tamquam theatrici spectatores, donec Horatiorum soror propter Curiatios tres peremtos etiam ipsa tertia ex altera parte fraterno ferro duobus fratribus adderetur, ne minus haberet mortium etiam Roma quae uicerat. Deinde ad fructum uictoriae Alba subuersa est, ubi post Ilium, quod Graeci euerterunt, et post Lauinium, ubi Aeneas regnum peregrinum adque fugitiuum constituerat, tertio loco habitauerant numina illa Troiana. Sed more suo etiam inde iam fortasse migrauerant, ideo deleta est. Discesserant uidelicet omnes adytis arisque relictis di, quibus imperium illud steterat. Discesserant sane ecce iam tertio, ut eis quarta Roma prouidentissime crederetur. Displicuerat enim et Alba, ubi Amulius expulso fratre, et Roma placuerat, ubi Romulus occiso fratre regnauerat. Sed antequam Alba dirueretur, transfusus est, inquiunt, populus eius in Romam, ut ex utraque una ciuitas fieret. Esto, ita factum sit; urbs tamen illa, Ascanii regnum et tertium domicilium Troianorum deorum, ab urbe filia mater euersa est; ut autem belli reliquiae ex duobus populis unum facerent, miserabile coagulum multus ante fusus utriusque sanguis fuit. Quid iam singillatim dicam sub ceteris regibus totiens eadem bella renouata, quae uictoriis finita uidebantur, et tantis stragibus iterum iterumque confecta, iterum iterumque post foedus et pacem inter soceros et generos et eorum stirpem posterosque repetita? Non paruum indicium calamitatis huius fuit, quod portas belli nullus clausit illorum. Nullus ergo illorum sub tot dis praesidibus in pace regnauit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. On the ungodliness of the war the Romans waged on the Albans, and on the victory gained through the lust for domination.

What, then, after Numa, under the other kings? With what great evil, not only to themselves but also to the Romans, were the Albans provoked to war, because, of course, Numa's peace, so long, had come to seem cheap! How frequent were the slaughters of the Roman and Alban armies, and the wearing down of both cities! For that Alba which Ascanius, the son of Aeneas, founded, Rome's own mother, closer than Troy, was provoked by King Tullus Hostilius and fought; and fighting, it was both afflicted and afflicted others, until they grew weary of many battles with equal losses. Then they decided to try the outcome of the war through triplet brothers on each side: from the Romans came forward the three Horatii, from the Albans the three Curiatii; two of the Horatii were overcome and killed by the three Curiatii, and the three Curiatii by one Horatius. So Rome emerged the victor, with such loss even in that final contest that of six only one returned home. For whom was the loss on both sides, for whom the mourning, if not for the stock of Aeneas, the descendants of Ascanius, the offspring of Venus, the grandsons of Jupiter? For this too was a war worse than civil, when a daughter city fought with its mother city. Another atrocious and horrible evil was added to this last fight of the triplets. For since the two peoples had previously been friends (being neighbors and relatives), the sister of the Horatii had been betrothed to one of the Curiatii; when she saw her betrothed's spoils on her victorious brother, she was killed by that same brother because she wept. The feeling of this one woman seems to me to have been more humane than that of the whole Roman people. She wept for the man she already held by pledged faith, or perhaps grieved for her very brother, who had killed the man to whom he had promised his sister; I think she did not weep culpably. Why else does the dutiful Aeneas in Virgil grieve praiseworthily for an enemy killed even by his own hand? Why did Marcellus, recalling the city of Syracuse, and reflecting on the common human lot, that its height and glory had so suddenly collapsed under his hands, pity it with tears? Let us ask of human feeling, I beg, that a woman might weep without crime for her betrothed killed by her brother, if men wept, even with praise, for enemies conquered by themselves. So while that woman was weeping for the death inflicted on her betrothed by her brother, Rome was rejoicing that it had waged war with such slaughter against its mother city and conquered with such shedding of kindred blood on both sides. Why do they hold out to me the name of praise and the name of victory? Remove the veils of mad opinion, and let the deeds be seen naked, weighed naked, judged naked. Let the charge against Alba be stated, as adultery was stated against Troy. None such is found, nothing like it; only that Tullus might “rouse to arms idle men, and ranks now unused to triumphs.” So by that vice such a crime of war against allies and kin was committed, the vice that Sallust touches on in passing as a great one. For when he had briefly recalled, in praise, the more ancient times, when “the life of men was passed without greed and each was well content with his own,” he says: “But after Cyrus in Asia, and the Spartans and Athenians in Greece, began to subdue cities and nations, to hold the lust for domination a cause of war, to think the greatest glory lay in the greatest empire,” and the rest that he had set out to say. For me it is enough to have quoted his words this far. This lust for domination troubles and crushes the human race with great evils. Conquered by this lust, Rome then triumphed at having conquered Alba, and called the praise of its crime glory; for, says our Scripture, “the sinner is praised in the desires of his soul, and he who does iniquity is blessed.” So let deceitful coverings and deceptive whitewash be removed from things, so that they may be examined by a sincere test. Let no one say to me: That man is great, and that one, because he fought with this one and conquered. Gladiators fight too, they conquer too; that cruelty too has its rewards of praise; but I think it better to pay the penalties of any idleness than to seek the glory of those arms. And yet if gladiators came into the arena to fight each other, one of whom was the son and the other the father, who would bear such a spectacle? Who would not stop it? How then could a contest of arms between a mother city and a daughter city be glorious? Or was it different because that was not the arena, and wider fields were filled with the corpses, not of two gladiators, but of many among two peoples, and those contests were not enclosed by an amphitheater, but an ungodly spectacle was offered to the whole world, both to those then living and to posterity, as far as this report extends? Yet those gods, the protectors of the Roman empire and spectators of such contests like theatergoers, suffered violence to their enthusiasm until the sister of the Horatii, on account of the three slain Curiatii, was added herself, by a brother's sword, as a third on the other side to the two brothers, so that Rome, which had conquered, might not have fewer deaths either. Then, as the fruit of victory, Alba was overthrown, where, after Ilium, which the Greeks overthrew, and after Lavinium, where Aeneas had established a foreign and fugitive kingdom, those Trojan deities had lived in the third place. But in their usual way they had perhaps already moved from there too, and so it was destroyed. “All the gods by whom that empire had stood had departed, leaving their shrines and altars.” They had departed, see, for the third time now, so that Rome might most providently be entrusted to them as the fourth. For Alba too had displeased them, where Amulius reigned after expelling his brother, and Rome had pleased them, where Romulus reigned after killing his brother. But, they say, before Alba was destroyed, its people was transferred to Rome, so that one city might be made of both. Granted, let it have been so; yet that city, the kingdom of Ascanius and the third dwelling of the Trojan gods, the mother, was overthrown by the daughter city; and for the remnants of war to make one people out of two, much blood of both, shed beforehand, was a pitiful binding. Why should I now tell one by one how under the other kings the same wars were so often renewed, which seemed ended by victories, and finished again and again with such slaughter, and taken up again and again after treaty and peace between fathers-in-law and sons-in-law and their stock and descendants? It was no small sign of this calamity that none of them shut the gates of war. None of them, then, reigned in peace under so many protecting gods.

### Scripture references

- Ps 10:3 (9:24 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, 1.22–30 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 6.814–815 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 10.821–830 (Virgil): allusion, medium confidence
- Sallust, Cat. 2.1–2 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 2.351 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Livy 1.22–30; Virgil, Aeneid 6.814–815 and 10.821–830 (Aeneas mourns Lausus); Sallust, Catiline 2.1–2; Psalm 10:3 (LXX/Vulgate 9:24); Virgil, Aeneid 2.351.
- The editor deletes et illo (“and that one”) (square brackets); left out, with the English kept idiomatic.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.14 (CSEL 40:126–129; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-7/#p-3-14).

## City of God 3.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-7/#p-3-15
- Source: CSEL 40:129–133
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reviews the violent ends of most of Rome's kings and doubts Romulus's deification, noting Cicero's own skepticism and contrasting the eclipse at Romulus's death with the miraculous darkness at Christ's crucifixion.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. Qualis Romanorum regum uita adque exitus fuerit. Ipsorum autem regum qui exitus fuerunt? De Romulo uiderit adulatio fabulosa, qua perhibetur receptus in caelum; uiderint quidam scriptores eorum, qui eum propter ferocitatem a senatu discerptum esse dixerunt subornatumque nescio quem Iulium Proculum, qui eum sibi apparuisse diceret eumque per se populo mandasse Romano, ut inter numina coleretur, eoque modo populum, qui contra senatum intumescere coeperat, repressum adque sedatum. Acciderat enim et solis defectio, quam certa ratione sui cursus effectam inperita nesciens multitudo meritis Romuli tribuebat. Quasi uero si luctus ille solis fuisset, non magis ideo credi deberet occisus ipsumque scelus auersione etiam diurni luminis indicatum; sicut re uera factum est, cum Dominus crucifixus est crudelitate adque inpietate Iudaeorum. Quam solis obscurationem non ex canonico siderum cursu accidisse satis ostendit, quod tunc erat pascha Iudaeorum; nam plena luna sollemniter agitur, regularis autem solis defectio non nisi lunae fine contingit. Satis et Cicero illam inter deos Romuli receptionem putatam magis significat esse quam factam, quando et laudans eum in libris de re publica Scipionisque sermone: Tantum est, inquit, consecutus, ut, cum subito sole obscurato non conparuisset, deorum in numero conlocatus putaretur, quam opinionem nemo umquam mortalis assequi potuit sine eximia uirtutis gloria. (Quod autem dicit eum subito non conparuisse, profecto ibi intellegitur aut uiolentia tempestatis aut caedis facinorisque secretum; nam et alii scriptores eorum defectioni solis addunt etiam subitam tempestatem, quae profecto aut occasionem sceleri praebuit aut Romulum ipsa consumsit.) De Tullo quippe etiam Hostilio, qui tertius a Romulo rex fuit, quia et ipse fulmine absumtus est, dicit in eisdem libris idem Cicero, propterea et istum non creditum in deos receptum tali morte, quia fortasse quod erat in Romulo probatum, id est persuasum, Romani uulgare noluerunt, id est uile facere, si hoc et alteri facile tribueretur. Dicit etiam aperte in inuectiuis: <Illum, qui hanc urbem condidit, Romulum ad deos inmortales beniuolentia famaque sustulimus, ut non uere factum, sed propter merita uirtutis eius beniuole iactatum diffamatumque monstraret. In Hortensio uero dialogo cum de solis canonicis defectionibus loqueretur: Ut easdem, inquit, tenebras efficiat, quas effecit interitu Romuli, qui obscuratione solis est factus. Certe hic minime timuit hominis interitum dicere, quia disputator magis quam laudator fuit. Ceteri autem reges populi Romani, excepto Numa Pompilio et Anco Marcio, qui morbo interierunt, quam horrendos exitus habuerunt! Tullus, ut dixi, Hostilius, uictor et euersor Albae, cum tota domo sua fulmine concrematus est. Priscus Tarquinius per sui decessoris filios interemtus est. Seruius Tullius generi sui Tarquinii Superbi, qui ei successit in regnum, nefario scelere occisus est. Nec discessere adytis arisque relictis di tanto in optimum illius populi regem parricidio perpetrato, quos dicunt, ut hoc miserae Troiae facerent eamque Graecis diruendam exurendamque relinquerent, adulterio Paridis fuisse commotos; sed insuper interfecto a se socero Tarquinius ipse successit. Hunc illi di nefarium parricidam soceri interfectione regnantem, insuper multis bellis uictoriisque gloriantem et de manubiis Capitolium fabricantem non abscedentes, sed praesentes manentesque uiderunt et regem suum Iouem in illo altissimo templo, hoc est in opere parricidae, sibi praesidere adque regnare perpessi sunt. Neque enim adhuc innocens Capitolium struxit et postea malis meritis Urbe pulsus est. sed ad ipsum regnum, in quo Capitolium fabricaret, inmanissimi sceleris perpetratione peruenit. Quod uero eum regno Romani postea depulerunt ac secluserunt moenibus ciuitatis, non ipsius de Lucretiae stupro, sed filii peccatum fuit illo non solum nesciente, sed etiam absente commissum. Ardeam ciuitatem tunc obpugnabat, pro populo Romano bellum gerebat: nescimus quid faceret, si ad eius notitiam flagitium filii deferretur; et tamen inexplorato iudicio eius et inexperto ei populus ademit imperium et recepto exercitu, a quo deseri iussus est, clausis deinde portis non siuit intrare redeuntem. At ille post bella grauissima, quibus eosdem Romanos concitatis finitimis adtriuit, postea quam desertus ab eis quorum fidebat auxilio regnum recipere non eualuit, in oppido Tusculo Romae uicino quattuordecim, ut fertur, annos priuatam uitam quietus habuit et cum uxore consenuit, optabiliore fortassis exitu quam socer eius, generi sui facinore nec ignorante filia, sicut perhibetur, extinctus. Nec tamen istum Tarquinium Romani crudelem aut sceleratum, sed superbum appellauerunt. fortasse regios eius fastus alia superbia non ferentes. Nam scelus occisi ab eo soceri optimi regis sui usque adeo contemserunt, ut eum regem suum facerent; ubi miror, si non scelere grauiore mercedem tantam tanto sceleri reddiderunt. Nec discessere adytis arisque relictis di. Nisi forte quispiam sic defendat istos deos, ut dicat eos ideo mansisse Romae. quo possint magis Romanos punire suppliciis quam beneficiis adiuuare, seducentes eos uanis uictoriis et bellis grauissimis conterentes. Haec fuit Romanorum uita sub regibus laudabili tempore illius rei publicae usque ad expulsionem Tarquinii Superbi per ducentos ferme et quadraginta et tres annos, cum illae omnes uictoriae tam multo sanguine et tantis emtae calamitatibus uix illud imperium intra uiginti ab Urbe milia dilatauerint; quantum spatium absit ut saltem alicuius Getulae ciuitatis nunc territorio conparetur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. What the life and end of the Roman kings were like.

And what were the ends of the kings themselves? As for Romulus, let fabulous flattery see to it, by which he is said to have been received into heaven; let some of their writers see to it, who said that he was torn to pieces by the senate because of his ferocity, and that a certain Julius Proculus was suborned to say that Romulus had appeared to him and commanded through him that the Roman people should worship him among the deities, and that in this way the people, who had begun to swell with anger against the senate, was checked and calmed. For an eclipse of the sun had also occurred, which the ignorant multitude, not knowing that it was brought about by the fixed law of the sun's course, attributed to Romulus's merits. As if, had it been the sun's mourning, it ought not rather to have been believed on that account that he was killed and that the crime itself was shown by the turning away even of the daylight; as in truth happened when the Lord was crucified by the cruelty and ungodliness of the Jews. That this darkening of the sun did not happen through the regular course of the heavenly bodies is shown well enough by the fact that it was then the Passover of the Jews; for it is celebrated at the full moon, while a regular eclipse of the sun happens only at the end of the moon. Cicero too shows clearly enough that that reception of Romulus among the gods was supposed rather than actual, when, even while praising him in his books On the Republic, in the speech of Scipio, he says: “He achieved so much that, when he had disappeared during a sudden darkening of the sun, he was thought to have been placed among the gods, an opinion which no mortal could ever attain without extraordinary glory for virtue.” (When he says that he suddenly disappeared, surely either the violence of a storm or the secrecy of a murder and crime is to be understood there; for other writers of theirs also add a sudden storm to the eclipse of the sun, which certainly either gave an opportunity for the crime or itself carried Romulus off.) For of Tullus Hostilius too, who was the third king after Romulus, and who was himself also struck by lightning, the same Cicero says in the same books that he was not believed to have been received among the gods by such a death because perhaps the Romans did not want to make common, that is, cheap, what had been established, that is, believed, in the case of Romulus, if it were easily granted to another too. He also says openly in his invectives: “Romulus, who founded this city, we have raised to the immortal gods by goodwill and fame,” so as to show that it was not truly done, but spread abroad and published in goodwill because of the merits of his virtue. And in the dialogue Hortensius, speaking of regular eclipses of the sun, he says: “So that it produces the same darkness as it produced at the death of Romulus, which took place during an eclipse of the sun.” Here certainly he was not at all afraid to speak of the man's death, because he was a debater rather than a eulogist. And the other kings of the Roman people, apart from Numa Pompilius and Ancus Marcius, who died of disease, what horrible ends they had! Tullus Hostilius, as I said, the conqueror and destroyer of Alba, was burned up by lightning together with his whole house. Tarquinius Priscus was killed by the sons of his predecessor. Servius Tullius was killed by the wicked crime of his son-in-law Tarquin the Proud, who succeeded him as king. Yet the gods did not “depart, leaving their shrines and altars,” when so great a parricide was committed against the best king of that people, the gods who, they say, were so moved by the adultery of Paris that they did this to wretched Troy and left it to the Greeks to destroy and burn; on the contrary, Tarquin himself succeeded the father-in-law he had killed. That wicked parricide, reigning by the murder of his father-in-law, and moreover glorying in many wars and victories and building the Capitol from the spoils, those gods saw, not departing but present and remaining, and they allowed their king Jupiter to preside and reign over them in that loftiest temple, that is, in the work of a parricide. For he did not build the Capitol while still innocent and afterwards get expelled from the City for evil deserts; he came to the very kingship in which he would build the Capitol by committing a most monstrous crime. As for the Romans afterwards driving him from the kingship and shutting him out from the walls of the city, the sin of the violation of Lucretia was not his but his son's, committed not only without his knowledge but even in his absence. He was then besieging the city of Ardea, waging war for the Roman people; we do not know what he would have done if his son's outrage had been brought to his notice; and yet, without his judgment being sought or tested, the people took away his command, and, taking back the army, which was ordered to desert him, then shut the gates and did not let him enter when he returned. But he, after very grievous wars, in which he wore down those same Romans by stirring up their neighbors, when, deserted by those on whose help he relied, he could not recover the kingship, lived a quiet private life for fourteen years, it is said, in the town of Tusculum near Rome, and grew old with his wife, perhaps with a more desirable end than his father-in-law, who was killed by his son-in-law's crime, and not, it is said, without his daughter's knowledge. Yet the Romans did not call this Tarquin cruel or wicked, but proud, perhaps because by another pride they could not bear his royal haughtiness. For they so disregarded the crime of the murder of their best king, his father-in-law, by him that they made him their king; and I wonder whether they did not repay so great a crime with so great a reward by a graver crime. And “the gods did not depart, leaving their shrines and altars.” Unless perhaps someone defends these gods by saying that they stayed in Rome so that they could punish the Romans with sufferings rather than help them with benefits, seducing them with empty victories and wearing them down with very heavy wars. This was the life of the Romans under the kings, in the praiseworthy time of that state, up to the expulsion of Tarquin the Proud, for about two hundred and forty-three years, while all those victories, bought with so much blood and such great calamities, scarcely extended that empire twenty miles from the City; a space not to be compared even with the territory of some Gaetulian town now.

### Scripture references

- Matt 27:45: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 23:44–45: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, 1.16 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence
- Cicero, Rep. 2.17 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence
- Cicero, Rep. 2.32 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence
- Cicero, Cat. 3.2 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence
- Cicero, Hortensius frag. (Cicero): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 2.351 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Livy 1.16 (Julius Proculus); Cicero, On the Republic 2.17 and 2.32; Against Catiline 3.2; Hortensius (fragment). The darkness at the crucifixion: Matthew 27:45; Luke 23:44–45.
- “By the cruelty and ungodliness of the Jews”: Augustine's words, translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.15 (CSEL 40:129–133; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-7/#p-3-15).

## City of God 3.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-16/#p-3-16
- Source: CSEL 40:133–135
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine describes the disastrous first year of the Republic, in which Brutus expelled his innocent colleague Collatinus, executed his own sons, and died in battle, and five consuls held office.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. De primis aput Romanos consulibus, quorum alter alterum patria pepulit moxque ipse post atrocissima parricidia a uulnerato hoste uulneratus interiit. Huic tempori adiciamus etiam tempus illud, quo usque dicit Sallustius aequo et modesto iure agitatum, dum metus a Tarquinio et bellum graue cum Etruria positum est. Quamdiu enim Etrusci Tarquinio in regnum redire conanti opitulati sunt, graui bello Roma concussa est. Ideo dicit aequo et modesto iure gestam rem publicam metu premente, non persuadente iustitia. In quo breuissimo tempore quam funestus ille annus fuit, quo primi consules creati sunt expulsa regia potestate! Annum quippe suum non conpleuerunt. Nam Iunius Brutus exhonoratum eiecit Urbe collegam Lucium Tarquinium Collatinum; deinde mox ipse in bello cecidit mutuis cum hoste uulneribus, occisis a se [ipso] primitus filiis suis et uxoris suae fratribus, quod eos pro restituendo Tarquinio coniurasse cognouerat. Quod factum Vergilius postea quam laudabiliter commemorauit, continuo clementer exhorruit. Cum enim dixisset: Natosque pater noua bella monentes Ad poenam pulchra pro libertate uocabit, mox deinde exclamauit et ait: Infelix, utcumque ferent ea facta minores. Quomodolibet, inquit, ea facta posteri ferant, id est praeferant et extollant, qui filios occidit, infelix est. Et tamquam ad consolandum infelicem subiungit: Vincit amor patriae laudumque inmensa cupido. Nonne in hoc Bruto, qui et filios occidit et a se percusso hosti filio Tarquinii mutuo percussus superuiuere non potuit eique potius ipse Tarquinius. superuixit, Collatini collegae uidetur innocentia uindicata, qui bonus ciuis hoc Tarquinio pulso passus est, quod tyrannus ipse Tarquinius? Nam et idem Brutus consanguineus Tarquinii fuisse perhibetur; sed Collatinum uidelicet similitudo nominis pressit, quia etiam Tarquinius uocabatur. Mutare ergo nomen, non patriam cogeretur; postremo in eius nomine hoc uocabulum minus esset, L. Collatinus tantummodo uocaretur. Sed ideo non amisit quod sine ullo detrimento posset amittere, ut et honore primus consul et ciuitate bonus ciuis carere iuberetur. Etiamne ista est gloria, Iunii Bruti detestanda iniquitas et nihilo utilis rei publicae? Etiamne ad hanc perpetrandam uicit amor patriae laudumque inmensa cupido*? Iam expulso utique Tarquinio tyranno consul cum Bruto creatus est maritus Lucretiae L. Tarquinius Collatinus. Quam iuste populus mores in ciue, non nomen adtendit! Quam inpie Brutus collegam primae ac nouae illius potestatis, quem posset, si hoc offendebatur, nomine tantum priuare, et patria priuauit et honore! Haec mala facta sunt, haec aduersa acciderunt, quando in illa re publica aequo et modesto iure agitatum est. Lucretius quoque, qui in locum Bruti fuerat subrogatus, morbo, antequam idem annus terminaretur, absumtus est. Ita P. Valerius, qui successerat Collatino, et M. Horatius, qui pro defuncto Lucretio suffectus fuerat, annum illum funereum adque tartareum, qui consules quinque habuit, conpleuerunt, quo anno consulatus ipsius nouum honorem ac potestatem auspicata est Romana res publica.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. On the first consuls among the Romans, of whom one drove the other from the country, and soon himself, after most atrocious murders of his kin, perished wounded by a wounded enemy.

To this time let us add also the time during which, Sallust says, “things were conducted with fair and moderate justice, while the fear of Tarquin and the heavy war with Etruria lasted.” For as long as the Etruscans helped Tarquin in his attempt to return to the kingship, Rome was shaken by a heavy war. That is why he says the state was run with fair and moderate justice under the pressure of fear, not at the persuasion of justice. In this very short time, how deadly was that year in which the first consuls were created after the royal power was expelled! For they did not complete their year. For Junius Brutus disgraced his colleague Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus and threw him out of the City; then soon he himself fell in battle, exchanging wounds with an enemy, after he had first killed his own sons and his wife's brothers, because he had learned that they had conspired to restore Tarquin. Virgil, after recording this deed with praise, at once shuddered at it with compassion. For when he had said: “And the father will call his sons, stirring up new wars, to punishment for fair liberty's sake,” he soon cried out and said: “Unhappy man, however later generations regard those deeds.” However posterity regards those deeds, he says, that is, exalts and extols them, the man who killed his sons is unhappy. And as if to console the unhappy man he adds: “Love of country conquers, and boundless desire for praise.” In this Brutus, who both killed his sons and, struck in return by the enemy he struck, Tarquin's son, could not survive him, while Tarquin himself rather survived Brutus, does not the innocence of his colleague Collatinus seem to have been avenged, who, a good citizen, suffered when Tarquin was driven out what the tyrant Tarquin himself suffered? For this same Brutus is said to have been a blood relative of Tarquin; but Collatinus, no doubt, was oppressed by the likeness of his name, because he too was called Tarquinius. Then he should have been forced to change his name, not his country; in short, this word would have been lacking in his name, and he would have been called simply L. Collatinus. But he was not made to lose what he could have lost without any harm, so that he was ordered, first consul as he was, to lose his honor, and, good citizen as he was, to lose his citizenship. Is this too a glory, this detestable iniquity of Junius Brutus, and of no use at all to the state? Did “love of country and boundless desire for praise” conquer for committing this too? When the tyrant Tarquin had already been expelled, Lucretia's husband L. Tarquinius Collatinus was created consul with Brutus. How justly the people looked at the morals in a citizen, not the name! How ungodly was Brutus, who deprived his colleague in that first and new office of both his country and his honor, when he could have deprived him only of his name, if that offended him! These evils were done, these adversities happened, when in that state “things were conducted with fair and moderate justice.” Lucretius too, who had been appointed in place of Brutus, was carried off by disease before the same year ended. So P. Valerius, who had succeeded Collatinus, and M. Horatius, who had been appointed in place of the dead Lucretius, completed that funereal and hellish year, which had five consuls, the year in which the Roman state inaugurated the new honor and power of the consulship itself.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sallust, Hist. 1.11 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 6.820–823 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Livy, 2.2–8 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sallust, Histories 1.11; Virgil, Aeneid 6.820–823; Livy 2.2–8.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.16 (CSEL 40:133–135; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-16/#p-3-16).

## City of God 3.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-16/#p-3-17
- Source: CSEL 40:135–141
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine lists the calamities of the early Republic, from social strife, famine, and plague to the Gallic sack, the Caudine Forks, and the war with Pyrrhus, asking where the gods were.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. Post initia consularis imperii quibus malis uexata fuerit Romana res publica, dis non opitulantibus, quos colebat. Tunc iam deminuto paululum metu, non quia bella conquieuerant, sed quia non tam graui pondere urgebant, finito scilicet tempore, quo aequo iure ac modesto agitatum est, secuta sunt quae idem Sallustius breuiter explicat: Dein seruili imperio patres plebem exercere, de uita adque tergo regio more consulere, agro pellere et ceteris expertibus soli in imperio agere. Quibus saeuitiis et maxime faenore obpressa plebes, cum adsiduis bellis tributum et militiam simul toleraret, armata montem sacrum adque Auentinum insedit, tumque tribunos plebis et alia iura sibi parauit. Discordiarum et certaminis utrimque finis fuit secundum bellum Punicum,) Quid itaque ego tantas moras uel scribens patiar, uel lecturis adferam? Quam misera fuerit illa res publica, tam longa aetate per tot annos usque ad secundum bellum Punicum bellis forinsecus inquietare non desistentibus et intus discordiis seditionibusque ciuilibus, a Sallustio breuiter intimatum est. Proinde uictoriae illae non solida beatorum gaudia fuerunt, sed inania solacia miserorum et ad alia adque alia sterilia mala subeunda inlecebrosa incitamenta minime quietorum. Nec nobis, quia hoc dicimus, boni Romani prudentesque suscenseant: quamquam de hac re nec petendi sint nec monendi, quando eos minime suscensuros esse certissimum est. Neque enim grauius uel grauiora dicimus auctoribus eorum et stilo et otio multum inpares; quibus tamen ediscendis et ipsi elaborauerunt et filios suos elaborare conpellunt. Qui autem suscensent, quando me ferrent, si ego dicerem, quod Sallustius ait? Plurimae turbae, seditiones et ad postremum bella ciuilia orta sunt, dum pauci potentes, quorum in gratiam plerique concesserant, sub honesto patrum aut plebis nomine dominationes adfectabant; bonique et mali ciues appellati, non ob merita in rem publicam, omnibus pariter corruptis, sed uti quisque locupletissimus et iniuria ualidior, quia praesentia defendebat, pro bono ducebatur. Porro si illi scriptores historiae ad honestam libertatem pertinere arbitrati sunt mala ciuitatis propriae non tacere, quam multis locis magno praeconio laudare conpulsi sunt, cum aliam ueriorem, quo ciues aeterni legendi sunt, non haberent: quid nos facere conuenit, quorum spes quanto in Deo melior et certior, tanto maior debet esse libertas, cum mala praesentia Christo nostro inputant, ut infirmiores imperitioresque mentes alienentur ab ea ciuitate, in qua sola iugiter feliciterque uiuendum est? Nec in deos eorum horribiliora nos dicimus, quam eorum identidem auctores, quos legunt et praedicant, quando quidem et ex ipsis quae diceremus accepimus, et nullo modo dicere uel talia uel cuncta sufficimus. Ubi ergo erant illi di, qui propter exiguam fallacemque mundi huius felicitatem colendi existimantur, cum Romani, quibus se colendos mendacissima astutia uenditabant, tantis calamitatibus uexarentur? Ubi erant, quando Valerius consul ab exulibus et seruis inscensum Capitolium cum defensaret occisus est faciliusque ipse prodesse potuit aedi Iouis quam illi turba tot numinum cum suo maximo adque optimo rege, cuius templum liberauerat, subuenire? Ubi erant, quando densissimis fatigata ciuitas seditionum malis, cum legatos Athenas missos ad leges mutuandas paululum quieta opperiretur, graui fame pestilentiaque uastata est? Ubi erant, quando rursus populus, cum fame laboraret, praefectum annonae primum creauit, adque illa fame inualescente Spurius Maelius, quia esurienti multitudini frumenta largitus est, regni adfectati crimen incurrit et eiusdem praefecti instantia per dictatorem L. Quintium aetate decrepitum a Quinto Seruilio magistro equitum cum maximo et periculosissimo tumultu ciuitatis occisus est? Ubi erant, quando pestilentia maxima exorta dis inutilibus populus diu multumque fatigatus noua lectisternia, quod numquam antea fecerat, exhibenda arbitratus est? Lecti autem sternebantur in honorem deorum, unde hoc sacrum uel potius sacrilegium nomen accepit. Ubi erant, quando per decem continuos annos male pugnando crebras et magnas clades aput Veios exercitus Romanus acceperat, nisi per Furium Camillum tandem subueniretur, quem postea ciuitas ingrata damnauit? Ubi erant, quando Galli Romam ceperunt spoliauerunt, incenderunt caedibus inpleuerunt? Ubi erant, cum illa insignis pestilentia tam ingentem stragem dedit, qua et ille Furius Camillus extinctus est, qui rem publicam ingratam et a Veientibus ante defendit et de Gallis postea uindicauit? In hac pestilentia scaenicos ludos aliam nouam pestem non corporibus Romanorum, sed, quod est multo perniciosius, moribus intulerunt. Ubi erant, quando alia pestilentia grauis de uenenis matronarum exorta credita est, quarum supra fidem multarum adque nobilium mores deprehensi sunt omni pestilentia grauiores? uel quando in Caudinas furculas a Samnitibus obsessi ambo cum exercitu consules foedus cum eis foedum facere coacti sunt, ita ut equitibus Romanis sescentis obsidibus datis ceteri amissis armis aliisque spoliati priuatique tegminibus sub iugum hostium in uestimentis singulis mitterentur? uel quando graui pestilentia ceteris laborantibus multi etiam in exercitu icti fulmine perierunt? uel quando item alia intolerabili pestilentia Aesculapium ab Epidauro quasi medicum deum Roma aduocare adque adhibere conpulsa est, quoniam regem omnium Iouem, qui iam diu in Capitolio sedebat, multa stupra, quibus adulescens uacauerat, non permiserant fortasse discere medicinam? uel cum conspirantibus uno tempore hostibus Lucanis, Bruttiis, Samnitibus, Etruscis et Senonibus Gallis primo ab eis legati peremti sunt, deinde cum praetore obpressus exercitus septem tribunis cum illo pereuntibus et militum tredecim milibus? uel quando post longas et graues Romae seditiones, quibus ad ultimum plebs in Ianiculum hostili diremtione secesserat, huius mali tam dira calamitas erat, ut eius rei causa, quod in extremis periculis fieri solebat, dictator crearetur Hortensius, qui plebe reuocata in eodem magistratu exspirauit, quod nulli dictatori ante contigerat, et quod illis dis iam praesente Aesculapio grauius crimen fuit? Tum uero tam multa bella ubique crebruerunt, ut inopia militum proletarii illi, qui eo, quod proli gignendae uacabant, ob egestatem militare non ualentes hoc nomen acceperant, militiae conscriberentur. Accitus etiam a Tarentinis Pyrrhus, rex Graeciae, tunc ingenti gloria celebratus, Romanorum hostis effectus est. Cui sane de rerum futuro euentu consulenti satis urbane Apollo sic ambiguum oraculum edidit, ut, e duobus quidquid accidisset, ipse diuinus haberetur (ait enim: <Dico te, Pyrrhe, uincere posse Romanos ) adque ita, siue Pyrrhus a Romanis siue Romani a Pyrrho uincerentur, securus fatidicus utrumlibet expectaret euentum. Quae tunc et quam horrenda utriusque exercitus clades! In qua tamen superior Pyrrhus extitit, ut iam posset Apollinem pro suo intellectu praedicare diuinum, nisi proxime alio proelio Romani abscederent superiores. Adque in tanta strage bellorum etiam pestilentia grauis exorta est mulierum. Nam priusquam maturos partus ederent, grauidae moriebantur. Ubi se, credo, Aesculapius excusabat, quod archiatrum, non obstetricem profitebatur. Pecudes quoque similiter interibant, ita ut etiam defecturum genus animalium crederetur. Quid? hiems illa memorabilis tam incredibili inmanitate saeuiens, ut niuibus horrenda altitudine etiam in foro per dies quadraginta manentibus Tiberis quoque glacie, duraretur, si nostris temporibus accidisset, quae isti et quanta dixissent! Quid? illa itidem ingens pestilentia, quamdiu saeuiit, quam multos peremit! Quae cum in annum alium multo grauius tenderetur frustra praesente Aesculapio, aditum est ad libros Sibyllinos. In quo genere oraculorum, sicut Cicero in libris de diuinatione commemorat, magis interpretibus ut possunt seu uolunt dubia coniectantibus credi solet. Tunc ergo dictum est eam esse causam pestilentiae, quod plurimas aedes sacras multi occupatas priuatim tenerent: sic interim a magno inperitiae uel desidiae crimine Aesculapius liberatus est. Unde autem a multis aedes illae fuerant occupatae nemine prohibente. nisi quia tantae numinum turbae diu frustra fuerat supplicatum, adque ita paulatim loca deserebantur a cultoribus, ut tamquam uacua sine ullius offensione possent humanis saltem usibus uindicari? Namque tunc uelut ad sedandam pestilentiam diligenter repetita adque reparata nisi postea eodem modo neglecta adque usurpata latitarent, non utique magnae peritiae Varronis tribueretur, quod scribens de aedibus sacris tam multa ignorata commemorat. Sed tunc interim elegans non pestilentiae depulsio, sed deorum excusatio procurata est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. By what evils the Roman state was troubled after the beginnings of consular rule, while the gods it worshipped did not help.

Then, when fear had lessened a little, not because the wars had ceased but because they pressed with less heavy weight, the time, that is, when things were conducted with fair and moderate justice having ended, there followed what the same Sallust briefly explains: “Then the patricians began to treat the plebs as slaves, to dispose of their lives and backs in the manner of kings, to drive them from their land, and to rule alone, with the rest shut out. Oppressed by these cruelties, and above all by debt, the plebs, since it had to bear both taxes and military service in continual wars, took up arms and occupied the Sacred Mount and the Aventine, and then obtained for itself tribunes of the plebs and other rights. The end of discords and strife on both sides was the second Punic war.” Why, then, should I either endure such delays in writing or impose them on my readers? How wretched that state was for so long a time, through so many years up to the second Punic war, with wars from outside never ceasing to disturb it and within civil discords and seditions, Sallust has briefly indicated. So those victories were not the solid joys of the happy, but the empty consolations of the wretched and the alluring incitements of the restless to undergo one fruitless evil after another. Let not good and wise Romans be angry with us for saying this; though on this matter they need neither be asked nor warned, since it is quite certain that they will not be angry. For we do not say things more serious, or more serious things, than their authors, whom we are far from equaling in style and leisure; yet they themselves labored to learn these authors by heart and compel their sons to labor at it. And those who are angry, how would they bear me if I said what Sallust says? “Very many disturbances, seditions, and finally civil wars arose, while a few powerful men, to whose favor most had yielded, sought domination under the honorable name of the senate or the people; and citizens were called good and bad, not for their merits toward the state, all being equally corrupt; but whoever was richest and strongest in doing wrong was held to be good, because he defended the present state of things.” Further, if those writers of history thought it belonged to honorable freedom not to keep silent about the evils of their own city, which in many places they were compelled to praise loudly, since they had no other, truer city from which its citizens are chosen for eternity, what is fitting for us to do, whose freedom must be the greater the better and surer our hope in God is, when they blame the present evils on our Christ, so that weaker and more ignorant minds may be alienated from that city in which alone one may live forever and happily? Nor do we say more horrible things against their gods than their own authors say again and again, whom they read and extol, since we have taken from them what we would say, and are by no means able to say either such things or all of them. Where, then, were those gods, who are thought worthy of worship for the sake of the slight and deceitful happiness of this world, when the Romans, to whom they sold themselves as worthy of worship by most lying cunning, were troubled by such calamities? Where were they when the consul Valerius was killed while defending the Capitol, which had been set on fire by exiles and slaves, and he himself could more easily help the temple of Jupiter than that crowd of so many deities with their greatest and best king, whose temple he had freed, could help him? Where were they when the city, exhausted by the evils of very frequent seditions, while it was waiting, briefly at peace, for the envoys sent to Athens to borrow laws, was devastated by grievous famine and pestilence? Where were they when the people, again suffering from famine, created the first prefect of the grain supply, and, as that famine grew worse, Spurius Maelius, because he had distributed grain to the hungry multitude, incurred the charge of aiming at the kingship, and at the insistence of that same prefect, through the dictator L. Quintius, a decrepit old man, was killed by Quintus Servilius, master of the horse, with a very great and dangerous uproar in the city? Where were they when a very great pestilence broke out, and the people, long and greatly wearied by useless gods, thought new lectisternia should be offered, which it had never done before? Couches (lecti) were spread in honor of the gods, from which this rite, or rather sacrilege, took its name. Where were they when for ten continuous years, fighting badly, the Roman army suffered frequent and great disasters at Veii, until help came at last through Furius Camillus, whom the ungrateful city later condemned? Where were they when the Gauls took Rome, plundered it, burned it, and filled it with slaughter? Where were they when that notable pestilence caused such immense slaughter, in which that Furius Camillus too died, who had first defended the ungrateful state against the Veians and afterwards avenged it on the Gauls? In this pestilence they brought in the stage plays, another new plague, not on the bodies of the Romans, but, what is much more pernicious, on their morals. Where were they when another grievous pestilence was believed to have arisen from the poisonings of matrons, the morals of many noble women among whom, beyond belief, were found to be more grievous than any pestilence? Or when both consuls, besieged with their army by the Samnites at the Caudine Forks, were forced to make a shameful treaty with them, so that, six hundred Roman knights having been given as hostages, the rest, having lost their arms and been stripped of their other belongings and clothing, were sent under the enemy's yoke in single garments? Or when, while others suffered from a grievous pestilence, many in the army too died struck by lightning? Or when, likewise, in another intolerable pestilence, Rome was compelled to summon Aesculapius from Epidaurus as a physician god and to make use of him, since perhaps the many debaucheries with which Jupiter, king of all, who had long been sitting on the Capitol, had occupied himself in his youth had not allowed him to learn medicine? Or when, as the Lucanians, Bruttians, Samnites, Etruscans, and Senonian Gauls conspired against them at one time, first their envoys were killed by them, and then an army was crushed with its praetor, seven tribunes perishing with him and thirteen thousand soldiers? Or when, after long and grievous seditions at Rome, in which finally the plebs had seceded to the Janiculum in hostile separation, the calamity of this evil was so dire that for this reason, as was usually done in extreme dangers, Hortensius was created dictator, who, having recalled the plebs, died in that same office, which had happened to no dictator before, and which was a graver charge against those gods now that Aesculapius was present? Then indeed so many wars sprang up everywhere that for lack of soldiers those proletarians were enrolled for military service, who had received this name because, unable to serve for poverty, they were free for producing offspring (proles). Pyrrhus too, king of Greece, then celebrated with immense glory, summoned by the Tarentines, became an enemy of the Romans. When he consulted Apollo about the future outcome of events, Apollo quite wittily gave so ambiguous an oracle that, whichever of the two happened, he himself would be thought divine (for he said: “I say that you, Pyrrhus, the Romans can conquer”); and so, whether Pyrrhus was conquered by the Romans or the Romans by Pyrrhus, the soothsayer could await either outcome without worry. What a horrible slaughter of both armies then! In which Pyrrhus emerged superior, so that he could now proclaim Apollo divine by his own interpretation, had not the Romans come off superior in another battle soon after. And amid such slaughter of wars a grievous pestilence also arose among women. For pregnant women were dying before they could bring their offspring to term. Here, I suppose, Aesculapius excused himself on the ground that he professed to be a chief physician, not a midwife. Cattle too were dying in the same way, so that it was believed that the race of animals would fail. What of that memorable winter, raging with such incredible severity that snow of horrible depth remained even in the forum for forty days and the Tiber too was frozen hard? If it had happened in our times, what things, and how great, these people would have said! What of that likewise immense pestilence, how many it killed while it raged! When it stretched into another year much more severely, Aesculapius being present in vain, recourse was had to the Sibylline books. In this kind of oracle, as Cicero recalls in his books On Divination, belief is usually given rather to the interpreters as they conjecture doubtful meanings as they can or will. Then, therefore, it was said that the cause of the pestilence was that many were holding a great many temples privately occupied; so for the time being Aesculapius was freed from the great charge of ignorance or laziness. But why had those temples been occupied by many with no one forbidding it, unless because supplication had long been made in vain to such a crowd of deities, and so the places were gradually deserted by worshippers, so that, as if empty, they could be claimed at least for human uses without offending anyone? For if, having been carefully recovered and restored at that time as if to allay the pestilence, they had not afterwards been neglected and usurped in the same way and lain hidden, it would certainly not be attributed to Varro's great learning that, writing about temples, he recalls so many that were unknown. But for the time being an elegant excuse, not for the pestilence, but for the gods, was procured.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sallust, Hist. 1.11 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence
- Sallust, Hist. 1.12 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence
- Livy, 3.15–18 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence
- Livy, 4.12–16 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence
- Livy, 8.18 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence
- Livy, 9.1–6 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence
- Cicero, Div. 2.116 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence
- Cicero, Div. 2.110–112 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence
- Ennius, Ann. 167 (Ennius): quotation, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Sallust, Histories 1.11 and 1.12. The events are in Livy 3.15–18, 4.12–16, 5.13, 5.19–23, 7.1–3, 8.18, 9.1–6, 10.47, and the lost books (Periochae 11–14). Pyrrhus's oracle is quoted in Cicero, On Divination 2.116 (from Ennius); on the Sibylline books, On Divination 2.110–112.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.17 (CSEL 40:135–141; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-16/#p-3-17).

## City of God 3.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-16/#p-3-18
- Source: CSEL 40:141–143
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine recalls the devastation of the Punic wars, the capture of Regulus, and a flood and fire at Rome in which the pontiff Metellus had to rescue the sacred objects of Vesta, showing their powerlessness.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. Quantae clades Romanos sub bellis Punicis triuerint frustra deorum praesidiis expetitis. Iam uero Punicis bellis, cum inter utrumque imperium uictoria diu anceps adque incerta penderet populique duo praeualidi impetus in alterutrum fortissimos et opulentissimos agerent, quot minutiora regna contrita sunt! quae urbes amplae nobilesque deletae, quot adflictae, quot perditae ciuitates! Quam longe lateque tot regiones terraeque uastatae sunt! Quotiens uicti hinc adque inde uictores! Quid hominum consumtum est uel pugnantium militum uel ab armis uacantium populorum! Quanta uis nauium marinis etiam proeliis obpressa et diuersarum tempestatum uarietate submersa est! Si enarrare uel commemorare conemur, nihil aliud quam scriptores etiam nos erimus historiae. Tunc magno metu perturbata Romana ciuitas ad remedia uana et ridenda currebat. Instaurati sunt ex auctoritate librorum Sibyllinorum ludi saeculares, quorum celebritas inter centum annos fuerat instituta felicioribusque temporibus memoria neglegente perierat. Renouarunt etiam pontifices ludos sacros inferis et ipsos abolitos annis retrorsum melioribus. Nimirum ergo, quando renouati sunt, tanta copia morientium ditatos inferos etiam ludere delectabat, cum profecto miseri homines ipsa rabida bella et cruentas animositates funereasque hinc adque inde uictorias magnos agerent ludos daemonum et opimas epulas inferorum. Nihil sane miserabilius primo Punico bello accidit, quam quod ita Romani uicti sunt, ut etiam Regulus ille caperetur, cuius in primo et in altero libro fecimus mentionem, uir plane magnus et uictor antea domitorque Poenorum, qui etiam ipsum primum bellum Punicum confecisset, nisi auiditate nimia laudis et gloriae duriores condiciones, quam ferre possent, fessis Carthaginiensibus imperasset. Illius uiri et captiuitas inopinatissima et seruitus indignissima, et iuratio fidelissima et mors crudelissima si deos illos non cogit erubescere, uerum est quod aerei sunt et non habent sanguinem. Nec mala illo tempore grauissima intra moenia defuerunt. Nam exundante nimis ultra morem fluuio Tiberino paene omnia urbis plana subuersa sunt, aliis impetu quasi torrentis inpulsis, aliis uelut stagno diuturno madefactis adque sublapsis. Istam deinde pestem ignis perniciosior subsecutus est. qui correptis circa forum quibusque celsioribus etiam templo Vestae suo familiarissimo non pepercit, ubi ei ueluti uitam perpetuam diligentissima substitutione lignorum non tam honoratae quam damnatae uirgines donare consuerant. Tunc uero illic ignis non tantum uiuebat, sed etiam saeuiebat. Cuius impetu exterritae uirgines sacra illa fatalia, quae iam tres, in quibus fuerant, presserant ciuitates, cum ab illo incendio liberare non possent, Metellus pontifex suae quodam modo salutis oblitus inruens ea semiustus abripuit. Neque enim uel ipsum ignis agnouit, aut uero erat ibi numen, quod non etiam, si fuisset, fugisset. Homo igitur potius sacris Vestae quam illa homini prodesse potuerunt. Si autem a se ipsis ignem non repellebant, ciuitatem, cuius salutem tueri putabantur, quid contra illas aquas flammasque poterant adiuuare? sicut etiam res ipsa nihil ea prorsus potuisse patefecit. Haec istis nequaquam obicerentur a nobis, si illa sacra dicerent non tuendis his bonis temporalibus instituta, sed significandis aeternis, et ideo, cum ea, quod corporalia uisibiliaque essent, perire contingeret, nihil his rebus minui, propter quas fuerant instituta, et posse ad eosdem usus denuo reparari. Nunc uero caecitate mirabili eis sacris, quae perire possent, fieri potuisse existimant, ut salus terrena et temporalis felicitas ciuitatis perire non posset. Proinde cum illis etiam manentibus sacris uel salutis contritio uel infelicitas inruisse monstratur, mutare sententiam, quam defendere nequeunt, erubescunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. What great disasters wore down the Romans in the Punic wars, while the protection of the gods was sought in vain.

Then in the Punic wars, when victory hung long doubtful and uncertain between the two empires, and two very powerful peoples drove their strongest and richest attacks against each other, how many smaller kingdoms were crushed! What great and famous cities were destroyed, how many states afflicted, how many ruined! How far and wide so many regions and lands were laid waste! How often the conquered on this side and that were conquerors! How many human lives were consumed, whether of soldiers fighting or of peoples not under arms! What a great force of ships was crushed even in sea battles and sunk by the variety of different storms! If we tried to recount or recall these things, we too would be nothing but writers of history. Then the Roman state, thrown into confusion by great fear, ran to empty and ridiculous remedies. By the authority of the Sibylline books the Secular Games were revived, whose celebration had been established once every hundred years, and which in happier times had lapsed through forgetful neglect. The pontiffs also renewed the sacred games for the gods of the underworld, which likewise had been abolished in the better years before. No wonder, then, that when they were renewed, the underworld, enriched by such an abundance of the dying, delighted even to play; since surely wretched men, by those raging wars and bloody hatreds and deadly victories on both sides, were putting on great games for the demons and rich banquets for the underworld. Nothing more pitiable happened in the first Punic war than that the Romans were so defeated that even that Regulus was captured whom we mentioned in the first and second books, a truly great man, previously victor and conqueror of the Carthaginians, who would even have finished the first Punic war itself had he not, from excessive greed for praise and glory, imposed harsher conditions on the exhausted Carthaginians than they could bear. If that man's most unexpected captivity and most unworthy slavery, his most faithful oath and most cruel death, do not force those gods to blush, it is true that they are made of bronze and have no blood. Nor were most grievous evils lacking within the walls at that time. For the river Tiber overflowed far beyond its custom, and almost all the low parts of the city were overthrown, some struck by the force of what was like a torrent, others soaked as by a long-standing pool and collapsing. Then a more destructive fire followed that plague, which, seizing all the higher buildings around the forum, did not spare even the temple of Vesta, its own most intimate place, where virgins, not so much honored as condemned, were accustomed to give it a kind of perpetual life by most careful replacement of wood. Then indeed the fire there was not only living but raging. When the virgins, terrified by its onslaught, could not rescue from that burning those fateful sacred objects which had already crushed three cities in which they had been, the pontiff Metellus, in a way forgetful of his own safety, rushed in and snatched them out, half burned. For the fire did not recognize even him, nor was there any divinity there which would not also have fled, if it had been there. So a man could be of more use to the sacred objects of Vesta than they to a man. And if they could not keep the fire away from themselves, what could they do to help the city, whose safety they were thought to protect, against those waters and flames? As the event itself plainly showed that they could do nothing at all. We would by no means bring these things against them if they said that those sacred objects were instituted not to protect these temporal goods but to signify eternal ones, and that therefore, when it happened that they perished, being bodily and visible, nothing was lessened of the things for which they had been instituted, and they could be restored again for the same uses. But as it is, with astonishing blindness they think that by means of sacred objects that could perish it could have been brought about that the earthly safety and temporal happiness of the city could not perish. So when it is shown that, even while those sacred objects remained, destruction of safety or misfortune broke in, they are ashamed to change the opinion they cannot defend.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, Per. 19 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Livy, Periochae 16–19 (the Secular Games, Regulus, the fire of 241 BC and Metellus's rescue of the Palladium). The “three cities” are Troy, Lavinium, and Alba.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.18 (CSEL 40:141–143; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-16/#p-3-18).

## City of God 3.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-16/#p-3-19
- Source: CSEL 40:143–144
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine describes the disasters of the second Punic war, especially Cannae, after which Rome armed slaves with weapons from the temples and the senate gave up its gold.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. De adflictione belli Punici secundi, qua uires utriusque partis consumtae sunt. Secundo autem Punico bello nimis longum est commemorare clades duorum populorum tam longe secum lateque pugnantium. ita ut his quoque fatentibus, qui non tam narrare bella Romana quam Romanorum imperium laudare instituerunt, similior uicto fuerit ille qui uicit. Hannibale quippe ab Hispania surgente et Pyrenaeis montibus superatis, Gallia transcursa Alpibusque disruptis, tam longo circuitu auctis uiribus cuncta uastando aut subigendo torrentis modo Italiae faucibus inruente quam cruenta proelia gesta sunt, quotiens Romani superati! quam multa ad hostem oppida defecerunt, quam multa capta et obpressa! quam dirae pugnae et totiens Hannibali Romana clade gloriosae! De Cannensi autem mirabiliter horrendo malo quid dicam, ubi Hannibal, cum esset crudelissimus, tamen tanta inimicorum atrocissimorum clade satiatus parci iussisse perhibetur? Unde tres modios anulorum aureorum Carthaginem misit, quo intellegerent tantam in illo proelio dignitatem cecidisse Romanam, ut facilius eam caperet mensura quam numerus, adque hinc strages turbae ceterae tanto utique numerosioris, quanto infimioris, quae sine anulis iacebat, conicienda potius quam nuntianda putaretur. Denique tanta militum inopia secuta est, ut Romani reos facinorum proposita inpunitate colligerent, seruitia libertate donarent adque illis pudendus non tam subpleretur quam institueretur exercitus. Seruis itaque, immo, ne faciamus iniuriam, iam libertis, pro Romana re publica pugnaturis arma defuerunt. Detracta sunt templis, tamquam Romani dis suis dicerent: Ponite quae tam diu inaniter habuistis, ne forte aliquid utile inde facere possint nostra mancipia, unde [uos] nostra numina facere non potuistis. Tunc etiam stipendiis sufficiendis cum defecisset aerarium, in usus publicos opes uenere priuatae, adeo unoquoque id quod habuit conferente, ut praeter singulos anulos singulasque bullas, miserabilia dignitatis insignia, nihil sibi auri senatus ipse, quanto magis ceteri ordines tribusque relinquerent. Quis ferret istos, si nostris temporibus ad hanc inopiam cogerentur. cum eos modo uix feramus, quando pro superflua uoluptate plura donantur histrionibus, quam tunc legionibus pro extrema salute conlata sunt?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. On the affliction of the second Punic war, by which the strength of both sides was consumed.

In the second Punic war it would take too long to recount the disasters of two peoples fighting each other so far and wide, so that, as even those admit who set out not so much to narrate Rome's wars as to praise Rome's empire, the one who conquered was more like the conquered. For when Hannibal rose from Spain, crossed the Pyrenees, ran through Gaul, broke through the Alps, and, his strength increased by so long a circuit, laying waste or subduing everything, burst like a torrent into the jaws of Italy, what bloody battles were fought, how often the Romans were beaten! How many towns went over to the enemy, how many were taken and crushed! What dreadful battles, so often glorious for Hannibal by Roman disaster! And what shall I say of the astonishingly horrible disaster of Cannae, where Hannibal, most cruel as he was, is said to have ordered his men to spare the enemy, sated by so great a slaughter of his most bitter enemies? From there he sent three pecks of gold rings to Carthage, so that they would understand that so much Roman rank had fallen in that battle that it could be grasped more easily by measure than by number, and that from this the slaughter of the rest of the crowd, the more numerous for being the lower, which lay without rings, was to be guessed rather than reported. Then such a shortage of soldiers followed that the Romans collected men accused of crimes by offering them impunity, gave slaves their freedom, and with them did not so much replenish as create a shameful army. So these slaves, or rather, not to do them wrong, these freedmen now, who were to fight for the Roman state, lacked arms. They were taken from the temples, as if the Romans were saying to their gods: Put down what you have held so long in vain, so that perhaps our slaves may be able to do something useful with what our deities could not. Then too, when the treasury was insufficient to pay the soldiers, private wealth came into public use, each contributing what he had to such an extent that, apart from single rings and single amulets, pitiful badges of rank, the senate itself, and how much more the other orders and tribes, kept no gold for themselves. Who would bear these people if they were forced to such poverty in our times, when we scarcely bear them now, when more is given to actors for superfluous pleasure than was then contributed to the legions for their ultimate safety?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, 22.57 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence
- Livy, 23.12 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence
- Livy, 26.36 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Livy 21–23: Cannae and the rings (23.12), the enlistment of slaves and debtors and arms taken from the temples (22.57), contributions of gold (26.36). The phrase that the victor was more like the conquered is in Florus, Epitome 1.22.
- The editor deletes uos (“you”) in the imagined address to the gods (square brackets); left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.19 (CSEL 40:143–144; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-16/#p-3-19).

## City of God 3.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-16/#p-3-20
- Source: CSEL 40:144–147
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine recounts the destruction of Saguntum, Rome's faithful ally, by Hannibal, and argues that the gods who witnessed its treaty did nothing to save it.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. De exitu Saguntinorum, quibus propter Romanorum amicitiam pereuntibus di Romani auxilium non tulerunt. Sed in his omnibus belli Punici secundi malis nihil miserabilius ac miserabili querella dignius quam exitium Saguntinorum fuit. Haec quippe Hispaniae ciuitas amicissima populi Romani, dum eidem populo fidem seruat, euersa est. Hinc enim Hannibal fracto foedere Romanorum causas quaesiuit, quibus eos inritaret ad bellum. Saguntum ferociter ergo obsidebat. Quod ubi Romae auditum est, missi legati ad Hannibalem, ut ab eius obsidione discederet. Contemti Carthaginem pergunt querimoniamque deponunt foederis rupti infectoque negotio Romam redeunt. Dum hae morae aguntur, misera illa ciuitas opulentissima, suae rei publicae Romanaeque carissima, octauo uel nono a Poenis mense deleta est. Cuius interitum legere, quanto magis scribere, horroris est. Breuiter tamen eum commemorabo; ad rem quippe quae agitur multum pertinet. Primo fame contabuit; nam etiam suorum cadaueribus a nonnullis pasta perhibetur. Deinde omnium fessa rerum, ne saltem captiua in manus Hannibalis perueniret, ingentem rogum publice struxit, in quem ardentem ferro etiam trucidatos omnes se suosque miserunt. Hic aliquid agerent di helluones adque nebulones, sacrificiorum adipibus inhiantes et fallacium diuinationum caligine decipientes; hic aliquid agerent, ciuitati populi Romani amicissimae subuenirent, fidei conseruatione pereuntem perire non sinerent. Ipsi utique medii praefuerunt, cum Romanae rei publicae interiecto foedere copulata est. Custodiens itaque [fideliter], quod ipsis praesidibus placito iunxerat, fide uinxerat, iuratione constrinxerat, a perfido obsessa obpressa consumta est. Si ipsi di tempestate adque fulminibus Hannibalem postea Romanis proximum moenibus terruerunt longeque miserunt: tunc primum tale aliquid facerent. Audeo quippe dicere honestius illos pro amicis Romanorum ideo periclitantibus, ne Romanis frangerent fidem, et nullam opem tunc habentibus quam pro ipsis Romanis, qui pro se pugnabant adque aduersus Hannibalem opulenti erant, potuisse tempestate saeuire. Si ergo tutores essent Romanae felicitatis et gloriae, tam graue ab ea crimen Saguntinae calamitatis auerterent; nunc uero quam stulte creditur, dis illis defensoribus Romam uictore Hannibale non perisse, qui Saguntinae urbi non potuerunt, ne pro eius periret amicitia, subuenire! Si Saguntinorum Christianus populus esset et huius modi aliquid pro fide euangelica pateretur, quamquam se ipse nec ferro nec ignibus corrupisset, sed tamen si pro fide euangelica excidium pateretur: ea spe pateretur, qua in Christum crediderat, non mercede breuissimi temporis, sed aeternitatis interminae. Pro istis autem dis, qui propterea coli perhibentur, propterea colendi requiruntur, ut harum labentium adque transeuntium rerum felicitas tuta sit, quid nobis defensores et excusatores eorum de Saguntinis pereuntibus respondebunt, nisi quod de illo Regulo extincto? Hoc quippe interest, quod ille unus homo, haec tota ciuitas; utriusque tamen interitus causa conseruatio fidei fuit. Propter hanc enim ad hostes et redire ille uoluit, et noluit ista transire. Conseruata ergo prouocat deorum iram fides? an possunt et dis propitiis perire non solum quique homines, uerum etiam integrae ciuitates? Utrum uolunt. eligant. Si enim fidei seruatae irascuntur illi di, quaerant perfidos, a quibus colantur; si autem etiam illis propitiis multis grauibusque cruciatibus adflicti interire homines ciuitatesque possunt, nullo fructu felicitatis huius coluntur. Desinant igitur suscensere, qui sacris deorum suorum perditis se infelices esse factos putant. Possent enim illis non solum manentibus, uerum etiam fauentibus non sicut modo de miseria murmurare, sed sicut tunc Regulus et Saguntini excruciati horribiliter etiam penitus interire.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. On the destruction of the Saguntines, to whom the Roman gods brought no help when they perished for their friendship with the Romans.

But among all these evils of the second Punic war, nothing was more pitiable and more worthy of pitiful complaint than the destruction of the Saguntines. For this city of Spain, a very close friend of the Roman people, was overthrown while keeping faith with that same people. For it was here that Hannibal, breaking the treaty with the Romans, sought pretexts to provoke them to war. So he besieged Saguntum fiercely. When this was heard at Rome, envoys were sent to Hannibal to tell him to withdraw from the siege. Despised, they went on to Carthage, lodged a complaint about the broken treaty, and returned to Rome without accomplishing anything. While these delays were going on, that wretched and very wealthy city, most dear to its own state and to Rome's, was destroyed by the Carthaginians in the eighth or ninth month. To read of its end, how much more to write of it, is horrifying. Yet I will recall it briefly; for it is very relevant to the matter in hand. First it wasted away from hunger; for it is said that some even fed on the corpses of their own people. Then, exhausted in everything, so as not at least to come into Hannibal's hands as captives, it publicly built a huge pyre, and when it was burning they threw themselves and their families into it, all of them having also been slaughtered with the sword. Here those gluttonous and worthless gods, gaping after the fat of sacrifices and deceiving with the fog of false divinations, should have done something; here they should have done something, helped the city most friendly to the Roman people, not allowed it to perish for keeping faith. They themselves certainly presided as mediators when it was joined to the Roman state by the treaty made between them. So, while it kept what it had joined by agreement with those gods presiding, bound by faith, and sealed by oath, it was besieged, crushed, and consumed by a faithless man. If these gods afterwards terrified Hannibal with storm and lightning when he was near the walls of Rome and drove him far off, then was the time to do something of the kind for the first time. For I dare say it would have been more honorable for them to rage with a storm for the friends of the Romans, who were in danger precisely so as not to break faith with the Romans and who then had no help, than for the Romans themselves, who were fighting for themselves and were well supplied against Hannibal. If, then, they were guardians of Roman happiness and glory, they would have turned away from it so grave a charge as the calamity of Saguntum; but as it is, how foolishly it is believed that Rome did not perish when Hannibal was victorious because those gods defended it, when they could not help the city of Saguntum so that it would not perish for its friendship with Rome! If the people of Saguntum had been Christian and had suffered anything of this kind for the faith of the gospel (although it would not have destroyed itself with sword or fire), yet if it had suffered destruction for the faith of the gospel, it would have suffered it in the hope with which it had believed in Christ, not for a reward of the briefest time, but of unending eternity. But on behalf of these gods, who are said to be worshipped and are demanded to be worshipped precisely so that the happiness of these fleeting and passing things may be secure, what will their defenders and excusers answer us about the perishing Saguntines, except what they answered about the death of that Regulus? The difference is only that he was one man, this was a whole city; yet the cause of the death of both was the keeping of faith. For because of this he chose to return to the enemy, and it refused to go over to them. Does faith kept, then, provoke the anger of the gods? Or can not only individual men but whole cities perish even while the gods are favorable? Let them choose which they like. For if those gods are angry at faith kept, let them look for faithless people to worship them; but if, even while they are favorable, men and cities can perish afflicted by many grievous torments, they are worshipped for no fruit of this happiness. So let those stop being angry who think they have been made unhappy because the rites of their gods have been lost. For with those rites not only remaining but even favoring them, they could have not merely murmured about misery, as now, but, like Regulus and the Saguntines then, been horribly tortured and perished utterly.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, 21.6–15 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence
- Livy, 26.11 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Livy 21.6–15. Hannibal driven from Rome by storms: Livy 26.11.
- The editor deletes fideliter (“faithfully”) (square brackets); left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.20 (CSEL 40:144–147; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-16/#p-3-20).

## City of God 3.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-16/#p-3-21
- Source: CSEL 40:147–149
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine recalls Rome's ingratitude to Scipio Africanus, the arrival of Asiatic luxury, the unjust Voconian law, and the disasters that followed Carthage's destruction, including the disgrace at Numantia.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. Quam ingrata fuerit Romana ciuitas Scipioni liberatori suo et in quibus moribus egerit, quando eam Sallustius optimam fuisse describit. Porro inter secundum et postremum bellum Carthaginiense, quando Sallustius optimis moribus et maxima concordia dixit egisse Romanos (multa enim praetereo suscepti operis modum cogitans), eodem ipso ergo tempore morum optimorum maximaeque concordiae Scipio ille Romae Italiaeque liberator eiusdemque belli Punici secundi tam horrendi, tam exitiosi, tam periculosi praeclarus mirabilisque confector, uictor Hannibalis domitorque Carthaginis, cuius ab adulescentia uita describitur dis dedita templisque nutrita, inimicorum accusationibus cessit carensque patria, quam sua uirtute saluam et liberam reddidit, in oppido Linternensi egit reliquam conpleuitque uitam, post insignem suum triumphum nullo illius urbis captus desiderio, ita ut iussisse perhibeatur, ne saltem mortuo in ingrata patria funus fieret. Deinde tunc primum per Gn. Manlium proconsulem de Gallograecis triumphantem Asiatica luxuria Romam omni hoste peior inrepsit. Tunc enim primum lecti aerati et pretiosa stragula uisa perhibentur; tunc inductae in conuiuia psaltriae et alia licentiosa nequitia. Sed nunc de his malis, quae intolerabiliter homines patiuntur, non de his, quae libenter faciunt, dicere institui. Unde illud magis, quod de Scipione commemoraui, quod cedens inimicis extra patriam, quam liberauit, mortuus est, ad praesentem pertinet disputationem, quod ei Romana numina, a quorum templis auertit Hannibalem, non reddiderunt uicem, quae propter istam tantummodo coluntur felicitatem. Sed quia Sallustius eo tempore ibi dixit mores optimos fuisse, propterea hoc de Asiana luxuria commemorandum putaui, ut intellegatur etiam illud a Sallustio in conparationem aliorum temporum dictum, quibus temporibus peiores utique in grauissimis discordiis mores fuerunt. Nam tunc, id est inter secundum et postremum bellum Carthaginiense, lata est etiam lex illa Voconia, ne quis heredem feminam faceret, nec unicam filiam. Qua lege quid iniquius dici aut cogitari possit, ignoro. Verum tamen toto illo interuallo duorum bellorum Punicorum tolerabilior infelicitas fuit. Bellis tantummodo foris conterebatur exercitus, sed uictoriis consolabatur; domi autem nullae, sicut alias, discordiae saeuiebant. Sed ultimo bello Punico uno impetu alterius Scipionis, qui ob hoc etiam ipse Africani cognomen inuenit, aemula imperii Romani ab stirpe deleta est, ac deinde tantis malorum aggeribus obpressa Romana res publica, ut prosperitate ac securitate rerum, unde nimium corruptis moribus mala illa congesta sunt, plus nocuisse monstretur tam cito euersa, quam prius nocuerat tam diu aduersa Carthago. Hoc toto tempore usque ad Caesarem Augustum, qui uidetur non adhuc uel ipsorum opinione gloriosam, sed contentiosam et exitiosam et plane iam eneruem ac languidam libertatem omni modo extorsisse Romanis et ad regale arbitrium cuncta reuocasse et quasi morbida uetustate conlapsam ueluti instaurasse ac renouasse rem publicam; toto ergo isto tempore omitto ex aliis adque aliis causis etiam adque etiam bellicas clades et Numantinum foedus horrenda ignominia maculosum; uolauerant enim pulli de cauea et Mancino consuli, ut aiunt, augurium malum fecerant; quasi per tot annos, quibus illa exigua ciuitas Romanum circumsessa exercitum adflixerat ipsique Romanae rei publicae terrori esse iam coeperat, alii contra eam alio augurio processerunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. How ungrateful the Roman state was to Scipio, its deliverer, and in what morals it lived when Sallust describes it as at its best.

Further, between the second and the last Carthaginian war, when, as Sallust said, the Romans lived with the best morals and the greatest concord (for I pass over many things, mindful of the limits of the work I have undertaken), in that very time, then, of the best morals and greatest concord, that Scipio, the deliverer of Rome and Italy and the famous and wonderful finisher of that second Punic war, so horrible, so destructive, so dangerous, the conqueror of Hannibal and tamer of Carthage, whose life from his youth is described as devoted to the gods and nourished in the temples, gave way to the accusations of his enemies, and, deprived of the country which he had made safe and free by his courage, spent and ended the rest of his life in the town of Liternum, after his famous triumph, gripped by no longing for that city, so that he is said to have ordered that not even his funeral should be held in his ungrateful country when he died. Then for the first time, through the proconsul Gnaeus Manlius, triumphing over the Galatians, Asiatic luxury crept into Rome, worse than any enemy. For then for the first time, it is said, bronze couches and costly coverlets were seen; then women lute-players were brought into banquets, and other licentious wickedness. But I have set out to speak now of the evils which men suffer unwillingly, not of those which they do gladly. Hence what I recalled about Scipio, that he died outside the country he freed, yielding to his enemies, is more relevant to the present argument, since the Roman deities, from whose temples he turned Hannibal away, did not repay him, though they are worshipped only for this happiness. But because Sallust said that morals were at their best at that time, I thought I should recall this about Asiatic luxury, so that it may be understood that this too was said by Sallust in comparison with other times, in which morals were certainly worse, amid most grievous discords. For then, that is, between the second and the last Carthaginian war, the Voconian law was also passed, that no one should make a woman his heir, not even an only daughter. I do not know what could be said or thought more unjust than that law. Yet throughout that interval between the two Punic wars the unhappiness was more tolerable. The army was worn down by wars only abroad, but consoled by victories; at home no discords raged, as at other times. But in the last Punic war, at one stroke of the other Scipio, who for this reason also himself received the surname Africanus, Rome's rival for empire was destroyed root and branch; and then the Roman state was crushed by such heaps of evils that, through the prosperity and security of things from which, morals being excessively corrupted, those evils were piled up, Carthage is shown to have done more harm by being overthrown so quickly than it had done before by being an adversary so long. Throughout this whole time up to Caesar Augustus, who seems to have wrested from the Romans in every way a liberty no longer glorious even in their own opinion, but contentious, destructive, and plainly now enervated and feeble, and to have recalled everything to royal decision, and as it were to have restored and renewed the state, collapsed with diseased old age; throughout this whole time, then, I pass over the disasters of war again and again from one cause after another, and the treaty of Numantia, stained with horrible disgrace; for the chickens had flown out of their cage and, they say, had given the consul Mancinus a bad omen; as if, through so many years in which that little city, besieged, had afflicted the Roman army and had already begun to be a terror to the Roman state itself, others had marched against it under a different omen.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sallust, Hist. 1.11 (Sallust): allusion, high confidence
- Livy, 38.50–53 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence
- Livy, 39.6 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence
- Cicero, Verr. 2.1.107 (Cicero): allusion, medium confidence
- Livy, Per. 55 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Livy 38.50–53 (Scipio's exile to Liternum); 39.6 (Asiatic luxury brought by Manlius); Cicero, Against Verres 2.1.107 (the Voconian law, 169 BC); Livy, Periochae 55 (Mancinus at Numantia); Sallust, Histories 1.11.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.21 (CSEL 40:147–149; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-16/#p-3-21).

## City of God 3.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-16/#p-3-22
- Source: CSEL 40:149–150
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine describes Mithridates' massacre of all Romans in Asia on a single day and asks what use the auguries and gods were to the victims.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. De Mithridatis edicto, quo omnes ciues Romanos, qui intra Asiam inuenirentur, iussit occidi. Sed haec, inquam, omitto, quamuis illud nequaquam tacuerim, quod Mithridates rex Asiae ubique in Asia peregrinantes ciues Romanos adque innumerabili copia suis negotiis intentos uno die occidi iussit; et factum est. Quam illa miserabilis rerum facies erat, subito quemque, ubicumque fuisset inuentus, in agro in uia in oppido, in domo in uico in foro, in templo in lecto in conuiuio inopinate adque inpie fuisse trucidatum! Quis gemitus morientium, quae lacrimae spectantium, fortasse etiam ferientium fuerunt! Quam dura necessitas hospitum non solum uidendi nefarias illas caedes domi suae, uerum etiam perpetrandi, ab illa blanda comitate humanitatis repente mutatis uultibus ad hostile negotium in pace peragendum, mutuis dicam omnino uulneribus, cum percussus in corpore et percussor in animo feriretur! Num et isti omnes auguria contemserant? Num deos et domesticos et publicos, cum de sedibus suis ad illam inremeabilem peregrinationem profecti sunt, quos consulerent, non habebant? Hoc si ita est, non habent quur isti in hac causa de nostris temporibus conquerantur; olim Romani haec uana contemnunt. Si autem consuluerunt, respondeatur, quid ista profuerunt, quando per humanas dumtaxat leges nemine prohibente licuerunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. On the edict of Mithridates, by which he ordered all Roman citizens found in Asia to be killed.

But these things, I say, I pass over; though I would by no means keep silent about the fact that Mithridates, king of Asia, ordered all Roman citizens traveling anywhere in Asia, and an innumerable number engaged in their business, to be killed on one day; and it was done. How pitiable was the sight, that each person, wherever he was found, in the field, on the road, in the town, at home, in the village, in the forum, in the temple, in bed, at a banquet, was suddenly and ungodlily slaughtered! What groans of the dying, what tears of the onlookers, perhaps even of the killers! How hard the necessity for hosts not only of seeing those wicked murders in their own homes but also of committing them, their faces suddenly changed from that gentle kindness of humanity to carry out a hostile business in peacetime, with wounds, I would say, on both sides, since the one struck was wounded in body and the striker in mind! Had all these too despised the auguries? Did they not have gods, both household and public, to consult when they set out from their homes on that journey from which there was no return? If so, these people have no reason to complain about our times in this matter; the Romans despised these vain things long ago. But if they did consult them, let it be answered what use these consultations were, when they were still permitted, at least by human laws, with no one forbidding them.

### Translation notes

- The massacre of 88 BC is also told by Appian, Mithridatic Wars 22–23, and Valerius Maximus 9.2 ext. 3.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.22 (CSEL 40:149–150; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-16/#p-3-22).

## City of God 3.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-16/#p-3-23
- Source: CSEL 40:150
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine introduces Rome's internal wars, preceded by a portent in which domestic animals went wild.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. De interioribus malis, quibus Romana res publica exagitata est, praecedente prodigio, quod in rabie omnium animalium, quae hominibus seruiunt, fuit. Sed iam illa mala breuiter, quantum possumus, commemoremus, quae quanto interiora, tanto miseriora exstiterunt: discordiae ciuiles uel potius inciuiles, nec iam seditiones, sed etiam ipsa bella urbana, ubi tantus sanguis effusus est, ubi partium studia non contionum dissensionibus uariisque uocibus in alterutrum, sed plane iam ferro armisque saeuiebant; bella socialia, bella seruilia, bella ciuilia quantum Romanum cruorem fuderunt, quantam Italiae uastationem desertionemque fecerunt! Namque antequam se aduersus Romam sociale Latium commoueret, cuncta animalia humanis usibus subdita, canes equi, asini boues, et quaeque alia pecora sub hominum dominio fuerunt, subito efferata et domesticae lenitatis oblita relictis tectis libera uagabantur et omnem non solum aliorum, uerum etiam dominorum auersabantur accessum, non sine exitio uel periculo audentis, si quis de proximo urgeret. Quanti mali signum fuit, si hoc signum fuit, quod tantum malum fuit, si etiam signum non fuit! Hoc si nostris temporibus accidisset, rabidiores istos quam sua illi animalia pateremur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. On the internal evils by which the Roman state was troubled, preceded by a portent: the madness of all the animals that serve men.

But now let us recall briefly, as far as we can, those evils which were the more wretched the more internal they were: civil, or rather uncivil, discords; no longer seditions, but actual wars within the city, where so much blood was shed, where the zeal of the parties raged no longer by disagreements in assemblies and various shouts against each other, but plainly by sword and arms. The Social wars, the Servile wars, the Civil wars, how much Roman blood they shed, what devastation and depopulation of Italy they caused! For before allied Latium rose against Rome, all the animals subject to human use, dogs, horses, asses, oxen, and whatever other beasts were under men's control, suddenly became wild, forgot their domestic gentleness, left their shelters, roamed free, and shunned all approach not only of others but even of their masters, not without death or danger to anyone who dared press on them from close by. Of how great an evil was this a sign, if it was a sign; how great an evil it was, even if it was not a sign! If this had happened in our times, we would have to endure these people more rabid than their animals were then.

### Translation notes

- The portent before the Social War (91 BC) is reported by Orosius 5.18 and Julius Obsequens 54, probably from Livy.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.23 (CSEL 40:150; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-16/#p-3-23).

## City of God 3.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-16/#p-3-24
- Source: CSEL 40:150–151
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine recounts the killings of the Gracchi and the mass executions that followed under the consul Opimius.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIIII. De discordia ciuili, quam Gracchinae seditiones excitauerunt. Initium autem ciuilium malorum fuit seditiones Gracchorum agrariis legibus excitatae. Volebant enim agros populo diuidere, quos nobilitas perperam possidebat. Sed iam uetustam iniquitatem audere conuellere periculosissimum, immo uero, ut res ipsa docuit, perniciosissimum fuit. Quae funera facta sunt, cum prior Gracchus occisus est! quae etiam, cum alius frater eius non longo interposito tempore! Neque enim legibus et ordine potestatum, sed turbis armorumque conflictibus nobiles ignobilesque necabantur. Post Gracchi alterius interfectionem L. Opimius consul, qui aduersus eum intra Urbem arma commouerat eoque cum sociis obpresso et extincto ingentem ciuium stragem fecerat, cum quaestionem haberet iam iudiciaria inquisitione ceteros persequens, tria milia hominum occidisse perhibetur. Ex quo intellegi potest, quantam multitudinem mortium habere potuerit turbidus conflictus armorum, quando tantam habuit iudiciorum uelut examinata cognitio. Percussor Gracchi ipsius caput, quantum graue erat, tanto auri pondere consuli uendidit; haec enim pactio caedem praecesserat. In qua etiam occisus est cum liberis M. Fuluius consularis.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 24. On the civil discord which the seditions of the Gracchi stirred up.

The beginning of the civil evils was the seditions of the Gracchi, stirred up by the agrarian laws. For they wanted to divide among the people the lands which the nobility wrongly possessed. But to dare to uproot an iniquity already old was most dangerous, or rather, as the event itself taught, most destructive. What deaths there were when the elder Gracchus was killed! What deaths too when his other brother was killed not long after! For nobles and commoners were killed not by laws and the order of authorities, but by mobs and clashes of arms. After the killing of the second Gracchus, the consul L. Opimius, who had taken up arms against him within the City and, having crushed and killed him with his associates, had made a huge slaughter of citizens, when he held an inquiry, pursuing the rest now by judicial investigation, is said to have put three thousand men to death. From this it can be understood how great a multitude of deaths the turbulent clash of arms could have produced, when the supposedly examined procedure of the courts produced so many. The killer of Gracchus himself sold his head to the consul for its weight in gold; for this bargain had preceded the killing. In this the ex-consul M. Fulvius was also killed with his children.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plutarch, C. Gracch. 17 (Plutarch): allusion, medium confidence
- Livy, Per. 61 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus and Gaius Gracchus; Livy, Periochae 58 and 61.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.24 (CSEL 40:150–151; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-16/#p-3-24).

## City of God 3.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-3-25
- Source: CSEL 40:151–152
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine mocks the building of a temple of Concord on the site of the Gracchan massacres, asking why Discord, who caused Troy's fall, received no temple.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXV. De aede Concordiae ex senatus consulto in loco seditionum et caedium condita. Eleganti sane senatus consulto eo ipso loco, ubi funereus tumultus ille commissus est, ubi tot ciues ordinis cuiusque ceciderunt, aedes Concordiae facta est, ut Gracchorum poenae testis contionantium oculos feriret memoriamque conpungeret. Sed hoc quid aliud fuit quam inrisio deorum, illi deae templum construere, quae si esset in ciuitate, non tantis dissensionibus dilacerata conrueret? Nisi forte sceleris huius rea Concordia, quia deseruerat animos ciuium, meruit in illa aede tamquam in carcere includi. Quur enim, si rebus gestis congruere uoluerunt, non ibi potius aedem Discordiae fabricarunt? An ulla ratio redditur, quur Concordia dea sit, et Discordia dea non sit, ut secundum Labeonis distinctionem bona sit ista, illa uero mala? Nec ipse aliud secutus uidetur quam quod aduertit Romae etiam Febri, sicut Saluti, templum constitutum. Eo modo igitur non solum Concordiae, uerum etiam Discordiae constitui debuit. Periculose itaque Romani tam mala dea irata uiuere uoluerunt nec Troianum excidium recoluerunt originem ab eius offensione sumsisse. Ipsa quippe quia inter deos non fuerat inuitata, trium dearum litem aurei mali subpositione commenta est; unde rixa numinum et Venus uictrix, et rapta Helena et Troia deleta. Quapropter, si forte indignata, quod inter deos in Urbe nullum templum habere meruit, ideo iam turbabat tantis tumultibus ciuitatem, quanto atrocius potuit inritari, cum in loco illius caedis, hoc est in loco sui operis, aduersariae suae constitutam aedem uideret! Haec uana ridentibus nobis illi docti sapientesque stomachantur, et tamen numinum bonorum malorumque cultores de hac quaestione Concordiae Discordiaeque non exeunt, siue praetermiserint harum dearum cultum eisque Febrem Bellonamque praetulerint, quibus antiqua fana fecerunt, siue et istas coluerint, cum sic eos discedente Concordia Discordia saeuiens usque ad ciuilia bella perduxerit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 25. On the temple of Concord, built by decree of the senate on the site of the seditions and slaughters.

By a truly elegant decree of the senate, a temple of Concord was built on the very spot where that deadly uproar took place, where so many citizens of every rank fell, so that, as a witness to the punishment of the Gracchi, it might strike the eyes of those addressing the assemblies and prick their memory. But what else was this than a mockery of the gods, to build a temple to that goddess who, if she had been in the city, would not have let it collapse, torn apart by such dissensions? Unless perhaps Concord, guilty of this crime because she had deserted the minds of the citizens, deserved to be shut up in that temple as in a prison. For if they wanted to fit the facts, why did they not rather build a temple of Discord there? Or is any reason given why Concord is a goddess and Discord is not, so that, according to Labeo's distinction, the one is good and the other evil? He himself seems to have followed nothing else than his observation that at Rome a temple had been established even to Fever, as to Health. In that way, then, a temple should have been established not only to Concord but also to Discord. So the Romans chose dangerously to live with so evil a goddess angry, and did not recall that the destruction of Troy took its origin from her offense. For she, because she had not been invited among the gods, contrived the quarrel of the three goddesses by slipping in the golden apple; hence the strife of the deities, and Venus victorious, and Helen carried off, and Troy destroyed. So if perhaps, indignant that she had not been thought worthy of any temple among the gods in the City, she was already troubling the city with such great tumults, how much more fiercely could she be provoked when she saw a temple set up to her adversary on the site of that slaughter, that is, on the site of her own work! Those learned and wise men are annoyed with us when we laugh at these vanities; and yet, as worshippers of good and evil deities, they cannot get out of this question of Concord and Discord: whether they passed over the worship of these goddesses and preferred to them Fever and Bellona, to whom they built ancient shrines, or worshipped these too, since, Concord departing, Discord raged and drove them on as far as civil wars.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plutarch, C. Gracch. 17 (Plutarch): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The temple was built by Opimius after 121 BC (Plutarch, Gaius Gracchus 17). On Labeo see 2.11. The golden apple of Discord is in Hyginus, Fables 92, and other mythographers.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.25 (CSEL 40:151–152; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-3-25).

## City of God 3.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-3-26
- Source: CSEL 40:152–153
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine lists the seditions, Social War, slave revolts including that of Spartacus, and pirate wars that followed the temple of Concord.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVI. De diuersis generibus belli, quae post conditam aedem Concordiae sunt secuta. Praeclarum uero seditionis obstaculum aedem Concordiae, testem caedis suppliciique Gracchorum, contionantibus obponendam putarunt. Quantum ex hoc profecerint, indicant secuta peiora. Laborarunt enim deinceps contionatores non exemplum deuitare Gracchorum, sed superare propositum, L. Saturninus tribunus plebis et G. Seruilius praetor et multo post M. Drusus, quorum omnium seditionibus caedes primo iam tunc grauissimae, deinde socialia bella exarserunt, quibus Italia uehementer adflicta et ad uastitatem mirabilem desertionemque perducta est. Bellum deinde seruile successit et bella ciuilia. Quae proelia commissa sunt, quid sanguinis fusum, ut omnes fere Italae gentes, quibus Romanum maxime praepollebat imperium, tamquam saeua barbaries domarentur! Iam ex paucissimis, hoc est minus quam septuaginta, gladiatoribus quem ad modum bellum seruile contractum sit, ad quantum numerum et quam acrem ferocemque peruenerit, quos ille numerus imperatores populi Romani superauerit, quas et quo modo ciuitates regionesque uastauerit, uix qui historiam conscripserunt satis explicare potuerunt. Neque id solum fuit seruile bellum, sed et Macedoniam prouinciam prius seruitia depopulata sunt et deinde Siciliam oramque maritimam. Quanta etiam et quam horrenda commiserint primo latrocinia, deinde ualida bella piratarum, quis pro magnitudine rerum ualeat eloqui?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 26. On the various kinds of war that followed the building of the temple of Concord.

They thought, then, that a fine obstacle to sedition would be the temple of Concord, the witness of the slaughter and punishment of the Gracchi, to be set before those addressing the assemblies. How much they gained by it is shown by the worse things that followed. For thereafter the speakers labored not to avoid the example of the Gracchi but to surpass their design: L. Saturninus, tribune of the plebs, and G. Servilius, praetor, and long afterwards M. Drusus, by whose seditions first very grievous slaughters broke out even then, and afterwards the Social wars, by which Italy was violently afflicted and brought to astonishing devastation and depopulation. Then the Servile war followed, and the civil wars. What battles were fought, what blood was shed, so that almost all the Italian peoples, in whom the Roman empire's chief strength lay, were subdued as if they were savage barbarians! Then how the Servile war was gathered from very few gladiators, that is, fewer than seventy, to what numbers it grew, how fierce and savage it became, which commanders of the Roman people that number defeated, which cities and regions it laid waste and how, even those who wrote the history could scarcely explain adequately. Nor was that the only Servile war; slaves had earlier ravaged the province of Macedonia, and then Sicily and the seacoast. And the great and horrible things done first by the robberies and then by the powerful wars of the pirates, who could describe as their magnitude deserves?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, Per. 69–76 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence
- Livy, Per. 95–97 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Livy, Periochae 69–76 (Saturninus, Drusus, the Social War) and 95–97 (Spartacus). “G. Servilius” is Gaius Servilius Glaucia.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.26 (CSEL 40:152–153; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-3-26).

## City of God 3.27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-3-27
- Source: CSEL 40:153–155
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine describes the massacres after Marius's return from exile and cites Cicero and Lucan on the civil war of Marius and Sulla.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVII. De bello ciuili Mariano adque Syllano. Cum uero Marius ciuili sanguine iam cruentus multis aduersarum sibi partium peremtis uictus Urbe profugisset, uix paululum respirante ciuitate, ut uerbis Tullianis utar, superauit postea Cinna cum Mario. Tum uero clarissimis uiris interfectis lumina ciuitatis extincta sunt. Ultus est huius uictoriae crudelitatem postea Sylla, ne dici quidem opus est quanta deminutione ciuium et quanta calamitate rei publicae). De hac enim uindicta, quae perniciosior fuit, quam si scelera quae puniebantur inpunita relinquerentur, ait et Lucanus: Excessit medicina modum nimiumque secuta est, Qua morbi duxere manum. Periere nocentes; Sed cum iam soli possent superesse nocentes. Illo bello Mariano adque Syllano exceptis his, qui foris in acie ceciderunt, in ipsa quoque Urbe cadaueribus uici plateae fora, theatra templa conpleta sunt, ut difficile iudicaretur, quando uictores plus funerum ediderint, utrum prius ut uincerent, an postea quia uicissent; cum primum uictoria Mariana, quando de exilio se ipse restituit, exceptis passim quaqua uersum caedibus factis caput Octauii consulis poneretur in rostris, Caesares a Fimbria domibus trucidarentur suis, duo Crassi pater et filius in conspectu mutuo mactarentur, Baebius et Numitorius unco tracti sparsis uisceribus interirent, Catulus hausto ueneno se manibus inimicorum subtraheret, Merula flamen Dialis praecisis uenis Ioui etiam suo sanguine litaret. In ipsius autem Marii oculis continuo feriebantur, quibus salutantibus dexteram porrigere noluisset.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 27. On the civil war of Marius and Sulla.

When Marius, already stained with citizens' blood, having killed many of the opposing party, was defeated and fled from the City, the city had scarcely begun to breathe a little, to use Tullius's words, when “afterwards Cinna prevailed with Marius. Then indeed, with the most distinguished men killed, the lights of the city were put out. Afterwards Sulla avenged the cruelty of this victory; there is no need even to say with what loss of citizens and what calamity to the state.” For of this vengeance, which was more destructive than if the crimes being punished had been left unpunished, Lucan too says: “The cure exceeded measure and followed too far where the disease led the hand. The guilty perished; but by then only the guilty could survive.” In that war of Marius and Sulla, apart from those who fell in battle outside, in the City itself too the streets, squares, forums, theaters, and temples were filled with corpses, so that it was hard to judge when the victors caused more deaths, before, so as to conquer, or afterwards, because they had conquered. For first, in the victory of Marius, when he restored himself from exile, apart from the slaughters done everywhere in every direction, the head of the consul Octavius was set up on the Rostra; the Caesars were butchered in their homes by Fimbria; the two Crassi, father and son, were slaughtered in each other's sight; Baebius and Numitorius, dragged by the hook, died with their entrails scattered; Catulus drank poison to escape the hands of his enemies; Merula, the flamen of Jupiter, cut his veins and made an offering to his Jupiter even of his own blood. And before the very eyes of Marius, those were struck down at once to whom, when they greeted him, he had refused to hold out his right hand.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Cat. 3.24 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence
- Lucan, 2.142–144 (Lucan, Civil War): quotation, high confidence
- Livy, Per. 80 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Cicero, Against Catiline 3.24; Lucan, Pharsalia 2.142–144; Livy, Periochae 80. Plutarch, Marius 43–44, records the killings.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.27 (CSEL 40:153–155; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-3-27).

## City of God 3.28

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-3-28
- Source: CSEL 40:155–156
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine describes the atrocities of Sulla's victory, including the massacre of surrendered prisoners and the proscriptions, arguing that his peace was crueler than war.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIII. Qualis fuerit Syllana uictoria, uindex Marianae crudelitatis. Syllana uero uictoria secuta, huius uidelicet uindex crudelitatis, post tantum sanguinem ciuium, quo fuso fuerat conparata, finito iam bello inimicitiis uiuentibus crudelius in pace grassata est. Iam etiam post Marii maioris pristinas ac recentissimas caedes additae fuerant aliae grauiores a Mario iuuene adque Carbone earundem partium Marianarum, qui Sylla inminente non solum uictoriam, uerum etiam ipsam desperantes salutem cuncta suis aliis caedibus inpleuerunt. Nam praeter stragem late per diuersa diffusam obsesso etiam senatu de ipsa curia, tamquam de carcere, producebantur ad gladium. Mucius Scaeuola pontifex, quoniam nihil aput Romanos templo Vestae sanctius habebatur, aram ipsam amplexus occisus est, ignemque illum, qui perpetua uirginum cura semper ardebat, suo paene sanguine extinxit. Urbem deinde Sylla uictor intrauit, qui in uilla publica non iam bello, sed ipsa pace saeuiente septem milia deditorum (unde utique inermia) non pugnando, sed iubendo prostrauerat. In Urbe autem tota quem uellet Syllanus quisque feriebat, unde tot funera numerari omnino non poterant, donec Syllae suggereretur sinendos esse aliquos uiuere, ut essent quibus possent imperare qui uicerant. Tunc iam cohibita quae hac adque illac passim furibunda ferebatur licentia iugulandi, tabula illa cum magna gratulatione proposita est, quae hominum ex utroque ordine splendido, equestri scilicet adque senatorio, occidendorum ac proscribendorum duo milia continebat. Contristabat numerus, sed consolabatur modus; nec quia tot cadebant tantum erat maeroris, quantum laetitiae quia ceteri non timebant. Sed in quibusdam eorum, qui mori iussi erant, etiam ipsa licet crudelis ceterorum securitas genera mortium exquisita congemuit. Quendam enim sine ferro laniantium manus diripuerunt, inmanius homines hominem uiuum, quam bestiae solent discerpere cadauer abiectum. Alius oculis effossis et particulatim membris amputatis in tantis cruciatibus diu uiuere uel potius diu mori coactus est. Subhastatae sunt etiam, tamquam uillae, quaedam nobiles ciuitates; una uero, uelut unus reus duci iuberetur, sic tota iussa est trucidari. Haec facta sunt in pace post bellum, non ut acceleraretur obtinenda uictoria, sed ne contemneretur obtenta. Pax cum bello de crudelitate certauit et uicit. Illud enim prostrauit armatos, ista nudatos. Bellum erat, ut qui feriebatur, si posset, feriret; pax autem, non ut qui euaserat uiueret, sed ut moriens non repugnaret.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 28. What kind of victory Sulla's was, the avenger of Marius's cruelty.

The victory of Sulla that followed, the avenger, of course, of this cruelty, after so much citizens' blood, by the shedding of which it had been won, raged more cruelly in peace, now that the war was over and the enmities lived on. Already, after the earlier and most recent slaughters of the elder Marius, others more grievous had been added by the young Marius and Carbo, of the same Marian party, who, as Sulla approached, despairing not only of victory but of their very safety, filled everything with their own further slaughters. For, besides the carnage spread widely in various places, the senate too was besieged, and men were brought out from the very senate house, as from a prison, to the sword. The pontiff Mucius Scaevola, since nothing was held more sacred among the Romans than the temple of Vesta, was killed clasping the altar itself, and almost put out with his blood that fire which always burned by the perpetual care of the virgins. Then Sulla entered the City as victor, who in the Villa Publica, no longer in war but in peace itself raging, had cut down seven thousand men who had surrendered (and were therefore certainly unarmed), not by fighting but by command. And in the whole City each Sullan struck whom he wished, so that the deaths could not be counted at all, until it was suggested to Sulla that some should be allowed to live, so that the victors might have people to rule over. Then, when the license of butchery, which had been rushing madly this way and that everywhere, was restrained, that list was posted, amid great rejoicing, which contained two thousand men of both the distinguished orders, that is, the equestrian and senatorial, to be killed and proscribed. The number saddened, but the limit consoled; and there was not as much grief that so many were falling as joy that the rest were not in fear. But in the case of some of those ordered to die, even that security of the others, cruel though it was, groaned at the exquisite kinds of death. For the hands of those tearing one man apart without any iron pulled him to pieces, men tearing a living man more savagely than beasts usually tear a cast-out corpse. Another, his eyes dug out and his limbs cut off piece by piece, was forced to live long, or rather to die long, in such torments. Some famous cities too were sold at auction like farms; one indeed, as if one criminal were ordered to be led to execution, was ordered to be slaughtered whole. These things were done in peace after the war, not to hasten the winning of victory but so that the victory won should not be despised. Peace competed with war in cruelty and won. For war cut down the armed, peace the defenseless. War was such that he who was struck might strike back if he could; peace was such that he who had escaped might not live, but might die without resisting.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, Per. 86–89 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence
- Plutarch, Sull. 30–31 (Plutarch): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Livy, Periochae 86–89; Plutarch, Sulla 30–31. The man torn apart was Marcus Marius Gratidianus. The city ordered to be slaughtered was Praeneste.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.28 (CSEL 40:155–156; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-3-28).

## City of God 3.29

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-3-29
- Source: CSEL 40:156–157
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that the civil wars of Marius and Sulla were far more destructive to Rome than the invasions of the Gauls or the Goths, who spared many senators.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIIII. De conparatione Gothicae inruptionis cum eis cladibus, quas Romani uel a Gallis uel a bellorum ciuilium auctoribus acceperunt. Quae rabies exterarum gentium, quae saeuitia barbarorum huic de ciuibus uictoriae ciuium conparari potest? Quid Roma funestius taetrius amariusque uidit, utrum olim Gallorum et paulo ante Gothorum inruptionem, an Marii et Syllae aliorumque in eorum partibus uirorum clarissimorum tamquam suorum luminum in sua membra ferocitatem? Galli quidem trucidauerunt senatum, quidquid eius in Urbe tota praeter arcem Capitolinam, quae sola utcumque defensa est, reperire potuerunt; sed in illo colle constitutis auro uitam saltem uendiderunt, quam etsi ferro rapere non possent, possent tamen obsidione consumere: Gothi uero tam multis senatoribus pepercerunt. ut magis mirum sit quod aliquos peremerunt. At uero Sylla uiuo adhuc Mario ipsum Capitolium, quod a Gallis tutum fuit, ad decernendas caedes uictor insedit, et cum fuga Marius elapsus esset ferocior cruentiorque rediturus,. iste in Capitolio per senatus etiam consultum multos uita rebusque priuauit: Marianis autem partibus Sylla absente quid sanctum cui parcerent fuit, quando Mucio ciui senatori pontifici aram ipsam, ubi erant ut aiunt fata Romana, miseris ambienti amplexibus non pepercerunt? Syllana porro tabula illa postrema, ut omittamus alias innumerabiles mortes, plures iugulauit senatores, quam Gothi uel spoliare potuerunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 29. A comparison of the Gothic invasion with the disasters the Romans suffered either from the Gauls or from the authors of the civil wars.

What madness of foreign nations, what savagery of barbarians, can be compared with this victory of citizens over citizens? What did Rome see that was more deadly, more hideous, more bitter: the invasion of the Gauls long ago and of the Goths a little while ago, or the ferocity of Marius and Sulla and other most distinguished men of their parties, as it were its own lights, against its own members? The Gauls indeed slaughtered the senate, whatever of it they could find in the whole City apart from the Capitoline citadel, which alone was defended in some fashion; but to those stationed on that hill they at least sold their lives for gold, lives which, even if they could not seize them by the sword, they could still have consumed by siege. The Goths, on the other hand, spared so many senators that it is more surprising that they killed any. But Sulla, while Marius was still alive, occupied as victor the very Capitol, which had been safe from the Gauls, to decree slaughters; and when Marius had escaped by flight, to return fiercer and bloodier, Sulla on the Capitol, even by decree of the senate, deprived many of life and property. And when Sulla was away, what was sacred to the Marian party, what would they spare, when they did not spare Mucius, a citizen, a senator, a pontiff, clasping in wretched embrace the very altar where, they say, the fates of Rome were kept? And that last list of Sulla's, to pass over countless other deaths, cut the throats of more senators than the Goths could even rob.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, 5.41–48 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The Gallic sack: Livy 5.41–48.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.29 (CSEL 40:156–157; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-3-29).

## City of God 3.30

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-3-30
- Source: CSEL 40:157–159
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine traces the chain of civil wars from Marius and Sulla to Augustus, in whose reign Christ was born, noting how Cicero was betrayed by the young Octavian.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXX. De conexione bellorum, quae aduentum Christi plurima et grauissima praecesserunt. Qua igitur fronte quo corde, qua inpudentia qua insipientia uel potius amentia illa dis suis non inputant, et haec nostro inputant Christo? Crudelia bella ciuilia, omnibus bellis hostilibus, auctoribus etiam eorum fatentibus, amariora, quibus illa res publica nec adflicta, sed omnino perdita iudicata est, longe ante aduentum Christi exorta sunt, et sceleratarum concatenatione causarum a bello Mariano adque Syllano ad bella Sertorii et Catilinae (quorum a Sylla fuerat ille proscriptus, ille nutritus), inde ad Lepidi et Catuli bellum (quorum alter gesta Syllana rescindere, alter defendere cupiebat), inde ad Pompei et Caesaris (quorum Pompeius sectator Syllae fuerat eiusque potentiam uel aequauerat uel iam etiam superauerat; Caesar autem Pompei potentiam non ferebat, sed quia non habebat. quam tamen illo uicto interfectoque transcendit), hinc ad alium Caesarem, qui post Augustus appellatus est, peruenerunt, quo imperante natus est Christus. Nam et ipse Augustus cum multis gessit bella ciuilia, et in eis etiam multi clarissimi uiri perierunt, inter quos et Cicero, ille disertus artifex rei publicae regendae. Pompei quippe uictorem Gaium Caesarem, qui uictoriam ciuilem clementer exercuit suisque aduersariis uitam dignitatemque donauit, tamquam regni adpetitorem quorundam nobilium coniuratio senatorum uelut pro rei publicae libertate in ipsa curia trucidauit. Huius deinde potentiam multum moribus dispar uitiisque omnibus inquinatus adque corruptus adfectare uidebatur Antonius, cui uehementer pro eadem illa uelut patriae libertate Cicero resistebat. Tunc emerserat mirabilis indolis adulescens ille alius Caesar, illius Gai Caesaris filius adoptiuus, qui, ut dixi, postea est appellatus Augustus. Huic adulescenti Caesari, ut eius potentia contra Antonium nutriretur, Cicero fauebat, sperans eum depulsa et obpressa Antonii dominatione instauraturum rei publicae libertatem, usque adeo caecus adque inprouidus futurorum, ut ille ipse iuuenis, cuius dignitatem ac potestatem fouebat, et eundem Ciceronem occidendum Antonio quadam quasi concordiae pactione permitteret et ipsam libertatem rei publicae, pro qua multum ille clamauerat, dicioni propriae subiugaret.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 30. On the chain of wars, very many and very grievous, that preceded the coming of Christ.

With what face, then, with what heart, with what impudence, with what folly, or rather madness, do they not blame those things on their gods, and blame these on our Christ? The cruel civil wars, more bitter, as even their authors admit, than all wars with enemies, by which that state was judged not afflicted but utterly ruined, arose long before the coming of Christ, and by a chain of wicked causes passed from the war of Marius and Sulla to the wars of Sertorius and Catiline (of whom the one had been proscribed by Sulla, the other brought up by him), thence to the war of Lepidus and Catulus (of whom one wanted to annul Sulla's acts, the other to defend them), thence to that of Pompey and Caesar (of whom Pompey had been a follower of Sulla and had equaled or even surpassed his power, while Caesar could not bear Pompey's power, but because he did not have it himself; yet he exceeded it once Pompey was conquered and killed), and from there they came to the other Caesar, who was afterwards called Augustus, in whose reign Christ was born. For Augustus himself too waged civil wars with many, and in them many most distinguished men also perished, among them Cicero, that eloquent craftsman of governing the state. For Gaius Caesar, Pompey's conqueror, who used his civil victory mercifully and granted his adversaries life and rank, was killed in the senate house itself by a conspiracy of certain noble senators as one who aimed at kingship, supposedly for the liberty of the state. Then Antony, very different in character and stained and corrupted by every vice, seemed to be aiming at Caesar's power, and Cicero resisted him vehemently for that same supposed liberty of the country. Then that other Caesar had come forward, a young man of wonderful talent, the adopted son of that Gaius Caesar, who, as I said, was afterwards called Augustus. Cicero favored this young Caesar, so that his power might be built up against Antony, hoping that when Antony's domination had been driven off and crushed he would restore the liberty of the state; so blind and unforeseeing of the future was he that that very young man, whose rank and power he was fostering, both allowed that same Cicero to be killed by Antony, in a kind of pact of concord, and subjected to his own rule the very liberty of the state for which Cicero had cried out so much.

### Scripture references

- Luke 2:1: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Christ's birth under Augustus: Luke 2:1.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.30 (CSEL 40:157–159; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-3-30).

## City of God 3.31

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-3-31
- Source: CSEL 40:159–161
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine concludes Book 3 by arguing that the many wars, prodigies, eruptions, and plagues of pagan times would all have been blamed on Christianity had it existed then.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXI. Quam inpudenter praesentia incommoda Christo inputent, qui deos colere non sinuntur, cum tantae clades eo tempore quo colebantur extiterint. Deos suos accusent de tantis malis, qui Christo nostro ingrati sunt de tantis bonis. Certe quando illa mala fiebant, calebant arae numinum Sabaeo thure sertisque recentibus halabant, clarebant sacerdotia, fana renidebant, sacrificabatur ludebatur furebatur in templis, quando passim tantus ciuium sanguis a ciuibus non modo in ceteris locis, uerum etiam inter ipsa deorum altaria fundebatur. Non elegit templum, quo confugeret Tullius, quia frustra elegerat Mucius. Hi uero qui multo indignius insultant temporibus Christianis, aut ad loca Christo dicatissima confugerunt, aut illuc eos ut uiuerent etiam ipsi barbari deduxerunt. Illud scio et hoc mecum, quisquis sine studio partium iudicat; facillime agnoscit (ut omittam cetera quae multa commemoraui et alia multo plura quae commemorare longum putaui;: si humanum genus ante bella Punica Christianam reciperet disciplinam et consequeretur rerum tanta uastatio, quanta illis bellis Europam Africamque contriuit, nullus talium, quales nunc patimur, nisi Christianae religioni mala illa tribuisset. Multo autem minus eorum uoces tolerarentur, quantum adtinet ad Romanos, si Christianae religionis receptionem et diffamationem uel inruptio Gallorum uel Tiberini fluminis igniumque illa depopulatio uel, quod cuncta mala praecedit, bella illa ciuilia sequerentur. Mala etiam alia, quae usque adeo incredibiliter acciderunt, ut inter prodigia numerarentur, si Christianis temporibus accidissent, quibus ea nisi Christianis hominibus tamquam crimina obicerent? Omitto quippe illa, quae magis fuerunt mira quam noxia, boues locutos, infantes nondum natos de uteris matrum uerba quaedam clamasse, uolasse serpentes, feminas et gallinas [et homines] in masculinum sexum fuisse conuersas et cetera huius modi, quae in eorum libris non fabulosis, sed historicis, seu uera seu falsa sint, non inferunt hominibus perniciem, sed stuporem. Sed cum pluit terra, cum pluit creta, cum pluit lapidibus (non ut grando appellari solet hoc nomine, sed omnino lapidibus), haec profecto etiam grauiter laedere potuerunt. Legimus aput eos Aetnaeis ignibus ab ipso montis uertice usque ad litus proximum decurrentibus ita mare ferbuisse, ut rupes urerentur, ut pices nauium soluerentur. Hoc utique non leuiter noxium fuit, quamuis incredibiliter mirum. Eodem rursus aestu ignium tanta ui fauillae scripserunt obpletam esse Siciliam, ut Catinensis urbis tecta obruta et pressa dirueret; qua calamitate permoti misericorditer eiusdem anni tributum ei relaxauere Romani. Lucustarum etiam in Africa multitudinem prodigii similem fuisse, cum iam esset populi Romani prouincia, litteris mandauerunt; consumtis enim fructibus foliisque lignorum ingenti adque inaestimabili nube in mare dicunt esse deiectam; qua mortua redditaque litoribus adque hinc aere corrupto tantam ortam pestilentiam, ut in solo regno Masinissae octingenta hominum milia perisse referantur et multo amplius in terris litoribus proximis. Tunc Uticae ex triginta milibus iuniorum, quae ibi erant, decem milia remansisse confirmant. Talis itaque uanitas, qualem ferimus eique respondere conpellimur, quid horum non Christianae religioni tribueret, si temporibus Christianis uideret? Et tamen dis suis ista non tribuunt, quorum cultum ideo requirunt, ne ista uel minora patiantur, cum ea maiora pertulerint a quibus antea colebantur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 31. How impudently those who are not allowed to worship the gods blame present troubles on Christ, when such great disasters occurred at the time when the gods were worshipped.

Let those who are ungrateful to our Christ for such great goods accuse their own gods of such great evils. Certainly when those evils were happening, the altars of the deities were warm, “and breathed with Sabaean incense and fresh garlands”; the priesthoods were renowned, the shrines gleamed; there was sacrificing, playing, raving in the temples, while everywhere so much citizens' blood was being shed by citizens, not only in other places but even among the very altars of the gods. Tullius did not choose a temple to flee to, because Mucius had chosen one in vain. But these people, who insult the Christian times much more unworthily, either fled to places most dedicated to Christ, or the barbarians themselves led them there so that they might live. This I know, and so does anyone along with me who judges without partisanship, and he recognizes it very easily (to pass over the other things, many of which I have mentioned, and many more which I thought it would take too long to mention): if the human race had received the Christian teaching before the Punic wars, and such devastation had followed as wore down Europe and Africa in those wars, none of such people as we now suffer would have attributed those evils to anything but the Christian religion. Much less would their voices be tolerated, as far as the Romans are concerned, if the acceptance and spread of the Christian religion had been followed either by the invasion of the Gauls, or by that devastation by the river Tiber and by fire, or, what surpasses all evils, by those civil wars. As for other evils too, which happened so incredibly that they were counted among prodigies, if they had happened in Christian times, to whom would they have imputed them as crimes except Christian people? For I pass over those things that were more wonderful than harmful: oxen speaking, unborn infants crying out certain words from their mothers' wombs, serpents flying, women and hens changed into the male sex, and other things of this kind, which in their books, not of fable but of history, whether true or false, bring on men not ruin but astonishment. But when it rained earth, when it rained chalk, when it rained stones (not as hail is usually called by this name, but actual stones), these things certainly could do serious harm as well. We read in their writings that when the fires of Etna ran down from the very summit of the mountain to the nearest shore, the sea boiled so that rocks were burned and the pitch of ships melted. This was certainly no slight harm, however incredibly marvelous. By the same heat of fires again, they wrote, Sicily was filled with such a mass of ash that it crushed and pressed down and destroyed the roofs of the city of Catina; moved by this calamity, the Romans mercifully remitted its tribute for that year. They also recorded that there was a multitude of locusts in Africa, like a prodigy, when it was already a province of the Roman people; for, having consumed the fruits and the leaves of the trees, it was thrown into the sea, they say, in a huge and immeasurable cloud; and when it died and was washed up on the shores, and the air was corrupted by it, such a pestilence arose that in the kingdom of Masinissa alone eight hundred thousand men are reported to have perished, and many more in the lands nearest the shores. They affirm that then at Utica, of the thirty thousand young men who were there, ten thousand remained. Such vanity, then, as we endure and are compelled to answer, which of these things would it not attribute to the Christian religion if it saw them in Christian times? And yet they do not attribute these things to their gods, whose worship they demand precisely so as not to suffer these or lesser things, although those by whom they were worshipped before suffered greater ones.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 1.416–417 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Livy, Per. 60 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Virgil, Aeneid 1.416–417. The prodigies, the eruption of Etna, and the plague of locusts in Africa (125 BC) are in Livy's lost books (e.g. Periochae 60) and in Orosius 5.11.
- The editor deletes et homines (“and men”) from the list of those changed in sex (square brackets); left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 3.31 (CSEL 40:159–161; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-3-31).

## City of God 4.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-4-1
- Source: CSEL 40:161–163
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine summarizes the purpose of Book 1: to answer those who blame Christianity for present evils and to expose the gods as demons who delight in their own crimes.

### Latin text

CAPUT I. De his, quae primo uolumine disputata sunt. De ciuitate Dei dicere exorsus prius respondendum putaui eius inimicis, qui terrena gaudia consectantes rebusque fugacibus inhiantes, quidquid in eis triste misericordia potius admonentis Dei quam punientis seueritate patiuntur, religioni increpitant Christianae, quae una est salubris et uera religio. Et quoniam, cum sit in eis etiam uulgus indoctum, uelut doctorum auctoritate in odium nostrum grauius inritantur, existimantibus inperitis ea, quae suis temporibus insolite acciderint, per alia retro tempora accidere non solere, eorumque opinionem etiam his, qui eam falsam esse nouerunt, ut aduersum nos iusta murmura habere uideantur, suae scientiae dissimulatione firmantibus: de libris, quos auctores eorum ad cognoscendam praeteritorum temporum historiam memoriae mandauerunt, longe aliter esse quam putant demonstrandum fuit et simul docendum deos falsos, quos uel palam colebant uel occulte adhuc colunt, eos esse inmundissimos spiritus et malignissimos ac fallacissimos daemones, usque adeo, ut aut ueris aut fictis etiam, suis tamen criminibus delectentur, quae sibi celebrari per sua festa uoluerunt, ut a perpetrandis damnabilibus factis humana reuocari non possit infirmitas, dum ad haec imitanda uelut diuina praebetur auctoritas. Haec non ex nostra coniectura probauimus, sed partim ex recenti memoria, quia et ipsi uidimus talia ac talibus numinibus exhiberi, partim ex litteris eorum, qui non tamquam in contumeliam, sed tamquam in honorem deorum suorum ista conscripta posteris reliquerunt, ita ut uir doctissimus aput eos Varro et grauissimae auctoritatis, cum rerum humanarum adque diuinarum dispertitos faceret libros, alios humanis, alios diuinis pro sua cuiusque rei dignitate distribuens non saltem in rebus humanis, sed in rebus diuinis ludos scaenicos poneret, cum utique, si tantummodo boni et honesti homines in ciuitate essent, nec in rebus humanis ludi scaenici esse debuissent Quod profecto non auctoritate sua fecit, sed quoniam eos Romae natus et educatus in diuinis rebus inuenit. Et quoniam in fine primi libri, quae deinceps dicenda essent, breuiter posuimus et ex his quaedam in duobus consequentibus diximus, expectationi legentium quae restant reddenda cognoscimus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. On the matters discussed in the first book.

Having begun to speak of the city of God, I thought I should first answer its enemies, who, pursuing earthly joys and gaping after fleeting things, blame the Christian religion, which alone is the wholesome and true religion, for whatever sorrow they suffer in these things, sent rather by the mercy of God who warns than by the severity of God who punishes. And since, as the unlearned common people too are among them, they are stirred up to hatred of us the more grievously as if by the authority of the learned, the ignorant thinking that the unusual things that have happened in their own times did not usually happen in earlier times, and this opinion of theirs being confirmed, so that they may seem to have just grounds for murmuring against us, even by those who know it to be false, by concealing their own knowledge, it had to be shown from the books which their own authors committed to memory for the knowledge of the history of past times that things are far otherwise than they think; and at the same time it had to be taught that the false gods, whom they used to worship openly or still worship secretly, are most unclean spirits and most malign and deceitful demons, so much so that they delight in their own crimes, whether true or even invented, which they wanted celebrated for them at their festivals, so that human weakness cannot be called back from committing damnable deeds while a seemingly divine authority is offered for imitating them. We proved these things not from our own conjecture but partly from recent memory, because we ourselves saw such things offered to such deities, and partly from the writings of those who left them written for posterity, not as an insult but as an honor to their gods; so much so that Varro, a most learned man among them and of the weightiest authority, when he made separate books on human and divine things, assigning some to human things and others to divine according to the dignity of each subject, placed the stage plays not at least among human things but among divine things; whereas surely, if there were only good and honorable men in the city, stage plays ought not to have had a place even among human things. He did this certainly not on his own authority, but because, born and educated at Rome, he found them among divine things. And since at the end of the first book we briefly set out what was to be said next, and have said some of it in the two following books, we recognize that we must give the readers what they are waiting for in what remains.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Varro's Antiquities of Human and Divine Things; Augustine discusses its plan in Book 6.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.1 (CSEL 40:161–163; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-4-1).

## City of God 4.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-4-2
- Source: CSEL 40:163–165
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reviews Books 2 and 3 on moral and external evils, and announces that he will now show why the true God allowed the Roman empire to grow.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. De his, quae libro secundo et tertio continentur. Promiseramus ergo quaedam nos esse dicturos aduersus eos, qui Romanae rei publicae clades in religionem nostram referunt, et commemoraturos quaecumque et quantacumque occurrere potuissent uel satis esse uiderentur mala, quae illa ciuitas pertulit uel ad eius imperium prouinciae pertinentes, antequam eorum sacrificia prohibita fuissent; quae omnia procul dubio nobis tribuerent, si iam uel illis clareret nostra religio uel ita eos a sacris sacrilegis prohiberet. Haec in secundo et tertio libro satis, quantum existimo, absoluimus, in secundo agentes de malis morum, quae mala uel sola uel maxima deputanda sunt, in tertio autem de his malis, quae stulti sola perpeti exhorrent, corporis uidelicet externarumque rerum, quae plerumque patiuntur et boni; illa uero mala non dico patienter, sed libenter habent, quibus ipsi fiunt mali. Et quam pauca dixi de sola ipsa ciuitate adque eius imperio! nec inde omnia usque ad Caesarem Augustum. Quid, si commemorare uoluissem et exaggerare illa mala, quae non sibi inuicem homines faciunt, sicut sunt uastationes euersionesque bellantum, sed ex ipsius mundi elementis terrenis accidunt rebus, quae uno loco Apuleius breuiter stringit in eo libello quem de mundo scripsit, terrena omnia dicens mutationes, conuersiones et interitus habere? Namque inmodicis tremoribus terrarum, ut uerbis eius utar, dissiluisse humum et interceptas urbes cum populis dicit; abruptis etiam imbribus prolutas totas esse regiones; illas etiam, quae prius fuerant continentes, hospitibus adque aduenis fluctibus insulatas aliasque desidia maris pedestri accessu peruias factas; uentis ac procellis euersas esse ciuitates; incendia de nubibus emicasse, quibus Orientis regiones conflagratae perierunt, et in Occidentis plagis scaturrigines quasdam ac proluuiones easdem strages dedisse; sic ex Aetnae uerticibus quondam effusis crateribus diuino incendio per decliuia torrentis uice flammarum flumina cucurrisse. Si haec adque huius modi, quae habet historia, unde possem, colligere uoluissem, quando finissem, quae illis temporibus euenerunt, antequam Christi nomen ulla istorum uana et uerae saluti perniciosa conprimeret. Promiseram etiam me demonstraturum, quos eorum mores et quam ob causam Deus uerus ad augendum imperium adiuuare dignatus est, in cuius potestate sunt regna omnia, quamque nihil eos adiuuerint hi, quos deos putant, et potius quantum decipiendo et fallendo nocuerint: unde nunc uideo mihi esse dicendum, et magis de incrementis imperii Romani. Nam de noxia fallacia daemonum, quos uelut deos colebant, quantum malorum inuexerit moribus eorum, in secundo maxime libro non pauca iam dicta sunt. Per omnes autem absolutos tres libros, ubi opportunum uisum est, commendauimus, etiam in ipsis bellicis malis quantum solaciorum Deus per Christi nomen, cui tantum honoris barbari detulerunt praeter bellorum morem, bonis malisque contulerit, quo modo qui facit solem suum oriri super bonos et malos et pluit super iustos et iniustos.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. On the contents of the second and third books.

We had promised, then, to say certain things against those who blame the disasters of the Roman state on our religion, and to recall, as many and as great as might come to mind or seem sufficient, the evils that city, or the provinces belonging to its empire, suffered before their sacrifices were forbidden; all of which they would undoubtedly blame on us if our religion had already been shining on them or had forbidden them their sacrilegious rites in the same way. These things, I think, we have dealt with sufficiently in the second and third books: in the second treating of the evils of morals, which are to be counted either the only or the greatest evils; in the third of those evils which fools alone dread to suffer, namely of the body and of external things, which the good too often suffer; while those evils by which they themselves become evil they have, I do not say patiently, but gladly. And how little I said about that city alone and its empire! Not even everything from there up to Caesar Augustus. What if I had wanted to recall and enlarge on those evils which men do not do to one another, such as the devastations and destructions of those at war, but which befall earthly things from the elements of the world itself, which Apuleius briefly touches on in one place in that little book he wrote On the World, saying that all earthly things undergo changes, overturnings, and destruction? For he says, to use his words, that by immoderate earthquakes the ground has burst open and cities have been swallowed up with their peoples; whole regions have been washed away by sudden rains; those which were formerly mainland have been made islands by strange and incoming waves, and others, by the withdrawal of the sea, have been made passable on foot; cities have been overturned by winds and storms; fires have flashed from the clouds, by which regions of the East have been burned up and perished; and in the regions of the West certain outbursts and floods of water have caused the same destruction; so once from the summits of Etna, its craters poured out, rivers of flames ran down the slopes like a torrent in a divine fire. If I had wanted to collect these and such things as history contains, from where I could, when would I have finished with what happened in those times, before the name of Christ checked any of their vain practices, so pernicious to true salvation? I had also promised to show what morals of theirs, and for what reason, the true God, in whose power are all kingdoms, deigned to help for the increase of their empire, and how those whom they think gods helped them not at all, and rather how much harm they did by deceiving and misleading them; I see that I must now speak of this, and more of the growth of the Roman empire. For how many evils the harmful deceit of the demons, whom they worshipped as gods, brought on their morals has already been discussed at some length, especially in the second book. And throughout all three completed books, where it seemed opportune, we have pointed out how much consolation God has given, even in the very evils of war, to good and bad through the name of Christ, to which the barbarians paid such honor beyond the custom of wars, as he who makes his sun rise on the good and the evil and sends rain on the just and the unjust.

### Scripture references

- Matt 5:45: quotation, high confidence
- Dan 4:17: echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Apuleius, On the World 34 (no entry in the site's list of texts). Matthew 5:45; Daniel 4:17 (all kingdoms in God's power).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.2 (CSEL 40:163–165; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-4-2).

## City of God 4.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-4-3
- Source: CSEL 40:165–166
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine compares a vast empire won by war to a rich man tormented by anxieties, and argues that the reign of the good benefits their subjects while the wicked ruler is himself a slave to his vices.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. An latitudo imperii, quae non nisi bellis adquiritur, in bonis siue sapientium habenda sit siue felicium. Iam itaque uideamus, quale sit quod tantam latitudinem ac diuturnitatem imperii Romani illis dis audent tribuere, quos etiam per turpium ludorum obsequia et per turpium hominum ministeria se honeste coluisse contendunt. Quamquam uellem prius paululum inquirere, quae sit ratio, quae prudentia, cum hominum felicitatem non possis ostendere, semper in bellicis cladibus et in sanguine ciuili uel hostili, tamen humano cum tenebroso timore et cruenta cupiditate uersantium, ut uitrea laetitia conparetur fragiliter splendida, cui timeatur horribilius ne repente frangatur, de imperii latitudine ac magnitudine uelle gloriari. Hoc ut facilius diiudicetur, non uanescamus inani uentositate iactati adque obtundamus intentionis aciem altisonis uocabulis rerum, cum audimus populos regna prouincias; sed duos constituamus homines (nam singulus quisque homo, ut in sermone una littera, ita quasi elementum est ciuitatis et regni, quantalibet terrarum occupatione latissimi), quorum duorum hominum unum pauperem uel potius mediocrem, alium praediuitem cogitemus; sed diuitem timoribus anxium, maeroribus tabescentem, cupiditate flagrantem, numquam securum, semper inquietum, perpetuis inimicitiarum contentionibus anhelantem, augentem sane his miseriis patrimonium suum in inmensum modum adque illis augmentis curas quoque amarissimas aggerantem; mediocrem uero illum re familiari parua adque succincta sibi sufficientem, carissimum suis, cum cognatis uicinis amicis dulcissima pace gaudentem, pietate religiosum, benignum mente, sanum corpore, uita parcum, moribus castum, conscientia securum. Nescio utrum quisquam ita desipiat, ut audeat dubitare quem praeferat. Ut ergo in his duobus hominibus, ita in duabus familiis, ita in duobus populis, ita in duobus regnis regula sequitur aequitatis, qua uigilanter adhibita si nostra intentio corrigatur, facillime uidebimus ubi habitet uanitas et ubi felicitas. Quapropter si uerus Deus colatur eique sacris ueracibus et bonis moribus seruiatur, utile est ut boni longe lateque diu regnent; neque hoc tam ipsis quam illis utile est, quibus regnant. Nam quantum ad ipsos pertinet, pietas et probitas eorum, quae magna Dei dona sunt, sufficit eis ad ueram felicitatem, qua et ista uita bene agatur et postea percipiatur aeterna. In hac ergo terra regnum bonorum non tam illis praestatur quam rebus humanis; malorum uero regnum magis regnantibus nocet, qui suos animos uastant scelerum maiore licentia; his autem, qui eis seruiendo subduntur, non nocet nisi propria iniquitas. Nam iustis quidquid malorum ab iniquis dominis inrogatur, non est poena criminis, sed uirtutis examen. Proinde bonus etiamsi seruiat, liber est; malus autem etiamsi regnet, seruus est, nec unius hominis, sed, quod est grauius, tot dominorum quot uitiorum. De quibus uitiis cum ageret scriptura diuina: A quo enim quis, inquit, deuictus est, huic et seruus addictus est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. Whether breadth of empire, which is acquired only by wars, is to be counted among the goods either of the wise or of the happy.

Now, then, let us see what it is that they dare to attribute so great a breadth and duration of the Roman empire to those gods whom they claim to have worshipped honorably even through the services of foul plays and the ministries of foul men. Though I would like first to inquire a little what reason, what prudence there is in wishing to glory in the breadth and greatness of an empire, when you cannot show that men are happy, always living amid the disasters of war and in blood, whether of citizens or of enemies, but human blood, with dark fear and bloody greed, so that their joy is like glass, brittle and bright, for which one fears more horribly that it may suddenly be broken. To judge this more easily, let us not vanish, puffed up with empty windiness, and blunt the edge of our attention with high-sounding names of things when we hear of peoples, kingdoms, provinces; but let us set up two men (for each single man, like one letter in a discourse, is as it were an element of a city and kingdom, however broad in its occupation of lands), and of these two men let us think of one as poor, or rather of moderate means, and the other as very rich; but the rich man anxious with fears, wasting with griefs, burning with greed, never secure, always restless, panting in the perpetual strife of enmities, increasing his estate indeed beyond measure by these miseries, and by these increases heaping up also the bitterest cares; while the man of moderate means is sufficient to himself with a small and compact property, most dear to his own, enjoying the sweetest peace with relatives, neighbors, and friends, devout in godliness, kindly in mind, sound in body, sparing in life, chaste in morals, secure in conscience. I do not know whether anyone is so foolish as to dare to doubt which to prefer. As with these two men, then, so with two families, two peoples, two kingdoms, the rule of fairness follows; and if our attention is corrected by applying it watchfully, we shall see very easily where vanity dwells and where happiness. Therefore, if the true God is worshipped and served with true rites and good morals, it is useful that the good should reign far and wide and long; and this is useful not so much to themselves as to those over whom they reign. For as far as they themselves are concerned, their godliness and uprightness, which are great gifts of God, suffice them for true happiness, by which both this life is lived well and afterwards eternal life is received. In this world, then, the reign of the good is granted not so much for their own sake as for human affairs; but the reign of the wicked harms the rulers more, who lay waste their own souls by greater license for crimes, while it does not harm those who are subjected to them in service, except by their own iniquity. For whatever evils are inflicted on the just by unjust masters are not the punishment of a crime but the testing of virtue. So the good man, even if he is a slave, is free; but the wicked man, even if he reigns, is a slave, and not of one man but, what is worse, of as many masters as he has vices. Of these vices divine Scripture says: “For by whatever a man is overcome, to that he is also bound as a slave.”

### Scripture references

- 2 Pet 2:19: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- 2 Peter 2:19.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.3 (CSEL 40:165–166; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-4-3).

## City of God 4.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-4-4
- Source: CSEL 40:166–167
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that kingdoms without justice are simply large robber bands, illustrating with the pirate's reply to Alexander the Great.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. Quam similia sint latrociniis regna absque iustitia. Remota itaque iustitia quid sunt regna nisi magna latrocinia? quia et latrocinia quid sunt nisi parua regna? Manus et ipsa hominum est, imperio principis regitur, pacto societatis adstringitur, placiti lege praeda diuiditur. Hoc malum si in tantum perditorum hominum accessibus crescit, ut et loca teneat sedes constituat, ciuitates occupet populos subiuget, euidentius regni nomen adsumit, quod ei iam in manifesto confert non demta cupiditas, sed addita inpunitas. Eleganter enim et ueraciter Alexandro illi Magno quidam conprehensus pirata respondit. Nam cum idem rex hominem interrogaret, quid ei uideretur, ut mare haberet infestum, ille libera contumacia: Quod tibi, inquit, ut orbem terrarum; sed quia id ego exiguo nauigio facio, latro uocor; quia tu magna classe, imperator.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. How like robber bands kingdoms are without justice.

So, justice removed, what are kingdoms but great robber bands? For what are robber bands themselves but little kingdoms? The band too is itself made up of men; it is ruled by the command of a leader, it is bound together by a pact of association, the loot is divided by an agreed law. If this evil grows by the accession of desperate men to such an extent that it holds territory, establishes seats, occupies cities, and subjugates peoples, it assumes the name of kingdom more openly, which is now conferred on it in the eyes of all, not by the removal of greed, but by the addition of impunity. For it was an elegant and true answer that a certain pirate, when captured, gave to the famous Alexander the Great. When the king asked the man what he meant by keeping the sea in turmoil, he said with bold defiance: “The same as you mean by keeping the whole world in turmoil; but because I do it with a little ship, I am called a robber; because you do it with a great fleet, an emperor.”

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Rep. 3.24 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The anecdote is from Cicero, On the Republic 3.24 (fragment).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.4 (CSEL 40:166–167; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-4-4).

## City of God 4.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-4-5
- Source: CSEL 40:167–169
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine uses the example of the gladiators' revolt under Spartacus to ask which god helped them to power, and argues that brief power is no real benefit.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. De fugitiuis gladiatoribus, quorum potentia similis fuerit regiae dignitati. Proinde omitto quaerere quales Romulus congregauerit, quoniam multum eis consultum est, ut ex illa uita dato sibi consortio ciuitatis poenas debitas cogitare desisterent, quarum metus eos in maiora facinora propellebat, ut deinceps pacatiores essent rebus humanis. Hoc dico, quod ipsum Romanum imperium iam magnum multis gentibus subiugatis ceterisque terribile acerbe sensit, grauiter timuit, non paruo negotio deuitandae ingentis cladis obpressit, quando paucissimi gladiatores in Campania de ludo fugientes magnum exercitum conpararunt, tres duces habuerunt, Italiam latissime et crudelissime uastauerunt. Dicant, quis istos deus adiuuerit, ut ex paruo et contemtibili latrocinio peruenirent ad regnum tantis iam Romanis uiribus arcibusque metuendum. An quia non diu fuerunt, ideo diuinitus negabuntur adiuti? Quasi uero ipsa cuiuslibet hominis uita diuturna est. Isto ergo pacto neminem di adiuuant ad regnandum, quoniam singuli quique cito moriuntur, nec beneficium deputandum est, quod exiguo tempore in unoquoque homine ac per hoc singillatim utique in omnibus uice uaporis euanescit. Quid enim interest eorum, qui sub Romulo deos coluerunt et olim sunt mortui, quod post eorum mortem Romanum tantum creuit imperium, cum illi aput inferos causas suas agant? utrum bonas an malas, ad rem praesentem non pertinet. Hoc autem de omnibus intellegendum est, qui per ipsum imperium (quamuis decedentibus succedentibusque mortalibus in longa spatia protendatur) paucis diebus uitae suae cursim raptimque transierunt, actuum suorum sarcinas baiulantes. Sin uero etiam ipsa breuissimi temporis beneficia deorum adiutorio tribuenda sunt, non parum adiuti sunt illi gladiatores: seruilis condicionis uincla ruperunt, fugerunt, euaserunt, exercitum magnum et fortissimum collegerunt, oboedientes regum suorum consiliis et iussis multum Romanae celsitudini metuendi et aliquot Romanis imperatoribus insuperabiles multa ceperunt, potiti sunt uictoriis plurimis, usi uoluptatibus quibus uoluerunt, quod suggessit libido fecerunt, postremo donec uincerentur, quod difficillime factum est, sublimes regnantesque uixerunt. Sed ad maiora ueniamus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. On the runaway gladiators, whose power was like royal rank.

So I pass over asking what kind of men Romulus gathered, since much care was taken for them that, being given a share in the city in exchange for that life, they would stop thinking about the punishments they deserved, the fear of which drove them to greater crimes, so that thereafter they might be more peaceable toward human affairs. This I say: that the Roman empire itself, already great, having subjugated many nations and being terrible to the rest, felt it bitterly, feared it gravely, and with no small effort to avoid a huge disaster crushed it, when a very few gladiators in Campania, fleeing from their training school, gathered a great army, had three leaders, and laid waste Italy most widely and cruelly. Let them say which god helped these men to rise from a small and contemptible robber band to a kingdom to be feared even by the Romans, with such great forces and strongholds. Or will it be denied that they were helped by divine power because they did not last long? As if the life of any man at all were long! On that basis, then, the gods help no one to reign, since each individual dies quickly; nor is anything to be counted a benefit which in each man, and therefore in all, one by one, vanishes like vapor in a short time. For what does it matter to those who worshipped the gods under Romulus and have long since died that after their death the Roman empire grew so great, when they are pleading their own cases in the underworld? Whether good cases or bad does not concern the present matter. This must be understood of all who, through that empire (although it extends over long periods as mortals depart and succeed), passed quickly and hurriedly through the few days of their life, carrying the burdens of their deeds. But if even the benefits of the shortest time are to be attributed to the help of the gods, those gladiators were helped not a little: they broke the chains of their servile condition, fled, escaped, gathered a great and very strong army, and, obeying the counsels and commands of their kings, were much to be feared by Roman majesty and unconquerable by several Roman commanders; they took much, won very many victories, enjoyed the pleasures they wished, did what lust suggested, and finally, until they were conquered, which was done with the greatest difficulty, lived exalted and reigning. But let us come to greater things.

### Scripture references

- Jas 4:14: echo, low confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, Per. 95–97 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The revolt of Spartacus (73–71 BC); see 3.26.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.5 (CSEL 40:167–169; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-4-5).

## City of God 4.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-4-6
- Source: CSEL 40:169–170
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine quotes Justin's history on Ninus of Assyria, the first king to make war on his neighbors for the sake of empire, and calls such conquest great robbery.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. De cupiditate Nini regis, qui ut latius dominaretur primus intulit bella finitimis. Iustinus, qui Graecam uel potius peregrinam Trogum Pompeium secutus non Latine tantum, sicut ille, uerum etiam breuiter scripsit historiam, opus librorum suorum sic incipit: Principio rerum gentium nationumque imperium penes reges erat, quos ad fastigium huius maiestatis non ambitio popularis, sed spectata inter bonos moderatio prouehebat. Populi nullis legibus tenebantur [arbitria principum pro legibus erant]; fines imperii tueri magis quam proferre mos erat; intra suam cuique patriam regna finiebantur. Primus omnium Ninus rex Assyriorum ueterem et quasi auitum gentibus morem noua imperii cupiditate mutauit. Hic primus intulit bella finitimis et rudes adhuc ad resistendum populos ad terminos usque Libyae perdomuit. Et paulo post: Ninus, inquit, magnitudinem quaesitae dominationis continua possessione firmauit. Domitis igitur proximis cum accessione uirium fortior ad alios transiret et proxima quaeque uictoria instrumentum sequentis esset, totius Orientis populos subegit. Qualibet autem fide rerum uel iste uel Trogus scripserit (nam quaedam illos fuisse mentitos aliae fideliores litterae ostendunt), constat tamen et inter alios scriptores regnum Assyriorum a Nino rege fuisse longe lateque porrectum. Tam diu autem perseuerauit, ut Romanum nondum sit eius aetatis. Nam sicut scribunt, qui chronicam historiam persecuti sunt, mille ducentos et quadraginta annos ab anno primo, quo Ninus regnare coepit, permansit hoc regnum, donec transferretur ad Medos. Inferre autem bella finitimis et in cetera inde procedere ac populos sibi non molestos sola regni cupiditate conterere et subdere, quid aliud quam grande latrocinium nominandum est?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. On the greed of King Ninus, who, in order to rule more widely, was the first to make war on his neighbors.

Justin, who, following Trogus Pompeius, wrote a Greek, or rather a foreign, history, not only in Latin, as Trogus did, but also briefly, begins the work of his books thus: “At the beginning of affairs, the rule of peoples and nations was in the hands of kings, whom not popular ambition but moderation approved among good men raised to the height of this majesty. The peoples were bound by no laws; it was the custom to guard the boundaries of rule rather than extend them; kingdoms were limited, for each king, within his own homeland. The first of all, Ninus, king of the Assyrians, changed the old and, as it were, ancestral custom of nations by a new desire for rule. He was the first to make war on his neighbors, and he subdued peoples still untrained to resist, as far as the borders of Libya.” And a little later: “Ninus,” he says, “strengthened the greatness of the dominion he had acquired by continuous possession. So, having subdued his nearest neighbors, when he passed on to others, stronger by the addition of forces, and each nearest victory was the instrument of the next, he subjugated the peoples of the whole East.” With whatever regard for the facts either he or Trogus wrote (for other more trustworthy writings show that they told some lies), it is agreed among other writers too that the kingdom of the Assyrians was extended far and wide by King Ninus. And it lasted so long that the Roman empire is not yet of its age. For, as those who have pursued chronological history write, this kingdom lasted twelve hundred and forty years from the first year in which Ninus began to reign, until it was transferred to the Medes. But to make war on neighbors and go on from there to the rest, and to crush and subdue peoples who have done one no harm, from mere greed for rule, what else is it to be called but great robbery?

### Translation notes

- Justin, Epitome of Trogus 1.1.1–5 and 1.1.8 (no entry in the site's list of texts). The 1,240 years of Assyria come from the chronicle of Eusebius and Jerome.
- The editor deletes, as a gloss, the words “the decisions of the princes took the place of laws” (square brackets); left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.6 (CSEL 40:169–170; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/3-25/#p-4-6).

## City of God 4.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-7
- Source: CSEL 40:170–171
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that if the gods moved from Assyria to the Medes and Persians, they were faithless or weak, and that Rome's present affliction, like earlier ones, need not be permanent.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. An regna terrena inter profectus suos adque defectus deorum iuuentur uel deserantur auxilio. Si nullo deorum adiutorio tam magnum hoc regnum et prolixum fuit, quare dis Romanis tribuitur Romanum regnum locis amplum temporibusque diuturnum? Quaecumque enim causa est illa, eadem est etiam ista. Si autem et illud deorum adiutorio tribuendum esse contendunt, quaero quorum. Non enim aliae gentes, quas Ninus domuit et subegit, alios tunc colebant deos. Aut si proprios habuerunt Assyrii, quasi peritiores fabros imperii construendi adque seruandi, numquidnam mortui sunt, quando et ipsi imperium perdiderunt, aut mercede non sibi reddita uel alia maiore promissa ad Medos transire maluerunt, adque inde rursus ad Persas Cyro inuitante et aliquid commodius pollicente? Quae gens non angustis Orientis finibus post Alexandri Macedonis regnum magnum locis, sed breuissimum tempore in suo regno adhuc usque perdurat. Hoc si ita est, aut infideles di sunt, qui suos deserunt et ad hostes transeunt (quod nec homo fecit Camillus, quando uictor et expugnator aduersissimae ciuitatis Romam, cui uicerat, sensit ingratam, quam tamen postea oblitus iniuriae, memor patriae, a Gallis iterum liberauit), aut non ita fortes sunt, ut deos esse fortes decet, qui possunt humanis uel consiliis uel uiribus uinci; aut si, cum inter se belligerant, non di ab hominibus, sed di ab aliis dis forte uincuntur, qui sunt quarumque proprii ciuitatum: habent ergo et ipsi inter se inimicitias, quas pro sua quisque parte suscipiunt. Non itaque deos suos debuit colere ciuitas magis quam alios, a quibus adiuuarentur sui. Postremo quoquo modo se habeat deorum iste uel transitus uel fuga, uel migratio uel in pugna defectio, nondum illis temporibus adque in illis terrarum partibus Christi nomen fuerat praedicatum, quando illa regna per ingentes clades bellicas amissa adque translata sunt. Nam post mille ducentos et quod excurrit annos, quando regnum Assyriis ablatum est, si iam ibi Christiana religio aliud regnum praedicaret aeternum et deorum falsorum cultus sacrilegos inhiberet: quid aliud illius gentis uani homines dicerent, nisi regnum, quod tam diu conseruatum est, nulla alia causa nisi suis religionibus desertis et illa recepta perire potuisse? In qua uoce uanitatis, quae poterat esse, isti adtendant speculum suum, et similia conqueri, si ullus in eis pudor est, erubescant. Quamquam Romanum imperium adflictum est potius quam mutatum, quod et aliis ante Christi nomen temporibus ei contigit et ab illa est adflictione recreatum, quod nec istis temporibus desperandum est. Quis enim de hac re nouit uoluntatem Dei?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. Whether earthly kingdoms, in their rises and falls, are helped or deserted by the aid of the gods.

If this kingdom was so great and long-lasting without any help from the gods, why is the Roman kingdom, broad in extent and long in duration, attributed to the Roman gods? For whatever the cause of the one, the same is the cause of the other. But if they argue that the former too is to be attributed to the help of the gods, I ask which gods. For the other nations which Ninus subdued and subjugated did not then worship other gods. Or if the Assyrians had their own gods, as more skilled craftsmen of building and preserving an empire, did they die when the Assyrians too lost their empire? Or, their wages not being paid them, or some greater reward being promised by another, did they prefer to go over to the Medes, and from there again to the Persians, when Cyrus invited them and promised something more advantageous? That nation, after the kingdom of Alexander of Macedon, which was great in extent but very short in duration, still endures in its own kingdom within no narrow borders of the East. If this is so, then either the gods are faithless, who desert their own and go over to the enemy (which not even the man Camillus did, when, as victor and conqueror of a most hostile city, he found Rome, for which he had conquered, ungrateful, yet afterwards, forgetting the injury and mindful of his country, freed it again from the Gauls), or they are not as strong as it befits gods to be strong, since they can be defeated by human counsels or forces; or, if when they make war on one another it is not the gods who are defeated by men but gods who are perhaps defeated by other gods, those who belong to particular cities, then they too have enmities among themselves, which each takes up for his own side. So a city ought not to have worshipped its own gods more than others, by whom its own might have been helped. Finally, however that crossing over or flight, migration or desertion in battle, of the gods may stand, the name of Christ had not yet been preached in those times and in those parts of the earth when those kingdoms were lost and transferred through immense disasters of war. For after twelve hundred years and more, when the kingdom was taken from the Assyrians, if the Christian religion had already been preaching another, eternal kingdom there and had forbidden the sacrilegious worship of false gods, what else would the vain men of that nation have said but that the kingdom, preserved so long, could have perished for no other reason than that its own religions had been deserted and this one received? In this voice of vanity, which could have been raised, let these people look at themselves as in a mirror, and blush, if they have any shame, to complain of similar things. Yet the Roman empire has been afflicted rather than changed, which happened to it at other times too before the name of Christ, and it was restored from that affliction; which is not to be despaired of in these times either. For who knows the will of God in this matter?

### Translation notes

- Camillus: see 2.17 and 3.17.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.7 (CSEL 40:170–171; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-7).

## City of God 4.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-8
- Source: CSEL 40:171–173
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine ridicules the multitude of petty Roman deities, each confined to a single tiny function, as incapable of building an empire.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. Quorum deorum praesidio putent Romani imperium suum auctum adque seruatum, cum singulis uix singularum rerum tuitionem committendam esse crediderint. Deinde quaeramus, si placet, ex tanta deorum turba, quam Romani colebant, quem potissimum uel quos deos credant illud imperium dilatasse adque seruasse. Neque enim in hoc tam praeclaro opere et tantae plenissimo dignitatis audent aliquas partes deae Cluacinae tribuere aut Volupiae, quae a uoluptate appellata est, aut Lubentinae, cui nomen est a libidine, aut Vaticano, qui infantum uagitibus praesidet, aut Cuninae, quae cunas eorum administrat. Quando autem possunt uno loco libri huius commemorari omnia nomina deorum et dearum, quae illi grandibus uoluminibus uix conprehendere potuerunt singulis rebus propria dispertientes officia numinum? Nec agrorum munus uni alicui deo committendum arbitrati sunt, sed rura deae Rusinae, iuga montium deo Iugatino; collibus deam Collatinam, uallibus Valloniam praefecerunt. Nec saltem potuerunt unam Segetiam talem inuenire, cui semel segetes commendarent, sed sata frumenta, quamdiu sub terra essent, praepositam uoluerunt habere deam Seiam; cum uero iam essent super terram et segetem facerent, deam Segetiam; frumentis uero collectis adque reconditis, ut tuto seruarentur, deam Tutilinam praeposuerunt. Cui non sufficere uideretur illa Segetia, quamdiu seges ab initiis herbidis usque ad aristas aridas perueniret? Non tamen satis fuit hominibus deorum multitudinem amantibus, ut anima misera daemoniorum turbae prostitueretur, unius Dei ueri castum dedignata conplexum. Praefecerunt ergo Proserpinam frumentis germinantibus, geniculis nodisque culmorum deum Nodutum, inuolumentis folliculorum deam Volutinam; cum folliculi patescunt, ut spica exeat, deam Patelanam, cum segetes nouis aristis aequantur, quia ueteres aequare hostire dixerunt, deam Hostilinam; florentibus frumentis deam Floram, lactescentibus deum Lacturnum, maturescentibus deam Matutam; cum runcantur, id est a terra auferuntur, deam Runcinam. Nec omnia commemoro, quia me piget quod illos non pudet. Haec autem paucissima ideo dixi, ut intellegeretur nullo modo eos dicere audere ista numina imperium constituisse auxisse conseruasse Romanum, quae ita suis quaeque adhibebantur officiis, ut nihil uniuersum uni alicui crederetur. Quando ergo Segetia curaret imperium, cui curam gerere simul et segetibus et arboribus non licebat? Quando de armis Cunina cogitaret, cuius praepositura paruulorum cunas non permittebatur excedere? Quando Nodutus adiuuaret in bello, qui nec ad folliculum spicae, sed tantum ad nodum geniculi pertinebat? Unum quisque domui suae ponit ostiarium, et quia homo est, omnino sufficit: tres deos isti posuerunt, Forculum foribus, Cardeam cardini, Limentinum limini. Ita non poterat Forculus simul et cardinem limenque seruare.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. Under the protection of which gods the Romans think their empire was increased and preserved, when they believed that to single gods the protection of single things could scarcely be entrusted.

Next let us ask, if you please, out of so great a crowd of gods as the Romans worshipped, which god in particular, or which gods, they believe enlarged and preserved that empire. For in so splendid a work, so full of great dignity, they do not dare to assign any part to the goddess Cloacina, or to Volupia, who is named from pleasure (voluptas), or to Lubentina, whose name comes from lust (libido), or to Vaticanus, who presides over the wailing (vagitus) of infants, or to Cunina, who looks after their cradles (cunae). But how could all the names of the gods and goddesses be recalled in one place of this book, which they could scarcely contain in great volumes, dividing the proper duties of the deities among particular things? Nor did they think the care of the fields should be entrusted to any one god, but they put the countryside (rura) under the goddess Rusina, the ridges of mountains (iuga) under the god Jugatinus, the hills (colles) under the goddess Collatina, the valleys (valles) under Vallonia. Nor could they even find one Segetia to whom they might entrust the crops (segetes) once for all; but they wanted the sown grain, as long as it was under the earth, to have the goddess Seia in charge; when it was above ground and forming a crop, the goddess Segetia; and when the grain was gathered and stored, they put the goddess Tutilina in charge, so that it might be kept safe (tuto). To whom would that Segetia not seem sufficient for the whole time the crop took to go from its first green blades to dry ears? Yet it was not enough for men who loved a multitude of gods that the wretched soul should prostitute itself to a crowd of demons, disdaining the chaste embrace of the one true God. So they put Proserpina in charge of the sprouting grain, the god Nodutus over the joints and knots (nodi) of the stalks, the goddess Volutina over the wrappings (involumenta) of the husks; when the husks open (patescunt) so that the ear may come out, the goddess Patelana; when the crops are made even with new ears, the goddess Hostilina, because the ancients said hostire for “to make even”; over the flowering grain the goddess Flora, over the milky grain the god Lacturnus, over the ripening grain the goddess Matuta; when the crops are weeded (runcantur), that is, removed from the earth, the goddess Runcina. I do not recount them all, because I am ashamed of what they are not ashamed of. I have mentioned these very few only so that it might be understood that they by no means dare to say that these deities established, increased, and preserved the Roman empire, since each was so applied to its own duties that nothing as a whole was entrusted to any one of them. When, then, would Segetia take care of the empire, who was not allowed to care for crops and trees at the same time? When would Cunina think about arms, whose charge was not allowed to go beyond the cradles of little children? When would Nodutus help in war, who had to do not even with the husk of the ear, but only with the knot of the joint? Each man sets one doorkeeper for his house, and because he is a man, he is quite sufficient; these people set three gods: Forculus for the doors (fores), Cardea for the hinge (cardo), Limentinus for the threshold (limen). So Forculus could not guard the hinge and threshold at the same time.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. frag. (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The lists come from Varro's Antiquities of Divine Things (lost). Latin words are given in brackets where the names depend on them.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.8 (CSEL 40:171–173; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-8).

## City of God 4.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-9
- Source: CSEL 40:173–174
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine turns to Jupiter as the supposed author of Rome's greatness, noting Varro's view that the one God worshipped without images is Jupiter under another name, and Varro's criticism of images.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. An imperii Romani amplitudo et diuturnitas Ioui fuerit adscribenda, quem summum deum cultores ipsius opinantur. Omissa igitur ista turba minutorum deorum uel aliquantum intermissa officium maiorum deorum debemus inquirere, quo Roma tam magna facta est, ut tam diu tot gentibus imperaret. Nimirum ergo Iouis hoc opus est. Ipsum enim deorum omnium dearumque regem uolunt: hoc eius indicat sceptrum, hoc in alto colle Capitolium. De isto deo quamuis a poeta dictum conuenientissime praedicant: Iouis omnia plena. Hunc Varro credit etiam ab his coli, qui unum Deum solum sine simulacro colunt, sed alio nomine nuncupari. Quod si ita est, quur tam male tractatus est Romae, sicut quidem et in ceteris gentibus, ut ei fieret simulacrum? Quod ipsi etiam Varroni ita displicet, ut, cum tantae ciuitatis peruersa consuetudine premeretur, nequaquam tamen dicere et scribere dubitaret, quod hi, qui populis instituerunt simulacra, et metum demserunt et errorem addiderunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. Whether the greatness and duration of the Roman empire should be ascribed to Jupiter, whom his worshippers think the supreme god.

So, leaving aside that crowd of petty gods, or setting it aside for a while, we must inquire into the work of the greater gods, by which Rome was made so great that it ruled so many nations for so long. No doubt, then, this is Jupiter's work. For they want him to be the king of all the gods and goddesses: his scepter shows this, the Capitol on the high hill shows this. Of this god they proclaim, as most fitting, what was said, though by a poet: “All things are full of Jupiter.” Varro believes that he is worshipped even by those who worship one God alone without an image, but is called by another name. If this is so, why was he so badly treated at Rome, as indeed among other nations too, that an image was made of him? This displeases Varro himself so much that, although he was weighed down by the perverse custom of so great a city, he did not hesitate at all to say and write that those who set up images for the peoples both took away fear and added error.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Ecl. 3.60 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Varro, Ant. rer. div. frag. (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Virgil, Eclogues 3.60. Varro's view that the God of the Jews is Jupiter, and his criticism of images, are from the lost Antiquities (cf. 4.31).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.9 (CSEL 40:173–174; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-9).

## City of God 4.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-10
- Source: CSEL 40:174–177
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine exposes the contradictions in the physical allegories that assign gods to the elements, from Jupiter and Juno to the confusions of Vesta and Venus.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. Quas opiniones secuti sint, qui diuersos deos diuersis mundi partibus praefecerunt. Quur illi etiam Iuno uxor adiungitur, quae dicatur soror et coniux? Quia Iouem, inquiunt, in aethere accipimus, in aere Iunonem, et haec duo elementa coniuncta sunt, alterum superius, alterum inferius. Non est ergo ille, de quo dictum est Iouis omnia plena, si aliquam partem inplet et Iuno. An uterque utrumque inplet, et ambo isti coniuges et in duobus istis elementis et in singulis simul sunt? Quur ergo aether datur Ioui, aer Iunoni? Postremo ipsi duo satis essent: quid est quod mare Neptuno tribuitur, terra Plutoni? Et ne ipsi quoque sine coniugibus remanerent, additur Neptuno Salacia, Plutoni Proserpina. Nam sicut inferiorem caeli partem, id est aerem, inquiunt, Iuno tenet, ita inferiorem maris Salacia et terrae inferiorem Proserpina. Quaerunt quem ad modum sarciant fabulas, nec inueniunt. Si enim haec ita essent, tria potius elementa mundi esse, non quattuor, eorum ueteres proderent, ut singula deorum coniugia diuiderentur singulis elementis. Nunc uero omni modo adfirmauerunt aliud esse aetherem, aliud aerem. Aqua uero siue superior siue inferior utique aqua est; puta quia dissimilis: numquid in tantum ut aqua non sit? Et inferior terra quid aliud potest esse quam terra quantalibet diuersitate distincta? Deinde ecce iam totus in his quattuor uel tribus elementis corporeus conpletus est mundus: Minerua ubi erit? quid tenebit? quid inplebit? Simul enim cum his in Capitolio constituta est, cum ista filia non sit amborum. Aut si aetheris partem superiorem Mineruam tenere dicunt et hac occasione fingere poetas quod de Iouis capite nata sit: quur non ergo ipsa potius deorum regina deputatur, quod sit Ioue superior? An quia indignum erat praeponere patri filiam? Quur non de Ioue ipso erga Saturnum iustitia ista seruata est? An quia uictus est? Ergo pugnarunt? Absit, inquiunt; fabularum est ista garrulitas. Ecce fabulis non credatur et de dis meliora sentiantur: quur ergo non data est patri Iouis, etsi non sublimior, aequalis certe sedes honoris? Quia Saturnus, inquiunt, temporis longitudo est. Tempus ergo colunt, qui Saturnum colunt, et rex deorum Iuppiter insinuatur natus ex tempore. Quid enim indignum dicitur, cum Iuppiter et Iuno nati dicuntur ex tempore, si caelum est ille et illa terra, cum facta sint utique caelum et terra? nam hoc quoque in libris suis habent eorum docti adque sapientes. Neque de figmentis poeticis, sed de philosophorum libris a Vergilio dictum est: Tum pater omnipotens fecundis imbribus aether Coniugis in gremium laetae descendit, id est in gremium telluris aut terrae; quia et hic aliquas differentias uolunt esse adque in ipsa terra aliud Terram, aliud Tellurem, aliud Tellumonem putant, et hos omnes deos habent suis nominibus appellatos, suis officiis distinctos, suis aris sacrisque ueneratos. Eandem terram etiam matrem deum uocant, ut iam poetae tolerabiliora confingant, si secundum istorum non poeticos, sed sacrorum libros non solum Iuno, soror et coniux), sed etiam mater est Iouis. Eandem terram Cererem, eandem etiam Vestam uolunt, cum tamen saepius Vestam non nisi ignem esse perhibeant pertinentem ad focos, sine quibus ciuitas esse non potest, et ideo illi uirgines solere seruire, quod sicut ex uirgine, ita nihil ex igne nascatur. Quam totam uanitatem aboleri et extingui utique ab illo oportuit, qui est natus ex uirgine. Quis enim ferat, quod, cum tantum honoris et quasi castitatis igni tribuerint, aliquando Vestam non erubescunt etiam Venerem dicere, ut uanescat in ancillis eius honorata uirginitas? Si enim Vesta Venus est, quo modo ei rite uirgines a Veneriis operibus abstinendo seruierunt? An Veneres duae sunt, una uirgo, altera mulier? An potius tres, una uirginum, quae etiam Vesta est, alia coniugatarum, alia meretricum? Cui etiam Phoenices donum dabant de prostitutione filiarum, antequam eas iungerent uiris. Quae illarum est matrona Vulcani? Non utique uirgo, quoniam habet maritum. Absit autem ut meretrix, ne filio Iunonis et cooperario Mineruae facere uideamur iniuriam. Ergo haec ad coniugatas intellegitur pertinere: sed eam nolumus imitentur in eo quod fecit illa cum Marte. Rursus, inquiunt, ad fabulas redis. Quae ista iustitia est, nobis suscensere, quod talia dicimus de dis eorum, et sibi non suscensere, qui haec in theatris libentissime spectant crimina deorum suorum? Et (quod esset incredibile, nisi contestatissime probaretur) haec ipsa theatrica crimina deorum in honorem instituta sunt eorundem deorum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. What opinions were followed by those who set different gods over different parts of the world.

Why is Juno also joined to him as wife, who is called “sister and spouse”? Because, they say, we take Jupiter to be in the ether and Juno in the air, and these two elements are joined, one above, the other below. Then he is not the one of whom it was said, “All things are full of Jupiter,” if Juno too fills some part. Or does each fill both, and are both these spouses in both these elements and in each at once? Why then is the ether given to Jupiter and the air to Juno? Finally, these two would be enough: why is the sea assigned to Neptune and the earth to Pluto? And so that these too should not remain without wives, Salacia is added to Neptune and Proserpina to Pluto. For just as Juno, they say, holds the lower part of the heaven, that is, the air, so Salacia holds the lower part of the sea and Proserpina the lower part of the earth. They look for a way to patch up their fables and do not find it. For if these things were so, their ancients would have taught that there are three elements of the world rather than four, so that each divine marriage might be assigned to each element. But in fact they have affirmed in every way that ether is one thing and air another. Water, whether higher or lower, is certainly water; suppose it is different: is it so different that it is not water? And what can the lower earth be but earth, however distinguished by difference? Then, see, the whole bodily world is already complete in these four, or three, elements: where will Minerva be? What will she hold? What will she fill? For she was set up in the Capitol together with them, although she is not the daughter of both. Or if they say that Minerva holds the upper part of the ether, and that for this reason the poets feign that she was born from Jupiter's head, why then is she not rather counted queen of the gods, since she is higher than Jupiter? Or was it because it was unworthy to put the daughter before the father? Why was this justice not kept by Jupiter himself toward Saturn? Because he was defeated? Did they fight, then? Far from it, they say; that is the chatter of fables. See, let the fables not be believed, and let better things be thought of the gods: why then was not the father of Jupiter given a seat of honor, if not higher, at least equal? Because, they say, Saturn is the length of time. Then those who worship Saturn worship time, and Jupiter, king of the gods, is insinuated to have been born of time. For what unworthy thing is said when Jupiter and Juno are said to have been born of time, if he is the heaven and she the earth, since heaven and earth were certainly made? For their learned and wise men have this too in their books. And it was not from poetic fictions but from the books of philosophers that Virgil said: “Then the almighty father Ether comes down with fertile showers into the lap of his glad spouse,” that is, into the lap of Tellus, or the earth. For here too they want there to be some differences, and in the earth itself they think Terra is one thing, Tellus another, Tellumo another, and they have all these as gods called by their own names, distinguished by their own functions, venerated with their own altars and rites. They also call this same earth the mother of the gods, so that the poets' fictions become more tolerable, if, according not to the poetic books but to the books of their rites, Juno is not only sister and spouse but also mother of Jupiter. They want this same earth to be Ceres, and also Vesta, though more often they declare that Vesta is nothing but the fire that belongs to hearths, without which a city cannot exist, and that virgins are therefore accustomed to serve her, because as nothing is born of a virgin, so nothing is born of fire. All this vanity ought certainly to have been abolished and extinguished by him who was born of a virgin. For who could bear that, while they gave so much honor and, as it were, chastity to fire, they sometimes do not blush to call Vesta Venus too, so that the virginity honored in her handmaids vanishes? For if Vesta is Venus, how did virgins rightly serve her by abstaining from the works of Venus? Or are there two Venuses, one a virgin, the other a woman? Or rather three, one of virgins, who is also Vesta, another of married women, another of harlots? To her the Phoenicians used to give a gift from the prostitution of their daughters before they joined them to husbands. Which of them is the wife of Vulcan? Certainly not the virgin, since she has a husband. Far be it that it should be the harlot, lest we seem to do wrong to the son of Juno and fellow worker of Minerva. So this one is understood to belong to married women; but we do not want them to imitate her in what she did with Mars. Again, they say, you go back to the fables. What justice is this, to be angry with us for saying such things of their gods, and not to be angry with themselves, who most gladly watch these crimes of their gods in the theaters? And (what would be incredible if it were not most thoroughly proved) these very theatrical crimes of the gods were instituted in honor of those same gods.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 1.47 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Georg. 2.325–326 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Virgil, Aeneid 1.47 (“sister and spouse”); Georgics 2.325–326. The Phoenician custom: cf. Herodotus 1.199 on Babylon.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.10 (CSEL 40:174–177; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-10).

## City of God 4.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-11
- Source: CSEL 40:177–180
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine lists the host of deities that learned pagans identify with Jupiter as the world soul, and argues that on this view it would be simpler to worship the one God alone.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. De multis dis, quos doctiores paganorum unum eundemque Iouem esse defendunt. Quotlibet igitur physicis rationibus et disputationibus adserant: modo sit Iuppiter corporei huius mundi animus, qui uniuersam istam molem ex quattuor uel quot eis placet elementis constructam adque conpactam inplet et mouet, modo inde suas partes sorori et fratribus cedat; modo sit aether, ut aerem Iunonem subterfusam desuper amplectatur; modo totum simul cum aere sit ipse caelum, terram uero tamquam coniugem eandemque matrem (quia hoc in diuinis turpe non est) fecundis imbribus et seminibus fetet; modo autem (ne sit necesse per cuncta discurrere) deus unus, de quo multi a poeta nobilissimo dictum putant: deum namque ire per omnes Terrasque tractusque maris caelumque profundum; ipse in aethere sit Iuppiter, ipse in aere Iuno, ipse in mari Neptunus, in inferioribus etiam maris ipse Salacia, in terra Pluto, in terra inferiore Proserpina, in focis domesticis Vesta, in fabrorum fornace Vulcanus, in sideribus sol et luna et stellae, in diuinantibus Apollo, in merce Mercurius, in Iano initiator, in Termino terminator, Saturnus in tempore, Mars et Bellona in bellis, Liber in uineis, Ceres in frumentis, Diana in siluis, Minerua in ingeniis; ipse sit postremo etiam in illa turba quasi plebeiorum deorum; ipse praesit nomine Liberi uirorum seminibus et nomine Liberae feminarum, ipse sit Diespater, qui partum perducat ad diem; ipse sit dea Mena, quam praefecerunt menstruis feminarum, ipse Lucina, quae a parturientibus inuocetur; ipse opem ferat nascentibus excipiendo eos sinu terrae et uocetur Opis, ipse in uagitu os aperiat et uocetur deus Vaticanus; ipse leuet de terra et uocetur dea Leuana, ipse cunas tueatur et uocetur Cunina; non sit alius, sed ipse in illis deabus, quae fata nascentibus canunt et uocantur Carmentes; praesit fortuitis uoceturque Fortuna; in diua Rumina mammam paruulo inmulgeat, quia rumam dixerunt ueteres mammam; in diua Potina potionem ministret, in diua Educa escam praebeat; de pauore infantum Pauentia nuncupetur, de spe, quae uenit, Venilia, de uoluptate Volupia, de actu Agenoria; de stimulis, quibus ad nimium actum homo inpellitur, dea Stimula nominetur; Strenia dea sit strenuum faciendo, Numeria, quae numerare doceat, Camena, quae canere; ipse sit et deus Consus praebendo consilia et dea Sentia sententias inspirando; ipse dea Iuuentas, quae post praetextam excipiat iuuenalis aetatis exordia; ipse sit et Fortuna barbata, quae adultos barba induat (quos honorare noluerunt, ut hoc qualecumque numen saltem masculum deum uel a barba Barbatum, sicut a nodis Nodutum, uel certe non Fortunam, sed quia barbas habet Fortunium nominarent; ipse in Iugatino deo coniuges iungat, et cum uirgini uxori zona soluitur, ipse inuocetur et dea Virginensis uocetur; ipse sit Mutunus uel Tutunus, qui est aput Graecos Priapus: si non pudet, haec omnia quae dixi et quaecumque non dixi (non enim omnia dicenda arbitratus sum), hi omnes di deaeque sit unus Iuppiter, siue sint, ut quidam uolunt, omnia ista partes eius siue uirtutes eius, sicut eis uidetur, quibus eum placet esse mundi animum, quae sententia uelut magnorum multumque doctorum est. Haec si ita sunt (quod quale sit, nondum interim quaero), quid perderent, si unum Deum colerent prudentiore conpendio? Quid enim eius contemneretur, cum ipse coleretur? Si autem metuendum fuit, ne praetermissae siue neglectae partes eius irascerentur: non ergo, ut uolunt, uelut unius animantis haec tota uita est, quae omnes continet deos, quasi suas uirtutes uel membra uel partes; sed suam quaeque pars habet uitam a ceteris separatam, si praeter alteram irasci altera potest, et alia placari, alia concitari. Si autem dicitur omnes simul, id est totum ipsum Iouem, potuisse offendi, si partes eius non etiam singillatim minutatimque colerentur, stulte dicitur. Nulla quippe illarum praetermitteretur, cum ipse unus, qui haberet omnia, coleretur. Nam ut alia omittam, quae sunt innumerabilia, cum dicunt omnia sidera partes Iouis esse et omnia uiuere adque rationales animas habere, et ideo sine controuersia deos esse, non uident quam multos non colant, quam multis aedes non construant, aras non statuant, quas tamen paucissimis siderum statuendas esse putauerunt et singillatim sacrificandum. Si igitur irascuntur, qui non singillatim coluntur, non metuunt paucis placatis toto caelo irato uiuere? Si autem stellas omnes ideo colunt, quia in Ioue sunt quem colunt, isto conpendio possent in illo uno omnibus supplicare (sic enim nemo irasceretur, cum in illo uno nemo contemneretur) potius quam cultis quibusdam iusta irascendi causa illis, qui praetermissi essent, multo numerosioribus praeberetur, praesertim cum eis de superna sede fulgentibus turpi nuditate distentus praeponeretur Priapus.-

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. On the many gods whom the more learned of the pagans maintain to be one and the same Jupiter.

Let them assert, then, as many physical theories and arguments as they like: now let Jupiter be the soul of this bodily world, which fills and moves this whole mass constructed and compacted of four, or as many as they please, elements; now let him yield parts of it to his sister and brothers; now let him be the ether, so as to embrace from above Juno, the air spread beneath; now let him be himself the whole heaven together with the air, and impregnate the earth, as his wife and likewise mother (for this is not shameful among the divine), with fertile showers and seeds; now (so that it may not be necessary to run through everything) let him be the one god of whom many think it was said by the most famous poet: “For God goes through all lands and tracts of sea and the deep heaven”; let him be Jupiter in the ether, Juno in the air, Neptune in the sea, Salacia too in the lower parts of the sea, Pluto on the earth, Proserpina in the lower earth, Vesta in household hearths, Vulcan in the smiths' furnace, sun, moon, and stars in the heavenly bodies, Apollo in diviners, Mercury in trade, the beginner in Janus, the ender in Terminus, Saturn in time, Mars and Bellona in wars, Liber in vineyards, Ceres in grain, Diana in forests, Minerva in talents; let him be, finally, in that crowd, as it were, of plebeian gods too; let him preside over the seed of men under the name of Liber and over that of women under the name of Libera; let him be Diespater, who brings the birth to the day; let him be the goddess Mena, whom they put in charge of women's menstruation; let him be Lucina, who is invoked by women in labor; let him bring help (opem) to the newborn by receiving them in the lap of the earth, and be called Opis; let him open the mouth in wailing and be called the god Vaticanus; let him lift the child from the earth and be called the goddess Levana; let him guard the cradles and be called Cunina; let no one else, but himself, be in those goddesses who sing the fates to the newborn and are called Carmentes; let him preside over chance events and be called Fortuna; in the goddess Rumina let him give the breast to the little one, because the ancients called the breast ruma; in the goddess Potina let him provide drink, in the goddess Educa let him give food; let him be called Paventia from the fear (pavor) of infants, Venilia from the hope that comes (venit), Volupia from pleasure, Agenoria from action; let him be named the goddess Stimula from the goads (stimuli) by which a man is driven to excessive action; let him be the goddess Strenia by making strenuous, Numeria who teaches to count (numerare), Camena who teaches to sing (canere); let him be both the god Consus by giving counsel and the goddess Sentia by inspiring opinions (sententiae); let him be the goddess Juventas, who receives the beginnings of youthful age after the boy's toga; let him be also bearded Fortune, who clothes adults with a beard (whom they did not wish to honor so far as to call this deity, whatever it is, at least a male god, either Barbatus from the beard (barba), as Nodutus from the knots, or certainly not Fortuna, but, because it has a beard, Fortunius); let him in the god Jugatinus join spouses, and when the girdle of a virgin wife is loosed, let him be invoked and called the goddess Virginensis; let him be Mutunus or Tutunus, who among the Greeks is Priapus: if they are not ashamed, let all these I have mentioned, and whatever I have not (for I did not think everything should be said), all these gods and goddesses, be one Jupiter, whether, as some would have it, all these are parts of him or his powers, as it seems to those who hold that he is the soul of the world, an opinion which is supposedly that of great and very learned men. If these things are so (what that means I do not yet ask for now), what would they lose if they worshipped one God by a wiser short cut? For what of him would be despised when he himself was worshipped? But if it was to be feared that his parts, passed over or neglected, would be angry, then it is not, as they would have it, the whole life of one living being, containing all the gods as its powers or members or parts; but each part has its own life separate from the others, if one can be angry apart from another, and one be appeased while another is stirred up. But if it is said that all together, that is, the whole Jupiter himself, could have been offended if his parts were not also worshipped one by one and in detail, it is said foolishly. For none of them would be passed over when he himself, the one who had them all, was worshipped. For, to omit other things, which are innumerable, when they say that all the stars are parts of Jupiter and that all live and have rational souls and are therefore, without dispute, gods, they do not see how many they do not worship, to how many they do not build temples or set up altars, which they thought should be set up to very few of the stars, and sacrifices offered to them singly. If, then, those not worshipped singly are angry, are they not afraid to live with the whole heaven angry, having appeased a few? But if they worship all the stars because they are in Jupiter, whom they worship, by this short cut they could supplicate all in that one (for so no one would be angry, since in that one no one would be despised), rather than, by worshipping some, give a just cause for anger to those passed over, who are far more numerous; especially when, over them as they shine from their heavenly seat, Priapus, swollen in foul nakedness, is preferred.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Georg. 4.221–222 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Varro, Ant. rer. div. frag. (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Virgil, Georgics 4.221–222. The names and etymologies come from Varro.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.11 (CSEL 40:177–180; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-11).

## City of God 4.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-12
- Source: CSEL 40:180
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that if God is the soul of the world, every creature would be part of God, so that treading on or killing anything would be treading on or killing a part of God.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. De opinione eorum, qui Deum animam mundi et mundum corpus Dei esse putauerunt. Quid: illud nonne debet mouere acutos homines uel qualescumque homines (non enim ad hoc ingenii opus est excellentia), ut deposito studio contentionis adtendant, si mundi animus Deus est eique animo mundus ut corpus est, ut sit unum animal constans ex animo et corpore, adque iste Deus est sinu quodam naturae in se ipso continens omnia, ut ex ipsius anima, qua uiuificatur tota ista moles, uitae adque animae cunctorum uiuentium pro cuiusque nascendi sorte sumantur, nihil omnino remanere, quod non sit pars Dei. Quod si ita est, quis non uideat quanta inpietas et inreligiositas consequatur, ut, quod calcauerit quisque, partem Dei calcet, et in omni animante occidendo pars Dei trucidetur? Nolo omnia dicere, quae possunt occurrere cogitantibus, dici autem sine uerecundia non possunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. On the opinion of those who have thought that God is the soul of the world and the world the body of God.

Should not this move acute men, or men of any kind (for no outstanding talent is needed for this), to lay aside the zeal of contention and take note: if God is the soul of the world, and the world is to that soul as a body, so that there is one living being consisting of soul and body, and this is God, containing all things in himself in a kind of bosom of nature, so that from his soul, by which this whole mass is given life, the lives and souls of all living things are taken according to the lot of each one's birth, then nothing at all remains that is not a part of God? If this is so, who does not see what great ungodliness and irreligion follow, that whatever anyone treads on, he treads on a part of God, and in killing any living being a part of God is slaughtered? I do not want to say all the things that can occur to those who think about it, but cannot be said without shame.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.12 (CSEL 40:180; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-12).

## City of God 4.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-13
- Source: CSEL 40:180–181
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine rejects the view that rational beings are parts of God, since then parts of God would be beaten and sin, and turns to the claim that Jupiter as king of the gods enlarged the Roman empire.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. De his, qui sola rationalia animantia partes esse unius Dei adserunt. Si autem sola animalia rationalia, sicut sunt homines, partes Dei esse contendunt: non uideo quidem, si totus mundus Deus est, quo modo bestias ab eius partibus separent; sed obluctari quid opus est? De ipso rationali animante, id est homine, quid infelicius credi potest, quam Dei partem uapulare, cum puer uapulat? Iam uero partes Dei fieri lasciuas, iniquas, inpias adque omnino damnabiles quis ferre possit, nisi qui prorsus insanit? Postremo quid irascitur eis, a quibus non colitur, cum a suis partibus non colatur? Restat ergo ut dicant omnes deos suas habere uitas, sibi quemque uiuere, nullum eorum esse partem cuiusquam, sed omnes colendos qui cognosci et coli possunt, quia tam multi sunt, ut omnes non possint. Quorum Iuppiter quia rex praesidet, ipsum credo ab eis putari regnum constituisse uel auxisse Romanum. Nam si hoc ipse non fecit, quem alium deum opus tam magnum potuisse adgredi credant, cum omnes occupati sint officiis et operibus propriis, nec alter inruat in alterius? A rege igitur deorum regnum hominum potuit propagari et augeri.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. On those who assert that only rational living beings are parts of the one God.

But if they contend that only rational living beings, such as men, are parts of God, I do not see, if the whole world is God, how they separate the beasts from his parts; but what need is there to struggle? As for the rational living being itself, that is, man, what more unhappy thing can be believed than that a part of God is beaten when a boy is beaten? And who could bear that parts of God become wanton, unjust, ungodly, and altogether damnable, except someone utterly mad? Finally, why is he angry with those by whom he is not worshipped, when he is not worshipped by his own parts? It remains, then, that they should say that all the gods have their own lives, that each lives for himself, that none of them is a part of any other, but that all should be worshipped who can be known and worshipped, because they are so many that all cannot be. And since Jupiter presides over them as king, I suppose they think that he established or enlarged the Roman kingdom. For if he did not do it himself, what other god do they believe could have undertaken so great a work, since all are busy with their own duties and works, and one does not intrude on another's? So by the king of the gods the kingdom of men could be extended and increased.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.13 (CSEL 40:180–181; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-13).

## City of God 4.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-14
- Source: CSEL 40:181–182
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine asks why Jupiter is needed for conquest if Victory is a goddess, and notes that good men should dislike unprovoked wars of expansion.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. Augmenta regnorum Ioui incongruenter adscribi, cum, si Victoria, ut uolunt dea est, ipsa huic negotio sola sufficeret. Hic primum quaero, quur non etiam ipsum regnum aliquis deus est? Quur enim non ita sit, si Victoria dea est? Aut quid ipso Ioue in hac causa opus est, si Victoria faueat sitque propitia et semper eat ad illos, quos uult esse uictores? Hac dea fauente et propitia, etiam Ioue uacante uel aliud agente, quae gentes non subditae remanerent? quae regna non cederent? An forte displicet bonis iniquissima inprobitate pugnare et finitimos quietos nullamque iniuriam facientes ad dilatandum regnum bello spontaneo prouocare? Plane si ita sentiunt adprobo et laudo.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. That the growth of kingdoms is inappropriately ascribed to Jupiter, since, if Victory is a goddess, as they would have it, she alone would suffice for this business.

Here I first ask why the kingdom itself is not also some god. For why should it not be so, if Victory is a goddess? Or what need is there of Jupiter himself in this matter, if Victory favors and is propitious and always goes to those whom she wants to be victors? With this goddess favoring and propitious, even if Jupiter were idle or doing something else, what nations would remain unsubdued? What kingdoms would not yield? Or perhaps it displeases good men to fight with most unjust wickedness and to provoke peaceful neighbors who do no wrong by a war of their own choosing in order to enlarge their kingdom? Clearly, if that is what they think, I approve and praise it.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.14 (CSEL 40:181–182; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-14).

## City of God 4.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-15
- Source: CSEL 40:182–183
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that good men prefer peaceful neighbors to conquest, that Rome's just wars were made possible by others' iniquity, and that victory is the gift of the true King of kings, not of Jupiter.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. An congruat bonis latius uelle regnare. Videant ergo ne forte non pertineat ad uiros bonos gaudere de regni latitudine. Iniquitas enim eorum, cum quibus iusta bella gesta sunt, regnum adiuuit ut cresceret, quod utique paruum esset, si quies et iustitia finitimorum contra se bellum geri nulla prouocaret iniuria ac sic felicioribus rebus humanis omnia regna parua essent concordi uicinitate laetantia et ita essent in mundo regna plurima gentium, ut sunt in urbe domus plurimae ciuium. Proinde belligerare et perdomitis gentibus dilatare regnum malis uidetur felicitas, bonis necessitas. Sed quia peius esset, ut iniuriosi iustioribus dominarentur, ideo non incongrue dicitur etiam ista felicitas. Sed procul dubio felicitas maior est uicinum bonum habere concordem quam uicinum malum subiugare bellantem. Mala uota sunt optare habere quem oderis uel quem timeas, ut possit esse quem uincas. Si ergo iusta gerendo bella, non inpia, non iniqua, Romani imperium tam magnum adquirere potuerunt, numquid tamquam aliqua dea colenda est eis etiam iniquitas aliena? Multum enim ad istam latitudinem imperii eam cooperatam uidemus, quae faciebat iniuriosos, ut essent cum quibus iusta bella gererentur et augeretur imperium. Quur autem et iniquitas dea non sit uel externarum gentium, si Pauor et Pallor et Febris di Romani esse meruerunt? His igitur duabus, id est aliena iniquitate et dea Victoria, dum bellorum causas iniquitas excitat, Victoria eadem bella feliciter terminat, etiam feriato Ioue creuit imperium. Quas enim hic partes Iuppiter haberet, cum ea, quae possent beneficia eius putari, di habentur, di uocantur, di coluntur, ipsi pro suis partibus inuocantur? Haberet hic autem etiam ille aliquam partem, si Regnum etiam ipse appellaretur, sicut appellatur illa Victoria. Aut si regnum munus est Iouis, quur non et uictoria munus eius habeatur? Quod profecto haberetur, si non lapis in Capitolio, sed uerus rex regum et dominus dominantium cognosceretur adque coleretur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. Whether it befits good men to wish to reign more widely.

Let them consider, then, whether it perhaps does not befit good men to rejoice in the breadth of their kingdom. For the iniquity of those against whom just wars were waged helped the kingdom to grow; it would certainly have been small if the peace and justice of its neighbors had provoked no war against it by any wrong; and so, human affairs being happier, all kingdoms would be small, rejoicing in harmonious neighborliness, and there would be many kingdoms of nations in the world as there are many houses of citizens in a city. So to wage war and enlarge a kingdom by subduing nations seems happiness to the wicked, necessity to the good. But because it would be worse for the wrongdoers to rule over the more just, this too is not inappropriately called happiness. But without doubt it is a greater happiness to have a good neighbor in harmony than to subjugate a bad neighbor at war. It is a bad wish to desire to have someone to hate or fear so that there may be someone to conquer. If, then, by waging just wars, not ungodly, not unjust ones, the Romans were able to acquire so great an empire, must they worship even the iniquity of others as some goddess? For we see that it cooperated greatly toward this breadth of empire, by making men wrongdoers, so that there might be those against whom just wars could be waged and the empire increased. And why should not Iniquity, at least of foreign nations, be a goddess too, if Fear and Pallor and Fever deserved to be Roman gods? By these two, then, that is, foreign iniquity and the goddess Victory, the empire grew even while Jupiter took a holiday, while Iniquity stirred up the causes of wars and Victory brought those same wars to a happy end. For what part would Jupiter have here, when the things that could be thought his benefits are held to be gods, called gods, worshipped as gods, and are themselves invoked for their own parts? He too would have some part here if he himself were called Kingdom, as that one is called Victory. Or if the kingdom is the gift of Jupiter, why should not victory too be held his gift? It certainly would be, if not a stone in the Capitol but the true King of kings and Lord of lords were known and worshipped.

### Scripture references

- 1 Tim 6:15: allusion, medium confidence
- Rev 19:16: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- “King of kings and Lord of lords”: 1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 19:16.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.15 (CSEL 40:182–183; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-15).

## City of God 4.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-16
- Source: CSEL 40:183–184
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine notes that the Romans worshipped deities of action and exertion publicly but kept the temple of Quiet outside the city, and contrasts the rest Christ offers.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. Quid fuerit quod Romani omnibus rebus et omnibus motibus deos singulos deputantes aedem Quietis extra portas esse uoluerunt. Miror autem plurimum, quod, cum deos singulos singulis rebus et paene singulis motibus adtribuerent, uocauerunt deam Agenoriam, quae ad agendum excitaret, deam Stimulam, quae ad agendum ultra modum stimularet, deam Murciam, quae praeter modum non moueret ac faceret hominem, ut ait Pomponius, murcidum, id est nimis desidiosum et inactuosum, deam Streniam, quae faceret strenuum, his omnibus dis et deabus publica sacra facere susceperunt, Quietem uero appellantes, quae faceret quietum, cum aedem haberet extra portam Collinam, publice illam suscipere noluerunt. Utrum indicium fuit animi inquieti, an potius ita significatum est, qui illam turbam colere perseueraret non plane deorum, sed daemoniorum, eum quietem habere non posse? ad quam uocat uerus medicus dicens: Discite a me, quoniam mitis sum et humilis corde, et inuenietis requiem animabus uestris.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. Why the Romans, who assigned single gods to all things and all movements, wanted the temple of Quiet to be outside the gates.

I wonder very much that, while they assigned single gods to single things and almost to single movements, and named a goddess Agenoria, to rouse to action (agere); a goddess Stimula, to goad to action beyond measure; a goddess Murcia, who would not move a man beyond measure and would make him, as Pomponius says, murcidus, that is, too lazy and inactive; a goddess Strenia, to make him strenuous; and undertook to offer public rites to all these gods and goddesses, they were unwilling to receive publicly the one they called Quiet, who would make a man quiet, though she had a temple outside the Colline gate. Was it a sign of a restless mind, or was it rather signified thus that whoever persisted in worshipping that crowd, not of gods at all but of demons, could not have quiet? To which the true Physician calls, saying: “Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble of heart, and you will find rest for your souls.”

### Scripture references

- Matt 11:29: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Matthew 11:29. Pomponius was a writer of Atellan farces (1st century BC; no entry in the site's list of texts).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.16 (CSEL 40:183–184; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-16).

## City of God 4.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-17
- Source: CSEL 40:184
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that it is the true King of the ages who gives victory through his angels, and that if Victory obeys Jupiter, Jupiter alone should be worshipped.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. An, si Iouis summa potestas est, etiam Victoria dea debuerit aestimari. An forte dicunt, quod deam Victoriam Iuppiter mittat adque illa tamquam regi deorum obtemperans ad quos iusserit ueniat et in eorum parte considat? Hoc uere dicitur non de illo Ioue, quem deorum regem pro sua opinione confingunt, sed de illo uero rege saeculorum, quod mittat non Victoriam, quae nulla substantia est, sed angelum suum et faciat uincere quem uoluerit; cuius consilium occultum esse potest, iniquum non potest. Nam si uictoria dea est, quur non deus est et triumphus, et uictoriae iungitur uel maritus uel frater uel filius? Talia quippe isti de dis opinati sunt, qualia si poetae fingerent adque a nobis exagitarentur, responderent isti ridenda esse figmenta poetarum, non ueris adtribuenda numinibus; et tamen se ipsi non ridebant, cum talia deliramenta non aput poetas legebant, sed in templis colebant. Iouem igitur de omnibus rogarent, ei uni tantummodo supplicarent. Non enim, quo misisset Victoriam, si dea est et sub illo rege est, posset ei audere resistere et suam potius facere uoluntatem.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. Whether, if the supreme power belongs to Jupiter, Victory too ought to have been regarded as a goddess.

Or perhaps they say that Jupiter sends the goddess Victory, and that she, obeying him as king of the gods, comes to those he has ordered and takes her seat on their side? This is truly said, not of that Jupiter whom they imagine king of the gods according to their opinion, but of that true King of the ages: that he sends, not Victory, which is no substance, but his angel, and makes whom he wills conquer; his counsel can be hidden, but it cannot be unjust. For if victory is a goddess, why is triumph not also a god, and joined to victory as husband or brother or son? For these people have held such opinions about the gods that, if the poets invented them and we attacked them, they would answer that the poets' fictions are to be laughed at, not attributed to true deities; and yet they did not laugh at themselves when they read such ravings, not in the poets, but worshipped them in the temples. Let them, then, ask Jupiter for everything, and supplicate him alone. For wherever he had sent Victory, if she is a goddess and under that king, she could not dare to resist him and do her own will instead.

### Scripture references

- 1 Tim 1:17: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- “King of the ages”: 1 Timothy 1:17.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.17 (CSEL 40:184; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-17).

## City of God 4.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-18
- Source: CSEL 40:184–186
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine exposes the confusion between the goddesses Felicity and Fortune, arguing that a blind Fortune is not worth worshipping and a discerning one is not fortune.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. Felicitatem et Fortunam qui deas putant, qua ratione secernunt. Quid, quod et Felicitas dea est? Aedem accepit, aram meruit, sacra congrua persoluta sunt. Ipsa ergo sola coleretur. Ubi enim ipsa esset, quid boni non esset? Sed quid sibi uult. quod et Fortuna dea putatur et colitur? An aliud est felicitas, aliud fortuna? Quia fortuna potest esse et mala; felicitas autem si mala fuerit, felicitas non erit. Certe omnes deos utriusque sexus (si et sexum habent) non nisi bonos existimare debemus. Hoc Plato dicit, hoc alii philosophi, hoc excellentes rei publicae populorumque rectores. Quo modo ergo dea Fortuna aliquando bona est, aliquando mala? An forte quando mala est, dea non est, sed in malignum daemonem repente conuertitur? Quot sunt ergo deae istae? Profecto quotquot homines fortunati, hoc est bonae fortunae. Nam cum sint et alii plurimi simul, hoc est uno tempore, malae fortunae, numquid, si ipsa esset, simul et bona esset et mala; his aliud, illis aliud? An illa, quae dea est, semper est bona? Ipsa est ergo Felicitas: quur adhibentur diuersa nomina? Sed hoc ferendum est; solet enim et una res duobus nominibus appellari. Quid diuersae aedes, diuersae arae, diuersa sacra? Est causa, inquiunt, quia felicitas illa est, quam boni habent praecedentibus meritis; fortuna uero, quae dicitur bona, sine ullo examine meritorum fortuito accidit hominibus et bonis et malis, unde etiam Fortuna nominatur. Quo modo ergo bona est, quae sine ullo iudicio uenit et ad bonos et ad malos? Ut quid autem colitur, quae ita caeca est passim in quoslibet incurrens, ut suos cultores plerumque praetereat et suis contemtoribus haereat? Aut si aliquid proficiunt cultores eius, ut ab illa uideantur et amentur, iam merita sequitur, non fortuito uenit. Ubi est definitio illa Fortunae? Ubi est quod a fortuitis etiam nomen accepit? Nihil enim prodest eam colere, si fortuna est. Si autem suos cultores discernit, ut prosit, fortuna non est. An et ipsam, quo uoluerit, Iuppiter mittit? Colatur ergo ipse solus; non enim potest ei iubenti et eam quo uoluerit mittenti Fortuna resistere. Aut certe istam mali colant, qui nolunt habere merita, quibus dea possit Felicitas inuitari.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. By what reasoning those who think Felicity and Fortune goddesses distinguish them.

What of the fact that Felicity too is a goddess? She received a temple, earned an altar, fitting rites were paid to her. Then let her alone be worshipped. For where she was, what good would be lacking? But what does it mean that Fortune too is thought a goddess and worshipped? Is felicity one thing and fortune another? Because fortune can also be bad; but felicity, if it is bad, will not be felicity. Certainly we ought to think that all gods of both sexes (if they even have sex) are only good. Plato says this, other philosophers say it, excellent rulers of states and peoples say it. How then is the goddess Fortune sometimes good, sometimes bad? Or perhaps when she is bad she is not a goddess, but is suddenly turned into a malign demon? How many, then, are these goddesses? Surely as many as there are fortunate men, that is, men of good fortune. For since there are also very many others at the same time, that is, at one time, of bad fortune, would she, if she were one, be both good and bad at once, one thing to these, another to those? Or is she who is a goddess always good? Then she is Felicity: why are different names used? But this can be borne; for one thing is often called by two names. Why different temples, different altars, different rites? There is a reason, they say: felicity is what the good have by preceding merits, while fortune, which is called good, befalls men, both good and bad, by chance (fortuito), without any weighing of merits, which is why she is called Fortune. How then is she good, who comes to good and bad without any judgment? And why is she worshipped, who is so blind that she runs into anyone at random, so that she often passes by her worshippers and clings to those who despise her? Or if her worshippers gain something, so that they are seen and loved by her, then she follows merits and does not come by chance. Where is that definition of Fortune? Where is the fact that she took her very name from chance events? For it is useless to worship her if she is fortune. But if she distinguishes her worshippers so as to benefit them, she is not fortune. Or does Jupiter send her too wherever he wills? Then let him alone be worshipped; for Fortune cannot resist him when he commands and sends her where he wills. Or at least let the wicked worship her, who do not want to have the merits by which the goddess Felicity might be invited.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Resp. 379b (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Plato, Republic 379b (God is good).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.18 (CSEL 40:184–186; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-18).

## City of God 4.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-19
- Source: CSEL 40:186
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine mocks the report that the statue of Fortuna Muliebris spoke twice, attributing it to demonic deception.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. De Fortuna muliebri. Tantum sane huic uelut numini tribuunt, quam Fortunam uocant, ut simulacrum eius, quod a matronis dedicatum est et appellata est Fortuna muliebris, etiam locutum esse memoriae commendauerint adque dixisse non semel, sed iterum, quod eam rite matronae dedicauerint. Quod quidem si uerum, sit, mirari nos non oportet. Non enim malignis daemonibus etiam sic difficile est fallere, quorum artes adque uersutias hinc potius isti aduertere debuerunt, quod illa dea locuta est, quae fortuito accidit, non quae meritis uenit. Fuit enim Fortuna loquax et muta Felicitas, ut quid aliud, nisi ut homines recte uiuere non curarent conciliata sibi Fortuna, quae illos sine ullis bonis meritis faceret fortunatos? Et certe si Fortuna loquitur, non saltem muliebris, sed uirilis potius loqueretur, ut non ipsae, quae simulacrum dedicauerunt, putarentur tantum miraculum muliebri loquacitate finxisse.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. On Fortuna Muliebris.

They attribute so much to this supposed deity whom they call Fortune that they have recorded that her image, which was dedicated by the matrons and called Fortuna Muliebris (the Fortune of women), even spoke, and said not once but twice that the matrons had dedicated her rightly. If this is true, we need not wonder. For it is not hard for malign demons to deceive even in this way; and these people ought rather to have noticed their arts and tricks from the fact that the goddess who spoke was the one who comes by chance, not the one who comes by merits. For Fortune was talkative and Felicity dumb, for what other purpose than that men should not care to live rightly, once they had won over Fortune, who would make them fortunate without any good merits? And certainly, if Fortune speaks, it would rather be not the womanly but the manly one who spoke, so that it might not be thought that the women themselves who dedicated the image invented so great a miracle out of womanly talkativeness.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, 2.40 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Livy 2.40; Valerius Maximus 1.8.4.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.19 (CSEL 40:186; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-7/#p-4-19).

## City of God 4.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-20
- Source: CSEL 40:186–187
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that Virtue and Faith are gifts of God, not goddesses, and asks why, if they are deities, the Romans did not also deify temperance, fortitude, and prudence.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. De Virtute et Fide, quas pagani templis et sacris honorauerunt praetermittentes alia bona, quae similiter colenda fuerint, si recte aliis diuinitas tribuebatur. Virtutem quoque deam fecerunt; quae quidem si dea esset, multis fuerat praeferenda. Et nunc quia dea non est, sed donum Dei est, ipsa ab illo inpetretur, a quo solo dari potest, et omnis falsorum deorum turba uanescet. Sed quur et Fides dea credita est et accepit etiam ipsa templum et altare? Quam quisquis prudenter agnoscit, habitaculum illi se ipsum facit. Unde autem sciunt illi quid sit fides, cuius primum et maximum officium est, ut in uerum credatur Deum? Sed quur non suffecerat et Virtus? Nonne ibi est et Fides? Quando quidem uirtutem in quattuor species distribuendam esse uiderunt, prudentiam, iustitiam, fortitudinem, temperantiam; et quoniam et istae singulae species suas habent, in partibus iustitiae fides est maximumque locum aput nos habet, quicumque scimus quid sit, quod iustus ex fide uiuit. Sed illos miror adpetitores multitudinis deorum, si fides dea est, quare aliis tam multis deabus iniuriam fecerint praetermittendo eas, quibus similiter aedes et aras dedicare potuerunt? Quur temperantia dea esse non meruit, cum eius nomine nonnulli Romani principes non paruam gloriam conpararint? Quur denique fortitudo dea non est, quae adfuit Mucio. cum dexteram porrexit in flammas; quae adfuit Curtio, cum se pro patria in abruptam terram praecipitem dedit; quae adfuit Decio patri et Decio filio, cum pro exercitu se uouerunt? si tamen his omnibus uera inerat fortitudo, unde modo non agitur. Quare prudentia, quare sapientia nulla numinum loca meruerunt? An quia in nomine generali ipsius uirtutis omnes coluntur? Sic ergo posset et unus Deus coli, cuius partes ceteri di putantur. Sed in illa una uirtute et fides est et pudicitia, quae tamen extra, in aedibus propriis altaria meruerunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. On Virtue and Faith, which the pagans honored with temples and rites while passing over other goods which should likewise have been worshipped, if divinity was rightly attributed to the former.

They made Virtue a goddess too; and if she were a goddess, she would have been preferable to many. And now, because she is not a goddess but a gift of God, let her be sought from him by whom alone she can be given, and the whole crowd of false gods will vanish. But why was Faith too believed to be a goddess and given a temple and altar of her own? Whoever recognizes her wisely makes himself a dwelling for her. But how do they know what faith is, whose first and greatest duty is that the true God be believed in? But why was Virtue not enough? Is not Faith there too? Since they saw that virtue is to be divided into four kinds, prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance; and since each of these kinds has its own subdivisions, faith is among the parts of justice, and holds the greatest place among us, all who know what it means that “the just lives by faith.” But I wonder at these seekers of a multitude of gods: if faith is a goddess, why did they wrong so many other goddesses by passing them over, to whom they could likewise have dedicated temples and altars? Why did temperance not deserve to be a goddess, when some Roman leaders won no small glory in her name? Why, finally, is fortitude not a goddess, who stood by Mucius when he held out his right hand in the flames; who stood by Curtius when he threw himself headlong for his country into the chasm in the earth; who stood by Decius the father and Decius the son when they devoted themselves for the army? If indeed there was true fortitude in all these, which is not the question now. Why did prudence, why did wisdom, deserve no places among the deities? Or is it because they are all worshipped under the general name of virtue itself? Then in this way the one God too could be worshipped, of whom the other gods are thought to be parts. But in that one virtue there are also faith and chastity, which nevertheless earned altars outside it, in temples of their own.

### Scripture references

- Hab 2:4: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:17: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, 2.12 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence
- Livy, 7.6 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence
- Livy, 8.9 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence
- Livy, 10.28 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 1:17. Mucius Scaevola (Livy 2.12), Curtius (Livy 7.6), the Decii (Livy 8.9; 10.28).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.20 (CSEL 40:186–187; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-20).

## City of God 4.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-21
- Source: CSEL 40:188–190
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that if Virtue and Felicity were goddesses, all the other petty deities would be superfluous, and that both are in truth gifts of God.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. Quod unum non intellegentes Deum Virtute saltem et Felicitate debuerint esse contenti. Has deas non ueritas, sed uanitas facit; haec enim ueri Dei munera sunt, non ipsae sunt deae. Verum tamen ubi est uirtus et felicitas, quid aliud quaeritur? Quid ei sufficit, cui uirtus felicitasque non sufficit? Omnia quippe agenda conplectitur uirtus, omnia optanda felicitas. Si Iuppiter, ut haec daret, ideo colebatur, quia, si bonum aliquid est latitudo regni adque diuturnitas, ad eandem pertinet felicitatem: quur non intellectum est dona Dei esse, non deas? Si autem putatae sunt deae, saltem alia tanta deorum turba non quaereretur. Consideratis enim officiis deorum dearumque omnium, quae sicut uoluerunt pro sua opinatione finxerunt, inueniant si possunt aliquid, quod praestari ab aliquo deo possit homini habenti uirtutem, habenti felicitatem. Quid doctrinae uel a Mercurio uel a Minerua petendum esset, cum uirtus omnia secum haberet? Ars quippe ipsa bene recteque uiuendi uirtus a ueteribus definita est. Unde ab eo, quod Graece ἀρετή dicitur uirtus, nomen artis Latinos traduxisse putauerunt. Sed si uirtus non nisi ad ingeniosum posset uenire, quid opus erat deo Catio patre, qui catos, id est acutos faceret, cum hoc posset conferre felicitas? Ingeniosum quippe nasci felicitatis est, unde, etiamsi non potuit a nondum nato coli dea Felicitas, ut hoc ei conciliata donaret, conferret hoc parentibus eius cultoribus suis, ut eis ingeniosi filii nascerentur. Quid opus erat parturientibus inuocare Lucinam, cum, si adesset Felicitas, non solum bene parerent, sed etiam bonos? Quid necesse erat Opi deae commendare nascentes, deo Vaticano uagientes, deae Cuninae iacentes, deae Ruminae sugentes, deo Statilino stantes, deae Adeonae adeuntes, Abeonae abeuntes; deae Menti, ut bonam haberent mentem, deo Volumno et deae Volumnae, ut bona uellent; dis nuptialibus, ut bene coniugarentur, dis agrestibus, ut fructus uberrimos caperent, et maxime ipsi diuae Fructeseae; Marti et Bellonae, ut bene belligerarent, deae Victoriae, ut uincerent; deo Honori, ut honorarentur, deae Pecuniae, ut pecuniosi essent, deo Aesculano et filio eius Argentino, ut haberent aeream argenteamque pecuniam? Nam ideo patrem Argentini Aesculanum posuerunt, quia prius aerea pecunia in usu coepit esse, post argentea. Miror autem, quod Argentinus non genuit Aurinum, quia et aurea subsecuta est. Quem deum isti si haberent, sicut Saturno Iouem, ita et patri Argentino et auo Aesculano Aurinum praeponerent. Quid ergo erat necesse propter haec bona uel animi uel corporis uel externa tantam deorum turbam colere et inuocare (quos neque omnes commemoraui, nec ipsi potuerunt omnibus bonis humanis minutatim singillatimque digestis deos minutos et singulos prouidere), cum posset magno facilique conpendio una dea Felicitas cuncta conferre, nec solum ad bona capienda quisquam alius, sed neque ad depellenda mala quaereretur? Quur enim esset inuocanda propter fessos diua Fessona, propter hostes depellendos diua Pellonia, propter aegros medicus uel Apollo uel Aesculapius uel ambo simul, quando esset grande periculum? Nec deus Spiniensis, ut spinas ex agris eradicaret; nec dea Rubigo, ut non accederet, rogaretur: una Felicitate praesente et tuente uel nulla mala exorerentur, uel facillime pellerentur. Postremo quoniam de duabus istis deabus Virtute et Felicitate tractamus: si felicitas uirtutis est praemium, non dea, sed Dei donum est; si autem dea est, quur non dicatur et uirtutem ipsa conferre, quando quidem etiam uirtutem consequi felicitas magna est?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. That, not understanding the one God, they ought at least to have been content with Virtue and Felicity.

Not truth but vanity makes these goddesses; for these are gifts of the true God, not goddesses themselves. Yet where there are virtue and felicity, what else is sought? What suffices for someone for whom virtue and felicity do not suffice? For virtue embraces all that is to be done, felicity all that is to be wished for. If Jupiter was worshipped so that he might give these things (because, if breadth and duration of rule are something good, they belong to that same felicity), why was it not understood that they are gifts of God, not goddesses? But if they were thought goddesses, at least that other great crowd of gods would not have been sought. For, considering the functions of all the gods and goddesses which they invented as they wished according to their opinion, let them find, if they can, anything that could be given by any god to a man who has virtue and has felicity. What learning would have to be sought from Mercury or from Minerva, when virtue would have everything with it? For virtue was defined by the ancients as the very art of living well and rightly. Hence they thought that the Latins derived the word ars (art) from the Greek word for virtue, aretē. But if virtue could come only to someone talented, what need was there of the god Father Catius, to make men catus, that is, sharp, when felicity could confer this? For to be born talented belongs to felicity; so, even if the goddess Felicity could not be worshipped by someone not yet born, so that, won over, she might give him this, she could give it to his parents, her worshippers, so that talented sons might be born to them. What need was there for women in labor to invoke Lucina, when, if Felicity were present, they would not only give birth well but also give birth to good children? What need was there to commend the newborn to the goddess Ops, the wailing to the god Vaticanus, the lying to the goddess Cunina, the sucking to the goddess Rumina, the standing to the god Statilinus, the coming to the goddess Adeona, the going away to Abeona; to the goddess Mens, that they might have a good mind; to the god Volumnus and the goddess Volumna, that they might will good things; to the nuptial gods, that they might marry well; to the rural gods, that they might reap very abundant crops, and above all to the goddess Fructesea herself; to Mars and Bellona, that they might wage war well; to the goddess Victory, that they might conquer; to the god Honor, that they might be honored; to the goddess Pecunia, that they might be moneyed; to the god Aesculanus and his son Argentinus, that they might have bronze and silver money? For they made Aesculanus the father of Argentinus because bronze money came into use first, and silver later. I wonder that Argentinus did not beget Aurinus, since gold money followed too. If they had this god, just as they put Jupiter above Saturn, so they would put Aurinus above his father Argentinus and grandfather Aesculanus. What need was there, then, for the sake of these goods, whether of mind or body or external, to worship and invoke so great a crowd of gods (and I have not mentioned them all, nor could they themselves provide petty and single gods for all human goods divided up minutely and one by one), when the one goddess Felicity could confer everything by a great and easy short cut, and no one else would be sought, not only for obtaining goods but also for driving away evils? For why would the goddess Fessona have to be invoked for the weary (fessi), the goddess Pellonia for driving away (pellere) enemies, for the sick a physician, either Apollo or Aesculapius, or both together when there was great danger? Nor would the god Spiniensis be asked to root out thorns (spinae) from the fields, nor the goddess Rubigo not to come; with Felicity alone present and protecting, either no evils would arise or they would be very easily driven off. Finally, since we are dealing with these two goddesses, Virtue and Felicity: if felicity is the reward of virtue, it is not a goddess but a gift of God; but if it is a goddess, why should it not be said to confer virtue too, since to attain virtue is also a great felicity?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. frag. (Varro): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The digital text prints the Greek word ἀρετή (“virtue”) as “Aperrj”; corrected. The etymology of ars from aretē is from Varro.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.21 (CSEL 40:188–190; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-21).

## City of God 4.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-22
- Source: CSEL 40:190–191
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine ridicules Varro's boast that his catalogue of the gods' functions helps the Romans know whom to ask for what.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. De scientia colendorum deorum, quam a se Varro gloriatur conlatam esse Romanis. Quid est ergo, quod pro ingenti beneficio Varro iactat praestare se ciuibus suis, quia non solum commemorat deos, quos coli oporteat a Romanis, uerum etiam dicit quid ad quemque pertineat? Quoniam nihil prodest, inquit, hominis alicuius medici nomen formamque nosse, et quod sit medicus ignorare: ita dicit nihil prodesse scire deum esse Aesculapium, si nescias eum ualetudini opitulari, adque ita ignores quur ei debeas supplicare. Hoc etiam alia similitudine adfirmat dicens, non modo bene uiuere, sed uiuere omnino neminem posse, si ignoret quisnam sit faber, quis pistor, quis tector, a quo quid utensile petere possit, quem adiutorem adsumere, quem ducem, quem doctorem; eo modo nulli dubium esse adserens ita esse utilem cognitionem deorum, si sciatur quam quisque deus uim et facultatem ac potestatem cuiusque rei habeat. (Ex eo enim poterimus, inquit, scire quem cuiusque causa deum aduocare adque inuocare debeamus, ne faciamus, ut mimi solent, et optemus a Libero aquam, a Lymphis uinum. Magna sane utilitas. Quis non huic gratias ageret, si uera monstraret, et si unum uerum Deum, a quo essent omnia bona, hominibus colendum doceret?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. On the knowledge of how to worship the gods, which Varro boasts that he conferred on the Romans.

What, then, is it that Varro boasts as a great benefit that he confers on his fellow citizens, because he not only lists the gods whom the Romans ought to worship but also says what belongs to each? “Just as it is no use,” he says, “to know the name and appearance of some man who is a doctor, and not to know that he is a doctor,” so he says it is no use to know that Aesculapius is a god if you do not know that he helps health, and so do not know why you ought to supplicate him. He confirms this with another comparison, saying that no one can live well, or even live at all, if he does not know who is a smith, who a baker, who a plasterer, from whom he can ask for any useful thing, whom he can take as helper, whom as leader, whom as teacher; asserting that in the same way no one can doubt that knowledge of the gods is useful if it is known what force, faculty, and power each god has over each thing. “For from this,” he says, “we shall be able to know which god we ought to call on and invoke for each purpose, so that we may not do as mimes do and ask Liber for water and the Lymphs for wine.” A great benefit indeed! Who would not thank him if he showed true things, and if he taught men to worship the one true God, from whom are all good things?

### Scripture references

- Jas 1:17: echo, low confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. frag. (Varro): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- From Varro's lost Antiquities of Divine Things.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.22 (CSEL 40:190–191; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-22).

## City of God 4.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-23
- Source: CSEL 40:191–194
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that if Felicity were a goddess she alone should have been worshipped in the highest temple, recalls how Terminus, Mars, and Juventas refused to yield to Jupiter, and concludes that felicity must be sought from the true God who gives it.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. De Felicitate, quam Romani, multorum ueneratores deorum, diu non coluerunt honore diuino, cum pro omnibus sola sufficeret. Sed (unde nunc agitur) si libri et sacra eorum uera sunt et Felicitas dea est, quur non ipsa una quae coleretur constituta est, quae posset uniuersa conferre et conpendio facere felicem? Quis enim optat aliquid propter aliud quam ut felix fiat? Quur denique tam sero huic tantae deae post tot Romanos principes Lucullus aedem constituit? Quur ipse Romulus felicem cupiens condere ciuitatem non huic templum potissimum struxit nec propter aliquid dis ceteris supplicauit, quando nihil deesset, si haec adesset? Nam et ipse nec prius rex, nec ut putant postea deus fieret, si hanc deam propitiam non haberet. Ut quid ergo constituit Romanis deos Ianum, Iouem, Martem, Picum, Faunum, Tiberinum, Herculem et si quos alios? Ut quid Titus Tatius addidit Saturnum, Opem, Solem, Lunam, Vulcanum, Lucem et quoscumque alios addidit, inter quos etiam deam Cloacinam, Felicitate neglecta? Ut quid Numa tot deos et tot deas sine ista? An eam forte in tanta turba uidere non potuit? Hostilius certe rex deos et ipse nouos Pauorem adque Pallorem propitiandos non introduceret, si deam istam nosset aut coleret. Praesente quippe Felicitate omnis pauor et pallor non propitiatus abscederet, sed pulsus aufugeret. Deinde quid est hoc, quod iam Romanum imperium longe lateque crescebat, et adhuc nemo Felicitatem colebat? An ideo grandius imperium quam felicius fuit? Nam quo modo ibi esset uera felicitas, ubi uera non erat pietas? Pietas est enim uerax ueri Dei cultus, non cultus falsorum tot deorum, quot daemoniorum. Sed et postea iam in deorum numerum Felicitate suscepta magna bellorum ciuilium infelicitas subsecuta est. An forte iuste est indignata Felicitas, quod et tam sero et non ad honorem, sed ad contumeliam potius inuitata est, ut cum ea coleretur Priapus et Cloacina et Pauor et Pallor et Febris et cetera non numina colendorum, sed crimina colentium? Ad extremum si cum turba indignissima tanta dea colenda uisa est, quur non uel inlustrius ceteris colebatur? Quis enim ferat, quod neque inter deos Consentes, quos dicunt in consilium Iouis adhiberi, nec inter deos, quos selectos uocant, Felicitas constituta est? Templum aliquod ei fieret, quod et loci sublimitate et operis dignitate praemineret. Quur enim non aliquid melius quam ipsi Ioui? Nam quae etiam Ioui regnum nisi Felicitas dedit? si tamen cum regnaret felix fuit. Et potior est felicitas regno. Nemo enim dubitat facile inueniri hominem, qui se timeat fieri regem; nullus autem inuenitur, qui se nolit esse felicem. Ipsi ergo di si per auguria uel quolibet modo eos posse consuli putant, de hac re consulerentur, utrum uellent Felicitati loco cedere, si forte aliorum aedibus uel altaribus iam fuisset locus occupatus, ubi aedes maior adque sublimior Felicitati construeretur; etiam ipse Iuppiter cederet, ut ipsum uerticem collis Capitolini Felicitas potius obtineret. Non enim quispiam resisteret Felicitati, nisi, quod fieri non potest, qui esse uellet infelix. Nullo modo omnino, si consuleretur, faceret Iuppiter, quod ei fecerunt tres di, Mars, Terminus et Iuuentas, qui maiori et regi suo nullo modo cedere loco uoluerunt. Nam sicut habent eorum litterae, cum rex Tarquinius Capitolium fabricari uellet eumque locum, qui ei dignior aptiorque uidebatur, ab dis aliis cerneret praeoccupatum, non audens aliquid contra eorum facere arbitrium et credens eos tanto numini suoque principi uoluntate cessuros, quia multi erant illic, ubi Capitolium constitutum est. per augurium quaesiuit, utrum concedere locum uellent Ioui; adque ipsi inde cedere omnes uoluerunt praeter illos quos commemoraui, Martem, Terminum, Iuuentatem; adque ideo Capitolium ita constructum est, ut etiam isti tres intus essent tam obscuris signis, ut hoc uix homines doctissimi scirent. Nullo modo igitur Felicitatem Iuppiter ipse contemneret, sicut a Termino, Marte, Iuuentate contemtus est. Sed ipsi etiam, qui non cesserant Ioui, profecto cederent Felicitati, quae illis regem fecerat Iouem. Aut si non cederent, non id contemtu eius facerent, sed quod in domo Felicitatis obscuri esse mallent quam sine illa in locis propriis eminere. Ita dea Felicitate in loco amplissimo et celsissimo constituta discerent ciues, unde omnis boni uoti petendum esset auxilium, ac sic ipsa suadente natura aliorum deorum superflua multitudine derelicta coleretur una Felicitas, uni supplicaretur, unius templum frequentaretur a ciuibus qui felices esse uellent, quorum esset nemo qui nollet, adque ita ipsa a se ipsa peteretur, quae ab omnibus petebatur. Quis enim aliquid ab aliquo deo nisi felicitatem uelit accipere uel quod ad felicitatem existimat pertinere? Proinde si felicitas habet in potestate cum quo homine sit (habet autem, si dea est): quae tandem stultitia est ab aliquo eam deo petere, quam possis a se ipsa inpetrare? Hanc ergo deam super deos ceteros honorare etiam loci dignitate debuerunt. Sicut enim aput ipsos legitur, Romani ueteres nescio quem Summanum, cui nocturna fulmina tribuebant, coluerunt magis quam Iouem, ad quem diurna fulmina pertinerent. Sed postquam Ioui templum insigne ac sublime constructum est, propter aedis dignitatem sic ad eum multitudo confluxit, ut uix inueniatur qui Summani nomen, quod audire iam non potest, se saltem legisse meminerit. Si autem felicitas dea non est, quoniam, quod uerum est, munus est Dei: ille Deus quaeratur, qui eam dare possit, et falsorum deorum multitudo noxia relinquatur, quam stultorum hominum multitudo uana sectatur, Dei dona deos sibi faciens et ipsum, cuius ea dona sunt, obstinatione superbae uoluntatis offendens. Sic enim carere non potest infelicitate, qui tamquam deam felicitatem colit et Deum datorem felicitatis relinquit, sicut carere non potest fame, qui panem pictum lingit et ab homine, qui uerum habet, non petit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. On Felicity, whom the Romans, worshippers of many gods, did not for a long time worship with divine honor, although she alone would have sufficed instead of all.

But (which is the present question) if their books and rites are true and Felicity is a goddess, why was she not established as the one to be worshipped, who could confer everything and make a man happy by a short cut? For who wishes for anything for any reason other than to become happy? Why, finally, did Lucullus build a temple to this great goddess so late, after so many Roman leaders? Why did Romulus himself, wishing to found a happy city, not build a temple to her above all, and not supplicate the other gods for anything, since nothing would be lacking if she were present? For he himself would not have become first king, or, as they think, later a god, if he had not had this goddess propitious. Why, then, did he establish for the Romans the gods Janus, Jupiter, Mars, Picus, Faunus, Tiberinus, Hercules, and any others? Why did Titus Tatius add Saturn, Ops, Sol, Luna, Vulcan, Lux, and whatever others he added, among them even the goddess Cloacina, neglecting Felicity? Why did Numa establish so many gods and so many goddesses without her? Or perhaps he could not see her in so great a crowd? King Hostilius certainly would not have introduced new gods to be propitiated, Fear and Pallor, if he had known or worshipped this goddess. For with Felicity present, all fear and pallor would have gone away, not propitiated but driven off in flight. Then what is this, that the Roman empire was already growing far and wide and still no one worshipped Felicity? Or was the empire for that reason greater rather than happier? For how could there be true felicity where there was not true godliness? For godliness is the true worship of the true God, not the worship of as many false gods as there are demons. But even afterwards, when Felicity had been received into the number of the gods, the great unhappiness of the civil wars followed. Or perhaps Felicity was justly indignant that she was invited both so late and not to honor but rather to insult, since along with her were worshipped Priapus and Cloacina and Fear and Pallor and Fever and the rest, not deities to be worshipped but crimes of the worshippers? Lastly, if so great a goddess was thought fit to be worshipped with a most unworthy crowd, why was she not at least worshipped more splendidly than the rest? For who can bear that Felicity was placed neither among the Consentes, the gods whom they say are called into Jupiter's council, nor among the gods they call select? Some temple should have been made for her, pre-eminent both in the height of its site and the dignity of its work. For why not something better than for Jupiter himself? For who gave even Jupiter his kingdom but Felicity, if indeed he was happy when he reigned? And felicity is better than a kingdom. For no one doubts that a man is easily found who fears to be made king; but no one is found who does not want to be happy. So if they think the gods themselves can be consulted by auguries or in any way, let them be consulted about this: whether they would be willing to give up their place to Felicity, if perhaps the site where a greater and loftier temple would be built for Felicity was already occupied by others' temples or altars; even Jupiter himself would give way, so that Felicity might have the very summit of the Capitoline hill. For no one would resist Felicity, except, what cannot happen, someone who wanted to be unhappy. Jupiter, if consulted, would in no way do what three gods, Mars, Terminus, and Juventas, did to him, who would in no way give up their place to their superior and king. For, as their writings record, when King Tarquin wanted to build the Capitol, and saw that the place which seemed to him more worthy and suitable was already occupied by other gods, not daring to do anything against their will, and believing that they would willingly give way to so great a deity and their chief, because there were many there where the Capitol was built, he asked by augury whether they were willing to give up the place to Jupiter; and all were willing to move from there except those I have mentioned, Mars, Terminus, Juventas; and so the Capitol was built in such a way that these three were also inside, with such obscure images that even the most learned men hardly knew it. In no way, then, would Jupiter himself despise Felicity, as he was despised by Terminus, Mars, and Juventas. But even these, who had not given way to Jupiter, would surely give way to Felicity, who had made Jupiter their king. Or if they did not give way, they would not do it from contempt of her, but because they would rather be obscure in the house of Felicity than prominent without her in their own places. So, with the goddess Felicity established in a most spacious and lofty place, the citizens would learn from where the help for every good wish should be sought; and so, at the prompting of nature itself, the superfluous multitude of other gods being abandoned, Felicity alone would be worshipped, she alone supplicated, her temple alone thronged by citizens who wanted to be happy, and there would be none who did not; and so she herself would be asked of herself, she who was asked for by all. For who wants to receive anything from any god except felicity, or what he thinks belongs to felicity? So if felicity has it in her power with which man she will be (and she has it, if she is a goddess), what folly it is, pray, to ask for her from some god when you could obtain her from herself! So they ought to have honored this goddess above the other gods even by the dignity of her site. For, as is read in their own writings, the ancient Romans worshipped a certain Summanus, to whom they attributed lightning by night, more than Jupiter, to whom lightning by day belonged. But after a notable and lofty temple was built for Jupiter, because of the dignity of the building the multitude flocked to him so much that there is scarcely anyone to be found who remembers having even read the name of Summanus, which can no longer be heard. But if felicity is not a goddess, because, as is true, she is a gift of God, let that God be sought who can give her, and let the harmful multitude of false gods be abandoned, which the vain multitude of foolish men follows, making gods for themselves of the gifts of God and offending him whose gifts they are by the obstinacy of a proud will. For he cannot be free of unhappiness who worships felicity as a goddess and abandons God, the giver of felicity, just as he cannot be free of hunger who licks painted bread and does not ask it of the man who has real bread.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, 1.55 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence
- Livy, 1.27 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The refusal of Terminus and Juventas to move: Livy 1.55 and 5.54 (Mars is added by other sources). Pavor and Pallor vowed by Tullus Hostilius: Livy 1.27. Lucullus's temple of Felicitas: Strabo 8.6.23.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.23 (CSEL 40:191–194; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-23).

## City of God 4.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-24
- Source: CSEL 40:194–195
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reports the pagan defense that their ancestors named gods after the gifts they gave, not meaning the gifts themselves to be divine.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIIII. Qua ratione defendant pagani, quod inter deos colant ipsa dona diuina. Libet autem eorum considerare rationes. Usque adeone. inquiunt, maiores nostros insipientes fuisse credendum est, ut haec nescirent munera diuina esse, non deos? Sed quoniam sciebant nemini talia nisi aliquo deo largiente concedi, quorum deorum nomina non inueniebant, earum rerum nominibus appellabant deos, quas ab eis sentiebant dari, aliqua uocabula inde flectentes, sicut a bello Bellonam nuncupauerunt, non Bellum; sicut a cunis Cuninam, non Cunam; sicut a segetibus Segetiam, non Segetem, a pomis Pomonam, non Pomum: sicut a bubus Bubonam, non Bouem: aut certe nulla uocabuli declinatione sicut res ipsae nominantur, ut Pecunia dicta est dea, quae dat pecuniam, non omnino pecunia dea ipsa putata est; ita Virtus. quae dat uirtutem, Honor, qui honorem, Concordia, quae concordiam, Victoria, quae dat uictoriam. Ita, inquiunt, cum Felicitas dea dicitur, non ipsa quae datur, sed numen illud adtenditur a quo felicitas datur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 24. By what reasoning the pagans defend their worshipping the divine gifts themselves among the gods.

But let us consider their reasonings. “Must we believe,” they say, “that our ancestors were so foolish as not to know that these things are divine gifts, not gods? But since they knew that such things are granted to no one except by the gift of some god, and did not find the names of those gods, they called the gods by the names of the things which they perceived were given by them, bending some words from them; as they named Bellona from war (bellum), not Bellum; Cunina from cradles (cunae), not Cuna; Segetia from crops (segetes), not Seges; Pomona from fruits (poma), not Pomum; Bubona from oxen (boves), not Bos; or else with no change of the word, as the things themselves are named: as the goddess who gives money (pecunia) was called Pecunia, not that money itself was thought a goddess at all; so Virtue, who gives virtue; Honor, who gives honor; Concord, who gives concord; Victory, who gives victory. So,” they say, “when Felicity is called a goddess, what is meant is not the felicity that is given, but that deity by whom felicity is given.”

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.24 (CSEL 40:194–195; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-24).

## City of God 4.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-25
- Source: CSEL 40:195–196
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that by naming the giver of felicity after felicity itself, the pagans showed they sought an unknown God distinct from Jupiter, and this God alone should be worshipped.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXV. De uno tantum colendo Deo, qui licet nomine ignoretur, tamen felicitatis dator esse sentitur. Ista nobis reddita ratione multo facilius eis, quorum cor non nimis obduruit, persuadebimus fortasse quod uolumus. Si enim iam humana infirmitas sensit non nisi ab aliquo deo dari posse felicitatem, et hoc senserunt homines, qui tam multos colebant deos, in quibus et ipsum eorum regem Iouem: quia nomen eius, a quo daretur felicitas, ignorabant, ideo ipsius rei nomine, quam credebant ab illo dari, eum appellare uoluerunt, satis ergo indicarunt nec ab ipso Ioue dari posse felicitatem, quem iam colebant, sed utique ab illo, quem nomine ipsius felicitatis colendum esse censebant. Confirmo prorsus a quodam deo, quem nesciebant, eos credidisse dari felicitatem: ipse ergo quaeratur, ipse colatur, et sufficit. Repudietur strepitus innumerabilium daemoniorum; illi non sufficiat hic deus, cui non sufficit munus eius. Illi, inquam, non sufficiat ad colendum Deus dator felicitatis, cui non sufficit ad accipiendum ipsa felicitas. Cui autem sufficit (non enim habet homo quid amplius optare debeat), seruiat uni Deo datori felicitatis. Non est ipse, quem nominant Iouem. Nam si eum datorem felicitatis agnoscerent, non utique alium uel aliam, a qua daretur felicitas, nomine ipsius felicitatis inquirerent, neque ipsum Iouem cum tantis iniuriis colendum putarent. Iste alienarum dicitur adulter uxorum, iste pueri pulchri inpudicus amator et raptor.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 25. On the one God only to be worshipped, who, though his name is not known, is nevertheless perceived to be the giver of felicity.

With this reasoning given to us, we shall perhaps persuade much more easily those whose heart is not too hardened of what we want. For if human weakness has already perceived that felicity can be given only by some god, and this was perceived by men who worshipped so many gods, among them their king Jupiter himself, then, because they did not know the name of him by whom felicity was given, and therefore chose to call him by the name of the very thing they believed he gave, they showed clearly enough that felicity could not be given even by Jupiter himself, whom they were already worshipping, but certainly by him whom they judged should be worshipped under the name of felicity itself. I fully confirm that they believed felicity is given by some god whom they did not know: let him, then, be sought, let him be worshipped, and it is enough. Let the din of countless demons be rejected; let this God not be enough for someone for whom his gift is not enough. Let him, I say, for whom felicity itself is not enough to receive, find that God the giver of felicity is not enough to worship. But let him for whom it is enough (for man has nothing more that he ought to wish for) serve the one God, the giver of felicity. It is not he whom they call Jupiter. For if they recognized him as the giver of felicity, they would certainly not seek another god or goddess, by whom felicity might be given, under the name of felicity itself, nor would they think Jupiter himself should be worshipped with such great insults. He is said to be the adulterer of other men's wives, the shameless lover and ravisher of a beautiful boy.

### Scripture references

- Acts 17:23: echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- The “beautiful boy” is Ganymede.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.25 (CSEL 40:195–196; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-25).

## City of God 4.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-26
- Source: CSEL 40:196–197
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine recounts how the gods compelled the Roman senate, through the dreams of Titus Latinius, to renew the games in which Jupiter's crimes were acted, showing that they were demons, not givers of felicity.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVI. De ludis scaenicis, quos sibi di celebrari a suis cultoribus exegerunt. Sed (fingebat haec Homerus, ait Tullius, et humana ad deos transferebat: diuina mallem ad nos. Merito displicuit uiro graui diuinorum criminum poeta confictor. Quur ergo ludi scaenici, ubi haec dictitantur cantitantur actitantur, deorum honoribus exhibentur, inter res diuinas a doctissimis conscribuntur? Hic exclamet Cicero non contra figmenta poetarum, sed contra instituta maiorum; an exclamarent et illi: Quid nos fecimus! Ipsi di ista suis honoribus exhibenda flagitauerunt, atrociter imperarunt, cladem nisi fieret praenuntiarunt, quia neglectum est aliquid, seuerissime uindicarunt, quia id quod neglectum fuerat factum est, placatos se esse monstrarunt. Inter eorum commemoratur uirtutes et miranda facta quod dicam. Tito Latinio rustico Romano patri familias dictum est in somnis, in senatum nuntiaret, ut ludi Romani instaurarentur, quod primo eorum die in quodam scelerato, qui populo spectante ad supplicium duci iussus est, numinibus uidelicet ex ludis hilaritatem quaerentibus triste displicuisset imperium. Cum ergo ille qui somnio commonitus erat postero die iussa facere non ausus esset, secunda nocte hoc idem rursus seuerius imperatum est: amisit filium, quia non fecit. Tertia nocte dictum est homini, quod maior ei poena, si non faceret, inmineret. Cum etiam sic non auderet, in morbum incidit acrem et horribilem. Tum uero ex amicorum sententia ad magistratus rem detulit adque in lectica adlatus est in senatum expositoque somnio recepta continuo ualetudine pedibus suis sanus abscessit. Tanto stupefactus miraculo senatus quadruplicata pecunia ludos censuit instaurari. Quis non uideat, qui sanum sapit, subditos homines malignis daemonibus, a quorum dominatione non liberat nisi gratia Dei per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum, ui conpulsos esse exhibere talibus dis, quae recto consilio poterant turpia iudicari? In illis certe ludis poetica numinum crimina frequentantur, qui ludi cogentibus numinibus iussu senatus instaurabantur. In illis ludis corruptorem pudicitiae Iouem turpissimi histriones cantabant agebant placebant. Si illud fingebatur, ille irasceretur; si autem suis criminibus etiam fictis delectabatur, quando coleretur, nisi diabolo seruiretur? Itane iste Romanum conderet dilataret conseruaret imperium, quouis Romano, cui talia displicebant, homine abiectior? Iste daret felicitatem, qui tam infeliciter colebatur, et nisi ita coleretur, infelicius irascebatur?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 26. On the stage plays which the gods demanded to be celebrated for them by their worshippers.

But “Homer invented these things,” says Tullius, “and transferred human things to the gods; I would rather he had transferred divine things to us.” The poet who invented divine crimes rightly displeased a serious man. Why, then, are the stage plays, in which these things are said, sung, and acted, exhibited in honor of the gods and written down among divine things by the most learned? Here let Cicero cry out, not against the fictions of the poets, but against the institutions of the ancestors. Or would they not cry out too: What have we done? The gods themselves demanded that these things be exhibited in their honor, commanded it harshly, foretold disaster if it were not done, avenged most severely when something was neglected, and showed that they were appeased when what had been neglected was done. Among their powers and wonderful deeds is recorded what I shall tell. To Titus Latinius, a Roman peasant and head of a household, it was said in his sleep that he should announce to the senate that the Roman games should be held again, because on their first day the deities, of course seeking merriment from the games, had been displeased by the gloomy spectacle of a certain criminal who was ordered to be led to execution while the people watched. When the man who had been warned in the dream did not dare to do as he was told the next day, the same thing was commanded again, more severely, on the second night: he lost his son because he did not do it. On the third night the man was told that a greater penalty threatened him if he did not do it. When even so he did not dare, he fell into a sharp and horrible illness. Then indeed, on his friends' advice, he reported the matter to the magistrates and was carried in a litter into the senate; and when he had told the dream, his health was at once restored and he left sound, on his own feet. The senate, astonished at so great a miracle, decreed that the games should be held again with four times the money. Who in his right mind does not see that men subject to malign demons, from whose domination nothing frees them but the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, were compelled by force to exhibit to such gods things which by sound judgment could be judged foul? Certainly in those games the poetic crimes of the deities are frequently presented, games which were held again by order of the senate under compulsion from the deities. In those games the foulest actors sang, acted, and pleased Jupiter as the corrupter of chastity. If that was invented, he should have been angry; but if he was delighted by his crimes, even invented ones, when he was worshipped, what was being served but the devil? Would such a one found, enlarge, and preserve the Roman empire, more abject than any Roman who disliked such things? Would he give felicity, who was worshipped so unhappily, and who, unless he was worshipped so, was more unhappily angry?

### Scripture references

- Rom 7:25: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Tusc. 1.65 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence
- Livy, 2.36 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, high confidence
- Cicero, Div. 1.55 (Cicero): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 1.65; the story of Titus Latinius is in Livy 2.36 and Cicero, On Divination 1.55. Romans 7:25 is echoed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.26 (CSEL 40:196–197; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-26).

## City of God 4.27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-27
- Source: CSEL 40:197–199
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reports Scaevola's division of gods into poetic, philosophical, and civil kinds, and criticizes the pontiff's view that it is expedient for states to be deceived in religion.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVII. De tribus generibus deorum, de quibus Scaeuola pontifex disputauit. Relatum est in litteras doctissimum pontificem Scaeuolam disputasse tria genera tradita deorum: unum a poetis, alterum a philosophis, tertium a principibus ciuitatis. Primum genus nugatorium dicit esse, quod multa de dis fingantur indigna; secundum non congruere ciuitatibus, quod habeat aliqua superuacua, aliqua etiam quae obsit populis nosse. De superuacuis non magna causa est; solet enim et a iuris peritis dici: Superflua non nocent. Quae sunt autem illa, quae prolata in multitudinem nocent? (Haec, inquit, non esse deos Herculem, Aesculapium, Castorem, Pollucem; proditur enim a doctis, quod homines fuerint et humana condicione defecerint. Quid aliud? Quod eorum qui sint di non habeant ciuitates uera simulacra, quod uerus Deus nec sexum habeat nec aetatem nec definita corporis membra. Haec pontifex nosse populos non uult; nam falsa esse non putat. Expedire igitur existimat falli in religione ciuitates. Quod dicere etiam in libris rerum diuinarum Varro ipse non dubitat. Praeclara religio, quo confugiat liberandus infirmus, et cum ueritatem qua liberetur inquirat, credatur ei expedire quod fallitur. Poeticum sane deorum genus quur Scaeuola respuat, eisdem litteris non tacetur: quia sic uidelicet deos deformant, ut nec bonis hominibus conparentur, cum alium faciant furari, alium adulterare, sic item aliquid aliter turpiter adque inepte dicere ac facere; tres inter se deas certasse de praemio pulchritudinis, uictas duas a Venere Troiam euertisse; Iouem ipsum conuerti in bouem aut cygnum, ut cum aliqua concumbat; deam homini nubere; Saturnum liberos deuorare: nihil denique posse confingi miraculorum adque uitiorum, quod non ibi reperiatur adque ab deorum natura longe absit. o Scaeuola pontifex maxime, ludos tolle, si potes; praecipe populis, ne tales honores dis inmortalibus deferant, ubi crimina deorum libeat mirari et quae fieri possunt placeat imitari. Si autem tibi responderit populus: Vos nobis inportastis ista pontifices: deos ipsos roga, quibus instigantibus ista iussistis, ne talia sibi iubeant exhiberi. Quae si mala sunt et propterea nullo modo de deorum maiestate credenda, maior est deorum iniuria, de quibus inpune finguntur. Sed non te audiunt, daemones sunt. praua docent, turpibus gaudent: non solum non deputant iniuriam, si de illis ista fingantur, sed eam potius iniuriam ferre non possunt, si per eorum sollemnia non agantur. Iam uero si aduersus eos Iouem interpelles, maxime ob eam causam, quia eius plura crimina ludis scaenicis actitantur: nonne etiamsi Deum Iouem nuncupatis, a quo regitur totus adque administratur hic mundus, eo illi fit a uobis maxima iniuria, quod eum cum istis colendum putatis eorumque regem esse perhibetis?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 27. On the three kinds of gods which the pontiff Scaevola discussed.

It is recorded that the most learned pontiff Scaevola argued that three kinds of gods have been handed down: one by the poets, another by the philosophers, the third by the leaders of the state. The first kind, he says, is trifling, because many unworthy things are invented about the gods; the second does not suit states, because it contains some things that are superfluous and some that it would harm the peoples to know. About the superfluous there is no great matter; for it is a saying even among lawyers: “Superfluous things do no harm.” But what are the things that do harm when brought out before the multitude? “These,” he says: “that Hercules, Aesculapius, Castor, and Pollux are not gods; for it is taught by the learned that they were men and died in the human condition.” What else? “That states do not have true images of those who are gods, because the true God has neither sex nor age nor defined bodily members.” The pontiff does not want the peoples to know these things; for he does not think they are false. So he thinks it expedient for states to be deceived in religion. Varro himself does not hesitate to say this too in his books on divine things. A splendid religion, for the weak man seeking to be freed to flee to, when, as he seeks the truth by which he may be freed, it is believed to be expedient for him to be deceived! Why Scaevola rejects the poetic kind of gods is not kept silent in the same writings: because, of course, they so disfigure the gods that they are not even comparable with good men, making one steal, another commit adultery, and likewise say and do other things foully and absurdly; that three goddesses competed with one another for the prize of beauty, and the two defeated by Venus overthrew Troy; that Jupiter himself was turned into a bull or a swan to lie with some woman; that a goddess married a man; that Saturn devoured his children; that, in short, nothing marvelous or vicious can be invented which is not found there and is far from the nature of the gods. O Scaevola, pontifex maximus, abolish the games if you can; instruct the peoples not to offer the immortal gods such honors, in which it pleases them to admire the crimes of the gods and imitate what can be done. But if the people answer you: You pontiffs brought these things in on us, ask the gods themselves, at whose instigation you ordered them, not to order such things to be exhibited to them. If these things are evil, and therefore by no means to be believed of the majesty of the gods, the greater is the insult to the gods about whom they are invented with impunity. But they do not hear you; they are demons; they teach depraved things, they rejoice in foul things; not only do they not count it an insult if these things are invented about them, but rather they cannot bear the insult if they are not acted at their solemn festivals. Now if you appeal to Jupiter against them, especially because more of his crimes are acted in the stage plays, even if you call Jupiter the God by whom this whole world is ruled and administered, is not the greatest insult done him by you in this, that you think he should be worshipped with these and declare him their king?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. frag. (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quintus Mucius Scaevola, pontifex maximus (d. 82 BC); the report comes through Varro.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.27 (CSEL 40:197–199; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-27).

## City of God 4.28

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-28
- Source: CSEL 40:199–200
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that the false gods could not have given Rome its empire, which depended on the will of the one true God.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIII. An ad obtinendum dilatandumque regnum profuerit Romanis cultus deorum. Nullo igitur modo di tales, qui talibus placantur uel potius accusantur honoribus, ut maius sit crimen quod eis falsis oblectantur, quam si de illis uera dicerentur, Romanum imperium augere et conseruare potuissent. Hoc enim si possent, Graecis potius donum tam grande conferrent, qui eos in huiusce modi rebus diuinis, hoc est ludis scaenicis, honorabilius digniusque coluerunt, quando et a morsibus poetarum, quibus deos dilacerari uidebant, se non subtraxerunt, dando eis licentiam male tractandi homines quos liberet, et ipsos scaenicos non turpes iudicauerunt, sed dignos etiam praeclaris honoribus habuerunt. Sicut autem potuerunt auream pecuniam habere Romani, quamuis deum Aurinum non colerent: sic et argenteam habere potuerunt et aeream, si nec Argentinum nec eius patrem colerent Aesculanum, et sic omnia quae retexere piget. Sic ergo et regnum inuito quidem Deo uero nullo modo habere possent; dis uero istis falsis et multis ignoratis siue contemtis adque illo uno cognito et fide sincera ac moribus culto et melius hic regnum haberent, quantumcumque haberent, et post haec acciperent sempiternum, siue hic haberent siue non haberent.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 28. Whether the worship of the gods helped the Romans to obtain and extend their empire.

In no way, then, could such gods, who are appeased (or rather accused) by such honors, that it is a greater crime for them to delight in false things than if true things were said of them, have increased and preserved the Roman empire. For if they could do this, they would rather have bestowed so great a gift on the Greeks, who worshipped them more honorably and worthily in divine things of this kind, that is, in stage plays; for they did not withdraw themselves from the bites of the poets, by whom they saw the gods torn to pieces, but gave them license to ill-treat any men they pleased, and they did not judge the stage players themselves disgraceful, but even held them worthy of distinguished honors. But just as the Romans could have gold money though they did not worship a god Aurinus, so they could also have silver and bronze, even if they worshipped neither Argentinus nor his father Aesculanus, and so with all the rest, which it is tedious to go over again. So also they could by no means have had their dominion against the will of the true God; but if these many false gods had been unknown or despised, and that one God known and worshipped with sincere faith and upright conduct, they would both have had a better kingdom here, however large it was, and after this they would receive an everlasting one, whether they had one here or not.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.28 (CSEL 40:199–200; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-28).

## City of God 4.29

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-29
- Source: CSEL 40:200–202
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine shows that the augury promising Rome unshaken boundaries was proved false by defeats and by the cessions of Hadrian and Jovian.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIIII. De falsitate auspicii, quo Romani regni fortitudo et stabilitas uisa est indicari. Nam illud quale est quod pulcherrimum auspicium fuisse dixerunt, quod paulo ante commemoraui, Martem et Terminum et Iuuentatem nec Ioui regi deorum loco cedere uoluisse? Sic enim, inquiunt, significatum est, Martiam gentem, id est Romanam, nemini locum quem teneret daturam, Romanos quoque terminos propter deum Terminum neminem commoturum, iuuentutem etiam Romanam propter deam Iuuentatem nemini esse cessuram. Videant ergo quo modo habeant istum regem deorum suorum et datorem regni sui, ut eum auspicia ista pro aduersario ponerent, cui non cedere pulchrum esset. Quamquam haec si uera sunt, non habent omnino quid timeant Non enim confessuri sunt, quod di cesserint Christo, qui Ioui cedere noluerunt; saluis quippe imperii finibus Christo cedere potuerunt et de sedibus locorum et maxime de corde credentium. Sed antequam Christus uenisset in carne, antequam denique ista scriberentur, quae de libris eorum proferimus, sed tamen postea quam factum est sub rege Tarquinio illud auspicium, aliquotiens Romanus exercitus fusus est, hoc est uersus in fugam, falsumque ostendit auspicium, quo Iuuentas illa non cesserat Ioui, et gens Martia superantibus adque inrumpentibus Gallis in ipsa Urbe contrita est, et termini imperii deficientibus multis ad Hannibalem ciuitatibus in angustum fuerant coartati. Ita euacuata est pulchritudo auspiciorum, remansit contra Iouem contumacia, non deorum, sed daemoniorum. Aliud est enim non cessisse, aliud unde cesseras redisse. Quamquam et postea in orientalibus partibus Hadriani uoluntate mutati sunt termini imperii Romani. Ille namque tres prouincias nobiles, Armeniam, Mesopotamiam, Assyriam, Persarum concessit imperio, ut deus ille Terminus, qui Romanos terminos secundum istos tuebatur et per illud pulcherrimum auspicium loco non cesserat Ioui, plus Hadrianum regem hominum quam regem deorum timuisse uideatur. Receptis quoque alio tempore prouinciis memoratis nostra paene memoria retrorsus Terminus cessit, quando Iulianus deorum illorum oraculis deditus inmoderato ausu naues iussit incendi, quibus alimonia portabatur; qua exercitus destitutus mox etiam ipso hostili uulnere extincto in tantam est redactus inopiam, ut inde nullus euaderet undique hostibus incursantibus militem imperatoris morte turbatum, nisi placito pacis illic imperii fines constituerentur, ubi hodieque persistunt, non quidem tanto detrimento, quantum concesserat Hadrianus, sed media tamen conpositione defixi. Uano igitur augurio deus Terminus non cessit Ioui, qui cessit Hadriani uoluntati, cessit etiam Iuliani temeritati et Iouiani necessitati. Uiderunt haec intellegentiores grauioresque Romani; sed contra consuetudinem ciuitatis, quae daemonicis ritibus fuerat obligata, parum ualebant, quia et ipsi, etiamsi illa uana esse sentiebant, naturae tamen rerum sub unius ueri Dei regimine adque imperio constitutae religiosum cultum, qui Deo debetur, exhibendum putabant, seruientes, ut ait apostolus, creaturae potius quam creatori, qui est benedictus in saecula. Huius Dei ueri erat auxilium necessarium, a quo mitterentur sancti uiri et ueraciter pii, qui pro uera religione morerentur, ut falsae a uiuentibus tollerentur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 29. On the falsity of the augury by which the strength and stability of the Roman empire was thought to be foretold.

For what of that which they have called a most beautiful augury, which I mentioned a little earlier, that Mars and Terminus and Juventas would not give up their place even to Jupiter, the king of the gods? For thus, they say, it was signified that the nation of Mars, that is, the Roman, would yield to no one the place it held; that because of the god Terminus no one would move the Roman boundaries; and that because of the goddess Juventas the Roman youth would give way to no one. Let them see, then, how they regard this king of their gods and giver of their kingdom, when these auguries set him up as an adversary to whom it would be glorious not to yield. Yet if these things are true, they have nothing at all to fear. For they will not admit that the gods who would not yield to Jupiter have yielded to Christ; for with the boundaries of the empire unharmed they could yield to Christ, both from their seats in various places and above all from the hearts of believers. But before Christ came in the flesh, and indeed before the things we cite from their books were written, yet after that augury had been taken under King Tarquin, the Roman army was more than once routed, that is, turned to flight, and so showed the augury false by which Juventas had not yielded to Jupiter; and the nation of Mars was crushed in the City itself when the Gauls overcame it and broke in; and the boundaries of the empire had been pressed into a narrow space when many cities went over to Hannibal. So the beauty of the auguries was emptied, and what remained was an obstinacy against Jupiter, not of gods but of demons. For it is one thing not to have yielded, another to have returned to the place from which you had yielded. And afterwards, too, in the eastern regions, the boundaries of the Roman empire were changed by the will of Hadrian. For he ceded three noble provinces, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria, to the empire of the Persians; so that the god Terminus, who according to these men guarded the Roman boundaries and by that most beautiful augury had not yielded his place to Jupiter, seems to have feared Hadrian, a king of men, more than the king of the gods. And when the said provinces had been recovered at another time, almost within our own memory Terminus fell back again, when Julian, devoted to the oracles of those gods, with reckless daring ordered the ships that carried the provisions to be burned. The army, left without supplies, and soon afterwards deprived of Julian himself, who was killed by an enemy wound, was reduced to such want, while the enemy attacked on every side the soldiers dismayed by the emperor's death, that no one would have escaped from there had not the boundaries of the empire been fixed by a treaty of peace where they remain to this day; not indeed with as great a loss as Hadrian had conceded, but still settled by a compromise. It was a vain augury, then, that the god Terminus did not yield to Jupiter, for he yielded to the will of Hadrian, yielded also to the rashness of Julian and to the necessity of Jovian. The more intelligent and serious Romans saw these things; but they had little power against the custom of the state, which had been bound to demonic rites, because even they, though they perceived that these things were vain, still thought that the religious worship owed to God should be paid to the nature of things, which is set under the rule and government of the one true God, “serving,” as the apostle says, “the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.” The help of this true God was needed, by whom holy and truly pious men might be sent to die for the true religion, so that the false might be taken away from among the living.

### Scripture references

- Rom 1:25: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Livy, 1.55 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- The augury: when the Capitol was built under Tarquin, the gods Terminus, Juventas (and Mars) refused to leave the site (see 4.23). Julian died in Persia in 363; Jovian made the peace that ceded territory.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.29 (CSEL 40:200–202; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-20/#p-4-29).

## City of God 4.30

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-4-30
- Source: CSEL 40:202–204
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine cites Cicero's Balbus, who condemns the fables and images of the gods yet cannot separate Rome's ancestral religion from superstition.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXX. Qualia de dis gentium etiam cultores eorum se sentire fateantur. Cicero augur inridet auguria et inridet homines corui et corniculae uocibus uitae consilia moderantes. Sed iste Academicus, qui omnia esse contendit incerta, indignus est qui habeat ullam in his rebus auctoritatem. Disputat aput eum Quintus Lucilius Balbus in secundo de deorum natura libro, et cum ipse superstitiones ex natura rerum uelut physicas et philosophicas inserat, indignatur tamen institutioni simulacrorum et opinionibus fabulosis ita loquens: Videtisne igitur, ut a physicis rebus bene adque utiliter inuentis ratio sit tracta ad commenticios et fictos deos? Quae res genuit falsas opiniones erroresque turbulentos et superstitiones paene aniles. Et formae enim nobis deorum et aetates et uestitus ornatusque noti sunt, genera praeterea, coniugia, cognationes, omniaque traducta ad similitudinem inbecillitatis humanae. Nam et perturbatis animis inducuntur; accepimus enim deorum cupiditates aegritudines iracundias. Nec uero, ut fabulae ferunt, di bellis proeliisque caruerunt; nec solum, ut aput Homerum, cum duos exercitus contrarios alii di ex alia parte defenderent, sed etiam (ut cum Titanis aut cum Gigantibus) sua propria bella gesserunt. Haec et dicuntur et creduntur stultissime et plena sunt uanitatis summaeque leuitatis. Ecce interim quae confitentur qui defendunt deos gentium. Deinde cum haec ad superstitionem pertinere dicat, ad religionem uero, quae ipse secundum Stoicos uidetur docere: *non enim philosophi solum, inquit, uerum etiam maiores nostri superstitionem a religione separauerunt; nam qui totos dies precabantur, inquit, et immolabant, ut sibi sui liberi superstites essent, superstitiosi sunt appellati.) Quis non intellegat eum conari, dum consuetudinem ciuitatis timet, religionem laudare maiorum eamque a superstitione uelle seiungere, sed quo modo id possit non inuenire? Si enim a maioribus illi sunt appellati superstitiosi, qui totos dies precabantur et immolabant, numquid et illi, qui instituerunt (quod iste reprehendit) deorum simulacra diuersa aetate et ueste distincta, deorum genera coniugia cognationes? Haec utique cum tamquam superstitiosa culpantur, inplicat ista culpa maiores talium simulacrorum institutores adque cultores; inplicat et ipsum, qui, quantolibet eloquio se in libertatem nitatur euoluere, necesse habebat ista uenerari; nec quod in hac disputatione disertus insonat, muttire auderet in populi contione. Agamus itaque Christiani Domino Deo nostro gratias, non caelo et terrae, sicut iste disputat, sed ei qui fecit caelum et terram, qui has superstitiones, quas iste Balbus uelut balbutiens uix reprehendit, per altissimam Christi humilitatem, per apostolorum praedicationem, per fidem martyrum pro ueritate morientium et cum ueritate uiuentium non solum in cordibus religiosis, uerum etiam in aedibus superstitiosis libera suorum seruitute subuertit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 30. What even their worshippers admit they think about the gods of the nations.

Cicero the augur laughs at auguries and laughs at men who regulate the plans of their life by the cries of the raven and the crow. But this Academic, who maintains that all things are uncertain, is unworthy to have any authority in these matters. In his work, in the second book On the Nature of the Gods, Quintus Lucilius Balbus argues; and though he himself introduces superstitions drawn from the nature of things, as if they were physical and philosophical, he is nevertheless indignant at the setting up of images and at fabulous opinions, speaking thus: “Do you see, then, how from physical discoveries, well and usefully made, reason has been drawn away to invented and fictitious gods? This has produced false opinions, turbulent errors, and superstitions almost fit for old women. For the forms of the gods are made known to us, and their ages, dress, and ornaments, and moreover their descents, marriages, kinships, and everything transferred to the likeness of human weakness. For they are even represented with troubled minds; for we have heard of the lusts, griefs, and angers of the gods. Nor, as the fables tell, have the gods been free of wars and battles; and not only, as in Homer, when different gods defended two opposing armies from opposite sides, but they have also waged wars of their own, as with the Titans or with the Giants. These things are both said and believed most foolishly, and they are full of vanity and the utmost levity.” See meanwhile what those who defend the gods of the nations admit. Then, when he says that these things belong to superstition, but to religion belong the things he himself seems to teach following the Stoics: “For not only the philosophers,” he says, “but also our ancestors separated superstition from religion. For those who prayed and sacrificed whole days that their children might survive them [superstites] were called superstitious.” Who does not understand that he is trying, while he fears the custom of the state, to praise the religion of the ancestors and to separate it from superstition, but cannot find how to do it? For if those were called superstitious by the ancestors who prayed and sacrificed whole days, were not those also superstitious who instituted (which he blames) images of the gods distinguished by age and dress, and the descents, marriages, and kinships of the gods? Certainly when these things are blamed as superstitious, the blame involves the ancestors who instituted and worshipped such images; it involves also Balbus himself, who, however eloquently he strives to extricate himself into freedom, was obliged to venerate these things; nor would he dare to mutter in an assembly of the people what he sounds forth so eloquently in this discussion. Let us Christians, therefore, give thanks to the Lord our God, not to heaven and earth, as that man argues, but to him who made heaven and earth, who, through the most lofty humility of Christ, through the preaching of the apostles, through the faith of the martyrs who died for the truth and live with the truth, has overthrown these superstitions, which Balbus, as if stammering [balbutiens], scarcely reproves, not only in religious hearts but even in superstitious temples, by the free service of his own people.

### Scripture references

- Ps 146:6: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Nat. d. 2.70–72 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence
- Cicero, Div. 2 (Cicero): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The quotation is Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods 2.70–72; Cicero's mockery of augury is in On Divination. Augustine plays on the name Balbus and balbutiens (“stammering”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.30 (CSEL 40:202–204; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-4-30).

## City of God 4.31

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-4-31
- Source: CSEL 40:204–206
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine shows that Varro privately rejected the popular gods, thought religion purer without images, and came near to believing in one God governing the world.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXI. De opinionibus Varronis, qui reprobata persuasione populari, licet ad notitiam ueri Dei non peruenerit, unum tamen Deum colendum esse censuerit. Quid ipse Varro, quem dolemus in rebus diuinis ludos scaenicos, quamuis non indicio proprio, posuisse, cum ad deos colendos multis locis uelut religiosus hortetur, nonne ita confitetur non se illa iudicio suo sequi, quae ciuitatem Romanam instituisse commemorat, ut, si eam ciuitatem nouam constitueret, ex naturae potius formula deos nominaque eorum se fuisse dedicaturum non dubitet confiteri? Sed iam quoniam in uetere populo esset, acceptam ab antiquis nominum et cognominum historiam tenere, ut tradita est, debere se dicit, et ad eum finem illa scribere ac perscrutari, ut potius eos magis colere quam despicere uulgus uelit. Quibus uerbis homo acutissimus satis indicat non se aperire omnia, quae non sibi tantum contemtui essent, sed etiam ipsi uulgo despicienda uiderentur, nisi tacerentur. Ego ista conicere putari debui, nisi euidenter alio loco ipse diceret de religionibus loquens multa esse uera, quae non modo uulgo scire non sit utile, sed etiam, tametsi falsa sunt, aliter existimare populum expediat, et ideo Graecos teletas ac mysteria taciturnitate parietibusque clausisse. Hic certe totum consilium prodidit uelut sapientium, per quos ciuitates et populi regerentur. Hac tamen fallacia miris modis maligni daemones delectantur, qui et deceptores et deceptos pariter possident, a quorum dominatione non liberat nisi gratia Dei per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum. Dicit etiam idem auctor acutissimus adque doctissimus, quod hi soli ei uideantur animum aduertisse quid esset Deus. qui crediderunt eum esse animam motu ac ratione mundum gubernantem, ac per hoc, etsi nondum tenebat quod ueritas habet (Deus enim uerus non anima, sed animae quoque est effector et conditor), tamen si contra praeiudicia consuetudinis liber esse posset, unum Deum colendum fateretur adque suaderet, motu ac ratione mundum gubernantem, ut ea cum illo de hac re quaestio remaneret, quod eum diceret esse animam, non potius et animae creatorem. Dicit etiam antiquos Romanos plus annos centum et septuaginta deos sine simulacro coluisse. <Quod si adhuc, inquit, mansisset, castius di obseruarentur.) Cui sententiae suae testem adhibet inter cetera etiam gentem Iudaeam; nec dubitat eum locum ita concludere, ut dicat, qui primi simulacra deorum populis posuerunt, eos ciuitatibus suis et metum demsisse et errorem addidisse, prudenter existimans deos facile posse in simulacrorum stoliditate contemni. Quod uero non ait errorem tradiderunt, sed addiderunt, iam utique fuisse etiam sine simulacris uult intellegi errorem. Quapropter cum solos dicit animaduertisse quid esset Deus, qui eum crederent animam mundum gubernantem, castiusque existimat sine simulacris obseruari religionem, quis non uideat quantum propinquauerit ueritati? Si enim aliquid contra uetustatem tanti posset erroris, profecto et unum Deum, a quo mundum crederet gubernari, et sine simulacro colendum esse censeret; adque in tam proximo inuentus facile fortasse de animae mutabilitate commoneretur, ut naturam potius incommutabilem, quae ipsam quoque animam condidisset, Deum uerum esse sentiret. Haec cum ita sint, quaecumque tales uiri in suis litteris multorum deorum ludibria posuerunt, confiteri ea potius occulta Dei uoluntate conpulsi sunt quam persuadere conati. Si qua igitur a nobis inde testimonia proferuntur, ad eos redarguendos proferuntur, qui nolunt aduertere de quanta et quam maligna daemonum potestate nos liberet singulare sacrificium tam sancti sanguinis fusi et donum spiritus inpertiti.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 31. On the opinions of Varro, who rejected the popular belief and, though he did not come to the knowledge of the true God, still judged that one God should be worshipped.

What of Varro himself, who, we regret, placed stage plays among divine things, though not by his own judgment? Though in many places he urges the worship of the gods as if he were religious, does he not admit that he does not follow by his own judgment the things he records that the Roman state instituted, so that he does not hesitate to confess that if he were founding that state anew, he would rather have dedicated gods and their names according to the pattern of nature? But since he was now in an old nation, he says, he ought to keep the history of names and surnames received from the ancients as it was handed down, and to write and investigate these things to this end, that the common people might wish to worship the gods rather than despise them. By these words this most acute man shows plainly enough that he is not disclosing everything, things which would be contemptible not only to himself but would seem despicable even to the common people, unless they were kept silent. I might have been thought to be guessing this, were it not that in another place he himself says plainly, speaking of religions, that there are many true things which it is not useful for the common people to know, and, further, things which, though false, it is expedient for the people to think otherwise; and that this is why the Greeks enclosed their initiations and mysteries in silence and within walls. Here certainly he has betrayed the whole policy of those supposedly wise men by whom states and peoples were to be ruled. Yet in this deceit the malignant demons delight in marvelous ways, who possess deceivers and deceived alike; and from their domination nothing sets us free but the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. The same most acute and most learned author also says that only those seemed to him to have perceived what God is who believed him to be the soul governing the world by motion and reason. And so, though he did not yet hold what the truth holds (for the true God is not a soul, but the maker and founder of the soul too), still, if he could have been free against the prejudices of custom, he would have confessed and urged that one God should be worshipped, governing the world by motion and reason, so that the only question left between him and us on this matter would be that he called him a soul, and not rather the creator of the soul as well. He says also that the ancient Romans worshipped the gods for more than one hundred and seventy years without an image. “If this had remained until now,” he says, “the gods would be worshipped more purely.” As a witness to this opinion he brings, among others, the Jewish nation; and he does not hesitate to conclude that passage by saying that those who first set up images of the gods for the peoples both took away fear from their cities and added error, judging wisely that the gods could easily be despised in the dullness of images. And since he does not say “handed down error” but “added” it, he certainly means it to be understood that there was error already even without images. So when he says that only those have perceived what God is who believed him to be a soul governing the world, and thinks that religion is observed more purely without images, who does not see how near he came to the truth? For if he had had any power against the antiquity of so great an error, he would surely have judged both that one God should be worshipped, by whom he believed the world to be governed, and that he should be worshipped without an image; and having come so close, he might perhaps easily have been reminded of the changeableness of the soul, so as to perceive that the true God is rather the unchangeable nature which created the soul itself. Since this is so, whatever mockeries of many gods such men have set down in their writings, they were compelled to confess them by the hidden will of God rather than trying to persuade people of them. If, then, we bring forward any testimonies from there, we bring them to refute those who will not see from how great and how malignant a power of demons we are set free by the singular sacrifice of so holy a blood poured out and by the gift of the Spirit bestowed.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. frag. (Varro): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Varro, Divine Antiquities (fragments preserved by Augustine).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.31 (CSEL 40:204–206; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-4-31).

## City of God 4.32

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-4-32
- Source: CSEL 40:206
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that Rome's rulers, like the demons, deliberately kept the people in religious error in order to control them.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXII. Ob quam speciem utilitatis principes gentium aput subiectos sibi populos falsas religiones uoluerunt permanere. Dicit etiam de generationibus deorum magis ad poetas quam ad physicos fuisse populos inclinatos,. et ideo et sexum et generationes deorum maiores suos, id est ueteres credidisse Romanos et eorum constituisse coniugia. Quod utique non aliam ob causam factum uidetur, nisi quia hominum uelut prudentium et sapientium negotium fuit populum in religionibus fallere, et in eo ipso non solum colere sed imitari etiam daemones, quibus maxima est fallendi cupiditas. Sicut enim daemones nisi eos, quos fallendo deceperint, possidere non possunt, sic et homines principes, non sane iusti, sed daemonum similes, ea, quae uana esse nouerant, religionis nomine populis tamquam uera suadebant, hoc modo eos ciuili societati uelut aptius adligantes, quo similiter subditos possiderent. Quis autem infirmus et indoctus euaderet simul fallaces et principes ciuitatis et daemones?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 32. For what apparent advantage the rulers of the nations wished false religions to remain among the peoples subject to them.

He also says, concerning the generations of the gods, that the peoples inclined more to the poets than to the natural philosophers, and that therefore his ancestors, that is, the ancient Romans, believed in both the sex and the generations of the gods and established their marriages. This seems to have been done for no other reason than that it was the business of men supposedly prudent and wise to deceive the people in matters of religion, and in this very thing not only to worship but also to imitate the demons, whose greatest desire is to deceive. For just as the demons cannot possess any but those whom they have deceived, so also men who were rulers, not just men indeed but like the demons, persuaded the peoples, in the name of religion, of things they knew to be empty as though they were true, in this way binding them more tightly, as it were, to civil society, so that they might possess them as subjects in the same way. And what weak and unlearned man could escape rulers of the state and demons deceiving him at once?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. frag. (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.32 (CSEL 40:206; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-4-32).

## City of God 4.33

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-4-33
- Source: CSEL 40:206–207
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine teaches that God gives earthly kingdoms to good and bad alike according to his hidden order, but gives true happiness only to the good.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXIII. Quod iudicio et potestate Dei ueri omnium regum adque regnorum ordinata sint tempora. Deus igitur ille felicitatis auctor et dator, quia solus est uerus Deus, ipse dat regna terrena et bonis et malis, neque hoc temere et quasi fortuito, quia Deus est, non fortuna, sed pro rerum ordine ac temporum occulto nobis, notissimo sibi; cui tamen ordini temporum non subditus seruit, sed eum ipse tamquam dominus regit moderatorque disponit; felicitatem uero non dat nisi bonis. Hanc enim possunt et non habere et habere seruientes, possunt et non habere et habere regnantes; quae tamen plena in ea uita erit, ubi nemo iam seruiet. Et ideo regna terrena et bonis ab illo dantur et malis, ne eius cultores adhuc in prouectu animi paruuli haec ab eo munera quasi magnum aliquid concupiscant. Et hoc est sacramentum ueteris testamenti, ubi occultum erat nouum, quod illic promissa et dona terrena sunt, intellegentibus et tunc spiritalibus, quamuis nondum in manifestatione praedicantibus, et quae illis temporalibus rebus significaretur aeternitas, et in quibus Dei donis esset uera felicitas.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 33. That the times of all kings and kingdoms are ordered by the judgment and power of the true God.

Therefore that God, the author and giver of happiness, because he alone is the true God, himself gives earthly kingdoms both to the good and to the evil; and not rashly and as it were by chance, because he is God, not fortune, but according to an order of things and times hidden from us and perfectly known to him. Yet he does not serve this order of times as one subject to it; he rules it as its lord and arranges it as its governor. But happiness he gives only to the good. For those who serve can either have it or not have it, and those who reign can either have it or not have it; yet it will be full in that life where no one will serve any longer. And so earthly kingdoms are given by him both to the good and to the evil, lest his worshippers, still children in the progress of the soul, should desire these gifts from him as if they were something great. And this is the mystery of the Old Testament, in which the New was hidden: that there earthly promises and gifts are found, while those who were spiritual even then understood, though they did not yet proclaim it openly, both what eternity was signified by those temporal things and in which gifts of God true happiness lay.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.33 (CSEL 40:206–207; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-4-33).

## City of God 4.34

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-4-34
- Source: CSEL 40:207–209
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine shows that God gave Israel every earthly good without the Roman gods, and that the dispersion of the Jews serves as a witness to prophecy.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXIIII. De regno Iudaeorum, quod ab uno et uero Deo institutum adque seruatum est, donec in uera religione manserunt. Itaque ut cognosceretur etiam illa terrena bona, quibus solis inhiant qui meliora cogitare non possunt, in ipsius unius Dei esse posita potestate, non in multorum falsorum, quos colendos Romani antea crediderunt, populum suum in Aegypto de paucissimis multiplicauit et inde signis mirabilibus liberauit. Nec Lucinam mulieres illae inuocauerunt, quando earum partus, ut miris modis multiplicarentur et gens illa incredibiliter cresceret, ab Aegyptiorum persequentium et infantes omnes necare uolentium manibus ipse seruauit. Sine dea Rumina suxerunt, sine Cunina in cunis fuerunt, sine Educa et Potina escam potumque sumserunt, sine tot dis puerilibus educati sunt, sine dis coniugalibus coniugati, sine cultu Priapi coniugibus mixti; sine inuocatione Neptuni mare transeuntibus diuisum patuit et sequentes eorum inimicos fluctibus in se redeuntibus obruit. Nec consecrauerunt aliquam deam Manniam, quando de caelo manna sumserunt; nec quando sitientibus aquam percussa petra profudit, Nymphas Lymphasque coluerunt. Sine insanis sacris Martis et Bellonae bella gesserunt, et sine uictoria quidem non uicerunt, non eam tamen deam, sed Dei sui munus habuerunt. Sine Segetia segetes sine Bubona boues, mella sine Mellona poma sine Pomona, et prorsus omnia, pro quibus tantae falsorum deorum turbae Romani supplicandum putarunt, ab uno uero Deo multo felicius acceperunt. Et si non in eum peccassent, inpia curiositate tamquam magicis artibus seducti ad alienos deos et ad idola defluendo, et postremo Christum occidendo: in eodem regno etsi non spatiosiore, tamen feliciore mansissent. Et nunc quod per omnes fere terras gentesque dispersi sunt, illius unius ueri Dei prouidentia est, ut, quod deorum falsorum usquequaque simulacra arae, luci templa euertuntur et sacrificia prohibentur, de codicibus eorum probetur, quem ad modum hoc fuerit tanto ante prophetatum; ne forte, cum legeretur in nostris, a nobis putaretur esse confictum. Iam quod sequitur in uolumine sequenti uidendum est, et hic dandus huius prolixitatis modus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 34. On the kingdom of the Jews, which was founded and preserved by the one true God as long as they remained in the true religion.

And so, that it might be known that even those earthly goods, for which alone those gape who cannot think of better things, lie in the power of the one God himself and not of the many false gods whom the Romans formerly believed should be worshipped, he multiplied his people in Egypt from very few and delivered them from there by wonderful signs. Nor did those women call on Lucina when he himself saved their offspring, so that they multiplied in wonderful ways and that nation grew beyond belief, from the hands of the Egyptians who persecuted them and wished to kill all their infants. Without the goddess Rumina they sucked, without Cunina they lay in cradles, without Educa and Potina they took food and drink; they were brought up without all those gods of childhood, married without the gods of marriage, united with their wives without the worship of Priapus; without calling on Neptune the sea parted and opened for them as they crossed, and, its waves returning upon themselves, it overwhelmed their enemies who followed them. Nor did they consecrate any goddess Mannia when they received manna from heaven; nor, when the struck rock poured out water for them in their thirst, did they worship the Nymphs and Lymphs. Without the mad rites of Mars and Bellona they waged wars; and though they did not conquer without victory, they held it not as a goddess but as a gift of their God. Without Segetia they had crops, without Bubona oxen, honey without Mellona, fruit without Pomona; and in short, everything for which the Romans thought they must supplicate so great a crowd of false gods, they received far more happily from the one true God. And if they had not sinned against him, drifting away to foreign gods and to idols, led astray by impious curiosity as if by magic arts, and at last killing Christ, they would have remained in the same kingdom, if not a larger one, then a happier one. And now, that they are dispersed through almost all lands and nations is the providence of that one true God, so that, when the images, altars, groves, and temples of the false gods are everywhere overthrown and their sacrifices forbidden, it may be proved from their books how this was prophesied so long before; lest, if it were read only in ours, it might be thought to have been invented by us. What follows must be seen in the next book, and here an end must be put to this long discussion.

### Scripture references

- Exod 1:7: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 1:15: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 14:21: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 16:15: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 17:6: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Augustine's view of the Jews' dispersion as a witness to the prophecies (developed in 18.46) is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 4.34 (CSEL 40:207–209; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-4-34).

## City of God 5.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-5-1
- Source: CSEL 40:209–211
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine rejects fate and astrology as the cause of Rome's greatness, attributes kingdoms to divine providence, and raises the problem of twins.

### Latin text

CAPUT I. Causam Romani imperii omniumque regnorum nec fortuitam esse nec in stellarum positione consistere. Causa ergo magnitudinis imperii Romani nec fortuita est nec fatalis secundum eorum sententiam siue opinionem, qui ea dicunt esse fortuita, quae uel nullas causas habent uel non ex aliquo rationabili ordine uenientes, et ea fatalia, quae praeter Dei et hominum uoluntatem cuiusdam ordinis necessitate contingunt. Prorsus diuina prouidentia regna constituuntur humana. Quae si propterea quisquam fato tribuit, quia ipsam Dei uoluntatem uel potestatem fati nomine appellat, sententiam teneat, linguam corrigat. Quur enim non hoc primum dicit, quod postea dicturus est, cum ab illo quisquam quaesierit quid dixerit fatum? Nam id homines quando audiunt usitata loquendi consuetudine non intellegunt nisi uim positionis siderum, qualis est quando quis nascitur siue concipitur; quod aliqui alienant a Dei uoluntate, aliqui ex illa etiam hoc pendere confirmant. Sed illi, qui sine Dei uoluntate decernere opinantur sidera quid agamus uel quid bonorum habeamus malorumue patiamur, ab auribus omnium repellendi sunt, non solum eorum qui ueram religionem tenent sed qui deorum qualiumcumque, licet falsorum, uolunt esse cultores. Haec enim opinio quid agit aliud, nisi ut nullus omnino colatur aut rogetur Deus? Contra quos modo nobis disputatio non est instituta, sed contra hos qui pro defensione eorum, quos deos putant, Christianae religioni aduersantur. Illi uero, qui positionem stellarum quodam modo decernentium qualis quisque sit et quid ei proueniat boni quidue mali accidat ex Dei uoluntate suspendunt, si easdem stellas putant habere hanc potestatem traditam sibi a summa illius potestate, ut uolentes ista decernant: magnam caelo faciunt iniuriam, in cuius uelut clarissimo senatu ac splendidissima curia opinantur scelera facienda decerni, qualia si aliqua terrena ciuitas decreuisset, genere humano decernente fuerat euertenda. Quale deinde iudicium de hominum factis Deo relinquitur, quibus caelestis necessitas adhibetur, cum dominus ille sit et siderum et hominum? Aut si non dicunt stellas, accepta quidem potestate a summo Deo, arbitrio suo ista decernere, sed in talibus necessitatibus ingerendis illius omnino iussa conplere: itane de ipso Deo sentiendum est, quod indignissimum uisum est de stellarum uoluntate sentire? Quod si dicuntur stellae significare potius ista quam facere, ut quasi locutio quaedam sit illa positio praedicens futura, non agens (non enim mediocriter doctorum hominum fuit ista sententia): non quidem ita solent loqui mathematici, ut uerbi gratia dicant: Mars ita positus homicidam significat, sed: homicidam facit; uerumtamen ut concedamus non eos ut debent loqui et a philosophis accipere oportere sermonis regulam ad ea praenuntianda, quae in siderum positione reperire se putant: quid fit, quod nihil umquam dicere potuerunt, quur in uita geminorum, in actionibus, in euentis, in professionibus, artibus, honoribus ceterisque rebus ad humanam uitam pertinentibus adque in ipsa morte sit plerumque tanta diuersitas, ut similiores eis sint, quantum ad haec adtinet, multi extranei quam ipsi inter se gemini perexiguo temporis interuallo in nascendo separati, in conceptu autem per unum concubitum uno etiam momento seminati?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. That the cause of the Roman empire and of all kingdoms is neither chance nor the position of the stars.

The cause, then, of the greatness of the Roman empire is neither chance nor fate, in the sense or opinion of those who call things chance which either have no causes or causes that do not come from some rational order, and call things fated which happen, apart from the will of God and of men, by the necessity of some order. Human kingdoms are established by divine providence, pure and simple. If anyone ascribes them to fate because he calls the will or power of God itself by the name of fate, let him keep his opinion but correct his language. For why does he not say first what he will say afterwards, when someone asks him what he meant by fate? For when people hear that word, by the ordinary usage of speech they understand nothing but the power of the position of the stars as it is when someone is born or conceived; and some detach this from the will of God, while others affirm that this too depends on it. But those who think that the stars decide, apart from the will of God, what we do, or what goods we have, or what evils we suffer, must be driven from everyone's ears, not only of those who hold the true religion but of those who wish to be worshippers of any gods whatever, even false ones. For what does this opinion do but bring it about that no god at all is worshipped or prayed to? Against these, however, our discussion is not now directed, but against those who oppose the Christian religion in defense of those they think are gods. As for those who make the position of the stars, which in some way decides what each person is like and what good comes to him or what evil befalls him, depend on the will of God: if they think that these same stars have this power handed over to them by his supreme power, so that they decide these things by their own will, they do great wrong to heaven, in whose most illustrious senate, as it were, and most splendid council-house they suppose that crimes are decreed to be done, such that if any earthly state had decreed them, it would have deserved to be overthrown by the decree of the human race. What judgment, then, is left to God over the deeds of men, when a heavenly necessity is applied to them, since he is the Lord both of the stars and of men? Or if they say that the stars do not decide these things by their own choice, though they have received power from the supreme God, but simply carry out his commands in imposing such necessities: must we then think of God himself what it seemed most unworthy to think of the will of the stars? But if the stars are said rather to signify these things than to cause them, so that their position is a kind of speech foretelling the future, not bringing it about (for this has been the opinion of men of no ordinary learning): the astrologers are indeed not accustomed to speak like that, saying, for example, “Mars in this position signifies a murderer,” but “makes a murderer.” Still, let us grant that they do not speak as they ought, and that they should take from the philosophers the rule of speech for announcing the things they think they find in the position of the stars. How is it that they have never been able to say why in the life of twins, in their actions, in their fortunes, in their professions, arts, honors, and the other things belonging to human life, and even in death itself, there is often so great a difference that, as far as these things are concerned, many strangers are more like them than the twins are like each other, though they were separated at birth by a very small interval of time and at conception were sown by one act of intercourse, even in one moment?

### Translation notes

- The short preface to Book 5 printed in other editions (“Since it is established that felicity…”) is not in this digital text.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.1 (CSEL 40:209–211; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-5-1).

## City of God 5.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-5-2
- Source: CSEL 40:211–213
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine prefers Hippocrates' medical explanation of twins falling ill together to Posidonius' astrological one, and shows that the horoscope cannot account for twins.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. De geminorum simili dissimilique ualetudine. Cicero dicit Hippocratem, nobilissimum medicum, scriptum reliquisse, quosdam fratres, cum simul aegrotare coepissent et eorum morbus eodem tempore ingrauesceret, eodem leuaretur, geminos suspicatum; quos Posidonius Stoicus, multum astrologiae deditus, eadem constitutione astrorum natos eademque conceptos solebat adserere. Ita quod medicus pertinere credebat ad simillimam temperiem ualetudinis, hoc philosophus astrologus ad uim constitutionemque siderum, quae fuerat quo tempore concepti natique sunt. In hac causa multo est acceptabilior et de proximo credibilior coniectura medicinalis, quoniam parentes ut erant corpore adfecti, dum concumberent, ita primordia conceptorum adfici potuerunt, ut consecutis ex materno corpore prioribus incrementis paris ualetudinis nascerentur; deinde in una domo eisdem alimentis nutriti, ubi aerem et loci positionem et uim aquarum plurimum ualere ad corpus uel bene uel male accipiendum medicina testatur, eisdem etiam exercitationibus adsuefacti tam similia corpora gererent, ut etiam ad aegrotandum uno tempore eisdemque causis similiter mouerentur. Constitutionem uero caeli ac siderum, quae fuit quando concepti siue nati sunt, uelle trahere ad istam aegrotandi parilitatem, cum tam multa diuersissimi generis diuersissimorum effectuum et euentorum eodem tempore in unius regionis terra eidem caelo subdita potuerint concipi et nasci, nescio cuius sit insolentiae. Nos autem nouimus geminos non solum actus et peregrinationes habere diuersas, uerum etiam dispares aegritudines perpeti. De qua re facillimam, quantum mihi uidetur, rationem redderet Hippocrates, diuersis alimentis et exercitationibus, quae non de corporis temperatione, sed de animi uoluntate ueniunt, dissimiles eis accidere potuisse ualetudines. Porro autem Posidonius uel quilibet fatalium siderum adsertor mirum si potest hic inuenire quid dicat, si nolit inperitorum mentibus in eis quas nesciunt rebus inludere. Quod enim conantur efficere de interuallo exiguo temporis, quod inter se gemini dum nascerentur habuerunt, propter caeli particulam, ubi ponitur horae notatio, quem horoscopum uocant: aut non tantum ualet, quanta inuenitur in geminorum uoluntatibus actibus moribus casibusque diuersitas, aut plus etiam ualet, quam est geminorum uel humilitas generis eadem uel nobilitas, cuius maximam diuersitatem non nisi in hora, qua quisque nascitur, ponunt. Ac per hoc si tam celeriter alter post alterum nascitur, ut eadem pars horoscopi maneat, paria cuncta quaero, quae in nullis possunt geminis inueniri; si autem sequentis tarditas horoscopum mutat, parentes diuersos quaero, quos gemini habere non possunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. On the like and unlike health of twins.

Cicero says that Hippocrates, the most famous physician, left it in writing that he suspected certain brothers to be twins because they began to be ill at the same time, and their illness grew worse at the same time and eased at the same time; while Posidonius the Stoic, much given to astrology, used to assert that they had been born under the same arrangement of the stars and conceived under the same. So what the physician believed belonged to a very similar temperament of health, the philosopher-astrologer attributed to the power and arrangement of the stars as it was at the time they were conceived and born. In this case the medical conjecture is much more acceptable and more nearly credible, since the first beginnings of those conceived could be affected according to how the parents were affected in body when they lay together, so that, having received their first growth from their mother's body, they were born with equal health; then, brought up in one house on the same foods, where, as medicine testifies, the air, the situation of the place, and the quality of the waters have great power for the good or bad condition of the body, and accustomed also to the same exercises, they would have bodies so alike that they would be moved in the same way to fall ill at one time and from the same causes. But to wish to drag the arrangement of the sky and the stars at the time when they were conceived or born into this equality of sickness, when so many things of the most different kinds, with the most different effects and fortunes, may have been conceived and born at the same time in the land of one region under the same sky, I do not know what kind of arrogance it is. We, however, know twins who not only have different actions and travels but also suffer different illnesses. For this Hippocrates would give, as it seems to me, a very easy explanation: that different foods and exercises, which come not from the temperament of the body but from the will of the mind, may have brought them different states of health. Moreover, it will be surprising if Posidonius or any other defender of fatal stars can find anything to say here, unless he wishes to make sport of the minds of the unskilled in matters they do not know. For what they try to make out from the small interval of time that the twins had between them when they were born, because of the small part of the sky where the mark of the hour is placed, which they call the horoscope: either it has not as much power as the difference found in the wills, actions, characters, and fortunes of twins; or it has even more power than the equal lowliness or nobility of the twins' family, the greatest difference in which they place in nothing but the hour in which each is born. And so, if one is born after the other so quickly that the same part of the horoscope remains, I look for everything to be equal, which can be found in no twins; but if the later one's delay changes the horoscope, I look for different parents, which twins cannot have.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Fat. frag. (Cicero): allusion, medium confidence
- Hippocrates (Hippocrates, Hippocratic Corpus): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- The Hippocrates and Posidonius story comes from Cicero, On Fate (in a part now lost).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.2 (CSEL 40:211–213; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-5-2).

## City of God 5.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-5-3
- Source: CSEL 40:213–214
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine rejects Nigidius Figulus' potter's-wheel argument for the different fortunes of twins.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. De argumento, quod ex rota figuli Nigidius mathematicus adsumsit in quaestione geminorum. Frustra itaque adfertur nobile illud commentum de figuli rota, quod respondisse ferunt Nigidium hac quaestione turbatum, unde et Figulus appellatus est. Dum enim rotam figuli ui quanta potuit intorsisset, currente illa bis numero de atramento tamquam uno eius loco summa celeritate percussit; deinde inuenta sunt signa, quae fixerat, desistente motu, non paruo interuallo in rotae illius extremitate distantia. <Sic, inquit, in tanta rapacitate caeli, etiamsi alter post alterum tanta celeritate nascatur, quanta rotam bis ipse percussi, in caeli spatio plurimum est: hinc sunt, inquit, quaecumque dissimillima perhibentur in moribus casibusque geminorum. Hoc figmentum fragilius est quam uasa, quae illa rotatione finguntur. Nam si tam multum in caelo interest, quod constellationibus conprehendi non potest, ut alteri geminorum hereditas obueniat, alteri non obueniat: quur audent ceteris, qui gemini non sunt, cum inspexerint eorum constellationes, talia pronuntiare, quae ad illud secretum pertinent, quod nemo potest conprehendere et momentis adnotare nascentium? Si autem propterea talia dicunt in aliorum genituris, quia haec ad productiora spatia temporum pertinent; momenta uero illa partium minutarum, quae inter se gemini possunt habere nascentes, rebus minimis tribuuntur, de qualibus mathematici non solent consuli (quis enim consulat quando sedeat, quando deambulet, quando uel quid prandeat?): numquid ista dicimus, quando in moribus operibus casibusque geminorum plurima plurimumque diuersa monstramus? *

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. On the argument which the astrologer Nigidius took from the potter's wheel in the question of twins.

In vain, then, is that famous invention of the potter's wheel brought forward, which they say Nigidius gave in reply when troubled by this question, and from which he was also called Figulus [“potter”]. For when he had spun a potter's wheel as hard as he could, he struck it twice with ink as it ran, with the greatest speed, as if at one spot on it; then, when the motion stopped, the marks he had made were found at no small distance from each other on the rim of the wheel. “So,” he said, “in so great a speed of the heavens, even if one twin is born after the other as quickly as I struck the wheel twice, it amounts to a very great distance in the space of the sky; from this,” he said, “come all the great dissimilarities reported in the characters and fortunes of twins.” This fiction is more fragile than the vessels shaped by that turning. For if so much difference arises in the sky, which cannot be grasped by the constellations, that an inheritance falls to one twin and not to the other, why do they dare, when they have examined the constellations of others who are not twins, to pronounce things that belong to that secret which no one can grasp and note in the moments of those being born? But if they say such things in the nativities of others because these belong to longer stretches of time, while those moments of tiny parts that twins can have between them at birth are assigned to the smallest matters, about which astrologers are not usually consulted (for who would consult them about when to sit, when to walk about, when or what to eat?): are we speaking of such things when we point out very many and very great differences in the characters, works, and fortunes of twins?

### Translation notes

- Publius Nigidius Figulus, Roman scholar and astrologer (1st century BC); the source of the anecdote is unidentified.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.3 (CSEL 40:213–214; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-5-3).

## City of God 5.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-5-4
- Source: CSEL 40:214–215
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine cites Esau and Jacob, twins utterly different in life and fortune, against astrology.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. De Esau et Jacob geminis multum inter se morum et actionum qualitate disparibus. Nati sunt duo gemini antiqua patrum memoria ut de insignibus loquar) sic alter post alterum, ut posterior plantam prioris teneret. Tanta in eorum uita fuerunt moribusque diuersa, tanta in actibus disparilitas, tanta in parentum amore dissimilitudo, ut etiam inimicos eos inter se faceret ipsa distantia. Numquid hoc dicitur, quia uno ambulante alius sedebat, et alio dormiente alius uigilabat, et alio loquente tacebat alius; quae pertinent ad illas minutias, quae non possunt ab eis conprehendi, qui constitutionem siderum, qua quisque nascitur, scribunt, unde mathematici consulantur? Unus duxit mercennariam seruitutem, alius non seruiuit; unus a matre diligebatur, alius non diligebatur; unus honorem, qui magnus aput eos habebatur, amisit, indeptus est alter. Quid de uxoribus, quid de filiis, quid de rebus, quanta diuersitas! Si ergo haec ad illas pertinent minutias temporum, quae inter se habent gemini, et constellationibus non adscribuntur: quare aliorum constellationibus inspectis ista dicuntur? Si autem ideo dicuntur, quia non ad minuta inconprehensibilia, sed ad temporum spatia pertinent, quae obseruari notarique possunt: quid hic agit rota illa figuli, nisi ut homines luteum cor habentes in gyrum mittantur, ne mathematicorum uaniloquia conuincantur?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. On the twins Esau and Jacob, who were very unlike each other in character and actions.

Two twins were born in the ancient memory of the fathers (to speak of famous cases), one after the other in such a way that the second held the heel of the first. So different were they in their life and character, so unequal in their actions, so unlike in their parents' love, that the very distance between them made them enemies to each other. Is this said because while one walked the other sat, and while one slept the other was awake, and while one spoke the other was silent? These belong to those minute details which cannot be grasped by those who write down the arrangement of the stars under which each is born, for which astrologers are consulted. One spent years in hired service, the other did not serve; one was loved by his mother, the other was not; one lost an honor that was held great among them, the other obtained it. What of their wives, what of their sons, what of their possessions: how great a difference! If, then, these things belong to those minute intervals of time which twins have between them, and are not ascribed to the constellations, why are they told when the constellations of others are examined? But if they are told because they belong not to incomprehensible minutes but to stretches of time that can be observed and noted, what does that potter's wheel do here, except to send men with hearts of clay spinning round, so that the idle talk of the astrologers may not be refuted?

### Scripture references

- Gen 25:26: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 25:28: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 27:36: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 29:18: allusion, medium confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.4 (CSEL 40:214–215; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-5-4).

## City of God 5.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-5-5
- Source: CSEL 40:215–217
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine presses the astrologers with the contradictions between fates fixed at conception and at birth, using the case of twins who fell ill together.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. Quibus modis conuincantur mathematici uanam scientiam profiteri. Quid idem ipsi, quorum morbum, quod eodem tempore grauior leuiorque apparebat amborum, medicinaliter inspiciens Hippocrates geminos suspicatus est, nonne satis istos redarguunt, qui uolunt sideribus dare, quod de corporum simili temperatione ueniebat? Quur enim similiter eodemque tempore, non alter prior, alter posterior aegrotabant, sicut nati fuerant, quia utique simul nasci ambo non poterant? Aut si nihil momenti adtulit, ut diuersis temporibus aegrotarent, quod diuersis temporibus nati sunt: quare tempus in nascendo diuersum ad aliarum rerum diuersitates ualere contendunt? Quur potuerunt diuersis temporibus peregrinari, diuersis temporibus ducere uxores, diuersis temporibus filios procreare et multa alia, propterea quia diuersis temporibus nati sunt, et non potuerunt eadem causa diuersis etiam temporibus aegrotare? Si enim dispar nascendi mora mutauit horoscopum et disparilitatem intulit ceteris rebus: quur illud in aegritudinibus mansit, quod habebat in temporis aequalitate conceptus? Aut si fata ualetudinis in conceptu sunt, aliarum uero rerum in ortu esse dicuntur, non deberent inspectis natalium constellationibus de ualetudine aliquid dicere, quando eis inspicienda conceptionalis hora non datur. Si autem ideo praenuntiant aegritudines non inspecto conceptionis horoscopo, quia indicant eas momenta nascentium: quo modo dicerent cuilibet eorum geminorum ex natiuitatis hora, quando aegrotaturus esset, cum et alter, qui non habebat eandem horam natiuitatis, necesse haberet pariter aegrotare? Deinde quaero: si tanta distantia est temporis in natiuitate geminorum, ut per hanc oporteat eis constellationes fieri diuersas propter diuersum horoscopum et ob hoc diuersos omnes cardines, ubi tanta uis ponitur, ut hinc etiam diuersa sint fata: unde hoc accidere potuit, cum eorum conceptus diuersum tempus habere non possit? Aut si duorum uno momento temporis conceptorum potuerunt esse ad nascendum fata disparia, quur non et duorum uno momento temporis natorum possint esse ad uiuendum adque moriendum fata disparia? Nam si unum momentum, quo ambo concepti sunt, non inpediuit, ut alter prior, alter posterior nasceretur: quur, uno momento si duo nascantur, inpedit aliquid, ut alter prior, alter posterior moriatur? Si conceptio momenti unius diuersos casus in utero geminos habere permittit, quur natiuitas momenti unius non etiam quoslibet duos in terra diuersos casus habere permittat, ac sic omnis huius artis uel potius uanitatis commenta tollantur? Quid est hoc, quur uno tempore, momento uno sub una eademque caeli positione concepti diuersa habent fata, quae illos perducant ad diuersarum horarum natiuitatem, et uno momento temporis sub una eademque caeli positione de duabus matribus duo pariter nati diuersa fata habere non possint, quae illos perducant ad diuersam uiuendi uel moriendi necessitatem? An concepti nondum habent fata, quae nisi nascantur habere non poterunt? Quid est ergo quod dicunt, si hora conceptionalis inueniatur, multa ab istis dici posse diuinius? Unde etiam illud a nonnullis praedicatur, quod quidam sapiens horam elegit, qua cum uxore concumberet, unde filium mirabilem gigneret. Unde postremo et hoc est, quod de illis pariter aegrotantibus geminis Posidonius, magnus astrologus idemque philosophus, respondebat, ideo fieri, quod eodem tempore fuissent nati eodemque concepti. Nam utique propter hoc addebat conceptionem, ne diceretur ei non ad liquidum eodem tempore potuisse nasci, quos constabat omnino eodem tempore fuisse conceptos, ut hoc, quod similiter simulque aegrotabant, non daret de proximo pari corporis temperamento, sed eandem quoque ualetudinis parilitatem sidereis nexibus adligaret. Si igitur in conceptu tanta uis est ad aequalitatem fatorum, non debuerunt nascendo eadem fata mutari. Aut si propterea mutantur fata geminorum, quia temporibus diuersis nascuntur, quur non potius intellegamus iam fuisse mutata, ut diuersis temporibus nascerentur? Itane non mutat fata natiuitatis uoluntas uiuentium, cum mutet fata conceptionis ordo nascentium?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. In what ways the astrologers are proved to profess an empty science.

What of those same brothers whose illness, because it appeared worse and lighter in both at the same time, led Hippocrates, examining it medically, to suspect they were twins: do they not sufficiently refute those who wish to give to the stars what came from a similar bodily temperament? For why were they ill in the same way and at the same time, and not one first and the other later, as they had been born, since they certainly could not both be born at once? Or if their being born at different times had no effect in making them ill at different times, why do they contend that a different time of birth has power to produce differences in other things? Why could they travel at different times, marry wives at different times, beget sons at different times, and many other things, because they were born at different times, and could not, for the same reason, also fall ill at different times? For if an unequal delay in birth changed the horoscope and brought inequality into the other things, why did there remain in their illnesses what they had from being conceived at the same time? Or if the fates of health lie in conception, while those of other things are said to lie in birth, they ought not to say anything about health from examining the constellations of birthdays, since the hour of conception is not given them to examine. But if they predict illnesses without examining the horoscope of conception because the moments of birth indicate them, how would they tell either of those twins from the hour of his birth when he would fall ill, since the other, who did not have the same hour of birth, would necessarily fall ill at the same time? Next I ask: if there is so great a distance of time in the birth of twins that different constellations must come about for them because of the different horoscope, and so all the different cardinal points, in which such great power is placed that their fates differ as a result, how could this happen, since their conception cannot have had different times? Or if the fates of two conceived at one moment of time could be unequal for birth, why may not the fates of two born at one moment of time be unequal for living and dying? For if the one moment in which both were conceived did not prevent one from being born first and the other later, why, if two are born at one moment, should anything prevent one from dying first and the other later? If a conception at one moment allows twins to have different fortunes in the womb, why should not a birth at one moment also allow any two people to have different fortunes on earth, and so all the inventions of this art, or rather this vanity, be done away with? What is this, that those conceived at one time, at one moment, under one and the same position of the sky have different fates, which bring them to birth at different hours, and two born together at one moment of time under one and the same position of the sky from two mothers cannot have different fates, bringing them to a different necessity of living or dying? Or do those conceived not yet have fates, which they cannot have unless they are born? What then is it that they say, that if the hour of conception is found, many things can be said by them more divinely? This is also why some tell the story that a certain wise man chose the hour at which to lie with his wife, so as to beget a wonderful son. From this, finally, comes also the answer of Posidonius, the great astrologer and also philosopher, about those twins who fell ill together: that it happened because they had been born at the same time and conceived at the same time. For surely he added conception so that it might not be said to him that they could not have been born at exactly the same time, when it was certain that they had been conceived at exactly the same time; so that he might not attribute their falling ill in the same way and together to the nearest cause, an equal bodily temperament, but might bind this equality of health too by starry bonds. If, then, there is so great a power in conception for equality of fates, the same fates ought not to have been changed by birth. Or if the fates of twins are changed because they are born at different times, why should we not rather understand that they had already been changed so that they would be born at different times? Does the will of the living, then, not change the fates of birth, when the order of those being born changes the fates of conception?

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.5 (CSEL 40:215–217; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-5-5).

## City of God 5.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-5-6
- Source: CSEL 40:217–219
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine cites twins of different sex, one married and one a consecrated virgin, against the claim that the stars determine human lives.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. De geminis disparis sexus. Quamquam et in ipsis geminorum conceptibus, ubi certe amborum eadem momenta sunt temporum, unde fit ut sub eadem constellatione fatali alter concipiatur masculus, altera femina? Nouimus geminos diuersi sexus, ambo adhuc uiuunt, ambo aetate adhuc uigent; quorum cum sint inter se similes corporum species, quantum in diuerso sexu potest, instituto tamen et proposito uitae ita sunt dispares, ut praeter actus, quos necesse est a uirilibus distare femineos (quod ille in officio comitis militat et a sua domo paene semper peregrinatur, illa de solo patrio et de rure proprio non recedit), insuper (quod est incredibilius, si astralia fata credantur; non autem mirum, si uoluntates hominum et Dei munera cogitentur) ille coniugatus, illa uirgo sacra est; ille numerosam prolem genuit, illa nec nupsit. At enim plurimum uis horoscopi ualet. Hoc quam nihil sit, iam satis disserui. Sed qualecumque sit, in ortu ualere dicunt; numquid et in conceptu? ubi et unum concubitum esse manifestum est, et tanta naturae uis est, ut, cum conceperit femina, deinde alterum concipere omnino non possit; unde necesse est eadem esse in geminis momenta conceptus. An forte quia diuerso horoscopo nati sunt, aut ille in masculum, dum nascerentur, aut illa in feminam commutata est? Cum igitur non usquequaque absurde dici posset ad solas corporum differentias adflatus quosdam ualere sidereos, sicut in solaribus accessibus et decessibus uidemus etiam ipsius anni tempora uariari et lunaribus incrementis adque detrimentis augeri et minui quaedam genera rerum, sicut echinos et conchas et mirabiles aestus oceani; non autem et animi uoluntates positionibus siderum subdi: nunc isti, cum etiam nostros actus inde religare conantur, admonent ut quaeramus, unde ne in ipsis quidem corporibus eis possit ratio ista constare. Quid enim tam ad corpus pertinens quam corporis sexus? et tamen sub eadem positione siderum diuersi sexus gemini concipi potuerunt. Unde quid insipientius dici aut credi potest, quam siderum positionem, quae ad horam conceptionis eadem ambobus fuit, facere non potuisse, ut, cum quo habebat eandem constellationem, sexum diuersum a fratre non haberet; et positionem siderum, quae fuit ad horam nascentium, facere potuisse, ut ab eo tam multum uirginali sanctitate distaret?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. On twins of different sex.

Yet even in the conception of twins, where certainly the moments of time are the same for both, how does it happen that under the same fatal constellation one is conceived a male and the other a female? We know twins of different sex; both are still living, both still in the vigor of life. Though they are alike in bodily appearance, as far as is possible in different sexes, yet in the pattern and purpose of their life they are so unlike that, besides the actions in which women's lives must differ from men's (he serves in the army in the office of a count and is almost always away from home, she never leaves her native soil and her own estate), moreover (what is more incredible if astral fates are believed, but not surprising if the wills of men and the gifts of God are considered) he is married, she is a consecrated virgin; he has begotten numerous offspring, she has not even married. But, they say, the power of the horoscope is very great. How it is nothing I have already shown sufficiently. But whatever it is, they say it has power at birth; has it also at conception? There it is evident both that there was one act of intercourse, and that the power of nature is so great that when a woman has conceived she cannot conceive another at all afterwards; so that the moments of conception in twins must be the same. Or perhaps, because they were born under different horoscopes, either he was changed into a male or she into a female while they were being born? Now it might be said, not altogether absurdly, that certain influences of the stars have power over mere differences of bodies, as we see that the seasons of the year itself vary with the approach and withdrawal of the sun, and that certain kinds of things increase and diminish with the waxing and waning of the moon, such as sea urchins and shellfish and the wonderful tides of the ocean; but not that the choices of the mind are subject to the positions of the stars. Now these men, since they try to tie even our actions to them, prompt us to ask how their reasoning cannot hold even for bodies themselves. For what belongs so much to the body as the sex of the body? And yet under the same position of the stars twins of different sex could be conceived. What, then, could be said or believed more foolishly than that the position of the stars, which at the hour of conception was the same for both, could not bring it about that she should not have a sex different from her brother, with whom she had the same constellation; while the position of the stars at the hour of birth could bring it about that she differed so greatly from him by her virginal holiness?

### Translation notes

- Augustine's claim that a woman who has conceived cannot conceive again is the biology of his day, translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.6 (CSEL 40:217–219; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/4-30/#p-5-6).

## City of God 5.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-7/#p-5-7
- Source: CSEL 40:219–221
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine ridicules the choosing of lucky days and attributes astrologers' correct predictions to evil spirits rather than any real art.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. De electione diei, quo uxor ducitur quoue in agro aliquid plantatur aut seritur. Iam illud quis ferat, quod in eligendis diebus noua quaedam suis actibus fata moliuntur? Non erat uidelicet ille ita natus, ut haberet admirabilem filium, sed ita potius, ut contemtibilem gigneret, et ideo uir doctus elegit horam qua misceretur uxori. Fecit ergo fatum, quod non habebat, et ex ipsius facto coepit esse fatale, quod in eius natiuitate non fuerat. o stultitiam singularem! Eligitur dies ut ducatur uxor; credo propterea, quia potest in diem non bonum, nisi eligatur, incurri et infeliciter duci. Ubi est ergo quod nascenti iam sidera decreuerunt? An potest homo, quod ei iam constitutum est, diei electione mutare, et quod ipse in eligendo die constituerit, non poterit ab alia potestate mutari? Deinde si soli homines, non autem omnia quae sub caelo sunt, constellationibus subiacent, quur aliter eligunt dies adcommodatos ponendis uitibus uel arboribus uel segetibus, alios dies pecoribus uel domandis uel admittendis maribus, quibus equarum uel boum fetentur armenta, et cetera huius modi? Si autem propterea ualent ad has res dies electi, quia terrenis omnibus corporibus siue animantibus secundum diuersitates temporalium momentorum siderum positio dominatur; considerent quam innumerabilia sub uno temporis puncto uel nascantur uel oriantur uel inchoentur, et tam diuersos exitus habeant. ut istas obseruationes cuiuis puero ridendas esse persuadeant Quis enim est tam excors, ut audeat dicere omnes arbores, omnes herbas, omnes bestias serpentes aues pisces uermiculos momenta nascendi singillatim habere diuersa? Solent tamen homines ad tentandam peritiam mathematicorum adferre ad eos constellationes mutorum animalium, quorum ortus propter hanc explorationem domi suae diligenter obseruant, eosque mathematicos praeferunt ceteris, qui constellationibus inspectis dicunt non esse hominem natum, sed pecus. Audent etiam dicere quale pecus, utrum aptum lanitio, an uectationi, an aratro, an custodiae domus. Nam et ad canina fata tentantur et cum magnis admirantium clamoribus ista respondent. Sic desipiunt homines, ut existiment, cum homo nascitur, ceteros rerum ortus ita inhiberi, ut cum illo sub eadem caeli plaga nec musca nascatur. Nam si hanc admiserint, procedit ratiocinatio, quae gradatim accessibus modicis eos a muscis ad camelos elephantosque perducat. Nec illud uolunt aduertere, quod electo ad seminandum agrum die tam multa grana in terram simul ueniunt, simul germinant, exorta segete simul herbescunt pubescunt flauescunt, et tamen inde spicas ceteris coaeuas adque, ut ita dixerim, congerminales alias robigo interimit, alias aues depopulantur, alias homines auellunt. Quo modo istis alias constellationes fuisse dicturi sunt, quas tam diuersos exitus habere conspiciunt? An eos paenitebit his rebus dies eligere easque ad caeleste negabunt pertinere decretum, et solos sideribus subdent homines, quibus solis in terra Deus dedit liberas uoluntates? His omnibus consideratis non inmerito creditur, cum astrologi mirabiliter multa uera respondent, occulto instinctu fieri spirituum non bonorum, quorum cura est has falsas et noxias opiniones de astralibus fatis inserere humanis mentibus adque firmare, non horoscopi notati et inspecti aliqua arte, quae nulla est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. On choosing a day for marrying a wife or for planting or sowing something in a field.

Who, again, could bear the way they contrive new fates for their actions by choosing days? That man, it seems, was not born to have a wonderful son, but rather to beget a contemptible one, and so, being a learned man, he chose the hour at which to lie with his wife. So he made a fate he did not have, and by his own act something began to be fated that had not been fated at his birth. O singular folly! A day is chosen for marrying a wife; I suppose because, unless it is chosen, one may fall on a bad day and marry unhappily. Where, then, is what the stars already decreed at his birth? Can a man change by choosing a day what has already been fixed for him, and will what he himself fixed in choosing the day not be able to be changed by another power? Then, if only men are subject to the constellations, and not everything under heaven, why do they choose some days as suitable for setting vines or trees or crops, and other days for taming cattle or for putting males to the herds of mares or cows so that they may bear young, and other things of this kind? But if chosen days have power for these things because the position of the stars rules over all earthly bodies and living things according to the differences of moments of time, let them consider how innumerable are the things that are born or arise or begin at one point of time, and have such different outcomes that they convince any boy that these observations are laughable. For who is so senseless as to dare say that all trees, all plants, all beasts, serpents, birds, fishes, and little worms each have different moments of birth one by one? Yet people are accustomed, in order to test the skill of astrologers, to bring them the constellations of dumb animals, whose births they carefully observe at home for this trial; and they prefer to the rest those astrologers who, on examining the constellations, say that it was not a man that was born but a beast. They even dare to say what kind of beast, whether suited for wool-bearing, or for carrying, or for the plow, or for guarding the house. For they are tested even on the fates of dogs, and they give these answers to great shouts of admiration. So foolish are men as to think that when a man is born, all other births are so held back that not even a fly is born with him under the same region of the sky. For if they admit the fly, the reasoning goes on and leads them step by step, by small advances, from flies to camels and elephants. Nor will they notice that, when a day has been chosen for sowing a field, so many grains come into the ground together, sprout together, and when the crop has come up grow green, ripen, and turn golden together; and yet among the ears of the same age and, so to speak, sprung up together, rust kills some, birds ravage others, and men pull up others. How will they say that these had other constellations, when they see them have such different outcomes? Or will they repent of choosing days for these things and deny that they belong to the heavenly decree, and subject only men to the stars, to whom alone on earth God has given free wills? When all this is considered, it is believed with good reason that when astrologers give many astonishingly true answers, this happens by the hidden prompting of spirits that are not good, whose concern is to plant and strengthen in human minds these false and harmful opinions about astral fates; not by any art of noting and examining the horoscope, for there is none.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.7 (CSEL 40:219–221; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-7/#p-5-7).

## City of God 5.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-7/#p-5-8
- Source: CSEL 40:221–222
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine accepts that fate may mean the order of causes dependent on God's will, citing Seneca's verses and the Stoics' use of Homer.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. De his, qui non astrorum positionem, sed conexionem causarum ex Dei uoluntate pendentem fati nomine appellant. Qui uero non astrorum constitutionem, sicuti est cum quidque concipitur uel nascitur uel inchoatur, sed omnium conexionem seriemque causarum, qua fit omne quod fit, fati nomine appellant: non multum cum eis de uerbi controuersia laborandum adque certandum est, quando quidem ipsum causarum ordinem et quandam conexionem Dei summi tribuunt uoluntati et potestati, qui optime et ueracissime creditur et cuncta scire antequam fiant, et nihil inordinatum relinquere; a quo sunt omnes potestates, quamuis ab illo non sint omnium uoluntates. Ipsam itaque praecipue Dei summi uoluntatem, cuius potestas insuperabiliter per cuncta porrigitur, eos appellare fatum sic probatur. Annaei Senecae sunt, nisi fallor, hi uersus: Duc, summe pater altique dominator poli, Quocumque placuit, nulla parendi mora est. Adsum inpiger: fac nolle, comitabor gemens Malusque patiar, facere quod licuit bono. Ducunt uolentem fata, nolentem trahunt. Nempe euidentissime hoc ultimo uersu ea fata appellauit, quam supra dixerat summi patris uoluntatem; cui paratum se oboedire dicit, ut uolens ducatur, ne nolens trahatur; quoniam scilicet Ducunt uolentem fata, nolentem trahunt. Illi quoque uersus Homerici huic sententiae suffragantur, quos Cicero in Latinum uertit: Tales sunt hominum mentes, quali pater ipse Iuppiter Iuppiter lustrauit lumine terras. Nec in hac quaestione auctoritatem haberet poetica sententia: sed quoniam Stoicos dicit uim fati adserentes istos ex Homero uersus solere usurpare, non de illius poetae, sed de istorum philosophorum opinione tractatur, cum per istos uersus, quos disputationi adhibent quam de fato habent, quid sentiant esse fatum apertissime declaratur, quoniam Iouem appellant, quem summum deum putant, a quo conexionem dicunt pendere fatorum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. On those who call by the name of fate not the position of the stars but the connection of causes depending on the will of God.

But those who call by the name of fate not the arrangement of the stars at the moment when something is conceived or born or begun, but the connection and series of all causes by which everything that happens happens: with them we need not labor and fight much over a controversy about a word, since they ascribe this very order of causes and a certain connection to the will and power of the supreme God, who is believed most rightly and most truly both to know all things before they happen and to leave nothing unordered; from whom are all powers, though the wills of all are not from him. That it is chiefly the will of the supreme God, whose power extends invincibly through all things, that they call fate is proved thus. These verses are, unless I am mistaken, by Annaeus Seneca:

“Lead me, highest father and ruler of the lofty sky,
wherever you please; there is no delay in my obeying.
Here I am, unwearied. Suppose I will not: I shall follow groaning,
and suffer as a bad man what I could have done as a good.
The fates lead the willing, drag the unwilling.”

Clearly, in this last verse he called fates what he had called above the will of the highest father; and he says he is ready to obey it, so that he may be led willing and not dragged unwilling, since, of course, “the fates lead the willing, drag the unwilling.” Those Homeric verses too, which Cicero turned into Latin, support this view:

“Such are the minds of men as the light with which father Jupiter himself has lit the lands.”

Not that a poet's opinion would carry authority in this question; but since he says that the Stoics, when they assert the power of fate, are accustomed to use these verses from Homer, the question is not about the opinion of that poet but about that of these philosophers; for by these verses, which they bring into their discussion of fate, what they think fate is is declared most plainly, since they name Jupiter, whom they think the supreme god, on whom they say the connection of the fates depends.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Seneca, Ep. 107.11 (Seneca): quotation, high confidence
- Cleanthes (Cleanthes (fragments)): allusion, high confidence
- Homer, Od. 18.136–137 (Homer, Odyssey): quotation, high confidence
- Cicero, Fat. frag. (Cicero): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Seneca, Epistles 107.11, Seneca's Latin version of a hymn of Cleanthes. The Homer lines are Odyssey 18.136–137 in Cicero's version (from On Fate, preserved only here). The digital text repeats “Iuppiter” where other editions read “auctiferas” (“fruitful”) before “lands”; the translation follows the sense.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.8 (CSEL 40:221–222; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-7/#p-5-8).

## City of God 5.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-7/#p-5-9
- Source: CSEL 40:222–228
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine answers Cicero's claim that divine foreknowledge destroys free will, affirming both God's foreknowledge and human choice, since our wills are themselves among the causes God foreknows.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. De praescientia Dei et libera hominis uoluntate contra Ciceronis definitionem. Hos Cicero ita redarguere nititur, ut non existimet aliquid se aduersus eos ualere, nisi auferat diuinationem. Quam sic conatur auferre, ut neget esse scientiam futurorum, eamque omnibus uiribus nullam esse omnino contendat, uel in homine uel in deo, nullamque rerum praedictionem. Ita et Dei praescientiam negat et omnem prophetiam luce clariorem conatur euertere uanis argumentationibus et obponendo sibi quaedam oracula, quae facile possunt refelli; quae tamen nec ipsa conuincit. In his autem mathematicorum coniecturis refutandis eius regnat oratio, quia uere tales sunt, ut se ipsae destruant et refellant. Multo sunt autem tolerabiliores, qui uel siderea fata constituunt, quam iste qui tollit praescientiam futurorum. Nam et confiteri esse Deum et negare praescium futurorum apertissima insania est. Quod et ipse cum uideret, etiam illud tentauit quod scriptum est: Dixit insipiens in corde suo: Non est Deus; sed non ex sua persona. Vidit enim quam esset inuidiosum et molestum, ideoque Cottam fecit disputantem de hac re aduersus Stoicos in libris de deorum natura et pro Lucilio Balbo, cui Stoicorum partes defendendas dedit, maluit ferre sententiam quam pro Cotta, qui nullam diuinam naturam esse contendit. In libris uero de diuinatione ex se ipso apertissime obpugnat praescientiam futurorum. Hoc autem totum facere uidetur, ne fatum esse consentiat et perdat liberam uoluntatem. Putat enim concessa scientia futurorum ita esse consequens fatum, ut negari omnino non possit. Sed quoquo modo se habeant tortuosissimae concertationes et disputationes philosophorum, nos ut confitemur summum et uerum Deum, ita uoluntatem summamque potestatem ac praescientiam eius confitemur; nec timemus ne ideo non uoluntate faciamus, quod uoluntate facimus, quia id nos facturos ille praesciuit, cuius praescientia falli non potest; quod Cicero timuit, ut obpugnaret praescientiam, et Stoici, ut non omnia necessitate fieri dicerent, quamuis omnia fato fieri contenderent. Quid est ergo, quod Cicero timuit in praescientia futurorum, ut eam labefactare disputatione detestabili niteretur? Videlicet quia, si praescita sunt omnia futura, hoc ordine uenient, quo uentura esse praescita sunt; et si hoc ordine uenient, certus est ordo rerum praescienti Deo; et si certus est ordo rerum, certus est ordo causarum; non enim fieri aliquid potest, quod non aliqua efficiens causa praecesserit; si autem certus est ordo causarum, quo fit omne quod fit, fato, inquit, fiunt omnia quae fiunt. Quod si ita est, nihil est in nostra potestate nullumque est arbitrium uoluntatis; quod si concedimus, inquit, omnis humana uita subuertitur, frustra leges dantur, frustra obiurgationes laudes, uituperationes exhortationes adhibentur, neque ulla iustitia bonis praemia et malis supplicia constituta sunt. Haec ergo ne consequantur indigna et absurda et perniciosa rebus humanis, non uult esse praescientiam futurorum; adque in has angustias coartat animum religiosum, ut unum eligat e duobus, aut esse aliquid in nostra uoluntate, aut esse praescientiam futurorum, quoniam utrumque arbitratur esse non posse, sed si alterum confirmabitur, alterum tolli; si elegerimus praescientiam futurorum, tolli uoluntatis arbitrium; si elegerimus uoluntatis arbitrium, tolli praescientiam futurorum. Ipse itaque, ut uir magnus et doctus et uitae humanae plurimum ac peritissime consulens, ex his duobus elegit liberum uoluntatis arbitrium; quod ut confirmaretur, negauit praescientiam futurorum adque ita, dum uult facere liberos, fecit sacrilegos. Religiosus autem animus utrumque eligit, utrumque confitetur et fide pietatis utrumque confirmat. Quo modo? inquit; nam si est praescientia futurorum, sequentur illa omnia, quae conexa sunt, donec eo perueniatur, ut nihil sit in nostra uoluntate. Porro si est aliquid in nostra uoluntate, eisdem recursis gradibus eo peruenitur, ut non sit praescientia futurorum. Nam per illa omnia sic recurritur: si est uoluntatis arbitrium, non omnia fato fiunt; si non omnia fato fiunt, non est omnium certus ordo causarum; si certus ordo causarum non est, nec rerum certus est ordo praescienti Deo, quae fieri non possunt, nisi praecedentibus et efficientibus causis; si rerum ordo praescienti Deo certus non est, non omnia sic ueniunt, ut ea uentura praesciuit; porro si non omnia sic ueniunt, ut ab illo uentura praescita sunt, non est, inquit, in Deo praescientia omnium futurorum. Nos aduersus istos sacrilegos ausus adque inpios et Deum dicimus omnia scire antequam fiant, et uoluntate nos facere, quidquid a nobis non nisi uolentibus fieri sentimus et nouimus. Omnia uero fieri fato non dicimus, immo nulla fieri fato dicimus; quoniam fati nomen ubi solet a loquentibus poni, id est in constitutione siderum cum quisque conceptus aut natus est, quoniam res ipsa inaniter adseritur, nihil ualere monstramus. Ordinem autem causarum, ubi uoluntas Dei plurimum potest, neque negamus, neque fati uocabulo nuncupamus, nisi forte ut fatum a fando dictum intellegamus, id est a loquendo; non enim abnuere possumus esse scriptum in litteris sanctis: Semel locutus est Deus, duo haec audiui, quoniam potestas Dei est, et tibi, Domine, misericordia, qui reddis unicuique secundum opera eius. Quod enim dictum est: Semel locutus est, intellegitur inmobiliter, hoc est incommutabiliter, est locutus, sicut nouit incommutabiliter omnia quae futura sunt et quae ipse facturus est. Hac itaque ratione possemus a fando fatum appellare, nisi hoc nomen iam in alia re soleret intellegi, quo corda hominum nolumus inclinari. Non est autem consequens, ut, si Deo certus est omnium ordo causarum, ideo nihil sit in nostrae uoluntatis arbitrio. Et ipsae quippe nostrae uoluntates in causarum ordine sunt, qui certus est Deo eiusque praescientia continetur, quoniam et humanae uoluntates humanorum operum causae sunt. Adque ita, qui omnes rerum causas praesciuit, profecto in eis causis etiam nostras uoluntates ignorare non potuit, quas nostrorum operum causas esse praesciuit. Nam et illud, quod idem Cicero concedit, nihil fieri si causa efficiens non praecedat, satis est ad eum in hac quaestione redarguendum. Quid enim eum adiuuat, quod dicit nihil quidem fieri sine causa, sed non omnem causam esse fatalem, quia est causa fortuita, est naturalis, est uoluntaria? Sufficit, quia omne, quod fit, non nisi causa praecedente fieri confitetur. Nos enim eas causas, quae dicuntur fortuitae, unde etiam fortuna nomen accepit, non esse dicimus nullas, sed latentes, easque tribuimus uel Dei ueri uel quorumlibet spirituum uoluntati, ipsasque naturales nequaquam ab illius uoluntate seiungimus, qui est auctor omnis conditorque naturae. Iam uero causae uoluntariae aut Dei sunt aut angelorum aut hominum aut quorumque animalium, si tamen uoluntates appellandae sunt animarum rationis expertium motus illi, quibus aliqua faciunt secundum naturam suam, cum quid uel adpetunt uel euitant. Angelorum autem uoluntates dico seu bonorum, quos angelos Dei dicimus, seu malorum, quos angelos diaboli uel etiam daemones appellamus: sic et hominum, et bonorum scilicet et malorum. Ac per hoc colligitur non esse causas efficientes omnium quae fiunt nisi uoluntarias, illius naturae scilicet, quae spiritus uitae est. Nam et aer iste seu uentus dicitur spiritus; sed quoniam corpus est, non est spiritus uitae. Spiritus ergo uitae, qui uiuificat omnia creatorque est omnis corporis et omnis creati spiritus, ipse est Deus, spiritus utique non creatus. In eius uoluntate summa potestas est, quae creatorum spirituum bonas uoluntates adiuuat, malas iudicat, omnes ordinat et quibusdam tribuit potestates, quibusdam non tribuit. Sicut enim omnium naturarum creator est, ita omnium potestatum dator, non uoluntatum. Malae quippe uoluntates ab illo non sunt, quoniam contra naturam sunt, quae ab illo est. Corpora igitur magis subiacent uoluntatibus, quaedam nostris, id est omnium animantium mortalium et magis hominum quam bestiarum; quaedam uero angelorum; sed omnia maxime Dei uoluntati subdita sunt, cui etiam uoluntates omnes subiciuntur, quia non habent potestatem nisi quam ille concedit. Causa itaque rerum, quae facit nec fit, Deus est; aliae uero causae et faciunt et fiunt, sicut sunt omnes creati spiritus, maxime rationales. Corporales autem causae, quae magis fiunt quam faciunt, non sunt inter causas efficientes adnumerandae, quoniam hoc possunt, quod ex ipsis faciunt spirituum uoluntates. Quo modo igitur ordo causarum, qui praescienti certus est Deo, id efficit, ut nihil sit in nostra uoluntate, cum in ipso causarum ordine magnum habeant locum nostrae uoluntates? Contendat ergo Cicero cum eis, qui hunc causarum ordinem dicunt esse fatalem uel potius ipsum fati nomine appellant, quod nos abhorremus praecipue propter uocabulum, quod non in re uera consueuit intellegi. Quod uero negat ordinem omnium causarum esse certissimum et Dei praescientiae notissimum, plus eum quam Stoici detestamur. Aut enim esse Deum negat, quod quidem inducta alterius persona in libris de deorum natura facere molitus est; aut si esse confitetur Deum, quem negat praescium futurorum, etiam sic nihil dicit aliud, quam quod ille dixit insipiens in corde suo: Non est Deus. Qui enim non est praescius omnium futurorum, non est utique Deus. Quapropter et uoluntates nostrae tantum ualent, quantum Deus eas ualere uoluit adque praesciuit; et ideo quidquid ualent, certissime ualent, et quod facturae sunt, ipsae omnino facturae sunt, quia ualituras adque facturas ille praesciuit, cuius praescientia falli non potest. Quapropter si mihi fati nomen alicui rei adhibendum placeret, magis dicerem fatum esse infirmioris potentioris uoluntatem, qui eum usitato in potestate, quam illo causarum ordine, quem non usitato sed suo more Stoici fatum appellant, arbitrium nostrae uoluntatis auferri.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. On the foreknowledge of God and the free will of man, against Cicero's definition.

Cicero tries to refute these men in such a way that he thinks he can do nothing against them unless he takes away divination. And he tries to take it away by denying that there is any knowledge of the future, and contends with all his might that there is none at all, either in man or in God, and no prediction of events. So he both denies the foreknowledge of God and tries to overthrow all prophecy, though it is clearer than daylight, by empty arguments, and by setting against himself certain oracles which can easily be refuted; and yet he does not even refute them. In refuting the conjectures of the astrologers, however, his speech reigns supreme, because they are truly such that they destroy and refute themselves. But those who set up even starry fates are much more tolerable than this man who takes away the foreknowledge of the future. For to confess that God exists and to deny that he foreknows the future is the most obvious madness. When he himself saw this, he also attempted what is written, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God,’” but not in his own person. For he saw how odious and troublesome it would be, and so he made Cotta argue on this subject against the Stoics in his books On the Nature of the Gods, and preferred to give his verdict for Lucilius Balbus, to whom he gave the defense of the Stoic side, rather than for Cotta, who contends that there is no divine nature. But in his books On Divination he attacks the foreknowledge of the future quite openly in his own person. He seems to do all this so as not to admit that fate exists and so lose free will. For he thinks that once knowledge of the future is granted, fate follows so necessarily that it cannot be denied at all. But however the most tortuous debates and disputations of the philosophers may stand, we, as we confess the supreme and true God, so also confess his will, supreme power, and foreknowledge; and we do not fear that we do not do by our will what we do by our will, because he whose foreknowledge cannot be deceived foreknew that we would do it. This is what Cicero feared, so that he attacked foreknowledge; and the Stoics, so that they said that not all things happen by necessity, though they contended that all things happen by fate. What was it, then, that Cicero feared in the foreknowledge of the future, that he strove to undermine it by a detestable argument? Evidently this: if all future things are foreknown, they will come in the order in which they were foreknown to come; and if they will come in this order, the order of things is certain to God who foreknows it; and if the order of things is certain, the order of causes is certain, for nothing can happen which some efficient cause has not preceded; but if the order of causes by which everything that happens happens is certain, then, he says, all things that happen happen by fate. If this is so, nothing is in our power and there is no choice of the will; and if we grant this, he says, all human life is overturned: laws are given in vain, rebukes, praises, blame, and exhortations are applied in vain, and there is no justice in the rewards appointed for the good and the punishments for the evil. So, lest these consequences follow, unworthy, absurd, and ruinous to human affairs, he will not have foreknowledge of the future; and he forces the religious mind into this strait, that it must choose one of two: either that something is in our will, or that there is foreknowledge of the future, since he thinks both cannot be, but if one is established the other is removed: if we choose foreknowledge of the future, the choice of the will is removed; if we choose the choice of the will, foreknowledge of the future is removed. So he, as a great and learned man who took the greatest and most skilled thought for human life, chose of these two the free choice of the will; and to confirm it he denied the foreknowledge of the future; and so, while wishing to make men free, he made them sacrilegious. The religious mind, however, chooses both, confesses both, and confirms both by the faith of piety. “How?” he says. “For if there is foreknowledge of the future, all those connected steps follow until one comes to this, that nothing is in our will. And again, if anything is in our will, by going back through the same steps one comes to this, that there is no foreknowledge of the future.” For one goes back through them all thus: if there is choice of the will, not all things happen by fate; if not all things happen by fate, there is no certain order of all causes; if there is no certain order of causes, neither is there a certain order of things for God who foreknows, since they cannot happen except by preceding and efficient causes; if the order of things is not certain for God who foreknows, not all things come as he foreknew they would come; and if not all things come as they were foreknown by him to come, then, he says, there is not in God foreknowledge of all future things. Against these sacrilegious and impious attempts we say both that God knows all things before they happen, and that we do by our will whatever we feel and know is done by us only because we will it. But we do not say that all things happen by fate; rather we say that nothing happens by fate, since we show that the name of fate, where it is usually used by speakers, that is, of the arrangement of the stars when someone is conceived or born, means nothing, because the thing itself is asserted to no purpose. The order of causes, however, in which the will of God has the greatest power, we neither deny nor call by the word fate, unless perhaps we understand fatum as derived from fari, that is, from speaking. For we cannot deny that it is written in the holy Scriptures: “God has spoken once; these two things I have heard: that power belongs to God, and to you, O Lord, mercy, who render to each according to his works.” For when it is said, “He has spoken once,” it is understood that he spoke immovably, that is, unchangeably, just as he knows unchangeably all things that will be and that he himself will do. On this reasoning, then, we could call it fate from fari, were it not that this name is already usually understood of something else, toward which we do not want human hearts to be inclined. But it does not follow that, if the order of all causes is certain to God, nothing is therefore in the choice of our will. For our wills themselves are in the order of causes, which is certain to God and contained in his foreknowledge, since human wills too are the causes of human works. And so he who foreknew all the causes of things could certainly not be ignorant of our wills among those causes, which he foreknew to be the causes of our works. For even what Cicero himself concedes, that nothing happens unless an efficient cause precedes, is enough to refute him in this question. For what does it help him to say that nothing indeed happens without a cause, but that not every cause is fatal, since there is a chance cause, a natural cause, a voluntary cause? It is enough that he confesses that everything that happens happens only by a preceding cause. For we say that those causes that are called chance, from which fortune also took its name, are not nonexistent but hidden, and we attribute them either to the will of the true God or to that of any spirits whatever; and the natural causes themselves we by no means separate from the will of him who is the author and founder of all nature. Voluntary causes, again, belong either to God or to angels or to men or to any animals, if indeed those motions of souls lacking reason by which they do certain things according to their nature, when they seek or avoid something, are to be called wills. I speak of the wills of angels, whether good ones, whom we call angels of God, or evil ones, whom we call angels of the devil or demons; and likewise of men, both good and evil. And from this it is gathered that there are no efficient causes of all that happens except voluntary ones, that is, of that nature which is the spirit of life. For this air or wind is also called spirit; but since it is a body, it is not the spirit of life. The spirit of life, then, which gives life to all things and is the creator of every body and every created spirit, is God himself, the uncreated spirit. In his will is the supreme power, which helps the good wills of created spirits, judges the evil ones, orders them all, and gives powers to some and not to others. For as he is the creator of all natures, so he is the giver of all powers, but not of wills. For evil wills are not from him, since they are against nature, which is from him. Bodies, therefore, are rather subject to wills: some to ours, that is, to those of all mortal living things, and more to men's than to beasts'; some to the wills of angels; but all are above all subject to the will of God, to whom all wills too are subject, since they have no power except what he grants. So the cause of things that makes and is not made is God; other causes both make and are made, as are all created spirits, above all the rational ones. Bodily causes, which are made rather than make, are not to be counted among efficient causes, since they can do only what the wills of spirits do through them. How then does the order of causes, which is certain to God who foreknows it, bring it about that nothing is in our will, when our wills have a great place in that very order of causes? Let Cicero contend, then, with those who say that this order of causes is fatal, or rather call it by the name of fate, which we abhor chiefly because of the word, which is not usually understood of anything real. But inasmuch as he denies that the order of all causes is most certain and fully known to the foreknowledge of God, we detest him more than the Stoics do. For either he denies that God exists, which indeed he tried to do by introducing another person in his books On the Nature of the Gods; or, if he confesses that God exists while denying that he foreknows the future, even so he says nothing else than what that fool said in his heart: “There is no God.” For one who does not foreknow all future things is certainly not God. Therefore our wills too have as much power as God willed and foreknew them to have; and so whatever power they have, they have most certainly, and what they are going to do, they themselves will certainly do, because he whose foreknowledge cannot be deceived foreknew that they would have the power and would do it. So if I chose to apply the name of fate to anything, I would rather say that fate is the will of the more powerful over the weaker, who has him in his power, than that the choice of our will is taken away by that order of causes which the Stoics call fate, not in the ordinary way but in their own.

### Scripture references

- Ps 14:1 (13:1 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 62:11 (61:12 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 62:12 (61:13 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Div. 2 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence
- Cicero, Nat. d. 3 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence
- Cicero, Fat. 17–21 (Cicero): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Cicero, On Divination 2 and On Fate; Cotta argues in On the Nature of the Gods 3. In the last sentence the digital text reads “qui eum usitato in potestate”, apparently corrupt (other editions: “qui eum habet in potestate”, “who has him in his power”); the translation follows that sense.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.9 (CSEL 40:222–228; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-7/#p-5-9).

## City of God 5.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-7/#p-5-10
- Source: CSEL 40:228–231
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that the necessity implied by God's foreknowledge does not take away the freedom of the human will, so laws, prayers, rewards, and punishments are not in vain.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. An uoluntatibus hominum aliqua dominetur necessitas. Unde nec illa necessitas formidanda est, quam formidando Stoici laborauerunt causas rerum distinguere ita, ut quasdam subtraherent necessitati, quasdam subderent, adque in his, quas esse sub necessitate uoluerunt, posuerunt etiam nostras uoluntates, ne uidelicet non essent liberae, si subderentur necessitati. Si enim necessitas nostra illa dicenda est, quae non est in nostra potestate, sed etiam si nolimus efficit quod potest, sicut est necessitas mortis: manifestum est uoluntates nostras, quibus recte uel perperam uiuitur, sub tali necessitate non esse. Multa enim facimus, quae si nollemus, non utique faceremus. Quo primitus pertinet ipsum uelle; nam si uolumus, est, si nolumus, non est; non enim uellemus, si nollemus. Si autem illa definitur esse necessitas, secundum quam dicimus necesse esse ut ita sit aliquid uel ita fiat, nescio quur eam timeamus, ne nobis libertatem auferat uoluntatis. Neque enim et uitam Dei et praescientiam Dei sub necessitate ponimus, si dicamus necesse esse Deum semper uiuere et cuncta praescire; sicut nec potestas eius minuitur, cum dicitur mori fallique non posse. Sic enim hoc non potest, ut potius, si posset, minoris esset utique potestatis. Recte quippe omnipotens dicitur, qui tamen mori et falli non potest. Dicitur enim omnipotens faciendo quod uult, non patiendo quod non uult; quod ei si accideret, nequaquam esset omnipotens. Unde propterea quaedam non potest, quia omnipotens est. Sic etiam cum dicimus necesse esse, ut, cum uolumus, libero uelimus arbitrio: et uerum procul dubio dicimus, et non ideo ipsum liberum arbitrium necessitati subicimus, quae adimit libertatem. Sunt igitur nostrae uoluntates et ipsae faciunt, quidquid uolendo facimus, quod non fieret, si nollemus. Quidquid autem aliorum hominum uoluntate nolens quisque patitur, etiam sic uoluntas ualet, etsi non illius, tamen hominis uoluntas; sed potestas Dei. Nam si uoluntas tantum esset nec posset quod uellet, potentiore uoluntate inpediretur; nec sic tamen uoluntas nisi uoluntas esset, nec alterius, sed eius esset qui uellet, etsi non posset inplere quod uellet. Unde quidquid praeter suam uoluntatem patitur homo, non debet tribuere humanis uel angelicis uel cuiusquam creati spiritus uoluntatibus, sed eius potius, qui dat potestatem uolentibus. Non ergo propterea nihil est in nostra uoluntate, quia Deus praesciuit quid futurum esset in nostra uoluntate. Non enim, qui hoc praesciuit, nihil praesciuit. Porro si ille, qui praesciuit quid futurum esset in nostra uoluntate, non utique nihil, sed aliquid praesciuit: profecto et illo praesciente est aliquid in nostra uoluntate. Quocirca nullo modo cogimur aut retenta praescientia Dei tollere uoluntatis arbitrium aut retento uoluntatis arbitrio Deum (quod nefas est) negare praescium futurorum; sed utrumque amplectimur, utrumque fideliter et ueraciter confitemur; illud, ut bene credamus; hoc, ut bene uiuamus. Male autem uiuitur, si de Deo non bene creditur. Unde absit a nobis eius negare praescientiam, ut libere uelimus, quo adiuuante sumus liberi uel erimus. Proinde non frustra sunt leges obiurgationes exhortationes laudes et uituperationes, quia et ipsas futuras esse praesciuit, et ualent plurimum, quantum eas ualituras esse praesciuit, et preces ualent ad ea inpetranda, quae se precantibus concessurum esse praesciuit, et iuste praemia bonis factis et peccatis supplicia constituta sunt. Neque enim ideo peccat homo, quia Deus illum peccaturum esse praesciuit; immo ideo non dubitatur ipsum peccare cum peccat, quia ille, cuius praescientia falli non potest, non fatum, non fortunam, non aliquid aliud, sed ipsum peccaturum esse praesciuit. Qui si nolit, utique non peccat; sed si peccare noluerit, etiam hoc ille praesciuit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. Whether any necessity rules over the wills of men.

So neither is that necessity to be feared, for fear of which the Stoics labored to distinguish the causes of things, withdrawing some from necessity and subjecting others, and among those they wished to be under necessity they also placed our wills, lest they should not be free if they were subject to necessity. For if we are to call necessity that which is not in our power, but brings about what it can even if we are unwilling, like the necessity of death, it is clear that our wills, by which we live rightly or wrongly, are not under such a necessity. For we do many things which, if we were unwilling, we would certainly not do. To this belongs first of all willing itself; for if we will, it is; if we do not will, it is not; for we would not will if we were unwilling. But if necessity is defined as that according to which we say it is necessary that something be so or happen so, I do not know why we should fear that it takes away the freedom of our will. For we do not put the life of God and the foreknowledge of God under necessity if we say that it is necessary that God always live and foreknow all things; just as his power is not diminished when it is said that he cannot die or be deceived. For he cannot do this in such a way that, if he could, he would certainly be of lesser power. He is rightly called almighty, though he cannot die or be deceived. For he is called almighty by doing what he wills, not by suffering what he does not will; if this happened to him he would by no means be almighty. So there are certain things he cannot do precisely because he is almighty. So also when we say that it is necessary that when we will, we will by free choice, we certainly speak the truth, and we do not thereby subject free choice itself to the necessity that takes away freedom. Our wills, then, are ours, and they themselves do whatever we do by willing, which would not happen if we were unwilling. And whatever anyone suffers against his will by the will of other men, even so it is will that has power, though not his will but another man's; yet the power is God's. For if there were only a will, and it could not do what it willed, it would be hindered by a more powerful will; and even so the will would be nothing but a will, and would be not another's but his who willed, even if he could not carry out what he willed. So whatever a man suffers against his own will he ought not to attribute to the wills of men or angels or any created spirit, but rather to the will of him who gives power to those who will. It is not true, then, that nothing is in our will because God foreknew what would be in our will. For he who foreknew this did not foreknow nothing. And if he who foreknew what would be in our will foreknew not nothing but something, then certainly, even with him foreknowing, something is in our will. Therefore we are in no way compelled either to keep the foreknowledge of God and take away the choice of the will, or to keep the choice of the will and deny (which is impious) that God foreknows the future; but we embrace both, we confess both faithfully and truly: the one that we may believe rightly, the other that we may live rightly. And one lives badly if one does not believe rightly about God. So far be it from us to deny his foreknowledge in order to will freely, since it is by his help that we are or shall be free. Therefore laws, rebukes, exhortations, praises, and blame are not in vain, because he foreknew that they too would be, and they have great power, as much as he foreknew they would have; and prayers have power to obtain the things he foreknew he would grant to those who pray; and rewards have justly been appointed for good deeds and punishments for sins. For a man does not sin because God foreknew that he would sin; on the contrary, it is beyond doubt that he himself sins when he sins, because he whose foreknowledge cannot be deceived foreknew that not fate, not fortune, not anything else, but he himself would sin. If he is unwilling, he certainly does not sin; but if he is unwilling to sin, God foreknew this too.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.10 (CSEL 40:228–231; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-7/#p-5-10).

## City of God 5.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-7/#p-5-11
- Source: CSEL 40:231–232
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine affirms that the triune God, whose providence orders even the smallest creatures, also governs human kingdoms.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. De uniuersali prouidentia Dei, cuius legibus omnia continentur. Deus itaque summus et uerus cum Uerbo suo et Spiritu sancto, quae tria unum sunt, Deus unus omnipotens, creator et factor omnis animae adque omnis corporis, cuius sunt participatione felices, quicumque sunt ueritate, non uanitate felices, qui fecit hominem rationale animal ex anima et corpore, qui eum peccantem nec inpunitum esse permisit nec sine misericordia dereliquit; qui bonis et malis essentiam etiam cum lapidibus, uitam seminalem etiam cum arboribus, uitam sensualem etiam cum pecoribus, uitam intellectualem cum solis angelis dedit; a quo est omnis modus omnis species omnis ordo; a quo est mensura numerus pondus; a quo est quidquid naturaliter est, cuiuscumque generis est, cuiuslibet aestimationis est; a quo sunt semina formarum formae seminum motus seminum adque formarum; qui dedit et carni originem pulchritudinem ualetudinem, propagationis fecunditatem membrorum dispositionem salutem concordiae; qui et animae inrationali dedit memoriam sensum adpetitum, rationali autem insuper mentem intellegentiam uoluntatem; qui non solum caelum et terram, nec solum angelum et hominem, sed nec exigui et contemtibilis animantis uiscera nec auis pinnulam, nec herbae flosculum nec arboris folium sine suarum partium conuenientia et quadam ueluti pace dereliquit: nullo modo est credendus regna hominum eorumque dominationes et seruitutes a suae prouidentiae legibus alienas esse uoluisse.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. On the universal providence of God, by whose laws all things are held together.

Therefore the supreme and true God, with his Word and the Holy Spirit, which three are one, one God almighty, creator and maker of every soul and every body; by participation in whom all are happy who are happy in truth and not in vanity; who made man a rational animal of soul and body; who, when he sinned, neither let him go unpunished nor abandoned him without mercy; who gave to good and evil being in common with stones, seminal life in common with trees, sensitive life in common with beasts, intellectual life in common with the angels alone; from whom is every mode, every form, every order; from whom is measure, number, weight; from whom is whatever exists by nature, of whatever kind, of whatever worth; from whom are the seeds of forms, the forms of seeds, the movements of seeds and forms; who gave to flesh its origin, beauty, health, fruitfulness in propagation, arrangement of members, and the soundness of their harmony; who gave to the irrational soul memory, sense, and appetite, and to the rational soul in addition mind, understanding, and will; who has not left heaven and earth, nor angel and man, nor even the inward parts of the smallest and most contemptible animal, nor the feather of a bird, nor the little flower of a plant, nor the leaf of a tree, without a harmony of its parts and a kind of peace: this God can in no way be believed to have wished the kingdoms of men, their dominions and their servitudes, to be outside the laws of his providence.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 11:20 (Wisdom of Solomon): echo, high confidence

### Translation notes

- “Measure, number, weight” echoes Wisdom of Solomon 11:20.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.11 (CSEL 40:231–232; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-7/#p-5-11).

## City of God 5.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-12/#p-5-12
- Source: CSEL 40:232–238
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine describes the Romans' love of liberty, domination, and glory, from Sallust and Virgil, and argues that true virtue seeks the testimony of conscience, not human praise.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. Quibus moribus antiqui Romani meruerint, ut Deus uerus, quamuis non eum colerent, eorum augeret imperium. Proinde uideamus, quos Romanorum mores et quam ob causam Deus uerus ad augendum imperium adiuuare dignatus est, in cuius potestate sunt etiam regna terrena. Quod autem ut absolutius disserere possemus, ad hoc pertinentem etiam superiorem librum conscripsimus, quod in hac re potestas nulla sit eorum deorum, quos etiam rebus nugatoriis colendos putarunt, et praesentis uoluminis partes superiores, quas huc usque perduximus, de fati quaestione tollenda, ne quisquam, cui iam persuasam esset non illorum deorum cultu Romanum imperium propagatum adque seruatum, nescio cui fato potius id tribueret quam Dei summi potentissimae uoluntati. Ueteres igitur primique Romani, quantum eorum docet et commendat historia, quamuis ut aliae gentes excepta una populi Hebraeorum deos falsos colerent et non Deo uictimas, sed daemoniis immolarent, tamen laudis auidi, pecuniae liberales erant, gloriam ingentem, diuitias honestas uolebant; hanc ardentissime dilexerunt, propter hanc uiuere uoluerunt, pro hac emori non dubitauerunt; ceteras cupiditates huius unius ingenti cupiditate presserunt. Ipsam denique patriam suam, quoniam seruire uidebatur inglorium, dominari uero adque imperare gloriosum, prius omni studio liberam, deinde dominam esse concupiuerunt. Hinc est quod regalem dominationem non ferentes (annua imperia binosque imperatores sibi fecerunt, qui consules appellati sunt a consulendo, non reges aut domini a regnando adque dominando; cum et reges utique a regendo dicti melius uideantur, ut regnum a regibus, reges autem, ut dictum est, a regendo; sed fastus regius non disciplina putata est regentis uel beneuolentia consulentis, sed superbia dominantis. Expulso itaque rege Tarquinio et consulibus institutis secutum est, quod idem auctor in Romanorum laudibus posuit, quod ciuitas incredibile memoratu est adepta libertate quantum breui creuerit; tanta cupido gloriae incesserat.) Ista ergo laudis auiditas et cupido gloriae multa illa miranda fecit, laudabilia scilicet adque gloriosa secundum hominum existimationem. Laudat idem Sallustius temporibus suis magnos et praeclaros uiros, Marcum Catonem et Gaium Caesarem, dicens quod diu illa res publica non habuit quemquam uirtute magnum, sed sua memoria fuisse illos duos ingenti uirtute, diuersis moribus. In laudibus autem Caesaris posuit, quod sibi magnum imperium, exercitum, bellum nouum exoptabat, ubi uirtus enitescere posset. Ita fiebat in uotis uirorum uirtute magnorum, ut excitaret in bellum miseras gentes et flagello agitaret Bellona sanguineo, ut esset ubi uirtus eorum enitesceret. Hoc illa profecto laudis auiditas et gloriae cupido faciebat. Amore itaque primitus libertatis, post etiam dominationis et cupiditate laudis et gloriae multa magna fecerunt. Reddit eis utriusque rei testimonium etiam poeta insignis illorum; inde quippe ait: Nec non Tarquinium eiectum Porsenna iubebat Accipere ingentique urbem obsidione premebat; Aeneadae in ferrum pro libertate ruebant. Tunc itaque magnum illis fuit aut fortiter mori aut liberos uiuere. Sed cum esset adepta libertas, tanta cupido gloriae incesserat, ut parum esset sola libertas, nisi et dominatio quaereretur, dum pro magno habetur, quod uelut loquente Ioue idem poeta dicit: Quin aspera Iuno, Quae mare nunc terrasque metu caelumque fatigat, Consilia in melius referet mecumque fouebit Romanos rerum dominos gentemque togatam. Sic placitum. Ueniet lustris labentibus aetas, Cum domus Assaraci Phthiam clarasque Mycenas Seruitio premet ac uictis dominabitur Argis. Quae quidem Vergilius Iouem inducens tamquam futura praedicentem ipse iam facta recolebat cernebatque praesentia; uerum propterea commemorare illa uolui, ut ostenderem dominationem post libertatem sic habuisse Romanos, ut in eorum magnis laudibus poneretur. Hinc est et illud eiusdem poetae, quod, cum artibus aliarum gentium eas ipsas proprias Romanorum artes regnandi adque imperandi et subigendi ac debellandi populos anteponeret, ait: Excudent alii spirantia mollius aera, Cedo equidem, uiuos ducent de marmore uultus, Orabunt causas melius caelique meatus Describent radio et surgentia sidera dicent: Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento (Hae tibi erunt artes) pacique inponere mores, Parcere subiectis et debellare superbos. Has artes illi tanto peritius exercebant, quanto minus se uoluptatibus dabant et eneruationi animi et corporis in concupiscendis et augendis diuitiis et per illas moribus corrumpendis, rapiendo miseris ciuibus, largiendo scaenicis turpibus. [Unde] Qui tales iam morum labe superabant adque abundabant, quando scribebat ista Sallustius canebatque Vergilius, non illis artibus ad honores et gloriam, sed dolis adque fallaciis ambiebant. Unde idem dicit: *Sed primo magis ambitio quam auaritia animos hominum exercebat, quod tamen uitium propius uirtutem erat. Nam gloriam honorem imperium bonus et ignauus aeque sibi exoptant; sed ille, inquit, uera uia nititur, huic quia bonae artes desunt, dolis adque fallaciis contendit. Hae sunt illae bonae artes, per uirtutem scilicet, non per fallacem ambitionem ad honorem et gloriam et imperium peruenire; quae tamen bonus et ignauus aeque sibi exoptant; sed ille, id est bonus, uera uia nititur. Via uirtus est, qua nititur tamquam ad possessionis finem, id est ad gloriam honorem imperium. Hoc insitum habuisse Romanos etiam deorum aput illos aedes indicant, quas coniunctissimas constituerunt, Virtutis et Honoris, pro dis habentes quae dantur a Deo. Unde intellegi potest quem finem uolebant esse uirtutis et quo eam referebant qui boni erant, ad honorem scilicet; nam mali nec habebant eam, quamuis honorem habere cuperent, quem malis artibus conabantur adipisci, id est dolis adque fallaciis. Melius laudatus est Cato. De illo quippe ait: (Quo minus petebat gloriam, eo illum magis sequebatur. Quando quidem gloria est, cuius illi cupiditate flagrabant, iudicium hominum bene de hominibus opinantium; et ideo melior est uirtus, quae humano testimonio contenta non est nisi conscientiae suae. Unde dicit apostolus: Nam gloria nostra haec est: testimonium conscientiae nostrae; et alio loco: Opus autem suum probet unusquisque, et tunc in semet ipso tantum gloriam habebit et non in altero. Gloriam ergo et honorem et imperium, quae sibi exoptabant et quo bonis artibus peruenire nitebantur boni, non debet sequi uirtus, sed ipsa uirtutem. Neque enim est uera uirtus, nisi quae ad eum finem tendit, ubi est bonum hominis, quo melius non est. Unde et honores, quos petiuit Cato, petere non debuit, sed eos ciuitas ob eius uirtutem non petenti dare. Sed cum illa memoria duo Romani essent uirtute magni, Caesar et Cato, longe uirtus Catonis ueritati uidetur propinquior fuisse quam Caesaris. Proinde qualis esset illo tempore ciuitas et antea qualis fuisset, uideamus in ipsa sententia Catonis: Nolite, inquit, existimare maiores nostros armis rem publicam ex parua magnam fecisse. Si ita esset, multo pulcherrimam eam nos haberemus. Quippe sociorum adque ciuium, praeterea armorum et equorum maior copia nobis quam illis est. Sed alia fuere quae illos magnos fecerunt, quae nobis nulla sunt: domi industria, foris iustum imperium, animus in consulendo liber, neque delicto neque libidini obnoxius. Pro his nos habemus luxuriam adque auaritiam, publice egestatem, priuatim opulentiam; laudamus diuitias, sequimur inertiam; inter bonos et malos discrimen nullum; omnia uirtutis praemia ambitio possidet. Neque mirum: ubi uos separatim sibi quisque consilium capitis, ubi domi uoluptatibus, hic pecuniae aut gratiae seruitis, eo fit ut impetus fiat in uacuam rem publicam. Qui audit haec Catonis uerba siue Sallustii, putat, quales laudantur Romani ueteres, omnes eos tales tunc fuisse uel plures. Non ita est; alioquin uera non essent, quae ipse item scribit, ea quae commemoraui in secundo libro huius operis, ubi dicit, iniurias ualidiorum et ob eas discessionem plebis a patribus aliasque dissensiones domi fuisse iam inde a principio, neque amplius aequo et modesto iure actum quam expulsis regibus quamdiu metus a Tarquinio fuit, donec bellum graue, quod propter ipsum cum Etruria susceptum fuerat, finiretur; postea uero seruili imperio patres exercuisse plebem, regio more uerberasse, agro pepulisse et ceteris expertibus solos egisse in imperio; quarum discordiarum, dum illi dominari uellent, illi seruire nollent, finem fuisse bello Punico secundo, quia rursus grauis metus coepit urguere adque ab illis perturbationibus alia maiore cura cohibere animos inquietos et ad concordiam reuocare ciuilem. Sed per quosdam paucos, qui pro suo modo boni erant, magna administrabantur adque illis toleratis ac temperatis malis paucorum bonorum prouidentia res illa crescebat; sicut idem historicus dicit multa sibi legenti et audienti, quae populus Romanus domi militiaeque, mari adque terra praeclara facinora fecerit, libuisse adtendere quae res maxime tanta negotia sustinuisset; quoniam sciebat saepenumero parua manu cum magnis legionibus hostium contendisse Romanos, cognouerat paruis copiis bella gesta cum opulentis regibus; sibique multa agitanti constare dixit, paucorum ciuium egregiam uirtutem cuncta patrauisse, eoque factum ut diuitias paupertas, multitudinem paucitas superaret. Sed postquam luxu adque desidia, inquit, ciuitas corrupta est, rursus res publica magnitudine sui imperatorum adque magistratuum uitia sustentabat. Paucorum igitur uirtus ad gloriam honorem imperium uera uia, id est ipsa uirtute, nitentium etiam a Catone laudata est. Hinc erat domi industria, quam commemorauit Cato, ut aerarium esset opulentum, tenues res priuatae. Unde corruptis moribus uitium e contrario posuit, publice egestatem, priuatim opulentiam.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. By what character the ancient Romans deserved that the true God, though they did not worship him, should enlarge their empire.

Let us see, then, what Roman characteristics, and for what reason, the true God, in whose power are also the kingdoms of the earth, deigned to help in enlarging the empire. It was to discuss this more fully that we wrote the previous book too, which bears on it, showing that in this matter the gods whom they thought should be worshipped even with trifling rites have no power; and also the earlier parts of the present book, which we have carried to this point, on removing the question of fate, lest anyone already persuaded that the Roman empire was not extended and preserved by the worship of those gods should attribute it to some fate or other rather than to the most powerful will of the supreme God. The ancient and early Romans, then, as far as their history teaches and commends them, though like other nations (except the one people of the Hebrews) they worshipped false gods and sacrificed victims not to God but to demons, were nevertheless “eager for praise, generous with money; they wanted immense glory and honest riches.” This glory they loved most ardently; for it they wished to live, for it they did not hesitate to die. All other desires they suppressed by the immense desire for this one thing. Finally, because to serve seemed inglorious, but to rule and command glorious, they desired their country itself first with all zeal to be free, then to be mistress. Hence it was that, not bearing the rule of kings, “they made for themselves annual commands and two commanders,” who were called consuls from consulting, not kings or lords from reigning and lording it; though kings certainly seem better named from ruling [regere], as kingdom from kings, and kings, as has been said, from ruling; but royal pride was thought to be not the discipline of one who rules or the goodwill of one who consults, but the arrogance of one who lords it. So when King Tarquin had been expelled and consuls instituted, there followed what the same author set down in praise of the Romans: that “it is incredible to relate how greatly the state grew in a short time once liberty was won; so great a desire for glory had come upon it.” This eagerness for praise and desire for glory, then, did those many wonderful things, praiseworthy, that is, and glorious in human estimation. The same Sallust praises the great and illustrious men of his own time, Marcus Cato and Gaius Caesar, saying that for a long time that republic had had no one great in virtue, but that in his memory there had been these two, of immense virtue, of different characters. Among Caesar's praises he set down that he longed for a great command, an army, a new war, where his virtue could shine. So it came about, in the prayers of men great in virtue, that Bellona should stir up wretched nations to war and drive them with her bloody scourge, so that there might be somewhere for their virtue to shine. This, certainly, is what that eagerness for praise and desire for glory did. So from love, first of liberty and afterwards also of domination, and from the desire for praise and glory, they did many great things. Their famous poet gives them testimony on both counts; for he says:

“Porsenna too bade them take back the banished Tarquin
and pressed the city with a mighty siege;
the sons of Aeneas rushed upon the sword for liberty.”

At that time, then, it was a great thing for them either to die bravely or to live free. But when liberty had been won, so great a desire for glory had come upon them that liberty alone was too little unless domination was also sought, since what the same poet says, as if in Jupiter's words, was held to be a great thing:

“Nay, harsh Juno, who now wearies sea and lands and sky with fear,
will change her counsels for the better, and with me will cherish
the Romans, lords of the world, the nation of the toga.
So it is decreed. As the lustra glide by, an age will come
when the house of Assaracus will press Phthia and famous Mycenae
into servitude and rule over conquered Argos.”

Virgil, bringing in Jupiter as if foretelling these things as future, was himself recalling things already done and seeing them present; but I wished to mention them to show that the Romans held domination after liberty in such a way that it was counted among their great praises. Hence also that saying of the same poet, when he sets these proper Roman arts of ruling, commanding, subduing, and conquering peoples before the arts of other nations:

“Others will hammer out breathing bronze more softly,
I grant it; they will draw living faces from marble,
plead causes better, trace the paths of the sky with the rod
and tell the rising stars:
remember, Roman, to rule the peoples with command
(these will be your arts), and to impose the ways of peace,
to spare the subject and war down the proud.”

They practiced these arts the more skillfully the less they gave themselves to pleasures and to enervation of mind and body in coveting and increasing riches, and through them corrupting morals, robbing wretched citizens and lavishing on disgraceful stage players. Those, however, who already surpassed and abounded in such corruption of morals when Sallust was writing these things and Virgil singing them, sought honors and glory not by those arts but by tricks and deceits. So the same author says: “But at first ambition rather than avarice exercised men's minds, a vice that was nevertheless nearer to virtue. For glory, honor, and command the good and the worthless man alike desire for themselves; but the former,” he says, “strives by the true way; the latter, because he lacks good arts, contends by tricks and deceits.” These are those good arts: to attain honor, glory, and command by virtue, not by deceitful ambition; which things the good and the worthless alike desire for themselves; but the former, that is, the good man, strives by the true way. The way is virtue, by which he strives as toward the goal of possession, that is, glory, honor, and command. That the Romans had this ingrained in them is shown also by the temples of their gods, which they set up closely joined together, of Virtue and of Honor, taking for gods what are given by God. From this it can be understood what end those who were good wished virtue to have, and to what they referred it: to honor. For the bad did not even have virtue, though they desired to have honor, which they tried to obtain by bad arts, that is, by tricks and deceits. Cato was praised better. For he says of him: “The less he sought glory, the more it followed him.” For the glory with whose desire they burned is the judgment of men who think well of men; and therefore virtue is better which is content with no human testimony but that of its own conscience. So the apostle says: “For this is our glory: the testimony of our conscience”; and in another place: “But let each one test his own work, and then he will have glory in himself alone and not in another.” So glory, honor, and command, which they desired for themselves and which the good strove to attain by good arts, ought not to be followed by virtue; rather they ought to follow virtue. For there is no true virtue except that which tends to that end where the good of man is, than which there is nothing better. So Cato ought not to have sought even the honors that he sought; rather the state ought to have given them to him for his virtue without his seeking them. But since in that memory there were two Romans great in virtue, Caesar and Cato, the virtue of Cato seems to have been far nearer the truth than Caesar's. So let us see what the state was like at that time, and what it had been like before, in Cato's own speech: “Do not think,” he says, “that our ancestors made the republic great from small by arms. If that were so, we would have it far more splendid; for we have a greater supply of allies and citizens, and moreover of arms and horses, than they had. But there were other things that made them great, which we have not at all: industry at home, just rule abroad, a mind free in counsel, bound neither by crime nor by lust. Instead of these we have luxury and avarice, poverty in public, wealth in private; we praise riches, we pursue idleness; between good and bad there is no distinction; ambition possesses all the rewards of virtue. And no wonder: when each of you takes counsel for himself apart, when at home you serve pleasures and here money or favor, the result is that an assault is made on the defenseless republic.” Whoever hears these words of Cato, or of Sallust, thinks that all the ancient Romans, or most of them, were then such as those who are praised. It is not so; otherwise the things he likewise writes would not be true, which I mentioned in the second book of this work, where he says that the injustices of the stronger, and on account of them the secession of the plebs from the fathers, and other dissensions at home, existed from the very beginning, and that affairs were conducted with fair and moderate law only after the kings were expelled, as long as there was fear of Tarquin, until the serious war undertaken with Etruria on his account was ended; but that afterwards the fathers oppressed the plebs with a slave's rule, flogged them in kingly fashion, drove them from the land, and alone held command, the rest excluded; and that the end of these discords, while the one side wished to lord it and the other refused to serve, came in the Second Punic War, because a grave fear again began to press and to restrain restless minds from those disturbances by another, greater care, and to call them back to civil concord. But great things were administered through a certain few who were good after their fashion, and when those evils were tolerated and tempered, that state grew by the foresight of a few good men. So the same historian says that as he read and heard of the many illustrious deeds the Roman people did at home and in war, by sea and land, he was pleased to consider what had above all sustained such great undertakings; for he knew that the Romans had often contended with a small band against great legions of the enemy, and he had learned that wars had been waged with small forces against wealthy kings; and after much thought, he said, it was clear to him that the outstanding virtue of a few citizens had accomplished everything, and that so it came about that poverty overcame riches and fewness multitude. “But after the state was corrupted by luxury and sloth,” he says, “the republic in turn sustained by its own greatness the vices of its generals and magistrates.” So the virtue of a few, striving for glory, honor, and command by the true way, that is, by virtue itself, was praised even by Cato. Hence came the industry at home that Cato mentioned, so that the treasury was rich and private fortunes slender. So when morals were corrupted he set down the vice opposite to it: poverty in public, wealth in private.

### Scripture references

- 2 Cor 1:12: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 6:4: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sallust, Cat. 7.6 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence
- Sallust, Cat. 11.1–2 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence
- Sallust, Cat. 52.19–23 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence
- Sallust, Cat. 53.2–5 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence
- Sallust, Cat. 54.6 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 8.646–648 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 1.279–285 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 6.847–853 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Sallust, Catiline 7.6, 6.7, 7.3, 53.6, 54.2–4, 11.1–2, 52.19–23, 53.2–5, and Histories 1 frag. 11; Virgil, Aeneid 8.646–648, 1.279–285, 6.847–853. The editor deletes “Unde” before “Qui tales”.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.12 (CSEL 40:232–238; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-12/#p-5-12).

## City of God 5.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-12/#p-5-13
- Source: CSEL 40:238–240
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that God gave the Western empire to Romans whose love of praise, itself a vice, restrained worse vices.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. De amore laudis, qui, cum sit uitium, ob hoc uirtus putatur, quia per ipsam uitia maiora cohibentur. Quam ob rem quam diu fuissent regna Orientis inlustria, uoluit Deus et Occidentale fieri, quod tempore esset posterius, sed imperii latitudine et magnitudine inlustrius, idque talibus potissimum concessit hominibus ad domanda grauia mala multarum gentium, qui causa honoris laudis et gloriae consuluerunt patriae, in qua ipsam gloriam requirebant, salutemque eius saluti suae praeponere non dubitauerunt, pro isto uno uitio, id est amore laudis, pecuniae cupiditatem et multa alia uitia conprimentes. Nam sanius uidet, qui et amorem laudis uitium esse cognoscit, quod nec poetam fugit Horatium, qui ait: Laudis amore tumes: sunt certa piacula, quae te Ter pure lecto poterunt recreare libello. Idemque in carmine lyrico ad reprimendam dominandi libidinem ita cecinit: Latius regnes auidum domando Spiritum, quam si Libyam remotis Gadibus iungas et uterque Poenus Seruiat uni. Uerum tamen qui libidines turpiores fide pietatis inpetrato Spiritu sancto et amore intellegibilis pulchritudinis non refrenant, melius saltem cupiditate humanae laudis et gloriae non quidem iam sancti, sed minus turpes sunt. Etiam Tullius hinc dissimulare non potuit in eisdem libris quos de re publica scripsit, ubi loquitur de instituendo principe ciuitatis, quem dicit alendum esse gloria, et consequenter commemorat maiores suos multa mira adque praeclara gloriae cupiditate fecisse. Huic igitur uitio non solum non resistebant, uerum etiam id excitandum et accendendum esse censebant, putantes hoc utile esse rei publicae. Quamquam nec in ipsis philosophiae libris Tullius ab hac peste dissimulet, ubi eam luce clarius confitetur. Cum enim de studiis talibus loqueretur, quae utique sectanda sunt fine ueri boni, non uentositate laudis humanae, hanc intulit uniuersalem generalemque sententiam: Honos alit artes, omnesque accenduntur ad studia gloria iacentque ea semper, quae aput quosque inprobantur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. On the love of praise, which, though it is a vice, is thought a virtue because greater vices are restrained by it.

Therefore, after the kingdoms of the East had been illustrious for a long time, God willed that the Western kingdom also should arise, which was later in time but more illustrious in the breadth and greatness of its empire; and he granted it above all to men of this kind, to subdue the grievous evils of many nations: men who, for the sake of honor, praise, and glory, took thought for their country, in which they sought that very glory, and did not hesitate to set its safety before their own, suppressing the desire for money and many other vices for the sake of this one vice, that is, the love of praise. For he sees more soundly who recognizes that the love of praise too is a vice; which did not escape even the poet Horace, who says:

“You swell with love of praise: there are sure expiations
which can restore you if you read a little book three times with a pure heart.”

And the same poet sang thus in a lyric poem to check the lust for domination:

“You would reign more widely by taming a greedy spirit
than if you joined Libya to distant Gades
and both Carthaginians
served you alone.”

Nevertheless, those who do not restrain their baser lusts by the faith of piety, obtained through the Holy Spirit, and by love of intelligible beauty, are at least better for the desire of human praise and glory: not indeed yet holy, but less base. Even Tully could not conceal this in the books he wrote On the Republic, where he speaks of training the leading man of the state, who he says must be nourished by glory; and he goes on to mention that his ancestors did many wonderful and splendid things from the desire for glory. So far from resisting this vice, then, they even thought it should be stirred up and kindled, supposing it useful to the republic. Yet even in his books of philosophy Tully does not conceal this plague, but confesses it more clearly than daylight. For when he was speaking of such pursuits as ought certainly to be followed for the end of the true good, not for the windiness of human praise, he brought in this universal and general maxim: “Honor nourishes the arts, and all are kindled to study by glory, and those things always lie neglected which are disapproved by each people.”

### Extrabiblical texts

- Horace, Ep. 1.1.36–37 (Horace): quotation, high confidence
- Horace, Carm. 2.2.9–12 (Horace): quotation, high confidence
- Cicero, Rep. 5 frag. (Cicero): allusion, high confidence
- Cicero, Tusc. 1.4 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Horace, Epistles 1.1.36–37 and Odes 2.2.9–12; Cicero, On the Republic 5 (fragment) and Tusculan Disputations 1.2.4.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.13 (CSEL 40:238–240; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-12/#p-5-13).

## City of God 5.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-12/#p-5-14
- Source: CSEL 40:240–242
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine urges that the love of human praise be overcome by love of righteousness, as the apostles and martyrs sought God's glory rather than their own.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. De resecando amore laudis humanae, quoniam iustorum gloria omnis in Deo sit. Huic igitur cupiditati melius resistitur sine dubitatione quam ceditur. Tanto enim quisque est Deo similior, quanto et ab hac inmunditia mundior. Quae in hac uita etsi non funditus eradicatur ex corde, quia etiam bene proficientes animos tentare non cessat, saltem cupiditas gloriae superetur dilectione iustitiae: ut, si alicubi iacent quae aput quosque inprobantur, si bona, si recta sunt, etiam ipse amor humanae laudis erubescat et cedat amori ueritatis. Tam enim est hoc uitium inimicum piae fidei, si maior in corde sit cupiditas gloriae quam Dei timor uel amor, ut Dominus diceret: Quo modo potestis credere gloriam ab inuicem expectantes et gloriam quae a solo Deo est non quaerentes? Item de quibusdam, qui in eum crediderant et uerebantur palam confiteri, ait euangelista: Dilexerunt gloriam hominum magis quam Dei. Quod sancti apostoli non fecerunt; qui cum in his locis praedicarent Christi nomen, ubi non solum inprobabatur (sicut ille ait: iacentque ea semper, quae aput quosque inprobantur), uerum etiam summae detestationis habebatur, tenentes quod audierant a bono magistro eodemque medico mentium: Si quis me negauerit coram hominibus, negabo eum coram patre meo, qui in caelis est, uel coram angelis Dei, inter maledicta et obprobria, inter grauissimas persecutiones crudelesque poenas non sunt deterriti a praedicatione salutis humanae tanto fremitu offensionis humanae. Et quod eos diuina facientes adque dicentes diuineque uiuentes debellatis quodam modo cordibus duris adque introducta pace iustitiae ingens in ecclesia Christi gloria consecuta est: non in ea tamquam in suae uirtutis fine quieuerunt, sed eam quoque ipsam ad Dei gloriam referentes, cuius gratia tales erant, isto quoque fomite eos, quibus consulebant, ad amorem illius, a quo et ipsi tales fierent, accendebant. Namque ne propter humanam gloriam boni essent, docuerat eos magister illorum dicens: Cauete facere iustitiam uestram coram hominibus, ut uideamini ab eis; alioquin mercedem non habebitis aput patrem uestrum, qui in caelis est. Sed rursus ne hoc peruerse intellegentes hominibus placere metuerent minusque prodessent latendo, quod boni sunt, demonstrans quo fine innotescere deberent: Luceant, inquit, opera uestra coram hominibus, ut uideant bona facta uestra et glorificent patrem uestrum, qui in caelis est. Non ergo ut uideamini ab eis, id est hac intentione, ut eos ad uos conuerti uelitis, quia non per uos aliquid estis; sed ut glorificent patrem uestrum, qui in caelis est, ad quem conuersi fiant quod estis. Hos secuti sunt martyres, qui Scaeuolas et Curtios et Decios non sibi inferendo poenas, sed inlatas ferendo et uirtute uera, quoniam uera pietate, et innumerabili multitudine superarunt. Sed cum illi essent in ciuitate terrena, quibus propositus erat omnium pro illa officiorum finis incolumitas eius et regnum non in caelo, sed in terra; non in uita aeterna, sed in decessione morientium et successione moriturorum: quid aliud amarent quam gloriam, qua uolebant etiam post mortem tamquam uiuere in ore laudantium?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. On cutting away the love of human praise, since all the glory of the righteous is in God.

This desire, then, is without doubt better resisted than yielded to. For each one is more like God the purer he is of this uncleanness. And though in this life it is not rooted out of the heart completely, since it does not cease to tempt even souls that are making good progress, at least let the desire for glory be overcome by the love of righteousness; so that, if things “lie neglected which are disapproved” by some people, if they are good, if they are right, even the love of human praise itself may blush and yield to the love of truth. For this vice is so hostile to godly faith, if the desire for glory is greater in the heart than the fear or love of God, that the Lord said: “How can you believe, when you expect glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from God alone?” Likewise, of certain people who had believed in him and were afraid to confess it openly, the evangelist says: “They loved the glory of men more than that of God.” This the holy apostles did not do. When they preached the name of Christ in places where it was not only disapproved (as that man says, “and those things always lie neglected which are disapproved by each people”) but held in the utmost detestation, holding to what they had heard from the good Master, who is also the physician of minds, “If anyone denies me before men, I will deny him before my Father who is in heaven,” or “before the angels of God,” amid curses and reproaches, amid the heaviest persecutions and cruel punishments, they were not deterred from preaching human salvation by so great a roar of human offense. And when, as they did and said divine things and lived divinely, hard hearts were in a way conquered and the peace of righteousness brought in, and great glory followed them in the church of Christ, they did not rest in it as in the end of their own virtue, but referred that glory too to the glory of God, by whose grace they were such; and by this kindling too they fired those for whom they cared with love of him by whom they also might become such. For their Master had taught them not to be good for the sake of human glory, saying: “Beware of doing your righteousness before men in order to be seen by them; otherwise you will have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.” But again, lest they should understand this wrongly and be afraid to please men, and do less good by hiding that they were good, he showed for what end they ought to become known: “Let your works shine,” he says, “before men, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” Not, then, “in order to be seen by them,” that is, with this intention, that you want them to turn to you, since you are nothing by yourselves; but “that they may glorify your Father who is in heaven,” so that, turned to him, they may become what you are. The martyrs followed these, who surpassed the Scaevolas and Curtii and Decii, not by inflicting punishments on themselves but by bearing those inflicted, both by true virtue, because by true piety, and by their countless multitude. But since those men were in the earthly city, for whom the end set before all their duties toward it was its safety, and a kingdom not in heaven but on earth, not in eternal life but in the passing of the dying and the succession of those about to die, what else would they love but glory, by which they wished to live even after death, as it were, on the lips of those who praised them?

### Scripture references

- John 5:44: quotation, high confidence
- John 12:43: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 10:33: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 12:9: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 6:1: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 5:16: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Tusc. 1.4 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- “Those things always lie neglected…” is Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 1.2.4, quoted in 5.13.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.14 (CSEL 40:240–242; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-12/#p-5-14).

## City of God 5.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-12/#p-5-15
- Source: CSEL 40:242–243
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that God rewarded the Romans' virtues with earthly glory, since they did not seek eternal life.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. De mercede temporali, quam Deus reddidit bonis moribus Romanorum. Quibus ergo non erat daturus Deus uitam aeternam cum sanctis angelis suis in sua ciuitate caelesti, ad cuius societatem pietas uera perducit, quae non exhibet seruitutem religionis, quam λατρείαν Graeci uocant, nisi uni uero Deo, si neque hanc eis terrenam gloriam excellentissimi imperii concederet: non redderetur merces bonis artibus eorum, id est uirtutibus, quibus ad tantam gloriam peruenire nitebantur. De talibus enim, qui propter hoc boni aliquid facere uidentur, ut glorificentur ab hominibus, etiam Dominus ait: Amen dico uobis, perceperunt mercedem suam. Sic et isti priuatas res suas pro re communi, hoc est re publica, et pro eius aerario contemserunt, auaritiae restiterunt, consuluerunt patriae consilio libero, neque delicto secundum suas leges neque libidini obnoxii; his omnibus artibus tamquam uera uia nisi sunt ad honores imperium gloriam; honorati sunt in omnibus fere gentibus, imperii sui leges inposuerunt multis gentibus. hodieque litteris et historia gloriosi sunt paene in omnibus gentibus: non est quod de summi et ueri Dei iustitia conquerantur; perceperunt mercedem suam.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. On the temporal reward that God gave to the good character of the Romans.

Those, then, to whom God was not going to give eternal life with his holy angels in his heavenly city, to whose fellowship true piety leads, which does not offer the service of religion, which the Greeks call latreia, to any but the one true God: if he had not granted them even this earthly glory of a most excellent empire, no reward would have been given to their good arts, that is, their virtues, by which they strove to attain such great glory. For of such people, who seem to do some good in order to be glorified by men, the Lord also says: “Truly I say to you, they have received their reward.” So these men too despised their private affairs for the common good, that is, the republic, and for its treasury; they resisted avarice; they took thought for their country with free counsel, bound neither by crime (according to their laws) nor by lust. By all these arts, as by the true way, they strove for honors, command, and glory; they were honored among almost all nations, they imposed the laws of their empire on many nations, and to this day they are glorious in literature and history among almost all nations. They have no reason to complain of the justice of the supreme and true God: “they have received their reward.”

### Scripture references

- Matt 6:2: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sallust, Cat. 52.21 (Sallust): echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Latreia (Greek λατρεία), the service owed to God alone; see also 10.1.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.15 (CSEL 40:242–243; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-12/#p-5-15).

## City of God 5.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-12/#p-5-16
- Source: CSEL 40:243–244
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine contrasts the Romans' reward with the eternal city of the saints, for whom Roman examples serve as a spur to greater love of the heavenly country.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. De mercede sanctorum ciuium ciuitatis aeternae, quibus utilia sunt Romanorum exempla uirtutum. Merces autem sanctorum longe alia est etiam hic obprobria sustinentium pro ueritate Dei, quae mundi huius dilectoribus odiosa est. Illa ciuitas sempiterna est; ibi nullus oritur, quia nullus moritur; ibi est uera et plena felicitas, non dea, sed donum Dei; inde fidei pignus accepimus, quamdiu peregrinantes eius pulchritudini suspiramus; ibi non oritur sol super bonos et malos, sed sol iustitiae solos protegit bonos; ibi non erit magna industria ditare publicum aerarium priuatis rebus angustis, ubi thensaurus communis est ueritatis. Proinde non solum ut talis merces talibus hominibus redderetur Romanum imperium ad humanam gloriam dilatatum est; uerum etiam ut ciues aeternae illius ciuitatis, quamdiu hic peregrinantur, diligenter et sobrie illa intueantur exempla et uideant quanta dilectio debeatur supernae patriae propter uitam aeternam, si tantum a suis ciuibus terrena dilecta est propter hominum gloriam.,

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. On the reward of the holy citizens of the eternal city, to whom the examples of Roman virtues are useful.

But the reward of the saints is far different, who even here bear reproaches for the truth of God, which is hateful to the lovers of this world. That city is everlasting. There no one is born, because no one dies; there is true and full happiness, not a goddess but a gift of God; from there we have received the pledge of faith, while as pilgrims we sigh for its beauty. There the sun does not rise on the good and the evil, but the sun of righteousness protects the good alone; there it will be no great industry to enrich the public treasury while private means are narrow, where the treasure of truth is common. So the Roman empire was extended for human glory not only that such a reward might be given to such men, but also that the citizens of that eternal city, while they are pilgrims here, might diligently and soberly look at those examples and see how much love is owed to the heavenly country for the sake of eternal life, if the earthly one was so loved by its citizens for the sake of human glory.

### Scripture references

- Matt 5:45: allusion, high confidence
- Mal 4:2 (3:20 LXX): allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 1:22: echo, medium confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.16 (CSEL 40:243–244; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-12/#p-5-16).

## City of God 5.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-12/#p-5-17
- Source: CSEL 40:244–245
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that Roman conquest brought the conquered little real harm or benefit, and that Christians should not boast of sacrifices for a far greater city.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. Quo fructu Romani bella gesserint et quantum his quos uicere contulerint. Quantum enim pertinet ad hanc uitam mortalium, quae paucis diebus ducitur et finitur, quid interest sub cuius imperio uiuat homo moriturus, si illi qui imperant ad inpia et iniqua non cogant? Aut uero aliquid nocuerunt Romani gentibus, quibus subiugatis inposuerunt leges suas, nisi quia id factum est ingenti strage bellorum? Quod si concorditer fieret, id ipsum fieret meliore successu; sed nulla esset gloria triumphantium. Neque enim et Romani non uiuebant sub legibus suis, quas ceteris inponebant. Hoc si fieret sine Marte et Bellona, ut nec Victoria locum haberet, nemine uincente ubi nemo pugnauerat: nonne Romanis et ceteris gentibus una esset eademque condicio? praesertim si mox fieret, quod postea gratissime adque humanissime factum est, ut omnes ad Romanum imperium pertinentes societatem acciperent ciuitatis et Romani ciues essent, ac sic esset omnium, quod erat ante paucorum; tantum quod plebs illa, quae suos agros non haberet, de publico uiueret; qui pastus eius per bonos administratores rei publicae gratius a concordibus praestaretur quam uictis extorqueretur. Nam quid intersit ad incolumitatem bonosque mores, ipsas certe hominum dignitates, quod alii uicerunt, alii uicti sunt, omnino non uideo, praeter illum gloriae humanae inanissimum fastum, in quo perceperunt mercedem suam, qui eius ingenti cupidine arserunt et ardentia bella gesserunt. Numquid enim illorum agri tributa non soluunt? Numquid eis licet discere, quod aliis non licet? Numquid non multi senatores sunt in aliis terris, qui Romam ne facie quidem norunt? Tolle iactantiam, et omnes homines quid sunt nisi homines? Quod si peruersitas saeculi admitteret, ut honoratiores essent quique meliores: nec sic pro magno haberi debuit honor humanus, quia nullius est ponderis fumus. Sed utamur etiam in his rebus beneficio Domini Dei nostri; consideremus quanta contemserint, quae pertulerint, quas cupiditates subegerint pro humana gloria, qui eam tamquam mercedem talium uirtutum accipere meruerunt, et ualeat nobis etiam hoc ad obprimendam superbiam, ut, cum illa ciuitas, in qua nobis regnare promissum est, tantum ab hac distet, quantum distat caelum a terra, a temporali laetitia uita aeterna, ab inanibus laudibus solida gloria, a societate mortalium societas angelorum, a lumine solis et lunae lumen eius qui solem fecit et lunam, nihil sibi magnum fecisse uideantur tantae patriae ciues, si pro illa adipiscenda fecerint boni operis aliquid uel mala aliqua sustinuerint, cum illi pro hac terrena iam adepta tanta fecerint, tanta perpessi sint, praesertim quia remissio peccatorum, quae ciues ad aeternam colligit patriam, habet aliquid, cui per umbram quandam simile fuit asylum illud Romuleum, quo multitudinem, qua illa ciuitas conderetur, quorumlibet delictorum congregauit inpunitas.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. What profit the Romans gained from their wars, and how much they conferred on those they conquered.

For as far as this mortal life is concerned, which is spent and ended in a few days, what does it matter under whose rule a man who is going to die lives, if those who rule do not force him to impiety and injustice? Or did the Romans do any harm to the nations they subjugated and on which they imposed their laws, except that it was done with an immense slaughter of wars? If it had been done by agreement, it would have been done with better success; but there would have been no glory for those who triumphed. For the Romans too lived under their own laws, which they imposed on the rest. If this had been done without Mars and Bellona, so that there was no place for Victoria either, no one conquering where no one had fought, would not the Romans and the other nations have had one and the same condition? Especially if that had been done at once which was afterwards done most graciously and humanely, that all belonging to the Roman empire received the fellowship of citizenship and were Roman citizens, and so what had belonged to a few belonged to all; only that the plebs who had no land of their own would live at public expense; and their sustenance would be supplied more gladly through good administrators of the republic by those in concord than it would be extorted from the conquered. For I do not see at all what difference it makes to safety and good morals, or certainly to men's very dignities, that some conquered and others were conquered, apart from that most empty pride of human glory, in which “they have received their reward” who burned with an immense desire for it and waged burning wars. For do not their lands pay tribute? Are they allowed to learn what others are not? Are there not many senators in other lands who do not know Rome even by sight? Take away boasting, and what are all men but men? And even if the perversity of the world allowed that the better men should be the more honored, not even so ought human honor to be held of great account, for it is smoke that has no weight. But let us make use of the kindness of the Lord our God even in these matters; let us consider how great things those men despised, what they endured, what desires they subdued for human glory, who deserved to receive it as the reward of such virtues; and let this too help us to crush pride, so that, since that city in which it has been promised to us to reign is as far from this one as heaven is from earth, eternal life from temporal joy, solid glory from empty praises, the fellowship of angels from the fellowship of mortals, the light of him who made the sun and moon from the light of the sun and moon, the citizens of so great a country may not think they have done anything great if, to obtain it, they have done some good work or endured some evils, when those men did so much and suffered so much for this earthly country already obtained; especially since the forgiveness of sins, which gathers citizens into the eternal country, has something to which that asylum of Romulus was like as a kind of shadow, where impunity for every sort of crime gathered the multitude by whom that city was to be founded.

### Scripture references

- Matt 6:2: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The grant of citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire was made by Caracalla in AD 212.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.17 (CSEL 40:244–245; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-12/#p-5-17).

## City of God 5.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-18/#p-5-18
- Source: CSEL 40:245–251
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine sets famous Roman sacrifices for earthly glory (Brutus, Torquatus, Camillus, Mucius, Curtius, the Decii, Regulus, Cincinnatus, Fabricius) against the Christian's duty, so that believers may neither boast nor fall short.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. Quam alieni a iactantia esse debeant Christiani, si aliquid fecerint pro dilectione patriae aeternae, cum tanta Romani gesserint pro humana gloria et ciuitate terrena. Quid ergo magnum est pro illa aeterna caelestique patria cuncta saeculi huius quamlibet iucunda blandimenta contemnere, si pro hac temporali adque terrena filios Brutus potuit et occidere, quod illa facere neminem cogit? Sed certe difficilius est filios interimere, quam quod pro ista faciendum est, ea, quae filiis congreganda uidebantur adque seruanda, uel donare pauperibus uel, si existat tentatio, quae id pro fide adque iustitia fieri conpellat, amittere. Felices enim uel nos uel filios nostros non diuitiae terrenae faciunt aut nobis uiuentibus amittendae aut nobis mortuis a quibus nescimus uel forte a quibus nolumus possidendae; sed Deus felices facit, qui est mentium uera opulentia. Bruto autem, quia filios occidit, infelicitatis perhibet testimonium etiam poeta laudator. Ait enim: Natosque pater noua bella monentes Ad poenam pulchra pro libertate uocabit Infelix, utcumque ferent ea facta minores. Sed uersu sequenti consolatus est infelicem: Uincit amor patriae laudumque inmensa cupido. Haec sunt duo illa, libertas et cupiditas laudis humanae, quae ad facta conpulit miranda Romanos. Si ergo pro libertate moriturorum et cupiditate laudum, quae a mortalibus expetuntur, occidi filii a patre potuerunt: quid magnum est, si pro uera libertate, quae nos ab iniquitatis et mortis et diaboli dominatu liberos facit, nec cupiditate humanarum laudum, sed caritate liberandorum hominum, non a Tarquinio rege, sed a daemonibus et daemonum principe, non filii occiduntur, sed Christi pauperes inter filios conputantur? Si alius etiam Romanus princeps, cognomine Torquatus, filium, non quia contra patriam, sed etiam pro patria, tamen quia contra imperium suum, id est contra quod imperauerat pater imperator, ab hoste prouocatus iuuenali ardore pugnauerat, licet uicisset, occidit, ne plus mali esset in exemplo imperii contemti quam boni in gloria hostis occisi: ut quid se iactent, qui pro inmortalis patriae legibus omnia, quae multo minus quam filii diliguntur, bona terrena contemnunt? Si Furius Camillus etiam ingratam patriam, a cuius ceruicibus acerrimorum hostium Veientium iugum depulerat damnatusque ab aemulis fuerat, a Gallis iterum liberauit, quia non habebat potiorem, ubi posset uiuere gloriosius: quur extollatur, uelut grande aliquid fecerit, qui forte in ecclesia ab inimicis carnalibus grauissimam exhonorationis passus iniuriam non se ad eius hostes haereticos transtulit aut aliquam contra illam ipse haeresem condidit, sed eam potius quantum ualuit ab haereticorum perniciosissima prauitate defendit, cum alia non sit, non ubi uiuatur in hominum gloria, sed ubi uita ad aeterna aeterna? Si Mucius, ut cum Porsenna rege pax fieret, qui grauissimo bello Romanos premebat, quia Porsennam ipsum occidere non potuit et pro eo alterum deceptus occidit, in ardentem aram ante eius oculos dexteram extendit, dicens multos tales, qualem illum uideret, in eius exitium coniurasse cuius ille fortitudinem et coniurationem talium perhorrescens sine ulla dubitatione se ab illo bello facta pace conpescuit: quis regno caelorum inputaturus est merita sua, si pro illo non unam manum neque hoc sibi ultro faciens, sed persequente aliquo patiens totum flammis corpus inpenderit? Si Curtius armatus equo concito in abruptum hiatum terrae se praecipitem dedit, deorum suorum oraculis seruiens, quoniam iusserant, ut illuc id quod Romani haberent optimum mitteretur, nec aliud intellegere potuerunt, quam uiris armisque se excellere, unde uidelicet oportebat, ut deorum iussis in illum interitum uir praecipitaretur armatus: quid se magnum pro aeterna patria fecisse dicturus est, qui aliquem fidei suae passus inimicum non se ultro in talem mortem mittens, sed ab illo missus obierit; quando quidem a Domino suo eodemque rege patriae suae certius oraculum accepit: Nolite timere eos, qui corpus occidunt, animam autem non possunt occidere? Si se occidendos certis uerbis quodam modo consecrantes Decii deuouerunt, ut illis cadentibus et iram deorum sanguine suo placantibus Romanus liberaretur exercitus: nullo modo superbient sancti martyres, tamquam dignum aliquid pro illius patriae participatione fecerint, ubi aeterna est et uera felicitas, si usque ad sui sanguinis effusionem non solum suos fratres, pro quibus fundebatur, uerum et ipsos inimicos, a quibus fundebatur, sicut eis praeceptum est, diligentes caritatis fide et fidei caritate certarunt? Si Marcus Puluillus dedicans aedem Iouis Iunonis Mineruae falso sibi ab inuidis morte filii nuntiata, ut illo nuntio perturbatus abscederet adque ita dedicationis gloriam collega eius consequeretur, ita contemsit, ut eum etiam proici insepultum iuberet (sic in eius corde orbitatis dolorem gloriae cupiditas uicerat): quid magnum se pro euangelii sancti praedicatione, qua ciues supernae patriae de diuersis liberantur et colliguntur erroribus, fecisse dicturus est, cui Dominus de sepultura patris sui sollicito ait: Sequere me et sine mortuos sepelire mortuos suos? Si Marcus Regulus, ne crudelissimos hostes iurando falleret, ad eos ab ipsa Roma reuersus est, quoniam, sicut Romanis eum tenere uolentibus respondisse fertur, postea quam Afris seruierat, dignitatem illic honesti ciuis habere non posset, eumque Carthaginienses, quoniam contra eos in Romano senatu egerat, grauissimis suppliciis necauerunt: qui cruciatus non sunt pro fide illius patriae contemnendi, ad cuius beatitudinem fides ipsa perducit? aut quid retribuetur Domino pro omnibus quae retribuit, si pro fide quae illi debetur talia fuerit homo passus, qualia pro fide quam perniciosissimis inimicis debebat passus est Regulus? Quo modo se audebit extollere de uoluntaria paupertate Christianus, ut in huius uitae peregrinatione expeditior ambulet uiam, quae perducit ad patriam, ubi uerae diuitiae Deus ipse est, cum audiat uel legat Lucium Valerium, qui in suo defunctus est consulatu, usque adeo fuisse pauperem, ut nummis a populo conlatis eius sepultura curaretur? audiat uel legat Quintium Cincinnatum, cum quattuor iugera possideret et ea suis manibus coleret, ab aratro esse adductum, ut dictator fieret, maior utique honore quam consul, uictisque hostibus ingentem gloriam consecutum in eadem paupertate mansisse? Aut quid se magnum fecisse praedicabit, qui nullo praemio mundi huius fuerit ab aeternae illius patriae societate seductus, cum Fabricium didicerit tantis muneribus Pyrrhi, regis Epirotarum, promissa etiam quarta parte regni, a Romana ciuitate non potuisse deuelli ibique in sua paupertate priuatum manere maluisse? Nam illud quod rem publicam, id est rem populi, rem patriae, rem communem, cum haberent opulentissimam adque ditissimam, sic ipsi in suis domibus pauperes erant, ut quidam eorum, qui iam bis consul fuisset, ex illo senatu hominum pauperum pelleretur notatione censoria, quod decem pondo argenti in uasis habere conpertus est; ita idem ipsi pauperes erant, quorum triumphis publicum ditabatur aerarium: nonne omnes Christiani, qui excellentiore proposito diuitias suas communes faciunt secundum id quod scriptum est in actibus apostolorum, ut distribuatur unicuique sicut cuique opus est, et nemo dicat aliquid proprium, sed sint illis omnia communia, intellegunt se nulla ob hoc uentilari oportere iactantia, id faciendo pro obtinenda societate angelorum, cum paene tale aliquid illi fecerint pro conseruanda gloria Romanorum? Haec et alia, si qua huius modi reperiuntur in litteris eorum, quando sic innotescerent, quando tanta fama praedicarentur, nisi Romanum imperium longe lateque porrectum magnificis successibus augeretur? Proinde per illud imperium tam latum tamque diuturnum uirorumque tantorum uirtutibus praeclarum adque gloriosum et illorum intentioni merces quam quaerebant est reddita, et nobis proposita necessariae commonitionis exempla, ut, si uirtutes, quarum istae utcumque sunt similes, quas isti pro ciuitatis terrenae gloriae tenuerunt, pro Dei gloriosissima ciuitate non tenuerimus, pudore pungamur; si tenuerimus, superbia non extollamur; quoniam, sicut dicit apostolus, indignae sunt passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam, quae reuelabitur in nobis. Ad humanam uero gloriam praesentisque temporis satis digna uita aestimabatur illorum. Unde etiam Iudaei, qui Christum occiderunt, reuelante testamento nouo quod in uetere uelatum fuit, ut non pro terrenis et temporalibus beneficiis, quae diuina prouidentia permixte bonis malisque concedit, sed pro aeterna uita muneribusque perpetuis et ipsius supernae ciuitatis societate colatur Deus unus et uerus, rectissime istorum gloriae donati sunt, ut hi, qui qualibuscumque uirtutibus terrenam gloriam quaesiuerunt et adquisiuerunt, uincerent eos, qui magnis uitiis datorem uerae gloriae et ciuitatis aeternae occiderunt adque respuerunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. How far Christians ought to be from boasting if they have done anything for love of the eternal country, when the Romans did such great things for human glory and an earthly city.

What great thing is it, then, to despise all the allurements of this world, however pleasant, for that eternal and heavenly country, if for this temporal and earthly one Brutus could even kill his sons, which that country compels no one to do? But certainly it is harder to put one's sons to death than to do what must be done for the heavenly country: either to give to the poor the things that seemed to be gathered and kept for one's sons, or, if a temptation arises that compels it for the sake of faith and righteousness, to lose them. For it is not earthly riches that make us or our sons happy, riches that must either be lost while we live or possessed after our death by we know not whom, or perhaps by those we would not wish; but God makes us happy, who is the true wealth of minds. To Brutus, however, because he killed his sons, even the poet who praises him bears witness of unhappiness. For he says:

“And the father will call to punishment, for fair liberty,
his sons who stir up new wars,
unhappy man, however later ages will judge those deeds.”

But in the next verse he consoled the unhappy man:

“Love of country conquers, and immense desire for praise.”

These are those two things, liberty and the desire of human praise, that drove the Romans to wonderful deeds. If, then, for the liberty of men who were going to die and for the desire of praise sought from mortals, sons could be killed by their father, what great thing is it if, for the true liberty that makes us free from the dominion of iniquity and death and the devil, and not from desire of human praise but from love of setting men free, not from King Tarquin but from demons and the prince of demons, sons are not killed, but the poor of Christ are counted among one's sons? If another Roman leader too, surnamed Torquatus, killed his son, not because he had fought against his country, but indeed for his country, yet because, challenged by an enemy, he had fought with youthful ardor against his command, that is, against what his father the general had commanded, even though he had won, lest there be more harm in the example of despised command than good in the glory of an enemy slain: why should those boast who, for the laws of an immortal country, despise all earthly goods, which are loved much less than sons? If Furius Camillus, after he had driven the yoke of the fiercest enemies, the Veientes, from the neck of his country, and had been condemned by his rivals, freed that ungrateful country again from the Gauls, because he had no better place where he could live more gloriously: why should anyone be extolled as if he had done something great who, having perhaps suffered in the church the gravest injury of dishonor from carnal enemies, has not gone over to her enemies the heretics or himself founded some heresy against her, but has rather defended her as far as he could from the most ruinous perversity of the heretics, since there is no other church, not where one may live in human glory, but where eternal life may be gained? If Mucius, to make peace with King Porsenna, who was pressing the Romans with a most grievous war, because he could not kill Porsenna himself and killed another in his place by mistake, stretched out his right hand onto a burning altar before his eyes, saying that many such as he saw him to be had sworn together for his destruction, so that Porsenna, dreading his courage and the conspiracy of such men, without any hesitation made peace and withdrew from that war: who will reckon his merits to the kingdom of heaven if for it he has given up to the flames, not one hand, and not by doing it to himself of his own accord, but suffering it at the hands of some persecutor, his whole body? If Curtius, armed, spurred his horse and threw himself headlong into a steep chasm of the earth, obeying the oracles of his gods, since they had commanded that the best thing the Romans had should be thrown in there, and they could understand nothing else than that they excelled in men and arms, so that, of course, by the command of the gods an armed man had to be hurled headlong into that destruction: what great thing will he say he has done for the eternal country who, having encountered some enemy of his faith, has died, not throwing himself into such a death of his own accord but sent to it by that enemy, since he has received from his Lord, who is also the King of his country, a more certain oracle: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul”? If the Decii devoted themselves to be slain, in a way consecrating themselves with fixed words, so that as they fell and appeased the anger of the gods with their blood, the Roman army might be delivered: the holy martyrs will in no way be proud, as if they had done something worthy for a share in that country where happiness is eternal and true, if, even to the shedding of their blood, loving, as they were commanded, not only their brothers, for whom it was shed, but also their very enemies, by whom it was shed, they contended in the faith of love and the love of faith. If Marcus Pulvillus, when he was dedicating the temple of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, and envious men had falsely announced to him his son's death, so that he might go away disturbed by the news and his colleague might win the glory of the dedication, so despised it that he even ordered the body to be thrown out unburied (so completely had the desire for glory conquered the grief of bereavement in his heart): what great thing will he say he has done for the preaching of the holy gospel, by which the citizens of the heavenly country are freed from various errors and gathered together, to whom, when he was anxious about his father's burial, the Lord said: “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead”? If Marcus Regulus, so as not to deceive the cruelest enemies after swearing to them, returned to them from Rome itself, because, as he is said to have answered the Romans who wished to keep him, after he had been a slave to the Africans he could not have the dignity of an honorable citizen there; and the Carthaginians, because he had acted against them in the Roman senate, killed him with the most grievous tortures: what tortures are not to be despised for faithfulness to that country to whose blessedness faith itself leads? Or what “shall be rendered to the Lord for all that he has rendered,” if for the faithfulness owed to him a man suffers such things as Regulus suffered for the faithfulness he owed to his most dangerous enemies? How will a Christian dare to extol himself for voluntary poverty, embraced in order to walk more readily, in the pilgrimage of this life, the way that leads to the country where God himself is the true riches, when he hears or reads that Lucius Valerius, who died in his consulship, was so poor that his burial was provided for with money collected from the people? Let him hear or read that Quinctius Cincinnatus, when he owned four acres and farmed them with his own hands, was brought from the plow to be made dictator, an honor certainly greater than consul, and after conquering the enemy and winning immense glory remained in the same poverty. Or what great thing will he proclaim he has done who has not been lured away from the fellowship of that eternal country by any reward of this world, when he has learned that Fabricius could not be torn away from the Roman city by the great gifts of Pyrrhus, king of the Epirotes, even with the promise of a fourth part of his kingdom, and preferred to remain there a private man in his poverty? For when they had a republic, that is, the property of the people, the property of the country, the common property, most opulent and wealthy, they themselves were so poor in their own houses that one of them, who had already been consul twice, was expelled from that senate of poor men by the censor's mark, because he was found to have ten pounds of silver in vessels; so poor were those same men by whose triumphs the public treasury was enriched. Do not all Christians, then, who with a more excellent purpose make their riches common, according to what is written in the Acts of the Apostles, that it be distributed to each as each has need, and no one call anything his own, but they have all things in common, understand that they ought not to puff themselves up with any boasting for doing this to obtain the fellowship of angels, when those men did almost the same thing to preserve the glory of the Romans? When would these and other such things, if any are found in their writings, have become known, when would they have been proclaimed with such fame, unless the Roman empire, extended far and wide, had grown by magnificent successes? So through that empire, so broad and so lasting, famous and glorious for the virtues of such great men, both the reward they sought was given to their intention, and examples of necessary admonition were set before us, so that if we do not hold, for the most glorious city of God, the virtues which these men held for the glory of the earthly city, and to which theirs are in some way similar, we may be stung with shame; and if we do hold them, we may not be lifted up with pride; since, as the apostle says, “the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, which will be revealed in us.” But for human glory and that of the present time their life was thought worthy enough. So also the Jews who killed Christ, now that the New Testament reveals what was veiled in the Old, that the one true God is to be worshipped not for earthly and temporal benefits, which divine providence grants indiscriminately to good and bad, but for eternal life and everlasting gifts and the fellowship of the heavenly city itself, were most rightly given over to the glory of these Romans, so that those who sought and acquired earthly glory by virtues of whatever kind might conquer those who with great vices killed and rejected the giver of true glory and of the eternal city.

### Scripture references

- Matt 10:28: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 5:44: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 8:22: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 116:12 (115:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Acts 4:32: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 4:35: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 8:18: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 6.820–823 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Livy, 2.12–13 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Virgil, Aeneid 6.820–823. The closing remark on the Jews, conquered by Rome, is translated as written. Near the Camillus comparison the digital text reads “ubi uita ad aeterna aeterna”, apparently corrupt (other editions: “ubi uita adquiratur aeterna”); the translation follows that sense.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.18 (CSEL 40:245–251; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-18/#p-5-18).

## City of God 5.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-18/#p-5-19
- Source: CSEL 40:251–254
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine distinguishes love of glory from lust for domination, teaches that even tyrants rule by God's permission, and holds that true virtue requires true piety.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. Quo inter se differant cupiditas gloriae et cupiditas dominationis. Interest sane inter cupiditatem humanae gloriae et cupiditatem dominationis. Nam licet procliue sit, ut, qui humana gloria nimium delectatur, etiam dominari ardenter adfectet, tamen qui ueram licet humanarum laudum gloriam concupiscunt, dant operam bene iudicantibus non displicere. Sunt enim multa in moribus bona, de quibus multi bene iudicant, quamuis ea multi non habeant; per ea bona morum nituntur ad gloriam et imperium uel dominationem, de quibus ait Sallustius: Sed ille uera uia nititur.) Quisquis autem sine cupiditate gloriae, qua ueretur homo bene iudicantibus displicere, dominari adque imperare desiderat, etiam per apertissima scelera quaerit plerumque obtinere quod diligit. Proinde qui gloriam concupiscit, aut uera uia nititur aut certe dolis adque fallaciis contendit, uolens bonus uideri esse, quod non est. Et ideo uirtutes habenti magna uirtus est contemnere gloriam, quia contemtus eius in conspectu Dei est, iudicio autem non aperitur humano. Quidquid enim fecerit ad oculos hominum, quo gloriae contemtor appareat, ad maiorem laudem, hoc est ad maiorem gloriam, facere si credatur, non est unde se suspicantium sensibus aliter esse, quam suspicantur, ostendat. Sed qui contemnit iudicia laudantium, contemnit etiam suspicantium temeritatem, quorum tamen, si uere bonus est, non contemnit salutem, quoniam tantae iustitiae est qui de spiritu Dei uirtutes habet, ut etiam ipsos diligat inimicos, et ita diligat, ut suos osores uel detractores uelit correctos habere consortes non in terrena patria, sed superna; in laudatoribus autem suis, quamuis paruipendat quod eum laudant, non tamen paruipendit quod amant, nec eos uult fallere laudantes, ne decipiat diligentes; ideoque instat ardenter, ut potius ille laudetur, a quo habet homo quidquid in eo iure laudatur. Qui autem gloriae contemtor dominationis est auidus, bestias superat siue crudelitatis uitiis siue luxuriae. Tales quidam Romani fuerunt. Non enim cura existimationis amissa dominationis cupiditate caruerunt. Multos tales fuisse prodit historia; sed huius uitii summitatem et quasi arcem quandam Nero Caesar primus obtinuit, cuius fuit tanta luxuries, ut nihil ab eo putaretur uirile metuendum; tanta crudelitas, ut nihil molle habere crederetur, si nesciretur. Etiam talibus tamen dominandi potestas non datur nisi summi Dei prouidentia, quando res humanas iudicat talibus dominis dignas. Aperta de hac re uox diuina est loquente Dei sapientia: Per me reges regnant et tyranni per me tenent terram. Sed ne tyranni non pessimi adque inprobi reges, sed uetere nomine fortes dicti existimentur (unde ait Vergilius: Pars mihi pacis erit dextram tetigisse tyranni): apertissime alio loco de Deo dictum est: Quia regnare facit hominem hypocritam propter peruersitatem populi. Quam ob rem, quamuis ut potui satis exposuerim qua causa Deus unus uerus et iustus Romanos secundum quandam formam terrenae ciuitatis bonos adiuuerit ad tanti imperii gloriam consequendam: potest tamen et alia causa esse latentior propter diuersa merita generis humani, Deo magis nota quam nobis, dum illud constet inter omnes ueraciter pios, neminem sine uera pietate, id est ueri Dei uero cultu, ueram posse habere uirtutem, nec eam ueram esse, quando gloriae seruit humanae; eos tamen, qui ciues non sint ciuitatis aeternae, quae in sacris litteris nostris dicitur ciuitas Dei, utiliores esse terrenae ciuitati, quando habent uirtutem uel ipsam, quam si nec ipsam. Illi autem, qui uera pietate praediti bene uiuunt, si habent scientiam regendi populos, nihil est felicius rebus humanis, quam si Deo miserante habeant potestatem. Tales autem homines uirtutes suas, quantascumque in hac uita possunt habere, non tribuunt nisi gratiae Dei, quod eas uolentibus credentibus petentibus dederit, simulque intellegunt quantum sibi desit ad perfectionem iustitiae, qualis est in illorum sanctorum angelorum societate, cui se nituntur aptare. Quantumlibet autem laudetur adque praedicetur uirtus, quae sine uera pietate seruit hominum gloriae, nequaquam sanctorum exiguis initiis conparanda est, quorum spes posita est in gratia et in misericordia ueri Dei.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. How the desire for glory and the desire for domination differ.

There is certainly a difference between the desire for human glory and the desire for domination. For though it is an easy slope for one who delights too much in human glory to aim ardently at domination as well, yet those who desire true glory, even of human praise, take care not to displease those who judge well. For there are many good things in character of which many judge well, though many do not have them; by these good qualities of character they strive for glory and command or domination, those of whom Sallust says, “But the former strives by the true way.” But whoever desires to lord it and command without the desire for glory, by which a man fears to displease those who judge well, generally seeks to obtain what he loves even by the most open crimes. So one who desires glory either strives by the true way, or at least contends by tricks and deceits, wishing to seem good when he is not. And therefore for one who has virtues it is a great virtue to despise glory, because the contempt of it is in the sight of God, but is not disclosed to human judgment. For whatever he does before the eyes of men to appear a despiser of glory, if he is believed to do it for greater praise, that is, for greater glory, he has no means of showing the senses of those who suspect him that he is otherwise than they suspect. But one who despises the judgments of those who praise him despises also the rashness of those who suspect him; yet, if he is truly good, he does not despise their salvation. For one who has virtues from the Spirit of God is of such great righteousness that he loves even his enemies, and loves them so that he wishes his haters and detractors to be corrected and to share with him, not in an earthly country but in the heavenly one. As for those who praise him, though he makes little of their praising him, he does not make little of their loving him; and he does not wish to deceive them when they praise him, lest he mislead those who love him; and so he presses ardently that rather he should be praised from whom a man has whatever is rightly praised in him. But one who despises glory and is greedy for domination surpasses the beasts in the vices either of cruelty or of luxury. Some Romans were such. For they lost their concern for reputation but did not lose the desire for domination. History reveals that there were many such; but the summit and, as it were, the citadel of this vice was first held by Nero Caesar, whose luxury was so great that nothing manly was thought to be feared from him, and whose cruelty was so great that he would have been believed to have nothing soft in him, had this not been known. Yet even to such men the power to rule is not given except by the providence of the supreme God, when he judges human affairs worthy of such masters. The divine voice on this matter is plain, where the Wisdom of God speaks: “By me kings reign, and by me tyrants hold the land.” But lest tyrants should be thought to mean not the worst and wicked kings but, in the old usage, strong men (hence Virgil says, “It will be a pledge of peace to me to have touched the tyrant's right hand”), it is said most plainly of God in another place: “Who makes a hypocrite reign because of the perversity of the people.” Therefore, although I have explained as well as I could for what reason the one true and just God helped the Romans, who were good according to a certain pattern of the earthly city, to attain the glory of so great an empire, there may also be another, more hidden reason, better known to God than to us, because of the different deserts of the human race; provided that this is agreed among all the truly pious, that no one can have true virtue without true piety, that is, without the true worship of the true God, and that virtue is not true when it serves human glory; yet that those who are not citizens of the eternal city, which in our sacred writings is called the city of God, are more useful to the earthly city when they have even that virtue than if they had not even that. But if those endowed with true piety, who live well, have the skill of ruling peoples, nothing is happier for human affairs than that, by the mercy of God, they should have power. Such men attribute their virtues, however great they can have them in this life, only to the grace of God, because he has given them to them as they willed, believed, and asked; and at the same time they understand how far they fall short of the perfection of righteousness such as exists in the fellowship of the holy angels, to which they strive to fit themselves. But however much the virtue that serves human glory without true piety is praised and proclaimed, it is in no way to be compared with the small beginnings of the saints, whose hope is placed in the grace and mercy of the true God.

### Scripture references

- Prov 8:15: quotation, high confidence
- Prov 8:16: quotation, high confidence
- Job 34:30: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 5:44: allusion, medium confidence
- Ps 87:3: echo, low confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sallust, Cat. 11.2 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 7.266 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Proverbs 8:15–16 and Job 34:30 are quoted in the Old Latin/Vulgate wording (“tyrants”, “hypocrite”). Virgil, Aeneid 7.266; Sallust, Catiline 11.2.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.19 (CSEL 40:251–254; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-18/#p-5-19).

## City of God 5.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-18/#p-5-20
- Source: CSEL 40:254–256
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that virtues made to serve human glory are as degraded as the Epicurean picture of virtues serving Pleasure.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. Tam turpiter seruire uirtutes humanae gloriae quam corporis uoluptati. Solent philosophi, qui finem boni humani in ipsa uirtute constituunt, ad ingerendum pudorem quibusdam philosophis, qui uirtutes quidem probant, sed eas uoluptatis corporalis fine metiuntur et illam per se ipsam putant adpetendam, istas propter ipsam, tabulam quandam uerbis pingere, ubi uoluptas in sella regali quasi delicata quaedam regina considat, eique uirtutes famulae subiciantur, obseruantes eius nutum, ut faciant quod illa imperauerit, quae prudentiae iubeat, ut uigilanter inquirat, quo modo uoluptas regnet et salua sit; iustitiae iubeat, ut praestet beneficia quae potest ad conparandas amicitias corporalibus commodis necessarias, nulli faciat iniuriam, ne offensis legibus uoluptas uiuere secura non possit; fortitudini iubeat, ut, si dolor corpori accesserit, qui non conpellat in mortem, teneat dominam suam, id est uoluptatem, fortiter in animi cogitatione, ut per pristinarum deliciarum suarum recordationem mitiget praesentis doloris aculeos; temperantiae iubeat, ut tantum capiat alimentorum etsi qua delectant, ne per inmoderationem noxium aliquid ualetudinem turbet et uoluptas, quam etiam in corporis sanitate Epicurei maximam ponunt, grauiter offendatur. Ita uirtutes cum tota suae gloria dignitatis tamquam imperiosae cuidam et inhonestae mulierculae seruient uoluptati. Nihil hac pictura dicunt esse ignominiosius et deformius et quod minus ferre bonorum possit aspectus; et uerum dicunt. Sed non existimo satis debiti decoris esse picturam, si etiam talis fingatur, ubi uirtutes humanae gloriae seruiunt. Licet enim ipsa gloria delicata mulier non sit, inflata [tamen] est et multum inanitatis habet. Unde non ei digne seruit soliditas quaedam firmitasque uirtutum, ut nihil prouideat prouidentia, nihil distribuat iustitia, nihil toleret fortitudo, nihil temperantia moderetur, nisi unde placeatur hominibus et uentosae gloriae seruiatur. Nec illi se ab ista foeditate defenderint, qui, cum aliena spernant iudicia uelut gloriae contemtores, sibi sapientes uidentur et sibi placent. Nam eorum uirtus, si tamen ulla est, alio modo quodam humanae subditur laudi; neque enim ipse, qui sibi placet, homo non est. Qui autem uera pietate in Deum, quem diligit, credit et sperat, plus intendit in ea, quibus sibi displicet, quam in ea, si qua in illo sunt, quae non tam ipsi quam ueritati placent; neque id tribuit, unde iam potest placere, nisi eius misericordiae, cui metuit displicere; de his sanatis gratias agens, de illis sanandis preces fundens.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. That it is as shameful for the virtues to serve human glory as bodily pleasure.

Philosophers who place the end of human good in virtue itself are accustomed, in order to put to shame certain philosophers who approve of the virtues but measure them by the end of bodily pleasure, and think that pleasure is to be sought for itself and the virtues for its sake, to paint a kind of picture in words, in which Pleasure sits on a royal throne like some dainty queen, and the virtues are placed under her as her maidservants, watching her nod to do what she commands. She orders Prudence to inquire vigilantly how Pleasure may reign and be safe; she orders Justice to do what favors she can to win the friendships necessary for bodily comforts, and to do no one injury, lest, if the laws are offended, Pleasure cannot live securely; she orders Fortitude, if pain comes upon the body that does not drive it to death, to keep her mistress, that is, Pleasure, bravely in the thought of the mind, so as to soften the stings of present pain by recalling her former delights; she orders Temperance to take only so much food, even of what delights, lest something harmful through excess disturb health, and Pleasure, which the Epicureans place chiefly in the health of the body, be seriously offended. So the virtues, with all the glory of their dignity, will serve Pleasure as though she were some imperious and dishonorable little woman. Nothing, they say, is more ignominious and ugly than this picture, nothing the sight of good men could less bear; and they speak the truth. But I do not think the picture would have the beauty it ought, even if another were imagined in which the virtues serve human glory. For though Glory herself is not a dainty woman, she is puffed up and has much emptiness. So it is unworthy that a certain solidity and firmness of the virtues should serve her, so that Prudence foresees nothing, Justice distributes nothing, Fortitude endures nothing, Temperance moderates nothing, except what may please men and serve windy glory. Nor can those defend themselves from this foulness who, despising the judgments of others as if they were despisers of glory, seem wise to themselves and please themselves. For their virtue, if it is any virtue at all, is subject to human praise in another way; for the one who pleases himself is still a man. But one who with true piety believes and hopes in God, whom he loves, attends more to the things in which he displeases himself than to those things, if there are any in him, which please not so much himself as the truth; and he attributes what makes him now able to please only to the mercy of him whom he fears to displease, giving thanks for the things that have been healed and pouring out prayers for those still to be healed.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Fin. 2.69 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence
- Cleanthes (Cleanthes (fragments)): allusion, medium confidence
- Epicurus (Epicurus (sayings and fragments)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The picture of Pleasure served by the virtues is attributed to Cleanthes by Cicero, On Ends 2.69. The editor deletes “tamen” after “inflata”.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.20 (CSEL 40:254–256; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-18/#p-5-20).

## City of God 5.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-18/#p-5-21
- Source: CSEL 40:256–257
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine attributes all earthly kingdoms, given to good and bad rulers alike, to the one true God's just though hidden providence.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. Romanum regnum a Deo uero esse dispositum, a quo est omnis potestas et cuius prouidentia reguntur uniuersa. Quae cum ita sint, non tribuamus dandi regni adque imperii potestatem nisi Deo uero, qui dat felicitatem in regno caelorum solis piis; regnum uero terrenum et piis et inpiis, sicut ei placet, cui nihil iniuste placet. Quamuis enim aliquid dixerimus, quod apertum nobis esse uoluit: tamen multum est ad nos et ualde superat uires nostras hominum occulta discutere et liquido examine merita diiudicare regnorum. Ille igitur unus uerus Deus, qui nec iudicio nec adiutorio deserit genus humanum, quando uoluit et quantum uoluit Romanis regnum dedit; qui dedit Assyriis, uel etiam Persis, a quibus solos duos deos coli, unum bonum, alterum malum, continent litterae istorum; ut taceam de populo Hebraeo, de quo iam dixi quantum satis uisum est, qui praeter unum Deum non coluit et quando regnauit. Qui ergo Persis dedit segetes sine cultu deae Segetiae, qui alia dona terrarum sine cultu tot deorum, quos isti rebus singulis singulos, uel etiam rebus singulis plures praeposuerunt: ipse etiam regnum dedit sine cultu eorum, per quorum cultum se isti regnasse crediderunt. Sic etiam hominibus: qui Mario, ipse Gaio Caesari; qui Augusto, ipse et Neroni; qui Vespasianis, uel patri uel filio, suauissimis imperatoribus, ipse et Domitiano crudelissimo; et ne per singulos ire necesse sit, qui Constantino Christiano, ipse apostatae Iuliano, cuius egregiam indolem decepit amore dominandi sacrilega et detestanda curiositas, cuius uanis deditus oraculis erat, quando fretus securitate uictoriae naues, quibus uictus necessarius portabatur, incendit; deinde feruide instans inmodicis ausibus et mox merito temeritatis occisus in locis hostilibus egenum reliquit exercitum, ut aliter inde non posset euadi, nisi contra illud auspicium dei Termini, de quo superiore libro diximus, Romani imperii termini mouerentur. Cessit enim Terminus deus necessitati, qui non cesserat Ioui. Haec plane Deus unus et uerus regit et gubernat, ut placet; et si occultis causis, numquid iniustis?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. That the Roman kingdom was ordered by the true God, from whom is all power and by whose providence all things are ruled.

This being so, let us attribute the power of giving kingdom and empire only to the true God, who gives happiness in the kingdom of heaven to the pious alone, but an earthly kingdom both to the pious and to the impious, as it pleases him, whom nothing unjust pleases. For though we have said something of what he willed to be plain to us, it is still too much for us, and far beyond our powers, to examine the hidden things of men and to judge by a clear examination the deserts of kingdoms. That one true God, then, who does not abandon the human race either in judgment or in help, gave the kingdom to the Romans when he willed and as much as he willed; he who gave it to the Assyrians, or even to the Persians, by whom, as their writings contain, only two gods were worshipped, one good and the other evil; to say nothing of the Hebrew people, of whom I have already said as much as seemed enough, who worshipped none but the one God, even when they had a kingdom. He, then, who gave the Persians crops without the worship of the goddess Segetia, who gave the other gifts of the earth without the worship of so many gods, whom these people set over single things one each, or even several over single things, himself also gave them a kingdom without the worship of those by whose worship these people believed they had reigned. So too with men: he who gave it to Marius gave it to Gaius Caesar; he who gave it to Augustus gave it also to Nero; he who gave it to the Vespasians, father or son, most gentle emperors, gave it also to the most cruel Domitian; and, not to have to go through them one by one, he who gave it to Constantine the Christian gave it also to Julian the apostate, whose excellent nature was deceived, through love of domination, by a sacrilegious and detestable curiosity; he was devoted to its empty oracles when, relying on the certainty of victory, he burned the ships that carried the necessary provisions; then, pressing on hotly with reckless daring, and soon killed as his rashness deserved, he left his army destitute in enemy country, so that it could not escape from there except by moving the boundaries of the Roman empire, against that augury of the god Terminus of which we spoke in the previous book. For the god Terminus, who had not yielded to Jupiter, yielded to necessity. Plainly the one true God rules and governs these things as he pleases; and if for hidden causes, are they therefore unjust?

### Scripture references

- Rom 13:1: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The two Persian gods: the dualism of Zoroastrian religion (Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.21 (CSEL 40:256–257; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-18/#p-5-21).

## City of God 5.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-18/#p-5-22
- Source: CSEL 40:257–258
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine shows from Roman history that wars were long and disastrous before Christian times, so the length of present wars cannot be blamed on Christianity.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. Tempora exitusque bellorum ex Dei pendere iudicio. Sic etiam tempora ipsa bellorum, sicut in eius arbitrio est iustoque iudicio et misericordia uel adterere uel consolari genus humanum, ut alia citius, alia tardius finiantur. Bellum piratarum a Pompeio, bellum Punicum tertium ab Scipione incredibili celeritate et temporis breuitate confecta sunt. Bellum quoque fugitiuorum gladiatorum, quamuis multis Romanis ducibus et duobus consulibus uictis Italiaque horribiliter contrita adque uastata, tertio tamen anno post multa consumta consumtum est. Picentes, Marsi et Peligni, gentes non exterae, sed Italicae, post diuturnam et deuotissimam sub Romano iugo seruitutem in libertatem caput erigere tentauerunt, iam multis nationibus Romano imperio subiugatis deletaque Carthagine; in quo bello Italico Romanis saepissime uictis ubi et duo consules perierunt et alii nobilissimi senatores, non diuturno tamen tempore tractum est hoc malum; nam quintus annus ei finem dedit. Sed bellum Punicum secundum cum maximis detrimentis et calamitate rei publicae per annos decem et octo Romanas uires extenuauit et paene consumsit; duobus proeliis ferme septuaginta Romanorum milia ceciderunt. Bellum Punicum primum per uiginti et tres annos peractum est; bellum Mithridaticum quadraginta. Ac ne quisquam arbitretur rudimenta Romanorum fuisse fortiora ad bella citius peragenda, superioribus temporibus multum in omni uirtute laudatis bellum Samniticum annis tractum est ferme quinquaginta; in quo bello ita Romani uicti sunt, ut sub iugum etiam mitterentur. Sed quia non diligebant gloriam propter iustitiam, sed iustitiam propter gloriam diligere uidebantur, pacem factam foedusque ruperunt. Haec ideo commemoro, quoniam multi praeteritarum rerum ignari, quidam etiam dissimulatores suae scientiae, si temporibus Christianis aliquod bellum paulo diutius trahi uident, ilico in nostram religionem proteruissime insiliunt, exclamantes, quod, si ipsa non esset et uetere ritu numina colerentur, iam Romana illa uirtute, quae adiuuante Marte et Bellona tanta celeriter bella confecit, id quoque celerrime finiretur. Recolant igitur qui legerunt, quam diuturna bella, quam uariis euentis, quam luctuosis cladibus a ueteribus sint gesta Romanis, sicut solet orbis terrarum uelut procellosissimum pelagus uaria talium malorum tempestate iactari, et quod nolunt aliquando fateantur, nec insanis aduersus Deum linguis se interimant et decipiant inperitos.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. That the durations and outcomes of wars depend on the judgment of God.

So too the very durations of wars depend on his will, as it lies in his choice and just judgment and mercy either to wear down or to console the human race, so that some are ended sooner and others later. The war with the pirates by Pompey, and the Third Punic War by Scipio, were finished with incredible speed and in a short time. The war of the fugitive gladiators too, though many Roman generals and two consuls were defeated and Italy was horribly crushed and laid waste, was nevertheless finished in its third year, after it had consumed much. The Picentes, Marsi, and Paeligni, nations not foreign but Italian, after long and most devoted servitude under the Roman yoke, tried to lift their heads to liberty, when many nations had already been subjugated to the Roman empire and Carthage destroyed; in this Italian war, in which the Romans were very often defeated and two consuls and other most noble senators perished, this evil was nevertheless not drawn out a long time, for the fifth year put an end to it. But the Second Punic War, with the greatest losses and calamity to the republic, wore down the Roman forces for eighteen years and almost consumed them; in two battles about seventy thousand Romans fell. The First Punic War was carried on for twenty-three years; the Mithridatic War for forty. And lest anyone think that the early Romans were stronger at finishing wars quickly, in the earlier times, much praised for every virtue, the Samnite War was drawn out for about fifty years; and in that war the Romans were so defeated that they were even sent under the yoke. But because they did not love glory for the sake of justice, but seemed to love justice for the sake of glory, they broke the peace and treaty they had made. I mention these things because many who are ignorant of past events, and some who even conceal their knowledge, if they see some war in Christian times drawn out a little longer, at once leap most impudently upon our religion, crying out that if it did not exist and the deities were worshipped in the old rite, this war too would be ended very quickly by that Roman valor which, with the help of Mars and Bellona, finished such great wars so quickly. Let those who have read, then, recall how long the wars were, with what varied outcomes, with what mournful disasters they were waged by the ancient Romans, as the world is accustomed to be tossed like a most stormy sea by the varied tempest of such evils; and let them at last admit what they do not want to, and not destroy themselves with mad tongues against God and deceive the unskilled.

### Translation notes

- The Caudine Forks (321 BC), when a Roman army was sent under the yoke by the Samnites.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.22 (CSEL 40:257–258; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-18/#p-5-22).

## City of God 5.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-18/#p-5-23
- Source: CSEL 40:258–260
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine recounts the sudden defeat of the pagan Goth Radagaisus near Rome (406) and the sparing of refugees in churches at Alaric's sack (410) as signs of God's merciful providence.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. De bello, in quo Radagaisus rex Gothorum, daemonum cultor, uno die cum ingentibus copiis suis uictus est. Quod tamen nostra memoria recentissimo tempore Deus mirabiliter et misericorditer fecit, non cum gratiarum actione commemorant, sed, quantum in ipsis est, omnium si fieri potest hominum obliuione sepelire conantur; quod a nobis si tacebitur, similiter erimus ingrati. Cum Radagaisus, rex Gothorum, agmine ingenti et inmani iam in Urbis uicinia constitutus Romanis ceruicibus inmineret, uno die tanta celeritate sic uictus est, ut ne uno quidem non dicam extincto, sed uulnerato Romanorum multo amplius quam centum milium prosterneretur eius exercitus adque ipse mox captus poena debita necaretur. Nam si ille tam inpius cum tantis et tam inpiis copiis Romam fuisset ingressus. cui pepercisset? quibus locis martyrum honorem detulisset? in qua persona Deum timeret? cuius non sanguinem fusum, cuius pudicitiam uellet intactam? Quas autem isti pro dis suis uoces haberent, quanta insultatione iactarent, quod ille ideo uicisset, ideo tanta potuisset, quia cottidianis sacrificiis placabat adque inuitabat deos, quod Romanos facere Christiana religio non sinebat? Nam propinquante iam illo his locis, ubi nutu summae maiestatis obpressus est, cum eius fama ubique crebresceret, nobis aput Carthaginem dicebatur, hoc credere spargere iactare paganos, quod ille dis amicis protegentibus et opitulantibus, quibus immolare cottidie ferebatur, uinci omnino non posset ab eis, qui talia dis Romanis sacra non facerent nec fieri a quoquam permitterent. Et non agunt miseri gratias tantae misericordiae Dei, qui cum statuisset inruptione barbarica grauiora <pati> dignos mores hominum castigare, indignationem suam tanta mansuetudine temperauit, ut illum primo faceret mirabiliter uinci, ne ad infirmorum animos euertendos gloria daretur daemonibus, quibus eum supplicare constabat; deinde ab his barbaris Roma caperetur, qui contra omnem consuetudinem gestorum ante bellorum ad loca sancta confugientes Christianae religionis reuerentia tuerentur ipsisque daemonibus adque inpiorum sacrificiorum ritibus, de quibus ille praesumserat, sic aduersarentur nomine Christiano, ut longe atrocius bellum cum eis quam cum hominibus gerere uiderentur; ita uerus dominus gubernatorque rerum et Romanos cum misericordia flagellauit, et tam incredibiliter uictis supplicatoribus daemonum nec saluti rerum praesentium necessaria esse sacrificia illa monstrauit, ut ab his qui non peruicaciter contendunt, sed prudenter adtendunt, nec propter praesentes necessitates uera religio deseratur, et magis aeternae uitae fidelissima expectatione teneatur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. On the war in which Radagaisus, king of the Goths, a worshipper of demons, was defeated in one day with his huge forces.

What God did wonderfully and mercifully in our own memory, very recently, they do not mention with thanksgiving, but, as far as in them lies, try to bury in the forgetfulness of all men, if that can be done; and if we are silent about it, we shall be equally ungrateful. When Radagaisus, king of the Goths, stationed with a huge and savage host already in the neighborhood of the City, hung over the necks of the Romans, he was defeated in one day with such speed that, while not one Roman was killed, I will not say even wounded, his army of far more than a hundred thousand was laid low, and he himself was soon captured and put to death with the punishment he deserved. For if that man, so impious, with such great and such impious forces, had entered Rome, whom would he have spared? To what places of the martyrs would he have shown honor? In whose person would he have feared God? Whose blood would he have wished unshed, whose chastity untouched? And what cries would these people have raised for their gods, with what insults would they have boasted that he had won, that he had been able to do such great things, because he appeased and invited the gods with daily sacrifices, which the Christian religion did not allow the Romans to do! For when he was already approaching these places where he was crushed at the nod of the supreme Majesty, and his fame was growing everywhere, it was said to us at Carthage that the pagans believed, spread about, and boasted that, with the gods his friends protecting and helping him, to whom he was reported to sacrifice every day, he could not possibly be defeated by those who did not offer such rites to the Roman gods and did not allow them to be offered by anyone. And the wretches do not give thanks to so great a mercy of God, who, having determined to chastise the morals of men, which deserved to suffer heavier things, by a barbarian invasion, tempered his indignation with such gentleness that he first caused that man to be wonderfully defeated, lest glory be given to the demons, to whom it was known that he prayed, to overturn the minds of the weak; and then allowed Rome to be taken by those barbarians who, contrary to every custom of wars waged before, protected those who fled to the holy places out of reverence for the Christian religion, and who, in the Christian name, so opposed the demons themselves and the rites of impious sacrifices in which that other had trusted that they seemed to be waging a much fiercer war with them than with men. So the true Lord and Governor of things both scourged the Romans with mercy and, by the incredible defeat of those who prayed to demons, showed that those sacrifices are not necessary even for the safety of present things; so that by those who do not contend obstinately but consider wisely, the true religion may not be deserted because of present necessities, but rather held in most faithful expectation of eternal life.

### Translation notes

- Radagaisus was defeated at Faesulae in 406; the “barbarians” who took Rome are Alaric's Goths (410). The angle-bracketed “pati” is the editor's supplement.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.23 (CSEL 40:258–260; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-18/#p-5-23).

## City of God 5.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-18/#p-5-24
- Source: CSEL 40:260–262
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine defines the true happiness of Christian emperors as just, humble, and merciful rule directed to God and eternal life, not earthly success.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIIII. Quae sit Christianorum imperatorum et quam uera felicitas. Neque enim nos Christianos quosdam imperatores ideo felices dicimus, quia uel diutius imperarunt uel imperantes filios morte placida reliquerunt, uel hostes rei publicae domuerunt uel inimicos ciues aduersus se insurgentes et cauere obprimere potuerunt. Haec et alia uitae huius aerumnosae uel munera uel solacia quidam etiam cultores daemonum accipere meruerunt, qui non pertinent ad regnum Dei, quo pertinent isti; et hoc ipsius misericordia factum est, ne ab illo ista qui in eum crederent uelut summa bona desiderarent. Sed felices eos dicimus, si iuste imperant, si inter linguas sublimiter honorantium et obsequia nimis humiliter salutantium non extolluntur, et se homines esse meminerunt; si suam potestatem ad Dei cultum maxime dilatandum maiestati eius famulam faciunt; si Deum timent diligunt colunt; si plus amant illud regnum, ubi non timent habere consortes; si tardius uindicant, facile ignoscunt; si eandem uindictam pro necessitate regendae tuendaeque rei publicae, non pro saturandis inimicitiarum odiis exerunt; si eandem ueniam non ad inpunitatem iniquitatis, sed ad spem correctionis indulgent; si, quod aspere coguntur plerumque decernere, misericordiae lenitate et beneficiorum largitate conpensant; si luxuria tanto eis est castigatior, quanto posset esse liberior; si malunt cupiditatibus prauis quam quibuslibet gentibus imperare et si haec omnia faciunt non propter ardorem inanis gloriae, sed propter caritatem felicitatis aeternae; si pro suis peccatis humilitatis et miserationis et orationis sacrificium Deo suo uero immolare non neglegunt. Tales Christianos imperatores dicimus esse felices interim spe, postea re ipsa futuros, cum id quod expectamus aduenerit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 24. What the happiness of Christian emperors is, and how far it is true happiness.

For we do not call certain Christian emperors happy because they reigned longer, or died a peaceful death leaving their sons as emperors, or subdued the enemies of the republic, or were able both to guard against and to crush hostile citizens rising up against them. These and other gifts or consolations of this troubled life some worshippers of demons, too, deserved to receive, who do not belong to the kingdom of God, to which these belong; and this was done by his mercy, so that those who believed in him should not desire these things from him as the highest goods. But we call them happy if they rule justly; if amid the tongues of those who honor them loftily and the servility of those who greet them too humbly they are not lifted up, but remember that they are men; if they make their power the handmaid of his majesty, to spread the worship of God as widely as possible; if they fear, love, and worship God; if they love more that kingdom where they are not afraid to have partners; if they are slow to punish and ready to pardon; if they apply punishment for the necessity of ruling and defending the republic, not to satisfy the hatred of enmity; if they grant pardon not to let iniquity go unpunished but in hope of correction; if what they are often compelled to decree harshly they make up for by the gentleness of mercy and the generosity of benefits; if their luxury is the more restrained the freer it could be; if they prefer to rule over evil desires rather than over any nations; and if they do all this not from ardor for empty glory but from love of eternal happiness; if they do not neglect to offer to their true God, for their sins, the sacrifice of humility, compassion, and prayer. Such Christian emperors we call happy, meanwhile in hope, and hereafter in reality, when what we await has come.

### Scripture references

- Ps 51:17 (50:19 LXX): echo, medium confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.24 (CSEL 40:260–262; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-18/#p-5-24).

## City of God 5.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-18/#p-5-25
- Source: CSEL 40:262–263
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine notes the great earthly prosperity God gave Constantine, but also the short reigns of Jovian and Gratian, so that no one would be a Christian for earthly reward.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXV. De prosperitatibus, quas Constantino imperatori Christiano Deus contulit. Nam bonus Deus, ne homines, qui eum crederent propter aeternam uitam colendum, has sublimitates et regna terrena existimarent posse neminem consequi, nisi daemonibus supplicet, quod hi spiritus in talibus multum ualerent, Constantinum imperatorem non supplicantem daemonibus, sed ipsum uerum Deum colentem tantis terrenis inpleuit muneribus, quanta optare nullus auderet; cui etiam condere ciuitatem Romano imperio sociam, uelut ipsius Romae filiam, sed sine aliquo daemonum templo simulacroque concessit. Diu imperauit, uniuersum orbem Romanum unus Augustus tenuit et defendit; in administrandis et gerendis bellis uictoriosissimus fuit, in tyrannis obprimendis per omnia prosperatus est; grandaeuus aegritudine et senectute defunctus est, filios imperantes reliquit. Sed rursus ne imperator quisquam ideo Christianus esset, ut felicitatem Constantini mereretur, cum propter uitam aeternam quisque debeat esse Christianus: Iouianum multo citius quam Iulianum abstulit; Gratianum ferro tyrannico permisit interimi, longe quidem mitius quam magnum Pompeium colentem uelut Romanos deos. Nam ille uindicari a Catone non potuit, quem ciuilis belli quodam modo heredem reliquerat; iste autem, quamuis piae animae solacia talia non requirant, a Theodosio uindicatus est; quem regni participem fecerat, cum paruulum haberet et fratrem, auidior fidae societatis quam nimiae potestatis.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 25. On the prosperity that God conferred on the Christian emperor Constantine.

For the good God, lest men who believed that he should be worshipped for the sake of eternal life should think that no one could attain these heights and earthly kingdoms unless he prayed to demons, because these spirits had great power in such matters, filled the emperor Constantine, who did not pray to demons but worshipped the true God himself, with such great earthly gifts as no one would dare to wish for. He granted him even to found a city allied to the Roman empire, like a daughter of Rome itself, but without any temple or image of the demons. He reigned long; as sole Augustus he held and defended the whole Roman world; he was most victorious in directing and waging wars; in crushing tyrants he prospered in everything; he died in great age of sickness and old age, and left sons as emperors. But again, lest any emperor should be a Christian in order to earn the happiness of Constantine, since each one ought to be a Christian for the sake of eternal life, he took away Jovian much sooner than Julian; he allowed Gratian to be slain by a tyrant's sword, though far more gently than the great Pompey, who worshipped the so-called Roman gods. For Pompey could not be avenged by Cato, whom he had left, as it were, heir of the civil war; but Gratian, though pious souls do not seek such consolations, was avenged by Theodosius, whom he had made a partner in the kingdom though he had a little brother, being more eager for a faithful partnership than for excessive power.

### Translation notes

- The city is Constantinople, dedicated in 330.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.25 (CSEL 40:262–263; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-18/#p-5-25).

## City of God 5.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-26/#p-5-26
- Source: CSEL 40:263–266
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine praises Theodosius' faithfulness, prayer, clemency, support of the church, and public penance, and closes the first five books with a warning to pagan critics.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVI. De fide ac pietate Theodosii Augusti. Unde et ille non solum uiuo seruauit quam debebat fidem, uerum etiam post eius mortem pulsum ab eius interfectore Maximo Valentinianum eius paruulum fratrem in sui partes imperii tamquam Christianus excepit pupillum, paterno custodiuit adfectu, quem destitutum omnibus opibus nullo negotio posset auferre, si latius regnandi cupiditate magis quam benefaciendi caritate flagraret; unde potius eum seruata eius imperatoria dignitate susceptum ipsa humanitate et gratia consolatus est. Deinde cum Maximum terribilem faceret ille successus, hic in angustiis curarum suarum non est lapsus ad curiositates sacrilegas adque inlicitas, sed ad Iohannem in Aegypti eremo constitutum, quem Dei seruum prophetandi spiritu praeditum fama crebrescente didicerat, misit adque ab eo nuntium uictoriae certissimum accepit. Mox tyranni Maximi extinctor Valentinianum puerum imperii sui partibus, unde fugatus fuerat, cum misericordissima ueneratione restituit, eoque siue per insidias siue quo alio pacto uel casu proxime extincto alium tyrannum Eugenium, qui in illius imperatoris locum non legitime fuerat subrogatus, accepto rursus prophetico responso fide certus obpressit, contra cuius robustissimum exercitum magis orando quam feriendo pugnauit. Milites nobis qui aderant rettulerunt extorta sibi esse de manibus quaecumque iaculabantur, cum a Theodosii partibus in aduersarios uehemens uentus iret et non solum quaecumque in eos iaciebantur concitatissime raperet, uerum etiam ipsorum tela in eorum corpora retorqueret. Unde et poeta Claudianus, quamuis a Christi nomine alienus, in eius tamen laudibus dixit: O nimium dilecte Deo, cui militat aether, Et coniurati ueniunt ad classica uenti! Victor autem, sicut crediderat et praedixerat, Iouis simulacra, quae aduersus eum fuerant nescio quibus ritibus uelut consecrata et in Alpibus constituta, deposuit, eorumque fulmina, quod aurea fuissent, iocantibus (quod illa laetitia permittebat) cursoribus et se ab eis fulminari uelle dicentibus hilariter benigneque donauit. Inimicorum suorum filios, quos, non ipsius iussu, belli abstulerat impetus, etiam nondum Christianos ad ecclesiam confugientes, Christianos hac occasione fieri uoluit et Christiana caritate dilexit, nec priuauit rebus et auxit honoribus. In neminem post uictoriam priuatas inimicitias ualere permisit. Bella ciuilia non sicut Cinna et Marius et Sylla et alii tales nec finita finire uoluerunt, sed magis doluit exorta quam cuiquam nocere uoluit terminata. Inter haec omnia ex ipso initio imperii sui non quieuit iustissimis et misericordissimis legibus aduersus inpios laboranti ecclesiae subuenire, quam Valens haereticus fauens Arianis uehementer adflixerat; cuius ecclesiae se membrum esse magis quam in terris regnare gaudebat. Simulacra gentilium ubique euertenda praecepit, satis intellegens nec terrena munera in daemoniorum, sed in Dei ueri esse posita potestate. Quid autem fuit eius religiosa humilitate mirabilius, quando in Thessalonicensium grauissimum scelus, cui iam episcopis intercedentibus promiserat indulgentiam, tumultu quorundam, qui ei cohaerebant, uindicare conpulsus est et ecclesiastica cohercitus disciplina sic egit paenitentiam, ut imperatoriam celsitudinem pro illo populus orans magis fleret uidendo prostratam, quam peccando timeret iratam? Haec ille secum et si qua similia, quae commemorare longum est, bona opera tulit ex isto temporali uapore cuiuslibet culminis et sublimitatis humanae; quorum operum merces est aeterna felicitas, cuius dator est Deus solis ueraciter piis. Cetera uero uitae huius uel fastigia uel subsidia, sicut ipsum mundum lucem auras, terras aquas fructus ipsiusque hominis animam corpus, sensus mentem uitam, bonis malisque largitur; in quibus est etiam quaelibet imperii magnitudo, quam pro temporum gubernatione dispensat. Proinde iam etiam illis respondendum esse uideo, qui manifestissimis documentis, quibus ostenditur, quod ad ista temporalia, quae sola stulti habere concupiscunt, nihil deorum falsorum numerositas prosit, confutati adque conuicti conantur adserere non propter uitae praesentis utilitatem, sed propter eam, quae post mortem futura est, colendos deos. Nam istis, qui propter amicitias mundi huius uolunt uana colere et non se permitti puerilibus sensibus conqueruntur, his quinque libris satis arbitror esse responsum. Quorum tres priores cum edidissem et in multorum manibus esse coepissent, audiui quosdam nescio quam aduersus eos responsionem scribendo praeparare. Deinde ad me perlatum est, quod iam scripserint, sed tempus quaerant, quo sine periculo possint edere. Quos admoneo, non optent quod eis non expedit. Facile est enim cuiquam uideri respondisse, qui tacere noluerit. Aut quid est loquacius uanitate? quae non ideo potest quod ueritas, quia, si uoluerit, etiam plus potest clamare quam ueritas. Sed considerent omnia diligenter, et si forte sine studio partium iudicantes talia esse perspexerint, quae potius exagitari quam conuelli possint garrulitate inpudentissima et quasi satyrica uel mimica leuitate, cohibeant suas nugas et potius a prudentibus emendari quam laudari ab inpudentibus eligant. Nam si non ad libertatem uera dicendi, sed ad licentiam maledicendi tempus expectant, absit ut eis eueniat quod ait Tullius de quodam, qui peccandi licentia felix appellabatur: o miserum, cui peccare licebat! Unde quisquis est, qui maledicendi licentia felicem se putat, multo erit felicior, si hoc illi omnino non liceat, cum possit deposita inanitate iactantiae etiam isto tempore tamquam studio consulendi quidquid uoluerit contradicere et, quantum possunt, ab eis quos consulit amica disputatione honeste grauiter libere quod oportet audire.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 26. On the faith and piety of Theodosius Augustus.

So he not only kept the faithfulness he owed to Gratian while he lived, but also after his death, when Gratian's little brother Valentinian had been driven out by his murderer Maximus, received him as a Christian into the parts of his own empire as his ward, and guarded him with a father's affection; though he could have removed him without any trouble, destitute as he was of all resources, if he had burned more with the desire of reigning more widely than with the love of doing good. Instead he received him, keeping his imperial dignity, and consoled him with kindness and favor itself. Then, when that success made Maximus formidable, he in the straits of his anxieties did not fall into sacrilegious and unlawful curiosities, but sent to John, who lived in the desert of Egypt, whom he had learned by growing report to be a servant of God endowed with the spirit of prophecy, and received from him a most certain message of victory. Soon, having destroyed the tyrant Maximus, he restored the boy Valentinian, with most merciful respect, to the parts of his empire from which he had been driven; and when Valentinian soon afterwards was killed, whether by treachery or by some other manner or chance, Theodosius, having again received a prophetic answer and being certain in faith, crushed another tyrant, Eugenius, who had been unlawfully put in that emperor's place, and fought against his very strong army more by praying than by striking. Soldiers who were present told us that whatever they were throwing was wrenched from their hands, because a violent wind blew from Theodosius' side against the enemy and not only swept away with the greatest force whatever was thrown against them, but even turned the enemy's own weapons back into their bodies. Hence even the poet Claudian, though a stranger to the name of Christ, said in his praise:

“O too much beloved of God, for whom the sky fights,
and the winds come as allies at the trumpet's call!”

And when he had won, as he had believed and foretold, he threw down the images of Jupiter which had been, as it were, consecrated against him by some rites or other and set up in the Alps; and their thunderbolts, because they were of gold, he gave cheerfully and kindly to his couriers, who joked (as that joyful occasion allowed) that they would like to be struck by such thunderbolts. The sons of his enemies, whom the rush of war, not his own order, had carried off, when they fled to the church, not yet being Christians, he wished to become Christians on this occasion, and loved them with Christian charity; he did not deprive them of their property, and he increased their honors. He allowed no private enmities to have force against anyone after the victory. He was not like Cinna and Marius and Sulla and others of that kind, who were unwilling to end civil wars even when they were ended; rather he grieved that they had arisen more than he wished to harm anyone when they were over. Amid all this, from the very beginning of his reign he did not cease to help the church, laboring against the impious, by most just and merciful laws; for the heretic Valens, favoring the Arians, had afflicted it severely. He rejoiced more to be a member of this church than to reign on earth. He ordered the images of the Gentiles to be overthrown everywhere, understanding well enough that not even earthly gifts are placed in the power of demons, but in that of the true God. And what was more wonderful than his religious humility when, in the case of the most grievous crime of the Thessalonians, for which he had already promised pardon at the intercession of the bishops, he was driven by the clamor of certain of his associates to take vengeance, and then, constrained by the discipline of the church, did penance in such a way that the people, praying for him, wept more at seeing the imperial majesty laid low than they had feared it when angry at their sin? These good works, and others like them which it would take long to mention, he carried with him out of this temporal vapor of any human height and loftiness; and the reward of these works is eternal happiness, whose giver is God, only to the truly pious. But the other heights and supports of this life, such as the world itself, light, air, lands, waters, fruits, and man's own soul and body, senses, mind, and life, he bestows on good and bad alike; and among these is also any greatness of empire, which he dispenses according to the governance of the times. And so I see that I must now answer those also who, refuted and convicted by the plainest proofs showing that the multitude of false gods is of no use for these temporal things, which alone fools desire to have, try to assert that the gods are to be worshipped not for the advantage of the present life but for that which is to come after death. For to those who want to worship empty things for the sake of the friendships of this world, and complain that they are not allowed to follow childish notions, I think enough answer has been given in these five books. When I had published the first three of them and they had begun to be in many hands, I heard that certain people were preparing some answer or other against them in writing. Then it was reported to me that they had already written it, but were looking for a time when they could publish it without danger. I warn them not to wish for what is not good for them. For it is easy for anyone who will not keep silent to seem to have answered. Or what is more talkative than vanity? It cannot do what truth can simply because, if it wishes, it can shout even louder than truth. But let them consider everything carefully; and if, judging perhaps without partisanship, they perceive that these things are such as can be harassed rather than overthrown by most impudent chatter and by a satirical or farcical levity, let them restrain their trifles, and choose rather to be corrected by the wise than praised by the impudent. For if they are waiting for a time not for freedom to speak the truth but for license to speak abuse, far be it from them that what Tully said of someone who was called happy for his license to sin should befall them: “O wretched man, who was allowed to sin!” So whoever thinks himself happy in license to speak abuse will be much happier if it is not allowed him at all, since, laying aside the vanity of boasting, he can even at this time contradict whatever he wishes, as if with a desire to consult, and hear, as far as they are able, from those whom he consults, by friendly discussion, what he ought to hear, honorably, seriously, and freely.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Tusc. 5.55 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- John of Lycopolis, the Egyptian hermit; the battle of the Frigidus (394). Claudian, On the Third Consulship of Honorius 96–98 (no entry in the site's list of extrabiblical texts). The massacre at Thessalonica (390) and Theodosius' penance under Ambrose; paenitentia here is the church's discipline of penance. Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 5.55.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 5.26 (CSEL 40:263–266; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-26/#p-5-26).

## City of God 6.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-26/#p-6-1
- Source: CSEL 40:267–271
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine turns from those who worship the gods for this life to those who worship them for the life after death, and argues that gods too petty even for earthly goods cannot give eternal life.

### Latin text

CAPUT I. De his, qui dicunt deos a se non propter praesentem uitam coli, sed propter aeternam. Nunc ergo quoniam deinceps, ut promissus ordo expetit, etiam hi refellendi et docendi sunt, qui non propter istam uitam, sed propter illam, quae post mortem futura est, deos gentium, quos Christiana religio destruit, colendos esse contendunt: placet a ueridico oraculo sancti psalmi sumere exordium disputationis meae: Beatus, cuius est Dominus Deus spes ipsius et non respexit in uanitates et insanias mendaces. Verum tamen in omnibus uanitatibus insaniisque mendacibus longe tolerabilius philosophi audiendi sunt, quibus displicuerunt istae opiniones erroresque populorum. qui populi constituerunt simulacra numinibus multaque de his, quos deos inmortales uocant, falsa adque indigna siue finxerunt siue ficta crediderunt. et credita eorum cultui sacrorumque ritibus miscuerunt. Cum his hominibus, qui, etsi non libere praedicando, saltem utcumque in disputationibus mussitando, talia se inprobare testati sunt, non usque adeo inconuenienter quaestio ista tractatur: utrum non unum Deum, qui fecit omnem spiritalem corporalemque creaturam, propter uitam, quae post mortem futura est, coli oporteat, sed multos deos, quos ab illo uno factos et sublimiter conlocatos quidam eorundem philosophorum ceteris excellentiores nobilioresque senserunt. Ceterum quis ferat dici adque contendi deos illos, quorum in quarto libro quosdam commemoraui, quibus singulis singula rerum exiguarum distribuuntur officia, uitam aeternam cuique praestare? An uero peritissimi illi et acutissimi uiri, qui se pro magno beneficio conscripta docuisse gloriantur, ut sciretur quare cuique deo supplicandum esset, quid a quoque esset petendum, ne absurditate turpissima, qualis ioculariter in mimo fieri solet, peteretur a Libero aqua, a Lymphis uinum, auctores erunt cuipiam hominum dis inmortalibus supplicanti, ut, cum a Lymphis petierit uinum eique responderint: Nos aquam habemus, hoc a Libero. pete, possit recte dicere: Si uinum non habetis, saltem date mihi uitam aeternam? Quid hac absurditate monstruosius? Nonne illae cachinnantes (solent enim esse ad risum faciles), si non adfectent fallere ut daemones, supplici respondebunt: O homo, putasne in potestate nos habere uitam, quas audis non habere uel uitem? Inpudentissimae igitur stultitiae est uitam aeternam a talibus dis petere uel sperare, qui uitae huius aerumnosissimae adque breuissimae et si qua ad eam pertinent adminiculandam adque fulciendam ita singulas particulas tueri adseruntur, ut, si id, quod sub alterius tutela ac potestate est, petatur ab altero, tam sit inconueniens et absurdum, ut mimicae scurrilitati uideatur esse simillimum. Quod cum fit a scientibus mimis, digne ridentur in theatro; cum uero a nescientibus stultis, dignius inridentur in mundo. Cui ergo deo uel deae propter quid supplicaretur, quantum ad illos deos adtinet quos instituerunt ciuitates, a doctis sollerter inuentum memoriaeque mandatum est: quid a Libero, uerbi gratia, quid a Lymphis, quid a Vulcano ac sic a ceteris, quos partim commemoraui in quarto libro, partim praetereundos putaui. Porro si a Cerere uinum, a Libero panem, a Vulcano aquam, a Lymphis ignem petere erroris est: quanto maioris deliramenti esse intellegi debet, si cuiquam istorum pro uita supplicetur aeterna! Quam ob rem si, cum de regno terreno quaereremus, quosnam illud deos uel deas hominibus credendum esset posse conferre, discussis omnibus longe alienum a ueritate monstratum est a quoquam istorum multorum numinum adque falsorum saltem regna terrena existimare constitui: nonne insanissimae inpietatis est, si aeterna uita, quae terrenis omnibus regnis sine ulla dubitatione uel conparatione praeferenda est, ab istorum quoquam dari cuiquam posse credatur? Neque enim propterea di tales uel terrenum regnum dare non posse uisi sunt, quia illi magni et excelsi sunt, hoc quiddam paruum et abiectum, quod non dignarentur in tanta sublimitate curare; sed quantumlibet consideratione fragilitatis humanae caducos apices terreni regni merito quisque contemnat, illi di tales apparuerunt, ut indignissimi uiderentur, quibus danda adque seruanda deberent uel ista committi. Ac per hoc, si (ut superiora proximis duobus libris pertractata docuerunt) nullus deus ex illa turba uel quasi plebeiorum uel quasi procerum deorum idoneus est regna mortalia mortalibus dare, quanto minus potest inmortales ex mortalibus facere! - Huc accedit, quia, si iam cum illis agimus, qui non propter istam, sed propter uitam quae post mortem futura est existimant colendos deos, iam nec propter illa saltem, quae deorum talium potestati tamquam dispertita et propria non ratione ueritatis, sed uanitatis opinione tribuuntur, omnino colendi sunt, sicut credunt hi, qui cultum eorum uitae huius mortalis utilitatibus necessarium esse contendunt; contra quos iam quinque praecedentibus uoluminibus satis, quantum potui, disputaui. Quae cum ita sint, si eorum, qui colerent deam Iuuentatem, aetas ipsa floreret insignius, contemtores autem eius uel intra annos occumberent iuuentutis, uel in ea tamquam senili torpore frigescerent; si malas cultorum suorum speciosius et festiuius Fortuna barbata uestiret, a quibus autem sperneretur, glabros aut male barbatos uideremus: etiam sic rectissime diceremus huc usque istas deas singulas posse, suis officiis quodam modo limitatas, ac per hoc nec a Iuuentate oportere peti uitam aeternam, quae non daret barbam, nec a Fortuna barbata boni aliquid post hanc uitam esse sperandum, cuius in hac uita potestas nulla esset, ut eandem saltem aetatem, quae barba induitur, ipsa praestaret. Nunc uero cum earum cultus nec propter ista ipsa, quae putant eis subdita, sit necessarius, quia et multi colentes Iuuentatem deam minime in illa aetate uiguerunt, et multi non eam colentes gaudent robore iuuentutis, itemque multi Fortunae barbatae supplices ad nullam uel deformem barbam peruenire potuerunt, et si qui eam pro barba inpetranda uenerantur, a barbatis eius contemtoribus inridentur: itane desipit cor humanum, ut, quorum deorum cultum propter ista ipsa temporalia et cito praetereuntia munera, quibus singulis singuli praeesse perhibentur, inanem ludibriosumque cognoscit, propter uitam aeternam credat esse fructuosum? Hanc dare illos posse nec hi dicere ausi sunt, qui eis, ut ab insipientibus populis colerentur, ista opera temporalia, quoniam nimis multos putarunt, ne quisquam eorum sederet otiosus, minutatim diuisa tribuerunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. On those who say that they worship the gods not for the sake of the present life but for the sake of eternal life.

Now, since the promised order requires that next those also be refuted and taught who contend that the gods of the nations, which the Christian religion destroys, are to be worshipped not for the sake of this life but for the sake of the life that is to come after death, I am pleased to take the beginning of my discussion from the truthful oracle of the holy psalm: “Blessed is the one whose hope is the Lord God, and who has not looked to vanities and lying follies.” Yet among all vanities and lying follies the philosophers are by far the more tolerable to listen to, since these opinions and errors of the peoples displeased them — the peoples who set up images to their deities, and either invented or believed when invented many false and unworthy things about those whom they call immortal gods, and mixed what they believed into their worship and the rites of their sacred ceremonies. With these men, who testified that they disapproved of such things, if not by proclaiming it freely, at least by muttering it somehow in their debates, this question may be discussed not altogether unfittingly: whether, for the sake of the life that is to come after death, one ought to worship not the one God who made every creature, spiritual and bodily, but many gods, who, as some of these same philosophers held, were made by that one God and placed on high, more excellent and nobler than the rest. But who would bear it to be said and argued that those gods, some of whom I mentioned in the fourth book, to each of whom are assigned separate duties over very small matters, bestow eternal life on anyone? Those most expert and most acute men boast that they did a great service by teaching in their writings why each god should be entreated and what should be asked of each, so that, by a most shameful absurdity such as is done for a joke in a mime, water might not be asked of Liber nor wine of the Lymphs. Will they then advise a man who entreats the immortal gods that, when he has asked wine of the Lymphs and they have answered him, “We have water; ask Liber for that,” he may rightly say, “If you have no wine, at least give me eternal life”? What is more monstrous than this absurdity? Would not those laughing nymphs (for they are usually quick to laugh), if they did not aim to deceive as demons do, answer the suppliant: “O man, do you think we have life (vita) in our power, when you hear that we do not have even the vine (vitis)?” It is therefore the most shameless folly to ask or hope for eternal life from such gods, who are said to protect the separate little parts of this most wretched and most brief life, and whatever serves to support and prop it up, in such a way that if what is under the guardianship and power of one is asked of another, it is so unfitting and absurd that it seems most like a mime's buffoonery. When this is done by mimes who know what they are doing, they are deservedly laughed at in the theater; when it is done by fools who do not know, they are more deservedly laughed at in the world. Which god or goddess should be entreated for what purpose, as far as concerns the gods whom the cities established, has been skillfully worked out and committed to memory by the learned: what is to be asked of Liber, for example, what of the Lymphs, what of Vulcan, and so of the rest, some of whom I mentioned in the fourth book and some of whom I thought should be passed over. Further, if it is a mistake to ask wine of Ceres, bread of Liber, water of Vulcan, fire of the Lymphs, how much greater madness must it be thought if any of these is entreated for eternal life! When we were inquiring about earthly kingdoms, which gods or goddesses one should believe able to bestow them on men, it was shown after everything had been examined that it is far from the truth to think that even earthly kingdoms are established by any of these many false deities. Is it not, then, the most insane impiety to believe that eternal life, which beyond any doubt or comparison is to be preferred to all earthly kingdoms, can be given to anyone by any of these? For such gods were not seen to be unable to give even an earthly kingdom because they are great and exalted and it is something small and low, which they would not deign to care for in their great sublimity. Rather, however rightly anyone, considering human frailty, despises the fleeting pinnacles of an earthly kingdom, those gods proved to be such that they seemed most unworthy to be entrusted with giving and preserving even these. And so, if (as the matters treated in the two preceding books have taught) no god of that crowd, whether of the plebeian gods, so to speak, or of the noble ones, is fit to give mortal kingdoms to mortals, how much less can he make immortals out of mortals! Add to this that, if we are now dealing with those who think the gods are to be worshipped not for the sake of this life but for the sake of the life that is to come after death, then the gods are not to be worshipped at all even for those things which are assigned to their power as though allotted and proper to them — assigned not by the reasoning of truth but by the opinion of vanity — as those believe who contend that their worship is necessary for the benefits of this mortal life, against whom I have argued sufficiently, as far as I could, in the five preceding volumes. This being so, suppose that the youth of those who worshipped the goddess Juventas flourished more remarkably, while those who despised her either died within the years of youth or grew cold in it as though with the torpor of old age; suppose that Bearded Fortune clothed the cheeks of her worshippers more handsomely and gaily, while we saw those who spurned her beardless or poorly bearded. Even so we would say most rightly that these individual goddesses have power only so far, being limited in some way to their own duties, and that therefore eternal life should not be asked of Juventas, who would not give a beard, nor should any good after this life be hoped for from Bearded Fortune, who in this life had no power even to supply the age at which the beard grows. But in fact their worship is not necessary even for those very things which they think are subject to them. For many who worshipped the goddess Juventas were by no means vigorous at that age, and many who do not worship her rejoice in the strength of youth; likewise many suppliants of Bearded Fortune could attain no beard or an ugly one, and if any venerate her to obtain a beard, they are laughed at by bearded men who despise her. Is the human heart so foolish, then, as to believe that the worship of gods which it recognizes as empty and ridiculous with regard to these very temporal and quickly passing gifts, over each of which one of them is said to preside, is fruitful for eternal life? That the gods can give this, not even those have dared to say who, so that the gods might be worshipped by the foolish peoples, assigned them these temporal works divided into tiny pieces, because they thought the gods too many, and did not want any of them to sit idle.

### Scripture references

- Ps 40:4 (39:5 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The chapter headings (capitula) are printed with the text in this edition and are translated with it; the preface to Book 6 is not part of this staged text. The opening quotation is Ps 40:4 (39:5 LXX/Vulgate) in Augustine's Latin. The pun in the nymphs' reply is between vita (life) and vitis (vine).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 6.1 (CSEL 40:267–271; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-26/#p-6-1).

## City of God 6.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-26/#p-6-2
- Source: CSEL 40:271–273
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine praises Varro's unequalled learning and argues that, though Varro worshipped the gods, the way he exposed their rites shows a man bound by his city's custom.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. Quid Varronem de dis gentium sensisse credendum sit. quorum talia et genera et sacra detexit, ut reuerentius cum eis ageret, si de illis omnino reticeret. Quis Marco Varrone curiosius ista quaesiuit? quis inuenit doctius? quis considerauit adtentius? quis distinxit acutius? quis diligentius pleniusque conscripsit? Qui tametsi minus est suauis eloquio, doctrina tamen adque sententiis ita refertus est, ut in omni eruditione, quam nos saecularem, illi autem liberalem uocant, studiosum rerum tantum iste doceat, quantum studiosum uerborum Cicero delectat. Denique et ipse [Tullius] huic tale testimonium perhibet, ut in libris Academicis dicat eam, quae ibi uersatur, disputationem se habuisse cum Marco Varrone, (homine, inquit, omnium facile acutissimo et sine ulla dubitatione doctissimo). Non ait eloquentissimo uel (facundissimo), quoniam re uera in hac facultate multum inpar est; sed omnium, inquit, facile acutissimo), et in eis libris. id est Academicis, ubi cuncta dubitanda esse contendit, addidit sine ulla dubitatione doctissimo. Profecto de hac re sic erat certus, ut auferret dubitationem, quam solet in omnibus adhibere, tamquam de hoc uno etiam pro Academicorum dubitatione disputaturus se Academicum fuisset oblitus. In primo autem libro cum eiusdem Varronis litteraria opera praedicaret: Nos, inquit, in nostra urbe peregrinantes errantesque tamquam hospites tui libri quasi domum reduxerunt, ut possemus aliquando qui et ubi essemus agnoscere. Tu aetatem patriae, tu descriptiones temporum, tu sacrorum iura. tu sacerdotum, tu domesticam, tu publicam disciplinam, tu sedem regionum locorum, tu omnium diuinarum humanarumque rerum nomina genera, officia causas aperuisti. Iste igitur uir tam insignis excellentisque peritiae et, quod de illo etiam Terentianus elegantissimo uersiculo breuiter ait: Vir doctissimus undecumque Varro, qui tam multa legit, ut aliquid ei scribere uacuisse miremur; tam multa scripsit, quam multa uix quemquam legere potuisse credamus: iste, inquam, uir tantus ingenio tantusque doctrina, si rerum uelut diuinarum, de quibus scribit, obpugnator esset adque destructor easque non ad religionem, sed ad superstitionem diceret pertinere, nescio utrum tam multa in eis ridenda contemnenda detestanda conscriberet. Cum uero deos eosdem ita coluerit colendosque censuerit, ut in eo ipso opere litterarum suarum dicat se timere ne pereant, non incursu hostili, sed ciuium neglegentia, de qua illos uelut ruina liberari a se dicit et in memoria bonorum per eius modi libros recondi adque seruari utiliore cura, quam qua Metellus de incendio sacra Vestalia et Aeneas de Troiano excidio penates liberasse praedicatur; et tamen ea legenda saeculis prodit, quae a sapientibus et insipientibus merito abicienda et ueritati religionis inimicissima iudicentur: quid existimare debemus nisi hominem acerrimum ac peritissimum, non tamen sancto Spiritu liberum, obpressum fuisse suae ciuitatis consuetudine ac legibus, et tamen ea quibus mouebatur sub specie commendandae religionis tacere noluisse.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. What we must believe Varro thought about the gods of the nations, whose kinds and rites he laid bare in such a way that he would have treated them more reverently if he had kept completely silent about them.

Who has investigated these matters more carefully than Marcus Varro? Who has discovered them more learnedly? Who has considered them more attentively? Who has distinguished them more acutely? Who has written about them more diligently and more fully? Though he is less pleasing in style, he is so full of learning and ideas that in all the learning which we call secular and they call liberal he teaches the student of things as much as Cicero delights the student of words. Indeed, Cicero himself bears him such testimony that in his Academic books he says that the discussion carried on there was held with Marcus Varro, “a man,” he says, “easily the most acute of all and without any doubt the most learned.” He does not say “most eloquent” or “most fluent,” since in truth Varro is very unequal in that faculty; but “easily the most acute of all,” he says. And in those books, the Academics, where he contends that everything is to be doubted, he added “without any doubt the most learned.” Clearly he was so certain on this point that he set aside the doubt which he usually applies to everything, as if, about to argue for the doubt of the Academics, he had on this one matter forgotten that he was an Academic. And in the first book, praising the literary works of this same Varro, he says: “When we were wandering and straying in our own city like strangers, your books brought us, as it were, home, so that we might at last recognize who and where we were. You have disclosed the age of our country, the divisions of its times, the laws of its sacred rites and of its priests, its domestic and its public discipline, the location of its regions and places, and the names, kinds, functions, and causes of all things divine and human.” This man, then, of such remarkable and excellent expertise — of whom Terentianus too says briefly, in a most elegant little verse, “Varro, a man most learned in every field” — who read so much that we wonder he had time to write anything, and wrote so much that we can hardly believe anyone could have read it all: this man, I say, so great in talent and so great in learning, if he were an assailant and destroyer of the things about which he writes as divine, and said that they belonged not to religion but to superstition, would hardly, I think, have written down so many things in them that are to be laughed at, despised, and detested. But he so worshipped these same gods, and so judged that they should be worshipped, that in that very literary work he says he fears they may perish, not by an enemy's attack but by the neglect of the citizens; he says that he is rescuing them from this as from a collapse, and that through books of this kind they are being stored away and preserved in the memory of good men, a more useful care than that for which Metellus is celebrated for rescuing the sacred objects of Vesta from the fire, and Aeneas the household gods from the destruction of Troy. And yet he hands down to be read by the ages things which are rightly judged by wise and unwise alike as fit to be thrown away and most hostile to the truth of religion. What are we to think, then, except that a most keen and most expert man, yet not set free by the Holy Spirit, was oppressed by the custom and laws of his city, and yet, under the appearance of commending religion, was unwilling to keep silent about the things that troubled him?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Acad. post. 1.3.9 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence
- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 1 (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Cicero's praise of Varro is from the Academica (the lost second edition; the phrases are not in the surviving text), and the address “When we were wandering…” is Academica posteriora 1.3.9. The verse is from Terentianus Maurus, On Meters 2846 (no entry in the site's list of extrabiblical texts). The editor deletes “Tullius” after “ipse”. Varro's fear that the gods may perish through neglect is from his Divine Antiquities, book 1.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 6.2 (CSEL 40:271–273; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-26/#p-6-2).

## City of God 6.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-26/#p-6-3
- Source: CSEL 40:273–275
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine describes how Varro's forty-one books of Antiquities were arranged, with the sixteen books on divine things ending with the gods themselves.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. Quae sit partitio Varronis librorum suorum, quos de antiquitatibus rerum humanarum diuinarumque conposuit. Quadraginta et unum libros scripsit antiquitatum; hos in res humanas diuinasque diuisit, rebus humanis uiginti quinque, diuinis sedecim tribuit, istam secutus in ea partitione rationem, ut rerum humanarum libros senos quattuor partibus daret. Intendit enim qui agant, ubi agant, quando agant, quid agant. In sex itaque primis de hominibus scripsit, in secundis sex de locis, sex tertios de temporibus, sex quartos eosdemque postremos de rebus absoluit. Quater autem seni uiginti et quattuor fiunt. Sed unum singularem, qui communiter prius de omnibus loqueretur, in capite posuit. In diuinis identidem rebus eadem ab illo diuisionis forma seruata est, quantum adtinet ad ea, quae dis exhibenda sunt. Exhibentur enim ab hominibus in locis et temporibus sacra. Haec quattuor, quae dixi, libris conplexus est ternis: nam tres priores de hominibus scripsit, sequentes de locis, tertios de temporibus, quartos de sacris, etiam hic, qui exhibeant, ubi exhibeant, quando exhibeant, quid exhibeant, subtilissima distinctione commendans. Sed quia oportebat dicere et maxime id expectabatur, quibus exhibeant, de ipsis quoque dis tres conscripsit extremos, ut quinquies terni quindecim fierent. Sunt autem omnes, ut diximus, sedecim, quia et istorum exordio unum singularem, qui prius de omnibus loqueretur, adposuit. Quo absoluto consequenter ex illa quinquepertita distributione tres praecedentes, qui ad homines pertinent, ita subdiuisit, ut primus sit de pontificibus, secundus de auguribus, tertius de quindecimuiris sacrorum; secundos tres ad loca pertinentes, ita ut in uno eorum de sacellis, altero de sacris aedibus diceret, tertio de locis religiosis; tres porro, qui istos sequuntur et ad tempora pertinent, id est ad dies festos, ita ut unum eorum faceret de feriis, alterum de ludis circensibus, de scaenicis tertium; quartorum trium ad sacra pertinentium uni dedit consecrationes, alteri sacra priuata, ultimo publica. Hanc uelut pompam obsequiorum in tribus, qui restant, di ipsi sequuntur extremi, quibus iste uniuersus cultus inpensus est: in primo di certi, in secundo incerti, in tertio cunctorum nouissimo di praecipui adque selecti.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. How Varro divided the books which he composed on the antiquities of human and divine things.

He wrote forty-one books of Antiquities. He divided them into human and divine matters, assigning twenty-five books to human matters and sixteen to divine, and in this division he followed the plan of giving six books to each of four parts of human matters. For he considers who act, where they act, when they act, and what they act. So in the first six he wrote about men, in the second six about places, the third six he gave to times, and the fourth and last six to things. Four times six make twenty-four. But he placed at the head one single book, which spoke first about all of them in general. In divine matters, likewise, he kept the same form of division, as far as concerns the things that are to be offered to the gods. For sacred rites are offered by men in places and at times. These four things which I have mentioned he covered in three books each: the first three he wrote about men, the next three about places, the third three about times, the fourth three about sacred rites — here too setting forth, with a most subtle distinction, who offer, where they offer, when they offer, and what they offer. But since he had to say, and this was most of all expected, to whom they offer, he also wrote the last three about the gods themselves, so that five times three made fifteen. But there are sixteen in all, as we said, because at the beginning of these too he placed one single book, which spoke first about all of them. When this was done, he accordingly subdivided the fivefold distribution as follows. The three first books, which pertain to men: the first is about the pontiffs, the second about the augurs, the third about the Fifteen Men in charge of sacred rites. The second three, pertaining to places: in one of them he spoke about shrines, in another about sacred temples, in the third about religious places. Next, the three that follow these and pertain to times, that is, to festival days: he made one of them about holidays, another about the circus games, the third about the stage games. Of the fourth three, pertaining to sacred rites, he gave one to consecrations, another to private rites, the last to public ones. In the three that remain, the gods themselves follow last, as if after a procession of services, the gods on whom all this worship has been spent: in the first the certain gods, in the second the uncertain, in the third and last of all the principal and select gods.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Describes the plan of Varro's Antiquities of Human and Divine Things; the scheme is known chiefly from this chapter.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 6.3 (CSEL 40:273–275; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-26/#p-6-3).

## City of God 6.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-26/#p-6-4
- Source: CSEL 40:275–278
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that Varro, by putting human institutions before divine things, tacitly admitted that the civil gods were human inventions rather than realities.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. Quod ex disputatione Varronis aput cultores deorum antiquiores res humanae quam diuinae reperiantur. In hac tota serie pulcherrimae ac subtilissimae distributionis et distinctionis uitam aeternam frustra quaeri et sperari inpudentissime uel optari, ex his, quae iam diximus et quae deinceps dicenda sunt, cuiuis hominum, qui corde obstinato sibi non fuerit inimicus, facillime apparet. Vel hominum enim sunt ista instituta uel daemonum, non quales uocant illi daemones bonos, sed, ut loquar apertius, inmundorum spirituum et sine controuersia malignorum, qui noxias opiniones, quibus anima humana magis magisque uanescat et incommutabili aeternaeque ueritati coaptari adque inhaerere non possit, inuidentia mirabili et occulte inserunt cogitationibus inpiorum et aperte aliquando ingerunt sensibus et qua possunt fallaci adtestatione confirmant. Iste ipse Varro propterea se prius de rebus humanis, de diuinis autem postea scripsisse testatur, quod prius extiterint ciuitates, deinde ab eis haec instituta sint. Vera autem religio non a terrena aliqua ciuitate instituta est, sed plane caelestem ipsa instituit ciuitatem. Eam uero inspirat et docet uerus Deus, dator uitae aeternae, ueris cultoribus suis. Varronis igitur confitentis ideo se prius de rebus humanis scripsisse, postea de diuinis, quia diuinae istae ab hominibus institutae sunt, haec ratio est: Sicut prior est, inquit, pictor quam tabula picta, prior faber quam aedificium: ita priores sunt ciuitates quam ea, quae a ciuitatibus instituta sunt). Dicit autem prius se scripturum fuisse de dis, postea de hominibus, si de omni natura deorum scriberet, quasi hic de aliqua scribat et non de omni, aut uero etiam aliqua, licet non omnis, deorum natura non prior debeat esse quam hominum. Quid, quod in illis tribus nouissimis libris deos certos et incertos et selectos diligenter explicans nullam deorum naturam praetermittere uidetur? Quid est ergo, quod ait: (Si de omni natura deorum et hominum scriberemus, prius diuina absoluissemus, quam humana adtigissemus? Aut enim de omni natura deorum scribit, aut de aliqua, aut omnino de nulla. Si de omni, praeponenda utique est rebus humanis; si de aliqua, quur non etiam ipsa res praecedat humanas? An indigna est praeferri etiam uniuersae naturae hominum pars aliqua deorum? Quod si multum est, ut aliqua pars diuina praeponatur uniuersis rebus humanis, saltem digna est uel Romanis. Rerum quippe humanarum libros, non quantum ad orbem terrarum, sed quantum ad solam Romam pertinet, scripsit, quos tamen rerum diuinarum libris se dixit scribendi ordine merito praetulisse, sicut pictorem tabulae pictae, sicut fabrum aedificio, apertissime confitens, quod etiam istae res diuinae, sicut pictura, sicut structura, ab hominibus institutae sint. Restat ut de nulla deorum natura scripsisse intellegatur, neque hoc aperte dicere uoluisse, sed intellegentibus reliquisse. Ubi enim dicitur non omnis, usitate quidem intellegitur aliqua; sed potest intellegi et nulla, quoniam quae nulla est nec omnis nec aliqua est. Nam, ut ipse dicit, si omnis esset natura deorum, de qua scriberet, scribendi ordine rebus humanis praeponenda esset; ut autem et ipso tacente ueritas clamat, praeponenda esset certe rebus Romanis, etiamsi non omnis, sed saltem aliqua esset: recte autem postponitur; ergo nulla est. Non itaque rebus diuinis anteferre uoluit res humanas, sed rebus ueris noluit anteferre res falsas. In his enim, quae scripsit de rebus humanis, secutus est historiam rerum gestarum; quae autem de his, quas diuinas uocat, quid nisi opiniones rerum uanarum? Hoc est nimirum, quod uoluit subtili significatione monstrare, non solum scribens de his posterius quam de illis, sed etiam rationem reddens quur id fecerit. Quam si tacuisset, aliter hoc factum eius ab aliis fortasse defenderetur. In ea uero ipsa ratione, quam reddidit, nec aliis quidquam reliquit pro arbitrio suspicari et satis probauit homines se praeposuisse institutis hominum, non naturam hominum naturae deorum. Ita se libros rerum diuinarum non de ueritate quae pertinet ad naturam, sed de falsitate quae pertinet ad errorem scripsisse confessus est. Quod apertius alibi posuit, sicut in quarto libro commemoraui, ex naturae formula se scripturum fuisse, si nouam ipse conderet ciuitatem; quia uero iam ueterem inuenerat, non se potuisse nisi eius consuetudinem sequi.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. That from Varro's discussion it appears that among the worshippers of the gods human things are older than divine things.

In this whole series of most beautiful and most subtle distribution and distinction, it is very easily apparent, from what we have already said and what is still to be said, to any man who has not made himself his own enemy by an obstinate heart, that eternal life is sought here in vain, and hoped or wished for most shamelessly. For these are institutions either of men or of demons — not of such demons as they call good, but, to speak more plainly, of unclean and undoubtedly malignant spirits. With a strange envy these spirits secretly insert into the thoughts of the impious harmful opinions, by which the human soul may grow more and more empty and be unable to be fitted to and cleave to the unchangeable and eternal truth; sometimes they openly thrust them on their senses, and they confirm them by what deceptive testimony they can. Varro himself testifies that he wrote first about human things and afterwards about divine things, because cities came into being first and then these things were instituted by them. But the true religion was not instituted by some earthly city; rather, it plainly itself institutes the heavenly city. It is inspired and taught by the true God, the giver of eternal life, to his true worshippers. Varro, then, admitting that he wrote first about human things and afterwards about divine things because these divine things were instituted by men, gives this reason: “As the painter is prior to the painted panel, and the builder prior to the building, so cities are prior to the things instituted by cities.” But he says that he would have written first about the gods and afterwards about men if he were writing about the whole nature of the gods — as if here he were writing about some of it and not all, or as if even some nature of the gods, though not all of it, ought not to come before that of men. What of the fact that in those last three books, carefully explaining the certain, the uncertain, and the select gods, he seems to leave out no nature of the gods? What then does he mean when he says, “If we were writing about the whole nature of gods and men, we would have finished the divine before touching the human”? For either he is writing about the whole nature of the gods, or about some of it, or about none at all. If about the whole, it certainly ought to be put before human things; if about some, why should it too not precede human things? Is some part of the gods unworthy to be put even before the whole nature of men? But if it is too much to put some divine part before all human things, it is at least worthy to be put before the Roman ones. For he wrote the books on human things with regard not to the whole world but to Rome alone; and yet he said that he had rightly put them before the books on divine things in the order of writing, as the painter before the painted panel, as the builder before the building, confessing most openly that these divine things too, like a painting, like a structure, were instituted by men. It remains that he must be understood to have written about no nature of the gods at all, and not to have wished to say this openly but to have left it to those who understand. For where “not all” is said, it is usually understood as “some”; but it can also be understood as “none,” since what is none is neither all nor some. For, as he himself says, if it were the whole nature of the gods about which he was writing, it would have to be put before human things in the order of writing; and, as the truth cries out even when he is silent, it would certainly have to be put before Roman things if it were at least some, even if not all. Yet it is rightly put after; therefore it is none. So he did not wish to put human things before divine things; rather, he refused to put false things before true ones. For in what he wrote about human things he followed the history of things done; but in what he wrote about those things he calls divine, what did he follow except opinions about empty things? This, surely, is what he wished to show by a subtle indication, not only by writing about these later than about those, but also by giving the reason why he did so. Had he kept silent about the reason, others might perhaps have defended this action of his in another way. But in the very reason he gave, he left others nothing to suspect at will, and he proved sufficiently that he had put men before the institutions of men, not the nature of men before the nature of the gods. Thus he confessed that he wrote the books on divine things not about the truth that pertains to nature but about the falsehood that pertains to error. He put this more openly elsewhere, as I mentioned in the fourth book: that he would have written according to the pattern of nature if he himself were founding a new city; but since he had found an old one, he could only follow its custom.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 1 (Varro): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Varro, Divine Antiquities, book 1; the earlier reference is to City of God 4.31.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 6.4 (CSEL 40:275–278; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-26/#p-6-4).

## City of God 6.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-26/#p-6-5
- Source: CSEL 40:278–280
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine sets out Varro's three theologies — mythical for the theater, natural for philosophers, civil for the city — and argues that the civil cannot be separated from the fabulous.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. De tribus generibus theologiae secundum Varronem, id est uno fabuloso, altero naturali tertioque ciuili. Deinde illud quale est, quod tria genera theologiae dicit esse, id est rationis quae de dis explicatur, eorumque unum mythicon [appellari], alterum physicon, tertium ciuile? Latine si usus admitteret, genus, quod primum posuit, fabulare appellaremus; sed fabulosum dicamus; a fabulis enim mythicon dictum est, quoniam μυ̃ϑος Graece fabula dicitur. Secundum autem ut naturale dicatur, iam et consuetudo locutionis admittit. Tertium etiam ipse Latine enuntiauit, quod ciuile appellatur. Deinde ait: Mythicon appellant, quo maxime utuntur poetae; physicon, quo philosophi; ciuile, quo populi. Primum, inquit, quod dixi, in eo sunt multa contra dignitatem et naturam inmortalium ficta. In hoc enim est, ut deus alius ei capite, alius ex femore sit, alius ex guttis sanguinis natus: in hoc, ut di furati sint, ut adulterarint, ut seruierint homini; denique in hoc omnia dis adtribuuntur, quae non modo in hominem, sed etiam quae in contemtissimum hominem cadere possunt. Hic certe ubi potuit, ubi ausus est, ubi inpunitum putauit, quanta mendacissimis fabulis naturae deorum fieret iniuria, sine caligine ullius ambiguitatis expressit. Loquebatur enim non de naturali theologia, non de ciuili, sed de fabulosa, quam libere a se putauit esse culpandam. Videamus quid de altera dicat. Secundum genus est, inquit, quod demonstraui, de quo multos libros philosophi reliquerunt; in quibus est, di qui sint, ubi, quod genus, quale; a quodam tempore an a sempiterno fuerint di; ex igni sint, ut credit Heraclitus, an ex numeris, ut Pythagoras, an ex atomis, ut ait Epicurus. Sic alia, quae facilius intra parietes in schola quam extra in foro ferre possunt aures). Nihil in hoc genere culpauit, quod physicon uocant et ad philosophos pertinet, tantum quod eorum inter se controuersias commemorauit, per quos facta est dissidentium multitudo sectarum. Remouit tamen hoc genus a foro, id est a populis; scholis uero et parietibus clausit. Illud autem primum mendacissimum adque turpissimum a ciuitatibus non remouit. O religiosas aures populares adque in his etiam Romanas! Quod de dis inmortalibus philosophi disputant, ferre non possunt; quod uero poetae canunt et histriones agunt, quia contra dignitatem ac naturam inmortalium ficta sunt, quia non modo in hominem, sed etiam in contemtissimum hominem cadere possunt, non solum ferunt, sed etiam libenter audiunt. Neque id tantum, sed dis quoque ipsis haec placere et per haec eos placandos esse decernunt. Dixerit aliquis: Haec duo genera mythicon et physicon, id est fabulosum adque naturale, discernamus ab hoc ciuili, de quo nunc agitur, unde illa et ipse discreuit, iamque ipsum ciuile uideamus qualiter explicet. Video quidem, quur debeat discerni fabulosum: quia falsum, quia turpe, quia indignum est. Naturale autem a ciuili uelle discernere quid est aliud quam etiam ipsum ciuile fateri esse mendosum? Si enim illud naturale est, quid habet reprehensionis, ut excludatur? Si autem hoc quod ciuile dicitur naturale non est, quid habet meriti, ut admittatur? Haec nempe illa causa est, quare prius scripserit de rebus humanis, posterius de diuinis, quoniam in diuinis rebus non naturam, sed hominum instituta secutus est. Intueamur sane et ciuilem theologian. Tertium genus est, inquit, quod in urbibus ciues, maxime sacerdotes, nosse adque administrare debent. In quo est, quos deos publice, <quae> sacra ac sacrificia colere et facere quemque par sit Adhuc quod sequitur adtendamus. Prima, inquit, theologia maxime adcommodata est ad theatrum, secunda ad mundum, tertia ad urbem. Quis non uideat, cui palmam dederit? Utique secundae, quam supra dixit esse philosophorum. Hanc enim pertinere testatur ad mundum, quo isti nihil esse excellentius opinantur in rebus. Duas uero illas theologias, primam et tertiam, theatri scilicet adque urbis, distinxit an iunxit? Videmus enim non continuo, quod est urbis, pertinere posse et ad mundum, quamuis urbes esse uideamus in mundo; fieri enim potest, ut in urbe secundum falsas opiniones ea colantur et ea credantur, quorum in mundo uel extra mundum natura sit nusquam: theatrum uero ubi est nisi in urbe? Quis theatrum instituit nisi ciuitas? Propter quid instituit nisi propter ludos scaenicos? Ubi sunt ludi scaenici nisi in rebus diuinis, de quibus hi libri tanta sollertia conscribuntur?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. On the three kinds of theology according to Varro: one fabulous, another natural, the third civil.

Next, what of his saying that there are three kinds of theology, that is, of the account that is given of the gods, and that one of them is called mythicon, another physicon, the third civil? In Latin, if usage allowed it, we would call the kind he put first “fabular”; but let us call it “fabulous,” for mythicon is named from fables, since in Greek mythos means a fable. That the second should be called “natural,” customary speech already allows. The third he himself expressed in Latin, calling it civil. Then he says: “They call mythicon the kind which the poets chiefly use; physicon, that which the philosophers use; civil, that which the peoples use. In the first,” he says, “which I mentioned, there are many fictions contrary to the dignity and nature of the immortals. For in it one god is born from a head, another from a thigh, another from drops of blood; in it gods steal, commit adultery, serve a man as slaves; in short, in it everything is attributed to the gods that can befall not only a man but even the most contemptible of men.” Here, certainly, where he could, where he dared, where he thought he could do so with impunity, he expressed without the fog of any ambiguity how great an injury was done to the nature of the gods by most lying fables. For he was speaking not about natural theology, nor about civil, but about fabulous, which he thought he could freely find fault with. Let us see what he says about the next. “The second kind which I have pointed out,” he says, “is that about which philosophers have left many books, in which it is discussed who the gods are, where they are, of what kind and of what quality; whether the gods have existed from a certain time or from eternity; whether they are from fire, as Heraclitus believes, or from numbers, as Pythagoras, or from atoms, as Epicurus says; and other such things, which ears can bear more easily within the walls of a school than outside in the forum.” He found no fault in this kind, which they call physicon and which belongs to the philosophers, except that he mentioned their controversies among themselves, through which a multitude of dissenting sects arose. Yet he removed this kind from the forum, that is, from the peoples, and shut it up in schools and within walls. But that first kind, most lying and most shameful, he did not remove from the cities. O the religious ears of the people, and among them even of the Romans! What philosophers debate about the immortal gods they cannot bear; but what poets sing and actors perform — things fictitious and contrary to the dignity and nature of the immortals, things that can befall not only a man but even the most contemptible of men — they not only bear but even gladly hear. And not only this: they decree that these things please the gods themselves too, and that the gods are to be appeased by them. Someone may say: Let us distinguish these two kinds, mythicon and physicon, that is, the fabulous and the natural, from this civil kind now under discussion, from which he himself also distinguished them, and let us now see how he explains the civil kind itself. I see indeed why the fabulous ought to be set apart: because it is false, because it is shameful, because it is unworthy. But to wish to set apart the natural from the civil, what is it but to confess that the civil itself is faulty? For if the civil is natural, what fault is there in it, that it should be excluded? And if what is called civil is not natural, what merit has it, that it should be admitted? This, surely, is the reason why he wrote first about human things and afterwards about divine: because in divine things he followed not nature but the institutions of men. Let us look, then, at civil theology too. “The third kind,” he says, “is that which citizens in cities, especially priests, ought to know and administer. In it is which gods each person should worship publicly, and which sacred rites and sacrifices he should perform.” Let us attend also to what follows. “The first theology,” he says, “is suited chiefly to the theater, the second to the world, the third to the city.” Who does not see to which he gave the palm? Surely to the second, which he said above belonged to the philosophers. For he testifies that it pertains to the world, than which these men think there is nothing more excellent in existence. But those two theologies, the first and the third, that is, of the theater and of the city — did he separate them or join them? For we see that what belongs to the city need not at once pertain also to the world, although we see that cities are in the world; for it can happen that in a city, according to false opinions, things are worshipped and believed whose nature exists nowhere, either in the world or outside it. But where is the theater except in the city? Who instituted the theater but the city? For what purpose did it institute it except for the stage games? And where do the stage games belong except among the divine things about which these books are written with such skill?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 1 (Varro): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Varro, Divine Antiquities, book 1 (the tripartite theology). The editor deletes “appellari” after “mythicon”; the words “quae” (“which sacred rites”) are the editor's addition and are translated.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 6.5 (CSEL 40:278–280; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/5-26/#p-6-5).

## City of God 6.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-6/#p-6-6
- Source: CSEL 40:280–283
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Addressing Varro directly, Augustine argues that fabulous and civil theology honor the same gods with the same shameful things and cannot lead to eternal life.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. De theologia mythica, id est fabulosa, et de ciuili contra Varronem. O Marce Varro, cum sis homo omnium acutissimus et sine ulla dubitatione doctissimus, sed tamen homo, non Deus, nec spiritu Dei ad uidenda et adnuntianda diuina in ueritatem libertatemque subuectus, cernis quidem quam sint res diuinae ab humanis nugis adque mendaciis dirimendae; sed uitiosissimas populorum opiniones et consuetudines in superstitionibus publicis uereris offendere, quas ab deorum natura abhorrere uel talium, quales in huius mundi elementis humani animi suspicatur infirmitas, et sentis ipse, cum eas usquequaque consideras, et omnis uestra litteratura circumsonat. Quid hic agit humanum quamuis excellentissimum ingenium? Quid tibi humana licet multiplex ingensque doctrina in his angustiis suffragatur? Naturales deos colere cupis, ciuiles cogeris. Inuenisti alios fabulosos, in quos liberius quod sentis euomas, unde et istos ciuiles uelis nolisue perfundas. Dicis quippe fabulosos adcommodatos esse ad theatrum, naturales ad mundum, ciuiles ad urbem, cum mundus opus sit diuinum, urbes uero et theatra opera sint hominum, nec alii derideantur in theatris, quam qui adorantur in templis, nec aliis ludos exhibeatis, quam quibus uictimas immolatis. Quanto liberius subtiliusque ista diuideres, dicens alios esse deos naturales, alios ab hominibus institutos, sed de institutis aliud habere litteras poetarum, aliud sacerdotum, utrasque tamen ita esse inter se amicas consortio falsitatis, ut gratae sint utraeque daemonibus, quibus doctrina inimica est ueritatis! Sequestrata igitur paululum theologia, quam naturalem uocant, de qua postea disserendum est, placetne tandem uitam aeternam peti aut sperari ab dis poeticis theatricis, ludicris scaenicis? Absit; immo auertat Deus uerus tam inmanem sacrilegamque dementiam. Quid? ab eis dis, quibus haec placent et quos haec placant, cum eorum illic crimina frequententur, uita aeterna poscenda est? Nemo, ut arbitror, usque ad tantum praecipitium furiosissimae inpietatis insanit. Nec fabulosa igitur nec ciuili theologia sempiternam quisquam adipiscitur uitam. Illa enim de dis turpia fingendo seminat, haec fauendo metit; illa mendacia spargit, haec colligit; illa res diuinas falsis criminibus insectatur, haec eorum criminum ludos in diuinis rebus amplectitur; illa de dis nefanda figmenta hominum carminibus personat, haec ea deorum ipsorum festiuitatibus consecrat; facinora et flagitia numinum illa cantat, haec amat; illa prodit aut fingit, haec autem aut adtestatur ueris aut oblectatur et falsis. Ambae turpes ambaeque damnabiles; sed illa, quae theatrica est, publicam turpitudinem profitetur; ista, quae urbana est, illius turpitudine ornatur. Hincine uita aeterna sperabitur, unde ista breuis temporalisque polluitur? An uero uitam polluit consortium nefariorum hominum, si se inserant adfectionibus et adsensionibus nostris, et uitam non polluit societas daemonum, qui coluntur criminibus suis? Si ueris, quam mali! si falsis, quam male! Haec cum dicimus, uideri fortasse cuipiam nimis harum rerum ignaro potest ea sola de dis talibus maiestati indigna diuinae et ridicula detestabilia, celebrari, quae poeticis cantantur carminibus et ludis scaenicis actitantur; sacra uero illa, quae non histriones, sed sacerdotes agunt, ab omni esse dedecore purgata et aliena. Hoc si ita esset, numquam theatricas turpitudines in eorum honorem quisquam celebrandas esse censeret, numquam eas ipsi di praeciperent sibimet exhiberi. Sed ideo nihil pudet ad obsequium deorum talia gerere in theatris, quia similia geruntur in templis. Denique cum memoratus auctor ciuilem theologian a fabulosa et naturali tertiam quandam sui generis distinguere conaretur, magis eam ex utraque temperatam quam ab utraque separatam intellegi uoluit. Ait enim ea, quae scribunt poetae, minus esse quam ut populi sequi debeant; quae autem philosophi, plus quam ut ea uulgum scrutari expediat. Quae sic abhorrent, inquit, ut tamen ex utroque genere ad ciuiles rationes adsumta sint non pauca. Quare quae erunt communia, una cum propriis ciuilibus scribemus; e quibus maior societas debet esse nobis cum philosophis quam cum poetis. Non ergo ulla cum poetis. Et tamen alio loco dicit de generationibus deorum magis ad poetas quam ad physicos fuisse populos inclinatos. Hic enim dixit quid fieri debeat, ibi quid fiat. Physicos dixit utilitatis causa scripsisse, poetas delectationis. Ac per hoc ea, quae a poetis conscripta populi sequi non debent, crimina sunt deorum, quae tamen delectant et populos et deos. Delectationis enim causa, sicut dicit, scribunt poetae, non utilitatis; ea tamen scribunt, quae di expetant, populi exhibeant.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. On mythical, that is fabulous, theology, and on civil theology, against Varro.

O Marcus Varro, you are the most acute of all men and without any doubt the most learned, but still a man, not God, nor lifted up by the Spirit of God into truth and freedom to see and announce divine things. You do indeed perceive how far divine things ought to be separated from human trifles and lies; but you fear to offend the most corrupt opinions and customs of the peoples in the public superstitions. You yourself feel, when you consider them from every side, that these are repugnant to the nature of the gods, even of such gods as the weakness of the human mind suspects to be in the elements of this world, and all your literature echoes it round about. What can human talent, however excellent, do here? What does human learning, however manifold and vast, avail you in these straits? You long to worship the natural gods; you are compelled to worship the civil. You have found others, the fabulous, on whom you may more freely vomit out what you think, and with the spray of which, willing or unwilling, you may drench these civil gods too. For you say that the fabulous gods are suited to the theater, the natural to the world, the civil to the city, although the world is a divine work, while cities and theaters are works of men; and the gods laughed at in the theaters are none other than those adored in the temples, and you exhibit games to none other than those to whom you sacrifice victims. How much more freely and more subtly would you have divided these things by saying that some gods are natural and others instituted by men, but that about those instituted the literature of the poets says one thing and that of the priests another, and yet that both are so friendly to each other in their partnership of falsehood that both are pleasing to the demons, to whom the teaching of truth is hostile! Setting aside for a little while, then, the theology they call natural, which is to be discussed later, is it at all acceptable to seek or hope for eternal life from the poetic, theatrical, playful, stage gods? Far from it; indeed, may the true God avert so monstrous and sacrilegious a madness. What? Is eternal life to be demanded from those gods whom these things please and whom these things appease, when their crimes are rehearsed there again and again? No one, I think, is so insane as to go over such a precipice of most furious impiety. Neither by fabulous nor by civil theology, then, does anyone obtain everlasting life. For the one sows shameful things about the gods by inventing them, the other reaps them by favoring them; the one scatters lies, the other gathers them; the one assails divine things with false crimes, the other embraces the performances of those crimes among divine things; the one makes men's unspeakable fictions about the gods resound in songs, the other consecrates them in the festivals of the gods themselves; the one sings the crimes and outrages of the deities, the other loves them; the one reveals or invents them, the other either bears witness to true ones or takes delight even in false ones. Both are shameful and both are damnable; but the theatrical one professes public shamefulness, while the urban one is adorned with the other's shamefulness. Is eternal life to be hoped for from the source by which this brief temporal life is polluted? Or does the company of wicked men pollute life, if they insinuate themselves into our affections and assents, and does the society of demons, who are worshipped with their own crimes, not pollute it? If the crimes are real, how wicked the demons are! If false, how wickedly they are worshipped! When we say these things, it may perhaps seem to someone quite ignorant of these matters that only those things about such gods which are sung in poetic songs and acted out in stage plays are celebrated as unworthy of the divine majesty, ridiculous and detestable, but that the sacred rites performed not by actors but by priests are clean and free of all disgrace. If this were so, no one would ever have judged that theatrical indecencies should be celebrated in their honor, nor would the gods themselves ever have commanded that these be presented to them. But people are not ashamed to do such things in the theaters in the service of the gods precisely because similar things are done in the temples. In short, when the author mentioned tried to distinguish civil theology from the fabulous and the natural as a third of its own kind, he wished it to be understood as blended from both rather than separated from both. For he says that what the poets write is less than the peoples ought to follow, and what the philosophers write is more than it is expedient for the common crowd to investigate. “These differ,” he says, “in such a way that nevertheless not a few things from both kinds have been taken up into civil accounts. Therefore we shall write what is common to them together with what is proper to the civil; and of these our fellowship ought to be greater with the philosophers than with the poets.” So it is not without some fellowship with the poets. And yet in another place he says that concerning the generations of the gods the peoples have been more inclined to the poets than to the natural philosophers. For here he said what ought to be done, there what is done. He said that the natural philosophers wrote for the sake of usefulness, the poets for the sake of delight. And so the things written by the poets which the peoples ought not to follow are the crimes of the gods, which nevertheless delight both peoples and gods. For the poets write, as he says, for the sake of delight, not usefulness; yet they write things that the gods demand and the peoples exhibit.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 1 (Varro): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Varro, Divine Antiquities, book 1. The sentence “Non ergo ulla cum poetis” is compressed; it is translated by its evident sense, that Varro's words admit some fellowship with the poets.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 6.6 (CSEL 40:280–283; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-6/#p-6-6).

## City of God 6.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-6/#p-6-7
- Source: CSEL 40:283–287
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that civil religion contains the same indecencies as the stage — the sacristan who diced with Hercules, the rites of Attis and the castrated Galli — so the two theologies cannot be separated.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. De fabulosae et ciuilis theologiae similitudine adque concordia. Reuocatur igitur ad theologian ciuilem theologia fabulosa theatrica scaenica, indignitatis et turpitudinis plena, et haec tota, quae merito culpanda et respuenda iudicatur, pars huius est, quae colenda et obseruanda censetur; non sane pars incongrua, sicut ostendere institui, et quae ab uniuerso corpore aliena inportune illi conexa adque suspensa sit, sed omnino consona et tamquam eiusdem corporis membrum conuenientissime copulata. Quid enim aliud ostendunt illa simulacra formae aetates sexus habitus deorum? Numquid barbatum Iouem, inberbem Mercurium poetae habent, pontifices non habent? Numquid Priapo mimi, non etiam sacerdotes enormia pudenda fecerunt? An aliter stat adorandus in locis sacris, quam procedit ridendus in theatris? Num Saturnus senex, Apollo ephebus ita personae sunt histrionum, ut non sint statuae delubrorum? Quur Forculus, qui foribus praeest, et Limentinus, qui limini, di sunt masculi, adque inter hos Cardea femina est, quae cardinem seruat? Nonne ista in rerum diuinarum libris reperiuntur, quae graues poetae suis carminibus indigna duxerunt? Numquid Diana theatrica portat arma et urbana simpliciter uirgo est? Numquid scaenicus Apollo citharista est et ab hac arte Delphicus uacat? Sed haec honestiora sunt in conparatione turpiorum. Quid de ipso Ioue senserunt, qui eius nutricem in Capitolio posuerunt? Nonne adtestati sunt Euemero, qui omnes tales deos non fabulosa garrulitate, sed historica diligentia homines fuisse mortalesque conscripsit? Epulones etiam deos, parasitos Iouis, ad eius mensam qui constituerunt, quid aliud quam mimica sacra esse uoluerunt? Nam parasitos Iouis ad conuiuium eius adhibitos si mimus dixisset, utique risum quaesisse uideretur. Varro dixit! non cum inrideret deos, sed cum commendaret hoc dixit; diuinarum, non humanarum rerum libri hoc eum scripsisse testantur, nec ubi ludos scaenicos exponebat, sed ubi Capitolina iura pandebat. Denique talibus uincitur et fatetur, sicut forma humana deos fecerunt, ita eos delectari humanis uoluptatibus credidisse. Non enim et maligni spiritus suo negotio defuerunt, ut has noxias opiniones humanarum mentium ludificatione firmarent. Unde etiam illud est, quod Herculis aedituus otiosus adque feriatus lusit tesseris secum utraque manu alternante, in una constituens Herculem, in altera se ipsum, sub ea condicione, ut, si ipse uicisset, de stipe templi sibi cenam pararet amicamque conduceret; si autem uictoria Herculis fieret, hoc idem de pecunia sua uoluptati Herculis exhiberet; deinde cum a se ipso tamquam ab Hercule uictus esset, debitam cenam et nobilissimam meretricem Larentinam deo Herculi dedit. At illa cum dormisset in templo, uidit in somnis Herculem sibi esse commixtum sibique dixisse, quod inde discedens, cui primum iuueni obuia fieret, aput illum esset inuentura mercedem, quam sibi credere deberet ab Hercule persolutam. Ac sic abeunti cum primus iuuenis ditissimus Tarutius occurrisset eamque dilectam secum diutius habuisset, illa herede defunctus est. Quae amplissimam adepta pecuniam ne diuinae mercedi uideretur ingrata, quod acceptissimum putauit esse numinibus, populum Romanum etiam ipsa scripsit heredem, adque illa non conparente inuentum est testamentum; quibus meritis eam ferunt etiam honores meruisse diuinos. Haec si poetae fingerent, si mimi agerent, ad fabulosam theologian dicerentur procul dubio pertinere et a ciuilis theologiae dignitate separanda iudicarentur. Cum uero haec dedecora non poetarum, sed populorum; non mimorum, sed sacrorum; non theatrorum, sed templorum; id est non fabulosae, sed ciuilis theologiae, a tanto auctore produntur: non frustra histriones ludicris artibus fingunt deorum quae tanta est turpitudinem, sed plane frustra sacerdotes uelut sacris ritibus conantur fingere deorum quae nulla est honestatem. Sacra sunt Iunonis, et haec in eius dilecta insula Samo celebrabantur, ubi nuptum data est Ioui; sacra sunt Cereris, ubi a Plutone rapta Proserpina quaeritur; sacra sunt Veneris, ubi amatus eius Adon aprino dente extinctus iuuenis formosissimus plangitur; sacra sunt Matris deum, ubi Attis pulcher adulescens ab ea dilectus et muliebri zelo abscisus etiam hominum abscisorum, quos Gallos uocant, infelicitate deploratur. Haec cum deformiora sint omni scaenica foeditate, quid est quod fabulosa de dis figmenta poetarum ad theatrum uidelicet pertinentia uelut secernere nituntur a ciuili theologia, quam pertinere ad urbem uolunt, quasi ab honestis et dignis indigna et turpia? Itaque potius est unde gratiae debeantur histrionibus, qui oculis hominum pepercerunt nec omnia spectaculis nudauerunt, quae sacrarum aedium parietibus occuluntur. Quid de sacris eorum boni sentiendum est, quae tenebris operiuntur, cum tam sint detestabilia, quae proferuntur in lucem? Et certe quid in occulto agant per abscisos et molles, ipsi uiderint; eosdem tamen homines infeliciter ac turpiter eneruatos adque corruptos occultare minime potuerunt. Persuadeant cui possunt se aliquid sanctum per tales agere homines, quos inter sua sancta numerari adque uersari negare non possunt. Nescimus quid agant, sed scimus per quales agant. Nouimus enim quae agantur in scaena, quo numquam uel in choro meretricum abscisus aut mollis intrauit; et tamen etiam ipsa turpes et infames agunt; neque enim ab honestis agi debuerunt. Quae sunt ergo illa sacra, quibus agendis tales elegit sanctitas, quales nec thymelica in se admisit obscenitas?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. On the likeness and agreement of fabulous and civil theology.

The fabulous, theatrical, stage theology, full of unworthiness and shamefulness, is thus brought back to civil theology; and this whole theology, which is rightly judged fit to be blamed and rejected, is a part of the one that is thought fit to be worshipped and observed. It is not, as I have undertaken to show, an incongruous part, foreign to the whole body and awkwardly attached and hung on to it, but entirely in harmony with it and most fittingly joined to it as a member of the same body. For what else do those images show — the forms, ages, sexes, and dress of the gods? Do the poets have a bearded Jupiter and a beardless Mercury, and the pontiffs not? Did the mimes give Priapus enormous private parts, and not the priests as well? Does he stand to be adored in the holy places otherwise than he comes forward to be laughed at in the theaters? Are old Saturn and the youthful Apollo characters of the actors in such a way that they are not also statues in the shrines? Why are Forculus, who presides over doors, and Limentinus, who presides over the threshold, male gods, while between them Cardea, who guards the hinge, is female? Are not things found in the books on divine matters which serious poets thought unworthy of their verses? Does the theatrical Diana carry arms while the city's Diana is simply a maiden? Is the stage Apollo a lyre-player while the Delphic Apollo has nothing to do with that art? But these things are respectable in comparison with more shameful ones. What did they think of Jupiter himself, who set up his nurse on the Capitol? Did they not bear witness to Euhemerus, who wrote, not with fabulous chatter but with historical diligence, that all such gods had been men and mortals? And those who set the Epulones, the gods who are Jupiter's parasites, at his table — what else did they intend than that the rites should be mimes? For if a mime had said that Jupiter's parasites were brought to his banquet, he would certainly seem to have been seeking a laugh. Varro said it! He said it not when mocking the gods but when commending them; his books on divine, not human, things testify that he wrote it, and not where he was setting out the stage games but where he was expounding the laws of the Capitol. In short, he is overcome by such things and confesses that, as men made the gods in human form, so they believed that the gods delight in human pleasures. For the malignant spirits did not fail in their business either, of confirming these harmful opinions by making sport of human minds. Hence also that story: a sacristan of Hercules, being idle and on holiday, played at dice by himself, alternating hands, assigning Hercules to one and himself to the other, on the condition that if he won, he would provide himself a dinner from the temple offerings and hire a mistress; but if the victory went to Hercules, he would provide the same out of his own money for Hercules' pleasure. Then, when he had been beaten by himself as though by Hercules, he gave the god Hercules the dinner he owed and Larentina, a most famous harlot. She, having slept in the temple, saw in a dream that Hercules had lain with her and had told her that, on leaving, she would find her payment with the first young man she met, and she should consider it paid to her by Hercules. And so as she went away, the first to meet her was a very rich young man, Tarutius, who loved her and kept her with him a long time, and died leaving her his heir. Having acquired a very large fortune, she, not to seem ungrateful for the divine payment, did what she thought most acceptable to the deities and herself made the Roman people her heir; and when she disappeared, the will was found. For these merits, they say, she even earned divine honors. If the poets invented these things, if the mimes acted them, they would no doubt be said to belong to fabulous theology and be judged fit to be separated from the dignity of civil theology. But when these disgraces are reported by so great an author as belonging not to the poets but to the peoples, not to the mimes but to the sacred rites, not to the theaters but to the temples — that is, not to fabulous but to civil theology — then it is not in vain that actors with their playful arts portray the shamefulness of the gods, which is so great; but it is plainly in vain that priests, with their so-called sacred rites, try to portray a respectability of the gods which does not exist. There are the rites of Juno, and these were celebrated in her beloved island of Samos, where she was given in marriage to Jupiter; there are the rites of Ceres, in which Proserpina, carried off by Pluto, is sought; there are the rites of Venus, in which her beloved Adonis, a most beautiful youth killed by a boar's tusk, is lamented; there are the rites of the Mother of the gods, in which the handsome young Attis, loved by her and castrated through a woman's jealousy, is mourned even by the misery of castrated men whom they call Galli. Since these things are uglier than any stage indecency, why do they strive to separate the poets' fabulous fictions about the gods, which of course belong to the theater, from civil theology, which they want to belong to the city, as though separating unworthy and shameful things from honorable and worthy ones? There is rather reason to be grateful to the actors, who spared the eyes of men and did not lay bare in their shows everything that is hidden by the walls of the sacred buildings. What good is to be thought of their rites that are covered in darkness, when those brought out into the light are so detestable? And certainly what they do in secret through castrated and effeminate men is their own affair; yet they could by no means hide those same men, unhappily and shamefully unmanned and corrupted. Let them persuade whom they can that they do anything holy through such men, whom they cannot deny are counted among their holy things and busy about them. We do not know what they do, but we know through whom they do it. For we know what is done on the stage, where no castrated or effeminate man has ever entered, even in a chorus of harlots; and yet even these things are acted by base and disreputable persons, for they ought not to be acted by respectable ones. What, then, are those sacred rites, for whose performance holiness has chosen such men as not even the obscenity of the stage has admitted?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Draws on Varro, Divine Antiquities (the Epulones, the story of Larentina). Euhemerus held that the gods had been men.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 6.7 (CSEL 40:283–287; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-6/#p-6-7).

## City of God 6.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-6/#p-6-8
- Source: CSEL 40:287–289
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine rejects the claim that allegorical 'natural' interpretations excuse the civil rites, since the same method would excuse the poets' fables that the pagans themselves condemn.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. De interpretationibus naturalium rationum, quas doctores pagani pro dis suis conantur ostendere. At enim habent ista physiologicas quasdam, sicut aiunt, id est naturalium rationum interpretationes. Quasi uero nos in hac disputatione physiologian quaerimus et non theologian, id est rationem non naturae, sed Dei. Quamuis enim qui uerus Deus est non opinione, sed natura Deus sit: non tamen omnis natura deus est, quia et hominis et pecoris, et arboris et lapidis utique natura est, quorum nihil est deus. Si autem interpretationis huius, quando agitur de sacris Matris deum, caput est certe quod Mater deum terra est, quid ultra quaerimus, quid cetera perscrutamur? Quid euidentius suffragatur eis, qui dicunt omnes istos deos homines fuisse? Sic enim sunt terrigenae, sic eis mater est terra. In uera autem theologia opus Dei est terra, non mater. Verum tamen quoquo modo sacra eius interpretentur et referant ad rerum naturam: uiros muliebria pati non est secundum naturam, sed contra naturam. Hic morbus, hoc crimen, hoc dedecus habet inter illa sacra professionem, quod in uitiosis hominum moribus uix habet inter tormenta confessionem. Deinde si ista sacra, quae scaenicis turpitudinibus conuincuntur esse foediora, hinc excusantur adque purgantur, quod habent interpretationes suas, quibus ostendantur rerum significare naturam: quur non etiam poetica similiter excusentur adque purgentur? Multi enim et ipsa ad eundem modum interpretati sunt, usque adeo ut, quod ab eis inmanissimum et infandissimum dicitur, Saturnum suos filios deuorasse, ita nonnulli interpretentur, quod longinquitas temporis, quae Saturni nomine significatur, quidquid gignit ipsa consumat, uel, sicut idem opinatur Varro, quod pertineat Saturnus ad semina, quae in terram, de qua oriuntur, iterum recidunt. Itemque alii alio modo et similiter cetera. Et tamen theologia fabulosa dicitur et cum omnibus huiusce modi interpretationibus suis reprehenditur abicitur inprobatur, nec solum a naturali, quae philosophorum est, uerum etiam ab ista ciuili, de qua agimus, quae ad urbes populosque adseritur pertinere, eo quod de dis indigna confinxerit, merito repudianda discernitur, eo nimirum consilio, ut, quoniam acutissimi homines adque doctissimi, a quibus ista conscripta sunt, ambas inprobandas intellegebant, et illam scilicet fabulosam et istam ciuilem, illam uero audebant inprobare, hanc non audebant; illam culpandam proposuerunt, hanc eius similem conparandam exposuerunt, — non ut haec prae illa tenenda eligeretur, sed ut cum illa respuenda intellegeretur, adque ita sine periculo eorum, qui ciuilem theologian reprehendere metuebant, utraque contemta ea, quam naturalem uocant, aput meliores animos inueniret locum. Nam et ciuilis et fabulosa ambae fabulosae sunt ambaeque ciuiles; ambas inueniet fabulosas, qui uanitates et obscenitates ambarum prudenter inspexerit; ambas ciuiles, qui scaenicos ludos pertinentes ad fabulosam in deorum ciuilium festiuitatibus et in urbium diuinis rebus aduerterit. Quo modo igitur uitae aeternae dandae potestas cuiquam deorum istorum tribuitur, quos sua simulacra et sacra conuincunt dis fabulosis apertissime reprobatis esse simillimos formis aetatibus, sexu habitu, coniugiis generationibus ritibus, in quibus omnibus aut homines fuisse intelleguntur et pro uniuscuiusque uita uel morte sacra eis et sollemnia constituta, hunc errorem insinuantibus firmantibusque daemonibus, aut certe ex qualibet occasione inmundissimi spiritus fallendis humanis mentibus inrepsisse?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. On the interpretations by natural explanations which pagan teachers attempt to give for their gods.

But, they say, these things have certain physiological interpretations, as they call them, that is, interpretations by natural explanations. As if in this discussion we were seeking physiology and not theology, that is, an account not of nature but of God! For although he who is the true God is God not by opinion but by nature, yet not every nature is God; for there is certainly a nature of man and of beast, of tree and of stone, and none of these is God. But if, when the rites of the Mother of the gods are in question, the chief point of this interpretation is certainly that the Mother of the gods is the earth, what more do we seek, why do we examine the rest? What more clearly supports those who say that all these gods were men? For thus they are earth-born; thus the earth is their mother. But in true theology the earth is God's work, not his mother. Yet however they interpret her rites and refer them to the nature of things, for men to be used as women is not according to nature but against nature. This disease, this crime, this disgrace is openly professed in those rites, when among the vicious habits of men it can hardly be confessed even under torture. Further, if these rites, which are shown to be fouler than the indecencies of the stage, are excused and cleansed on the ground that they have interpretations of their own, by which they are shown to signify the nature of things, why should not the poetic fictions likewise be excused and cleansed? For many have interpreted these too in the same way, so far that the thing they call most monstrous and most unspeakable, that Saturn devoured his own sons, some interpret as meaning that length of time, which is signified by the name of Saturn, consumes whatever it begets; or, as the same Varro thinks, that Saturn has to do with seeds, which fall back again into the earth from which they spring. And others interpret it in another way, and the rest likewise. And yet it is called fabulous theology, and with all its interpretations of this kind it is blamed, rejected, and disapproved; and not only by natural theology, which belongs to the philosophers, but also by this civil theology we are discussing, which is claimed to belong to cities and peoples, it is set apart as rightly to be repudiated, because it has invented things unworthy of the gods. Their plan, surely, was this. The most acute and most learned men who wrote these things understood that both were to be disapproved, the fabulous and the civil; but they dared to disapprove the fabulous and did not dare to disapprove the civil. So they set out the one to be blamed, and exhibited the other, which resembles it, to be compared with it — not so that the civil might be chosen and held in preference to the fabulous, but so that it might be understood to be fit for rejection along with it. And so, without danger to those who were afraid to censure civil theology, both would be despised, and the theology they call natural would find a place in better minds. For the civil and the fabulous are both fabulous and both civil. Whoever wisely examines the vanities and obscenities of both will find both fabulous; whoever notices that the stage games belonging to the fabulous are part of the festivals of the civil gods and of the divine rites of the cities will find both civil. How, then, is the power of giving eternal life attributed to any of these gods, whose images and rites prove them to be most like the fabulous gods, so openly rejected — in forms, ages, sex, dress, marriages, generations, and rites? In all these things they are understood either to have been men, for whose life or death rites and solemnities were instituted, with demons insinuating and confirming this error; or at least to be most unclean spirits who crept in on some occasion or other to deceive human minds.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Varro's interpretation of Saturn is from the Divine Antiquities. The passage on the Galli (“for men to be used as women”) is translated plainly, as Augustine wrote it.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 6.8 (CSEL 40:287–289; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-6/#p-6-8).

## City of God 6.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-6/#p-6-9
- Source: CSEL 40:289–294
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine ridicules the minute division of divine functions — the gods of childbirth and of the wedding night — and concludes that Varro, by exposing civil theology, meant to leave room only for natural theology.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. De officiis singulorum deorum. Quid? ipsa numinum officia tam uiliter minutatimque concisa, propter quod eis dicunt pro uniuscuiusque proprio munere supplicari oportere, unde non quidem omnia, sed multa iam diximus, nonne scurrilitati mimicae quam diuinae consonant dignitati? Si duas quisquam nutrices adhiberet infanti, quarum una nihil nisi escam, altera nihil nisi potum daret, sicut isti ad hoc duas adhibuerunt deas, Educam et Potinam, nempe desipere et aliquid mimo simile in sua domo agere uideretur. Liberum a liberamento appellatum uolunt, quod mares in coeundo per eius beneficium emissis seminibus liberentur; hoc idem in feminis agere Liberam, quam etiam Venerem putant, quod et ipsam perhibeant semina emittere; et ob haec Libero eandem uirilem corporis partem in templo poni, femineam Liberae. Ad haec addunt mulieres adtributas Libero et uinum propter libidinem concitandam. Sic Bacchanalia summa celebrabantur insania; ubi Varro ipse confitetur a Bacchantibus talia fieri non potuisse nisi mente commota. Haec tamen postea displicuerunt senatui saniori, et ea iussit auferri. Saltem hic tandem forsitan senserunt quid inmundi spiritus, dum pro dis habentur, in hominum mentibus possint. Haec certe non fierent in theatris; ludunt quippe ibi, non furiunt; quamuis deos habere, qui etiam ludis talibus delectentur, simile sit furoris. Quale autem illud est, quod, cum religiosum a superstitioso ea distinctione discernat, ut a superstitioso dicat timeri deos, a religioso autem tantum uereri ut parentes, non ut hostes timeri, adque omnes ita bonos dicat, ut facilius sit eos nocentibus parcere quam laedere quemquam innocentem, tamen mulieri fetae post partum tres deos custodes commemorat adhiberi, ne Siluanus deus per noctem ingrediatur et uexet, eorumque custodum significandorum causa tres homines noctu: circuire limina domus et primo limen securi ferire, postea pilo, tertio deuerrere scopis, ut his datis culturae signis deus Siluanus prohibeatur intrare, quod neque arbores caeduntur ac putantur sine ferro, neque far conficitur sine pilo, neque fruges coaceruantur sine scopis; ab his autem tribus rebus tres nuncupatos deos, Intercidonam a securis intercisione, Pilumnum a pilo, Deuerram a scopis, quibus dis custodibus contra uim dei Siluani feta conseruaretur. Ita contra dei nocentis saeuitiam non ualeret custodia bonorum, nisi plures essent aduersus unum eique aspero horrendo inculto, utpote siluestri, signis culturae tamquam contrariis repugnarent. Itane ista est innocentia deorum, ista concordia? Haeccine sunt numina salubria urbium, magis ridenda quam ludibria theatrorum? Cum mas et femina coniunguntur, adhibetur deus Iugatinus; sit hoc ferendum. Sed domum est ducenda quae nubit; adhibetur et deus Domiducus; ut in domo sit, adhibetur deus Domitius; ut maneat cum uiro, additur dea Manturna. Quid ultra quaeritur? Parcatur humanae uerecundiae; peragat cetera concupiscentia carnis et sanguinis procurato secreto pudoris. Quid inpletur cubiculum turba numinum, quando et paranymphi inde discedunt? Et ad hoc inpletur, non ut eorum praesentia cogitata maior sit cura pudicitiae, sed ut feminae sexu infirmae, nouitate pauidae illis cooperantibus sine ulla difficultate uirginitas auferatur. Adest enim dea Virginiensis et deus pater Subigus, et dea mater Prema et dea Pertunda, et Venus et Priapus. Quid est hoc? Si omnino laborantem in illo opere uirum ab dis adiuuari oportebat, non sufficeret aliquis unus aut aliqua una? Numquid Venus sola parum esset, quae ad hoc etiam dicitur nuncupata, quod sine ui femina uirgo esse non desinat? Si est ulla frons in hominibus, quae non est in numinibus, nonne, cum credunt coniugati tot deos utriusque sexus esse praesentes et huic operi instantes, ita pudore adficiuntur, ut et ille minus moueatur et illa plus reluctetur? Et certe si adest Virginiensis dea, ut uirgini zona soluatur; si adest deus Subigus, ut uiro subigatur; si adest dea Prema, ut subacta, ne se commoueat, conprimatur: dea Pertunda ibi quid facit? Erubescat, eat foras; agat aliquid et maritus. Valde inhonestum est, ut, quod uocatur illa, quisquam inpleat nisi ille. Sed forte ideo toleratur, quia dea dicitur esse, non deus. Nam si masculus crederetur et Pertundus uocaretur, maius contra eum pro uxoris pudicitia posceret maritus auxilium quam feta contra Siluanum. Sed quid hoc dicam, cum ibi sit et Priapus nimius masculus, super cuius inmanissimum et turpissimum fascinum sedere noua nupta iubebatur, more honestissimo et religiosissimo matronarum? Eant adhuc et theologian ciuilem a theologia fabulosa, urbes a theatris, templa ab scaenis, sacra pontificum a carminibus poetarum, uelut res honestas a turpibus, ueraces a fallacibus, graues a leuibus, serias a ludicris, adpetendas a respuendis, qua possunt quasi conentur subtilitate discernere. Intellegimus quid agant; illam theatricam et fabulosam theologian ab ista ciuili pendere nouerunt et ei de carminibus poetarum tamquam de speculo resultare, et ideo ista exposita, quam damnare non audent, illam eius imaginem liberius arguunt et reprehendunt, ut, qui agnoscunt quid uelint, et hanc ipsam faciem, cuius illa imago est, detestentur; quam tamen di ipsi tamquam in eodem speculo se intuentes ita diligunt, ut qui qualesque sint in utraque melius uideantur. Unde etiam cultores suos terribilibus imperiis conpulerunt, ut inmunditiam theologiae fabulosae sibi dicarent, in suis sollemnitatibus ponerent, in rebus diuinis haberent, adque ita et se ipsos inmundissimos spiritus manifestius esse docuerunt, et huius urbanae theologiae uelut electae et probatae illam theatricam abiectam adque reprobatam membrum partemque fecerunt, ut, cum sit uniuersa turpis et fallax adque in se contineat commenticios deos, una pars eius sit in litteris sacerdotum, altera in carminibus poetarum. Utrum habeat et alias partes, alia quaestio est: nunc propter diuisionem Varronis et urbanam et theatricam theologian ad unam ciuilem pertinere satis, ut opinor, ostendi. Unde, quia sunt ambae similis turpitudinis absurditatis, indignitatis falsitatis, absit a ueris religiosis, ut siue ab hac siue ab illa uita speretur aeterna. Denique et ipse Varro commemorare et enumerare deos coepit a conceptione hominis, quorum numerum est exorsus a Iano, eamque seriem perduxit usque ad decrepiti hominis mortem, et deos ad ipsum hominem pertinentes clausit ad Neniam deam, quae in funeribus senum cantatur; deinde coepit deos alios ostendere, qui pertinerent non ad ipsum hominem, sed ad ea, quae sunt hominis, sicuti est uictus adque uestitus et quaecumque alia huic uitae sunt necessaria, ostendens in omnibus, quod sit cuiusque munus et propter quid cuique debeat supplicari; in qua uniuersa diligentia nullos demonstrauit uel nominauit deos, a quibus uita aeterna poscenda sit, propter quam unam proprie nos Christiani sumus. Quis ergo usque adeo tardus sit, ut non intellegat istum hominem ciuilem theologian tam diligenter exponendo et aperiendo eamque illi fabulosae, indignae adque probrosae, similem demonstrando adque ipsam fabulosam partem esse huius satis euidenter docendo non nisi illi naturali, quam dicit ad philosophos pertinere, in animis hominum moliri locum, ea subtilitate, ut fabulosam reprehendat, ciuilem uero reprehendere quidem non audeat, sed prodendo reprehensibilem ostendat, adque ita utraque iudicio recte intellegentium reprobata sola naturalis remaneat eligenda? De qua suo loco in adiutorio Dei ueri diligentius disserendum est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. On the duties of the individual gods.

What then? Do not these very duties of the deities, so cheaply cut up into little pieces — for which reason they say that each should be entreated for his own special function, about which we have already said much, though not everything — suit a mime's buffoonery rather than divine dignity? If anyone engaged two nurses for an infant, one of whom gave nothing but food and the other nothing but drink, as these men engaged two goddesses, Educa and Potina, for this purpose, he would surely seem to be out of his mind and to be acting something like a mime in his own house. They want Liber to be named from liberation, because by his favor males in intercourse are liberated by the emission of seed; and they say that Libera, whom they also consider to be Venus, does the same for women, because they say that women too emit seed; and for this reason the male member is placed in the temple for Liber, and the female for Libera. To these things they add women assigned to Liber, and wine, for arousing lust. Thus the Bacchanalia were celebrated with the utmost madness; and there Varro himself confesses that such things could not have been done by the Bacchants except with their minds deranged. These things, however, afterwards displeased a saner senate, and it ordered them abolished. Here at least, perhaps, they at last perceived what unclean spirits can do in the minds of men while they are taken for gods. Such things certainly would not be done in the theaters; for there they play, they do not rave — although to have gods who delight even in such plays is close to madness. But what of this? Varro distinguishes the religious man from the superstitious by saying that the gods are feared by the superstitious man, but by the religious man only revered as parents, not feared as enemies; and he says that they are all so good that it is easier for them to spare the guilty than to harm anyone innocent. Yet he records that three gods are brought in as guardians for a woman after childbirth, so that the god Silvanus may not come in by night and trouble her; and to represent these guardians three men go round the thresholds of the house at night, and first strike the threshold with an axe, then with a pestle, and thirdly sweep it with brooms, so that by these signs of cultivation the god Silvanus may be prevented from entering, since trees are not cut and pruned without iron, nor is spelt ground without a pestle, nor is grain heaped up without brooms. From these three things three gods are named: Intercidona from the cutting (intercisio) of the axe, Pilumnus from the pestle (pilum), Deverra from the brooms (deverrere, to sweep); by these guardian gods the mother would be protected against the violence of the god Silvanus. So the guardianship of good gods would not avail against the cruelty of a harmful god unless they were several against one, and unless they fought against him, rough, horrid, uncultivated as he is, being a god of the woods, with the signs of cultivation as with things opposed to him. Is this the innocence of the gods, this their harmony? Are these the saving deities of cities, more laughable than the farces of the theaters? When male and female are united, the god Jugatinus is brought in; let that be tolerated. But she who marries must be led home; the god Domiducus is brought in too; that she may be in the house, the god Domitius is brought in; that she may stay with her husband, the goddess Manturna is added. What more is sought? Let human modesty be spared; let the desire of flesh and blood accomplish the rest, the privacy of shame having been secured. Why is the bedchamber filled with a crowd of deities, when even the groomsmen leave it? And it is filled not so that the thought of their presence may increase concern for chastity, but so that the woman, weak by sex and fearful from the newness of it, may with their cooperation lose her virginity without any difficulty. For there are present the goddess Virginensis, and the god father Subigus, and the goddess mother Prema, and the goddess Pertunda, and Venus and Priapus. What is this? If the man laboring at that task had to be helped by the gods at all, would not some one god or some one goddess suffice? Would Venus alone be too little, who is even said to be named for this, that without force (vis) a woman does not cease to be a virgin? If there is any shame in men, which there is not in the deities, would not married couples, believing that so many gods of both sexes are present and intent on this work, be so affected by shame that he would be less aroused and she would resist more? And certainly, if the goddess Virginensis is there to loosen the virgin's girdle, if the god Subigus is there that she may be subdued to the man, if the goddess Prema is there that, once subdued, she may be held down so as not to move, what is the goddess Pertunda doing there? Let her blush and go outside; let the husband too do something. It is most indecent that anyone but he should accomplish what her name signifies. But perhaps she is tolerated because she is said to be a goddess and not a god. For if she were believed to be male and were called Pertundus, the husband would call for more help against him for his wife's chastity than the new mother against Silvanus. But why do I say this, when Priapus too is there, all too male, on whose most huge and most shameful phallus the new bride was ordered to sit, according to the most respectable and most religious custom of matrons? Let them go on, then, and try with what subtlety they can to distinguish civil theology from fabulous theology, cities from theaters, temples from stages, the rites of the pontiffs from the poems of the poets, as honorable things from shameful, truthful from false, grave from light, serious from playful, things to be sought from things to be rejected. We understand what they are doing. They know that the theatrical and fabulous theology hangs on the civil and is reflected from it in the poems of the poets as from a mirror; and therefore, having set out the civil, which they do not dare to condemn, they more freely accuse and censure its image, so that those who recognize what they mean may detest also the very face of which that is the image. Yet the gods themselves, looking at themselves as in the same mirror, love it so much that who and what they are is better seen in both. Hence they also compelled their worshippers by terrible commands to dedicate the uncleanness of fabulous theology to them, to set it in their solemnities, to hold it among divine things. Thus they both showed themselves more plainly to be most unclean spirits, and made that rejected and disapproved theatrical theology a member and part of this urban theology, as though the latter were chosen and approved; so that, while the whole is shameful and deceitful and contains fictitious gods, one part of it is in the books of the priests, the other in the poems of the poets. Whether it has other parts too is another question; for now, following Varro's division, I have shown sufficiently, I think, that both the urban and the theatrical theology belong to the one civil theology. Therefore, since both are of like shamefulness, absurdity, unworthiness, and falsehood, far be it from truly religious men to hope for eternal life from either the one or the other. Finally, Varro himself began to record and enumerate the gods from the conception of a man, beginning their number with Janus; and he carried the series right up to the death of a man in decrepit old age, and closed the list of gods pertaining to man himself with the goddess Nenia, who is sung at the funerals of old people. Then he began to show other gods, who pertain not to man himself but to what belongs to man, such as food and clothing and whatever else is necessary for this life, showing in all cases what is the function of each and for what each should be entreated. In all this diligence he pointed out or named no gods from whom eternal life is to be asked — the one thing for which, properly speaking, we are Christians. Who, then, is so slow as not to understand what this man was doing? By expounding and laying open civil theology so diligently, by showing it to be like that unworthy and disgraceful fabulous theology, and by teaching clearly enough that the fabulous is a part of the civil, he was working to make room in men's minds only for the natural theology, which he says belongs to the philosophers. He did it with such subtlety that he censures the fabulous, and does not dare to censure the civil, yet shows it to be censurable by disclosing it; and so, both being rejected by the judgment of those who rightly understand, the natural alone would remain to be chosen. Of this, with the help of the true God, we must speak more carefully in its place.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- From Varro, Divine Antiquities (the gods of childbirth, marriage, and the life of man, from Janus to Nenia). The deities of the wedding night are translated plainly, without softening Augustine's ridicule. The etymologies (Intercidona, Pilumnus, Deverra; Venus from vis) are Varro's or Augustine's.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 6.9 (CSEL 40:289–294; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-6/#p-6-9).

## City of God 6.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-6/#p-6-10
- Source: CSEL 40:294–298
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine quotes Seneca's lost treatise Against Superstitions, which mocked the civil cults more boldly than Varro, but faults Seneca for still practicing what he condemned.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. De libertate Senecae, qui uehementius ciuilem theologian reprehendit quam Varro fabulosam. Libertas sane, quae huic defuit, ne istam urbanam theologian [tam diligenter exponendo] theatricae simillimam aperte sicut illam reprehendere auderet, Annaeo Senecae, quem nonnullis indiciis inuenimus apostolorum nostrorum claruisse temporibus, non quidem ex toto, uerum ex aliqua parte non defuit. Adfuit enim scribenti, uiuenti defuit. Nam in eo libro, quem contra superstitiones condidit, multo copiosius adque uehementius reprehendit ipse ciuilem istam et urbanam theologian quam Varro theatricam adque fabulosam. Cum enim de simulacris ageret: Sacros, inquit, inmortales, inuiolabiles in materia uilissima adque inmobili dedicant, habitus illis hominum ferarumque et piscium, quidam uero mixto sexu, diuersis corporibus induunt; numina uocant, quae si spiritu accepto subito occurrerent, monstra haberentur. Deinde aliquanto post, cum theologian naturalem praedicans quorundam philosophorum sententias digessisset, obposuit sibi quaestionem et ait: Hoc loco dicit aliquis: Credam ego caelum et terram deos esse et supra lunam alios, infra alios? Ego feram aut Platonem aut Peripateticum Stratonem, quorum alter fecit deum sine corpore, alter sine animo? Et ad hoc respondens: Quid ergo tandem, inquit, ueriora tibi uidentur Titi Tatii aut Romuli aut Tulli Hostilii somnia? Cloacinam Tatius dedicauit deam, Picum Tiberinumque Romulus, Hostilius Pauorem adque Pallorem, taeterrimos omnium adfectus, quorum alter mentis territae motus est, alter corporis ne morbus quidem, sed color. Haec numina potius credes et caelo recipies? De ipsis uero ritibus crudeliter turpibus quam libere scripsit! Ille, inquit, uiriles sibi partes amputat, ille lacertos secat. Ubi iratos deos timent, qui sic propitios merentur? Di autem nullo debent coli genere, si hoc uolunt. Tantus est perturbatae mentis et sedibus suis pulsae furor, ut sic di placentur, quem ad modum ne quidem homines saeuiunt taeterrimi et in fabulas traditae crudelitatis. Tyranni lacerauerunt aliquorum membra, neminem sua lacerare iusserunt. In regiae libidinis uoluptatem castrati sunt quidam; sed nemo sibi, ne uir esset, iubente domino manus intulit. Se ipsi in templis contrucidant, uulneribus suis ac sanguine supplicant. Si cui intueri uacet, quae faciunt quaeque patiuntur, inueniet tam indecora honestis, tam indigna liberis, tam dissimilia sanis, ut nemo fuerit dubitaturus furere eos, si cum paucioribus furerent; nunc sanitatis patrocinium est insanientium turba. Iam illa, quae in ipso Capitolio fieri solere commemorat et intrepide omnino coarguit, quis credat nisi ab inridentibus aut furentibus fieri? Nam cum in sacris Aegyptiis Osirim lugeri perditum, mox autem inuentum magno esse gaudio derisisset, cum perditio eius inuentioque fingatur, dolor tamen ille adque laetitia ab eis, qui nihil perdiderunt nihilque inuenerunt, ueraciter exprimatur: Huic tamen, inquit, furori certum tempus est. Tolerabile est semel anno insanire. In Capitolium perueni: pudebit publicatae dementiae, quod sibi uanus furor adtribuit officii. Alius nomina deo subicit, alius horas Ioui nuntiat, alius lector est, alius unctor, qui uano motu bracchiorum imitatur unguentem. Sunt quae Iunoni ac Mineruae capillos disponant (longe a templo, non tantum a simulacro stantes digitos mouent ornantium modo), sunt quae speculum teneant; sunt qui ad uadimonia sua deos aduocent, sunt qui libellos offerant et illos causam suam doceant. Doctus archimimus, senex iam decrepitus, cottidie in Capitolio mimum agebat, quasi di libenter spectarent, quem illi homines desierant. Omne illic artificum genus operatum dis inmortalibus desidet. Et paulo post: Hi tamen, inquit, etiamsi superuacuum usum, non turpem nec infamem deo promittunt. Sedent quaedam in Capitolio, quae se a Ioue amari putant: ne Iunonis quidem, si credere poetis uelis, iracundissimae respectu terrentur. Hanc libertatem Varro non habuit; tantum modo poeticam theologian reprehendere ausus est, ciuilem non ausus est, quam iste concidit. Sed si uerum adtendamus, deteriora sunt templa ubi haec aguntur, quam theatra ubi finguntur. Unde in his sacris ciuilis theologiae has partes potius elegit Seneca sapienti, ut eas in animi religione non habeat, sed in actibus fingat. Ait enim: Quae omnia sapiens seruabit tamquam legibus iussa, non tamquam dis grata. Et paulo post: Quid quod et matrimonia, inquit, deorum iungimus, et ne pie quidem, fratrum ac sororum! Bellonam Marti conlocamus, Vulcano Venerem, Neptuno Salaciam. Quosdam tamen caelibes relinquimus, quasi condicio defecerit, praesertim cum quaedam uiduae sint, ut Populonia uel Fulgora et diua Rumina; quibus non miror petitorem defuisse. Omnem istam ignobilem deorum turbam, quam longo aeuo longa superstitio congessit, sic, inquit, adorabimus, ut meminerimus cultum eius magis ad morem quam ad rem pertinere. Nec leges ergo illae nec mos in ciuili theologia id instituerunt, quod dis gratum esset uel ad rem pertineret. Sed iste, quem philosophi quasi liberum fecerunt, tamen, quia inlustris populi Romani senator erat, colebat quod reprehendebat, agebat quod arguebat, quod culpabat adorabat; quia uidelicet magnum aliquid eum philosophia docuerat, ne superstitiosus esset in mundo, sed propter leges ciuium moresque hominum non quidem ageret fingentem scaenicum in theatro, sed imitaretur in templo; eo damnabilius, quo illa, quae mendaciter agebat, sic ageret, ut eum populus ueraciter agere existimaret; scaenicus autem ludendo potius delectaret, quam fallendo deciperet.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. On the freedom of Seneca, who censured civil theology more vehemently than Varro censured the fabulous.

The freedom which Varro lacked, so that he did not dare to censure this urban theology openly, though it is most like the theatrical, as he censured the theatrical, was not lacking — not wholly, but in some measure — to Annaeus Seneca, who, as we find from some indications, flourished in the times of our apostles. It was present to him as a writer; it was absent from him in his life. For in the book he wrote against superstitions he censured this civil and urban theology much more fully and vehemently than Varro censured the theatrical and fabulous. When he was dealing with images, he says: “They dedicate the sacred, immortal, inviolable gods in the cheapest and lifeless material; they clothe them with the shapes of men, of wild beasts, and of fishes, and some with mixed sex and differing bodies; they call them deities, which, if they received breath and suddenly met us, would be held to be monsters.” Then somewhat later, after commending natural theology and setting out the opinions of certain philosophers, he put a question to himself and said: “Here someone says: Shall I believe that the sky and the earth are gods, and that some are above the moon and some below it? Shall I bear either Plato or the Peripatetic Strato, one of whom made God without a body, the other without a mind?” And in answer to this he says: “Well then, do the dreams of Titus Tatius or Romulus or Tullus Hostilius seem truer to you? Tatius dedicated the goddess Cloacina; Romulus, Picus and Tiberinus; Hostilius, Fear and Pallor, the foulest of human feelings, one of which is a movement of a terrified mind, the other not even a disease of the body but a color. Will you rather believe these to be deities and receive them into heaven?” And how freely he wrote of the cruelly shameful rites themselves! “One man,” he says, “cuts off his male parts; another slashes his arms. How do they fear the gods when angry, who win their favor like this? Gods ought not to be worshipped in any way at all if they want this. So great is the frenzy of a mind disturbed and driven from its seat that the gods are appeased in a way in which not even the foulest men rage, men whose cruelty has passed into legend. Tyrants have mangled the limbs of some; they ordered no one to mangle his own. Some have been castrated for the pleasure of royal lust; but no one, at a master's order, laid hands on himself to cease to be a man. They slaughter themselves in the temples; they make supplication with their own wounds and blood. If anyone has leisure to observe what they do and what they suffer, he will find things so unbecoming to respectable men, so unworthy of free men, so unlike the sane, that no one would doubt they were mad if they were mad with fewer people; as it is, the crowd of the insane is their warrant of sanity.” And then the things he records as commonly done on the Capitol itself, and fearlessly exposes — who would believe they are done except by mockers or madmen? For he had derided the Egyptian rites, in which Osiris is mourned as lost and soon found with great joy — since his loss and finding are a fiction, yet that grief and gladness are genuinely expressed by people who have lost nothing and found nothing. “Yet this madness,” he says, “has a fixed time. It is tolerable to be mad once a year. Go to the Capitol: you will be ashamed of the madness on display, of the duties that an empty frenzy has assigned itself. One tells the names of worshippers to the god, another announces the hours to Jupiter; one is a bather, another an anointer, who with empty movement of his arms imitates one anointing. There are women who arrange the hair of Juno and Minerva (standing far off, not only from the image but from the temple, they move their fingers like hairdressers); there are those who hold a mirror; there are men who summon the gods to stand surety for them in court, men who present petitions and explain their case to them. A learned chief mime, now a decrepit old man, used to perform a mime daily on the Capitol, as if the gods would gladly watch one whom men had stopped watching. Every kind of craftsman sits there idle, working for the immortal gods.” And shortly after: “Yet these,” he says, “though they promise the god a superfluous service, do not promise a shameful or infamous one. Certain women sit on the Capitol who think they are loved by Jupiter; they are not frightened even by regard for Juno, who, if you will believe the poets, is most wrathful.” Varro did not have this freedom. He dared to censure only poetic theology; he did not dare to censure the civil, which Seneca cut to pieces. But if we attend to the truth, the temples where these things are done are worse than the theaters where they are feigned. Hence, in these rites of civil theology, Seneca chose for the wise man this role: not to hold them in the religion of his mind, but to feign them in his acts. For he says: “All these things the wise man will observe as commanded by the laws, not as pleasing to the gods.” And shortly after: “What of the fact,” he says, “that we even join the gods in marriage, and not even piously, brothers with sisters? We marry Bellona to Mars, Venus to Vulcan, Salacia to Neptune. Some, however, we leave unmarried, as if no match could be found, especially since some are widows, like Populonia or Fulgora and the goddess Rumina; I do not wonder that no suitor came for them. All this ignoble crowd of gods, which a long superstition has piled up over a long age, we shall adore,” he says, “in such a way as to remember that its worship pertains more to custom than to reality.” So neither those laws nor custom established in civil theology what was pleasing to the gods or pertained to reality. But this man, whom philosophy made, as it were, free, nevertheless, because he was a distinguished senator of the Roman people, worshipped what he censured, did what he refuted, adored what he blamed. Philosophy had evidently taught him something great: not to be superstitious in the world, but, for the sake of the laws of the citizens and the customs of men, not indeed to play the part of an actor in the theater, but to imitate one in the temple. He was all the more damnable, in that he performed falsely the things he performed in such a way that the people thought he performed them sincerely; whereas the actor would rather delight by playing than deceive by lying.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Seneca, De superstitione (Seneca): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Seneca, De superstitione (lost; known chiefly from this chapter). The editor deletes “tam diligenter exponendo” after “theologian”. Augustine's remark that Seneca lived in the apostles' time alludes to the tradition of a correspondence between Seneca and Paul.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 6.10 (CSEL 40:294–298; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-6/#p-6-10).

## City of God 6.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-6/#p-6-11
- Source: CSEL 40:298
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reports Seneca's scorn for the Jewish sabbath and his grudging admission that the Jews knew the reasons for their rites, and defers the question of the Jewish rites to another place.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. Quid de Iudaeis Seneca senserit. Hic inter alias ciuilis theologiae superstitiones reprehendit etiam sacramenta Iudaeorum et maxime sabbata, inutiliter eos facere adfirmans, quod per illos singulos septem interpositos dies septimam fere partem aetatis suae perdant uacando et multa in tempore urgentia non agendo laedantur. Christianos tamen iam tunc Iudaeis inimicissimos in neutram partem commemorare ausus est, ne uel laudaret contra suae patriae ueterem consuetudinem, uel reprehenderet contra propriam forsitan uoluntatem. De illis sane Iudaeis cum loqueretur, ait: Cum interim usque eo sceleratissimae gentis consuetudo conualuit, ut per omnes iam terras recepta sit: uicti uictoribus leges dederunt. Mirabatur haec dicens et quid diuinitus ageretur ignorans subiecit plane sententiam, qua significaret quid de illorum sacramentorum ratione sentiret. Ait enim: Illi tamen causas ritus sui nouerunt; maior pars populi facit, quod quur faciat ignorat). Sed de sacramentis Iudaeorum, uel quur uel quatenus instituta sint auctoritate diuina, ac post modum a populo Dei, cui uitae aeternae mysterium reuelatum est, tempore quo oportuit eadem auctoritate sublata sint, et alias diximus, maxime cum aduersus Manichaeos ageremus, et in hoc opere loco opportuniore dicendum est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. What Seneca thought about the Jews.

Among the other superstitions of civil theology, Seneca also censures the sacred rites of the Jews, and especially their sabbaths, declaring that they act unprofitably, because by those seventh days coming at intervals they lose almost a seventh part of their life in idleness, and suffer loss by not doing many urgent things in their time. The Christians, however, who were already then most hostile to the Jews, he did not dare to mention either way, lest he either praise them against the ancient custom of his own country, or censure them against, perhaps, his own will. When he spoke of those Jews, he said: “Meanwhile the custom of this most criminal nation has gained such strength that it is now received through all lands: the conquered have given laws to the conquerors.” He marveled as he said this, and, not knowing what was being done by divine providence, he added a statement that plainly showed what he thought of the reason for their sacred rites. For he says: “They, however, know the reasons for their rite; the greater part of the people does what it does not know why it does.” But about the sacred rites of the Jews — why and how far they were instituted by divine authority, and how afterwards, at the proper time, they were taken away by the same authority from the people of God, to whom the mystery of eternal life has been revealed — we have spoken elsewhere, especially when we were dealing with the Manichaeans, and we must speak of it in this work in a more suitable place.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Seneca, De superstitione (Seneca): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Seneca, De superstitione. Seneca's hostile language about the Jews (“most criminal nation”) is his own, quoted by Augustine. The work against the Manichaeans is probably Against Faustus.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 6.11 (CSEL 40:298; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-6/#p-6-11).

## City of God 6.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-6-12
- Source: CSEL 40:298–300
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine concludes that since the gods of civil theology cannot give happiness, they cannot give eternal life, which is happiness without end.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. Quod gentilium deorum uanitate detecta nequeat dubitari aeternam eos uitam nemini posse praestare, qui nec ipsam adiuuent temporalem. Nunc propter tres theologias, quas Graeci dicunt mythicen physicen politicen, Latine autem dici possunt fabulosa naturalis ciuilis, quod neque de fabulosa, quam et ipsi deorum multorum falsorumque cultores liberrime reprehenderunt, neque de ciuili, cuius illa pars esse conuincitur eiusque et ista simillima uel etiam deterior inuenitur, speranda est aeterna uita, si cui satis non sunt quae in hoc uolumine dicta sunt, adiungat etiam illa, quae in superioribus libris et maxime quarto de felicitatis datore Deo plurima disputata sunt. Nam cui nisi uni felicitati propter aeternam uitam consecrandi homines essent, si dea felicitas esset? Quia uero non dea, sed munus est dei: cui deo nisi datori felicitatis consecrandi sumus, qui aeternam uitam, ubi uera est et plena felicitas, pia caritate diligimus? Non autem esse datorem felicitatis quemquam istorum deorum, qui tanta turpitudine coluntur et, nisi ita colantur, multo turpius irascuntur adque ob hoc se spiritus inmundissimos confitentur, puto ex his, quae dicta sunt, neminem dubitare oportere. Porro qui non dat felicitatem, uitam quo modo dare posset aeternam? Eam quippe uitam aeternam dicimus, ubi est sine fine felicitas. Nam si anima in poenis uiuit aeternis, quibus et ipsi spiritus cruciabuntur inmundi, mors est illa potius aeterna quam uita. Nulla quippe maior et peior est mors, quam ubi non moritur mors. Sed quod animae natura, per id quod inmortalis creata est, sine qualicumque uita esse non potest, summa mors eius est alienatio a uita Dei in aeternitate supplicii. Vitam igitur aeternam, id est sine ullo fine felicem, solus ille dat, qui dat ueram felicitatem. Quam quoniam illi, quos colit theologia ista ciuilis, dare non posse conuicti sunt: non solum propter ista temporalia adque terrena, quod superioribus quinque libris ostendimus, sed multo magis propter uitam aeternam, quae post mortem futura est, quod isto uno etiam illis cooperantibus egimus, colendi non sunt. Sed quoniam ueternosae consuetudinis uis nimis in alto radices habet, si cui de ista ciuili theologia respuenda adque uitanda parum uideor disputasse, in aliud uolumen, quod huic opitulante Deo coniungendum est, animum intendat.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. That once the vanity of the gods of the nations has been exposed, it cannot be doubted that they can give eternal life to no one, since they do not help even with this temporal life.

There are three theologies, which the Greeks call mythical, physical, and political, and which in Latin may be called fabulous, natural, and civil. Eternal life is not to be hoped for from the fabulous, which even the worshippers of the many false gods have themselves censured most freely, nor from the civil, of which the fabulous is shown to be a part, and to which the civil is found to be most similar or even worse. If what has been said in this volume is not enough for anyone, let him add also what was argued at length in the preceding books, and especially in the fourth, about God as the giver of happiness. For to whom but to Felicity alone should men consecrate themselves for the sake of eternal life, if Felicity were a goddess? But since she is not a goddess but a gift of God, to what God should we be consecrated but to the giver of happiness, we who love with devout charity the eternal life in which there is true and full happiness? And that none of these gods is the giver of happiness — gods who are worshipped with such shamefulness and who, if they are not so worshipped, grow angry far more shamefully, and thereby confess themselves to be most unclean spirits — I think no one ought to doubt, from what has been said. Moreover, how could one who does not give happiness give eternal life? For we call that life eternal in which there is happiness without end. For if the soul lives in eternal punishments, with which the unclean spirits themselves too will be tormented, that is eternal death rather than life. For there is no greater and no worse death than where death does not die. But since the nature of the soul, being created immortal, cannot exist without some kind of life, its supreme death is estrangement from the life of God in an eternity of punishment. Eternal life, then, that is, life happy without any end, is given only by him who gives true happiness. Since it has been proved that those whom this civil theology worships cannot give it, they are not to be worshipped — not only for the sake of these temporal and earthly things, as we showed in the five preceding books, but much more for the sake of the eternal life that is to come after death, as we have argued in this one book, with those others also lending support. But since the force of inveterate custom has its roots too deep, if anyone thinks I have argued too little about rejecting and avoiding this civil theology, let him turn his attention to another volume, which, with God's help, is to be joined to this one.

### Translation notes

- The reference is to City of God 4.18–25 on Felicity. On eternal punishment as “eternal death”, compare Book 13.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 6.12 (CSEL 40:298–300; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-6-12).

## City of God 7.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-7-1
- Source: CSEL 40:300–302
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine turns to Varro's 'select gods' to see whether they, unlike the lesser gods of civil theology, can give eternal life.

### Latin text

CAPUT I. An cum in theologia ciuili deitatem non esse constiterit, in selectis dis eam inueniri posse credendum sit. Hanc diuinitatem uel, ut sic dixerim, deitatem (nam et hoc uerbo uti iam nostros non piget, ut de Graeco expressius transferant quod illi θεότητα appellant) — hanc ergo diuinitatem siue deitatem non esse in ea theologia, quam ciuilem uocant, quae a Marco Varrone sedecim uoluminibus explicata est, id est non perueniri ad aeternae uitae felicitatem talium deorum cultu, quales a ciuitatibus qualiterque colendi instituti sunt, cui nondum persuasit sextus liber, quem proxime absoluimus, cum istum forsitan legerit, quid de hac quaestione expedienda ulterius desideret, non habebit. Fieri enim potest, ut saltem deos selectos adque praecipuos, quos Varro uolumine conplexus est ultimo, de quibus parum diximus, quisquam colendos propter uitam beatam, quae non nisi aeterna est, opinetur. Qua in re non dico quod facetius ait Tertullianus fortasse quam uerius: Si di eliguntur ut bulbi, utique ceteri reprobi iudicantur. Non hoc dico: uideo enim etiam ex selectis selegi aliquos ad aliquid maius adque praestantius, sicut in militia, cum tirones electi fuerint, ex his quoque eliguntur ad opus aliquod maius armorum; et cum eliguntur in ecclesia, qui fiant praepositi, non utique ceteri reprobantur, cum omnes boni fideles electi merito nuncupentur. Eliguntur in aedificio lapides angulares, non reprobatis ceteris, qui structurae partibus aliis deputantur. Eliguntur uuae ad uescendum, nec reprobantur aliae, quas relinquimus ad bibendum. Non opus est multa percurrere, cum res in aperto sit. Quam ob rem non ex hoc, quod di ex multis quidam selecti sunt, uel is qui scripsit uel eorum cultores uel di ipsi uituperandi sunt, sed aduertendum potius quinam isti sint et ad quam rem selecti uideantur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. Whether, since it has been established that deity is not to be found in civil theology, we should believe that it can be found in the select gods.

This divinity, or, so to speak, deity — for our writers no longer hesitate to use this word too, so as to translate more exactly from the Greek what they call theotēs — this divinity or deity, I say, is not in the theology they call civil, which Marcus Varro set out in sixteen volumes; that is, the happiness of eternal life is not reached by the worship of such gods, and in such a way, as the cities established. Whoever has not yet been persuaded of this by the sixth book, which we have just finished, will perhaps, when he has read this one, have nothing further to wish for in settling this question. For it may be that someone thinks that at least the select and principal gods, whom Varro covered in his last volume and about whom we have said little, should be worshipped for the sake of the happy life, which is none other than eternal. On this point I do not say what Tertullian said, perhaps more wittily than truly: “If gods are selected like onions, then surely the rest are judged rejects.” I do not say this; for I see that even from among the selected some are selected for something greater and more excellent. So in the army, when recruits have been chosen, from these again some are chosen for some greater work of arms; and when those are chosen in the church who are to become its leaders, the rest are certainly not rejected, since all good believers are rightly called chosen. In a building cornerstones are chosen, without rejecting the other stones, which are assigned to other parts of the structure. Grapes are chosen for eating, and the others, which we leave for drinking, are not rejected. There is no need to run through many examples, since the matter is plain. Therefore neither the writer, nor their worshippers, nor the gods themselves are to be blamed because some gods were selected out of many; rather, we must consider who these gods are and for what purpose they seem to have been selected.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Tertullian, Nat. 2.9 (To the Nations): quotation, high confidence
- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The Greek word, garbled in the digital text, is θεότης (“deity”). Tertullian's jest is from To the Nations 2.9.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.1 (CSEL 40:300–302; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-7-1).

## City of God 7.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-7-2
- Source: CSEL 40:302–303
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine lists Varro's twenty select gods and notes that they are found busy at the same petty tasks as the obscure gods, some of whom give more important gifts.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. Qui sint di selecti, et an ab officiis uiliorum deorum habeantur excepti. Hos certe deos selectos Varro unius libri contextione commendat: Ianum, Iouem, Saturnum, Genium, Mercurium, Apollinem, Martem, Vulcanum, Neptunum, Solem, Orcum, Liberum patrem, Tellurem, Cererem, Iunonem, Lunam, Dianam, Mineruam, Venerem, Vestam; in quibus omnibus ferme uiginti duodecim mares, octo sunt feminae. Haec numina utrum propter maiores in mundo administrationes selecta dicuntur, an quod populis magis innotuerunt maiorque est eis cultus exhibitus? Si propterea, quia opera maiora ab his administrantur in mundo, non eos inuenire debuimus inter illam quasi plebeiam numinum multitudinem minutis opusculis deputatam. Nam ipse primum Ianus, cum puerperium concipitur, unde illa cuncta opera sumunt exordium minutatim minutis distributa numinibus, aditum aperit recipiendo semini. Ibi est et Saturnus propter ipsum semen; ibi Liber, qui marem effuso semine liberat; ibi Libera, quam et Venerem uolunt, quae hoc idem beneficium conferat feminae, ut etiam ipsa emisso semine liberetur. Omnes hi ex illis sunt, qui selecti appellantur. Sed ibi est et dea Mena, quae menstruis fluoribus praeest, quamuis Iouis filia, tamen ignobilis. Et hanc prouinciam fluorum menstruorum in libro selectorum deorum ipsi Iunoni idem auctor adsignat, quae in dis selectis etiam regina est et hic tamquam Iuno Lucina cum eadem Mena priuigna sua eidem cruori praesidet. Ibi sunt et duo nescio qui obscurissimi, Vitumnus et Sentinus, quorum alter uitam, alter sensus puerperio largiuntur. Et nimirum multo plus praestant, cum sint ignobilissimi, quam illi tot proceres et selecti. Nam profecto sine uita et sensu, quid est illud totum, quod muliebri utero geritur, nisi nescio quid abiectissimum limo ac pulueri conparandum?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. Who the select gods are, and whether they are held to be exempt from the duties of the lesser gods.

Varro certainly commends these as select gods in the course of a single book: Janus, Jupiter, Saturn, Genius, Mercury, Apollo, Mars, Vulcan, Neptune, Sol, Orcus, Father Liber, Tellus, Ceres, Juno, Luna, Diana, Minerva, Venus, Vesta. Of all these, about twenty in all, twelve are male and eight female. Are these deities called select because of their greater administrations in the world, or because they became better known to the peoples and greater worship was paid to them? If it is because greater works are administered by them in the world, we ought not to have found them among that plebeian crowd, as it were, of deities assigned to tiny little tasks. For Janus himself first of all, when an offspring is conceived — the point from which all those works take their beginning, distributed piece by piece among little deities — opens the way for receiving the seed. There too is Saturn, for the seed itself; there is Liber, who liberates the male when the seed is emitted; there is Libera, whom they also take to be Venus, who confers the same benefit on the woman, that she too may be liberated by the emission of seed. All these are among those who are called select. But there too is the goddess Mena, who presides over the menstrual flow — a daughter of Jupiter, yet undistinguished. And in the book on the select gods the same author assigns this province of the menstrual flow to Juno herself, who is even queen among the select gods; and here, as Juno Lucina, she presides over the same blood together with this same Mena, her stepdaughter. There too are two very obscure gods, I know not who, Vitumnus and Sentinus, one of whom bestows life on the offspring and the other senses. And surely they supply much more, though they are most undistinguished, than all those many nobles and select gods. For without life and sense, what is all that which is carried in a woman's womb but some most abject thing, to be compared with mud and dust?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- From Varro, Divine Antiquities, book 16 (the select gods).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.2 (CSEL 40:302–303; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-7-2).

## City of God 7.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-7-3
- Source: CSEL 40:303–307
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that the select gods were not chosen for greater functions, since obscure gods give life and sense while the select ones share petty tasks, so their selection seems a matter of mere fortune.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. Quam nulla sit ratio, quae de selectione quorundam deorum possit ostendi, cum multis inferioribus excellentior administratio deputetur. Quae igitur causa tot selectos deos ad haec opera minima conpulit, ubi a Vitumno et Sentino, quos fama obscura recondit, in huius munificentiae partitione superentur? Confert enim selectus Ianus aditum et quasi ianuam semini; confert selectus Saturnus semen ipsum; confert selectus Liber eiusdem seminis emissionem uiris; confert hoc idem Libera, quae Ceres seu Venus est, feminis; confert selecta Iuno, et hoc non sola, sed cum Mena, filia Iouis, fluores menstruos ad eius, quod conceptum est, incrementum: et confert Vitumnus obscurus et ignobilis uitam; confert Sentinus obscurus et ignobilis sensum; quae duo tanto illis rebus praestantiora sunt, quanto et ipsa intellectu ac ratione uincuntur. Sicut enim, quae ratiocinantur et intellegunt, profecto potiora sunt his, quae sine intellectu adque ratione ut pecora uiuunt et sentiunt: ita et illa, quae uita sensuque sunt praedita, his, quae nec uiuunt nec sentiunt, merito praeferuntur. Inter selectos itaque deos Vitumnus uiuificator et Sentinus sensificator magis haberi debuerunt quam Ianus seminis admissor et Saturnus seminis dator uel sator et Liber et Libera seminum commotores uel emissores; quae semina cogitare indignum est, nisi ad uitam sensumque peruenerint, quae munera selecta non dantur a dis selectis, sed a quibusdam incognitis et prae istorum dignitate neglectis. Quod si respondetur omnium initiorum potestatem habere Ianum et ideo illi etiam quod aperitur conceptui non inmerito adtribui, et omnium seminum Saturnum et ideo seminationem quoque hominis non posse ab eius operatione seiungi, omnium seminum emittendorum Liberum et Liberam et ideo his etiam praeesse, quae ad substituendos homines pertinent, omnium purgandorum et pariendorum Iunonem et ideo eam non deesse purgationibus feminarum et partubus hominum: quaerant quid respondeant de Vitumno et Sentino, utrum et ipsos uelint habere omnium quae uiuunt et sentiunt potestatem. Quod si concedunt, adtendant quam eos sublimius locaturi sint. Nam seminibus nasci in terra et ex terra est; uiuere autem adque sentire etiam deos sidereos opinantur. Si autem dicunt Vitumno adque Sentino haec sola adtributa, quae in carne uiuescunt et sensibus adminiculantur, quur non deus ille, qui facit omnia uiuere adque sentire, etiam carni uitam praebet et sensum, uniuersali opere hoc munus etiam partubus tribuens? et quid opus est Vitumno adque Sentino? Quod si ab illo, qui uitae ac sensibus uniuersaliter praesidet, his quasi famulis ista carnalia uelut extrema et ima commissa sunt: itane sunt illi selecti destituti familia, ut non inuenirent quibus etiam ipsi ista committerent, sed cum tota sua nobilitate, qua uisi sunt seligendi, opus facere cum ignobilibus cogerentur? Iuno selecta et regina Iouisque et soror et coniunx; haec tamen Iterduca est pueris et opus facit cum deabus ignobilissimis Abeona et Adeona. Ibi posuerunt et Mentem deam, quae faciat pueris bonam mentem, et inter selectos ista non ponitur, quasi quidquam maius praestari homini potest; ponitur autem Iuno, quia Iterduca est et Domiduca, quasi quidquam prosit iter carpere et domum duci, si mens non est bona, cuius muneris deam selectores isti inter selecta numina minime posuerunt. Quae profecto et Mineruae fuerat praeferenda, cui per ista minuta opera puerorum memoriam tribuerunt. Quis enim dubitet multo esse melius habere bonam mentem quam memoriam quantumlibet ingentem? Nemo enim malus est, qui bonam habet mentem; quidam uero pessimi memoria sunt mirabili, tanto peiores quanto minus possunt quod male cogitant obliuisci. Et tamen Minerua est inter selectos deos; Mentem autem deam turba uilis operuit. Quid de Virtute dicam? quid de Felicitate? de quibus in quarto libro plura iam diximus; quas cum deas haberent, nullum eis locum inter selectos deos dare uoluerunt, ubi dederunt Marti et Orco, uni effectori mortium alteri receptori. Cum igitur in his minutis operibus, quae minutatim dis pluribus distributa sunt, etiam ipsos selectos uideamus tamquam senatum cum plebe pariter operari, et inueniamus a quibusdam dis, qui nequaquam seligendi putati sunt, multa maiora adque meliora administrari quam ab illis, qui selecti uocantur: restat arbitrari non propter praestantiores in mundo administrationes, sed quia prouenit eis, ut magis populis innotescerent, selectos eos et praecipuos nuncupatos. Unde dicit etiam ipse Varro, quod dis quibusdam patribus et deabus matribus, sicut hominibus, ignobilitas accidisset. Si ergo Felicitas ideo fortasse inter selectos deos esse non debuit, quod ad istam nobilitatem non merito, sed fortuito peruenerunt: saltem inter illos uel potius prae illis Fortuna poneretur, quam dicunt deam non rationabili dispositione, sed ut temere acciderit, sua cuique dona conferre. Haec in dis selectis tenere apicem debuit, in quibus maxime quid posset ostendit; quando eos uidemus non praecipua uirtute, non rationabili felicitate, sed temeraria, sicut eorum cultores de illa sentiunt, Fortunae potestate selectos. Nam et uir disertissimus Sallustius etiam ipsos deos fortassis adtendit, cum diceret: Sed profecto fortuna in omni re dominatur; ea res cunctas ex libidine magis quam ex uero celebrat obscuratque. Non enim possunt inuenire causam, quur celebrata sit Venus et obscurata sit Virtus, cum ambarum ab istis consecrata sint numina nec conparanda sint merita. Aut si hoc nobilitari meruit, quod plures adpetunt, plures enim Venerem quam Virtutem: quur celebrata est dea Minerua et obscurata est dea Pecunia? cum in genere humano plures adliciat auaritia quam peritia, et in eis ipsis, qui sunt artificiosi, raro inuenias hominem, qui non habeat artem suam pecuniaria mercede uenalem, plurisque pendatur semper propter quod aliquid fit, quam id quod propter aliud fit. Si ergo insipientis iudicio multitudinis facta est deorum ista selectio, quur dea Pecunia Mineruae praelata non est, cum propter pecuniam sint artifices multi? Si autem paucorum sapientium est ista distinctio, quur non praelata est Veneri Virtus, cum eam longe praeferat ratio? Saltem certe, ut dixi, ipsa Fortuna, quae, sicut putant qui ei plurimum tribuunt, in omni re dominatur et res cunctas ex libidine magis quam ex uero celebrat obscuratque, si tantum et in deos ualuit, ut temerario iudicio suo quos uellet celebraret obscuraretque quos uellet, praecipuum locum haberet in selectis, quae in ipsos quoque deos tam praecipuae est potestatis. An ut illic esse non posset, nihil aliud etiam ipsa Fortuna nisi aduersam putanda est habuisse fortunam? Sibi ergo aduersata est, quae alios nobiles faciens nobilitata non est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. That no reason can be shown for the selection of certain gods, since a more excellent administration is assigned to many inferior ones.

What reason, then, compelled so many select gods to these very small works, where in the distribution of this bounty they are surpassed by Vitumnus and Sentinus, whom obscure repute hides away? For the select Janus supplies the entrance and, as it were, the door (ianua) for the seed; the select Saturn supplies the seed itself; the select Liber supplies to men the emission of this same seed; Libera, who is Ceres or Venus, supplies the same to women; the select Juno supplies — and not alone, but with Mena, the daughter of Jupiter — the menstrual flow for the growth of what has been conceived. And obscure and undistinguished Vitumnus supplies life; obscure and undistinguished Sentinus supplies sense — two things which are as much more excellent than those others as they are themselves surpassed by understanding and reason. For as beings that reason and understand are certainly superior to those that live and feel like cattle, without understanding and reason, so those endowed with life and sense are rightly preferred to those that neither live nor feel. Among the select gods, therefore, Vitumnus the life-giver and Sentinus the sense-giver ought rather to have been counted than Janus the admitter of the seed, and Saturn the giver or sower of the seed, and Liber and Libera the movers or emitters of the seed. It is unworthy even to think of these seeds unless they attain life and sense; and these select gifts are given not by the select gods but by certain unknown ones, neglected in comparison with the dignity of the others. If it is answered that Janus has power over all beginnings, and that therefore the opening for conception is not undeservedly attributed to him; that Saturn has power over all seeds, and that therefore the sowing of man too cannot be separated from his working; that Liber and Libera have power over the emission of all seeds, and that therefore they also preside over what pertains to the propagation of men; that Juno has power over all purifications and births, and that therefore she is not absent from the purifications of women and the births of human beings — then let them look for an answer about Vitumnus and Sentinus: do they wish these too to have power over all things that live and feel? If they grant this, let them notice how much higher they will be placing them. For to be born from seeds is on the earth and from the earth; but living and feeling they think belong even to the gods of the stars. But if they say that to Vitumnus and Sentinus only those things are attributed which come alive in the flesh and are supported by the senses, why does not the god who makes all things live and feel give life and sense to the flesh as well, bestowing this gift on offspring too by his universal work? And what need is there of Vitumnus and Sentinus? But if these fleshly things were entrusted to them as to servants, as the lowest and last of things, by him who presides universally over life and the senses, are those select gods so destitute of household servants that they could not find any to whom they too might entrust these things, but, with all their nobility for which they were thought worth selecting, were compelled to work alongside the undistinguished? Juno is select, and queen, and sister and wife of Jupiter; yet she is Iterduca, the guide on the way, for children, and works with the most undistinguished goddesses Abeona and Adeona. There they have also placed the goddess Mens, who gives children a good mind; and she is not placed among the select, as if anything greater could be given to a man. But Juno is placed there because she is Iterduca and Domiduca — as if it were of any use to take a journey and be led home, if the mind is not good; yet the goddess of that gift these selectors did not place among the select deities at all. She certainly ought to have been preferred even to Minerva, to whom, among these tiny works, they attributed the memory of children. For who would doubt that it is much better to have a good mind than a memory however vast? For no one is bad who has a good mind; but some of the worst men have a wonderful memory, and are all the worse the less they can forget what they wickedly plan. And yet Minerva is among the select gods, while the goddess Mens is buried in the common crowd. What shall I say of Virtue? What of Felicity? About them we have already said much in the fourth book. Though they held them to be goddesses, they would not give them any place among the select gods, where they gave one to Mars and Orcus, the one the maker of deaths, the other their receiver. Since, then, in these tiny works, distributed piece by piece among many gods, we see even the select gods working together with the plebeians like a senate with the common people, and find that many greater and better things are administered by certain gods who were by no means thought worth selecting than by those called select, it remains to judge that they were called select and principal not because of more excellent administrations in the world, but because it happened to them that they became better known to the peoples. Hence Varro himself says that obscurity had befallen certain father gods and mother goddesses, as it befalls men. If, then, Felicity perhaps ought not to have been among the select gods because they attained this nobility not by merit but by chance, at least Fortune should have been placed among them, or rather before them — Fortune, the goddess who, they say, confers her gifts on each not by rational arrangement but as chance falls out. She ought to have held the summit among the select gods, since in them above all she showed what she could do; for we see them selected not for pre-eminent virtue, nor for rational happiness, but by the reckless power of Fortune, as their worshippers think of her. For the most eloquent Sallust too was perhaps thinking of the gods themselves when he said: “But truly Fortune rules in everything; it is she who makes all things famous or obscure from caprice rather than according to truth.” For they cannot find a reason why Venus was made famous and Virtue obscure, when the deities of both were consecrated by them and their merits are not to be compared. Or if what deserved to be made famous is what more people desire — for more desire Venus than Virtue — why was the goddess Minerva made famous and the goddess Pecunia (Money) obscure? For among mankind avarice attracts more people than skill, and even among those who are skilled you would rarely find a man who does not hold his art for sale for a money payment; and that for the sake of which something is done is always valued more than what is done for the sake of something else. If, then, this selection of gods was made by the judgment of the foolish multitude, why was the goddess Pecunia not preferred to Minerva, since many are craftsmen for the sake of money? But if this distinction belongs to the wise few, why was Virtue not preferred to Venus, since reason prefers her by far? At least certainly, as I said, Fortune herself — who, as those think who ascribe most to her, rules in everything and makes all things famous or obscure from caprice rather than according to truth — if she had such power even over the gods that by her reckless judgment she made famous whom she would and obscure whom she would, ought to have had the chief place among the select, since she has such pre-eminent power over the gods themselves. Or are we to think that Fortune herself could not be there only because she too had bad fortune? Then she was her own adversary, since she made others noble and was not ennobled herself.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sallust, Cat. 8.1 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence
- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Sallust, Catiline 8.1. Draws on Varro, Divine Antiquities, book 16; the reference to book 4 is to City of God 4.18–25.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.3 (CSEL 40:303–307; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-7-3).

## City of God 7.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-7-4
- Source: CSEL 40:307–308
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine observes that the obscure gods escaped the scandalous stories told of the select gods, and that even blameless Janus was given a monstrous two- or four-faced image.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. Melius actum cum dis inferioribus, qui nullis infamentur obprobriis, quam cum selectis, quorum tantae turpitudines celebrentur. Gratularetur autem dis istis selectis quisquam nobilitatis et claritudinis adpetitor et eos diceret fortunatos, si non eos magis ad iniurias quam ad honores selectos uideret. Nam illam infimam turbam ipsa ignobilitas texit, ne obrueretur obprobriis. Ridemus quidem, cum eos uidemus figmentis humanarum opinionum partitis inter se operibus distributos, tamquam minuscularios uectigalium conductores uel tamquam opifices in uico argentario, ubi unum uasculum, ut perfectum exeat, per multos artifices transit, cum ab uno perfecto perfici posset. Sed aliter non putatum est operantium multitudini consulendum, nisi ut singulas artis partes cito ac facile discerent singuli, ne omnes in arte una tarde ac difficile cogerentur esse perfecti. Verum tamen uix quisquam reperitur deorum non selectorum, qui aliquo crimine famam traxit infamem; uix autem selectorum quispiam, qui non in se notam contumeliae insignis acceperit. Illi ad istorum humilia opera descenderunt, isti in illorum sublimia crimina non uenerunt. De Iano quidem non mihi facile quidquam occurrit, quod ad probrum pertineat. Et fortasse talis fuerit, innocentius uixerit et a facinoribus flagitiisque remotius. Saturnum fugientem benignus excepit; cum hospite partitus est regnum, ut etiam ciuitates singulas conderent, iste Ianiculum, ille Saturniam. Sed isti in cultu deorum omnis dedecoris adpetitores, cuius uitam minus turpem inuenerunt, eum simulacri monstrosa deformitate turparunt, nunc eum bifrontem, nunc etiam quadrifrontem, tamquam geminum, facientes. An forte uoluerunt, ut, quoniam plurimi di selecti erubescenda perpetrando amiserant frontem, quanto iste innocentior esset, tanto frontosior appareret?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. That the lower gods, who are defamed by no disgraces, have fared better than the select gods, whose great indecencies are celebrated.

Someone eager for nobility and renown might congratulate these select gods and call them fortunate, if he did not see that they were selected for insults rather than honors. For obscurity itself has covered that lowest crowd, so that it was not buried under disgraces. We laugh, indeed, when we see them, by the fictions of human opinion, distributed among works divided up among them, like petty tax-farmers, or like craftsmen in the silversmiths' street, where one little vessel, in order to come out finished, passes through many craftsmen, though it could be finished by one finished craftsman. But it was thought that the multitude of workers could not be provided for otherwise than by each learning single parts of the art quickly and easily, so that all should not be compelled to become perfect in one art slowly and with difficulty. Yet hardly any of the unselected gods is found who has incurred infamy by some crime, but hardly any of the select who has not received on himself the brand of notable disgrace. The select gods came down to the lowly works of the others; the others did not come up to the lofty crimes of the select. About Janus, indeed, nothing readily occurs to me that pertains to disgrace. And perhaps he was such a one, lived more innocently, and was further removed from crimes and outrages. He kindly received Saturn when he was fleeing; he shared his kingdom with his guest, so that they even founded separate cities, Janus the Janiculum, Saturn Saturnia. But these men, eager for every disgrace in the worship of the gods, disgraced him whose life they found less shameful by the monstrous deformity of his image, making him now two-faced, now even four-faced, as though twinned. Or perhaps they wished that, since most of the select gods had lost their foreheads (their shame) by committing shameful deeds, Janus should appear the more fronted the more innocent he was?

### Translation notes

- The closing jest plays on frons, “forehead,” used for shame or modesty: to lose one's forehead is to become shameless.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.4 (CSEL 40:307–308; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-7-4).

## City of God 7.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-7-5
- Source: CSEL 40:308–311
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reports Varro's claim that the images of the gods symbolize the world-soul and its parts, and argues that even this natural theology reaches only the soul, not the God who made the soul.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. De paganorum secretiore doctrina physicisque rationibus. Sed ipsorum potius interpretationes physicas audiamus, quibus turpitudinem miserrimi erroris uelut altioris doctrinae specie colorare conantur. Primum eas interpretationes sic Varro commendat, ut dicat antiquos simulacra deorum et insignia ornatusque finxisse, quae cum oculis animaduertissent hi, qui adissent doctrinae mysteria, possent animam mundi ac partes eius, id est deos ueros, animo uidere; quorum qui simulacra specie hominis fecerunt, hoc uideri secutos, quod mortalium animus, qui est in corpore humano, simillimus est inmortalis animi; tamquam si uasa ponerentur causa notandorum deorum et in Liberi aede oenophorum sisteretur, quod significaret uinum, per id quod continet id quod continetur; ita per simulacrum, quod formam haberet humanam, significari animam rationalem, quod eo uelut uase natura ista soleat contineri, cuius naturae deum uolunt esse uel deos. Haec sunt mysteria doctrinae, quae iste uir doctissimus penetrauerat, unde in lucem ista proferret. Sed, o homo acutissime, num in istis doctrinae mysteriis illam prudentiam perdidisti, qua tibi sobrie uisum est, quod hi, qui primi populis simulacra constituerunt, et metum demserunt ciuibus suis et errorem addiderunt, castiusque deos sine simulacris ueteres obseruasse Romanos? Hi enim tibi fuerunt auctores, ut haec contra posteriores Romanos dicere auderes. Nam si et illi antiquissimi simulacra coluissent, fortassis totum istum sensum de simulacris non constituendis, interim uerum, timoris silentio premeres et in huiusce modi perniciosis uanisque figmentis mysteria ista doctrinae loquacius et elatius praedicares. Anima tua tamen tam docta et ingeniosa (ubi te multum dolemus) per haec mysteria doctrinae ad Deum suum, id est a quo facta est, non cum quo facta est; nec cuius portio, sed cuius conditio est; nec qui est omnium anima, sed qui fecit omnem animam, quo solo inlustrante anima fit beata, si eius gratiae non sit ingrata, nullo modo potuit peruenire. Verum ista mysteria doctrinae qualia sint quantique pendenda, quae sequuntur ostendent. Fatetur interim uir iste doctissimus animam mundi ac partes eius esse ueros deos; unde intellegitur totam eius theologian, eam ipsam scilicet naturalem, cui plurimum tribuit, usque ad animae rationalis naturam se extendere potuisse. De naturali enim paucissima praeloquitur in hoc libro, quem de dis selectis ultimum scripsit; in quo uidebimus utrum per interpretationes physiologicas possit ad hanc naturalem referre ciuilem. Quod si potuerit, tota naturalis erit: et quid opus erat ab ea ciuilem tanta cura distinctionis abiungere? Si autem recto discrimine separata est: quando nec ista uera est quae illi naturalis placet (peruenit enim usque ad animam, non usque ad uerum Deum qui fecit et animam), quanto est abiectior et falsior ista ciuilis, quae maxime circa corporum est occupata naturam, sicut ipsae interpretationes eius, ex quibus quaedam necessaria commemorare me oportet, tanta ab ipsis exquisitae et enucleatae diligentia demonstrabunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. On the more secret doctrine of the pagans, and on their natural explanations.

But let us rather hear their natural interpretations, by which they try to color the shamefulness of a most wretched error with the appearance of a loftier doctrine. First, Varro commends these interpretations by saying that the ancients made images of the gods, and their emblems and adornments, so that those who had approached the mysteries of the doctrine, seeing them with their eyes, might see with the mind the soul of the world and its parts, that is, the true gods. Those who made their images in human form, he says, seem to have done so because the mortal soul which is in the human body is most like the immortal soul; as if vessels were set up to mark the gods, and a wine jar were placed in the temple of Liber to signify wine, the container signifying what is contained. So by an image having human form the rational soul is signified, because that nature is usually contained in the human form as in a vessel, and of this nature they wish God, or the gods, to be. These are the mysteries of doctrine which this most learned man had penetrated, from which he brought these things into the light. But, O most acute man, did you lose in these mysteries of doctrine that prudence by which it seemed to you, soberly, that those who first set up images for the peoples both took away fear from their citizens and added error, and that the ancient Romans worshipped the gods more chastely without images? For they were your authorities, so that you dared to say these things against the later Romans. For if those most ancient Romans too had worshipped images, perhaps you would have suppressed with the silence of fear that whole opinion about not setting up images, true as it is, and would have proclaimed more loquaciously and loftily these mysteries of doctrine in pernicious and empty fictions of this kind. Yet your soul, so learned and so gifted (and here we grieve much for you), could by no means reach through these mysteries of doctrine to its God — that is, to him by whom it was made, not with whom it was made; not him of whom it is a portion, but him of whom it is the creation; not him who is the soul of all things, but him who made every soul, by whose light alone the soul becomes happy, if it is not ungrateful for his grace. But what these mysteries of doctrine are, and how much they are worth, what follows will show. Meanwhile this most learned man confesses that the soul of the world and its parts are the true gods. From this it is understood that his whole theology — that is, the natural theology itself, to which he ascribes most — could extend only as far as the nature of the rational soul. For he says very little by way of preface about natural theology in this book on the select gods, the last he wrote; in it we shall see whether he can refer the civil theology to this natural one by physiological interpretations. If he can, the whole will be natural; and what need was there to separate the civil from it with such careful distinction? But if it was separated by a right distinction, then, since not even the natural theology that pleases him is true (for it reaches only as far as the soul, not as far as the true God, who made the soul too), how much more abject and false is this civil theology, which is chiefly occupied with the nature of bodies, as its interpretations themselves — some of which I must necessarily mention — will show, sought out and elucidated by them with such diligence.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- From Varro, Divine Antiquities, book 16; Varro's praise of the early Romans' imageless worship was quoted in City of God 4.31.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.5 (CSEL 40:308–311; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-7-5).

## City of God 7.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-7-6
- Source: CSEL 40:311–312
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine summarizes Varro's natural theology: God is the world-soul, and the parts of the world are full of souls — stars as gods, and aerial heroes, lares, and genii.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. De opinione Varronis, qua arbitratus est Deum animam esse mundi, qui tamen in partibus suis habeat animas multas, quarum diuina natura sit. Dicit ergo idem Varro adhuc de naturali theologia praeloquens deum se arbitrari esse animam mundi, quem Graeci uocant κόσμον, et hunc ipsum mundum esse deum; sed sicut hominem sapientem, cum sit ex corpore et animo, tamen ab animo dici sapientem, ita mundum deum dici ab animo, cum sit ex animo et corpore. Hic uidetur quoquo modo unum confiteri Deum; sed ut plures etiam introducat, adiungit mundum diuidi in duas partes, caelum et terram; et caelum bifariam, in aethera et aera; terram uero in aquam et humum; e quibus summum esse aethera, secundum aera, tertiam aquam, infimam terram; quas omnes partes quattuor animarum esse plenas, in aethere et aere inmortalium, in aqua et terra mortalium. Ab summo autem circuitu caeli ad circulum lunae aetherias animas esse astra ac stellas; eos caelestes deos non modo intellegi esse, sed etiam uideri; inter lunae uero gyrum et nimborum ac uentorum cacumina aerias esse animas, sed eas animo, non oculis uideri et uocari heroas et lares et genios. Haec est uidelicet breuiter in ista praelocutione proposita theologia naturalis, quae non huic tantum, sed multis philosophis placuit; de qua tunc diligentius disserendum est, cum de ciuili, quantum ad deos selectos adtinet, opitulante Deo uero quod restat inpleuero.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. On Varro's opinion that God is the soul of the world, which nevertheless has in its parts many souls whose nature is divine.

The same Varro, then, still speaking by way of preface about natural theology, says that he thinks God is the soul of the world, which the Greeks call kosmos, and that this world itself is God; but that, as a wise man, though he consists of body and mind, is nevertheless called wise from his mind, so the world is called God from its soul, though it consists of soul and body. Here he seems in some fashion to confess one God; but to bring in many as well, he adds that the world is divided into two parts, heaven and earth; heaven into two, ether and air; and earth into water and land. Of these the ether is highest, the air second, water third, earth lowest. All these four parts are full of souls: immortal ones in the ether and air, mortal ones in water and earth. From the highest circuit of heaven to the circle of the moon, the ethereal souls are the stars and planets; these are not only understood to be heavenly gods but are also seen to be. Between the orbit of the moon and the tops of the clouds and winds are the aerial souls; but these are seen with the mind, not with the eyes, and are called heroes and lares and genii. This, briefly set out in that preface, is the natural theology that pleased not only this man but many philosophers. It must be discussed more carefully when, with the help of the true God, I have completed what remains concerning the civil theology, as far as the select gods are concerned.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- From the preface of Varro, Divine Antiquities, book 16. The Greek word, garbled in the digital text, is κόσμον (“world”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.6 (CSEL 40:311–312; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-7-6).

## City of God 7.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-7-7
- Source: CSEL 40:312–313
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that if Janus is the world, he should have ends as well as beginnings, making a separate god Terminus absurd.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. An rationabile fuerit Ianum et Terminum in duo numina separari. Ianus igitur, a quo sumsit exordium, quaero quisnam sit. Respondetur: Mundus est. Breuis haec plane est adque aperta responsio. Quur ergo ad eum dicuntur rerum initia pertinere, fines uero ad alterum, quem Terminum uocant? Nam propter initia et fines duobus istis dis duos menses perhibent dedicatos praeter illos decem, quibus usque ad Decembrem caput est Martius, Ianuarium Iano, Februarium Termino. Ideo Terminalia eodem mense Februario celebrari dicunt, cum fit sacrum purgatorium, quod uocant Februm, unde mensis nomen accepit. Numquid ergo ad mundum, qui Ianus est, initia rerum pertinent et fines non pertinent, ut alter illis deus praeficeretur? Nonne omnia, quae in hoc mundo fieri dicunt, in hoc etiam mundo terminari fatentur? Quae est ista uanitas, in opere illi dare potestatem dimidiam, in simulacro faciem duplam? Nonne istum bifrontem multo elegantius interpretarentur, si eundem et Ianum et Terminum dicerent adque initiis unam faciem, finibus alteram darent? quoniam qui operatur utrumque debet intendere; in omni enim motu actionis suae qui non respicit initium non prospicit finem. Unde necesse est a memoria respiciente prospiciens conectatur intentio; nam cui exciderit quod coeperit, quo modo finiat non inueniet. Quod si uitam beatam in hoc mundo inchoari putarent, extra mundum perfici, et ideo Iano, id est mundo, solam initiorum tribuerent potestatem: profecto ei praeponerent Terminum eumque ab dis selectis non alienarent. Quamquam etiam nunc cum in istis duobus dis initia rerum temporalium finesque tractantur, Termino dari debuit plus honoris. Maior enim laetitia est, cum res quaeque perficitur; sollicitudinis autem plena sunt coepta, donec perducantur ad finem, quem qui aliquid incipit maxime adpetit intendit, expectat exoptat, nec de re inchoata, nisi terminetur, exultat.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. Whether it was reasonable to separate Janus and Terminus into two deities.

Janus, then, with whom he began — I ask who he is. The answer is: he is the world. This is certainly a brief and plain answer. Why, then, are the beginnings of things said to belong to him, but the ends to another, whom they call Terminus? For they say that, on account of beginnings and ends, two months were dedicated to these two gods besides those ten of which March is the head, up to December: January to Janus, February to Terminus. That is why they say the Terminalia are celebrated in the same month of February, when the purifying rite is performed which they call Februum, from which the month took its name. Do the beginnings of things, then, belong to the world, which is Janus, and not the ends, so that another god had to be set over them? Do they not confess that all the things they say come to be in this world also come to an end in this world? What folly is this, to give him half the power in his work and a double face in his image? Would they not interpret this two-faced god much more elegantly if they said that the same god is both Janus and Terminus, and gave one face to beginnings and the other to ends? For he who works must attend to both; in every movement of his action, he who does not look back to the beginning does not look forward to the end. Hence the intention that looks forward must be joined to the memory that looks back; for he who has forgotten what he began will not find how to finish it. But if they thought that the happy life begins in this world and is perfected outside it, and for that reason attributed to Janus, that is, to the world, only the power over beginnings, they would surely have put Terminus before him and would not have excluded him from the select gods. Though even now, when the beginnings and ends of temporal things are dealt with in these two gods, more honor ought to have been given to Terminus. For there is greater joy when any undertaking is completed; things begun are full of anxiety until they are brought to their end, which whoever begins anything most desires, aims at, waits for, and longs for; nor does he rejoice over a thing begun unless it is brought to an end.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.7 (CSEL 40:312–313; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-7-7).

## City of God 7.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-7-8
- Source: CSEL 40:313–314
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine mocks the interpretation of two-faced Janus as the open mouth and of four-faced Janus as the four quarters, ending with Christ's word 'I am the door.'

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. Ob quam causam cultores Iani bifrontem imaginem ipsius finxerint, quam tamen etiam quadrifrontem uideri uolunt. Sed iam bifrontis simulacri interpretatio proferatur. Duas eum facies ante et retro habere dicunt, quod hiatus noster, cum os aperimus, mundo similis uideatur; unde et palatum Graeci οὐρανόν appellant, et nonnulli, inquit, poetae Latini caelum uocauerunt palatum, a quo hiatu oris et foras esse aditum ad dentes uersus et introrsus ad fauces. Ecce quo perductus est mundus propter palati nostri uocabulum uel Graecum uel poeticum. Quid autem hoc ad animam, quid ad uitam aeternam? Propter solas saliuas colatur hic deus, quibus partim glutiendis partim spuendis sub caelo palati utraque panditur ianua. Quid est porro absurdius, quam in ipso mundo non inuenire duas ianuas ex aduerso sitas, per quas uel admittat ad se aliquid intro uel emittat a se foras, et de nostro ore et gutture, quorum similitudinem mundus non habet, uelle mundi simulacrum conponere in Iano propter solum palatum, cuius similitudinem Ianus non habet? Cum uero eum faciunt quadrifrontem et Ianum geminum appellant, ad quattuor mundi partes hoc interpretantur, quasi aliquid spectet mundus foras sicut per omnes facies Ianus. Deinde si Ianus est mundus et mundus quattuor partibus constat, falsum est simulacrum Iani bifrontis; aut si propterea uerum est, quia etiam nomine Orientis et Occidentis totus solet mundus intellegi, numquid, cum duas partes alias nominamus Septentrionis et Austri, sicut illum quadrifrontem dicunt geminum Ianum, ita quisquam geminum dicturus est mundum? Non habent omnino unde quattuor ianuas, quae intrantibus et exeuntibus pateant, interpretentur ad mundi similitudinem, sicut de bifronti quod dicerent saltem in ore hominis inuenerunt, nisi Neptunus forte subueniat et porrigat piscem, cui praeter hiatum oris et gutturis etiam dextra et sinistra fauces patent. Et tamen hanc uanitatem per tot ianuas nulla effugit anima, nisi quae audit ueritatem dicentem: Ego sum ianua.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. For what reason the worshippers of Janus made his image two-faced, though they also want it to be seen as four-faced.

But now let the interpretation of the two-faced image be brought forward. They say that he has two faces, before and behind, because the opening of our mouth, when we open it, seems like the world. Hence the Greeks call the palate ouranos (heaven), and some Latin poets, he says, have called the heavens the palate; and from this opening of the mouth there is a way outward toward the teeth and a way inward toward the throat. See where the world has been brought, on account of a word for our palate, whether Greek or poetic! But what has this to do with the soul, what with eternal life? Let this god be worshipped for saliva alone, for which both doors are opened under the heaven of the palate, partly for swallowing and partly for spitting. And what is more absurd than not to find in the world itself two doors placed opposite each other, through which it might either admit something into itself or send something out from itself, and yet to wish to compose an image of the world in Janus from our mouth and throat, which the world does not resemble — for the sake of the palate alone, which Janus does not resemble? When they make him four-faced and call him the twin Janus, they interpret this of the four quarters of the world, as though the world looked out on something, as Janus does through all his faces. Then, if Janus is the world and the world consists of four parts, the image of two-faced Janus is false; or if it is true because the whole world is commonly understood by the names of East and West, will anyone, when we name the other two parts, North and South, call the world twin, as they call the four-faced Janus twin? They have nothing at all by which to interpret four doors, open to those who enter and go out, as a likeness of the world, as for the two-faced one they at least found something to say in the mouth of a man — unless perhaps Neptune comes to their aid and offers a fish, which, besides the opening of the mouth and throat, also has gills opening to right and left. And yet no soul escapes this vanity through so many doors, except one that hears the Truth saying: “I am the door.”

### Scripture references

- John 10:9: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The closing quotation is John 10:9. The Greek word marked as garbled in the digital text is οὐρανόν (“heaven”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.8 (CSEL 40:313–314; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-7-8).

## City of God 7.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-7-9
- Source: CSEL 40:314–317
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine examines Varro's claim that Jupiter holds the causes of things and is the world, and shows that this conflicts with Janus also being the world.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. De Iouis potestate adque eiusdem cum Iano conparatione. Iouem autem, qui etiam Iuppiter dicitur, quem uelint intellegi, exponant. Deus est, inquiunt, habens potestatem causarum, quibus aliquid fit in mundo. Hoc quam magnum sit, nobilissimus Vergilii uersus ille testatur: Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. Sed quur ei praeponitur Ianus? hoc nobis uir ille acutissimus doctissimusque respondeat. Quoniam penes Ianum, inquit, sunt prima, penes Iouem summa. Merito ergo rex omnium Iuppiter habetur. Prima enim uincuntur a summis, quia, licet prima praecedant tempore, summa superant dignitate. Sed recte hoc diceretur, si factorum prima discernerentur et summa; sicut initium facti est proficisci, summum peruenire; initium facti inceptio discendi, summum perceptio doctrinae; ac sic in omnibus prima sunt initia summique sunt fines. Sed iam hoc negotium inter Ianum Terminumque discussum est. Causae autem, quae dantur Ioui, efficientia sunt, non effecta; neque ullo modo fieri potest, ut uel tempore praeueniantur a factis initiisue factorum. Semper enim prior est res quae facit, quam illa quae fit. Quapropter si ad Ianum pertinent initia factorum, non ideo priora sunt efficientibus causis, quas Ioui tribuunt. Sicut enim nihil fit, ita nihil inchoatur ut fiat, quod non faciens causa praecesserit. Hunc sane deum, penes quem sunt omnes causae factarum omnium naturarum naturaliumque rerum, si Iouem populi appellant et tantis contumeliis tamque scelestis criminationibus colunt; taetriore sacrilegio sese obstringunt, quam si prorsus nullum putarent deum. Unde satius esset eis alium aliquem Iouis nomine nuncupare, dignum turpibus et flagitiosis honoribus, subposito uano figmento quod potius blasphemarent (sicut Saturno dicitur subpositus lapis, quem pro filio deuoraret), quam istum deum dicere et tonantem et adulterantem, et totum mundum regentem et per tot stupra diffluentem, et naturarum omnium naturalium rerum causas summas habentem et suas causas bonas non habentem. Deinde quaero, quem iam locum inter deos huic Ioui tribuant, si Ianus est mundus. Deos enim ueros animam mundi ac partes eius iste definiuit; ac per hoc, quidquid hoc non est, non est utique secundum istos uerus deus. Num igitur ita dicturi sunt Iouem animam mundi, ut Ianus sit corpus eius, id est iste uisibilis mundus? Hoc si dicunt, non erit quem ad modum Ianum deum dicant, quoniam mundi corpus non est deus uel secundum ipsos, sed anima mundi ac partes eius. Unde apertissime idem dicit deum se arbitrari esse animam mundi et hunc ipsum mundum esse deum; sed sicut hominem sapientem, cum sit ex animo et corpore, tamen ei animo dici sapientem, ita mundum deum dici ab animo, cum sit ex animo et corpore. Solum itaque mundi corpus non est deus, sed aut sola anima eius aut simul corpus et animus, ita tamen ut non sit a corpore, sed ab animo deus. Si ergo Ianus est mundus et deus est Ianus, numquid Iouem, ut deus esse possit, aliquam partem Iani esse dicturi sunt? Magis enim Ioui uniuersum solent tribuere; unde est: Iouis omnia plena. Ergo et Iouem, ut deus sit et maxime rex deorum, non alium possunt existimare quam mundum, ut dis ceteris secundum istos suis partibus regnet. In hanc sententiam etiam quosdam uersus Valerii Sorani exponit idem Varro in eo libro, quem seorsum ab istis de cultu deorum scripsit; qui uersus hi sunt: Iuppiter omnipotens regum rerumque deumque Progenitor genetrixque deum, deus unus et omnes. Exponuntur autem in eodem libro ita: cum marem existimarent qui semen emitteret, feminam quae acciperet, Iouemque esse mundum et eum omnia semina ex se emittere et in se recipere, cum causa, inquit, scripsit Soranus: Iuppiter progenitor genetrixque; nec minus cum causa unum et omnia idem esse; mundus enim unus, et in eo uno omnia sunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. On the power of Jupiter, and on his comparison with Janus.

Let them now explain whom they wish Jove, who is also called Jupiter, to be understood to be. “He is the god,” they say, “who has power over the causes by which anything comes to be in the world.” How great a thing this is, that most famous verse of Virgil testifies: “Happy the one who could know the causes of things.” But why is Janus put before him? Let that most acute and most learned man answer us. “Because,” he says, “with Janus are the first things, with Jupiter the highest. Rightly, then, Jupiter is held to be king of all. For the first things are surpassed by the highest, because, though the first precede in time, the highest excel in dignity.” But this would be rightly said if the first and the highest parts of things done were being distinguished: as the beginning of an act is to set out and the highest point to arrive; the beginning is to start learning, the highest point the grasp of knowledge; and so in all things the first are beginnings and the highest are ends. But this business has already been discussed between Janus and Terminus. The causes attributed to Jupiter, however, are things that make, not things made; and in no way can it be that they are preceded, even in time, by things made or by the beginnings of things made. For the thing that makes is always prior to the thing that is made. Therefore, if the beginnings of things made belong to Janus, they are not on that account prior to the efficient causes which they attribute to Jupiter. For as nothing is made, so nothing is begun in order to be made, unless an efficient cause has preceded it. If, then, the peoples call this god — with whom are all the causes of all natures made and of all natural things — Jupiter, and worship him with such great insults and such wicked accusations, they bind themselves with a fouler sacrilege than if they thought there were no god at all. It would therefore have been better for them to give the name of Jupiter to some other being worthy of shameful and scandalous honors, substituting an empty figment for them to blaspheme instead (as a stone is said to have been substituted for Saturn to devour in place of his son), than to call this god both thunderer and adulterer, both ruler of the whole world and dissolute in so many debaucheries, both holding the supreme causes of all natures and natural things and not having good causes for his own conduct. Next I ask what place they give this Jupiter among the gods, if Janus is the world. For Varro defined the true gods as the soul of the world and its parts; and so whatever is not this is certainly not a true god, according to them. Will they then say that Jupiter is the soul of the world in such a way that Janus is its body, that is, this visible world? If they say this, there will be no way for them to call Janus a god, since the body of the world is not a god even according to them, but the soul of the world and its parts. Hence the same man says most plainly that he thinks God is the soul of the world and that this world itself is God; but that, as a wise man, though he consists of mind and body, is nevertheless called wise from his mind, so the world is called God from its soul, though it consists of soul and body. The body of the world alone, therefore, is not God, but either its soul alone, or body and soul together, yet in such a way that it is God not from the body but from the soul. If, then, Janus is the world and Janus is a god, will they say that Jupiter, in order to be a god, is some part of Janus? For they usually attribute the universe to Jupiter rather; hence the saying, “All things are full of Jove.” Therefore, that Jupiter may be a god, and above all king of the gods, they can think him nothing other than the world, so that he may reign over the other gods, according to them, as over his own parts. In this sense the same Varro also expounds certain verses of Valerius Soranus in the book which he wrote separately from these, on the worship of the gods. The verses are these: “Almighty Jupiter, of kings and things and gods the progenitor and mother of the gods, one god and all.” In the same book they are explained thus: since they considered the male to be the one who emits seed and the female the one who receives it, and that Jupiter is the world, and emits all seeds from himself and receives them into himself, “with reason,” he says, “Soranus wrote, ‘Jupiter, progenitor and mother’; and with no less reason that one and all are the same; for the world is one, and in that one are all things.”

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Georg. 2.490 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Ecl. 3.60 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Virgil, Georgics 2.490, and “All things are full of Jove” from Virgil, Eclogues 3.60; the verses of Valerius Soranus (no entry in the site's list of extrabiblical texts) are quoted from Varro's On the Worship of the Gods. The sentence “ei animo dici sapientem” is translated as “from his mind,” as in 7.6.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.9 (CSEL 40:314–317; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/6-12/#p-7-9).

## City of God 7.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-10
- Source: CSEL 40:317–318
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine asks why Janus and Jupiter are two gods if both are the one world, since one being with two powers is not two beings.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. An Iani et Iouis recta discretio sit. Cum ergo et Ianus mundus sit et Iuppiter mundus sit unusque sit mundus, quare duo di sunt Ianus et Iuppiter? Quare seorsus habent templa seorsus aras, diuersa sacra dissimilia simulacra? Si propterea, quod alia uis est primordiorum, alia causarum, et illa Iani, illa Iouis nomen accepit: numquid si unus homo in diuersis rebus duas habeat potestates aut duas artes, quia singularum diuersa uis est, ideo duo iudices aut duo dicuntur artifices? Sic ergo et unus Deus cum ipse habeat potestatem primordiorum, ipse causarum, num propterea illum duos deos esse necesse est putari, quia primordia causaeque res duae sunt? Quod si hoc iustum putant, etiam ipsum Iouem tot deos esse dicant, quotquot ei cognomina propter multas potestates dederunt, quoniam res omnes, ex quibus illa cognomina sunt adhibita, multae adque diuersae sunt, ex quibus pauca commemoro.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. Whether the distinction between Janus and Jupiter is right.

Since, then, Janus is the world and Jupiter is the world, and the world is one, why are Janus and Jupiter two gods? Why do they have temples apart, altars apart, different rites, unlike images? If it is because the force of beginnings is one thing and the force of causes another, and the one received the name of Janus and the other the name of Jupiter — if one man had two powers or two arts in different matters, would he therefore be called two judges or two craftsmen, because the force of each is different? So, then, when one God himself has power over beginnings and himself over causes, must he therefore be thought to be two gods, because beginnings and causes are two things? If they think this right, let them also say that Jupiter himself is as many gods as the surnames they have given him because of his many powers; for all the things from which those surnames are taken are many and diverse. I mention a few of them.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.10 (CSEL 40:317–318; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-10).

## City of God 7.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-11
- Source: CSEL 40:318–319
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine lists Jupiter's many surnames, noting that one god with many functions is not thereby many gods, and mocks the overlapping of Jupiter and Rumina.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. De cognominibus Iouis, quae non ad multos deos, sed ad unum eundemque referuntur. Dixerunt eum Victorem, Inuictum, Opitulum, Inpulsorem, Statorem, Centumpedam, Supinalem, Tigillum, Almum, Ruminum et alia quae persequi longum est. Haec autem cognomina inposuerunt uni deo propter causas potestatesque diuersas, non tamen propter tot res etiam tot deos eum esse coegerunt: quod omnia uinceret, quod a nemine uinceretur, quod opem indigentibus ferret, quod haberet inpellendi, statuendi, stabiliendi, resupinandi potestatem, quod tamquam tigillus mundum contineret ac sustineret, quod aleret omnia, quod ruma, id est mamma, aleret animalia. In his, ut aduertimus, quaedam magna sunt, quaedam exigua; et tamen unus utraque facere perhibetur. Puto inter se propinquiora esse causas rerum adque primordia, propter quas res unum mundum duos deos esse uoluerunt, Iouem adque Ianum, quam continere mundum et mammam dare animalibus; nec tamen propter haec opera duo tam longe inter se ui et dignitate diuersa duo di esse conpulsi sunt; sed unus Iuppiter propter illud Tigillus, propter illud Ruminus appellatus est. Nolo dicere, quod animalibus mammam praebere sugentibus magis Iunonem potuit decere quam Iouem, praesertim cum esset etiam diua Rumina, quae in hoc opus adiutorium illi famulatumue praeberet. Cogito enim posse responderi, et ipsam Iunonem nihil aliud esse quam Iouem, secundum illos Valerii Sorani uersus, ubi dictum est: Iuppiter omnipotens regum rerumque deumque Progenitor genetrixque deum. Quare ergo dictus est et Ruminus, cum diligentius fortasse quaerentibus ipse inueniatur esse etiam illa diua Rumina? Si enim maiestate deorum recte uidebatur indignum, ut in una spica alter ad curam geniculi, altera ad folliculi pertineret: quanto est indignius unam rem infimam, id est ut mammis alantur animalia, duorum deorum potestate curari, quorum sit unus Iuppiter, rex ipse cunctorum, et hoc agat non saltem cum coniuge sua, sed cum ignobili nescio qua Rumina, nisi quia ipse est etiam ipsa Rumina; Ruminus fortasse pro sugentibus maribus, Rumina pro feminis. Dicerem quippe noluisse illos Ioui femininum nomen inponere, nisi et in illis uersibus progenitor genetrixque diceretur, et inter eius alia cognomina legerem, quod etiam Pecunia uocaretur, quam deam inter illos minuscularios inuenimus et in quarto libro commemorauimus. Sed cum et mares et feminae habeant pecuniam, quur non et Pecunia et Pecunius appellatus sit, sicut Rumina et Ruminus, ipsi uiderint.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. On the surnames of Jupiter, which refer not to many gods but to one and the same god.

They have called him Victor, Invictus (Unconquered), Opitulus (Helper), Impulsor (Driver), Stator (Stayer), Centumpeda (Hundred-footed), Supinalis (Overturner), Tigillus (Beam), Almus (Nourisher), Ruminus (Suckler), and other names which it would take long to list. These surnames they gave to one god because of different causes and powers, but they did not force him to be as many gods as there are things: because he conquered all things; because he was conquered by none; because he brought help to the needy; because he had power to drive, to stay, to establish, to overturn; because like a beam he held together and sustained the world; because he nourished all things; because by the ruma, that is, the breast, he nourished animals. Among these, as we notice, some things are great, some slight; and yet one god is said to do both. I think the causes of things and their beginnings — because of which they wanted the one world to be two gods, Jupiter and Janus — are closer to each other than holding the world together and giving the breast to animals. Yet because of these two works, so far apart from each other in force and dignity, they were not compelled to make two gods; one Jupiter was called Tigillus for the one and Ruminus for the other. I will not say that giving the breast to suckling animals might have befitted Juno more than Jupiter, especially since there was also the goddess Rumina, who could give her help or service in this work. For I suppose it may be answered that Juno herself is nothing other than Jupiter, according to those verses of Valerius Soranus where it is said: “Almighty Jupiter, of kings and things and gods the progenitor and mother of the gods.” Why then was he also called Ruminus, when, to those who inquire more carefully, he himself may perhaps be found to be that goddess Rumina too? For if it seemed rightly unworthy of the majesty of the gods that in one ear of grain one god should have charge of the joint and another of the husk, how much more unworthy is it that one very lowly thing, namely that animals should be fed at the breast, should be cared for by the power of two gods, of whom one is Jupiter, the king of all himself, and that he should do this not at least with his wife but with some undistinguished Rumina, unless he himself is also Rumina — Ruminus perhaps for suckling males, Rumina for females! I would indeed say that they had not wished to give Jupiter a feminine name, were he not called “progenitor and mother” in those verses, and did I not read among his other surnames that he was also called Pecunia (Money), a goddess we found among those petty gods and mentioned in the fourth book. But since both men and women have money, why he was not called both Pecunia and Pecunius, as Rumina and Ruminus, let them see to it.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- From Varro; the reference to book 4 is to City of God 4.21. The verse of Valerius Soranus is quoted again from 7.9.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.11 (CSEL 40:318–319; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-11).

## City of God 7.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-12
- Source: CSEL 40:319–320
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine ridicules the naming of Jupiter as 'Money' and contrasts money with true riches, which are virtue and wisdom.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. Quod Iuppiter etiam Pecunia nuncupetur. Quam uero eleganter rationem huius nominis reddiderunt! uocatur Pecunia, inquiunt, uocatur, quod eius sunt omnia. O magnam rationem diuini nominis! Immo uero ille, cuius sunt omnia, uilissime et contumeliosissime Pecunia nuncupatur. Ad omnia enim, quae caelo et terra continentur, quid est pecunia in omnibus omnino rebus, quae ab hominibus nomine pecuniae possidentur? Sed nimirum hoc auaritia Ioui nomen inposuit, ut, quisquis amat pecuniam, non quemlibet deum, sed ipsum regem omnium sibi amare uideatur. Longe autem aliud esset, si diuitiae uocaretur. Aliud namque sunt diuitiae, aliud pecunia. Nam dicimus diuites sapientes, iustos, bonos, quibus pecunia uel nulla uel parua est; magis enim sunt uirtutibus diuites, per quas eis etiam in ipsis corporalium rerum necessitatibus sat est quod adest: pauperes uero auaros, semper inhiantes et egentes; quamlibet enim magnas pecunias habere possunt, sed in earum quantacumque abundantia non egere non possunt. Et Deum ipsum uerum recte dicimus diuitem, non tamen pecunia, sed omnipotentia. Dicuntur itaque et diuites pecuniosi; sed interius egeni, si cupidi: item dicuntur pauperes pecunia carentes; sed interius diuites, si sapientes. Qualis ergo ista theologia debet esse sapienti, ubi rex deorum eius rei nomen accepit, quam nemo sapiens concupiuit? Quanto enim facilius, si aliquid hac doctrina quod ad uitam pertineret aeternam salubriter disceretur, deus mundi rector non ab eis Pecunia, sed Sapientia uocaretur, cuius amor purgat a sordibus auaritiae, hoc est ab amore pecuniae!

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. That Jupiter is also called Pecunia (Money).

How elegantly they have given the reason for this name! “He is called Pecunia,” they say, “because all things are his.” O the great reason for a divine name! Rather, he to whom all things belong is most cheaply and most insultingly called Money. For compared with all that is contained in heaven and earth, what is money, in all the things whatsoever that are possessed by men under the name of money? But clearly avarice gave Jupiter this name, so that whoever loves money may seem to himself to love not just any god, but the king of all himself. It would be far different if he were called Riches. For riches are one thing, money another. For we call the wise, the just, the good rich, though they have no money or little; for they are more truly rich in virtues, through which, even in the needs of bodily things, what they have is enough for them. But we call the avaricious poor, always gaping and in want; for however great sums of money they may have, in whatever abundance of it, they cannot but be in want. And we rightly call the true God himself rich, yet not in money but in omnipotence. So those who have money are called rich, but inwardly they are needy if they are covetous; likewise those who lack money are called poor, but inwardly they are rich if they are wise. What, then, must this theology be to a wise man, in which the king of the gods has received the name of a thing that no wise man has coveted? How much more readily, if anything wholesome pertaining to eternal life were learned from this doctrine, would the god who rules the world be called by them not Money but Wisdom, the love of which cleanses from the filth of avarice, that is, from the love of money!

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): allusion, medium confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.12 (CSEL 40:319–320; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-12).

## City of God 7.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-13
- Source: CSEL 40:320–321
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine shows that Varro's definitions make Saturn and Genius identical with Jupiter, the world-soul.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. Quod, dum exponitur quid Saturnus quidue sit Genius, uterque unus Iuppiter esse doceatur. Sed quid de hoc Ioue plura, ad quem fortasse ceteri referendi sunt, ut inanis remaneat deorum opinio plurimorum, cum hic ipse sint omnes, siue quando partes eius uel potestates existimantur, siue cum uis animae, quam putant per cuncta diffusam, ex partibus molis huius, in quas uisibilis mundus iste consurgit, et multiplici administratione naturae quasi plurium deorum nomina accepit? Quid est enim et Saturnus? Unus, inquit, de principibus deus, penes quem sationum omnium dominatus est. Nonne expositio uersuum illorum Valerii Sorani sic se habet, Iouem esse mundum et eum omnia semina ex se emittere et in se recipere? Ipse est igitur penes quem sationum omnium dominatus est. Quid est Genius? Deus, inquit, qui praepositus est ac uim habet omnium rerum gignendarum. Quem alium hanc uim habere credunt quam mundum, cui dictum est: Iuppiter progenitor genetrixque? Et cum alio loco genium dicit esse uniuscuiusque animum rationalem et ideo esse singulos singulorum, talem autem mundi animum Deum esse: ad hoc idem utique reuocat, ut tamquam uniuersalis genius ipse mundi animus esse credatur. Hic est igitur quem appellant Iouem. Nam si omnis genius deus et omnis uiri animus genius, sequitur ut sit omnis uiri animus deus; quod si et ipsos abhorrere absurditas ipsa conpellit, restat ut eum singulariter et excellenter dicant deum Genium, quem dicunt mundi animum ac per hoc Iouem.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. That when it is explained what Saturn is and what Genius is, each is shown to be the one Jupiter.

But why say more about this Jupiter, to whom perhaps all the rest should be referred, so that the opinion of many gods may be left empty, since he himself is all of them — whether when they are thought to be his parts or powers, or when the force of the soul which they think is spread through all things has received the names of many gods, as it were, from the parts of this mass of which this visible world is built up, and from the manifold administration of nature? For what is Saturn too? “One of the chief gods,” he says, “with whom is dominion over all sowings.” Does not the explanation of those verses of Valerius Soranus run thus, that Jupiter is the world and emits all seeds from himself and receives them into himself? He, then, is the one with whom is dominion over all sowings. What is Genius? “The god,” he says, “who is set over and has the force of all things that are to be begotten.” Whom else do they believe has this force but the world, to which it was said, “Jupiter, progenitor and mother”? And when in another place he says that the genius is the rational mind of each person, and that therefore each individual has his own, but that such a mind of the world is God, he certainly brings it back to the same thing, so that the mind of the world itself may be believed to be, as it were, the universal genius. This, then, is the one they call Jupiter. For if every genius is a god and every man's mind is a genius, it follows that every man's mind is a god; but if the very absurdity compels even them to shrink from this, it remains that they call that one uniquely and pre-eminently the god Genius whom they call the mind of the world, and therefore Jupiter.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Varro, Divine Antiquities, book 16.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.13 (CSEL 40:320–321; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-13).

## City of God 7.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-14
- Source: CSEL 40:321–322
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that Mercury and Mars, as the gods of speech and war, are either absorbed into Jupiter or are mere human activities and no gods at all.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. De Mercurii et Martis officiis. Mercurium uero et Martem quo modo referrent ad aliquas partes mundi et opera Dei, quae sunt in elementis, non inuenerunt, et ideo eos saltem operibus hominum praeposuerunt, sermocinandi et belligerandi administros. Quorum Mercurius si sermonis etiam deorum potestatem gerit, ipsi quoque regi deorum dominatur, si secundum eius arbitrium Iuppiter loquitur aut loquendi ab illo accepit facultatem; quod utique absurdum est. Si autem illi humani tantum sermonis potestas tributa perhibetur, non est credibile ad lactandos mamma non solum pueros, sed etiam pecora, unde Ruminus cognominatus est, Iouem descendere uoluisse, et curam nostri sermonis, quo pecoribus antecellimus, ad se pertinere noluisse; ac per hoc idem ipse est Iouis adque Mercurius. Quod si sermo ipse dicitur esse Mercurius, sicut ea, quae de illo interpretantur, ostendunt (nam ideo Mercurius quasi medius currens dicitur appellatus, quod sermo currat inter homines medius; ideo ‛Ερμη̃ς Graece, quod sermo uel interpretatio, quae ad sermonem utique pertinet, ἑρμηνεία dicitur; ideo et mercibus praeesse, quia inter uendentes et ementes sermo fit medius; alas eius in capite et pedibus significare uolucrem ferri per aera sermonem; nuntium dictum, quoniam per sermonem omnia cogitata enuntiantur) — si ergo Mercurius ipse sermo est, etiam ipsis confitentibus deus non est. Sed cum sibi deos faciunt eos, qui nec daemones sunt, inmundis supplicando spiritibus possidentur ab eis, qui non di, sed daemones sunt. Item quia nec Marti aliquod elementum uel partem mundi inuenire potuerunt, ubi ageret opera qualiacumque naturae, deum belli esse dixerunt, quod opus est hominum et optabilius non est. Si ergo pacem perpetuam Felicitas daret, Mars quid ageret non haberet. Si autem ipsum bellum est Mars, sicut sermo Mercurius: utinam quam manifestum est, quod non sit deus, tam non sit et bellum, quod uel falso uocetur deus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. On the duties of Mercury and Mars.

They could not find how to refer Mercury and Mars to any parts of the world and to the works of God that are in the elements, and so they set them at least over the works of men, as ministers of speaking and of making war. If Mercury holds power even over the speech of the gods, then of these two he rules even the king of the gods himself, if Jupiter speaks at his will or has received from him the faculty of speaking; which is certainly absurd. But if power over human speech alone is said to be given him, it is not credible that Jupiter was willing to stoop to suckling at the breast not only children but also cattle, from which he was surnamed Ruminus, and did not wish the care of our speech, by which we surpass cattle, to belong to him; and so Mercury is the same as Jupiter. But if speech itself is said to be Mercury, as the interpretations they give of him show — for they say he is called Mercury as though medius currens, “running in the middle,” because speech runs between men in the middle; and he is called Hermēs in Greek because speech, or interpretation, which certainly pertains to speech, is called hermēneia; and he presides over merchandise because speech comes in the middle between sellers and buyers; the wings on his head and feet signify that speech is carried swiftly through the air; he is called messenger because by speech all thoughts are announced — if, then, Mercury is speech itself, even by their own confession he is not a god. But when they make gods for themselves of those who are not even demons, by supplicating unclean spirits they are possessed by those who are not gods but demons. Likewise, since they could not find for Mars either any element or part of the world in which he might do works of nature of any kind, they said he was the god of war, which is a work of men, and not a desirable one. If, then, Felicity gave perpetual peace, Mars would have nothing to do. But if Mars is war itself, as Mercury is speech, then would that it were as true that there is no war, to be falsely called a god, as it is plain that war is not a god!

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The etymologies of Mercury and Hermes are Varro's.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.14 (CSEL 40:321–322; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-14).

## City of God 7.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-15
- Source: CSEL 40:323–324
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine shows the confusion of identifying the gods with the planets and asks why the constellations of the zodiac received no worship.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. De stellis quibusdam, quas pagani deorum suorum nominibus nuncuparunt. Nisi forte illae stellae sunt hi di, quas eorum appellauere nominibus. Nam stellam quandam uocant Mercurium, quandam itidem Martem. Sed ibi est et illa quam uocant Iouem, et tamen eis mundus est Iouis; ibi quam uocant Saturnum, et tamen ei praeterea dant non paruam substantiam, omnium uidelicet seminum; ibi est et illa omnium clarissima, quae ab eis appellatur Venus, et tamen eandem Venerem esse etiam Lunam uolunt; quamuis de illo fulgentissimo sidere aput eos tamquam de malo aureo Iuno Venusque contendant. Luciferum enim quidam Veneris, quidam dicunt esse Iunonis; sed, ut solet, Venus uincit. Nam multo plures eam stellam Veneri tribuunt, ita ut uix eorum quisquam reperiatur, qui aliud opinetur. Quis autem non rideat, cum regem omnium Iouem dicant, quod stella eius ab stella Veneris tanta uincitur claritate? Tanto enim esse debuit ceteris illa fulgentior, quanto est ipse potentior. Respondent ideo sic uideri, quia illa, quae putatur obscurior, superior est adque a terris longe remotior. Si ergo superiorem locum maior dignitas meruit, quare Saturnus ibi est Ioue superior? An uanitas fabulae, quae regem Iouem facit, non potuit usque ad sidera peruenire, et quod non ualuit Saturnus in regno suo neque in Capitolio, saltem obtinere est permissus in caelo? Quare autem Ianus non accepit aliquam stellam? Si, quia mundus est et omnes in illo sunt: et Iouis mundus est et habet tamen. An iste causam suam conposuit ut potuit et pro una stella, quam non habet inter sidera, tot facies accepit in terra? Deinde si propter solas stellas Mercurium et Martem partes mundi putant, ut eos deos habere possint, quia utique sermo et bellum non sunt partes mundi, sed actus hominum: quur Arieti et Tauro et Cancro et Scorpioni ceterisque huius modi, quae caelestia signa numerant et stellis non singulis, sed singula pluribus constant superiusque istis in summo caelo perhibent conlocata, ubi constantior motus inerrabilem meatum sideribus praebet, nullas aras, nulla sacra, nulla templa fecerunt, nec deos, non dico inter hos selectos, sed ne inter illos quidem quasi plebeios habuerunt?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. On certain stars which the pagans have called by the names of their gods.

Unless perhaps these gods are those stars which they have called by their names. For they call one star Mercury and another likewise Mars. But there too is the one they call Jupiter, and yet for them the world is Jupiter; there is the one they call Saturn, and yet besides this they give him no small substance, namely that of all seeds; there too is that brightest of all, which they call Venus, and yet they want this same Venus to be the Moon as well — although among them Juno and Venus contend over that most brilliant star as over the golden apple. For some say that Lucifer, the morning star, belongs to Venus, some to Juno; but, as usual, Venus wins. For far more people attribute that star to Venus, so that hardly any of them is found who thinks otherwise. But who would not laugh when they call Jupiter king of all, since his star is so far surpassed in brightness by the star of Venus? For his ought to be as much more brilliant than the rest as he himself is more powerful. They answer that it seems so because the one thought dimmer is higher and much farther from the earth. If, then, greater dignity has earned a higher place, why is Saturn there higher than Jupiter? Could the vanity of the fable that makes Jupiter king not reach as far as the stars, and was Saturn allowed at least to obtain in heaven what he could not in his kingdom nor on the Capitol? And why did Janus not receive any star? If it is because he is the world and all are in him, the world is Jupiter's too, and yet Jupiter has one. Or did Janus settle his case as best he could, and, in place of the one star he does not have among the heavenly bodies, receive so many faces on earth? Further, if it is only because of the stars that they think Mercury and Mars parts of the world, so that they can have them as gods — since speech and war are certainly not parts of the world but acts of men — why have they made no altars, no rites, no temples for the Ram and the Bull and the Crab and the Scorpion and the rest of this kind, which they count as heavenly signs, each consisting not of single stars but of many, and which they say are placed higher than these, in the highest heaven, where a steadier motion gives the stars an unwandering course? Why have they not held them to be gods — I do not say among these select gods, but not even among those plebeian ones, so to speak?

### Translation notes

- The golden apple is the prize of the judgment of Paris.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.15 (CSEL 40:323–324; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-15).

## City of God 7.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-16
- Source: CSEL 40:324–325
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine surveys how the select gods are identified with the world or its parts, so that one god becomes many things and one thing many gods.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. De Apolline et Diana ceterisque selectis dis, quos partes mundi esse uoluerunt. Apollinem quamuis diuinatorem et medicum uelint, tamen ut in aliqua parte mundi statuerent, ipsum etiam solem esse dixerunt, Dianamque germanam eius similiter lunam et uiarum praesidem (unde et uirginem uolunt, quod uia nihil pariat), et ideo ambos sagittas habere, quod ipsa duo sidera de caelo radios terras usque pertendant. Vulcanum uolunt ignem mundi, Neptunum aquas mundi, Ditem patrem, hoc est Orcum, terrenam et infimam partem mundi. Liberum et Cererem praeponunt seminibus, uel illum masculinis, illam femininis; uel illum liquori, illam uero ariditati seminum. Et hoc utique totum refertur ad mundum, id est ad Iouem, qui propterea dictus est progenitor genetrixque, quod omnia semina ex se emitteret et in se reciperet. Quando quidem etiam Matrem Magnam eandem Cererem uolunt, quam nihil aliud dicunt esse quam terram, eamque perhibent et Iunonem, et ideo ei secundas causas rerum tribuunt, cum tamen Ioui sit dictum progenitor genetrixque deum, quia secundum eos totus ipse mundus est Iouis. Mineruam etiam, quia eam humanis artibus praeposuerunt nec inuenerunt uel stellam, ubi eam ponerent, eandem uel summum aethera uel etiam lunam esse dixerunt. Vestam quoque ipsam propterea dearum maximam putauerunt, quod ipsa sit terra, quamuis ignem mundi leuiorem, qui pertinet ad usus hominum faciles, non uiolentiorem, qualis Vulcani est, ei deputandum esse crediderunt. Ac per hoc omnes istos selectos deos hunc esse mundum uolunt, in quibusdam uniuersum, in quibusdam partes eius; uniuersum sicut Iouem, partes eius, ut Genium, ut Matrem Magnam, ut Solem, ut Lunam, uel potius Apollinem et Dianam. Et aliquando unum deum res plures, aliquando unam rem deos plures faciunt. Nam unus deus res plures sunt, sicut ipse Iuppiter; et mundus enim totus Iuppiter, et solum caelum Iuppiter, et sola stella Iuppiter habetur et dicitur; itemque Iuno secundarum causarum domina et Iuno aer et Iuno terra et, si Venerem uinceret, Iuno stella. Similiter Minerua summus aether et Minerua itidem luna, quam esse in aetheris infimo limite existimant. Unam uero rem deos plures ita faciunt: Et Ianus est mundus et Iuppiter; sic et Iuno est terra et Mater Magna et Ceres.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. On Apollo and Diana and the other select gods whom they wanted to be parts of the world.

Though they want Apollo to be a diviner and a physician, yet in order to place him in some part of the world they said he was also the sun, and that Diana his sister was likewise the moon and the guardian of roads (hence they want her to be a virgin too, because a road gives birth to nothing); and that both have arrows because these two heavenly bodies extend their rays from heaven all the way to the earth. They want Vulcan to be the fire of the world, Neptune the waters of the world, Father Dis, that is Orcus, the earthly and lowest part of the world. They set Liber and Ceres over seeds, either him over male seeds and her over female, or him over the moisture of seeds and her over their dryness. And all this is certainly referred to the world, that is, to Jupiter, who was called “progenitor and mother” for this reason, that he emitted all seeds from himself and received them into himself. For they also want the Great Mother to be this same Ceres, and they say she is nothing other than the earth, and they declare her to be Juno as well; and therefore they attribute to her the secondary causes of things, although it was said to Jupiter, “progenitor and mother of the gods,” because, according to them, the whole world itself is Jupiter's. Minerva too, because they set her over the human arts and did not find even a star in which to place her, they said was either the highest ether or even the moon. And they thought Vesta herself the greatest of the goddesses for this reason, that she is the earth; although they believed that the lighter fire of the world, which serves the easy uses of men, not the more violent kind, such as Vulcan's, was to be assigned to her. And so they want all these select gods to be this world: some the whole, some its parts — the whole, like Jupiter; its parts, like Genius, like the Great Mother, like the Sun, like the Moon, or rather Apollo and Diana. And sometimes they make one god many things, sometimes one thing many gods. For one god is many things, like Jupiter himself: for the whole world is held and called Jupiter, and the sky alone is Jupiter, and a single star is Jupiter; likewise Juno is mistress of secondary causes, and Juno is the air, and Juno is the earth, and, if she beat Venus, Juno would be a star. Similarly Minerva is the highest ether, and Minerva is also the moon, which they think is at the lowest boundary of the ether. And they make one thing many gods thus: both Janus and Jupiter are the world; so too the earth is Juno and the Great Mother and Ceres.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- From Varro, Divine Antiquities, book 16.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.16 (CSEL 40:324–325; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-16).

## City of God 7.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-17
- Source: CSEL 40:325–327
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine shows that Varro himself declared his accounts of the uncertain, certain, and select gods to be matters of doubtful opinion.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. Quod etiam ipse Varro opiniones suas de dis pronuntiarit ambiguas. Et sicut haec, quae exempli gratia commemoraui, ita cetera non explicant, sed potius inplicant; sicut impetus errabundae opinionis inpulerit, ita huc adque illuc, hinc adque illinc insiliunt et resiliunt, ut ipse Varro de omnibus dubitare quam aliquid adfirmare maluerit. Nam trium extremorum primum de dis certis cum absoluisset librum, in altero de dis incertis dicere ingressus ait: Cum in hoc libello dubias de dis opiniones posuero, reprehendi non debeo. Qui enim putabit iudicari oportere et posse, cum audierit, faciet ipse. Ego citius perduci possum, ut in primo libro quae dixi in dubitationem reuocem, quam in hoc quae perscribam omnia ut ad aliquam dirigam summam. Ita non solum istum de dis incertis, sed etiam illum de certis fecit incertum. In tertio porro isto de dis selectis, postea quam praelocutus est quod ex naturali theologia praeloquendum putauit, ingressurus huius ciuilis theologiae uanitates et insanias mendaces, ubi eum non solum non ducebat rerum ueritas, sed etiam maiorum premebat auctoritas: De dis, inquit, populi Romani publicis, quibus aedes dedicauerunt eosque pluribus signis ornatos notauerunt, in hoc libro scribam, sed ut Xenophanes Colophonius scribit, quid putem, non quid contendam, ponam. Hominis est enim haec opinari, dei scire. Rerum igitur non conprehensarum nec firmissime creditarum, sed opinatarum et dubitandarum sermonem trepidus pollicetur dicturus ea, quae ab hominibus instituta sunt. Neque enim, sicut sciebat esse mundum, esse caelum et terram, caelum sideribus fulgidum, terram seminibus fertilem, adque huius modi cetera, sicut hanc totam molem adque naturam ui quadam inuisibili ac praepotenti regi adque administrari certa animi stabilitate credebat: ita poterat adfirmare de Iano, quod mundus ipse esset, aut de Saturno inuenire, quo modo et Iouis pater esset et Ioui regnanti subditus factus esset et cetera talia.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. That Varro himself pronounced his opinions about the gods to be doubtful.

And as with these things, which I have mentioned by way of example, so with the rest: they do not explain them but rather entangle them. As the impulse of a wandering opinion drives them, so they leap this way and that, hither and thither, and spring back, so that Varro himself preferred to doubt everything rather than affirm anything. For when he had finished the first of the last three books, the one on the certain gods, he began to speak in the second about the uncertain gods and said: “If in this little book I set out doubtful opinions about the gods, I ought not to be blamed. For whoever thinks that one ought and is able to judge will do so himself when he has heard them. I could more readily be brought to call into doubt what I said in the first book than to bring all that I shall write in this one to any definite conclusion.” Thus he made uncertain not only this book on the uncertain gods but also the one on the certain gods. Then in this third book on the select gods, after he had said by way of preface what he thought needed to be said from natural theology, as he was about to enter on the vanities and lying follies of this civil theology, where not only did the truth of things not lead him, but the authority of his ancestors also pressed on him, he says: “In this book I shall write about the public gods of the Roman people, to whom they dedicated temples and whom they marked out adorned with many statues; but, as Xenophanes of Colophon writes, I shall set down what I think, not what I would maintain. For it is for man to hold opinions about these things, for God to know.” Trembling, then, he promises an account not of things grasped and most firmly believed, but of things supposed and to be doubted, since he is going to speak of things instituted by men. For he knew that the world exists, that heaven and earth exist, heaven bright with stars, earth fertile with seeds, and other things of this kind, and he believed with a firm and steady mind that this whole mass and nature is ruled and administered by a certain invisible and all-powerful force. But he could not in the same way affirm about Janus that he was the world itself, or discover about Saturn how he was both the father of Jupiter and became subject to Jupiter when he reigned, and other such things.

### Scripture references

- Ps 40:4 (39:5 LXX): echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 15–16 (Varro): quotation, high confidence
- Xenophanes, B34 (Xenophanes (fragments)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Varro, Divine Antiquities, books 15 and 16; the saying attributed to Xenophanes echoes his fragment B34 (Diels–Kranz). The phrase “vanities and lying follies” recalls Ps 40:4 (39:5 LXX), quoted in 6.1.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.17 (CSEL 40:325–327; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-17).

## City of God 7.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-18
- Source: CSEL 40:327–328
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine judges it more credible that the gods were deified men than that their myths are allegories of nature, as Varro's reading of Saturn and Jupiter shows.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. Quae credibilior causa sit, qua error paganitatis inoleuerit. De quibus credibilior redditur ratio, cum perhibentur homines fuisse et unicuique eorum ab his, qui eos adulando deos esse uoluerunt, ex eius ingenio moribus, actibus casibus sacra et sollemnia constituta adque haec paulatim per animas hominum daemonibus similes et ludicrarum rerum auidas inrependo longe lateque uulgata, ornantibus ea mendaciis poetarum et ad ea fallacibus spiritibus seducentibus. Facilius enim fieri potuit, ut iuuenis inpius uel ab inpio patre interfici metuens et auidus regni patrem pelleret regno, quam id, quod iste interpretatur, ideo Saturnum patrem a Ioue filio superatum, quod ante est causa quae pertinet ad Iouem, quam semen quod pertinet ad Saturnum. Si enim hoc ita esset, numquam Saturnus prior fuisset nec pater Iouis esset. Semper enim semen causa praecedit nec umquam generatur ex semine. Sed cum conantur uanissimas fabulas siue hominum res gestas uelut naturalibus interpretationibus honorare, etiam homines acutissimi tantas patiuntur angustias, ut eorum quoque uanitatem dolere cogamur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. What is the more credible cause by which the error of paganism grew up.

A more credible account is given of these gods when they are said to have been men, and when rites and solemnities were established for each of them, according to his character, conduct, deeds, and fortunes, by those who wanted them to be gods out of flattery; and these things, creeping little by little into the souls of men, which are like demons and eager for playful things, were spread far and wide, the lies of the poets adorning them and deceitful spirits seducing men to them. For it could more easily have happened that an impious youth, or one fearing to be killed by an impious father, and greedy for a kingdom, drove his father from the kingdom, than what this man interprets: that Saturn the father was overcome by Jupiter his son because the cause, which belongs to Jupiter, is prior to the seed, which belongs to Saturn. For if this were so, Saturn would never have been prior, nor would he have been Jupiter's father. For the cause always precedes the seed, and is never begotten from the seed. But when they try to honor most empty fables or the deeds of men by natural interpretations, even the most acute men suffer such difficulties that we are compelled to grieve over their vanity too.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The view that the gods were deified men is that of Euhemerus (see 6.7).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.18 (CSEL 40:327–328; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-18).

## City of God 7.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-19
- Source: CSEL 40:328–329
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine picks apart Varro's agricultural allegories of Saturn — the devoured children, the clod, the sickle, the castration of Heaven — showing that they contradict themselves and point only to bodily things.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. De interpretationibus, quibus colendi Saturni ratio concinnatur. nata, inquit, dixerunt, quae nata ex eo essent, solitum deuorare, quod eo semina, unde nascerentur, redirent. Et quod illi pro Ioue gleba obiecta est deuoranda, significat, inquit, manibus humanis obrui coeptas serendo fruges, antequam utilitas arandi esset inuenta. Saturnus ergo dici debuit ipsa terra, non semina; ipsa enim quodam modo deuorat quae genuerit, cum ex ea nata semina in eam rursus recipienda redierint. Et quod pro Ioue accepisse dicitur glebam, quid hoc ad id ualet, quod manibus hominum semen gleba coopertum est? Numquid ideo non est, ut cetera, deuoratum, quod gleba coopertum est? Ita enim hoc dictum est, quasi qui glebam obposuit semen abstulerit, sicut Saturno perhibent oblata gleba ablatum Iouem, ac non potius gleba semen operiendo fecerit illud diligentius deuorari. Deinde isto modo semen est Iuppiter, non seminis causa, quod paulo ante dicebatur. Sed quid faciant homines, qui, cum res stultas interpretantur, non inueniunt quid sapienter dicatur? Saturnum habet, inquit, propter agriculturam. Certe illo regnante nondum erat agricultura, et ideo priora eius tempora perhibentur, sicut idem ipse fabellas interpretatur, quia primi homines ex his uiuebant seminibus, quae terra sponte gignebat. An falcem sceptro perdito accepit, ut, qui primis temporibus rex fuerat otiosus, filio regnante fieret operarius laboriosus? Deinde ideo dicit a quibusdam pueros ei solitos immolari, sicut a Poenis, et a quibusdam etiam maiores, sicut a Gallis, quia omnium seminum optimum est genus humanum. De hac crudelissima uanitate quid opus est plura dicere? Hoc potius aduertamus adque teneamus, has interpretationes non referri ad Deum uerum, uiuam, incorpoream incommutabilemque naturam, a quo uita in aeternum beata poscenda est; sed earum esse fines in rebus corporalibus, temporalibus, mutabilibus adque mortalibus. Quod Caelum, inquit, patrem Saturnus castrasse in fabulis dicitur, hoc significat penes Saturnum, non penes Caelum semen esse diuinum. Hoc propterea, quantum intellegi datur, quia nihil in caelo de seminibus nascitur. Sed ecce, Saturnus si Caeli est filius, Iouis est filius. Caelum enim esse Iouem innumerabiliter et diligenter adfirmant. Ita ista, quae a ueritate non ueniunt, plerumque et nullo inpellente se ipsa subuertunt. Chronon appellatum dicit, quod Graeco uocabulo significat temporis spatium, sine quo semen, inquit, non potest esse fecundum. Haec et alia de Saturno multa dicuntur, et ad semen omnia referuntur. Sed saltem Saturnus seminibus cum tanta ista potestate sufficeret; quid ad haec di alii requiruntur, maxime Liber et Libera, id est Ceres? De quibus rursus, quod ad semen adtinet, tanta dicit, quasi de Saturno nihil dixerit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. On the interpretations by which the reason for worshipping Saturn is put together.

“They said,” he says, “that Saturn used to devour what was born of him, because the seeds return to the place from which they were born. And the fact that a clod was thrown to him to devour in place of Jupiter signifies,” he says, “that the crops, when sowing began, were covered over by human hands, before the usefulness of ploughing had been discovered.” Saturn, then, ought to have been called the earth itself, not the seeds; for it is the earth that in a way devours what it has begotten, when the seeds born from it return to it to be received again. And what does his receiving a clod in place of Jupiter have to do with the fact that the seed was covered with a clod by men's hands? Was the seed, because it was covered with a clod, not devoured like the rest? For this is said as if he who put the clod in the way took away the seed, as they say Jupiter was taken away from Saturn when the clod was offered to him; and not rather that the clod, by covering the seed, caused it to be devoured more thoroughly. Then, in this way Jupiter is the seed, not the cause of the seed, as was said a little before. But what are men to do who, when they interpret foolish things, find nothing wise to say? “He holds a sickle,” he says, “because of agriculture.” Certainly, when he reigned there was as yet no agriculture; and that is why his times are said to be the earliest, as the same man interprets the little fables, because the first men lived on the seeds which the earth produced of its own accord. Or did he receive a sickle when he lost his sceptre, so that he who in the first times had been a king at leisure became a toiling laborer while his son reigned? Then he says that some used to sacrifice boys to him, as the Carthaginians did, and some even adults, as the Gauls did, because the best of all seeds is the human race. What need is there to say more about this most cruel vanity? Let us rather notice and hold fast this: that these interpretations are not referred to the true God, the living, incorporeal and unchangeable nature, from whom a life happy for eternity is to be sought, but that their ends lie in things bodily, temporal, changeable, and mortal. “That Saturn is said in the fables to have castrated his father Caelus (Heaven),” he says, “signifies that the divine seed is with Saturn, not with Caelus.” This is so, as far as one can understand, because nothing is born from seeds in the sky. But see: if Saturn is the son of Caelus, he is the son of Jupiter. For they affirm countless times and carefully that the sky is Jupiter. Thus these things, which do not come from the truth, often overturn themselves even when no one pushes them. He says that he was called Chronos, which in the Greek word signifies a space of time, “without which,” he says, “seed cannot be fruitful.” These and many other things are said about Saturn, and all are referred to seed. But at least Saturn, with such great power, should have sufficed for seeds; why are other gods sought for these things, especially Liber and Libera, that is, Ceres? About them, again, as far as concerns seed, he says as much as if he had said nothing about Saturn.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Varro, Divine Antiquities, book 16. The digital text opens the quotation with “nata” where “Saturnum” is evidently meant; it is translated by the sense. Varro reports human sacrifices to Saturn by Carthaginians and Gauls; Augustine calls this “most cruel vanity.”

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.19 (CSEL 40:328–329; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-19).

## City of God 7.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-20
- Source: CSEL 40:329–330
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reports that Varro interprets the Eleusinian mysteries only as a story about grain and the fertility of seeds.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. De sacris Cereris Eleusinae. In Cereris autem sacris praedicantur illa Eleusinia, quae aput Athenienses nobilissima fuerunt. De quibus iste nihil interpretatur, nisi quod adtinet ad frumentum, quod Ceres inuenit, et ad Proserpinam, quam rapiente Orco perdidit; et hanc ipsam dicit significare fecunditatem seminum; quae cum defuisset quodam tempore eademque sterilitate terra maereret, exortam esse opinionem, quod filiam Cereris, id est ipsam fecunditatem, quae a proserpendo Proserpina dicta esset, Orcus abstulerat et aput inferos detinuerat; quae res cum fuisset luctu publico celebrata, quia rursus eadem fecunditas rediit, Proserpina reddita exortam esse laetitiam et ex hoc sollemnia constituta. Dicit deinde multa in mysteriis eius tradi, quae nisi ad frugum inuentionem non pertineant.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. On the rites of Eleusinian Ceres.

Among the rites of Ceres, those Eleusinian ones are celebrated which were most famous among the Athenians. Of them Varro interprets nothing except what pertains to grain, which Ceres discovered, and to Proserpina, whom she lost when Orcus carried her off. And he says that Proserpina herself signifies the fruitfulness of seeds. When this fruitfulness had failed at a certain time, and the earth was mourning with that barrenness, the opinion arose that Orcus had taken away the daughter of Ceres, that is, fruitfulness itself, which was called Proserpina from proserpere, to creep forth, and was keeping her among the dead. This was solemnized with public mourning; and because the same fruitfulness returned again, joy arose at the return of Proserpina, and from this the solemn rites were established. He then says that many things are handed down in her mysteries which pertain only to the discovery of crops.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- From Varro, Divine Antiquities, book 16.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.20 (CSEL 40:329–330; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-20).

## City of God 7.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-21
- Source: CSEL 40:330–331
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine describes, from Varro, the phallic processions of Liber at the Italian crossroads and at Lavinium as proof of the uncleanness of the civil rites.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. De turpitudine sacrorum, quae Libero celebrabantur. Iam uero Liberi sacra, quem liquidis seminibus ac per hoc non solum liquoribus fructuum, quorum quodam modo primatum uinum tenet, uerum etiam seminibus animalium praefecerunt, ad quantam turpitudinem peruenerint, piget quidem dicere propter sermonis longitudinem; sed propter istorum superbam hebetudinem non piget. Inter cetera, quae praetermittere, quoniam multa sunt, cogor, in Italiae compitis quaedam dicit sacra Liberi celebrata cum tanta licentia turpitudinis, ut in eius honorem pudenda uirilia colerentur, non saltem aliquantum uerecundiore secreto, sed in propatulo exultante nequitia. Nam hoc turpe membrum per Liberi dies festos cum honore magno plostellis inpositum prius rure in compitis et usque in urbem postea uectabatur. In oppido autem Lauinio unus Libero totus mensis tribuebatur, cuius diebus omnes uerbis flagitiosissimis uterentur, donec illud membrum per forum transuectum esset adque in loco suo quiesceret. Cui membro inhonesto matrem familias honestissimam palam coronam necesse erat inponere. Sic uidelicet Liber deus placandus fuerat pro euentibus seminum, sic ab agris fascinatio repellenda, ut matrona facere cogeretur in publico, quod nec meretrix, si matronae spectarent, permitti debuit in theatro. Propter haec Saturnus solus creditus non est sufficere posse seminibus, ut occasiones multiplicandorum deorum inmunda anima reperiret, et ab uno uero Deo merito inmunditiae destituta ac per multos falsos auiditate maioris inmunditiae prostituta ista sacrilegia sacra nominaret seseque spurcorum daemonum turbis conuiolandam polluendamque praeberet.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. On the shamefulness of the rites celebrated for Liber.

And now the rites of Liber, whom they set over liquid seeds, and therefore not only over the liquors of fruits, among which wine holds a kind of primacy, but also over the seeds of animals — to what shamefulness they came I am reluctant to say, because of the length of the account; but because of the proud dullness of these men I am not reluctant. Among other things which I am forced to pass over because they are many, he says that certain rites of Liber were celebrated at the crossroads of Italy with such licence of shamefulness that the male member was worshipped in his honor, not at least in somewhat more modest secrecy, but openly, with wickedness exulting. For during the festival days of Liber this shameful member, placed with great honor on little carts, was carried about first at the crossroads in the country and afterwards into the city itself. In the town of Lavinium a whole month was given to Liber alone, during the days of which everyone would use the most scandalous words until that member had been carried across the forum and come to rest in its place. On this indecent member it was necessary for a most respectable mother of a family to place a crown publicly. Thus, evidently, the god Liber had to be appeased for the success of the seeds; thus the evil eye had to be driven away from the fields — so that a matron was compelled to do in public what not even a harlot should have been permitted to do in the theater if matrons were watching. For these reasons Saturn alone was not believed to be sufficient for seeds, so that the unclean soul might find occasions for multiplying gods; and, deservedly abandoned by the one true God because of its uncleanness, and prostituted to many false gods through greed for greater uncleanness, it might call these sacrileges sacred rites, and offer itself to be violated and polluted by crowds of filthy demons.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- From Varro, Divine Antiquities. Translated plainly, without softening Augustine's account.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.21 (CSEL 40:330–331; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-21).

## City of God 7.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-22
- Source: CSEL 40:331–332
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine mocks Varro's making two goddesses, Venilia and Salacia, out of the incoming and outgoing wave.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. De Neptuno et Salacia ac Venilia. Iam utique habebat Salaciam Neptunus uxorem, quam inferiorem aquam maris esse dixerunt: ut quid illi adiuncta est et Venilia, nisi ut sine ulla causa necessariorum sacrorum sola libidine animae prostitutae multiplicaretur inuitatio daemoniorum? Sed proferatur interpretatio praeclarae theologiae, quae nos ab ista reprehensione reddita ratione conpescat. Venilia, inquit, unda est, quae ad litus uenit; Salacia, quae in salum redit. Quur ergo deae fiunt duae, cum sit una unda quae uenit et redit? Nempe ipsa est exaestuans in multa numina libido uesana. Quamuis enim aqua non geminetur quae it et redit, huius tamen occasione uanitatis duobus daemoniis inuitatis amplius commaculatur anima, quae it et non redit. Quaeso te, Varro, uel uos, qui tam doctorum hominum talia scripta legistis et aliquid magnum uos didicisse iactatis, interpretamini hoc, nolo dicere secundum illam aeternam incommutabilemque naturam, qui solus est Deus, sed saltem secundum animam mundi et partes eius, quos deos esse ueros existimatis. Partem animae mundi, quae mare permeat, deum uobis fecisse Neptunum utcumque tolerabilioris erroris est. Itane unda ad litus ueniens et in salum rediens duae sunt partes mundi aut duae partes animae mundi? Quis uestrum ita desipiat, ut hoc sapiat? Quur ergo uobis duas deas fecerunt, nisi quia prouisum est a sapientibus maioribus uestris, non ut di plures uos regerent, sed ut ea, quae istis uanitatibus et falsitatibus gaudent, plura uos daemonia possiderent? Quur autem illa Salacia per hanc interpretationem inferiorem maris partem, qua uiro erat subdita, perdidit? Namque illam modo, cum refluentem fluctum esse perhibetis, in superficie posuistis. An quia Veniliam pellicem accepit, irata suum maritum de supernis maris exclusit?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. On Neptune and Salacia and Venilia.

Neptune already had Salacia as his wife, who they said was the lower water of the sea. Why was Venilia also joined to him, except that, without any reason of necessary rites, by the mere lust of a prostituted soul, the invitation of demons might be multiplied? But let the interpretation of this illustrious theology be brought forward, to restrain us from this censure by giving its reason. “Venilia,” he says, “is the wave that comes (venit) to the shore; Salacia, the wave that returns to the open sea (salum).” Why, then, are there two goddesses, when it is one wave that comes and returns? Surely it is mad lust itself, overflowing into many deities. For though the water that goes and returns is not doubled, yet by occasion of this vanity, when two demons are invited, the soul that goes and does not return is the more defiled. I ask you, Varro, or you who have read such writings of such learned men and boast that you have learned something great: interpret this — I will not say according to that eternal and unchangeable nature which alone is God, but at least according to the soul of the world and its parts, which you think to be true gods. That you have made a god for yourselves of the part of the world-soul which pervades the sea, Neptune, is an error somewhat more tolerable. But are the wave coming to the shore and the wave returning to the open sea two parts of the world, or two parts of the world-soul? Which of you is so foolish as to think so? Why, then, have they made two goddesses for you, except that it was provided by your wise ancestors, not that more gods might rule you, but that more demons, which delight in these vanities and falsehoods, might possess you? And why did that Salacia, by this interpretation, lose the lower part of the sea, in which she was placed beneath her husband? For just now, when you declared her to be the ebbing wave, you placed her on the surface. Or, angry because he had taken Venilia as a concubine, did she shut her husband out of the upper parts of the sea?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Varro, Divine Antiquities, book 16.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.22 (CSEL 40:331–332; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-10/#p-7-22).

## City of God 7.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-23
- Source: CSEL 40:332–335
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine examines Varro's three grades of the world-soul and shows the confusion of making the one earth into Tellus, Dis, Proserpina, Tellumo, Altor, and Rusor.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. De Terra, quam Varro deam esse confirmat, eo quod ille animus mundi, quem opinatur deum, etiam hanc corporis sui infimam partem permeet eique uim diuinam inpertiat. Nempe una est terra, quam plenam quidem uidemus animalibus suis; uerum tamen ipsam magnum corpus in elementis mundique infimam partem, quur eam uolunt deam? An quia fecunda est? Quur ergo non magis homines di sunt, qui eam fecundiorem faciunt excolendo; sed cum arant, non cum adorant? Sed pars animae mundi, inquiunt, quae per illam permeat, deam facit. Quasi non euidentior sit in hominibus anima, quae utrum sit nulla fit quaestio; et tamen homines di non habentur et, quod est grauiter dolendum, his, qui di non sunt et quibus ipsi meliores sunt, colendis et adorandis mirabili et miserabili errore subduntur. Et certe idem Varro in eodem de dis selectis libro tres esse adfirmat animae gradus in omni uniuersaque natura: unum, qui omnes partes corporis, quae uiuunt, transit et non habet sensum, sed tantum ad uiuendum ualetudinem; hanc uim in nostro corpore permanare dicit in ossa, ungues, capillos; sicut in mundo arbores sine sensu aluntur et crescunt et modo quodam suo uiuunt: secundum gradum animae, in quo sensus est; hanc uim peruenire in oculos, aures, nares, os, tactum: tertium gradum esse animae summum, quod uocatur animus, in quo intellegentia praeminet; hoc praeter hominem omnes carere mortales. Hanc partem animae mundi dicit Deum, in nobis autem genium uocari. Esse autem in mundo lapides ac terram, quam uidemus, quo non permanat sensus, ut ossa, ut ungues Dei; solem uero, lunam, stellas, quae sentimus quibusque ipse sentit, sensus esse eius; aethera porro animum eius; cuius uim, quae peruenit in astra, ea quoque facere deos, et per ea quod in terram permanat, deam Tellurem; quod autem inde permanat in mare adque oceanum, deum esse Neptunum. Redeat ergo ab hac, quam theologian naturalem putat, quo uelut requiescendi causa ab his ambagibus adque anfractibus fatigatus egressus est; redeat, inquam, redeat ad ciuilem; hic eum adhuc teneo, tantisper de hac ago. Nondum dico, si terra et lapides nostris sunt ossibus et unguibus similes, similiter eos intellegentiam non habere, sicut sensu carent; aut si idcirco habere dicuntur ossa et ungues nostri intellegentiam, quia in homine sunt qui habet intellegentiam, tam stultum esse qui hos in mundo deos dicit, quam stultus est qui in nobis ossa et ungues homines dicit. Sed haec cum philosophis fortassis agenda sunt; nunc autem istum adhuc politicum uolo. Fieri enim potest, ut, licet in illam naturalis theologiae ueluti libertatem caput erigere paululum uoluisse uideatur, adhuc tamen hunc librum uersans et se in illo uersari cogitans, eum etiam inde respexerit et hoc propterea dixerit, ne maiores eius siue aliae ciuitates Tellurem adque Neptunum inaniter coluisse credantur. Sed hoc dico: pars animi mundani, quae per terram permeat, sicut una est terra, quur non etiam unam fecit deam, quam dicit esse Tellurem? Quod si ita fecit, ubi erit Orcus, frater Iouis adque Neptuni, quem Ditem patrem uocant? ubi eius coniunx Proserpina, quae secundum aliam in eisdem libris positam opinionem non terrae fecunditas, sed pars inferior perhibetur? Quod si dicunt animi mundani partem, cum permeat terrae partem superiorem, Ditem patrem facere deum; cum uero inferiorem, Proserpinam deam: Tellus illa quid erit? Ita enim totum, quod ipsa erat, in duas istas partes deosque diuisum est, ut ipsa tertia quae sit aut ubi sit inuenire non possit; nisi quis dicat simul istos deos Orcum adque Proserpinam unam deam esse Tellurem et non esse iam tres, sed aut unam aut duos; et tamen tres dicuntur, tres habentur, tres coluntur aris suis, delubris suis, sacris, simulacris, sacerdotibus suis, et per haec etiam fallacibus prostitutam animam constuprantibus daemonibus suis. Adhuc respondeatur, quam partem terrae permeet pars mundani animi, ut deum faciat Tellumonem? Non, inquit, sed una eademque terra habet geminam uim, et masculinam, quod semina producat, et femininam, quod recipiat adque nutriat; inde a ui feminae dictam esse Tellurem, a masculi Tellumonem. Quur ergo pontifices, ut ipse indicat, additis quoque aliis duobus quattuor dis faciunt rem diuinam, Telluri, Tellumoni, Altori, Rusori? De Tellure et Tellumone iam dictum est. Altori quare? Quod ex terra, inquit, aluntur omnia quae nata sunt. Rusori quare? Quod rursus, inquit, cuncta eodem reuoluuntur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. On the Earth, which Varro affirms to be a goddess because that mind of the world which he thinks is God pervades even this lowest part of his body and imparts divine force to it.

There is surely one earth, which we see full of its own living creatures; yet it is itself a great body among the elements and the lowest part of the world. Why do they want it to be a goddess? Because it is fruitful? Why, then, are men not rather gods, who make it more fruitful by cultivating it — but when they plough it, not when they adore it? “But the part of the world-soul,” they say, “which pervades it makes it a goddess.” As if the soul were not more evident in men, where there is no question whether it exists; and yet men are not held to be gods, and — what is gravely to be lamented — by a wonderful and pitiable error they are made subject, in worshipping and adoring, to those who are not gods and than whom they themselves are better. And certainly the same Varro, in the same book on the select gods, affirms that there are three grades of soul in all nature as a whole. One passes through all the living parts of the body and has no sensation, but only the power to live; this force, he says, flows in our body into the bones, nails, and hair, as in the world trees are nourished and grow without sensation and live in a way of their own. The second grade of soul is that in which there is sensation; this force reaches into the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, and touch. The third grade is the highest, which is called mind, in which intelligence is pre-eminent; all mortal beings except man lack it. This part of the world-soul he calls God, and in us it is called genius. In the world, he says, stones and earth, which we see, into which sensation does not flow, are like the bones and nails of God; but the sun, moon, and stars, which we perceive and by which he himself perceives, are his senses; and the ether is his mind. Its force, which reaches into the stars, also makes them gods; and what flows through them into the earth is the goddess Tellus; and what flows from there into the sea and ocean is the god Neptune. Let him return, then, from this which he thinks natural theology, into which he went out, tired of these windings and turnings, as if to rest; let him return, I say, let him return to the civil. Here I still hold him; for a while I am dealing with this. I do not yet say that, if earth and stones are like our bones and nails, they likewise lack intelligence, as they lack sensation; or that, if our bones and nails are said to have intelligence because they are in a man who has intelligence, he who calls these things in the world gods is as foolish as one who calls our bones and nails men. But these things perhaps should be dealt with together with the philosophers; for now I want him still as a political theologian. For it may be that, although he seems to have wished to lift his head a little into the freedom, as it were, of natural theology, yet, while still turning this book over and thinking that he was engaged in it, he looked back at it even from there, and said this so that his ancestors or other cities might not be thought to have worshipped Tellus and Neptune in vain. But this I say: since the earth is one, why did the part of the world-mind which pervades the earth not also make one goddess, whom he calls Tellus? And if it did, where will Orcus be, the brother of Jupiter and Neptune, whom they call Father Dis? Where will his wife Proserpina be, who according to another opinion given in the same books is said to be not the fruitfulness of the earth but its lower part? But if they say that the part of the world-mind, when it pervades the upper part of the earth, makes the god Father Dis, and when it pervades the lower part, the goddess Proserpina, what will that Tellus be? For all that she was has been so divided into these two parts and gods that it is impossible to find what or where she herself is as a third — unless someone says that these gods, Orcus and Proserpina, together are the one goddess Tellus, and that there are no longer three but either one or two. And yet three are spoken of, three are held, three are worshipped with their own altars, their own shrines, rites, images, and priests, and through these also with their own deceitful demons, who debauch the prostituted soul. Let him answer further: what part of the earth does the part of the world-mind pervade in order to make the god Tellumo? “No,” he says, “but one and the same earth has a twofold force: a masculine, in that it produces seeds, and a feminine, in that it receives and nourishes them; hence it is called Tellus from the feminine force and Tellumo from the masculine.” Why, then, do the pontiffs, as he himself points out, adding two others as well, perform divine service to four gods: to Tellus, Tellumo, Altor, and Rusor? Of Tellus and Tellumo we have spoken. Why to Altor? “Because,” he says, “all things that are born are nourished (aluntur) from the earth.” Why to Rusor? “Because,” he says, “all things return again (rursus) to the same place.”

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Varro, Divine Antiquities, book 16.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.23 (CSEL 40:332–335; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-23).

## City of God 7.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-24
- Source: CSEL 40:335–338
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that the many names of Tellus should not make many gods, and denounces the castration of the Galli in the cult of the Great Mother as worse than the other obscene rites.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIIII. De Telluris cognominibus eorumque significationibus, quae etiamsi erant multarum rerum indices, non debuerunt multorum deorum firmare opiniones. Debuit ergo una terra propter istam quatergeminam uim quattuor habere cognomina, non quattuor facere deos; sicut tot cognominibus unus Iuppiter et tot cognominibus una Iuno, in quibus omnibus uis multiplex esse dicitur ad unum deum uel unam deam pertinens, non multitudo cognominum deorum etiam multitudinem faciens. Sed profecto sicut aliquando etiam ipsas uilissimas feminas earum, quas libidine quaesierunt, taedet paenitetque turbarum: sic animam uilem factam et inmundis spiritibus prostitutam deos sibi multiplicare, quibus contaminanda prosterneretur, sicut plurimum libuit, sic aliquando et piguit. Nam et ipse Varro quasi de ipsa turba uerecundatus unam deam uult esse Tellurem. Eandem, inquit, dicunt Matrem Magnam; quod tympanum habeat, significari esse orbem terrae; quod turres in capite, oppida; quod sedens fingatur, circa eam cum omnia moueantur, ipsam non moueri. Quod Gallos huic deae ut seruirent fecerunt, significat, qui semine indigeant, terram sequi oportere; in ea quippe omnia reperiri. Quod se aput eam iactant, praecipitur, inquit, qui terram colunt, ne sedeant; semper enim esse quod agant. Cymbalorum sonitus ferramentorum iactandorum ac manuum et eius rei crepitum in colendo agro qui fit significant; ideo aere, quod eam antiqui colebant aere, antequam ferrum esset inuentum. Leonem, inquit, adiungunt solutum ac mansuetum, ut ostendant nullum genus esse terrae tam remotum ac uehementer ferum, quod non subigi colique conueniat. Deinde adiungit et dicit, Tellurem matrem et nominibus pluribus et cognominibus quod nominarunt, deos existimatos esse conplures. (Tellurem, inquit, putant esse Opem, quod opere fiat melior; Matrem, quod plurima pariat; Magnam, quod cibum pariat; Proserpinam, quod ex ea proserpant fruges; Vestam, quod uestiatur herbis. Sic alias deas, inquit, non absurde ad hanc reuocant. Si ergo una dea est, quae quidem consulta ueritate nec ipsa est, interim quid itur in multas? Unius sint ista multa nomina, non tam deae multae quam nomina. Sed errantium maiorum auctoritas deprimit et eundem Varronem post hanc sententiam trepidare conpellit. Adiungit enim et dicit: Cum quibus opinio maiorum de his deabus, quod plures eas putarunt esse, non pugnat. Quo modo non pugnat, cum ualde aliud sit unam deam nomina habere multa, aliud esse deas multas? Sed potest, inquit, fieri ut eadem res et una sit, et in ea quaedam res sint plures. Concedo in uno homine esse res plures, numquid ideo et homines plures? Sic in una dea esse res plures, numquid ideo et deas plures? Verum sicut uolunt, diuidant conflent, multiplicent replicent inplicent. Haec sunt Telluris et Matris Magnae praeclara mysteria, unde omnia referuntur ad mortalia semina et exercendam agriculturam. Itane ad haec relata et hunc finem habentia tympanum, turres, Galli, iactatio insana membrorum, crepitus cymbalorum, confictio leonum uitam cuiquam pollicentur aeternam? Itane propterea Galli abscisi huic Magnae deae seruiunt, ut significent, qui semine indigeant, terram sequi oportere; quasi non eos ipsa potius seruitus semine faciat indigere? Utrum enim sequendo hanc deam, cum indigeant, semen adquirunt, an potius sequendo hanc deam, cum habeant, semen amittunt? Hoc interpretari est an detestari? Nec adtenditur, quantum maligni daemones praeualuerint, qui nec aliqua magna his sacris polliceri ausi sunt, et tam crudelia exigere potuerunt. Si dea terra non esset, manus ei homines operando inferrent, ut semina consequerentur per illam, non et sibi saeuiendo, ut semina perderent propter illam; si dea non esset, ita fecunda fieret manibus alienis, ut non cogeret hominem sterilem fieri manibus suis. Iam quod in Liberi sacris honesta matrona pudenda uirilia coronabat spectante multitudine, ubi rubens et sudans, si est ulla frons in hominibus, adstabat forsitan et maritus; et quod in celebratione nuptiarum super Priapi scapum noua nupta sedere iubebatur: longe contemtibiliora adque leuiora sunt prae ista turpitudine crudelissima uel crudelitate turpissima, ubi daemonicis ritibus sic uterque sexus inluditur, ut neuter suo uulnere perimatur. Ibi fascinatio timetur agrorum, hic membrorum amputatio non timetur. Ibi sic dehonestatur nouae nuptae uerecundia, ut non solum fecunditas, sed nec uirginitas adimatur; hic ita amputatur uirilitas, ut nec conuertatur in feminam nec uir relinquatur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 24. On the surnames of Tellus and their meanings, which, even if they indicated many things, ought not to have confirmed the opinion that there are many gods.

The one earth, then, because of this fourfold force, ought to have had four surnames, not to have made four gods — just as there is one Jupiter with so many surnames and one Juno with so many surnames, in all of which a manifold force is said to belong to one god or one goddess, and the multitude of surnames does not also make a multitude of gods. But just as even the most degraded women sometimes grow weary and repent of the crowds they have sought out of lust, so the soul that has become degraded and prostituted to unclean spirits, as it has greatly delighted to multiply gods for itself before whom to prostrate itself to be defiled, has sometimes also grown weary of it. For Varro himself, as if ashamed of that very crowd, wants Tellus to be one goddess. “They say,” he says, “that she is also the Great Mother; that she has a drum signifies that she is the globe of the earth; that she has towers on her head, towns; that she is represented seated, that though all things move around her, she herself does not move. That they made Galli serve this goddess signifies that those who lack seed must follow the earth, for in it all things are found. That they throw themselves about before her teaches,” he says, “that those who cultivate the earth must not sit idle, for there is always something for them to do. The sound of the cymbals signifies the clatter of iron tools and of hands, and of such things, that is made in cultivating a field; they are of bronze because the ancients cultivated the earth with bronze before iron was discovered. They add a lion,” he says, “loose and tame, to show that there is no kind of land so remote and so fiercely wild that it is not fitting to subdue and cultivate it.” Then he adds that, because they named Mother Tellus with several names and surnames, she was thought to be a number of gods. “They think,” he says, “that Tellus is Ops, because she is made better by work (opus); Mother, because she bears very many things; Great, because she bears food; Proserpina, because crops creep forth (proserpant) from her; Vesta, because she is clothed (vestiatur) with herbs. And so,” he says, “they not unreasonably refer other goddesses to her.” If, then, she is one goddess — though in truth she is not even that — why meanwhile go off into many? Let these be the many names of one goddess, not so many goddesses as names. But the authority of his erring ancestors weighs him down and compels the same Varro to tremble after this opinion. For he adds: “With which the opinion of our ancestors about these goddesses, that they thought them to be many, does not conflict.” How does it not conflict, when it is one thing for one goddess to have many names and quite another for there to be many goddesses? “But it can happen,” he says, “that the same thing is both one and that there are several things in it.” I grant that there are several things in one man; are there therefore also several men? So there are several things in one goddess; are there therefore also several goddesses? But let them divide and combine, multiply and fold back and entangle as they please. These are the illustrious mysteries of Tellus and the Great Mother, from which everything is referred to mortal seeds and the practice of agriculture. Do the drum, the towers, the Galli, the mad tossing of limbs, the clash of cymbals, the fiction of lions — referred to these things and having this end — promise anyone eternal life? Do the castrated Galli serve this Great Goddess in order to signify that those who lack seed must follow the earth, as though it were not rather this very service that makes them lack seed? Do they acquire seed by following this goddess when they lack it, or rather lose seed by following this goddess when they have it? Is this interpreting or detesting? Nor is it noticed how far the malignant demons prevailed, who did not dare to promise anything great in these rites and yet were able to demand such cruel things. If the earth were not a goddess, men would lay hands on it by working it, to obtain seeds through it, not on themselves by raging, to lose seed for its sake. If it were not a goddess, it would become fruitful through the hands of others, and would not compel a man to become barren by his own hands. As for the fact that in the rites of Liber a respectable matron crowned the male member while the multitude looked on, where her husband too perhaps stood by, blushing and sweating, if there is any shame in men; and that in the celebration of marriages the new bride was ordered to sit on the shaft of Priapus — these things are far more contemptible and lighter than this most cruel shamefulness, or most shameful cruelty, where by demonic rites both sexes are so mocked that neither is destroyed by its own wound. There the evil eye on the fields is feared; here the amputation of the members is not feared. There the modesty of the new bride is so dishonored that neither her fruitfulness nor even her virginity is taken away; here manhood is so cut off that the man is neither turned into a woman nor left a man.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Varro, Divine Antiquities, book 16; the allegory of the Great Mother's emblems is Varro's. The rites are described plainly, as Augustine wrote.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.24 (CSEL 40:335–338; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-24).

## City of God 7.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-25
- Source: CSEL 40:338–339
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine rejects Porphyry's interpretation of the castrated Attis as the spring flowers that fall before the fruit.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXV. Quam interpretationem de abscisione Attidis Graecorum sapientium doctrina reppererit Et Attis ille non est commemoratus nec eius ab isto interpretatio requisita est, in cuius dilectionis memoriam Gallus absciditur. Sed docti Graeci adque sapientes nequaquam rationem tam sanctam praeclaramque tacuerunt. Propter uernalem quippe faciem terrae, quae ceteris est temporibus pulchrior, Porphyrius, philosophus nobilis, Attin flores significare perhibuit, et ideo abscisum, quia flos decidit ante fructum. Non ergo ipsum hominem uel quasi hominem, qui est uocatus Attis, sed uirilia eius flori conparauerunt. Ipsa quippe illo uiuente deciderunt; immo uero non deciderunt neque decerpta, sed plane discerpta sunt; nec illo flore amisso quisquam postea fructus, sed potius sterilitas consecuta est. Quid ergo ipse reliquus, et quidquid remansit absciso? quid eo significari dicitur? quo refertur? quae interpretatio inde profertur? An haec frustra moliendo nihilque inueniendo persuadent illud potius esse credendum, quod de homine castrato fama iactauit litterisque mandatum est? Merito hinc auersatus est Varro noster, neque hoc dicere uoluit; non enim hominem doctissimum latuit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 25. What interpretation of the castration of Attis the teaching of the Greek sages has found.

And that Attis, in memory of whose love the Gallus is castrated, has not been mentioned, nor has Varro sought an interpretation of him. But the learned and wise Greeks by no means kept silent about so holy and so illustrious an account. Because of the springtime face of the earth, which is more beautiful than at other seasons, Porphyry, a noted philosopher, declared that Attis signifies flowers, and that he was castrated because the flower falls before the fruit. So they did not compare the man himself, or one who was a sort of man, who was called Attis, to the flower, but his male parts. For these fell while he was still living; or rather, they did not fall, nor were they plucked, but plainly torn off; nor, when that flower was lost, did any fruit follow afterwards, but rather barrenness. What, then, of himself, what was left of him, whatever remained after the castration — what is it said to signify? To what is it referred? What interpretation is brought forward for it? Or do they, by laboring at this in vain and finding nothing, persuade us that what rumor has spread and has been committed to writing about a castrated man is rather what should be believed? Rightly did our Varro turn away from this and refuse to say it; for it did not escape that most learned man.

### Translation notes

- Porphyry's interpretation is from his treatise On Images (Peri agalmatōn), which has no entry in the site's list of extrabiblical texts.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.25 (CSEL 40:338–339; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-25).

## City of God 7.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-26
- Source: CSEL 40:339–341
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine denounces the castrated priests of the Great Mother, still seen recently in Carthage, as a disgrace worse than all the other myths of the gods.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVI. De turpitudine sacrorum Matris Magnae. Itemque de mollibus eidem Matri Magnae contra omnem uirorum mulierumque uerecundiam consecratis, qui usque in hesternum diem madidis capillis facie dealbata, fluentibus membris incessu femineo per plateas uicosque Carthaginis etiam a propolis unde turpiter uiuerent exigebant, nihil Varro dicere uoluit nec uspiam me legisse commemini. Defecit interpretatio, erubuit ratio, conticuit oratio. Vicit Matris Magnae omnes deos filios non numinis magnitudo, sed criminis. Huic monstro nec Iani monstrositas conparatur. Ille in simulacris habebat solam deformitatem, ista in sacris deformem crudelitatem; ille membra in lapidibus addita, haec in hominibus perdita. Hoc dedecus tot Iouis ipsius et tanta stupra non uincunt. Ille inter femineas corruptelas uno Ganymede caelum infamauit; ista tot mollibus professis et publicis et inquinauit terram et caelo fecit iniuriam. Saturnum fortasse possemus huic in isto genere turpissimae crudelitatis siue conferre siue praeferre, qui patrem castrasse perhibetur; sed in Saturni sacris homines alienis manibus potius occidi quam suis abscidi potuerunt. Deuorauit ille filios, ut poetae ferunt, et physici ex hoc interpretantur quod uolunt; ut autem historia prodit, necauit; sed quod ei Poeni suos filios sacrificati sunt, non recepere Romani. At uero ista Magna deorum Mater etiam Romanis templis castratos intulit adque istam saeuitiam moremque seruauit, credita uires adiuuare Romanorum exsecando uirilia uirorum. Quid sunt ad hoc malum furta Mercurii, Veneris lasciuia, stupra ac turpitudines ceterorum, quae proferremus de libris, nisi cottidie cantarentur et saltarentur in theatris? Sed haec quid sunt ad tantum malum, cuius magnitudo Magnae Matri tantummodo conpetebat? Praesertim quod illa dicuntur a poetis esse conficta, quasi poetae id etiam finxerint, quod ea sint dis grata et accepta. Ut ergo canerentur uel scriberentur, sit audacia uel petulantia poetarum; ut uero diuinis rebus et honoribus eisdem imperantibus et extorquentibus numinibus adderentur, quid est nisi crimen deorum, immo uero confessio daemoniorum et deceptio miserorum? Verum illud, quod de abscisorum consecratione Mater deum coli meruit, non poetae confinxerunt, sed horrere magis quam canere maluerunt. Hisne dis selectis quisquam consecrandus est, ut post mortem uiuat beate, quibus consecratus ante mortem honeste non potest uiuere, tam foedis superstitionibus subditus et inmundis daemonibus obligatus? Sed haec omnia, inquit, referuntur ad mundum. Videat ne potius ad inmundum. Quid autem non potest referri ad mundum, quod esse demonstratur in mundo? Nos autem animum quaerimus, qui uera religione confisus non tamquam deum suum adoret mundum, sed tamquam opus Dei propter Deum laudet mundum, et mundanis sordibus expiatus mundus perueniat ad Deum, qui condidit mundum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 26. On the shamefulness of the rites of the Great Mother.

Likewise concerning the effeminate men consecrated to this same Great Mother against all the modesty of men and women — who until yesterday, with dripping hair and whitened faces, with slack limbs and a womanish gait, went through the streets and lanes of Carthage demanding from the very shopkeepers the means to live shamefully — Varro chose to say nothing, nor do I remember reading anything about them anywhere. Interpretation failed, reason blushed, speech fell silent. The Great Mother surpassed all the gods, her sons, not by the greatness of her divinity but by the greatness of her crime. Not even the monstrosity of Janus is to be compared with this monster. He had deformity only in his images; she has deformed cruelty in her rites. He had members added in stone; she has members lost in men. This disgrace is not surpassed by all the many and great debaucheries of Jupiter himself. He, among his seductions of women, disgraced heaven with one Ganymede; she, with so many avowed and public effeminates, both defiled the earth and did injury to heaven. Perhaps we could compare Saturn with her in this kind of most shameful cruelty, or even put him before her, since he is said to have castrated his father; but in the rites of Saturn men could be killed by the hands of others rather than mutilated by their own. He devoured his sons, as the poets tell, and the natural philosophers interpret this as they please; as history reports, he killed them. But the Romans did not adopt the practice of the Carthaginians, who sacrificed their sons to him. Yet this Great Mother of the gods brought castrated men even into Roman temples and kept up this savage custom, being believed to aid the strength of the Romans by cutting off the manhood of men. What are the thefts of Mercury, the wantonness of Venus, the debaucheries and indecencies of the rest compared with this evil? We would produce them from the books, if they were not sung and danced daily in the theaters. But what are these compared with so great an evil, whose greatness befitted only the Great Mother? Especially since those things are said to have been invented by the poets — as though the poets also invented the fact that these things are pleasing and acceptable to the gods! That they were sung or written, then, may be the audacity or impudence of the poets; but that they were added to divine rites and honors, at the command and demand of the deities themselves — what is this but the crime of the gods, or rather the confession of demons and the deception of wretched men? But that the Mother of the gods earned worship by the consecration of castrated men, this the poets did not invent; they chose rather to shudder at it than to sing of it. Is anyone to be consecrated to these select gods in order to live happily after death, when, consecrated to them, he cannot live honorably before death, subject to such foul superstitions and bound to unclean demons? “But all these things,” he says, “are referred to the world (mundus).” Let him see whether it is not rather to the unclean (inmundus). And what cannot be referred to the world, if it is shown to be in the world? But we seek a mind which, relying on true religion, does not adore the world as its god, but praises the world as the work of God for God's sake, and, cleansed from the uncleanness of the world, comes clean (mundus) to God, who founded the world (mundus).

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Augustine plays on mundus “world” and mundus “clean,” and on inmundus “unclean.”

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.26 (CSEL 40:339–341; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-26).

## City of God 7.27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-27
- Source: CSEL 40:341–343
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that the physical allegories point only to changeable creatures, and that worshipping a creature, or worshipping God with shameful rites, is sin — and doing both is a double sin.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVII. De figmentis physiologorum, qui nec ueram diuinitatem colunt, nec eo cultu quo colenda est uera diuinitas. Istos uero deos selectos uidemus quidem clarius innotuisse quam ceteros, non tamen ut eorum inlustrarentur merita, sed ne occultarentur obprobria; unde magis eos homines fuisse credibile est, sicut non solum poeticae litterae, uerum etiam historicae tradiderunt. Nam quod Vergilius ait: Primus ab aetherio uenit Saturnus Olympo, Arma Iouis fugiens et regnis exul ademtis, et quae ad hanc rem pertinentia consequuntur, totam de hoc Euhemerus pandit historiam, quam Ennius in Latinum uertit eloquium; unde quia plurima posuerunt, qui contra huius modi errores ante nos uel Graeco sermone uel Latino scripserunt, non in eo mihi placuit inmorari. Ipsas physiologias cum considero, quibus docti et acuti homines has res humanas conantur uertere in res diuinas, nihil uideo nisi ad temporalia terrenaque opera naturamque corpoream uel etiamsi inuisibilem, tamen mutabilem potuisse reuocari; quod nullo modo est uerus Deus. Hoc autem si saltem religiositati congruis significationibus ageretur, esset quidem dolendum non his uerum Deum adnuntiari adque praedicari, tamen aliquo modo ferendum tam foeda et turpia non fieri nec iuberi; at nunc cum pro Deo uero, quo solo anima se inhabitante fit felix, nefas sit colere aut corpus aut animam, quanto magis nefarium est ista sic colere, ut nec salutem nec decus humanum corpus aut anima colentis obtineat! Quam ob rem si templo sacerdote sacrificio, quod uero Deo debetur, colatur aliquod elementum mundi uel creatus aliquis spiritus, etiamsi non inmundus et malus: non ideo malum est, quia illa mala sunt, quibus colitur, sed quia illa talia sunt, quibus ille solus colendus sit, cui talis cultus seruitusque debetur. Si autem stoliditate uel monstrositate simulacrorum, sacrificiis homicidiorum, coronatione uirilium pudendorum, mercede stuprorum, sectione membrorum, abscisione genitalium, consecratione mollium, festis inpurorum obscenorumque ludorum unum uerum Deum, id est omnis animae corporisque creatorem, colere se quisque contendat: non ideo peccat, quia non est colendus quem colit, sed quia colendum non ut colendus est colit. Qui uero et rebus talibus, id est turpibus et scelestis, et non Deum uerum, id est animae corporisque factorem, sed creaturam quamuis non uitiosam colit, siue illa sit anima siue corpus siue anima simul et corpus, bis peccat in Deum, quod et pro ipso colit, quod non est ipse, et talibus rebus colit, qualibus nec ipse colendus est nec non ipse. Sed hi quonam modo, id est quam turpiter nefarieque coluerint, in promtu est; quid autem uel quos coluerint, esset obscurum, nisi eorum testaretur historia ea ipsa, quae foeda et turpia confitentur, numinibus terribiliter exigentibus reddita; unde remotis constat ambagibus nefarios daemones adque inmundissimos spiritus hac omni ciuili theologia inuisendis stolidis imaginibus et per eas possidendis etiam stultis cordibus inuitatos.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 27. On the fictions of the natural philosophers, who neither worship the true divinity nor worship with the worship with which the true divinity is to be worshipped.

We see, indeed, that these select gods became more famous than the rest, not so that their merits might be made illustrious, but so that their disgraces might not be hidden; hence it is more credible that they were men, as not only poetic but also historical writings have handed down. For when Virgil says: “First came Saturn from ethereal Olympus, fleeing the arms of Jupiter, an exile from his lost realm,” and what follows on this matter, Euhemerus lays out the whole history of it, which Ennius turned into the Latin tongue; and since those who before us wrote against errors of this kind, in Greek or in Latin, have set out a great deal about it, I have not wished to dwell on it. When I consider the physical explanations themselves, by which learned and acute men try to turn these human things into divine things, I see nothing that could be referred to anything but temporal and earthly works and bodily nature, or, even if invisible, still changeable nature; and this is in no way the true God. If this were at least done with meanings befitting religion, it would indeed be lamentable that the true God was not announced and proclaimed by them; yet it would be in some measure tolerable that such foul and shameful things were not done or commanded. But now, since it is wicked to worship either a body or a soul in place of the true God, by whose indwelling alone the soul becomes happy, how much more wicked is it to worship these things in such a way that the body or soul of the worshipper obtains neither salvation nor human dignity! Therefore, if some element of the world, or some created spirit, even one not unclean and evil, is worshipped with temple, priest, and sacrifice, which are due to the true God, this is not evil because the things with which it is worshipped are evil, but because they are such that he alone should be worshipped with them to whom such worship and service is due. But if anyone contends that he worships the one true God, that is, the creator of every soul and body, with stupid and monstrous images, with the sacrifice of human beings, with the crowning of the male member, with the wages of debauchery, with the cutting of limbs, with the removal of the genitals, with the consecration of effeminates, with festivals of impure and obscene games, he sins not because the one he worships is not to be worshipped, but because he worships the one who is to be worshipped not as he is to be worshipped. But one who worships with such things, that is, shameful and wicked things, and worships not the true God, that is, the maker of soul and body, but a creature, however free from vice — whether it be a soul or a body or soul and body together — sins twice against God: because he worships in God's place what is not God, and because he worships with such things as neither God nor what is not God is to be worshipped with. How these men worshipped, that is, how shamefully and wickedly, is plain; but what or whom they worshipped would be obscure, did not their history testify that those very things which they confess to be foul and shameful were rendered at the fearful demand of the deities. From this it is clear, without any circumlocution, that wicked demons and most unclean spirits were invited by this whole civil theology to visit stupid images and through them to possess foolish hearts as well.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 8.319–320 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Ennius, Euhemerus (Ennius): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Virgil, Aeneid 8.319–320. Euhemerus' Sacred History, which made the gods deified men, was translated into Latin by Ennius.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.27 (CSEL 40:341–343; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-27).

## City of God 7.28

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-28
- Source: CSEL 40:343–344
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine shows that Varro's scheme of referring gods to heaven and goddesses to earth contradicts itself, as Minerva, Neptune, and Dis show.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIII. Quod doctrina Varronis de theologia in nulla sibi parte concordet. Quid igitur ualet, quod uir doctissimus et acutissimus Varro uelut subtili disputatione hos omnes deos in caelum et in terram redigere ac referre conatur? Non potest; fluunt de manibus, resiliunt, labuntur et decidunt. Dicturus enim de feminis, hoc est deabus: Quoniam, inquit, ut primo libro dixi de locis, duo sunt principia deorum animaduersa de caelo et terra, a quo di partim dicuntur caelestes, partim terrestres: ut in superioribus initium fecimus a caelo, cum diximus de Iano, quem alii caelum, alii dixerunt esse mundum, sic de feminis scribendi facimus initium a Tellure. Sentio quantam molestiam tale ac tantum patiatur ingenium. Ducitur enim quadam ratione uerisimili, caelum esse quod faciat, terram quae patiatur, et ideo illi masculinam uim tribuit, huic rem femininam, et non adtendit eum potius esse qui haec facit, qui utrumque fecit. Hinc etiam Samothracum nobilia mysteria in superiore libro sic interpretatur eaque se, quae nec suis nota sunt, scribendo expositurum eisque missurum quasi religiosissime pollicetur. Dicit enim se ibi multis indiciis collegisse in simulacris aliud significare caelum, aliud terram, aliud exempla rerum, quas Plato appellat ideas; caelum Iouem, terram Iunonem, ideas Mineruam uult intellegi; caelum a quo fiat aliquid, terram de qua fiat, exemplum secundum quod fiat. Qua in re omitto dicere, quod Plato illas ideas tantam uim habere dicit, ut secundum eas non caelum aliquid fecerit, sed etiam caelum factum sit. Hoc dico, istum in hoc libro selectorum deorum rationem illam trium deorum, quibus quasi cuncta conplexus est, perdidisse. Caelo enim tribuit masculos deos, feminas terrae; inter quas posuit Mineruam, quam supra ipsum caelum ante posuerat. Deinde masculus deus Neptunus in mari est, quod ad terram potius quam ad caelum pertinet. Dis pater postremo, qui Graece Πλούτων dicitur, etiam ipse masculus frater amborum terrenus deus esse perhibetur, superiorem terram tenens, in inferiore habens Proserpinam coniugem. Quo modo ergo deos ad caelum, deas ad terram referre conantur? Quid solidum quid constans, quid sobrium quid definitum habet haec disputatio? Illa est autem Tellus initium dearum, Mater scilicet Magna, aput quam mollium et abscisorum seseque secantium adque iactantium insana perstrepit turpitudo. Quid est ergo quod dicitur caput deorum Ianus, caput dearum Tellus? Nec ibi facit unum caput error, nec hic sanum furor. Quur haec frustra referre nituntur ad mundum? Quod etsi possent, pro Deo uero mundum nemo pius colit; et tamen eos nec hoc posse ueritas aperta conuincit. Referant haec potius ad homines mortuos et ad daemones pessimos, et nulla quaestio remanebit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 28. That Varro's teaching on theology agrees with itself in no part.

What, then, is the use of the most learned and most acute Varro's attempt, by a seemingly subtle argument, to reduce and refer all these gods to heaven and earth? He cannot; they slip through his fingers, spring back, slide away, and fall. For when he is about to speak of the females, that is, the goddesses, he says: “Since, as I said in the first book on places, two origins of the gods have been observed, from heaven and from earth, from which the gods are called partly heavenly and partly earthly: as in the earlier books we began from heaven, when we spoke of Janus, whom some have called heaven and others the world, so in writing about the females we begin from Tellus.” I perceive how great a difficulty so great and so gifted a mind suffers. For he is led by a certain plausible reasoning, that heaven is what acts and earth what is acted upon, and so he attributes to the one a masculine force and to the other a feminine; and he does not notice that it is rather he who does these things who made both. From this he also interprets the famous mysteries of the Samothracians in the preceding book, and promises, as if most religiously, that by writing he will explain them and send them to those who are not even familiar with them. For he says that he has gathered from many indications there that in the images one signifies heaven, another earth, another the patterns of things, which Plato calls ideas; he wants heaven to be understood as Jupiter, earth as Juno, the ideas as Minerva — heaven as that by which something is made, earth as that from which it is made, the pattern as that according to which it is made. On this point I pass over saying that Plato holds these ideas to have such great force that according to them not only did heaven make something, but heaven itself was made. This I do say: that in this book on the select gods he has lost that account of the three gods in which he embraced, as it were, all things. For he assigns male gods to heaven and female to earth; and among the latter he placed Minerva, whom earlier he had placed above heaven itself. Then the male god Neptune is in the sea, which pertains to the earth rather than to heaven. Finally Father Dis, who is called Plouton in Greek, himself also male and brother of both, is said to be an earthly god, holding the upper earth and having his wife Proserpina in the lower. How, then, do they try to refer the gods to heaven and the goddesses to earth? What solidity, what consistency, what sobriety, what definiteness does this argument have? But that Tellus is the beginning of the goddesses — the Great Mother, of course, around whom resounds the mad shamefulness of the effeminate and the castrated, of men who cut themselves and throw themselves about. What, then, is meant by calling Janus the head of the gods and Tellus the head of the goddesses? Neither does error make one head there, nor does frenzy make a sane one here. Why do they struggle in vain to refer these things to the world? Even if they could, no devout man worships the world in place of the true God; and yet the plain truth proves that they cannot do even this. Let them rather refer these things to dead men and to most wicked demons, and no question will remain.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, Ant. rer. div. 16 (Varro): quotation, high confidence
- Plato, Tim. (Plato (works)): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Varro, Divine Antiquities, book 16; the Samothracian interpretation was in book 15. On the ideas, compare Plato, Timaeus.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.28 (CSEL 40:343–344; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-28).

## City of God 7.29

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-29
- Source: CSEL 40:344–345
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine states that Christians worship not heaven, earth, or a world-soul, but the God who made them all.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIIII. Quod omnia, quae physiologi ad mundum partesque ipsius rettulerunt, ad unum uerum Deum referre debuerint. Namque omnia, quae ab eis ex istorum deorum theologia uelut physicis rationibus referuntur ad mundum, quam sine ullo scrupulo sacrilegae opinionis Deo potius uero, qui fecit mundum, omnis animae et omnis corporis conditori, tribuantur, aduertamus hoc modo: Nos Deum colimus, non caelum et terram, quibus duabus partibus mundus hic constat; nec animam uel animas per uiuentia quaecumque diffusas, sed Deum, qui fecit caelum et terram et omnia, quae in eis sunt; qui fecit omnem animam, siue quocumque modo uiuentem et sensus ac rationis expertem, siue etiam sentientem, siue etiam intellegentem.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 29. That all the things which the natural philosophers referred to the world and its parts they ought to have referred to the one true God.

For let us notice in this way how all the things which, in the theology of these gods, they refer to the world as though by physical explanations, may rather be attributed, without any scruple of sacrilegious opinion, to the true God, who made the world, the creator of every soul and every body. We worship God, not heaven and earth, the two parts of which this world consists; nor a soul or souls spread through all living things, but God, who made heaven and earth and all that is in them; who made every soul, whether it lives in whatever way and lacks sense and reason, or whether it also feels, or whether it also understands.

### Scripture references

- Ps 146:6 (145:6 LXX): allusion, medium confidence
- Acts 14:15: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- “Who made heaven and earth and all that is in them” echoes Ps 146:6 (145:6 LXX) and Acts 4:24; 14:15.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.29 (CSEL 40:344–345; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-29).

## City of God 7.30

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-30
- Source: CSEL 40:345–347
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine lists the works that Varro divided among many gods and ascribes them all to the one true God, present everywhere, from whom alone eternal life is hoped.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXX. Qua pietate discernatur a creaturis Creator, ne pro uno tot di colantur, quot sunt opera unius auctoris. Et ut iam incipiam illa unius et ueri Dei opera percurrere, propter quae isti sibi, dum quasi honeste conantur sacramenta turpissima et scelestissima interpretari, deos multos falsosque fecerunt: illum Deum colimus, qui naturis a se creatis et subsistendi et mouendi initia finesque constituit; qui rerum causas habet, nouit adque disponit; qui uim seminum condidit; qui rationalem animam, quod dicitur animus, quibus uoluit uiuentibus indidit; qui sermonis facultatem usumque donauit; qui munus futura dicendi quibus placuit spiritibus inpertiuit et per quos placet ipse futura praedicit et per quos placet malas ualetudines pellit; qui bellorum quoque ipsorum, cum sic emendandum et castigandum est genus humanum, exordiis progressibus finibusque moderatur; qui mundi huius ignem uehementissimum et uiolentissimum pro inmensae naturae temperamento et creauit et regit; qui uniuersarum aquarum creator et gubernator est; qui solem fecit corporalium clarissimum luminum eique uim congruam et motum dedit; qui ipsis etiam inferis dominationem suam potestatemque non subtrahit; qui semina et alimenta mortalium, siue arida siue liquida, naturis conpetentibus adtributa substituit; qui terram fundat adque fecundat; qui fructus eius animalibus hominibusque largitur; qui causas non solum principales, sed etiam subsequentes nouit adque ordinat; qui lunae statuit modum suum; qui uias caelestes adque terrestres locorum mutationibus praebet; qui humanis ingeniis, quae creauit, etiam scientias artium uariarum ad adiuuandam uitam naturamque concessit; qui coniunctionem maris et feminae ad adiutorium propagandae prolis instituit; qui hominum coetibus, quem focis et luminibus adhiberent, ad facillimos usus munus terreni ignis indulsit. Ista sunt certe, quae dis selectis per nescio quas physicas interpretationes uir acutissimus adque doctissimus Varro, siue quae aliunde accepit, siue quae ipse coniecit, distribuere laborauit. Haec autem facit adque agit unus uerus Deus, sed sicut Deus, id est ubique totus, nullis inclusus locis, nullis uinculis adligatus, in nullas partes sectilis, ex nulla parte mutabilis, inplens caelum et terram praesente potentia, non indigente natura. Sic itaque administrat omnia, quae creauit, ut etiam ipsa proprios exerere et agere motus sinat. Quamuis enim nihil esse possint sine ipso, non sunt quod ipse. Agit autem multa etiam per angelos; sed non nisi ex se ipso beatificat angelos. Ita quamuis propter aliquas causas hominibus angelos mittat, non tamen ex angelis homines, sed ex se ipso, sicut angelos, beatificat. Ab hoc uno et uero Deo uitam speramus aeternam.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 30. With what devotion the Creator is distinguished from creatures, so that in place of one God so many gods are not worshipped as there are works of the one author.

And to begin now to run through those works of the one true God, because of which these men made for themselves many false gods while they tried to interpret, as if honorably, most shameful and most wicked rites: we worship that God who has established for the natures he created the beginnings and ends both of their existing and of their moving; who holds, knows, and disposes the causes of things; who founded the force of seeds; who placed the rational soul, which is called the mind, in such living beings as he willed; who gave the faculty and use of speech; who imparted the gift of foretelling the future to such spirits as he pleased, and through whom he pleases himself foretells the future, and through whom he pleases drives away sicknesses; who governs the beginnings, progress, and ends even of wars themselves, when the human race is to be corrected and chastised in that way; who created and rules the most vehement and violent fire of this world, in due proportion to the immense natural order; who is the creator and governor of all the waters; who made the sun the brightest of bodily lights and gave it a fitting force and motion; who does not withdraw his dominion and power even from the underworld itself; who has provided the seeds and nourishment of mortals, whether dry or liquid, assigned to the natures suited to them; who founds the earth and makes it fruitful; who bestows its fruits on animals and men; who knows and orders causes not only principal but also subsequent; who has appointed for the moon its measure; who provides ways in heaven and on earth for changes of place; who has granted to the human minds he created also the knowledge of various arts, to help life and nature; who instituted the union of male and female as a help for propagating offspring; who has granted to the communities of men the gift of earthly fire for the easiest uses, to use on hearths and for lights. These are certainly the things which the most acute and most learned Varro labored to distribute among the select gods by some physical interpretations or other, whether he received them from elsewhere or conjectured them himself. But these things the one true God does and brings about, but as God, that is, whole everywhere, enclosed in no places, bound by no bonds, divisible into no parts, changeable in no part, filling heaven and earth with his present power, not with a needy nature. So he administers all the things he has created that he also allows them to put forth and carry out their own movements. For though they could not exist without him, they are not what he is. He also does many things through angels; but he makes the angels happy only from himself. So, though for some reasons he sends angels to men, he makes men happy not from the angels but from himself, as he does the angels. From this one and true God we hope for eternal life.

### Scripture references

- Jer 23:24: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- “Filling heaven and earth” echoes Jer 23:24.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.30 (CSEL 40:345–347; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-30).

## City of God 7.31

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-31
- Source: CSEL 40:347
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine gives thanks for the special gift to the faithful: the incarnation and unique sacrifice of the Son, and the love poured out by the Spirit.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXI. Quibus proprie beneficiis Dei excepta generali largitate sectatores ueritatis utantur. Habemus enim ab illo praeter huiusce modi beneficia, quae ex hac, de qua nonnulla diximus, administratione naturae bonis malisque largitur, magnum et bonorum proprium magnae dilectionis indicium. Quamquam enim, quod sumus, quod uiuimus, quod caelum terramque conspicimus, quod habemus mentem adque rationem, qua eum ipsum, qui haec omnia condidit, inquiramus, nequaquam ualeamus actioni sufficere gratiarum: tamen quod nos oneratos obrutosque peccatis et a contemplatione suae lucis auersos ac tenebrarum, id est iniquitatis, dilectione caecatos non omnino deseruit misitque nobis Verbum suum, qui est eius unicus filius, quo pro nobis adsumta carne nato adque passo, quanti Deus hominem penderet, nosceremus adque illo sacrificio singulari a peccatis omnibus mundaremur eiusque spiritu in cordibus nostris dilectione diffusa omnibus difficultatibus superatis in aeternam requiem et contemplationis eius ineffabilem dulcedinem ueniremus, quae corda, quot linguae ad agendas ei gratias satis esse contenderint?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 31. What benefits of God those who follow the truth enjoy as their own, apart from his general bounty.

For besides benefits of this kind, which, through this administration of nature of which we have said something, he bestows on good and bad alike, we have from him a great sign of great love, proper to the good. For though we can by no means give sufficient thanks that we exist, that we live, that we behold heaven and earth, that we have mind and reason by which to seek him who founded all these things, yet what hearts, how many tongues, would claim to be enough to give him thanks for this: that, when we were weighed down and overwhelmed with sins, turned away from the contemplation of his light and blinded by love of darkness, that is, of iniquity, he did not wholly abandon us, but sent us his Word, who is his only Son, so that, through his being born and suffering for us in the flesh he had taken, we might know how much God valued man, and by that unique sacrifice might be cleansed from all sins, and, love being poured out in our hearts by his Spirit, might overcome all difficulties and come to eternal rest and the ineffable sweetness of contemplating him?

### Scripture references

- Rom 5:5: allusion, high confidence
- John 3:16: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Echoes Rom 5:5 (“God's love has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit”) and John 3:16.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.31 (CSEL 40:347; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-31).

## City of God 7.32

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-32
- Source: CSEL 40:347–348
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that the mystery of redemption in Christ was always proclaimed by signs, and that the whole worship of Israel foretold what is fulfilled in Christ.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXII. Quod sacramentum redemtionis Christi nullis retro temporibus defuerit semperque sit diuersis significationibus praedicatum. Hoc mysterium uitae aeternae iam inde ab exordio generis humani per quaedam signa et sacramenta temporibus congrua, quibus oportuit, per angelos praedicatum est. Deinde populus Hebraeus in unam quandam rem publicam, quae hoc sacramentum ageret, congregatus est, ubi per quosdam scientes, per quos dam nescientes id, quod ex aduentu Christi usque nunc et deinceps agitur, praenuntiaretur esse uenturum; sparsa etiam postea eadem gente per gentes propter testimonium scripturarum, quibus aeterna salus in Christo futura praedicta est. Omnes enim non solum prophetiae, quae in uerbis sunt, nec tantum praecepta uitae, quae mores pietatemque conformant adque illis litteris continentur, uerum etiam sacra, sacerdotia, tabernaculum siue templum, altaria, sacrificia, ceremoniae, dies festi et quidquid aliud ad eam seruitutem pertinet, quae Deo debetur et Graece proprie λατρεία dicitur, ea significata et praenuntiata sunt, quae propter aeternam uitam fidelium in Christo et inpleta credimus et inpleri cernimus et inplenda confidimus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 32. That the mystery of Christ's redemption was lacking in no past times, and was always proclaimed by various signs.

This mystery of eternal life was proclaimed from the very beginning of the human race by angels, through certain signs and sacraments suited to the times, to those to whom it was fitting. Then the Hebrew people was gathered into a single commonwealth, as it were, to enact this mystery; and in it, through some who knew and some who did not know, what has been taking place from the coming of Christ until now, and will take place hereafter, was foretold as going to come. Afterwards that same nation was also scattered among the nations for the sake of the testimony of the Scriptures, in which eternal salvation was foretold as going to be in Christ. For not only all the prophecies that are in words, nor only the precepts of life that form morals and piety and are contained in those writings, but also the rites, priesthoods, tabernacle or temple, altars, sacrifices, ceremonies, festival days, and whatever else pertains to that service which is due to God and in Greek is properly called latreia — all these signified and foretold the things which, for the sake of the eternal life of the faithful in Christ, we believe have been fulfilled, see being fulfilled, and trust will be fulfilled.

### Translation notes

- Latreia (λατρεία) is the Greek term for the service due to God alone; it becomes central in Book 10 (see the note on 10.1). The Jewish rites are presented, as throughout Augustine, as signs fulfilled in Christ, and the dispersion of the Jews as serving to witness to the Scriptures.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.32 (CSEL 40:347–348; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-32).

## City of God 7.33

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-33
- Source: CSEL 40:348–349
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine says that only the Christian religion reveals the pagan gods as demons, from whom Christ's humility sets people free, and that Varro's natural explanations cannot excuse their rites.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXIII. Quod per solam Christianam religionem manifestari potuerit fallacia spirituum malignorum de hominum errore gaudentium. Per hanc ergo religionem unam et ueram potuit aperiri deos gentium esse inmundissimos daemones, sub defunctarum occasionibus animarum uel creaturarum specie mundanarum deos se putari cupientes et quasi diuinis honoribus eisdemque scelestis ac turpibus rebus superba inpuritate laetantes adque ad uerum Deum conuersionem humanis animis inuidentes. Ex quorum inmanissimo et inpiissimo dominatu homo liberatur, cum credit in eum, qui praebuit ad exsurgendum tantae humilitatis exemplum, quanta illi superbia ceciderunt. Hinc sunt non solum illi, de quibus multa iam diximus, et alii adque alii similes ceterarum gentium adque terrarum, sed etiam hi, de quibus nunc agimus, tamquam in senatum deorum selecti; sed plane selecti nobilitate criminum, non dignitate uirtutum. Quorum sacra Varro dum quasi ad naturales rationes referre conatur, quaerens honestare res turpes, quo modo his quadret et consonet non potest inuenire, quoniam non sunt ipsae illorum sacrorum causae, quas putat uel potius uult putari. Nam si non solum ipsae, uerum etiam quaelibet aliae huius generis essent, quamuis nihil ad Deum uerum uitamque aeternam, quae in religione quaerenda est, pertinerent, tamen qualicumque de rerum natura reddita ratione aliquantulum mitigarent offensionem, quam non intellecta in sacris aliqua uelut turpitudo aut absurditas fecerat; sicut in quibusdam theatrorum fabulis uel delubrorum mysteriis facere conatus est, ubi non theatra delubrorum similitudine absoluit, sed theatrorum potius similitudine delubra damnauit; tamen utcumque conatus est, ut sensum horribilibus rebus offensum uelut naturalium causarum ratio reddita deleniret.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 33. That only through the Christian religion could the deceit of the malignant spirits, who rejoice in the error of men, be made manifest.

Through this one true religion, then, it could be disclosed that the gods of the nations are most unclean demons, who, taking occasion from dead souls or under the appearance of creatures of the world, desire to be thought gods, and with proud impurity rejoice in so-called divine honors, and those wicked and shameful, and begrudge human souls their conversion to the true God. From their most savage and most impious dominion man is set free when he believes in him who gave an example of humility, by which to rise, as great as the pride by which they fell. Of this kind are not only those of whom we have already said much, and others and yet others like them of the other nations and lands, but also these of whom we are now treating, chosen as it were into a senate of the gods — but plainly chosen for the nobility of their crimes, not for the dignity of their virtues. While Varro tries to refer their rites, as it were, to natural explanations, seeking to make shameful things respectable, he cannot find how to make these fit and agree with them, since the real causes of those rites are not those which he thinks, or rather wishes to be thought. For if not only these, but any others of this kind, were the causes, then, although they would have nothing to do with the true God and the eternal life that is to be sought in religion, yet by some account given from the nature of things they would somewhat soften the offense caused by some apparent shamefulness or absurdity in the rites, which was not understood. So he tried to do in the case of certain fables of the theaters or mysteries of the shrines — where he did not acquit the theaters by their likeness to the shrines, but rather condemned the shrines by their likeness to the theaters. Yet he tried as best he could, so that the offense caused to the mind by horrible things might be soothed by an account given, as it were, of natural causes.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.33 (CSEL 40:348–349; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-23/#p-7-33).

## City of God 7.34

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-34/#p-7-34
- Source: CSEL 40:349–351
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine recounts from Varro how Numa's books explaining the causes of the Roman rites were unearthed and burned by the senate as too shameful to be known.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXIIII. De libris Numae Pompilii, quos senatus, ne sacrorum causae, quales in eis habebantur, innotescerent, iussit incendi. Sed contra inuenimus, sicut ipse uir doctissimus prodidit, de Numae Pompilii libris redditas sacrorum causas nullo modo potuisse tolerari nec dignas habitas, quae non solum lectae innotescerent religiosis, sed saltem scriptae reconderentur in tenebris. Iam enim dicam, quod in tertio huius operis libro me suo loco dicturum esse promiseram. Nam, sicut aput eundem Varronem legitur in libro de cultu deorum, Terentius quidam cum haberet ad Ianiculum fundum et bubulcus eius iuxta sepulcrum Numae Pompilii traiciens aratrum eruisset ex terra libros eius, ubi sacrorum institutorum scriptae erant causae, in Urbem pertulit ad praetorem. At ille cum inspexisset principia, rem tantam detulit ad senatum. Ubi cum primores quasdam causas legissent, quur quidque in sacris fuerit institutum, Numae mortuo senatus adsensus est, eosque libros tamquam religiosi patres conscripti, praetor ut combureret, censuerunt. Credat quisque quod putat; immo uero dicat, quod dicendum suggesserit uesana contentio, quilibet tantae inpietatis defensor egregius. Me admonere sufficiat sacrorum causas a rege Pompilio Romanorum sacrorum institutore conscriptas nec populo nec senatui nec saltem ipsis sacerdotibus innotescere debuisse ipsumque Numam Pompilium curiositate inlicita ad ea daemonum peruenisse secreta, quae ipse quidem scriberet, ut haberet unde legendo commoneretur; sed ea tamen, cum rex esset, qui minime quemquam metueret, nec docere aliquem nec delendo uel quoquo modo consumendo perdere auderet. Ita quod scire neminem uoluit, ne homines nefaria doceret, uiolare autem timuit, ne daemones iratos haberet, obruit, ubi tutum putauit, sepulcro suo propinquare aratrum posse non credens. Senatus autem cum religiones formidaret damnare maiorum et ideo Numae adsentiri cogeretur, illos tamen libros tam perniciosos esse iudicauit, ut nec obrui rursus iuberet, ne humana curiositas multo uehementius rem iam proditam quaereret, sed flammis aboleri nefanda monumenta, ut, quia iam necesse esse existimabant sacra illa facere, tolerabilius erraretur causis eorum ignoratis, quam cognitis ciuitas turbaretur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 34. On the books of Numa Pompilius, which the senate ordered to be burned, so that the causes of the rites, as they were given in them, might not become known.

But on the contrary we find, as this most learned man himself reported, that the causes of the rites given in the books of Numa Pompilius could in no way be tolerated, and were not thought worthy not only to be read and become known to the religious, but even to be kept hidden in darkness in writing. For now I shall tell what I promised in the third book of this work to tell in its place. For, as we read in the same Varro in his book on the worship of the gods: “A certain Terentius had a farm near the Janiculum; and his ploughman, driving the plough near the tomb of Numa Pompilius, turned up from the earth Numa's books, in which were written the causes of the rites he had instituted. Terentius brought them to the city to the praetor. He, having looked at the beginnings, referred so grave a matter to the senate. There, when the leading men had read some of the causes why each thing had been instituted in the rites, the senate agreed with the dead Numa, and the conscript fathers, as religious men, decreed that the praetor should burn those books.” Let each believe what he thinks; indeed, let any distinguished defender of such great impiety say what mad contentiousness suggests to him. It is enough for me to point out that the causes of the rites written by King Pompilius, the founder of the Roman rites, ought not to have become known to the people or to the senate or even to the priests themselves; and that Numa Pompilius himself, by unlawful curiosity, arrived at those secrets of demons, which he wrote down so that he might have something to remind him by reading. Yet, though he was a king who feared no one, he dared neither to teach them to anyone nor to destroy them by deleting or consuming them in any way. So, what he wanted no one to know, lest he teach men wicked things, and yet feared to violate, lest he have the demons angry with him, he buried where he thought it safe, not believing that a plough could come near his tomb. But the senate, fearing to condemn the religion of their ancestors and therefore compelled to agree with Numa, still judged those books so pernicious that it did not order them to be buried again, lest human curiosity should seek the matter, now disclosed, much more vehemently, but ordered the wicked records to be destroyed by fire; so that, since they thought it necessary to go on performing those rites, it would be more tolerable to err in ignorance of their causes than for the city to be thrown into turmoil by knowing them.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, De cultu deorum (Varro): quotation, high confidence
- Livy, 40.29 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Varro, On the Worship of the Gods (compare Livy 40.29, where the discovery is dated 181 BC). The promise was made in City of God 3.9.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.34 (CSEL 40:349–351; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-34/#p-7-34).

## City of God 7.35

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-34/#p-7-35
- Source: CSEL 40:351–353
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that Numa learned the Roman rites by hydromancy from demons, and argues that the burning of his books shows how shameful their real causes were.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXV. De hydromantia, per quam Numa uisis quibusdam daemonum imaginibus ludificabatur. Nam et ipse Numa, ad quem nullus Dei propheta, nullus sanctus angelus mittebatur, hydromantian facere conpulsus est, ut in aqua uideret imagines deorum uel potius ludificationes daemonum, a quibus audiret, quid in sacris constituere adque obseruare deberet. Quod genus diuinationis idem Varro a Persis dicit adlatum, quo et ipsum Numam et postea Pythagoram philosophum usum fuisse commemorat; ubi adhibito sanguine etiam inferos perhibet sciscitari et νεϰοιομαντείαν Graece dicit uocari, quae [siue hydromantia] siue necromantia dicatur, id ipsum est, ubi uidentur mortui diuinare. Quibus haec artibus fiant, ipsi uiderint. Nolo enim dicere has artes etiam ante nostri Saluatoris aduentum in ipsis ciuitatibus gentium legibus solere prohiberi et poena seuerissima uindicari. Nolo, inquam, hoc dicere; fortassis enim talia tunc licebant. His tamen artibus didicit sacra illa Pompilius, quorum sacrorum facta prodidit, causas obruit (ita timuit et ipse quod didicit), quarum causarum proditos libros senatus incendit. Quid mihi ergo Varro illorum sacrorum alias nescio quas causas uelut physicas interpretatur? quales si libri illi habuissent, non utique arsissent, aut et istos Varronis ad Caesarem pontificem scriptos adque editos patres conscripti similiter incendissent. Quod ergo aquam egesserit, id est exportauerit, Numa Pompilius, unde hydromantian faceret, ideo nympham Egeriam coniugem dicitur habuisse, quem ad modum in supradicto libro Varronis exponitur. Ita enim solent res gestae aspersione mendaciorum in fabulas uerti. In illa igitur hydromantia curiosissimus rex ille Romanus et sacra didicit, quae in libris suis pontifices haberent, et eorum causas, quas praeter se neminem scire uoluit. Itaque eas seorsum scriptas secum quodam modo mori fecit, quando ita subtrahendas hominum notitiae sepeliendasque curauit. Aut ergo daemonum illic tam sordidae et noxiae cupiditates erant conscriptae, ut ex his tota illa theologia ciuilis etiam aput tales homines execrabilis appareret, qui tam multa in ipsis sacris erubescenda susceperant; aut illi omnes nihil aliud quam homines mortui prodebantur, quos tam prolixa temporis uetustate fere omnes populi gentium deos inmortales esse crediderant, cum et talibus sacris idem illi daemones oblectarentur, qui se colendos pro ipsis mortuis, quos deos putari fecerant, quibusdam fallacium miraculorum adtestationibus subponebant. Sed occulta Dei ueri prouidentia factum est, ut et Pompilio amico suo illis conciliati artibus, quibus hydromantia fieri potuit, cuncta illa confiteri permitterentur, et tamen, ut moriturus incenderet ea potius quam obrueret, admonere non permitterentur; qui ne innotescerent nec aratro, quo sunt eruta, obsistere potuerunt, nec stilo Varronis, quo ea, quae de hac re gesta sunt, in nostram memoriam peruenerunt. Non enim possunt quod non sinuntur efficere; sinuntur autem alto Dei summi iustoque iudicio pro meritis eorum, quos ab eis uel adfligi tantum, uel etiam subici ac decipi iustum est. Quam uero perniciosae uel a cultu uerae diuinitatis alienae illae litterae iudicatae sint, hinc intellegi potest, quod eas maluit senatus incendere, quas Pompilius occultauit, quam timere quod timuit, qui hoc audere non potuit. Qui ergo uitam nec modo habere uult piam, talibus sacris quaerat aeternam; qui autem cum malignis daemonibus non uult habere societatem, non superstitionem, qua coluntur, noxiam pertimescat, sed ueram religionem, qua produntur et uincuntur, agnoscat.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 35. On hydromancy, by which Numa was deluded by seeing certain images of demons.

For Numa himself, to whom no prophet of God, no holy angel was sent, was driven to practice hydromancy, so as to see in water images of the gods, or rather the delusions of demons, from whom he might hear what he ought to establish and observe in the rites. Varro says that this kind of divination was brought from the Persians, and records that Numa himself, and later the philosopher Pythagoras, used it; and he says that when blood is applied the dead too are consulted, and that in Greek this is called nekyomanteia; call it necromancy if you will, it is the same thing, in which the dead are seen to divine. By what arts these things are done, let them see to it. For I will not say that these arts, even before the coming of our Savior, were usually forbidden by law in the very cities of the gentiles and punished with the most severe penalty. I will not say this, I repeat; for perhaps such things were then permitted. Yet by these arts Pompilius learned those rites, whose performance he published but whose causes he buried (so much did he himself fear what he had learned); and the senate burned the books of those causes when they were disclosed. Why, then, does Varro offer me some other so-called physical causes of those rites? If those books had contained such causes, they would certainly not have been burned; or else the conscript fathers would likewise have burned these books of Varro, written and published for Caesar the pontiff. And because Numa Pompilius drew out (egesserit), that is, carried away, water with which to practice hydromancy, he is said to have had the nymph Egeria as his wife, as is explained in the aforesaid book of Varro. For so deeds done are commonly turned into fables by a sprinkling of lies. In that hydromancy, then, that most curious Roman king learned both the rites which the pontiffs were to have in their books and their causes, which he wished no one but himself to know. And so he wrote them down separately and made them in a way die with him, when he took care to withdraw them from the knowledge of men and bury them. Either, then, the desires of the demons written there were so filthy and harmful that the whole civil theology would have appeared execrable from them even to such men as had adopted so many shameful things in the rites themselves; or else all those gods were revealed to be nothing but dead men, whom almost all the peoples of the nations, over so long a stretch of time, had believed to be immortal gods — while the same demons also took delight in such rites, substituting themselves to be worshipped in place of those dead men, whom they had caused to be thought gods, by the testimony of certain deceitful wonders. But by the hidden providence of the true God it came about that the demons, won over to their friend Pompilius by the arts by which hydromancy could be done, were permitted to confess all those things to him, and yet were not permitted to warn him to burn them rather than bury them when he was about to die; and they could not prevent them from becoming known, either by resisting the plough by which they were dug up, or the pen of Varro, by which what happened in this matter has come down to our memory. For they cannot do what they are not allowed; and they are allowed by the deep and just judgment of the most high God, according to the deserts of those whom it is just that they should only afflict, or even subjugate and deceive. How pernicious those writings were judged to be, or how foreign to the worship of the true divinity, may be understood from this: the senate preferred to burn what Pompilius had hidden rather than to fear what he feared, who could not dare to do this. Let him, then, who does not want to have a devout life even now seek eternal life by such rites; but let him who does not want to have fellowship with malignant demons not dread the harmful superstition by which they are worshipped, but acknowledge the true religion by which they are exposed and overcome.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro, De cultu deorum (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- From Varro, On the Worship of the Gods. The editor deletes the words “siue hydromantia” before “siue necromantia”; they are left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 7.35 (CSEL 40:351–353; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-34/#p-7-35).

## City of God 8.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-34/#p-8-1
- Source: CSEL 40:353–354
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine turns to natural theology and chooses the Platonists, who acknowledge one God above all souls, as the philosophers most worth debating.

### Latin text

CAPUT I. De quaestione naturalis theologiae cum philosophis excellentioris scientiae discutienda. Nunc intentiore nobis opus est animo multo quam erat in superiorum solutione quaestionum et explicatione librorum. De theologia quippe, quam naturalem uocant, non cum quibuslibet hominibus (non enim fabulosa est uel ciuilis, hoc est uel theatrica uel urbana; quarum altera iactitat deorum crimina, altera indicat deorum desideria criminosiora ac per hoc malignorum potius daemonum quam deorum), sed cum philosophis est habenda conlatio; quorum ipsum nomen si Latine interpretemur, amorem sapientiae profitetur. Porro si sapientia Deus est, per quem facta sunt omnia, sicut diuina auctoritas ueritasque monstrauit, uerus philosophus est amator Dei. Sed quia res ipsa, cuius hoc nomen est, non est in omnibus, qui hoc nomine gloriantur (neque enim continuo uerae sapientiae sunt amatores quicumque appellantur philosophi): profecto ex omnibus, quorum sententias ex litteris nosse potuimus, eligendi sunt cum quibus non indigne quaestio ista tractetur. Neque enim hoc opere omnes omnium philosophorum uanas opiniones refutare suscepi, sed eas tantum, quae ad theologian pertinent, quo uerbo Graeco significari intellegimus de diuinitate rationem siue sermonem; nec eas omnium, sed eorum tantum, qui cum et esse diuinitatem et humana curare consentiant, non tamen sufficere unius incommutabilis Dei cultum ad uitam adipiscendam etiam post mortem beatam, sed multos ab illo sane uno conditos adque institutos ob eam causam colendos putant. Hi iam etiam Varronis opinionem ueritatis propinquitate transcendunt; si quidem ille totam theologian naturalem usque ad mundum istum uel animam eius extendere potuit, isti uero supra omnem animae naturam confitentur Deum, qui non solum mundum istum uisibilem, qui saepe caeli et terrae nomine nuncupatur, sed etiam omnem omnino animam fecerit, et qui rationalem et intellectualem, cuius generis anima humana est, participatione sui luminis incommutabilis et incorporei beatam facit. Hos philosophos Platonicos appellatos a Platone doctore uocabulo deriuato nullus, qui haec uel tenuiter audiuit, ignorat. De hoc igitur Platone, quae necessaria praesenti quaestioni existimo, breuiter adtingam, prius illos commemorans, qui eum in eodem genere litterarum tempore praecesserunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. That the question of natural theology is to be discussed with philosophers of more excellent knowledge.

Now we need a much more attentive mind than was required in solving the earlier questions and unfolding the earlier books. For concerning the theology which they call natural, the discussion is to be held not with just any men — for it is not fabulous or civil, that is, theatrical or urban theology, of which the one flaunts the crimes of the gods and the other reveals their still more criminal desires, and therefore those of malignant demons rather than of gods — but with philosophers, whose very name, if we translate it into Latin, professes the love of wisdom. Now if wisdom is God, through whom all things were made, as divine authority and truth have shown, then the true philosopher is a lover of God. But since the thing itself to which this name belongs is not in all who glory in the name (for not everyone who is called a philosopher is at once a lover of true wisdom), we must certainly choose, out of all those whose opinions we have been able to know from their writings, those with whom this question may be discussed not unworthily. For in this work I have not undertaken to refute all the vain opinions of all the philosophers, but only those that pertain to theology — by which Greek word we understand an account or discourse about the divinity — and not those of all, but only of those who, while agreeing that there is a divinity and that it cares for human affairs, nevertheless think that the worship of the one unchangeable God is not sufficient for obtaining a life that is happy even after death, but that many gods, created indeed and established by that one God, are to be worshipped for that purpose. These men already surpass even Varro's opinion by their nearness to the truth. For he could extend the whole of natural theology only as far as this world or its soul; but they acknowledge a God above every nature of soul, who made not only this visible world, which is often called by the name of heaven and earth, but also every soul whatever, and who makes the rational and intellectual soul, of which kind the human soul is, happy by participation in his unchangeable and incorporeal light. No one who has heard even a little of these things is unaware that these philosophers are called Platonists, a name derived from their teacher Plato. Of this Plato, then, I shall briefly touch on what I think necessary for the present question, first mentioning those who preceded him in time in the same kind of writing.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 1:24: allusion, medium confidence
- John 1:3: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- “Wisdom … through whom all things were made” echoes 1 Cor 1:24 and John 1:3.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.1 (CSEL 40:353–354; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-34/#p-8-1).

## City of God 8.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-34/#p-8-2
- Source: CSEL 40:354–356
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine sketches the Italian school of Pythagoras and the Ionian succession from Thales to Archelaus, the teacher of Socrates.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. De duobus philosophorum generibus, id est Italico et Ionico, eorumque auctoribus. Quantum enim adtinet ad litteras Graecas, quae lingua inter ceteras gentium clarior habetur, duo philosophorum genera traduntur: unum Italicum ex ea parte Italiae, quae quondam magna Graecia nuncupata est; alterum Ionicum in eis terris, ubi et nunc Graecia nominatur. Italicum genus auctorem habuit Pythagoram Samium, a quo etiam ferunt ipsum philosophiae nomen exortum. Nam cum antea sapientes appellarentur, qui modo quodam laudabilis uitae aliis praestare uidebantur, iste interrogatus, quid profiteretur, philosophum se esse respondit, id est studiosum uel amatorem sapientiae; quoniam sapientem profiteri adrogantissimum uidebatur. Ionici uero generis princeps fuit Thales Milesius, unus illorum septem, qui sunt appellati sapientes. Sed illi sex uitae genere distinguebantur et quibusdam praeceptis ad bene uiuendum adcommodatis; iste autem Thales, ut successores etiam propagaret, rerum naturam scrutatus suasque disputationes litteris mandans eminuit maximeque admirabilis extitit, quod astrologiae numeris conprehensis defectus solis et lunae etiam praedicere potuit. Aquam tamen putauit rerum esse principium et hinc omnia elementa mundi ipsumque mundum et quae in eo gignuntur existere. Nihil autem huic operi, quod mundo considerato tam mirabile aspicimus, ex diuina mente praeposuit. Huic successit Anaximander, eius auditor, mutauitque de rerum natura opinionem. Non enim ex una re, sicut Thales ex umore, sed ex suis propriis principiis quasque res nasci putauit. Quae rerum principia singularum esse credidit infinita, et innumerabiles mundos gignere et quaecumque in eis oriuntur; eosque mundos modo dissolui, modo iterum gigni existimauit, quanta quisque aetate sua manere potuerit; nec ipse aliquid diuinae menti in his rerum operibus tribuens. Iste Anaximenen discipulum et successorem reliquit, qui omnes rerum causas aeri infinito dedit, nec deos negauit aut tacuit; non tamen ab ipsis aerem factum, sed ipsos ex aere ortos credidit. Anaxagoras uero eius auditor harum rerum omnium, quas uidemus, effectorem diuinum animum sensit et dixit ex infinita materia, quae constaret dissimilibus inter se particulis rerum omnium, similibus quibusque suis et propriis singula fieri, sed animo faciente diuino. Diogenes quoque Anaximenis alter auditor, aerem quidem dixit rerum esse materiam, de qua omnia fierent; sed eum esse compotem diuinae rationis, sine qua nihil ex eo fieri posset. Anaxagorae successit auditor eius Archelaus. Etiam ipse de particulis inter se similibus, quibus singula quaeque fierent, ita putauit constare omnia, ut inesse etiam mentem diceret, quae corpora aeterna, id est illas particulas, coniungendo et dissipando ageret omnia. Socrates huius discipulus fuisse perhibetur, magister Platonis, propter quem breuiter cuncta ista recolui.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. On the two kinds of philosophers, the Italian and the Ionian, and their founders.

As far as Greek literature is concerned, whose language is held to be more illustrious than the others of the nations, two kinds of philosophers are recorded: one the Italian, from that part of Italy once called Magna Graecia; the other the Ionian, in the lands which are still called Greece. The Italian school had as its founder Pythagoras of Samos, from whom, they say, the very name of philosophy arose. For whereas those who seemed to excel others by a certain praiseworthy manner of life had formerly been called wise men (sapientes), he, when asked what he professed, answered that he was a philosopher, that is, a student or lover of wisdom, since to profess to be wise seemed most arrogant. The founder of the Ionian school was Thales of Miletus, one of those seven who were called the Wise. But the other six were distinguished by their manner of life and by certain precepts suited to living well; this Thales, however, in order to leave successors as well, investigated the nature of things and committed his discussions to writing, and so became eminent. He was especially admired because, having mastered the calculations of astronomy, he could even predict eclipses of the sun and moon. Yet he thought water was the first principle of things, and that from it all the elements of the world, and the world itself, and the things produced in it, came into being. But he set nothing from a divine mind over this work, which we behold as so wonderful when we consider the world. He was succeeded by Anaximander, his pupil, who changed the opinion about the nature of things. For he thought that each thing is born not from one thing, as Thales held from moisture, but from its own principles. He believed these principles of individual things to be infinite, and that they give birth to innumerable worlds and whatever arises in them; and he thought that these worlds are now dissolved and now born again, according to how long each could last in its own age; nor did he himself attribute anything to a divine mind in these works of nature. He left as his pupil and successor Anaximenes, who assigned all the causes of things to infinite air; he did not deny the gods or pass them over in silence, yet he believed not that the air was made by them, but that they arose from the air. Anaxagoras, his pupil, held that a divine mind was the maker of all these things which we see, and said that from an infinite matter, consisting of particles of all things unlike one another, each thing is made from particles like itself and proper to it, but by the action of a divine mind. Diogenes too, another pupil of Anaximenes, said that air was the matter of things, from which all things came to be, but that it shared in a divine reason, without which nothing could be made from it. Anaxagoras was succeeded by his pupil Archelaus. He too thought that all things consist of particles like one another, from which each thing is made, but said that there was also a mind within, which did everything by joining and separating the eternal bodies, that is, those particles. Socrates is said to have been his disciple, the teacher of Plato, for whose sake I have briefly recalled all these.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Anaxagoras (Anaxagoras): allusion, medium confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.2 (CSEL 40:354–356; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-34/#p-8-2).

## City of God 8.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-34/#p-8-3
- Source: CSEL 40:356–358
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine describes how Socrates turned philosophy to ethics, and how his followers, such as Aristippus and Antisthenes, disagreed about the supreme good.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. De Socratica disciplina. Socrates ergo primus uniuersam philosophiam ad corrigendos componendosque mores flexisse memoratur, cum ante illum omnes magis physicis, id est naturalibus, rebus perscrutandis operam maximam inpenderent. Non mihi autem uidetur posse ad liquidum colligi, utrum Socrates, ut hoc faceret, taedio rerum obscurarum et incertarum ad aliquid apertum et certum reperiendum animum intenderit, quod esset beatae uitae necessarium, propter quam unam omnium philosophorum inuigilasse ac laborasse uidetur industria, an uero, sicut de illo quidam beneuolentius suspicantur, nolebat inmundos terrenis cupiditatibus animos se extendere in diuina conari. Quando quidem ab eis causas rerum uidebat inquiri, quas primas adque summas non nisi in unius ac summi Dei uoluntate esse credebat; unde non eas putabat nisi mundata mente posse conprehendi; et ideo purgandae bonis moribus uitae censebat instandum, ut deprimentibus libidinibus exoneratus animus naturali uigore in aeterna se adtolleret naturamque incorporei et incommutabilis luminis, ubi causae omnium factarum naturarum stabiliter uiuunt, intellegentiae puritate conspiceret. Constat eum tamen inperitorum stultitiam scire se aliquid opinantium etiam in ipsis moralibus quaestionibus, quo totum animum intendisse uidebatur, uel confessa ignorantia sua uel dissimulata scientia lepore mirabili disserendi et acutissima urbanitate agitasse adque uersasse. Unde et concitatis inimicitiis calumniosa criminatione damnatus morte multatus est. Sed eum postea illa ipsa, quae publice damnauerat, Atheniensium ciuitas publice luxit, in duos accusatores eius usque adeo populi indignatione conuersa, ut unus eorum obpressus ni multitudinis interiret, exilio autem uoluntario adque perpetuo poenam similem alter euaderet. Tam praeclara igitur uitae mortisque fama Socrates reliquit plurimos suae philosophiae sectatores, quorum certatim studium fuit in quaestionum moralium disceptatione uersari, ubi agitur de summo bono, quo fieri homo beatus potest. Quod in Socratis disputationibus, dum omnia mouet adserit destruit, quoniam non euidenter apparuit, quod cuique placuit inde sumserunt et ubi cuique uisum est constituerunt finem boni. Finis autem boni appellatur, quo quisque cum peruenerit beatus est. Sic autem diuersas inter se Socratici de isto fine sententias habuerunt, ut (quod uix credibile est unius magistri potuisse facere sectatores) quidam summum bonum esse dicerent uoluptatem, sicut Aristippus; quidam uirtutem, sicut Antisthenes. Sic alii adque alii aliud adque aliud opinati sunt, quos commemorare longum est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. On the Socratic teaching.

Socrates, then, is recorded to have been the first to turn the whole of philosophy to the correction and ordering of morals, whereas before him all had spent their greatest effort on investigating physical, that is, natural, things. It does not seem to me possible to determine clearly whether Socrates did this because, weary of obscure and uncertain things, he turned his mind to finding something plain and certain that was necessary for the happy life — for the sake of which alone the industry of all philosophers seems to have kept watch and labored — or whether, as some more kindly suppose of him, he did not wish minds unclean with earthly desires to try to extend themselves to divine things. For he saw that they were inquiring into the causes of things, which he believed, the first and highest of them, to be nowhere but in the will of the one supreme God; and so he thought they could not be grasped except by a cleansed mind. Therefore he judged that one must press on to purify one's life by good morals, so that the mind, relieved of the weight of the lusts that press it down, might rise by its natural vigor to eternal things and behold with the purity of understanding the nature of the incorporeal and unchangeable light, where the causes of all created natures live stably. Yet it is well known that, even in those moral questions to which he seemed to have turned his whole mind, he harried and tossed about the foolishness of the ignorant who thought they knew something, either by confessing his own ignorance or by concealing his knowledge, with a wonderful charm of discussion and a most acute wit. Hence, enmities being stirred up, he was condemned on a slanderous charge and punished with death. But afterwards the very city of the Athenians which had publicly condemned him publicly mourned him, the indignation of the people turning so far against his two accusers that one of them was crushed by the crowd and perished, while the other escaped a like punishment only by voluntary and perpetual exile. Socrates, then, leaving so illustrious a reputation in life and in death, left very many followers of his philosophy, who vied with one another in engaging in the discussion of moral questions, where the question is of the supreme good, by which a man can become happy. Since this did not clearly appear in the discussions of Socrates, as he raised, asserted, and demolished everything, each took from them what pleased him, and each placed the final good where it seemed good to him. The final good is so called because whoever reaches it is happy. And the Socratics held such different opinions among themselves about this end that (what is hardly credible of the followers of one master) some said that the supreme good was pleasure, like Aristippus, and others virtue, like Antisthenes. So others and others held this and that opinion, and it would take long to mention them.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Aristippus (Aristippus (fragments)): allusion, medium confidence
- Antisthenes (Antisthenes (fragments)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The digital text at the fate of the first accuser (“obpressus ni multitudinis interiret”) appears corrupt; it is translated by the sense.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.3 (CSEL 40:356–358; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-34/#p-8-3).

## City of God 8.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-34/#p-8-4
- Source: CSEL 40:358–361
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine praises Plato for uniting the active and contemplative parts of philosophy in a threefold division, and suggests that in God are found the cause of being, the light of knowing, and the rule of living.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. De praecipuo inter Socratis discipulos Platone, qui omnem philosophiam triplici partitione distinxit. Sed inter discipulos Socratis, non quidem inmerito, excellentissima gloria claruit, qua omnino ceteros obscuraret, Plato. Qui cum esset Atheniensis honesto aput suos loco natus et ingenio mirabili longe suos condiscipulos anteiret, parum tamen putans perficiendae philosophiae sufficere se ipsum ac Socraticam disciplinam, quam longe ac late potuit peregrinatus est, quaquauersum eum alicuius nobilitatae scientiae percipiendae fama rapiebat. Itaque et in Aegypto didicit quaecumque magna illic habebantur adque docebantur, et inde in eas Italiae partes ueniens, ubi Pythagoreorum fama celebrabatur, quidquid Italicae philosophiae tunc florebat, auditis eminentioribus in ea doctoribus facillime conprehendit. Et quia magistrum Socratem singulariter diligebat, eum loquentem faciens fere in omnibus sermonibus suis etiam illa, quae uel ab aliis didicerat, uel ipse quanta potuerat intellegentia uiderat, cum illius lepore et moralibus disputationibus temperauit. Itaque cum studium sapientiae in actione et contemplatione uersetur, unde una pars eius actiua, altera contemplatiua dici potest (quarum actiua ad agendam uitam, id est ad mores instituendos pertinet, contemplatiua autem ad conspiciendas naturae causas et sincerissimam ueritatem): Socrates in actiua excelluisse memoratur; Pythagoras uero magis contemplatiuae, quibus potuit intellegentiae uiribus, institisse. Proinde Plato utrumque iungendo philosophiam perfecisse laudatur, quam in tres partes distribuit: unam moralem, quae maxime in actione uersatur; alteram naturalem, quae contemplationi deputata est; tertiam rationalem, qua uerum disterminatur a falso. Quae licet utrique, id est actioni et contemplationi, sit necessaria, maxime tamen contemplatio perspectionem sibi uindicat ueritatis. Ideo haec tripertitio non est contraria illi distinctioni, qua intellegitur omne studium sapientiae in actione et contemplatione consistere. Quid autem in his uel de his singulis partibus Plato senserit, id est, ubi finem omnium actionum, ubi causam omnium naturarum, ubi lumen omnium rationum esse cognouerit uel crediderit, disserendo explicare et longum esse arbitror et temere adfirmandum esse non arbitror. Cum enim magistri sui Socratis, quem facit in suis uoluminibus disputantem, notissimum morem dissimulandae scientiae uel opinionis suae seruare adfectat, quia et illi iste mos placuit, factum est ut etiam ipsius Platonis de rebus magnis sententiae non facile perspici possint. Ex his tamen, quae aput eum leguntur, siue quae dixit, siue quae ab aliis dicta esse narrauit adque conscripsit, quae sibi placita uiderentur, quaedam commemorari et operi huic inseri oportet a nobis, uel ubi suffragatur religioni uerae, quam fides nostra suscipit ac defendit, uel ubi ei uidetur esse contrarius, quantum ad istam de uno Deo et pluribus pertinet quaestionem, propter uitam, quae post mortem futura est, ueraciter beatam. Fortassis enim qui Platonem ceteris philosophis gentium longe recteque praelatum acutius adque ueracius intellexisse ac secuti esse fama celebriore laudantur, aliquid tale de Deo sentiunt, ut in illo inueniatur et causa subsistendi et ratio intellegendi et ordo uiuendi; quorum trium unum ad naturalem, alterum ad rationalem, tertium ad moralem partem intellegitur pertinere. Si enim homo ita creatus est, ut per id, quod in eo praecellit, adtingat illud, quod cuncta praecellit, id est unum uerum optimum Deum, sine quo nulla natura subsistit, nulla doctrina instruit, nullus usus expedit: ipse quaeratur, ubi nobis seria sunt omnia; ipse cernatur, ubi nobis certa sunt omnia; ipse diligatur, ubi nobis recta sunt omnia.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. On Plato, the foremost of the disciples of Socrates, who divided all philosophy into three parts.

But among the disciples of Socrates, not undeservedly, Plato shone with a glory so excellent that he quite eclipsed the rest. He was an Athenian, born of an honorable family among his people, and far surpassed his fellow pupils in wonderful talent; yet, thinking that he himself and the Socratic teaching were not enough to perfect philosophy, he travelled as far and wide as he could, wherever the fame of some celebrated knowledge to be gained drew him. So he learned in Egypt whatever great things were held and taught there; and coming from there to those parts of Italy where the fame of the Pythagoreans was celebrated, he most easily mastered whatever of Italian philosophy was then flourishing, by hearing its more eminent teachers. And because he loved his master Socrates in a singular way, he made him the speaker in almost all his dialogues, and blended with Socrates' charm and moral discussions even the things he had learned from others or had seen for himself with all the intelligence he could. Now the pursuit of wisdom consists in action and contemplation, so that one part of it may be called active and the other contemplative (the active pertaining to the conduct of life, that is, to the forming of morals; the contemplative to beholding the causes of nature and the purest truth). Socrates is recorded to have excelled in the active part, while Pythagoras applied himself rather to the contemplative, with all the powers of intelligence he could. Accordingly Plato is praised for having perfected philosophy by joining the two; and he divided it into three parts: one moral, which is chiefly concerned with action; another natural, which is assigned to contemplation; the third rational, by which the true is distinguished from the false. Though this is necessary to both, that is, to action and contemplation, it is contemplation above all that claims for itself the insight into truth. Therefore this threefold division is not contrary to the distinction by which all pursuit of wisdom is understood to consist in action and contemplation. But what Plato thought in or about each of these parts — that is, where he knew or believed the end of all actions, the cause of all natures, and the light of all reasonings to be — I think it would take long to explain by discussion, and I think it ought not to be rashly affirmed. For since he aims to keep the well-known habit of his master Socrates, whom he makes the speaker in his volumes, of concealing his knowledge or his opinion — because this habit pleased him too — it has come about that Plato's own opinions on great matters cannot easily be discerned. Yet from what is read in him, whether he said it himself or recorded and wrote it as said by others and seeming acceptable to him, some things must be mentioned by us and inserted into this work, either where he supports the true religion which our faith has taken up and defends, or where he seems opposed to it, as far as concerns this question of the one God and the many, for the sake of the life after death that is truly happy. For perhaps those who are praised with the greater fame for having understood and followed Plato more acutely and more truly — Plato who has been rightly and far preferred to the other philosophers of the nations — think something like this of God: that in him are found the cause of existing, the reason of understanding, and the order of living; of which three, the first is understood to pertain to the natural part, the second to the rational, the third to the moral. For if man was so created that through what is most excellent in him he may attain to what excels all things, that is, the one true and supremely good God, without whom no nature subsists, no teaching instructs, no practice profits — then let him be sought, in whom all things are secure for us; let him be seen, in whom all things are certain for us; let him be loved, in whom all things are right for us.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The closing sentence plays on seria, certa, recta (“secure,” “certain,” “right”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.4 (CSEL 40:358–361; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-34/#p-8-4).

## City of God 8.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-34/#p-8-5
- Source: CSEL 40:361–364
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine asks all the theologies and all the materialist philosophers to yield to the Platonists, and argues that since the mind is not a body, neither is God, its creator.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. Quod de theologia cum Platonicis potissimum disceptandum sit, quorum opinioni omnium philosophorum postponenda sint dogmata. Si ergo Plato Dei huius imitatorem cognitorem amatorem dixit esse sapientem, cuius participatione sit beatus, quid opus est excutere ceteros? Nulli nobis quam isti propius accesserunt. Cedat eis igitur non solum theologia illa fabulosa deorum criminibus oblectans animos inpiorum, nec solum etiam illa ciuilis, ubi inpuri daemones terrestribus gaudiis deditos populos deorum nomine seducentes humanos errores tamquam suos diuinos honores habere uoluerunt, ad spectandos suorum criminum ludos cultores suos tamquam ad suum cultum studiis inmundissimis excitantes et sibi delectabiliores ludos de ipsis spectatoribus exhibentes (ubi si qua uelut honesta geruntur in templis, coniuncta sibi theatrorum obscenitate turpantur, et quaecumque turpia geruntur in theatris, comparata sibi templorum foeditate laudantur), et ea, quae Varro ex his sacris quasi ad caelum et terram rerumque mortalium semina et actus interpretatus est (quia nec ipsa illis ritibus significantur, quae ipse insinuare conatur, et ideo ueritas conantem non sequitur; et si ipsa essent, tamen animae rationali ea, quae infra illam naturali ordine constituta sunt, pro deo suo colenda non essent, nec sibi debuit praeferre tamquam deos eas res, quibus ipsam praetulit uerus Deus), et ea, quae Numa Pompilius re uera ad sacra eius modi pertinentia secum sepeliendo curauit abscondi et aratro eruta senatus iussit incendi. (In eo genere sunt etiam illa, ut aliquid de Numa mitius suspicemur, quae Alexander Macedo scribit ad matrem sibi a magno antistite sacrorum Aegyptiorum quodam Leone patefacta, ubi non Picus et Faunus et Aeneas et Romulus uel etiam Hercules et Aesculapius et Liber Semela natus et Tyndaridae fratres et si quos alios ex mortalibus pro dis habent, sed ipsi etiam maiorum gentium di, quos Cicero in Tusculanis tacitis nominibus uidetur adtingere, Iuppiter, Iuno, Saturnus, Vulcanus, Vesta et alii plurimi, quos Varro conatur ad mundi partes siue elementa transferre, homines fuisse produntur. Timens enim et ille quasi reuelata mysteria petens admonet Alexandrum, ut, cum ea matri conscripta insinuauerit, flammis iubeat concremari.) Non solum ergo ista, quae duae theologiae, fabulosa continet et ciuilis, Platonicis philosophis cedant, qui uerum Deum et rerum auctorem et ueritatis inlustratorem et beatitudinis largitorem esse dixerunt; sed alii quoque philosophi, qui corporalia naturae principia corpori deditis mentibus opinati sunt, cedant his tantis et tanti Dei cognitoribus uiris, ut Thales in umore, Anaximenes in aere, Stoici in igne, Epicurus in atomis, hoc est minutissimis corpusculis, quae nec diuidi nec sentiri queunt, et quicumque alii, quorum enumeratione inmorari non est necesse, siue simplicia siue coniuncta corpora, siue uita carentia siue uiuentia, sed tamen corpora, causam principiumque rerum esse dixerunt. Nam quidam eorum a rebus non uiuis res uiuas fieri posse crediderunt, sicut Epicurei; quidam uero a uiuente quidem et uiuentia et non uiuentia, sed tamen a corpore corpora. Nam Stoici ignem, id est corpus unum ex his quattuor elementis, quibus uisibilis mundus hic constat, et uiuentem et sapientem et ipsius mundi fabricatorem adque omnium, quae in eo sunt, eumque omnino ignem deum esse putauerunt. Hi et ceteri similes eorum id solum cogitare potuerunt, quod cum eis corda eorum obstricta carnis sensibus fabulata sunt. In se quippe habebant quod non uidebant, et aput se imaginabantur quod foris uiderant, etiam quando non uidebant, sed tantummodo cogitabant. Hoc autem in conspectu talis cogitationis iam non est corpus, sed similitudo corporis; illud autem, unde uidetur in animo haec similitudo corporis, nec corpus est nec similitudo corporis; et unde uidetur adque utrum pulchra an deformis sit iudicatur, profecto est melius quam ipsa quae iudicatur. Haec mens hominis et rationalis animae natura est, quae utique corpus non est, si iam illa corporis similitudo, cum in animo cogitantis aspicitur adque iudicatur, nec ipsa corpus est. Non est ergo nec terra nec aqua, nec aer nec ignis, quibus quattuor corporibus, quae dicuntur quattuor elementa, mundum corporeum uidemus esse conpactum. Porro si noster animus corpus non est, quo modo Deus creator animi corpus est? Cedant ergo et isti, ut dictum est, Platonicis; cedant et illi, quos quidem puduit dicere Deum corpus esse, uerum tamen eiusdem naturae, cuius ille est, animos nostros esse putauerunt; ita non eos mouit tanta mutabilitas animae, quam Dei naturae tribuere nefas est. Sed dicunt: Corpore mutatur animae natura, nam per se ipsa incommutabilis est. Poterant isti dicere: corpore aliquo uulneratur caro, nam per se ipsa inuulnerabilis est. Prorsus quod mutari non potest, nulla re potest, ac per hoc quod corpore mutari potest, aliqua re potest et ideo incommutabile recte dici non potest.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. That theology is to be discussed chiefly with the Platonists, to whose opinion the doctrines of all the other philosophers are to be subordinated.

If, then, Plato said that the wise man is an imitator, knower, and lover of this God, by participation in whom he is happy, what need is there to examine the others? None have come nearer to us than these. Let there yield to them, therefore, not only that fabulous theology which delights the minds of the impious with the crimes of the gods; and not only also that civil theology, in which impure demons, seducing under the name of gods peoples given over to earthly joys, wished to have human errors as their own divine honors, stirring up their worshippers with most unclean zeal to watch the plays of their crimes as if for their own worship, and exhibiting to themselves even more delightful plays from the spectators themselves (where, if anything apparently respectable is done in the temples, it is disgraced by its union with the obscenity of the theaters, and whatever shameful things are done in the theaters are praised in comparison with the foulness of the temples); and those things which Varro interpreted from these rites as though referring to heaven and earth and the seeds and acts of mortal things (for neither are these what those rites signify, which he tries to insinuate, and therefore the truth does not follow his attempt; and even if they were, still the things placed below the rational soul in the natural order would not be worshipped by it as its god, nor ought it to prefer to itself, as gods, the things to which the true God preferred it); and those things which Numa Pompilius, pertaining in truth to rites of that kind, took care to hide by burying them with himself, and which, when turned up by the plough, the senate ordered burned. (To this kind belong also — that we may think somewhat more mildly of Numa — the things which Alexander of Macedon writes to his mother were disclosed to him by a certain Leo, a great high priest of the Egyptian rites. There not only Picus and Faunus and Aeneas and Romulus, or even Hercules and Aesculapius and Liber the son of Semele and the Tyndarid brothers and any other mortals whom they hold as gods, but even the gods of the greater families themselves, whom Cicero in the Tusculans seems to touch on without naming them — Jupiter, Juno, Saturn, Vulcan, Vesta, and very many others whom Varro tries to transfer to the parts or elements of the world — are revealed to have been men. For he too, fearing, and as if asking about revealed mysteries, warns Alexander that when he has conveyed them in writing to his mother he should order them burned in the fire.) Let not only these things, then, which the two theologies, the fabulous and the civil, contain, yield to the Platonic philosophers, who said that the true God is the author of things, the illuminator of truth, and the bestower of happiness; but let the other philosophers too, who with minds given over to the body supposed the principles of nature to be bodily, yield to these great men, knowers of so great a God. Such are Thales with moisture, Anaximenes with air, the Stoics with fire, Epicurus with atoms, that is, the tiniest particles, which can be neither divided nor perceived, and any others, whom there is no need to dwell on by listing them, who said that bodies, whether simple or compound, whether lifeless or living, but still bodies, were the cause and principle of things. For some of them, like the Epicureans, believed that living things could be made from non-living things; others, that both living and non-living things are made from something living, but still bodies from a body. For the Stoics thought that fire, that is, one body of these four elements of which this visible world consists, was both living and wise and the maker of the world itself and of all things in it, and that this fire was altogether God. These and others like them could think only what their hearts, bound by the senses of the flesh, fabled with them. For they had within themselves what they did not see, and pictured to themselves inwardly what they had seen outside, even when they were not seeing it but only thinking of it. But what is before the gaze of such thinking is no longer a body but the likeness of a body; and that by which this likeness of a body is seen in the mind is neither a body nor the likeness of a body; and that by which it is seen, and judged whether it is beautiful or ugly, is certainly better than the thing judged. This is the mind of man and the nature of the rational soul, which is certainly not a body, if even that likeness of a body, when it is seen and judged in the mind of the thinker, is not itself a body. It is not, then, earth or water, air or fire, the four bodies called the four elements, of which we see the bodily world compacted. And if our mind is not a body, how is God, the creator of the mind, a body? Let these too, then, as has been said, yield to the Platonists; let those also yield who were indeed ashamed to say that God is a body, but thought that our minds are of the same nature as he is — so little did the great changeableness of the soul move them, which it is wicked to attribute to the nature of God. But they say: “The nature of the soul is changed by the body; for in itself it is unchangeable.” They might as well say: “The flesh is wounded by some body; for in itself it is invulnerable.” Plainly, what cannot be changed cannot be changed by anything; and therefore what can be changed by the body can be changed by something, and so cannot rightly be called unchangeable.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence
- Cicero, Tusc. 1.12.29 (Cicero): allusion, medium confidence
- Epicurus (Epicurus (sayings and fragments)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 1.12.29, is alluded to. The letter of Alexander to his mother, reporting the priest Leo's account of the gods as men, is not extant (no entry in the site's list of extrabiblical texts).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.5 (CSEL 40:361–364; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-34/#p-8-5).

## City of God 8.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-34/#p-8-6
- Source: CSEL 40:364–366
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains how the Platonists rose above bodies and changeable souls to the unchangeable, simple God from whom all form comes, as Paul says in Romans 1.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. De Platonicorum sensu in ea parte philosophiae, quae physica nominatur. Viderunt ergo isti philosophi, quos ceteris non inmerito fama adque gloria praelatos uidemus, nullum corpus esse Deum, et ideo cuncta corpora transcenderunt quaerentes Deum. Viderunt, quidquid mutabile est, non esse summum Deum, et ideo animam omnem mutabilesque omnes spiritus transcenderunt quaerentes summum Deum. Deinde uiderunt omnem speciem in re quacumque mutabili, qua est, quidquid illud est, quoquo modo et qualiscumque natura est, non esse posse nisi ab illo, qui uere est, quia incommutabiliter est. Ac per hoc siue uniuersi mundi corpus figuras qualitates ordinatumque motum et elementa disposita a caelo usque ad terram et quaecumque corpora in eis sunt, siue omnem uitam, uel quae nutrit et continet, qualis est in arboribus, uel quae et hoc habet et sentit, qualis est in pecoribus, uel quae et haec habet et intellegit, qualis est in hominibus, uel quae nutritorio subsidio non indiget, sed tantum continet sentit intellegit, qualis est in angelis, nisi ab illo esse non posse, qui simpliciter est; quia non aliud illi est esse, aliud uiuere, quasi possit esse non uiuens; nec aliud illi est uiuere, aliud intellegere, quasi possit uiuere non intellegens; nec aliud illi est intellegere, aliud beatum esse, quasi possit intellegere non beatus; sed quod illi est uiuere, intellegere, beatum esse, hoc est illi esse. Propter hanc incommutabilitatem et simplicitatem intellexerunt eum et omnia ista fecisse, et ipsum a nullo fieri potuisse. Considerauerunt enim, quidquid est, uel corpus esse uel uitam, meliusque aliquid uitam esse quam corpus, speciemque corporis esse sensibilem, intellegibilem uitae. Proinde intellegibilem speciem sensibili praetulerunt. Sensibilia dicimus, quae uisu tactuque corporis sentiri queunt; intellegibilia, quae conspectu mentis intellegi. Nulla est enim pulchritudo corporalis siue in statu corporis, sicut est figura, siue in motu, sicut est cantilena, de qua non animus iudicet. Quod profecto non posset, nisi melior in illo esset haec species, sine tumore molis, sine strepitu uocis, sine spatio uel loci uel temporis. Sed ibi quoque nisi mutabilis esset, non alius alio melius de specie sensibili iudicaret; melius ingeniosior quam tardior, melius peritior quam inperitior, melius exercitatior quam minus exercitatus, et idem ipse unus, cum proficit, melius utique postea quam prius. Quod autem recipit magis et minus, sine dubitatione mutabile est. Unde ingeniosi et docti et in his exercitati homines facile collegerunt non esse in eis rebus primam speciem, ubi mutabilis esse conuincitur. Cum igitur in eorum conspectu et corpus et animus magis minusque speciosa essent, si autem omni specie carere possent, omnino nulla essent: uiderunt esse aliquid ubi prima esset incommutabilis et ideo nec conparabilis; adque ibi esse rerum principium rectissime crediderunt, quod factum non esset et ex quo facta cuncta essent. Ita quod notum est Dei, manifestauit eis ipse, cum ab eis inuisibilia eius per ea, quae facta sunt, intellecta conspecta sunt: sempiterna quoque uirtus eius et diuinitas; a quo etiam uisibilia et temporalia cuncta creata sunt. Haec de illa parte, quam physicam, id est naturalem, nuncupant, dicta sint.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. On the view of the Platonists in that part of philosophy which is called physics.

These philosophers, then, whom we see not undeservedly preferred to the rest in fame and glory, saw that no body is God, and therefore they passed beyond all bodies in seeking God. They saw that whatever is changeable is not the supreme God, and therefore they passed beyond every soul and all changeable spirits in seeking the supreme God. Then they saw that every form in any changeable thing, by which it is whatever it is, in whatever way and of whatever nature it is, can exist only from him who truly is, because he is unchangeably. And so, whether the body of the whole world, its shapes, qualities, and ordered motion, and the elements arranged from heaven to earth and whatever bodies are in them; or all life, whether that which nourishes and holds together, such as is in trees, or that which has this and also feels, such as is in cattle, or that which has these and also understands, such as is in men, or that which needs no nourishing support but only holds together, feels, and understands, such as is in angels — all these can exist only from him who simply is. For to him it is not one thing to be and another to live, as though he could be without living; nor is it one thing to him to live and another to understand, as though he could live without understanding; nor is it one thing to him to understand and another to be happy, as though he could understand without being happy; but what is to him to live, to understand, to be happy, this is to him to be. Because of this unchangeableness and simplicity they understood that he made all these things and could himself be made by none. For they considered that whatever is, is either body or life, and that life is something better than body, and that the form of body is sensible, the form of life intelligible. Accordingly they preferred the intelligible form to the sensible. We call sensible those things that can be perceived by the sight and touch of the body; intelligible, those that can be understood by the gaze of the mind. For there is no bodily beauty, whether in the state of a body, like shape, or in its motion, like a melody, of which the mind does not judge. This it certainly could not do unless this form were in it in a better way, without the bulk of mass, without the noise of voice, without extension of place or time. But even there, unless it were changeable, one would not judge better than another of sensible form: the more gifted better than the slower, the more skilled better than the less skilled, the more practiced better than the less practiced, and the same one person, as he makes progress, certainly better later than before. But what admits of more and less is without doubt changeable. Hence gifted and learned men, practiced in these things, easily concluded that the first form is not in those things in which it is shown to be changeable. Since, then, in their sight both body and mind were more or less beautiful, and if they could lack all form they would be nothing at all, they saw that there is something in which the first form is unchangeable, and therefore beyond comparison; and there they most rightly believed the first principle of things to be, which was not made and from which all things were made. Thus what can be known of God he himself manifested to them, when his invisible things were understood and seen by them through the things that are made, his eternal power also and divinity — he by whom also all visible and temporal things were created. Let this be said of that part which they call physics, that is, natural philosophy.

### Scripture references

- Rom 1:19: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:20: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The closing sentence paraphrases Rom 1:19–20.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.6 (CSEL 40:364–366; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-34/#p-8-6).

## City of God 8.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-34/#p-8-7
- Source: CSEL 40:366
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine prefers the Platonists' logic to that of the Epicureans and Stoics, who founded knowledge on the senses, because the Platonists held that God is the light of the mind.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. Quanto excellentiores ceteris in logica, id est rationali philosophia, Platonici sint habendi. Quod autem adtinet ad doctrinam, ubi uersatur pars altera, quae ab eis logica, id est rationalis, uocatur: absit ut his conparandi uideantur qui posuerunt iudicium ueritatis in sensibus corporis eorumque infidis et fallacibus regulis omnia, quae discuntur, metienda esse censuerunt, ut Epicurei et quicumque alii tales, ut etiam ipsi Stoici, qui cum uehementer amauerint sollertiam disputandi, quam dialecticam nominant, a corporis sensibus eam ducendam putarunt, hinc adseuerantes animum concipere notiones, quas appellant ἐννοίας, earum rerum scilicet quas definiendo explicant; hinc propagari adque conecti totam discendi docendique rationem. Ubi ego multum mirari soleo, cum pulchros dicant non esse nisi sapientes, quibus sensibus corporis istam pulchritudinem uiderint, qualibus oculis carnis formam sapientiae decusque conspexerint. Hi uero, quos merito ceteris anteponimus, discreuerunt ea, quae mente conspiciuntur, ab his, quae sensibus adtinguntur, nec sensibus adimentes quod possunt, nec eis dantes ultra quam possunt. Lumen autem mentium esse dixerunt ad discenda omnia eundem ipsum Deum, a quo facta sunt omnia.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. How far the Platonists are to be held superior to the rest in logic, that is, rational philosophy.

As for the teaching with which the other part is concerned, which they call logic, that is, rational philosophy: far be it from us to think that those should be compared with them who placed the criterion of truth in the senses of the body and judged that everything that is learned must be measured by their untrustworthy and deceptive rules — such as the Epicureans and any others like them, and even the Stoics themselves. The Stoics, though they greatly loved the skill of arguing which they call dialectic, thought that it must be derived from the bodily senses, asserting that from them the mind conceives the notions which they call ennoiai, namely of the things they explain by defining them, and that from them the whole method of learning and teaching is propagated and connected. Here I am often much amazed, since they say that none are beautiful but the wise, by what bodily senses they saw that beauty, with what eyes of the flesh they beheld the form and grace of wisdom. But these whom we rightly place before the rest distinguished what is seen by the mind from what is reached by the senses, neither taking away from the senses what they can do nor giving them more than they can do. And they said that the light of minds for learning all things is that very God by whom all things were made.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Epicurus (Epicurus (sayings and fragments)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The Greek term (garbled and marked sic in the digital text) is ἐννοίας, “notions.”

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.7 (CSEL 40:366; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/7-34/#p-8-7).

## City of God 8.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-8
- Source: CSEL 40:366–368
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine sets the Platonists above other moralists because they placed happiness not in body or mind but in the enjoyment of God, the supreme good.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. Quod etiam in morali philosophia Platonici obtineant principatum. Reliqua est pars moralis, quam Graeco uocabulo dicunt ethicam, ubi quaeritur de summo bono, quo referentes omnia quae agimus, et quod non propter aliud, sed propter se ipsum adpetentes idque adipiscentes nihil, quo beati simus, ulterius requiramus. Ideo quippe et finis est dictus, quia propter hunc cetera uolumus, ipsum autem non nisi propter ipsum. Hoc ergo beatificum bonum alii a corpore, alii ab animo, alii ab utroque homini esse dixerunt. Videbant quippe ipsum hominem constare ex animo et corpore et ideo ab alterutro istorum duorum aut ab utroque bene sibi esse posse credebant, finali quodam bono, quo beati essent, quo cuncta quae agebant referrent adque id quo referendum esset non ultra quaererent. Unde illi, qui dicuntur addidisse tertium genus bonorum, quod appellatur extrinsecus, sicuti est honor gloria pecunia et si quid huius modi, non sic addiderunt, ut finale esset, id est propter se ipsum adpetendum, sed propter aliud; bonumque esse hoc genus bonis, malum autem malis. Ita bonum hominis qui uel ab animo uel a corpore uel ab utroque expetiuerunt, nihil aliud quam ab homine expetendum esse putauerunt; sed qui id adpetiuerunt a corpore, a parte hominis deteriore; qui uero ab animo, a parte meliore; qui autem ab utroque, a toto homine. Siue ergo a parte qualibet siue a toto, non nisi ab homine. Nec istae differentiae, quoniam tres sunt, ideo tres, sed multas dissensiones philosophorum sectasque fecerunt, quia et de bono corporis et de bono animi et de bono utriusque diuersi diuersa opinati sunt. Cedant igitur omnes illis philosophis, qui non dixerunt beatum esse hominem fruentem corpore uel fruentem animo, sed fruentem Deo: non sicut corpore uel se ipso animus aut sicut amico amicus, sed sicut luce oculus, si aliquid ab his ad illa similitudinis adferendum est, quod quale sit, si Deus ipse adiuuerit, alio loco, quantum per nos fieri poterit, apparebit. Nunc satis sit commemorare Platonem determinasse finem boni esse secundum uirtutem uiuere et ei soli euenire posse, qui notitiam Dei habeat et imitationem nec esse aliam ob causam beatum; ideoque non dubitat hoc esse philosophari, amare Deum, cuius natura sit incorporalis. Unde utique colligitur tunc fore beatum studiosum sapientiae (id enim est philosophus), cum frui Deo coeperit. Quamuis enim non continuo beatus sit, qui eo fruitur quod amat (multi enim amando ea, quae amanda non sunt, miseri sunt et miseriores cum fruuntur): nemo tamen beatus est, qui eo quod amat non fruitur. Nam et ipsi, qui res non amandas amant, non se beatos putant amando, sed fruendo. Quisquis ergo fruitur eo, quod amat, uerumque et summum bonum amat, quis eum beatum nisi miserrimus negat? Ipsum autem uerum ac summum bonum Plato dicit Deum, unde uult esse philosophum amatorem Dei, ut, quoniam philosophia ad beatam uitam tendit, fruens Deo sit beatus qui Deum amauerit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. That the Platonists hold the first place in moral philosophy too.

There remains the moral part, which they call by the Greek word ethics, in which the question is about the supreme good: that to which we refer all that we do, and which we seek not for the sake of anything else but for its own sake, and having obtained which we seek nothing further to make us happy. For it is called the end precisely because we will other things for its sake, but it only for its own sake. Some said that this beatifying good comes to man from the body, others from the mind, others from both. For they saw that man himself consists of mind and body, and so they believed that it could be well with them from one or other of these two or from both, by a certain final good by which they might be happy, to which they might refer all that they did, and beyond which they would not seek anything to which it should be referred. Hence those who are said to have added a third kind of goods, called external, such as honor, glory, money, and anything of this kind, did not add it as final, that is, to be sought for its own sake, but for the sake of something else; and they said that this kind is good for the good and bad for the bad. So those who sought man's good from the mind or from the body or from both thought that it was to be sought from nothing but man: those who sought it from the body, from the worse part of man; those who sought it from the mind, from the better part; those who sought it from both, from the whole man. Whether from any part or from the whole, then, it was from man alone. Nor did these differences, because they are three, make only three dissensions and sects of philosophers, but many, because different men held different opinions about the good of the body, the good of the mind, and the good of both. Let all these, then, yield to those philosophers who said that man is happy not in enjoying the body or in enjoying the mind, but in enjoying God — not as the mind enjoys the body or itself, or as a friend enjoys a friend, but as the eye enjoys light, if any likeness is to be drawn from these things to that; and what this is like will appear in another place, if God himself helps, as far as we are able. For now it is enough to mention that Plato determined that the final good is to live according to virtue, and that this can happen only to one who has knowledge of God and imitates him, and that there is no other cause of happiness; and therefore he does not doubt that to philosophize is this: to love God, whose nature is incorporeal. From this it certainly follows that the student of wisdom (for that is what a philosopher is) will be happy when he has begun to enjoy God. For though one who enjoys what he loves is not at once happy (for many are wretched by loving what ought not to be loved, and more wretched when they enjoy it), yet no one is happy who does not enjoy what he loves. For even those who love things not to be loved do not think themselves happy by loving but by enjoying. Whoever, then, enjoys what he loves, and loves the true and supreme good, who but the most wretched would deny that he is happy? And Plato says that this true and supreme good is God; and so he wants the philosopher to be a lover of God, so that, since philosophy tends toward the happy life, he who has loved God may be happy in enjoying God.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The digital text is garbled at “quo beati essent” (“by which they might be happy”); translated by the sense.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.8 (CSEL 40:366–368; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-8).

## City of God 8.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-9
- Source: CSEL 40:368–369
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine prefers any philosophers, of whatever school or nation, who hold God to be the source of being, knowledge, and happiness.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. De ea philosophia, quae ad ueritatem fidei Christianae propius accessit. Quicumque igitur philosophi de Deo summo et uero ista senserunt, quod et rerum creatarum sit effector et lumen cognoscendarum et bonum agendarum, quod ab illo nobis sit et principium naturae et ueritas doctrinae et felicitas uitae, siue Platonici adcommodatius nuncupentur, siue quodlibet aliud sectae suae nomen inponant; siue tantummodo Ionici generis, qui in eis praecipui fuerunt, ista senserint, sicut idem Plato et qui eum bene intellexerunt; siue etiam Italici, propter Pythagoram et Pythagoreos et si qui forte alii eiusdem sententiae indidem fuerunt; siue aliarum quoque gentium qui sapientes uel philosophi habiti sunt, Atlantici Libyes, Aegyptii, Indi, Persae, Chaldaei, Scythae, Galli, Hispani aliqui reperiuntur, qui hoc uiderint ac docuerint: eos omnes ceteris anteponimus eosque nobis propinquiores fatemur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. On that philosophy which has come nearer to the truth of the Christian faith.

Whatever philosophers, then, have held these views about the supreme and true God — that he is the maker of created things, the light by which things are known, and the good for which things are to be done; that from him we have the principle of nature, the truth of teaching, and the happiness of life — whether they are more fittingly called Platonists or give their school some other name; whether only the chief men of the Ionian school held these views, like Plato himself and those who understood him well, or also those of the Italian school, on account of Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans and any others of the same opinion from there; or whether some are found among other nations too, who were held to be wise men or philosophers — Atlantic Libyans, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Chaldeans, Scythians, Gauls, Spaniards — who saw and taught this: all these we place before the rest, and we acknowledge them to be nearer to us.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.9 (CSEL 40:368–369; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-9).

## City of God 8.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-10
- Source: CSEL 40:369–371
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that a Christian, warned by Paul against worldly philosophy yet told that some knew God from creation, rightly prefers the Platonists for what they grasped of the one God.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. Quae sit inter philosophicas artes religiosi excellentia Christiani. Quamuis enim homo Christianus litteris tantum ecclesiasticis eruditus Platonicorum forte nomen ignoret, nec utrum duo genera philosophorum extiterint in Graeca lingua, Ionicorum et Italicorum, sciat: non tamen ita surdus est in rebus humanis, ut nesciat philosophos uel studium sapientiae uel ipsam sapientiam profiteri. Cauet eos tamen, qui secundum elementa huius mundi philosophantur, non secundum Deum, a quo ipse factus est mundus. Admonetur enim praecepto apostolico fideliterque audit quod dictum est: Cauete ne quis uos decipiat per philosophiam et inanem seductionem secundum elementa mundi. Deinde ne omnes tales esse arbitretur, audit ab eodem apostolo dici de quibusdam: Quia quod notum est Dei, manifestum est in illis; Deus enim illis manifestauit. Inuisibilia enim eius a constitutione mundi per ea, quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur, sempiterna quoque uirtus eius et diuinitas, et ubi Atheniensibus loquens, cum rem magnam de Deo dixisset et quae a paucis possit intellegi, quod in illo uiuimus et mouemur et sumus, adiecit et ait: Sicut et uestri quidam dixerunt. Nouit sane etiam ipsos, in quibus errant, cauere; ubi enim dictum est, quod per ea, quae facta sunt, Deus illis manifestauit intellectu conspicienda inuisibilia sua: ibi etiam dictum est non illos ipsum Deum recte coluisse, quia et aliis rebus, quibus non oportebat, diuinos honores illi uni tantum debitos detulerunt: Quoniam cognoscentes Deum non sicut Deum glorificauerunt aut gratias egerunt, sed euanuerunt in cogitationibus suis et obscuratum est cor insipiens eorum. Dicentes enim se esse sapientes stulti facti sunt et inmutauerunt gloriam incorruptibilis Dei in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis et uolucrum et quadrupedum et serpentium; ubi et Romanos et Graecos et Aegyptios, qui de sapientiae nomine gloriati sunt, fecit intellegi. Sed de hoc cum istis post modum disputabimus. In quo autem nobis consentiunt de uno Deo huius uniuersitatis auctore, qui non solum super omnia corpora est incorporeus, uerum etiam super omnes animas incorruptibilis, principium nostrum, lumen nostrum, bonum nostrum, in hoc eos ceteris anteponimus. Nec, si litteras eorum Christianus ignorans uerbis, quae non didicit, in disputatione non utitur, ut uel naturalem Latine uel physicam Graece appellet eam partem, in qua de naturae inquisitione tractatur, et rationalem siue logicam, in qua quaeritur quonam modo ueritas percipi possit, et moralem uel ethicam, in qua de moribus agitur bonorumque finibus adpetendis malorumque uitandis, ideo nescit ab uno uero Deo adque optimo et naturam nobis esse, qua facti ad eius imaginem sumus, et doctrinam, qua eum nosque nouerimus, et gratiam, qua illi cohaerendo beati simus. Haec itaque causa est quur istos ceteris praeferamus, quia, cum alii philosophi ingenia sua studiaque contriuerint in requirendis rerum causis, et quinam esset modus discendi adque uiuendi, isti Deo cognito reppererunt ubi esset et causa constitutae uniuersitatis et lux percipiendae ueritatis et fons bibendae felicitatis. Siue ergo isti Platonici siue quicumque alii quarumlibet gentium philosophi de Deo ista sentiunt, nobiscum sentiunt. Sed ideo cum Platonicis magis agere placuit hanc causam, quia eorum sunt litterae notiores. Nam et Graeci, quorum lingua in gentibus praeminet, eas magna praedicatione celebrarunt, et Latini permoti earum uel excellentia uel gloria, ipsas libentius didicerunt adque in nostrum eloquium transferendo nobiliores clarioresque fecerunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. What is the excellence of the religious Christian among the philosophical arts.

For though a Christian educated only in the writings of the church may perhaps not know the name of the Platonists, nor know whether there have been two schools of philosophers in the Greek language, the Ionian and the Italian, yet he is not so deaf in human affairs as not to know that philosophers profess either the pursuit of wisdom or wisdom itself. He is wary, however, of those who philosophize according to the elements of this world, not according to God, by whom the world itself was made. For he is warned by the apostle's precept and listens faithfully to what was said: “Beware lest anyone deceive you through philosophy and empty seduction according to the elements of the world.” Then, lest he think that all are such, he hears the same apostle say of some: “For what is known of God is manifest among them; for God has manifested it to them. For his invisible things, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, his eternal power also and divinity.” And when he spoke to the Athenians, after he had said a great thing about God, which can be understood by few, that “in him we live and move and have our being,” he added: “as some of your own have also said.” He knows, of course, to be wary of them too in the points on which they err. For where it was said that God has manifested to them through the things that are made his invisible things, to be seen by the understanding, there it was also said that they did not rightly worship God himself, because they paid to other things also, to which it was not fitting, the divine honors due to him alone: “Because, knowing God, they did not glorify him as God or give thanks, but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For, claiming to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man, and of birds and four-footed beasts and serpents.” There he made us understand the Romans and the Greeks and the Egyptians, who gloried in the name of wisdom. But about this we shall argue with them later. In so far as they agree with us about the one God, the author of this universe, who is not only incorporeal above all bodies but also incorruptible above all souls — our principle, our light, our good — in this we place them before the rest. Nor, if a Christian who does not know their writings does not use in discussion words he has not learned — calling that part in which the investigation of nature is treated natural in Latin or physics in Greek; and the part in which it is asked how truth can be perceived, rational or logic; and the part in which morals are treated, and the ends of goods to be sought and of evils to be avoided, moral or ethics — does he therefore not know that from the one true and supremely good God we have the nature by which we were made in his image, the teaching by which we know him and ourselves, and the grace by which, cleaving to him, we are happy. This, then, is the reason why we prefer these to the rest: whereas other philosophers wore out their talents and studies in seeking the causes of things and the right way of learning and living, these, having known God, found where the cause of the established universe, the light for perceiving truth, and the fountain for drinking happiness are to be found. Whether, then, these Platonists or any other philosophers of any nations hold these views about God, they agree with us. But I have chosen to argue this case rather with the Platonists because their writings are better known. For the Greeks, whose language is pre-eminent among the nations, have celebrated them with great praise; and the Latins, moved by their excellence or their glory, have studied them more willingly and, by translating them into our tongue, have made them more renowned and illustrious.

### Scripture references

- Col 2:8: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:19: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:20: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 17:28: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:21: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:22: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:23: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:27: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Col 2:8; Rom 1:19–20; Acts 17:28 (Paul quoting the Greek poet Aratus); Rom 1:21–23. “Made in his image” echoes Gen 1:27.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.10 (CSEL 40:369–371; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-10).

## City of God 8.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-11
- Source: CSEL 40:371–373
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine corrects his earlier view that Plato met Jeremiah, but suggests Plato may have learned of the Scriptures through an interpreter, citing likenesses to Genesis 1 and to God's name 'I am who am.'

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. Unde Plato eam intellegentiam potuerit adquirere, qua Christianae scientiae propinquauit. Mirantur autem quidam nobis in Christi gratia sociati, cum audiunt uel legunt Platonem de Deo ista sensisse, quae multum congruere ueritati nostrae religionis agnoscunt. Unde nonnulli putauerunt eum, quando perrexit in Aegyptum, Hieremiam audisse prophetam uel scripturas propheticas in eadem peregrinatione legisse; quorum quidem opinionem in quibusdam libris meis posui. Sed diligenter subputata temporum ratio, quae chronica historia continetur, Platonem indicat a tempore, quo prophetauit Hieremias, centum ferme annos postea natum fuisse; qui cum octoginta et unum uixisset, ab anno mortis eius usque ad id tempus, quo Ptolomaeus rex Aegypti scripturas propheticas gentis Hebraeorum de Iudaea poposcit et per septuaginta uiros Hebraeos, qui etiam Graecam linguam nouerant, interpretandas habendasque curauit, anni reperiuntur ferme sexaginta. Quapropter in illa peregrinatione sua Plato nec Hieremiam uidere potuit tanto ante defunctum, nec easdem scripturas legere, quae nondum fuerant in Graecam linguam translatae, qua ille pollebat; nisi forte, quia fuit acerrimi studii, sicut Aegyptias, ita et istas per interpretem didicit, non ut scribendo transferret (quod Ptolomaeus pro ingenti beneficio, qui a regia potestate etiam timeri poterat, meruisse perhibetur, sed ut conloquendo quid continerent, quantum capere posset, addisceret. Hoc ut existimetur, illa suadere uidentur indicia, quod liber geneseos sic incipit: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram. Terra autem erat inuisibilis et inconposita, et tenebrae [erant] super abyssum, et spiritus Dei superferebatur super aquam; in Timaeo autem Plato, quem librum de mundi constitutione conscripsit, Deum dicit in illo opere terram primo ignemque iunxisse. Manifestum est autem, quod igni tribuat caeli locum: habet ergo haec sententia quandam illius similitudinem, qua dictum est: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram. Deinde illa duo media, quibus interpositis sibimet haec extrema copularentur, aquam dicit et aerem; unde putatur sic intellexisse quod scriptum est: spiritus Dei superferebatur super aquam. Parum quippe adtendens quo more soleat illa scriptura appellare spiritum Dei, quoniam et aer spiritus dicitur, quattuor opinatus elementa loco illo commemorata uideri potest Deinde quod Plato dicit amatorem Dei esse philosophum, nihil sic illis sacris litteris flagrat; et maxime illud (quod et me plurimum adducit, ut paene adsentiar Platonem illorum librorum expertem non fuisse), quod, cum ad sanctum Moysen ita uerba Dei per angelum perferantur, ut quaerenti quod sit nomen eius, qui eum pergere praecipiebat ad populum Hebraeum ex Aegypto liberandum, respondeatur: Ego sum qui sum, et dices filiis Israel: Qui est, misit me ad uos, tamquam in eius conparatione, qui uere est quia incommutabilis est, ea quae mutabilia facta sunt non sint, uehementer hoc Plato tenuit et diligentissime commendauit. Et nescio utrum hoc uspiam reperiatur in libris eorum, qui ante Platonem fuerunt, nisi ubi dictum est: Ego sum qui sum, et dices eis: Qui est, misit me ad uos.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. How Plato could have acquired that understanding by which he came near to Christian knowledge.

Some who are joined with us in the grace of Christ are amazed when they hear or read that Plato held views about God which they recognize to agree closely with the truth of our religion. Hence some have thought that when he went to Egypt he heard the prophet Jeremiah, or read the prophetic Scriptures on that same journey; and I myself set down their opinion in certain of my books. But a careful calculation of dates, contained in chronological history, shows that Plato was born about a hundred years after the time when Jeremiah prophesied; and since he lived eighty-one years, from the year of his death to the time when Ptolemy, king of Egypt, asked for the prophetic Scriptures of the Hebrew people from Judea, and had them translated and kept by seventy Hebrew men who also knew the Greek language, about sixty years are found. Therefore on that journey Plato could neither have seen Jeremiah, who had died so long before, nor read those Scriptures, which had not yet been translated into the Greek language in which he excelled — unless perhaps, being of most eager study, he learned them through an interpreter, as he did the Egyptian writings; not so as to translate them in writing (which Ptolemy, who could even be feared for his royal power, is said to have earned as a great favor), but so as to learn by conversation, as far as he could grasp it, what they contained. That this should be thought, some indications seem to suggest. The book of Genesis begins thus: “In the beginning God made heaven and earth. But the earth was invisible and without form, and darkness was over the abyss, and the Spirit of God was borne over the water.” And in the Timaeus, the book Plato wrote on the formation of the world, he says that God in that work first joined earth and fire. It is plain that he assigns to fire the place of heaven; so this opinion has a certain likeness to what was said, “In the beginning God made heaven and earth.” Then he says that the two means, by whose interposition these extremes were joined to each other, are water and air; from which he is thought to have understood thus what is written, “the Spirit of God was borne over the water.” For, paying little attention to the way in which that Scripture usually speaks of the Spirit of God, since air too is called spirit, he may seem to have thought that the four elements were mentioned in that place. Then, as for Plato's saying that the philosopher is a lover of God, nothing burns so brightly in those sacred writings. And above all there is this (which most of all leads me almost to agree that Plato was not unacquainted with those books): when the words of God are brought by an angel to holy Moses, and to him, asking the name of the one who commanded him to go and free the Hebrew people from Egypt, the answer is given, “I am who am; and you shall say to the children of Israel, He who is has sent me to you” — as though, in comparison with him who truly is because he is unchangeable, the things made changeable do not exist — Plato held this vehemently and commended it most diligently. And I do not know whether this is found anywhere in the books of those who were before Plato, except where it was said, “I am who am; and you shall say to them, He who is has sent me to you.”

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:2: quotation, high confidence
- Exod 3:14: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Tim. 31b–32b (Plato (works)): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Gen 1:1–2 and Exod 3:14 in Augustine's Latin. The earlier opinion was given in On Christian Teaching 2.28.43, and is corrected in Retractations 2.4.2. Compare Plato, Timaeus 31b–32b, on the elements. The editor deletes “erant” in the Genesis quotation.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.11 (CSEL 40:371–373; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-11).

## City of God 8.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-12
- Source: CSEL 40:373–375
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains why he debates the Platonists — Plotinus, Iamblichus, Porphyry, Apuleius — and notes that they all nevertheless offered sacrifice to many gods.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. Quod etiam Platonici, licet de uno uero Deo bene senserint, multis tamen dis sacra facienda censuerint. Sed undecumque ille ista didicerit, siue praecedentibus eum ueterum libris siue potius, quo modo dicit apostolus, quia quod notum est Dei manifestum est in illis; Deus enim illis manifestauit; inuisibilia enim eius a constitutione mundi per ea, quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur, sempiterna quoque uirtus eius et diuinitas: nunc non inmerito me Platonicos philosophos elegisse cum quibus agam, quod in ista quaestione, quam modo suscepimus, agitur de naturali theologia, utrum propter felicitatem, quae post mortem futura est, uni Deo an pluribus sacra facere oporteat, satis, ut existimo, exposui. Ideo quippe hos potissimum elegi, quoniam de uno Deo qui fecit caelum et terram, quanto melius senserunt, tanto ceteris gloriosiores et inlustriores habentur, in tantum aliis praelati iudicio posterorum, ut, cum Aristoteles, Platonis discipulus, uir excellentis ingenii et eloquio Platoni quidem inpar, sed multos facile superans, cum sectam Peripateticam condidisset, quod deambulans disputare consueuerat, plurimosque discipulos praeclara fama excellens uiuo adhuc praeceptore in suam haeresim congregasset, post mortem uero Platonis Speusippus, sororis eius filius, et Xenocrates, dilectus eius discipulus, in scholam eius, quae Academia uocabatur, eidem successissent adque ob hoc et ipsi et eorum successores Academici appellarentur, recentiores tamen philosophi nobilissimi, quibus Plato sectandus placuit, noluerint se dici Peripateticos aut Academicos, sed Platonicos. Ex quibus sunt ualde nobilitati Graeci Plotinus, Iamblichus, Porphyrius; in utraque autem lingua, id est et Graeca et Latina, Apuleius Afer extitit Platonicus nobilis. Sed hi omnes et ceteri eius modi et ipse Plato dis plurimis esse sacra facienda putauerunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. That even the Platonists, though they thought rightly about the one true God, nevertheless judged that sacrifices should be offered to many gods.

But wherever he learned these things — whether from the books of the ancients who preceded him, or rather, as the apostle says, because “what is known of God is manifest among them; for God has manifested it to them; for his invisible things, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, his eternal power also and divinity” — I think I have now sufficiently shown that I have not undeservedly chosen the Platonic philosophers to deal with, since in this question which we have just taken up, the matter at issue is natural theology: whether, for the sake of the happiness that is to come after death, sacrifice ought to be offered to one God or to many. I chose these above all because, the better they thought of the one God who made heaven and earth, the more glorious and illustrious they are held to be than the rest. They are preferred to the others by the judgment of posterity to such a degree that, although Aristotle, Plato's disciple, a man of excellent talent, unequal to Plato in eloquence but easily surpassing many, founded the Peripatetic school — so named because he was accustomed to dispute while walking about — and, being outstanding in fame, gathered very many disciples into his sect while his teacher was still living; and although after Plato's death Speusippus, his sister's son, and Xenocrates, his beloved disciple, succeeded him in his school, which was called the Academy, and for this reason they and their successors were called Academics — yet the more recent and most noted philosophers who chose to follow Plato did not wish to be called Peripatetics or Academics, but Platonists. Among these the Greeks Plotinus, Iamblichus, and Porphyry are highly renowned; and in both languages, that is, Greek and Latin, Apuleius the African was a noted Platonist. But all these and others of this kind, and Plato himself, thought that sacrifices should be offered to many gods.

### Scripture references

- Rom 1:19: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:20: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Aristotle (Aristotle (works)): allusion, low confidence
- Plotinus (Plotinus, Enneads): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Rom 1:19–20 again. Apuleius of Madaura, the Latin Platonist, has no entry in the site's list of extrabiblical texts.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.12 (CSEL 40:373–375; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-12).

## City of God 8.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-13
- Source: CSEL 40:375–376
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that since Plato held all gods to be good and banished the poets, the beings who demand obscene plays and punished Titus Latinius cannot be good gods.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. De sententia Platonis, qua definiuit deos non esse nisi bonos amicosque uirtutum. Quamquam ergo a nobis et in aliis multis rebus magnisque dissentiant, in hoc tamen, quod modo posui, quia neque parua res est et inde nunc quaestio est, primum ab eis quaero, quibus dis istum cultum exhibendum arbitrentur, utrum bonis an malis an et bonis et malis. Sed habemus Platonis sententiam dicentis omnes deos bonos esse nec esse omnino ullum deorum malum. Consequens est igitur, ut bonis haec exhibenda intellegantur; tunc enim dis exhibentur, quoniam nec di erunt, si boni non erunt. Hoc si ita est, (nam de dis quid aliud decet credere?) illa profecto uacuatur opinio, qua nonnulli putant deos malos sacris placandos esse, ne laedant, bonos autem, ut adiuuent, inuocandos. Mali enim nulli sunt di; bonis porro debitus, ut dicunt, honor sacrorum est deferendus. Qui sunt ergo illi, qui ludos scaenicos amant eosque diuinis rebus adiungi et suis honoribus flagitant exhiberi? quorum uis non eos indicat nullos, sed iste adfectus nimirum indicat malos. Quid enim de ludis scaenicis Plato senserit, notum est, cum poetas ipsos, quod tam indigna deorum maiestate adque bonitate carmina conposuerint, censet ciuitate pellendos. Qui sunt igitur isti di, qui de scaenicis ludis cum ipso Platone contendunt? Ille quippe non patitur deos falsis criminibus infamari; isti eisdem criminibus suos honores celebrari iubent. Denique isti cum eosdem ludos instaurari praeciperent, poscentes turpia etiam maligna gesserunt, Tito Latinio auferentes filium et inmittentes morbum, quod eorum abnuisset imperium, eumque morbum retrahentes, cum iussa conplesset; iste autem illos nec tam malos timendos putat, sed suae sententiae robur constantissime retinens omnes poetarum sacrilegas nugas, quibus illi inmunditiae societate oblectantur, a populo bene instituto remouere non dubitat. Hunc autem Platonem, quod iam in secundo libro commemoraui, inter semideos Labeo ponit. Qui Labeo numina mala uictimis cruentis adque huius modi supplicationibus placari existimat, bona uero ludis et talibus quasi ad laetitiam pertinentibus rebus. Quid est ergo quod semideus Plato non semideis, sed deis, et hoc bonis, illa oblectamenta, quia iudicat turpia, tam constanter audet auferre? Qui sane di refellunt sententiam Labeonis; nam se in Latinio non lasciuos tantum adque ludibundos, sed etiam saeuos terribilesque monstrarunt. Exponant ergo nobis ista Platonici, qui omnes deos secundum auctoris sui sententiam bonos et honestos et uirtutibus sapientium socios esse arbitrantur aliterque de ullo deorum sentiri nefas habent. Exponimus, inquiunt. Adtente igitur audiamus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. On the opinion of Plato, by which he defined the gods to be only good and friends of the virtues.

Although they disagree with us in many other great matters too, yet on this point which I have just stated — since it is no small matter and the question now turns on it — I first ask them to which gods they think this worship should be offered: to good ones, to bad ones, or to both good and bad. But we have the opinion of Plato, who says that all the gods are good and that there is no bad god at all. It follows, then, that these things are to be understood as offered to good gods; for then they are offered to gods, since they will not be gods if they are not good. If this is so (and what else is it fitting to believe about gods?), then the opinion is surely emptied by which some think that bad gods must be appeased with sacrifices, so that they may not harm, and good gods invoked, so that they may help. For there are no bad gods; and to the good, as they say, the due honor of sacrifices is to be paid. Who, then, are those who love the stage plays and demand that they be joined to divine rites and exhibited in their honor? Their power shows that they are not nothing; but this taste of theirs surely shows that they are bad. For what Plato thought of stage plays is well known, since he judges that the poets themselves should be driven out of the city for having composed poems so unworthy of the majesty and goodness of the gods. Who, then, are these gods who contend with Plato himself over the stage plays? He does not allow the gods to be defamed with false crimes; they order their honors to be celebrated with those same crimes. Indeed, when they commanded that those same plays be renewed, they demanded shameful things and also did malicious ones, taking away the son of Titus Latinius and sending a disease on him because he had refused their command, and withdrawing the disease when he had carried out their orders. But Plato does not think that they, however bad, are to be feared; holding most steadfastly to the strength of his opinion, he does not hesitate to remove from a well-ordered people all the sacrilegious trifles of the poets, in which those gods delight through their fellowship in uncleanness. And this Plato, as I mentioned already in the second book, Labeo places among the demigods. Labeo thinks that bad deities are appeased with bloody victims and supplications of that kind, but good ones with plays and such things as pertain, as it were, to gladness. Why is it, then, that the demigod Plato so steadfastly dares to take away these delights, because he judges them shameful, not from demigods but from gods, and good ones at that? These gods indeed refute Labeo's opinion; for in the case of Latinius they showed themselves not only wanton and playful but also cruel and terrible. Let the Platonists, then, explain these things to us, who, following the opinion of their founder, think all the gods good and honorable and companions of the virtues of the wise, and hold it wicked to think otherwise of any of the gods. “We explain,” they say. Let us listen attentively, then.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Resp. 379a–c; 398a (Plato (works)): allusion, high confidence
- Livy, 2.36 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence
- Cicero, Div. 1.26.55 (Cicero): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Plato's view that the gods are good and his expulsion of the poets are in the Republic (2.379a–c; 3.398a). The story of Titus Latinius is told by Livy 2.36 and Cicero, On Divination 1.26.55; see City of God 4.26. On Labeo, see 2.14 (no entry for Labeo in the site's list of extrabiblical texts).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.13 (CSEL 40:375–376; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-13).

## City of God 8.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-14
- Source: CSEL 40:376–379
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reports the Platonist scheme of gods, demons, and men, and uses Apuleius' On the God of Socrates to argue that demons, not gods, demand obscene rites.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. De opinione eorum, qui rationales animas trium generum esse dixerunt, id est in dis caelestibus, in daemonibus aeriis et in hominibus terrenis. Omnium, inquiunt, animalium, in quibus est anima rationalis, tripertita diuisio est, in deos, homines, daemones. Di excelsissimum locum tenent, homines infimum, daemones medium. Nam deorum sedes in caelo est, hominum in terra, in aere daemonum. Sicut eis diuersa dignitas est locorum, ita etiam naturarum. Proinde di sunt hominibus daemonibusque potiores; homines uero infra deos et daemones constituti sunt, ut elementorum ordine, sic differentia meritorum. Daemones igitur medii, quem ad modum dis, quibus inferius habitant, postponendi, ita hominibus, quibus superius, praeferendi sunt. Habent enim cum dis communem inmortalitatem corporum, animorum autem cum hominibus passiones. Quapropter non est mirum, inquiunt, si etiam ludorum obscenitatibus et poetarum figmentis delectantur, quando quidem humanis capiuntur adfectibus, a quibus di longe absunt et modis omnibus alieni sunt. Ex quo colligitur, Platonem poetica detestando et prohibendo figmenta non deos, qui omnes boni et excelsi sunt, priuasse ludorum scaenicorum uoluptate, sed daemones. Haec si ita sunt (quae licet aput alios quoque reperiantur, Apuleius tamen Platonicus Madaurensis de hac re sola unum scripsit librum, cuius esse titulum uoluit de deo Socratis, ubi disserit et exponit, ex quo genere numinum Socrates habebat adiunctum et amicitia quadam conciliatum, a quo perhibetur solitus admoneri, ut desisteret ab agendo, quando id quod agere uolebat, non prospere fuerat euenturum; dicit enim apertissime et copiosissime adserit non illum deum fuisse, sed daemonem, diligenti disputatione pertractans istam Platonis de deorum sublimitate et hominum humilitate et daemonum medietate sententiam) — haec ergo si ita sunt, quonam modo ausus est Plato, etiamsi non dis, quos ab omni humana contagione semouit, certe ipsis daemonibus poetas urbe pellendo auferre theatricas uoluptates, nisi quia hoc pacto admonuit animum humanum, quamuis adhuc in his moribundis membris positum, pro splendore honestatis inpura daemonum iussa contemnere eorumque inmunditiam detestari? Nam si Plato haec honestissime arguit et prohibuit, profecto daemones turpissime poposcerunt adque iusserunt. Aut ergo fallitur Apuleius et non ex isto genere numinum habuit amicum Socrates aut contraria inter se sentit Plato modo daemones honorando, modo eorum delicias a ciuitate bene morata remouendo, aut non est Socrati amicitia daemonis gratulanda, de qua usque adeo et ipse Apuleius erubuit, ut de deo Socratis praenotaret librum, quem secundum suam disputationem, qua deos a daemonibus tam diligenter copioseque discernit, non appellare de deo, sed de daemone Socratis debuit. Maluit autem hoc in ipsa disputatione quam in titulo libri ponere. Ita enim per sanam doctrinam, quae humanis rebus inluxit, omnes uel paene omnes daemonum nomen exhorrent, ut, quisquis ante disputationem Apulei, qua daemonum dignitas commendatur, titulum libri de daemone Socratis legeret, nequaquam illum hominem sanum fuisse sentiret. Quid autem etiam ipse Apuleius quod in daemonibus laudaret inuenit praeter subtilitatem et firmitatem corporum et habitationis altiorem locum? Nam de moribus eorum, cum de omnibus generaliter loqueretur, non solum nihil boni dixit, sed etiam plurimum mali. Denique lecto illo libro prorsus nemo miratur eos etiam scaenicam turpitudinem in rebus diuinis habere uoluisse, et cum deos se putari uelint, deorum criminibus oblectari potuisse, et quidquid in eorum sacris obscena sollemnitate seu turpi crudelitate uel ridetur uel horretur, eorum adfectibus conuenire.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. On the opinion of those who said that rational souls are of three kinds: in the heavenly gods, in the aerial demons, and in earthly men.

“Of all living beings,” they say, “in which there is a rational soul, there is a threefold division: into gods, men, and demons. The gods hold the highest place, men the lowest, demons the middle. For the seat of the gods is in heaven, that of men on earth, that of demons in the air. As the dignity of their places differs, so does that of their natures. Accordingly the gods are superior to men and demons; men are placed below gods and demons, in the order of the elements as in the difference of their merits. The demons, then, being in the middle, are to be ranked below the gods, beneath whom they dwell, and above men, above whom they dwell. For they have in common with the gods immortality of body, and with men the passions of the mind. Therefore,” they say, “it is not surprising if they delight even in the obscenities of plays and the fictions of poets, since they are captured by human feelings, from which the gods are far removed and wholly alien.” From this it is concluded that Plato, by detesting and forbidding poetic fictions, deprived not the gods, who are all good and exalted, of the pleasure of stage plays, but the demons. If these things are so — and though they are found in other writers too, Apuleius the Platonist of Madaura wrote a whole book on this subject alone, whose title he chose to be On the God of Socrates. In it he discusses and explains to what class of deities belonged the being that was joined to Socrates and bound to him by a kind of friendship, by whom he is said to have been usually warned to desist from acting when what he wanted to do was not going to turn out well. For he says most plainly, and asserts at great length, that it was not a god but a demon, treating with careful argument this opinion of Plato's about the exaltation of the gods, the lowliness of men, and the middle position of demons. If these things are so, then, how did Plato dare, by expelling the poets from the city, to take away theatrical pleasures, if not from the gods, whom he removed from all human contact, then certainly from the demons themselves — unless it was that in this way he warned the human mind, though still placed in these dying members, to despise the impure commands of the demons for the sake of the splendor of honor, and to detest their uncleanness? For if Plato most honorably censured and forbade these things, then surely the demons most shamefully demanded and commanded them. Either, then, Apuleius is mistaken and Socrates did not have a friend of this class of deities; or Plato holds contradictory views, now honoring the demons, now removing their delights from a well-ordered city; or Socrates is not to be congratulated on the friendship of a demon — about which even Apuleius himself was so ashamed that he entitled his book On the God of Socrates, when according to his own argument, by which he distinguishes gods from demons so carefully and fully, he ought to have called it not On the God but On the Demon of Socrates. But he preferred to put this in the discussion itself rather than in the title of the book. For through the sound teaching that has shone on human affairs, all or nearly all shudder at the name of demons, so that whoever, before reading Apuleius's argument commending the dignity of demons, read the title of a book On the Demon of Socrates would think that the man was by no means sane. And what did Apuleius himself find to praise in demons, except the subtlety and firmness of their bodies and the higher place of their dwelling? For of their morals, when he spoke of all of them in general, he not only said nothing good but a great deal that was bad. In short, when that book has been read, no one at all is surprised that they wished to have even the shamefulness of the stage among divine rites, and that, wishing to be thought gods, they could be delighted by the crimes of the gods; and that whatever in their rites is laughed at or shuddered at, whether obscene solemnity or shameful cruelty, suits their passions.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Symp. 202e–203a (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Apuleius, On the God of Socrates (De deo Socratis), is the source throughout Books 8–9; it has no entry in the site's list of extrabiblical texts. The middle place of demons comes from Plato, Symposium 202e–203a.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.14 (CSEL 40:376–379; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-14).

## City of God 8.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-15
- Source: CSEL 40:379–381
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that the demons' finer bodies and airy dwelling do not make them better than men, just as the strength of beasts or the flight of birds does not.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. Quod neque propter aeria corpora neque propter superiora habitacula daemones hominibus antecellant. Quam ob rem absit ut ista considerans animus ueraciter religiosus et uero Deo subditus ideo arbitretur daemones se ipso esse meliores, quod habeant corpora meliora. Alioquin multas sibi et bestias praelaturus est, quae nos et acrimonia sensuum et motu facillimo adque celerrimo et ualentia uirium et annosissima firmitate corporum uincunt. Quis hominum uidendo aequabitur aquilis et uulturibus? quis odorando canibus? quis uelocitate leporibus, ceruis, omnibus auibus? quis multum ualendo leonibus et elephantis? quis diu uiuendo serpentibus, qui etiam deposita tunica senectutem deponere adque in iuuentam redire perhibentur? Sed sicut his omnibus ratiocinando et intellegendo meliores sumus, ita etiam daemonibus bene adque honeste uiuendo meliores esse debemus. Ob hoc enim et prouidentia diuina eis, quibus nos constat esse potiores, data sunt quaedam potiora corporum munera, ut illud, quo eis praeponimur, etiam isto modo nobis commendaretur multo maiore cura excolendum esse quam corpus, ipsamque excellentiam corporalem, quam daemones habere nossemus, prae bonitate uitae, qua illis anteponimur, contemnere disceremus, habituri et nos inmortalitatem corporum, non quam suppliciorum aeternitas torqueat, sed quam puritas praecedat animorum. Iam uero de loci altitudine, quod daemones in aere, nos autem habitamus in terra, ita permoueri, ut hinc eos nobis esse praeponendos existimemus, omnino ridiculum est. Hoc enim pacto nobis et omnia uolatilia praeponimus. At enim uolatilia cum uolando fatigantur uel reficiendum alimentis corpus habent, terram repetunt uel ad requiem uel ad pastum, quod daemones, inquiunt, non faciunt. Numquid ergo placet eis, ut uolatilia nobis, daemones autem etiam uolatilibus antecellant? Quod si dementissimum est opinari, nihil est quod de habitatione superioris elementi dignos esse daemones existimemus, quibus nos religionis adfectu subdere debeamus. Sicut enim fieri potuit, ut aeriae uolucres terrestribus nobis non solum non praeferantur, uerum etiam subiciantur propter rationalis animae, quae in nobis est, dignitatem: ita fieri potuit, ut daemones, quamuis magis aerii sint, terrestribus nobis non ideo meliores sint, quia est aer quam terra superior; sed ideo eis homines praeferendi sint, quoniam spei piorum hominum nequaquam illorum desperatio conparanda est. Nam et illa ratio Platonis, qua elementa quattuor proportione contexit adque ordinat, ita duobus extremis, igni mobilissimo et terrae inmobili, media duo, aerem et aquam, interserens, ut, quanto est aer aquis et aere ignis, tanto et aquae superiores sint terris, satis nos admonet animalium merita non pro elementorum gradibus aestimare. Et ipse quippe Apuleius cum ceteris terrestre animal hominem dicit, qui tamen longe praeponitur animalibus aquatilibus, cum ipsas aquas terris praeponat Plato: ut intellegant, non eundem ordinem tenendum, cum agitur de meritis animarum, qui uidetur esse ordo in gradibus corporum; sed fieri posse, ut inferius corpus anima melior inhabitet deteriorque superius.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. That demons do not excel men either because of their aerial bodies or because of their higher dwelling places.

Therefore, far be it that a truly religious mind, subject to the true God, considering these things, should think that demons are better than itself because they have better bodies. Otherwise it will also prefer to itself many beasts, which surpass us in keenness of senses, in the easiest and swiftest motion, in strength, and in the long-lasting firmness of their bodies. What man will equal eagles and vultures in seeing? Dogs in smelling? Hares, deer, and all birds in speed? Lions and elephants in strength? Serpents in long life, which are said even to put off old age with their cast skin and return to youth? But as we are better than all these by reasoning and understanding, so we ought also to be better than demons by living well and honorably. For this reason divine providence gave certain superior bodily gifts to those to whom we are plainly superior, so that what makes us superior to them might in this way too be commended to us as something to be cultivated with far greater care than the body, and that we might learn to despise, in comparison with the goodness of life by which we are placed above them, the very bodily excellence which we know the demons have — we who also shall have immortality of body, not one which an eternity of punishment tortures, but one which purity of soul precedes. And to be so impressed by the height of their place — that demons live in the air and we on the earth — as to think that they are to be placed above us is altogether ridiculous. For in this way we would place all birds above us too. “But birds,” they say, “when they are tired from flying, or have bodies to be refreshed with food, return to the earth either to rest or to feed, which demons do not do.” Do they wish, then, that birds should excel us, and demons excel even the birds? If it is utterly mad to think this, there is no reason to think demons worthy, because they dwell in a higher element, to have us subject ourselves to them in the affection of religion. For as it could be that the birds of the air are not only not preferred to us who are earthly, but even subject to us, because of the dignity of the rational soul that is in us, so it could be that the demons, though they are more aerial, are not better than us earthly beings merely because air is higher than earth; rather, men are to be preferred to them, because the despair of the demons is in no way to be compared with the hope of devout men. For that reasoning of Plato too, by which he weaves together and orders the four elements in proportion, inserting between the two extremes, the most mobile fire and the immobile earth, the two means, air and water, so that as far as air is above water and fire above air, so far water is above earth — this sufficiently warns us not to judge the merits of living beings by the grades of the elements. And Apuleius himself, with the rest, calls man an earthly animal, who is nevertheless far preferred to the animals of the water, although Plato places the waters themselves above the earth. So let them understand that the same order is not to be kept when the merits of souls are in question as seems to be the order in the grades of bodies, but that it can happen that a better soul inhabits a lower body and a worse soul a higher one.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Tim. 32a–b (Plato (works)): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- On the proportion of the elements, see Plato, Timaeus 32a–b; on man as an earthly animal, Apuleius, On the God of Socrates 4.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.15 (CSEL 40:379–381; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-15).

## City of God 8.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-16
- Source: CSEL 40:381–382
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine analyzes Apuleius' definition of demons and concludes that their eternity, reason, and airy bodies, joined to passion, only make them eternally wretched and unworthy of worship.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. Quid de moribus adque actionibus daemonum Apuleius Platonicus senserit. De moribus ergo daemonum cum idem Platonicus loqueretur, dixit eos eisdem quibus homines animi perturbationibus agitari, inritari iniuriis, obsequiis donisque placari, gaudere honoribus, diuersis sacrorum ritibus oblectari et in eis si quid neglectum fuerit commoueri. Inter cetera etiam dicit ad eos pertinere diuinationes augurum, aruspicum, uatum adque somniorum; ab his quoque esse miracula magorum. Breuiter autem eos definiens ait daemones esse genere animalia, animo passiua, mente rationalia, corpore aeria, tempore aeterna; horum uero quinque tria priora illis esse quae nobis, quartum proprium, quintum eos cum dis habere commune. Sed uideo trium superiorum, quae nobiscum habent, duo etiam cum dis habere. Animalia quippe esse dicit et deos, suaque cuique elementa distribuens in terrestribus animalibus nos posuit cum ceteris quae in terra uiuunt et sentiunt, in aquatilibus pisces et alia natatilia, in aeriis daemones, in aetheriis deos. Ac per hoc quod daemones genere sunt animalia, non solum eis cum hominibus, uerum etiam cum dis pecoribusque commune est; quod mente rationalia, cum dis et hominibus; quod tempore aeterna, cum dis solis; quod animo passiua, cum hominibus solis; quod corpore aeria, ipsi sunt soli. Proinde quod genere sunt animalia, non est magnum, quia hoc sunt et pecora; quod mente rationalia, non est supra nos, quia sumus et nos; quod tempore aeterna, quid boni est, si non beata? Melior est enim temporalis felicitas quam misera aeternitas. Quod animo passiua, quo modo supra nos est, quando et nos hoc sumus, nec ita esset, nisi miseri essemus? Quod corpore aeria, quanti aestimandum est, cum omni corpori praeferatur animae qualiscumque natura, et ideo religionis cultus, qui debetur ex animo, nequaquam debeatur ei rei, quae inferior est animo? Porro si inter illa, quae daemonum esse dicit, adnumeraret uirtutem, sapientiam, felicitatem et haec eos diceret habere cum dis aeterna adque communia, profecto aliquid diceret exoptandum magnique pendendum; nec sic eos tamen propter haec tamquam Deum colere deberemus, sed potius ipsum, a quo haec illos accepisse nossemus. Quanto minus nunc honore diuino aeria digna sunt animalia, ad hoc rationalia ut misera esse possint, ad hoc passiua ut misera sint, ad hoc aeterna ut miseriam finire non possint!

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. What the Platonist Apuleius thought about the morals and actions of demons.

When the same Platonist spoke of the morals of demons, he said that they are agitated by the same disturbances of mind as men, are provoked by injuries, appeased by services and gifts, rejoice in honors, are delighted by various rites of worship, and are upset if anything in them is neglected. Among other things he also says that the divinations of augurs, soothsayers, seers, and dreams belong to them, and that the wonders of magicians too come from them. And defining them briefly, he says that demons are “in kind, animals; in soul, subject to passion; in mind, rational; in body, aerial; in time, eternal”; and that of these five, the first three they have in common with us, the fourth is proper to them, and the fifth they have in common with the gods. But I see that of the first three, which they have in common with us, they have two in common with the gods too. For he says that the gods also are animals; and, assigning to each their own element, he placed us among the earthly animals with the others that live and feel on the earth, the fish and other swimming creatures among the aquatic, the demons among the aerial, the gods among the ethereal. And so, that demons are animals in kind is common to them not only with men but also with the gods and with beasts; that they are rational in mind, with gods and men; that they are eternal in time, with the gods alone; that they are subject to passion in soul, with men alone; that they are aerial in body, they alone are. Accordingly, that they are animals in kind is nothing great, for beasts are this too; that they are rational in mind is not above us, for we are so too; that they are eternal in time — what good is it, if not happy? For temporal happiness is better than wretched eternity. That they are subject to passion in soul — how is this above us, since we are so too, and would not be so if we were not wretched? That they are aerial in body — how highly is this to be valued, when the nature of any soul whatever is preferred to every body, and therefore the worship of religion, which is owed from the soul, is in no way owed to a thing that is inferior to the soul? Now if among the things he says belong to demons he had counted virtue, wisdom, and happiness, and said that they had these eternal and in common with the gods, he would surely be saying something to be desired and highly valued; yet not even so ought we to worship them as God for these things, but rather him from whom we knew they had received them. How much less, then, are these aerial animals worthy of divine honor as things stand: rational so that they can be wretched, subject to passion so that they are wretched, eternal so that they cannot end their wretchedness!

### Translation notes

- Apuleius' definition is from On the God of Socrates 13 (no entry for Apuleius in the site's list of extrabiblical texts).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.16 (CSEL 40:381–382; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-16).

## City of God 8.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-17
- Source: CSEL 40:382–384
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that demons, being subject to passions from which the true religion frees us, cannot rightly be worshipped, since religion means imitating what one worships.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. An dignum sit eos spiritus ab homine coli, a quorum uitiis eum oporteat liberari. Quapropter, ut omittam cetera et hoc solum pertractem, quod nobiscum daemones dixit habere commune, id est animi passiones, si omnia quattuor elementa suis animalibus plena sunt, inmortalibus ignis et aer, mortalibus aqua et terra, quaero quur animi daemonum passionum turbelis et tempestatibus agitentur. Perturbatio est enim, quae Graece πάϑος dicitur; unde illa uoluit uocare animo passiua, quia uerbum de uerbo πάϑος passio diceretur motus animi contra rationem. Quur ergo sunt ista in animis daemonum, quae in pecoribus non sunt? Quoniam si quid in pecore simile apparet, non est perturbatio, quia non est contra rationem, qua pecora carent. In hominibus autem ut sint istae perturbationes, facit hoc stultitia uel miseria; nondum enim sumus in illa perfectione sapientiae beati, quae nobis ab hac mortalitate liberatis in fine promittitur. Deos uero ideo dicunt istas perturbationes non perpeti, quia non solum aeterni, uerum etiam beati sunt. Easdem quippe animas rationales etiam ipsos habere perhibent, sed ab omni labe ac peste purissimas. Quam ob rem si propterea di non perturbantur, quod animalia sunt beata, non misera, et propterea pecora non perturbantur, quod animalia sunt, quae nec beata possunt esse nec misera: restat ut daemones sicut homines ideo perturbentur, quod animalia sunt non beata, sed misera. [XVII.] Qua igitur insipientia uel potius amentia per aliquam religionem daemonibus subdimur, cum per ueram religionem ab ea uitiositate, in qua illis sumus similes, liberemur? Cum enim daemones, quod et iste Apuleius, quamuis eis plurimum parcat et diuinis honoribus dignos censeat, tamen cogitur confiteri, ira instigentur, nobis uera religio praecipit, ne ira instigemur, sed ei potius resistamus. Cum daemones donis inuitentur, nobis uera religio praecipit, ne cuiquam donorum acceptione faueamus. Cum daemones honoribus mulceantur, nobis uera religio praecipit, ut talibus nullo modo moueamur. Cum daemones quorundam hominum osores, quorundam amatores sint, non prudenti tranquilloque iudicio, sed animo ut appellat ipse passiuo, nobis uera religio praecipit, ut nostros etiam diligamus inimicos. Postremo omnem motum cordis et salum mentis omnesque turbelas et tempestates animi, quibus daemones aestuare adque fluctuare adserit, nos uera religio deponere iubet. Quae igitur causa est nisi stultitia errorque mirabilis, ut ei te facias uenerando humilem, cui te cupias uiuendo dissimilem; et religione colas, quem imitari nolis, cum religionis summa sit imitari quem colis?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. Whether it is fitting that man should worship spirits from whose vices he ought to be set free.

Therefore, to pass over the rest and deal only with what he said demons have in common with us, that is, passions of the mind: if all four elements are full of their own animals, fire and air of immortal ones, water and earth of mortal ones, I ask why the minds of demons are tossed by the turmoil and storms of passions. For perturbation is what in Greek is called pathos; hence he chose to call them “subject to passion in mind,” because the word pathos, rendered word for word as passio, meant a movement of the mind contrary to reason. Why, then, are these things in the minds of demons which are not in beasts? For if anything like this appears in a beast, it is not a perturbation, because it is not contrary to reason, which beasts lack. In men, that there are these perturbations is caused by folly or wretchedness; for we are not yet happy in that perfection of wisdom which is promised us at the end, when we are freed from this mortality. But they say that the gods do not suffer these perturbations because they are not only eternal but also happy. For they say that the gods too have the same rational souls, but most pure from every stain and plague. Therefore, if the gods are not disturbed because they are happy, not wretched, animals, and beasts are not disturbed because they are animals that can be neither happy nor wretched, it remains that demons, like men, are disturbed because they are animals that are not happy but wretched. By what folly, then, or rather madness, do we subject ourselves to demons through some religion, when through the true religion we are set free from that viciousness in which we are like them? For while the demons are driven by anger — as even this Apuleius, though he spares them very much and judges them worthy of divine honors, is compelled to confess — the true religion commands us not to be driven by anger but rather to resist it. While demons are enticed by gifts, the true religion commands us not to favor anyone because we have received gifts. While demons are soothed by honors, the true religion commands us not to be moved by such things in any way. While demons hate some men and love others, not by a prudent and calm judgment but with a mind “subject to passion,” as he calls it, the true religion commands us to love even our enemies. Finally, every movement of the heart and surge of the mind, all the turmoil and storms of the soul by which he asserts that demons seethe and are tossed, the true religion bids us lay aside. What reason is there, then, except folly and astonishing error, for making yourself humble in venerating one whom you would wish to be unlike in your life, and worshipping in religion one whom you do not wish to imitate, when the sum of religion is to imitate the one you worship?

### Scripture references

- Matt 5:44: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The words “[XVII.]” in the digital text are a bracketed marker, left out. “Love even our enemies” recalls Matt 5:44.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.17 (CSEL 40:382–384; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-8/#p-8-17).

## City of God 8.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-18/#p-8-18
- Source: CSEL 40:384–385
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine mocks the idea that the chaste and innocent must reach the good gods through demons who love the very vices they avoid.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. Qualis religio sit, in qua docetur, quod homines, ut commendentur dis bonis, daemonibus uti debeant aduocatis. Frustra igitur eis Apuleius, et quicumque ita sentiunt, hunc detulit honorem, sic eos in aere medios inter aetherium caelum terramque constituens, ut, quoniam nullus deus miscetur homini, quod Platonem dixisse perhibent, isti ad deos perferant preces hominum et inde ad homines inpetrata quae poscunt. Indignum enim putauerunt qui ista crediderunt misceri homines dis et deos hominibus; dignum autem misceri daemones et dis et hominibus, hinc petita qui adlegent, inde concessa qui adportent; ut uidelicet homo castus et ab artium magicarum sceleribus alienus eos patronos adhibeat, per quos illum di exaudiant, qui haec amant, quae ille non amando fit dignior, quem facilius et libentius exaudire debeant. Amant quippe illi scaenicas turpitudines, quas non amat pudicitia; amant in maleficiis magorum mille nocendi artes, quas non amat innocentia. Ergo et pudicitia et innocentia si quid ab dis inpetrare uoluerit, non poterit suis meritis nisi suis interuenientibus inimicis. Non est quod iste poetica figmenta et theatrica ludibria iustificare conetur. Habemus contra ista magistrum eorum et tantae aput eos auctoritatis Platonem, si pudor humanus ita de se male meretur, ut non solum diligat turpia, uerum etiam diuinitati existimet grata.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. What kind of religion it is in which it is taught that men, to be commended to the good gods, must use demons as advocates.

In vain, then, did Apuleius, and whoever think as he does, confer this honor on them, placing them in the air midway between the ethereal heaven and the earth, so that, since “no god mingles with man,” which they say Plato said, these may carry men's prayers to the gods and bring back from there to men what they ask for. For those who believed these things thought it unworthy for men to mingle with gods and gods with men, but worthy for demons to mingle with both gods and men, to present petitions from here and bring back grants from there. So, evidently, a chaste man, a stranger to the crimes of the magical arts, must employ as patrons, through whom the gods may hear him, those who love the very things by not loving which he becomes more worthy to be heard more readily and more willingly. For they love the indecencies of the stage, which chastity does not love; they love in the sorceries of magicians a thousand arts of doing harm, which innocence does not love. So if chastity and innocence wish to obtain anything from the gods, they will not be able to do so by their own merits, but only through the intercession of their own enemies. There is no reason for him to try to justify the fictions of the poets and the mockeries of the theater. Against these things we have their own master, of such great authority among them, Plato — if human shame deserves so ill of itself as not only to love shameful things but even to think them pleasing to the divinity.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Symp. 203a (Plato (works)): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- “No god mingles with man” is from Plato, Symposium 203a, as quoted by Apuleius, On the God of Socrates 4.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.18 (CSEL 40:384–385; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-18/#p-8-18).

## City of God 8.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-18/#p-8-19
- Source: CSEL 40:385–387
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues from Roman law, Virgil, and Apuleius' own defense against a charge of magic that magic is wicked, and that the demons behind it cannot be mediators of prayer.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. De inpietate artis magicae, quae patrocinio nititur spirituum malignorum. Porro aduersus magicas artes, de quibus quosdam nimis infelices et nimis inpios etiam gloriari libet, nonne ipsam publicam lucem testem citabo? Quur enim tam grauiter ista plectuntur seueritate legum, si opera sunt numinum colendorum? An forte istas leges Christiani instituerunt, quibus artes magicae puniuntur? Secundum quem alium sensum, nisi quod haec maleficia generi humano perniciosa esse non dubium est, ait poeta clarissimus: Testor, cara, deos et te, germana, tuumque Dulce caput, magicas inuitam accingier artes? Illud etiam, quod alio loco de his artibus dicit: Adque satas alio uidi traducere messes, eo quod hac pestifera scelerataque doctrina fructus alieni in alias terras transferri perhibentur, nonne in duodecim tabulis, id est Romanorum antiquissimis legibus, Cicero commemorat esse conscriptum et ei, qui hoc fecerit, supplicium constitutum? Postremo Apuleius ipse numquid aput Christianos iudices de magicis artibus accusatus est? Quas utique sibi obiectas si diuinas et pias esse nouerat et diuinarum potestatum operibus congruas, non solum eas confiteri debuit, sed etiam profiteri, leges culpans potius, quibus haec prohiberentur et damnanda putarentur, quae haberi miranda et ueneranda oporteret. Ita enim uel sententiam suam persuaderet iudicibus, uel, si illi secundum iniquas leges saperent eumque talia praedicantem adque laudantem morte multarent, digna animae illius daemones dona rependerent, pro quorum diuinis operibus praedicandis humanam uitam sibi adimi non timeret; sicut martyres nostri, cum eis pro crimine obiceretur Christiana religio, qua nouerant se fieri saluos et gloriosissimos in aeternum, non eam negando temporales poenas euadere delegerunt, sed potius confitendo profitendo praedicando et pro hac omnia fideliter fortiterque tolerando et cum pia securitate moriendo leges, quibus prohibebatur, erubescere conpulerunt mutarique fecerunt. Huius autem philosophi Platonici copiosissima et disertissima extat oratio, qua crimen artium magicarum a se alienum esse defendit seque aliter non uult innocentem uideri nisi ea negando, quae non possunt ab innocente committi. At omnia miracula magorum, quos recte sentit esse damnandos, doctrinis fiunt et operibus daemonum, quos uiderit quur censeat honorandos, eos necessarios adserens perferendis ad deos precibus nostris, quorum debemus opera deuitare, si ad Deum uerum preces nostras uolumus peruenire. Deinde quaero, quales preces hominum dis bonis per daemones adlegari putat, magicas an licitas? Si magicas, nolunt tales; si licitas, nolunt per tales. Si autem peccator paenitens preces fundit, maxime si aliquid magicum admisit, itane tandem illis intercedentibus accipit ueniam, quibus inpellentibus aut fauentibus se cecidisse plangit in culpam? an et ipsi daemones, ut possint paenitentibus mereri indulgentiam, priores agunt, quod eos deceperint, paenitentiam? Hoc nemo umquam de daemonibus dixit, quia, si ita esset, nequaquam sibi auderent diuinos honores expetere, qui paenitendo desiderarent ad gratiam ueniae peruenire. Ibi enim est detestanda superbia, hic humilitas miseranda.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. On the impiety of the magic art, which relies on the patronage of malignant spirits.

Furthermore, against the magic arts, in which some men, too unhappy and too impious, are pleased even to glory, shall I not call the public light of day itself as witness? For why are these things punished so heavily by the severity of the laws, if they are the works of deities to be worshipped? Or did the Christians perhaps establish these laws by which magic arts are punished? In what other sense, except that these sorceries are undoubtedly pernicious to the human race, does the most famous poet say: “I call the gods to witness, dear sister, and you, and your sweet life, that I am girding myself for magic arts against my will”? And that other thing he says about these arts in another place, “and I have seen crops sown elsewhere carried over” — because by this pestilential and criminal teaching the fruits of others are said to be transferred to other lands — does not Cicero record that it was written in the Twelve Tables, that is, the most ancient laws of the Romans, and that a penalty was fixed for anyone who did it? Finally, was Apuleius himself accused of magic arts before Christian judges? If he had known that the arts charged against him were divine and pious and in keeping with the works of divine powers, he ought not only to have confessed them but even to have professed them, blaming rather the laws by which these things were forbidden and thought worthy of condemnation, when they ought to have been held wonderful and venerable. In that way he would either have persuaded the judges of his opinion, or, if they judged according to unjust laws and punished him with death for proclaiming and praising such things, the demons would have repaid his soul with worthy gifts, since for proclaiming their divine works he would not have feared to lose his human life. So our martyrs, when the Christian religion was charged against them as a crime — the religion by which they knew they were made safe and most glorious for eternity — did not choose to escape temporal punishments by denying it, but rather, by confessing, professing, and proclaiming it, and by enduring everything for it faithfully and bravely and dying with pious serenity, they compelled the laws by which it was forbidden to blush, and caused them to be changed. But there is extant a most copious and eloquent speech of this Platonic philosopher, in which he defends himself against the charge of magic arts as foreign to him, and wishes to seem innocent in no other way than by denying the things that cannot be committed by an innocent man. Yet all the wonders of magicians, whom he rightly thinks deserving of condemnation, are done by the teachings and works of demons; let him see why he judges them worthy of honor, asserting that they are necessary for carrying our prayers to the gods, when we ought to avoid their works if we want our prayers to reach the true God. Then I ask: what kind of men's prayers does he think are presented to the good gods through demons — magical ones or lawful ones? If magical, the gods do not want such; if lawful, they do not want them through such beings. And if a repentant sinner pours out prayers, especially if he has committed something magical, does he then receive pardon through the intercession of those at whose instigation or with whose favor he laments that he fell into guilt? Or do the demons themselves, so as to be able to obtain pardon for penitents, first do penance for having deceived them? No one has ever said this of the demons; for if it were so, they would never dare to seek divine honors for themselves, who by repenting would desire to attain the grace of pardon. For there is pride to be detested, here humility to be pitied.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 4.492–493 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Ecl. 8.99 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Cicero, Rep. 4 (Cicero): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Virgil, Aeneid 4.492–493 and Eclogues 8.99. The Twelve Tables' law against charming away crops is reported from Cicero (probably On the Republic 4, lost). The “most copious and eloquent speech” is Apuleius' Apology (On Magic), delivered before a pagan proconsul; Augustine's question implies that his judges were not Christians.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.19 (CSEL 40:385–387; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-18/#p-8-19).

## City of God 8.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-18/#p-8-20
- Source: CSEL 40:387–388
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine mocks the maxim that 'no god mingles with man,' since it implies that the gods mingle with deceiving demons rather than with penitent men.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. An credendum sit quod di boni libentius daemonibus quam hominibus misceantur. At enim urgens causa et artissima cogit daemones medios inter deos et homines agere, ut ab hominibus adferant desiderata, et a dis referant inpetrata. Quaenam tandem ista causa est et quanta necessitas? Quia nullus, inquiunt, Deus miscetur homini. Praeclara igitur sanctitas Dei, qui non miscetur homini supplicanti, et miscetur daemoni adroganti; non miscetur homini paenitenti, et miscetur daemoni decipienti; non miscetur homini confugienti ad diuinitatem, et miscetur daemoni fingenti diuinitatem; non miscetur homini petenti indulgentiam, et miscetur daemoni suadenti nequitiam; non miscetur homini per philosophicos libros poetas de bene instituta ciuitate pellenti, et miscetur daemoni a principibus et pontificibus ciuitatis per scaenicos ludos poetarum ludibria requirenti; non miscetur homini deorum crimina fingere prohibenti, et miscetur daemoni se falsis deorum criminibus oblectanti; non miscetur homini magorum scelera iustis legibus punienti, et miscetur daemoni magicas artes docenti et inplenti; non miscetur homini imitationem daemonis fugienti, et miscetur daemoni deceptionem hominis aucupanti.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. Whether we are to believe that good gods mingle more willingly with demons than with men.

“But,” they say, “an urgent and most pressing cause compels the demons to act as intermediaries between gods and men, to carry men's desires to the gods and bring back from the gods what they have obtained.” What, pray, is this cause, and how great the necessity? “Because,” they say, “no god mingles with man.” What splendid holiness in God, then, who does not mingle with a man who entreats him, but mingles with a demon who is arrogant; does not mingle with a man who repents, but mingles with a demon who deceives; does not mingle with a man who takes refuge in the divinity, but mingles with a demon who feigns divinity; does not mingle with a man who asks for pardon, but mingles with a demon who urges wickedness; does not mingle with a man who through philosophical books expels the poets from a well-ordered city, but mingles with a demon who demands from the princes and pontiffs of the city the mockeries of the poets through stage plays; does not mingle with a man who forbids the invention of crimes of the gods, but mingles with a demon who delights in false crimes of the gods; does not mingle with a man who punishes the crimes of magicians by just laws, but mingles with a demon who teaches and practices magic arts; does not mingle with a man who flees from imitating a demon, but mingles with a demon who lies in wait to deceive a man!

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Symp. 203a (Plato (works)): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The maxim is from Plato, Symposium 203a, via Apuleius.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.20 (CSEL 40:387–388; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-18/#p-8-20).

## City of God 8.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-18/#p-8-21
- Source: CSEL 40:388–390
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine traps the Platonists in a fourfold dilemma: whatever the demons report to the gods about Plato and the stage, the good gods are made ignorant, dishonored, or deceived.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. An daemonibus nuntiis et interpretibus di utantur fallique se ab eis aut ignorent aut uelint. Sed nimirum tantae huius absurditatis et indignitatis est magna necessitas, quod scilicet deos aetherios humana curantes quid terrestres homines agerent utique lateret, nisi daemones aerii nuntiarent; quoniam aether longe a terra est alteque suspensus, aer uero aetheri terraeque contiguus. O mirabilem sapientiam! Quid aliud de dis isti sentiunt, quos omnes optimos uolunt, nisi eos et humana curare, ne cultu uideantur indigni, et propter elementorum distantiam humana nescire, ut credantur daemones necessarii et ob hoc etiam ipsi putentur colendi, per quos di possint et quid in rebus humanis agatur addiscere et ubi oportet hominibus subuenire? Hoc si ita est, dis istis bonis magis notus est daemon per corpus uicinum quam homo per animum bonum. O multum dolenda necessitas, an potius inridenda uel detestanda uanitas, ne sit uana diuinitas! Si enim animo ab obstaculo corporis libero animum nostrum uidere di possunt, non ad hoc indigent daemonibus nuntiis; si autem animorum indicia corporalia, qualia sunt locutio uultus motus, per corpus suum aetherii di sentiunt et inde colligunt quid etiam daemones nuntient, possunt et mendaciis daemonum decipi. Porro si deorum diuinitas a daemonibus non potest falli, eadem diuinitate quod agimus non potest ignorari. Vellem autem mihi isti dicerent, utrum dis daemones nuntiauerint de criminibus deorum poetica Platoni displicere figmenta et sibi ea placere celauerint, an utrumque occultauerint deosque esse maluerint totius rei huius ignaros, an utrumque indicauerint, et religiosam erga deos Platonis prudentiam et in deos iniuriosam libidinem suam, an sententiam quidem Platonis, qua noluit deos per inpiam licentiam poetarum falsis criminibus infamari, ignotam dis esse uoluerint, suam uero nequitiam, qua ludos scaenicos amant, quibus illa deorum dedecora celebrantur, prodere non erubuerint uel timuerint. Horum quattuor, quae interrogando proposui, quodlibet eligant et in quolibet eorum quantum mali de dis bonis opinentur adtendant. Si enim primum elegerint, confessuri sunt non licuisse dis bonis habitare cum bono Platone, quando eorum iniurias prohibebat, et habitasse cum daemonibus malis, quando eorum iniuriis exultabant, cum di boni hominem bonum longe a se positum non nisi per malos daemones nossent, quos uicinos nosse non possent. Si autem secundum elegerint et utrumque occultatum a daemonibus dixerint, ut di omnino nescirent et Platonis religiosissimam legem et daemonum sacrilegam delectationem: quid in rebus humanis per internuntios daemones di nosse utiliter possunt, quando illa nesciunt, quae in honorem bonorum deorum religione bonorum hominum contra libidinem malorum daemonum decernuntur? Si uero tertium elegerint et non solum sententiam Platonis deorum iniurias prohibentem, sed etiam daemonum nequitiam deorum iniuriis exultantem per eosdem daemones nuntios dis innotuisse responderint: hoc nuntiare est an insultare? et di utrumque sic audiunt, sic utrumque cognoscunt, ut non solum malignos daemones deorum dignitati et Platonis religioni contraria cupientes adque facientes a suo accessu non arceant, uerum etiam per illos malos propinquos Platoni bono longinquo dona transmittant? sic enim eos elementorum quasi catenata series conligauit, ut illis, a quibus criminantur, coniungi possint, huic, a quo defenduntur, non possint, utrumque scientes, sed aeris et terrae transmutare pondera non ualentes. Iam, quod reliquum est, si quartum elegerint, peius est ceteris. Quis enim ferat, si poetarum de dis inmortalibus criminosa figmenta et theatrorum indigna ludibria suamque in his omnibus ardentissimam cupiditatem et suauissimam uoluptatem dis daemones nuntiauerunt, et quod Plato philosophica grauitate de optima re publica haec omnia censuit remouenda tacuerunt; ut iam di boni per tales nuntios nosse cogantur mala pessimorum, nec aliena, sed eorundem nuntiorum, adque his contraria non sinantur nosse bona philosophorum, cum illa sint in iniuriam, ista in honorem ipsorum deorum?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. Whether the gods use demons as messengers and interpreters, and whether they are ignorant of being deceived by them or willing to be.

But, of course, there is a great necessity for this great absurdity and unworthiness: namely, that the ethereal gods, who care for human affairs, would certainly not know what earthly men were doing unless the aerial demons reported it, since the ether is far from the earth and suspended on high, while the air borders on both ether and earth. O wonderful wisdom! What else do these men think of the gods, whom they want all to be supremely good, except that they both care for human affairs, so as not to seem unworthy of worship, and, because of the distance of the elements, do not know human affairs — so that demons may be believed necessary and for this reason be thought worthy of worship themselves, as those through whom the gods can learn what is happening in human affairs and where they ought to help men? If this is so, a demon is better known to these good gods through a neighboring body than a man through a good mind. O necessity much to be lamented — or rather vanity to be laughed at or detested, so that divinity may not be vain! For if the gods, with a mind free from the obstacle of a body, can see our mind, they do not need demons as messengers for this; but if the ethereal gods perceive, through their own bodies, the bodily signs of minds, such as speech, facial expression, and movement, and from these gather what the demons report, they can also be deceived by the lies of demons. Further, if the divinity of the gods cannot be deceived by demons, then by that same divinity what we do cannot be unknown. I should like these men to tell me whether the demons reported to the gods that the poets' fictions about the crimes of the gods displeased Plato, and concealed that they pleased the demons themselves; or concealed both, and preferred the gods to be ignorant of the whole matter; or disclosed both, both Plato's religious prudence toward the gods and their own lust, injurious to the gods; or wished Plato's opinion, by which he refused to have the gods defamed with false crimes through the impious licence of the poets, to be unknown to the gods, while not blushing or fearing to betray their own wickedness, by which they love the stage plays in which those disgraces of the gods are celebrated. Of these four, which I have put forward by questioning, let them choose whichever they please, and let them notice in whichever it is how much evil they think of the good gods. For if they choose the first, they will have to confess that the good gods could not dwell with the good Plato when he forbade injuries to them, but dwelt with the bad demons when they exulted in injuries to them; for the good gods would know the good man, placed far from them, only through bad demons, whom, though near, they could not know. But if they choose the second, and say that both were concealed by the demons, so that the gods knew nothing at all either of Plato's most religious law or of the demons' sacrilegious delight, what can the gods usefully know of human affairs through demons as intermediaries, when they do not know those things which are decreed in honor of the good gods by the religion of good men against the lust of bad demons? But if they choose the third, and answer that not only Plato's opinion forbidding injuries to the gods, but also the demons' wickedness exulting in injuries to the gods, became known to the gods through these same demons as messengers — is this reporting or insulting? And do the gods hear and know both in such a way that they not only do not keep the malignant demons, who desire and do things contrary to the dignity of the gods and to Plato's religion, from approaching them, but even send gifts through these bad neighbors to the good Plato far away? For the chained series of the elements, as it were, has so bound them that they can be joined to those by whom they are slandered, but not to him by whom they are defended — knowing both, but unable to shift the weights of air and earth. Now, what remains, if they choose the fourth, is worse than the rest. For who could bear it if the demons reported to the gods the poets' criminal fictions about the immortal gods and the unworthy mockeries of the theaters, and their own most burning desire and sweetest pleasure in all these things, and kept silent about the fact that Plato, with philosophical gravity, judged that all these things should be removed from the best commonwealth? So the good gods would be compelled to know, through such messengers, the evils of the worst beings — not those of others, but of those same messengers — and would not be allowed to know the contrary goods of the philosophers, though the former are an injury and the latter an honor to the gods themselves.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.21 (CSEL 40:388–390; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-18/#p-8-21).

## City of God 8.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-18/#p-8-22
- Source: CSEL 40:390–392
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine concludes that demons are not mediators but fallen spirits, confined to the air, who deceive people into worshipping them as gods or go-betweens.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. De abiciendo cultu daemonum contra Apuleium. Quia igitur nihil istorum quattuor eligendum est, ne in quolibet eorum de dis tam male sentiatur, restat, ut nullo modo credendum sit, quod Apuleius persuadere nititur et quicumque alii sunt eiusdem sententiae philosophi, ita esse medios daemones inter deos et homines tamquam internuntios et interpretes, qui hinc ferant petitiones nostras, inde referant deorum subpetias; sed esse spiritus nocendi cupidissimos, a iustitia penitus alienos, superbia tumidos, inuidentia liuidos, fallacia callidos, qui in hoc quidem aere habitant, quia de caeli superioris sublimitate deiecti merito inregressibilis transgressionis in hoc sibi congruo uelut carcere praedamnati sunt; nec tamen, quia supra terras et aquas aeri locus est, ideo et ipsi sunt meritis superiores hominibus, qui eos non terreno corpore, sed electo in auxilium Deo uero pia mente facillime superant. Sed multis plane participatione uerae religionis indignis tamquam captis subditisque dominantur, quorum maximae parti mirabilibus et fallacibus signis siue factorum siue praedictorum deos se esse persuaserunt. Quibusdam uero uitia eorum aliquanto adtentius et diligentius intuentibus non potuerunt persuadere quod di sint, adque inter deos et homines internuntios ac beneficiorum inpetratores se esse finxerunt; si tamen non istum saltem honorem homines eis deferendum putarunt, qui illos nec deos esse credebant, quia malos uidebant, deos autem omnes bonos uolebant, nec audebant tamen omnino indignos dicere honore diuino, maxime ne offenderent populos, a quibus eis cernebant inueterata superstitione per tot sacra et templa seruiri.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. On rejecting the worship of demons, against Apuleius.

Since none of these four is to be chosen, lest in any of them such evil be thought of the gods, it remains that we must in no way believe what Apuleius, and any other philosophers of the same opinion, try to persuade us: that demons are intermediaries between gods and men, as go-betweens and interpreters, to carry our petitions from here and bring back the help of the gods from there. Rather, they are spirits most eager to do harm, wholly foreign to justice, swollen with pride, livid with envy, cunning in deceit. They dwell indeed in this air, because, cast down from the height of the higher heaven for the guilt of a transgression from which there is no return, they have been condemned beforehand to this region as to a prison suited to them. Yet they are not, because the place of the air is above the earth and waters, therefore themselves superior in merit to men, who very easily overcome them — not by an earthly body, but by a devout mind that has chosen the true God as its helper. But they plainly lord it over many who are unworthy of sharing in the true religion, as over captives and subjects; and the greatest part of these they have persuaded that they are gods, by wonderful and deceitful signs, either of deeds or of predictions. Some, however, who looked somewhat more attentively and carefully at their vices, they could not persuade that they were gods; and so they pretended to be go-betweens between gods and men and obtainers of benefits. That is, if men thought that at least this honor should be paid them, who did not believe them to be gods, because they saw that they were bad, while they held all gods to be good; and yet did not dare to say that they were altogether unworthy of divine honor, chiefly so as not to offend the peoples by whom they saw them served, through an inveterate superstition, with so many rites and temples.

### Scripture references

- 2 Pet 2:4: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The fall of the demons from the higher heaven into the air echoes 2 Pet 2:4 and Jude 6; Augustine develops it in Book 11.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.22 (CSEL 40:390–392; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-18/#p-8-22).

## City of God 8.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-18/#p-8-23
- Source: CSEL 40:392–396
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine quotes Hermes Trismegistus on men 'making gods' by joining spirits to statues and on the coming end of Egyptian religion, and contrasts his lament with the joy of the prophets who foretold the fall of idols.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. Quid Hermes Trismegistus de idolatria senserit et unde scire potuerit superstitiones Aegyptias auferendas. Nam diuersa de illis Hermes Aegyptius, quem Trismegistum uocant, sensit et scripsit. Apuleius enim deos quidem illos negat; sed cum dicit ita inter deos et homines quadam medietate uersari, ut hominibus aput ipsos deos necessarii uideantur, cultum eorum a supernorum deorum religione non separat. Ille autem Aegyptius alios deos esse dicit a summo Deo factos, alios ab hominibus. Hoc qui audit, sicut a me positum est, putat dici de simulacris, quia opera sunt manuum hominum; at ille uisibilia et contrectabilia simulacra uelut corpora deorum esse adserit; inesse autem his quosdam spiritus inuitatos, qui ualeant aliquid siue ad nocendum siue ad desideria nonnulla conplenda eorum, a quibus eis diuini honores et cultus obsequia deferuntur. Hos ergo spiritus inuisibiles per artem quandam uisibilibus rebus corporalis materiae copulare, ut sint quasi animata corpora illis spiritibus dicata et subdita simulacra, hoc esse dicit deos facere eamque magnam et mirabilem deos faciendi accepisse homines potestatem. Huius Aegyptii uerba, sicut in nostram linguam interpretata sunt, ponam. Et quoniam de cognatione, inquit, et consortio hominum deorumque nobis indicitur sermo, potestatem hominis, o Asclepi, uimque cognosce. Dominus, inquit, et Pater uel quod est summum Deus ut effector est deorum caelestium, ita homo fictor est deorum, qui in templis sunt humana proximitate contenti. Et paulo post: Ita humanitas, inquit, semper memor naturae et originis suae in illa diuinitatis imitatione perseuerat, ut, sicuti Pater ac Dominus, ut sui similes essent, deos fecit aeternos, ita humanitas deos suos ex sui uultus similitudine figuraret. Hic cum Asclepius, ad quem maxime loquebatur, ei respondisset adque dixisset: Statuas dicis, o Trismegiste? tum ille: Statuas, inquit, o Asclepi, uides quatenus tu ipse diffidas; statuas animatas sensu et spiritu plenas tantaque facientes et talia, statuas futurorum praescias eaque sorte uate somniis multisque aliis rebus praedicentes, inbecillitates hominibus facientes easque curantes, tristitiam laetitiamque pro meritis. An ignoras, o Asclepi, quod Aegyptus imago sit caeli, aut, quod est uerius, translatio aut descensio omnium quae gubernantur adque exercentur in caelo. Ac si dicendum est uerius, terra nostra mundi totius est templum. Et tamen quoniam praescire cuncta prudentem decet, istud uos ignorare fas non est: Futurum tempus est, quo appareat Aegyptios incassum pia mente diuinitatem sedula religione seruasse. Deinde multis uerbis Hermes hunc locum exequitur, in quo uidetur hoc tempus praedicere, quo Christiana religio, quanto est ueracior adque sanctior, tanto uehementius et liberius cuncta fallacia figmenta subuertit, ut gratia uerissimi Saluatoris liberet hominem ab eis dis, quos facit homo, et ei Deo subdat, a quo factus est homo. Sed Hermes cum ista praedicit, uelut amicus eisdem ludificationibus daemonum loquitur, nec Christianum nomen euidenter exprimit, sed tamquam ea tollerentur adque delerentur, quorum obseruatione caelestis similitudo custodiretur in Aegypto, ita haec futura deplorans luctuosa quodam modo praedicatione testatur. Erat enim de his, de quibus dicit apostolus, quod cognoscentes Deum non sicut Deum glorificauerunt aut gratias egerunt, sed euanuerunt in cogitationibus suis, et obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum; dicentes enim se esse sapientes stulti facti sunt et inmutauerunt gloriam incorrupti Dei in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis et cetera, quae commemorare longum est. Multa quippe talia dicit de uno uero Deo fabricatore mundi, qualia ueritas habet; et nescio quo modo illa obscuratione cordis ad ista delabitur, ut dis, quos confitetur ab hominibus fieri, semper uelit homines subdi et haec futuro tempore plangat auferri quasi quicquam sit infelicius homine, cui sua figmenta dominantur; cum sit facilius, ut tamquam deos colendo, quos fecit, nec ipse sit homo, quam ut per eius cultum di possint esse, quos fecit homo. Citius enim fit, ut homo in honore positus pecoribus non intellegens conparetur, quam ut operi Dei ad eius imaginem facto, id est ipsi homini, opus hominis praeferatur. Quapropter merito homo deficit ab illo qui eum fecit, cum sibi praeficit ipse quod fecit. Haec uana deceptoria, perniciosa sacrilega Hermes Aegyptius, quia tempus, quo auferrentur, uenturum sciebat, dolebat; sed tam inpudenter dolebat, quam inprudenter sciebat. Non enim haec ei reuelauerat sanctus Spiritus, sicut prophetis sanctis, qui haec praeuidentes cum exultatione dicebant: Si faciet homo deos, et ecce ipsi non sunt di; et alio loco: Erit in illo die, dicit Dominus, exterminabo nomina simulacrorum a terra, et non iam erit eorum memoria; proprie uero de Aegypto, quod ad hanc rem adtinet, ita sanctus Esaias prophetat: Et mouebuntur manufacta Aegypti a facie eius, et cor eorum uincetur in eis, et cetera huius modi. Ex quo genere et illi erant, qui uenturum quod sciebant uenisse gaudebant; qualis Symeon, qualis Anna, qui mox natum Iesum, qualis Elisabeth, quae etiam conceptum in Spiritu agnouit; qualis Petrus reuelante Patre dicens: Tu es Christus, filius Dei uiui. Huic autem Aegyptio illi spiritus indicauerant futura tempora perditionis suae, qui etiam praesenti in carne Domino trementes dixerunt: Quid uenisti ante tempus perdere nos? siue quia subitum illis fuit, quod futurum quidem, sed tardius opinabantur, siue quia perditionem suam hanc ipsam dicebant, qua fiebat ut cogniti spernerentur, et hoc erat ante tempus, id est ante tempus iudicii, quo aeterna damnatione puniendi sunt cum omnibus etiam hominibus, qui eorum societate detinentur, sicut religio loquitur, quae nec fallit nec fallitur, non sicut iste quasi omni uento doctrinae hinc adque inde perflatus et falsis uera permiscens dolet quasi perituram religionem, quem postea confitetur errorem.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. What Hermes Trismegistus thought about idolatry, and how he could know that the Egyptian superstitions would be abolished.

Hermes the Egyptian, whom they call Trismegistus, thought and wrote differently about them. For Apuleius indeed denies that they are gods; but when he says that they occupy a middle position between gods and men, so that they seem necessary for men with the gods themselves, he does not separate their worship from the religion of the gods above. But that Egyptian says that some gods were made by the supreme God and others by men. Whoever hears this, as I have put it, thinks it is said of images, because they are the work of men's hands. But he asserts that the visible and tangible images are, as it were, the bodies of the gods, and that certain spirits invited into them dwell in them, which have some power either to harm or to fulfil some desires of those by whom divine honors and the services of worship are paid them. To join these invisible spirits by a certain art to visible things of bodily matter, so that images dedicated and subject to those spirits may be like animated bodies — this, he says, is to make gods; and men, he says, have received this great and wonderful power of making gods. I shall set down the words of this Egyptian as they have been translated into our language. “And since,” he says, “our discourse concerns the kinship and fellowship of men and gods, know, O Asclepius, the power and strength of man. As the Lord and Father,” he says, “or, what is highest, God, is the maker of the heavenly gods, so man is the fashioner of the gods who are in the temples, content to be near to men.” And shortly after: “So humanity,” he says, “always mindful of its nature and origin, persists in that imitation of divinity, so that, as the Father and Lord made the gods eternal to be like himself, so humanity fashioned its gods in the likeness of its own countenance.” Here, when Asclepius, to whom he was chiefly speaking, had answered him and said, “You mean statues, O Trismegistus?” he said: “Statues, O Asclepius. You see how far you yourself distrust. Statues animated, full of sense and spirit, and doing such great things; statues foreknowing the future and foretelling it by lot, by seer, by dreams and by many other things; statues that bring infirmities on men and cure them, giving sadness and gladness according to deserts. Or do you not know, O Asclepius, that Egypt is the image of heaven, or, what is truer, the transference or descent of all things that are governed and exercised in heaven? And, if it must be said more truly, our land is the temple of the whole world. And yet, since it befits the prudent to foreknow all things, it is not right that you should be ignorant of this: a time is to come when it will appear that the Egyptians have kept the divinity with pious mind and diligent religion in vain.” Then Hermes follows up this passage at length, in which he seems to foretell this time in which the Christian religion, the truer and holier it is, the more vehemently and freely overturns all deceitful fictions, so that the grace of the most true Savior may free man from the gods whom man makes, and subject him to the God by whom man was made. But when Hermes foretells these things, he speaks as a friend of those same delusions of the demons, and does not express the Christian name plainly; but, as if those things were being taken away and destroyed by whose observance the likeness of heaven was preserved in Egypt, he bears witness to them, lamenting that they will come, by a kind of mournful prophecy. For he was one of those of whom the apostle says that, “knowing God, they did not glorify him as God or give thanks, but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened; for, claiming to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man,” and the rest, which it would be long to mention. For he says many such things about the one true God, the maker of the world, as the truth holds; and somehow, by that darkening of the heart, he slides down to these things, so that he would always have men subject to the gods whom he confesses are made by men, and laments that these will be taken away in the future — as if anything were more unhappy than man when his own fictions lord it over him. For it is easier for man, by worshipping as gods those whom he has made, to cease to be a man himself, than for those whom man has made to become gods through his worship. For it happens more readily that “man, when placed in honor, not understanding, is compared to the beasts,” than that the work of man should be preferred to the work of God made in his image, that is, to man himself. Therefore man rightly falls away from him who made him, when he sets over himself what he himself has made. Hermes the Egyptian grieved over these empty, deceptive, pernicious, sacrilegious things because he knew that the time was coming when they would be taken away; but he grieved as shamelessly as he knew imprudently. For the Holy Spirit had not revealed these things to him as to the holy prophets, who, foreseeing them, said with exultation: “If man makes gods, behold, they are not gods”; and in another place: “It shall be in that day, says the Lord, I will destroy the names of the idols from the earth, and there shall be no more remembrance of them.” And concerning Egypt in particular, as far as this matter is concerned, holy Isaiah prophesies thus: “And the works of Egypt's hands shall be moved at his presence, and their heart shall be overcome in them,” and so on. Of this kind also were those who rejoiced that what they knew was to come had come: such as Simeon, such as Anna, who at once recognized Jesus when he was born; such as Elizabeth, who recognized him in the Spirit even when he was conceived; such as Peter, saying by the Father's revelation, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” But to this Egyptian the times of their own destruction had been indicated by those spirits who, trembling, said to the Lord when he was present in the flesh: “Why have you come to destroy us before the time?” — either because it came suddenly on them, which they thought would indeed come, but later; or because they called this very thing their destruction, that being known they were despised; and this was “before the time,” that is, before the time of judgment, when they are to be punished with eternal damnation together with all men too who are held in their fellowship — as the religion says which neither deceives nor is deceived, not as this man says, who, blown this way and that as if by every wind of doctrine and mixing false with true, grieves as though over a perishing religion, which he afterwards confesses to be error.

### Scripture references

- Rom 1:21: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:22: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:23: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 49:12 (48:13 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Jer 16:20: quotation, high confidence
- Zech 13:2: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 19:1: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 2:25: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 2:36: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 1:41: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 16:16: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 8:29: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:14: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Corp. herm. Asclep. 23–24 (Hermetic writings): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes the Latin Asclepius 23–24 (Hermetic corpus). Scripture: Rom 1:21–23; Ps 49:12 (48:13 LXX); Jer 16:20; Zech 13:2; Isa 19:1; Luke 2:25–38 (Simeon and Anna); Luke 1:41–45 (Elizabeth); Matt 16:16; Matt 8:29; Eph 4:14 (“every wind of doctrine”). The demons' cry is given in Augustine's form, “to destroy us.”

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.23 (CSEL 40:392–396; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-18/#p-8-23).

## City of God 8.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-18/#p-8-24
- Source: CSEL 40:396–401
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine seizes on Hermes' admission that idol-making arose from his ancestors' error and unbelief, and sets his lament beside the psalm's joyful 'new song' of the church built in all the earth.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIIII. Quo modo Hermes parentum suorum sit confessus errorem, quem tamen doluerit destruendum. Post multa enim ad hoc ipsum redit, ut iterum dicat de dis, quos homines fecerunt, ita loquens: Sed iam de talibus sint satis dicta talia. Iterum, inquit, ad hominem rationemque redeamus, ex quo diuino dono [homo] animal dictum est rationale. Minus enim miranda etsi miranda sunt, quae de homine dicta sunt. Omnium enim mirabilium uicit admirationem, quod homo diuinam potuit inuenire naturam eamque efficere. Quoniam ergo proaui nostri multum errabant circa deorum rationem increduli et non animaduertentes ad cultum religionemque diuinam, inuenerunt artem, qua efficerent deos. Cui inuentae adiunxerunt uirtutem de mundi natura conuenientem, eamque miscentes, quoniam animas facere non poterant, euocantes animas daemonum uel angelorum eas indiderunt imaginibus sanctis diuinisque mysteriis, per quas idola et bene faciendi et male uires habere potuissent. Nescio utrum sic confiterentur ipsi daemones adiurati, quo modo iste confessus est. Quoniam, inquit, proaui nostri multum errabant circa deorum rationem increduli et non animaduertentes ad cultum religionemque diuinam, inuenerunt artem qua efficerent deos. Numquidnam saltem mediocriter eos dixit errasse, ut hanc artem inuenirent faciendi deos, aut contentus fuit dicere: Errabant, nisi adderet et diceret: Multum errabant? Iste ergo multus error et incredulitas non animaduertentium ad cultum religionemque diuinam inuenit artem, qua efficeret deos. Et tamen quod multus error et incredulitas et a cultu ac religione diuina auersio animi inuenit, ut homo arte faceret deos, hoc dolet uir sapiens tamquam religionem diuinam uenturo certo tempore auferri. Vide si non et ui diuina maiorum suorum errorem praeteritum prodere, et ui diabolica poenam daemonum futuram dolere conpellitur. Si enim proaui eorum multum errando circa deorum rationem incredulitate et auersione animi a cultu ac religione diuina inuenerunt artem, qua efficerent deos: quid mirum, si, haec ars detestanda quidquid fecit auersa a religione diuina, aufertur religione diuina, cum ueritas emendat errorem, fides redarguit incredulitatem, conuersio corrigit auersionem? Si enim tacitis causis dixisset proauos suos inuenisse artem, qua facerent deos: nostrum fuit utique, si quid rectum piumque saperemus, adtendere et uidere nequaquam illos ad hanc artem peruenturos fuisse, qua homo deos facit, si a ueritate non aberrarent, si ea, quae Deo digna sunt, crederent, si animum aduerterent ad cultum religionemque diuinam; et tamen si causas artis huius nos diceremus multum errorem hominum et incredulitatem et animi errantis adque infidelis a diuina religione auersionem, utcumque ferenda esset inpudentia resistentium ueritati. Cum uero idem ipse, qui potestatem huius artis super omnia cetera miratur in homine, qua illi deos facere concessum est, et dolet uenturum esse tempus, quo haec omnia deorum figmenta ab hominibus instituta etiam legibus iubeantur auferri, confitetur tamen adque exprimit causas, quare ad ista peruentum sit, dicens proauos suos multo errore et incredulitate et animum non aduertendo ad cultum religionemque diuinam inuenisse hanc artem, qua facerent deos: nos quid oportet dicere, uel potius quid agere nisi quantas possumus gratias Domino Deo nostro, qui haec contrariis causis, quam instituta sunt, abstulit? Nam quod instituit multitudo erroris, abstulit uia ueritatis; quod instituit incredulitas, abstulit fides; quod instituit a cultu diuinae religionis auersio, abstulit ad unum uerum Deum sanctumque conuersio; nec in sola Aegypto, quam solam in isto plangit daemonum spiritus, sed in omni terra, quae cantat Domino canticum nouum, sicut uere sacrae et uere propheticae litterae praenuntiarunt, ubi scriptum est: Cantate Domino canticum nouum, cantate Domino omnis terra. Titulus quippe psalmi huius est: Quando domus aedificabatur post captiuitatem. Aedificatur enim domus Domino ciuitas Dei, quae est sancta ecclesia, in omni terra post eam captiuitatem, qua illos homines, de quibus credentibus in Deum tamquam lapidibus uiuis domus aedificatur, captos daemonia possidebant. Neque enim, quia deos homo faciebat, ideo non ab eis possidebatur ipse qui fecerat, quando in eorum societatem colendo traducebatur; societatem dico, non idolorum stolidorum, sed uersutorum daemoniorum. Nam quid sunt idola, nisi quod eadem scriptura dicit: Oculos habent, et non uidebunt, et quidquid tale de materiis licet adfabre effigiatis, tamen uita sensuque carentibus dicendum fuit. Sed inmundi spiritus eisdem simulacris arte illa nefaria conligati cultorum suorum animas in suam societatem redigendo miserabiliter captiuauerant. Unde dicit apostolus: Scimus quia nihil est idolum; sed quae immolant gentes, daemoniis immolant, et non Deo; nolo uos socios fieri daemoniorum. Post hanc ergo captiuitatem, qua homines a malignis daemonibus tenebantur, Dei domus aedificatur in omni terra; unde titulum ille psalmus accepit, ubi dicitur: Cantate Domino canticum nouum, cantate Domino omnis terra. Cantate Domino, benedicite nomen eius, bene nuntiate diem ex die salutare eius. Adnuntiate in gentibus gloriam eius, in omnibus populis mirabilia eius; quoniam magnus Dominus et laudabilis nimis, terribilis est super omnes deos. Quia omnes di gentium daemonia, dominus autem caelos fecit. Qui ergo doluit uenturum fuisse tempus, quo auferretur cultus idolorum et in eos, qui colerent, dominatio daemoniorum, malo spiritu instigatus semper uolebat istam captiuitatem manere, qua transacta psalmus canit aedificari domum in omni terra. Praenuntiabat illa Hermes dolendo; praenuntiabat haec propheta gaudendo. Et quia Spiritus uictor est, qui haec per sanctos prophetas canebat, etiam Hermes ipse ea, quae nolebat et dolebat auferri, non a prudentibus et fidelibus et religiosis, sed ab errantibus et incredulis et a cultu diuinae religionis auersis esse instituta miris modis coactus est confiteri. Qui quamuis eos appellet deos, tamen cum dicit a talibus hominibus factos, quales esse utique non debemus, uelit nolit, ostendit colendos non esse ab eis, qui tales non sunt, quales fuerunt a quibus facti sunt, hoc est a prudentibus, fidelibus, religiosis; simul etiam demonstrans ipsos homines, qui eos fecerunt, sibimet inportasse, ut eos haberent deos, qui non erant di. Verum est quippe illud propheticum: Si faciet homo deos, et ecce ipsi non sunt di. Deos ergo tales, talium deos, arte factos a talibus, cum appellasset Hermes, id est idolis daemones per artem nescio quam cupiditatum suarum uinculis inligatos cum appellaret factos ab hominibus deos, non tamen eis dedit, quod Platonicus Apuleius (unde iam satis diximus et quam sit inconueniens absurdumque monstrauimus), ut ipsi essent interpretes et intercessores inter deos, quos fecit Deus, et homines, quos idem fecit Deus; hinc adferentes uota, inde munera referentes. Nimis enim stultum est credere deos, quos fecerunt homines, plus ualere aput deos, quos fecit Deus, quam ualent ipsi homines, quos idem ipse fecit Deus. Daemon quippe simulacro arte inpia conligatus ab homine factus est deus, sed tali homini, non omni homini. Qualis est ergo iste deus, quem non faceret homo nisi errans et incredulus et auersus a uero Deo? Porro si daemones, qui coluntur in templis, per artem nescio quam imaginibus inditi, hoc est uisibilibus simulacris, ab eis hominibus, qui hac arte fecerunt deos, cum aberrarent auersique essent a cultu et religione diuina, non sunt internuntii nec interpretes inter homines et deos et propter suos pessimos ac turpissimos mores, et quod homines, quamuis errantes et increduli et auersi a cultu ac religione diuina, tamen eis sine dubio meliores sunt, quos deos ipsi arte fecerunt; restat, ut, quod possunt, tamquam daemones possint, uel quasi beneficia praestando magis nocentes, quia magis decipientes, uel aperte malefaciendo (nec tamen quodlibet horum, nisi quando permittuntur alta et secreta Dei prouidentia), non autem tamquam medii inter homines et deos per amicitiam deorum multum aput homines ualeant. Hi enim dis bonis, quos sanctos angelos nos uocamus rationalesque creaturas sanctae caelestis habitationis siue sedes siue dominationes siue principatus siue potestates, amici esse omnino non possunt, a quibus tam longe absunt animi affectione, quam longe absunt a uirtutibus uitia et a bonitate malitia.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 24. How Hermes confessed the error of his forefathers, which he nevertheless grieved was to be destroyed.

For after much else he returns to this very point, speaking again about the gods whom men made, thus: “But now let such things suffice on such matters. Let us return again,” he says, “to man and to reason, by which divine gift he has been called a rational animal. For the things that have been said about man are less wonderful, though they are wonderful. For what surpasses the wonder of all wonders is that man has been able to discover the divine nature and to make it. Since, then, our forefathers erred greatly concerning the account of the gods, being unbelieving and not turning their minds to worship and divine religion, they discovered an art by which to make gods. To this discovery they joined a suitable power from the nature of the world; and mixing it, since they could not make souls, they called up the souls of demons or angels and put them into sacred images and divine mysteries, through which the idols might have the power of doing both good and evil.” I do not know whether the demons themselves, when adjured, would confess as this man has confessed. “Since,” he says, “our forefathers erred greatly concerning the account of the gods, being unbelieving and not turning their minds to worship and divine religion, they discovered an art by which to make gods.” Did he say that they erred at least moderately, so as to discover this art of making gods? Or was he content to say, “they erred,” without adding, “they erred greatly”? This great error, then, and the unbelief of those who did not turn their minds to worship and divine religion, discovered the art by which to make gods. And yet what great error, unbelief, and a mind turned away from worship and divine religion discovered — that man should make gods by art — this the wise man laments as divine religion being taken away at a certain time to come. See whether he is not compelled by divine power to disclose the past error of his ancestors, and by diabolical power to lament the coming punishment of the demons. For if their forefathers, by erring greatly about the account of the gods, through unbelief and a mind turned away from worship and divine religion, discovered the art by which to make gods, what wonder if whatever this detestable art made, turned away from divine religion, is taken away by divine religion — when truth corrects error, faith refutes unbelief, and conversion corrects aversion? For if he had said, without mentioning the causes, that his forefathers discovered the art by which to make gods, it would certainly have been our part, if we had any right and pious sense, to notice and see that they would never have come to this art by which man makes gods if they had not strayed from the truth, if they had believed what is worthy of God, if they had turned their minds to worship and divine religion. And yet, if we ourselves said that the causes of this art were the great error of men, their unbelief, and the aversion of an erring and unfaithful mind from divine religion, the shamelessness of those who resist the truth would be somewhat tolerable. But when this same man, who admires above all else in man the power of this art by which he is granted to make gods, and grieves that a time is coming when all these fictions of gods instituted by men will be ordered by law to be taken away, nevertheless confesses and expresses the causes by which men came to these things, saying that his forefathers, through great error and unbelief and not turning their minds to worship and divine religion, discovered this art by which to make gods — what ought we to say, or rather to do, but give as great thanks as we can to the Lord our God, who has taken these things away by causes contrary to those by which they were instituted? For what the multitude of error instituted, the way of truth took away; what unbelief instituted, faith took away; what aversion from the worship of divine religion instituted, conversion to the one true and holy God took away — not in Egypt alone, which alone the spirit of the demons laments in this man, but in all the earth, which sings to the Lord a new song, as the truly sacred and truly prophetic writings foretold, where it is written: “Sing to the Lord a new song; sing to the Lord, all the earth.” For the title of this psalm is: “When the house was being built after the captivity.” For the city of God, which is the holy church, is being built as a house for the Lord in all the earth after that captivity in which the demons held captive those men of whom, as they believe in God, the house is built as of living stones. For it was not the case that, because man was making gods, he who made them was not himself possessed by them, when by worshipping he was drawn into fellowship with them — fellowship, I mean, not with stupid idols but with cunning demons. For what are idols but what the same Scripture says: “They have eyes and will not see,” and whatever else of the kind had to be said of materials that, however skillfully shaped, lack life and sense? But the unclean spirits, bound to these same images by that wicked art, had pitiably taken captive the souls of their worshippers by bringing them into fellowship with themselves. Hence the apostle says: “We know that an idol is nothing; but what the gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; I do not want you to become partners of demons.” After this captivity, then, in which men were held by malignant demons, the house of God is being built in all the earth; hence that psalm received its title, where it is said: “Sing to the Lord a new song; sing to the Lord, all the earth. Sing to the Lord, bless his name; announce the good news of his salvation from day to day. Declare his glory among the nations, his wonders among all peoples; for the Lord is great and exceedingly to be praised, he is terrible above all gods. For all the gods of the nations are demons, but the Lord made the heavens.” He, then, who grieved that a time was to come in which the worship of idols and the dominion of the demons over their worshippers would be taken away, driven by an evil spirit, always wanted this captivity to remain, at the end of which the psalm sings that the house is being built in all the earth. Hermes foretold those things with grief; the prophet foretold these with joy. And because the Spirit is victorious who sang these things through the holy prophets, even Hermes himself was compelled in wonderful ways to confess that the things he did not want to be taken away, and grieved to see taken away, were instituted not by the prudent, the faithful, and the religious, but by those who erred, disbelieved, and were turned away from the worship of divine religion. Though he calls them gods, yet when he says that they were made by such men as we certainly ought not to be, he shows, willing or unwilling, that they are not to be worshipped by those who are not such as those by whom they were made, that is, by the prudent, the faithful, the religious; showing at the same time that the very men who made them brought it on themselves to have as gods those who were not gods. For that prophetic word is true: “If man makes gods, behold, they are not gods.” When Hermes, then, called such gods, the gods of such men, made by art by such men — that is, when he called demons bound to idols by some art or other through the chains of their own desires “gods made by men” — he did not, however, give them what the Platonist Apuleius gave (about which we have said enough already and shown how unfitting and absurd it is): that they should be interpreters and intercessors between the gods whom God made and the men whom the same God made, carrying vows from here and bringing back gifts from there. For it is too foolish to believe that gods whom men made have more influence with the gods whom God made than men themselves have, whom the same God made. For a demon bound to an image by an impious art has been made a god by a man, but for such a man, not for every man. What kind of god, then, is this, whom a man would not make unless he were erring, unbelieving, and turned away from the true God? Further, the demons who are worshipped in temples, put into images, that is, visible statues, by some art or other, by those men who made gods by this art when they strayed and were turned away from worship and divine religion, are not go-betweens and interpreters between men and gods — both because of their most wicked and shameful morals, and because men, however erring, unbelieving, and turned away from worship and divine religion, are without doubt better than those whom they themselves made gods by art. It remains, then, that what they can do, they can do as demons — either doing more harm by seeming to confer benefits, since they deceive more, or by openly doing evil (and neither of these except when they are permitted by the deep and secret providence of God) — but not that they have great influence with men as mediators between men and gods through the friendship of the gods. For they can in no way be friends to the good gods, whom we call holy angels and rational creatures of the holy heavenly dwelling — whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers — from whom they are as far removed in the affection of their minds as vices are from virtues and malice from goodness.

### Scripture references

- Ps 96:1 (95:1 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 96:2 (95:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 96:3 (95:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 96:4 (95:4 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 96:5 (95:5 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- 1 Pet 2:5: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 115:5 (113:13 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 10:19: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 10:20: quotation, high confidence
- Jer 16:20: quotation, high confidence
- Col 1:16: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Corp. herm. Asclep. 37 (Hermetic writings): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes the Latin Asclepius 37. Scripture: Ps 96:1–5 (95:1–5 LXX), whose LXX/Vulgate title is “When the house was being built after the captivity”; 1 Pet 2:5 (“living stones”); Ps 115:5 (113:13 LXX); 1 Cor 10:19–20; Jer 16:20; Col 1:16. “All the gods of the nations are demons” follows the LXX/Latin wording of Ps 96:5. The editor deletes “homo” before “animal dictum est rationale”.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.24 (CSEL 40:396–401; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-18/#p-8-24).

## City of God 8.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-18/#p-8-25
- Source: CSEL 40:401–402
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine teaches that we come near the good angels not through demons but by likeness of will and faith in the God who makes both them and us happy.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXV. De his, quae sanctis angelis et hominibus bonis possunt esse communia. Nullo modo igitur per daemonum quasi medietatem ambiendum est ad beneuolentiam seu beneficentiam deorum uel potius angelorum bonorum, sed per bonae uoluntatis similitudinem, qua cum illis sumus et cum illis uiuimus et cum illis Deum quem colunt colimus, etsi eos carnalibus oculis uidere non possumus; in quantum autem dissimilitudine uoluntatis et fragilitate infirmitatis miseri sumus, in tantum ab eis longe sumus uitae merito, non corporis loco. Non enim quia in terra condicione carnis habitamus, sed si inmunditia cordis terrena sapimus, non eis iungimur. Cum uero sanamur, ut quales ipsi sunt simus; fide illis interim propinquamus, si ab illo nos fieri beatos, a quo et ipsi facti sunt, etiam ipsis fauentibus credimus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 25. On the things that can be common to the holy angels and good men.

In no way, then, is the good will or beneficence of the gods, or rather of the good angels, to be courted through the supposed mediation of demons, but through likeness of good will, by which we are with them, live with them, and worship with them the God whom they worship, even if we cannot see them with the eyes of the flesh. But in so far as we are wretched through unlikeness of will and the frailty of weakness, so far are we distant from them by the merit of our life, not by the place of our body. For it is not because we dwell on the earth by the condition of the flesh, but if by uncleanness of heart we savor earthly things, that we are not joined to them. But when we are healed so as to be such as they are, we draw near to them meanwhile by faith, if, with their favor too, we believe that we are made happy by him by whom they also were made happy.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.25 (CSEL 40:401–402; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-18/#p-8-25).

## City of God 8.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-26/#p-8-26
- Source: CSEL 40:402–405
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine shows from Hermes' own words that the gods of Egypt were dead men, so that the pagans, not the Christians honoring the martyrs, are the worshippers of the dead.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVI. Quod omnis religio paganorum circa homines mortuos fuerit inplicata. Sane aduertendum est, quo modo iste Aegyptius, cum doleret tempus esse uenturum, quo illa auferrentur ex Aegypto, quae fatetur a multum errantibus et incredulis et a cultu diuinae religionis auersis esse instituta, ait inter cetera: Tunc terra ista, sanctissima sedes delubrorum adque templorum, sepulcrorum erit mortuorumque plenissima; quasi uero, si illa non auferrentur, non essent homines morituri, aut alibi essent mortui ponendi quam in terra; et utique, quanto plus uolueretur temporis et dierum, tanto maior esset numerus sepulcrorum propter maiorem numerum mortuorum. Sed hoc uidetur dolere, quod memoriae martyrum nostrorum templis eorum delubrisque succederent, ut uidelicet, qui haec legunt animo a nobis auerso adque peruerso, putent a paganis cultos fuisse deos in templis, a nobis autem coli mortuos in sepulcris. Tanta enim homines inpii caecitate in montes quodam modo offendunt resque oculos suos ferientes nolunt uidere, ut non adtendant in omnibus litteris paganorum aut non inueniri aut uix inueniri deos, qui non homines fuerint mortuisque diuini honores delati sint. Omitto, quod Varro dicit omnes ab eis mortuos existimari manes deos et probat per ea sacra, quae omnibus fere mortuis exhibentur, ubi et ludos commemorat funebres, tamquam hoc sit maximum diuinitatis indicium, quod non soleant ludi nisi numinibus celebrari. Hermes ipse, de quo nunc agitur, in eodem ipso libro, ubi quasi futura praenuntiando deplorans ait: Tunc terra ista, sanctissima sedes delubrorum adque templorum, sepulcrorum erit mortuorumque plenissima, deos Aegypti homines mortuos esse testatur. Cum enim dixisset proauos suos multum errantes circa deorum rationem, incredulos et non animaduertentes ad cultum religionemque diuinam, inuenisse artem, qua efficerent deos: (Cui inuentae, inquit, adiunxerunt uirtutem de mundi natura conuenientem eamque miscentes, quoniam animas facere non poterant, euocantes animas daemonum uel angelorum eas indiderunt imaginibus sanctis diuinisque mysteriis, per quas idola et bene faciendi et male uires habere potuissent. Deinde sequitur tamquam hoc exemplis probaturus et dicit: Auus enim tuus, o Asclepi, medicinae primus inuentor, cui templum consecratum est in monte Libyae circa litus crocodilorum, in quo eius iacet mundanus homo, id est corpus; reliquus enim, uel potius totus, si est homo totus in sensu uitae, melior remeauit in caelum, omnia etiam nunc hominibus adiumenta praestans infirmis numine nunc suo, quae solent medicinae arte praeberi. Ecce dixit mortuum coli pro deo in eo loco, ubi habebat sepulcrum, falsus ac fallens, quod remeauit in caelum. Adiungens deinde aliud (Hermes, inquit, cuius auitum mihi nomen est, nonne in sibi cognomine patria consistens omnes mortales undique uenientes adiuuat adque conseruat? Hic enim Hermes maior, id est Mercurius, quem dicit auum suum fuisse, in Hermopoli, hoc est in sui nominis ciuitate, esse perhibetur. Ecce duos deos dicit homines fuisse, Aesculapium et Mercurium. Sed de Aesculapio et Graeci et Latini hoc idem sentiunt; Mercurium autem multi non putant fuisse mortalem, quem tamen iste auum suum fuisse testatur. At enim alius est ille, alius iste, quamuis eodem nomine nuncupentur. Non multum pugno, alius ille sit, alius iste; uerum et iste; sicut Aesculapius, ex homine deus secundum testimonium tanti aput suos uiri, huius Trismegisti, nepotis sui. Adhuc addit et dicit: Isin uero Osiris quam multa bona praestare propitiam, quantis obesse scimus iratam! Deinde ut ostenderet ex hoc genere esse deos, quos illa arte homines faciunt (unde dat intellegi daemones se opinari ex hominum mortuorum animis extitisse, quos per artem, quam inuenerunt homines multum errantes, increduli et inreligiosi, ait inditos simulacris, quia hi, qui tales deos faciebant, animas facere non utique poterant), cum de Iside dixisset, quod commemoraui, quantis obesse scimus iratam, secutus adiunxit: (Terrenis etenim dis adque mundanis facile est irasci, utpote qui sint ab hominibus ex utraque natura facti adque conpositi. Ex utraque natura dicit ex anima et corpore, ut pro anima sit daemon, pro corpore simulacrum. Unde contigit, inquit, ab Aegyptiis haec sancta animalia nuncupari colique per singulas ciuitates eorum animas, quorum sunt consecratae uiuentes, ita ut eorum legibus incolantur et eorum nominibus nuncupentur.) Ubi est illa uelut querela luctuosa, quod terra Aegypti, sanctissima sedes delubrorum adque templorum, sepulcrorum futura esset mortuorumque plenissima? Nempe spiritus fallax, cuius instinctu Hermes ista dicebat, per eum ipsum coactus est confiteri iam tunc illam terram sepulcrorum et mortuorum, quos pro dis colebant, fuisse plenissimam. Sed dolor daemonum per eum loquebatur, qui suas futuras poenas aput sanctorum martyrum memorias inminere maerebant. In multis enim talibus locis torquentur et confitentur et de possessis hominum corporibus eiciuntur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 26. That all the religion of the pagans was bound up with dead men.

We must certainly notice how this Egyptian, when he grieved that a time was to come in which those things would be taken away from Egypt which he admits were instituted by men who greatly erred, were unbelieving, and were turned away from the worship of divine religion, says among other things: “Then this land, the most holy seat of shrines and temples, will be completely full of tombs and dead men” — as though, if those things were not taken away, men would not die, or the dead would have to be laid elsewhere than in the earth; and certainly, the more time and days rolled on, the greater would be the number of tombs because of the greater number of the dead. But he seems to grieve at this, that the memorials of our martyrs would succeed to their temples and shrines, so that, evidently, those who read these things with minds turned away from us and perverse may think that by the pagans gods were worshipped in temples, but by us the dead are worshipped in tombs. For with such blindness do impious men stumble, as it were, against mountains and refuse to see things that strike their eyes, that they do not notice that in all the literature of the pagans gods are not found, or hardly found, who were not men, and to whom, when dead, divine honors were paid. I pass over Varro's saying that all the dead are thought by them to be gods of the underworld (Manes), and his proving it by the rites that are performed for almost all the dead, where he also mentions funeral games, as though this were the greatest proof of divinity, that games are usually celebrated only for deities. Hermes himself, with whom we are now dealing, in that same book where, as if foretelling the future with lamentation, he says, “Then this land, the most holy seat of shrines and temples, will be completely full of tombs and dead men,” testifies that the gods of Egypt are dead men. For when he had said that his forefathers, erring greatly concerning the account of the gods, unbelieving and not turning their minds to worship and divine religion, discovered the art by which to make gods, he says: “To this discovery they joined a suitable power from the nature of the world; and mixing it, since they could not make souls, they called up the souls of demons or angels and put them into sacred images and divine mysteries, through which the idols might have the power of doing both good and evil.” Then he goes on, as if to prove this by examples, and says: “For your grandfather, O Asclepius, the first discoverer of medicine, to whom a temple has been consecrated on a mountain of Libya near the shore of the crocodiles, in which lies his worldly man, that is, his body — for the rest, or rather the whole, if the whole man is in the sense of life, has gone back, better, to heaven — even now provides by his divine power to sick men all the helps which are usually given by the art of medicine.” See, he said that a dead man is worshipped as a god in the place where he had his tomb, deceived and deceiving in saying that he went back to heaven. Then, adding another, he says: “Hermes, whose ancestral name I bear, does he not, dwelling in the city named after him, help and preserve all mortals who come from every side?” For this elder Hermes, that is, Mercury, whom he says was his grandfather, is said to be in Hermopolis, that is, in the city of his name. See, he says that two gods were men, Aesculapius and Mercury. About Aesculapius both Greeks and Latins think the same; but many do not think Mercury was mortal, whom this man nevertheless testifies was his grandfather. “But that one is one person and this another, though they are called by the same name.” I do not argue much; let that one be one and this another. Still this one too, like Aesculapius, became a god from a man, according to the testimony of so great a man among his people, this Trismegistus, his grandson. He adds further: “As for Isis, the wife of Osiris, how many good things we know she bestows when favorable, how many she harms when angry!” Then, to show that the gods whom men make by that art are of this kind (from which he gives us to understand that he thinks demons arose from the souls of dead men, whom he says were put into images by the art which men discovered who greatly erred, who were unbelieving and irreligious, since those who made such gods certainly could not make souls), when he had said of Isis what I have mentioned, “how many she harms when angry,” he went on to add: “For it is easy for earthly and worldly gods to be angry, since they have been made and composed by men from both natures.” By “from both natures” he means from soul and body, so that the demon stands for the soul and the image for the body. “Hence it has come about,” he says, “that these are called holy animals by the Egyptians, and that the souls of those who were consecrated while living are worshipped in each of their cities, so that the cities are governed by their laws and called by their names.” Where now is that mournful complaint, as it were, that the land of Egypt, the most holy seat of shrines and temples, would be completely full of tombs and dead men? Surely the deceitful spirit, at whose prompting Hermes said these things, was compelled through him to confess that even then that land was completely full of tombs and dead men, whom they worshipped as gods. But the grief of the demons spoke through him, who mourned that their future punishments were imminent at the memorials of the holy martyrs. For in many such places they are tortured and confess and are cast out of the bodies of men they have possessed.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Corp. herm. Asclep. 24; 37 (Hermetic writings): quotation, high confidence
- Varro, Ant. rer. div. (Varro): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes the Latin Asclepius 24 and 37; Varro's remark on the dead as Manes is from the Divine Antiquities.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.26 (CSEL 40:402–405; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-26/#p-8-26).

## City of God 8.27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-26/#p-8-27
- Source: CSEL 40:405–407
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that Christians honor the martyrs' memorials but offer sacrifice only to God, whose one sacrifice is celebrated even at the martyrs' shrines.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVII. De modo honoris, quem Christiani martyribus inpendunt. Nec tamen nos eisdem martyribus templa, sacerdotia, sacra et sacrificia constituimus, quoniam non ipsi, sed Deus eorum nobis est Deus. Honoramus sane memorias eorum tamquam sanctorum hominum Dei, qui usque ad mortem corporum suorum pro ueritate certarunt, ut innotesceret uera religio falsis fictisque conuictis; quod etiam si qui antea sentiebant, timendo reprimebant. Quis autem audiuit aliquando fidelium stantem sacerdotem ad altare, etiam super sanctum corpus martyris ad Dei honorem cultumque constructum, dicere in precibus: Offero tibi sacrificium Petre uel Paule uel Cypriane, cum aput eorum memorias offeratur Deo, qui eos et homines et martyres fecit et sanctis suis angelis caelesti honore sociauit, ut ea celebritate et Deo uero de illorum uictoriis gratias agamus et nos ad imitationem talium coronarum adque palmarum eodem inuocato in auxilium ex illorum memoriae renouatione adhortemur? Quaecumque igitur adhibentur religiosorum obsequia in martyrum locis, ornamenta sunt memoriarum, non sacra uel sacrificia mortuorum tamquam deorum. Quicumque etiam epulas suas eo deferunt (quod quidem a Christianis melioribus non fit, et in plerisque terrarum nulla talis est consuetudo) — tamen quicumque id faciunt, quas cum adposuerint, orant et auferunt, ut uescantur uel ex eis etiam indigentibus largiantur, sanctificari sibi eas uolunt per merita martyrum in nomine domini martyrum. Non autem esse ista sacrificia martyrum nouit, qui nouit unum, quod etiam illic offertur, sacrificium Christianorum. Nos itaque martyres nostros nec diuinis honoribus nec humanis criminibus colimus, sicut colunt illi deos suos, nec sacrificia illis offerimus, nec eorum probra in eorum sacra conuertimus. Nam de Iside, uxore Osiris, Aegyptia dea, et de parentibus eorum, qui omnes reges fuisse scribuntur (quibus parentibus suis illa cum sacrificaret, inuenit hordei segetem adque inde spicas marito regi et eius consiliario Mercurio demonstrauit, unde eandem et Cererem uolunt), quae et quanta mala non a poetis, sed mysticis eorum litteris memoriae mandata sint, sicut Leone sacerdote prodente ad Olympiadem matrem scribit Alexander, legant qui uolunt uel possunt, et recolant qui legerunt, et uideant quibus hominibus mortuis uel de quibus eorum factis tamquam dis sacra fuerint instituta. Absit ut eos, quamuis deos habeant, sanctis martyribus nostris, quos tamen deos non habemus, ulla ex parte audeant conparare. Sic enim non constituimus sacerdotes nec offerimus sacrificia martyribus nostris, quia incongruum indebitum inlicitum est adque uni Deo tantummodo debitum, ut nec criminibus suis nec ludis eos turpissimis oblectemus, ubi uel flagitia isti celebrant deorum suorum, si, cum homines essent, talia commiserunt, uel conficta delectamenta daemonum noxiorum, si homines non fuerunt. Ex isto genere daemonum Socrates non haberet deum, si haberet deum; sed fortasse homini ab illa arte faciendi deos alieno et innocenti illi inportauerint talem deum, qui eadem arte excellere uoluerunt. Quid ergo plura? Non esse spiritus istos colendos propter uitam beatam, quae post mortem futura est, nullus uel mediocriter prudens ambigit. Sed fortasse dicturi sunt deos quidem esse omnes bonos, daemones autem alios malos, alios bonos, et eos, per quos ad uitam in aeternum beatam perueniamus, colendos esse censebunt, quos bonos opinantur. Quod quale sit iam in uolumine sequenti uidendum est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 27. On the manner of honor which Christians pay to the martyrs.

Yet we do not establish temples, priesthoods, rites, and sacrifices for these same martyrs, because not they, but their God, is our God. We do indeed honor their memorials as those of holy men of God, who contended for the truth even to the death of their bodies, so that the true religion might become known and false and fictitious ones be refuted — which even those who felt it before suppressed out of fear. But who of the faithful ever heard a priest standing at the altar, even one built over the holy body of a martyr for the honor and worship of God, say in his prayers, “I offer sacrifice to you, Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian”? For at their memorials sacrifice is offered to God, who made them both men and martyrs and joined them in heavenly honor to his holy angels; so that by that celebration we may both give thanks to the true God for their victories, and, by renewing their memory, exhort ourselves to imitate such crowns and palms, calling on the same God for help. Whatever acts of devotion, then, are paid by religious people at the places of the martyrs are adornments of their memorials, not rites or sacrifices of the dead as of gods. And whoever bring their meals there (which indeed is not done by the better Christians, and in most lands there is no such custom) — yet whoever do this, when they have set the food down, pray and take it away, to eat it or to give some of it to the needy; they wish it to be sanctified for them through the merits of the martyrs in the name of the Lord of the martyrs. But that these are not sacrifices to the martyrs is known by whoever knows the one sacrifice of the Christians, which is offered there too. We, then, do not worship our martyrs either with divine honors or with human crimes, as they worship their gods; we neither offer sacrifices to them nor turn their disgraces into their rites. For about Isis, the wife of Osiris, the Egyptian goddess, and about their parents, who are all written to have been kings — Isis, when she was sacrificing to her parents, found a crop of barley and showed the ears from it to the king her husband and his counsellor Mercury, whence they want her to be Ceres too — what and how great evils have been committed to memory not by poets but by their mystical writings, as Alexander writes to his mother Olympias on the disclosure of the priest Leo, let those read who will or can, and let those who have read recall them, and see to what dead men, or on account of what deeds of theirs, rites were instituted as to gods. Far be it that they, though they hold them to be gods, should dare to compare them in any part with our holy martyrs, whom nevertheless we do not hold to be gods. For we do not appoint priests or offer sacrifices to our martyrs, because that is unfitting, undue, unlawful, and due to the one God alone; and so we do not delight them either with their crimes or with most shameful plays, in which these men celebrate either the outrages of their gods, if they committed such things when they were men, or the invented delights of harmful demons, if they were not men. Socrates would not have had a god of this class of demons, if he had a god; but perhaps those who wished to excel in that art of making gods imposed such a god on a man who was a stranger to that art and innocent of it. What more, then? That these spirits are not to be worshipped for the sake of the happy life that is to come after death no one even moderately prudent doubts. But perhaps they will say that the gods indeed are all good, while of the demons some are bad and some good, and they will judge that those are to be worshipped through whom we may come to the life that is happy for eternity, namely those they think good. What this amounts to must be seen in the following volume.

### Translation notes

- The meals brought to martyrs' shrines were a North African custom which Ambrose and Augustine discouraged (compare Confessions 6.2). “The one sacrifice of the Christians” is the Eucharist. The letter of Alexander to Olympias is known only from such reports (no entry in the site's list of extrabiblical texts).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 8.27 (CSEL 40:405–407; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-26/#p-8-27).

## City of God 9.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-26/#p-9-1
- Source: CSEL 40:407–408
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine recalls that Book 8 showed demons who love vice cannot reconcile good men to the good gods.

### Latin text

CAPUT I. Ad quem articulum disputatio praemissa peruenerit et quid discutiendum sit de residua quaestione. Et bonos et malos deos esse quidam opinati sunt; quidam uero de dis meliora sentientes tantum eis honoris laudisque tribuerunt, ut nullum deorum malum credere auderent. Sed illi, qui deos quosdam bonos, quosdam malos esse dixerunt, daemones quoque appellauerunt nomine deorum, quamquam et deos, sed rarius, nomine daemonum, ita ut ipsum Iouem, quem uolunt esse regem ac principem ceterorum, ab Homero fateantur daemonem nuncupatum. Hi autem, qui omnes deos non nisi bonos esse adserunt et longe praestantiores eis hominibus, qui perhibentur boni, merito mouentur daemonum factis, quae negare non possunt; eaque nullo modo a dis, quos omnes bonos uolunt, committi posse existimantes differentiam inter deos et daemones adhibere coguntur, ut, quidquid eis merito displicet in operibus uel affectibus prauis, quibus uim suam manifestant occulti spiritus, id credant esse daemonum, non deorum. Sed quia eosdem daemones inter homines et deos ita medios constitutos putant, tamquam nullus deus homini misceatur, ut hinc perferant desiderata, inde referant inpetrata, adque hoc Platonici, praecipui philosophorum ac nobilissimi, sentiunt, cum quibus uelut cum excellentioribus placuit istam examinare quaestionem, utrum cultus plurimorum deorum prosit ad consequendam uitam beatam quae post mortem futura est: libro superiore quaesiuimus, quo pacto daemones, qui talibus gaudent, qualia boni et prudentes homines auersantur et damnant, id est sacrilega flagitiosa facinerosa non de quolibet homine, sed de ipsis dis figmenta poetarum et magicarum artium sceleratam puniendamque uiolentiam, possint quasi propinquiores et amiciores dis bonis conciliare homines bonos, et hoc nulla ratione posse conpertum est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. To what point the preceding discussion has come, and what remains to be discussed of the question.

Some have held that there are both good and bad gods; but some, thinking better of the gods, have given them so much honor and praise that they did not dare to believe any god bad. But those who said that some gods are good and some bad also called the demons by the name of gods, and also, though more rarely, the gods by the name of demons, so that they admit that Jupiter himself, whom they want to be king and chief of the rest, was called a demon by Homer. But those who assert that all gods are good, and far more excellent than the men who are said to be good, are rightly troubled by the deeds of demons, which they cannot deny; and, thinking that these can in no way be committed by the gods, whom they want to be all good, they are compelled to make a distinction between gods and demons, so that whatever rightly displeases them in the depraved works or affections by which hidden spirits show their power, they believe to belong to demons, not gods. But they think these same demons are placed between men and gods as if no god mingles with man, so as to carry men's desires from here and bring back what has been obtained from there; and this is the view of the Platonists, the chief and noblest of the philosophers, with whom, as the more excellent, I have chosen to examine this question: whether the worship of many gods is of use for attaining the happy life that is to come after death. So in the preceding book we inquired how the demons, who delight in such things as good and prudent men shun and condemn — namely the sacrilegious, scandalous, and criminal fictions of the poets, not about any man at all but about the gods themselves, and the wicked and punishable violence of the magic arts — could, as though nearer and friendlier to the good gods, reconcile good men to them; and it was found that this can in no way be.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Homer, Il. 1.222 (Homer, Iliad): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Homer calls the gods (including Zeus) daimones, e.g. Iliad 1.222.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.1 (CSEL 40:407–408; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-26/#p-9-1).

## City of God 9.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-26/#p-9-2
- Source: CSEL 40:408–409
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine announces that Book 9 will ask whether some demons are good and could lead souls to happiness.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. An inter daemones, quibus di superiores sunt, sit aliqua pars bonorum, quorum praesidio ad ueram beatitudinem possit humana anima peruenire. Proinde hic liber, sicut in illius fine promisimus, disputationem continere debebit de differentia (si quam uolunt esse) non deorum inter se, quos omnes bonos dicunt, nec de differentia deorum et daemonum, quorum illos ab hominibus longe alteque seiungunt, istos inter deos et homines conlocant; sed de differentia ipsorum daemonum, quod ad praesentem pertinet quaestionem. Aput plerosque enim usitatum est dici, alios bonos alios malos daemones; quae siue sit etiam Platonicorum, siue quorumlibet sententia, nequaquam eius est neglegenda discussio, ne quisquam uelut daemones bonos sequendos sibi esse arbitretur, per quos tamquam medios dis, quos omnes bonos credit, dum conciliari adfectat et studet, ut quasi cum eis possit esse post mortem, inretitus malignorum spirituum deceptusque fallacia longe aberret a uero Deo, cum quo solo et in quo solo et de quo solo anima humana, id est rationalis et intellectualis, beata est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. Whether among the demons, to whom the gods are superior, there is any class of good ones, by whose protection the human soul could come to true happiness.

Accordingly this book, as we promised at the end of the last, will have to contain a discussion of the difference (if they want there to be one) not of the gods among themselves, all of whom they call good, nor of the difference between gods and demons, of whom they separate the former far and high from men and place the latter between gods and men, but of the difference among the demons themselves, as far as it pertains to the present question. For it is commonly said by most people that some demons are good and others bad; and whether this is the opinion of the Platonists or of anyone else, its discussion is by no means to be neglected, lest anyone think that he ought to follow supposedly good demons, through whom, as mediators, he tries and strives to be reconciled to the gods, whom he believes all to be good, so that he may be with them, as it were, after death — and so, ensnared and deceived by the deceit of malignant spirits, wanders far from the true God, with whom alone, in whom alone, and from whom alone the human soul, that is, the rational and intellectual soul, is happy.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.2 (CSEL 40:408–409; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-26/#p-9-2).

## City of God 9.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-26/#p-9-3
- Source: CSEL 40:409–410
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine quotes Apuleius to show that the demons' very minds are storm-tossed by passions, so that they are worse than wise men.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. Quae daemonibus Apuleius adscribat, quibus cum rationem non subtrahat, nihil uirtutis adsignat. Quae igitur est differentia daemonum bonorum et malorum? Quando quidem Platonicus Apuleius de his uniuersaliter disserens et tam multa loquens de aeriis eorum corporibus de uirtutibus tacuit animorum, quibus essent praediti, si essent boni. Tacuit ergo beatitudinis causam, indicium uero miseriae tacere non potuit, confitens eorum mentem, qua rationales esse perhibuit, non saltem inbutam munitamque uirtute passionibus animi inrationabilibus nequaquam cedere, sed ipsam quoque, sicut stultarum mentium mos est, procellosis quodam modo perturbationibus agitari. Verba namque eius de hac re ista sunt: Ex hoc ferme daemonum numero, inquit, poetae solent haudquaquam procul a ueritate osores et amatores quorundam hominum deos fingere; hos prosperare et euehere, illos contra aduersari et adfligere; igitur et misereri et indignari, et angi et laetari omnemque humani animi faciem pati, simili motu cordis et salo mentis per omnes cogitationum aestus fluctuare. Quae omnes turbelae tempestatesque procul a deorum caelestium tranquillitate exulant. Num est in his uerbis ulla dubitatio, quod non animorum aliquas inferiores partes, sed ipsas daemonum mentes, quibus rationalia sunt animalia, uelut procellosum salum dixit passionum tempestate turbari? ut ne hominibus quidem sapientibus conparandi sint, qui huius modi perturbationibus animorum, a quibus humana non est inmunis infirmitas, etiam cum eas huius uitae condicione patiuntur, mente inperturbata, resistunt, non eis cedentes ad aliquid adprobandum uel perpetrandum, quod exorbitet ab itinere sapientiae et lege iustitiae; sed stultis mortalibus et iniustis non corporibus, sed moribus similes (ut non dicam deteriores, eo quo uetustiores et debita poena insanabiles) ipsius quoque mentis, ut iste appellauit, salo fluctuant, nec in ueritate adque uirtute, qua turbulentis et prauis affectionibus repugnatur, ex ulla animi parte consistunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. What Apuleius ascribes to the demons, to whom, though he does not deny reason, he assigns no virtue.

What, then, is the difference between good and bad demons? For the Platonist Apuleius, discussing them in general and saying so much about their aerial bodies, kept silent about the virtues of mind with which they would be endowed if they were good. So he kept silent about the cause of happiness, but could not keep silent about the sign of wretchedness. He confessed that their mind, by which he said they are rational, is not even imbued and fortified with virtue so as never to yield to irrational passions of the soul, but that it too, as is the way with foolish minds, is tossed in a way by stormy perturbations. For these are his words on the matter: “From this class of demons, for the most part,” he says, “the poets, not at all far from the truth, are accustomed to invent gods who hate and love certain men — prospering and exalting these, opposing and afflicting those; and so they feel pity and indignation, anguish and joy, and suffer every aspect of the human mind, tossing with a like movement of heart and surge of mind through all the tides of thought. All these turmoils and storms are exiled far from the tranquillity of the heavenly gods.” Is there any doubt in these words that he said not some lower parts of their souls, but the very minds of the demons, by which they are rational animals, are disturbed like a stormy sea by a tempest of passions? So they are not to be compared even with wise men, who resist perturbations of the soul of this kind — from which human weakness is not immune — with an undisturbed mind, even when they suffer them through the condition of this life, not yielding to them so as to approve or do anything that strays from the path of wisdom and the law of justice. Rather, like foolish and unjust mortals, not in body but in morals (not to say worse, inasmuch as they are older and incurable by due punishment), they are tossed on the surge, as he called it, of their very mind, and in no part of their soul do they stand firm in the truth and virtue by which turbulent and depraved affections are resisted.

### Translation notes

- Quotes Apuleius, On the God of Socrates 12 (no entry for Apuleius in the site's list of extrabiblical texts).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.3 (CSEL 40:409–410; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-26/#p-9-3).

## City of God 9.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-26/#p-9-4
- Source: CSEL 40:410–414
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that Stoics and Platonists differ in words rather than substance about the passions, citing Aulus Gellius' story of the Stoic who turned pale in a storm at sea.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. De perturbationibus, quae animo accidunt, quae sit Peripateticorum Stoicorumque sententia. Duae sunt sententiae philosophorum de his animi motibus, quae Graeci πάθη, nostri autem quidam, sicut Cicero, perturbationes, quidam affectiones uel affectus, quidam uero, sicut iste de Graeco expressius, passiones uocant. Has ergo perturbationes siue affectiones siue passiones quidam philosophi dicunt etiam in sapientem cadere, sed moderatas rationique subiectas, ut eis leges quodam modo, quibus ad necessarium redigantur modum, dominatio mentis inponat. Hoc qui sentiunt, Platonici sunt siue Aristotelici, cum Aristoteles discipulus Platonis fuerit, qui sectam Peripateticam condidit. Aliis autem, sicut Stoicis, cadere ullas omnino huiusce modi passiones in sapientem non placet. Hos autem, id est Stoicos, Cicero in libris de finibus bonorum et malorum uerbis magis quam rebus aduersus Platonicos seu Peripateticos certare conuincit; quando quidem Stoici nolunt bona appellare, sed commoda corporis et externa, eo quod nullum bonum uolunt esse hominis praeter uirtutem, tamquam artem bene uiuendi, quae non nisi in animo est. Haec autem isti simpliciter et ex communi loquendi consuetudine appellant bona; sed in conparatione uirtutis, qua recte uiuitur, parua et exigua. Ex quo fit, ut ab utrisque quodlibet uocentur, seu bona seu commoda, pari tamen aestimatione pensentur, nec in hac quaestione Stoici delectentur nisi nouitate uerborum. Videtur ergo mihi etiam in hoc, ubi quaeritur utrum accidant sapienti passiones animi, an ab eis sit prorsus alienus, de uerbis eos potius quam de rebus facere controuersiam. Nam et ipsos nihil hinc aliud quam Platonicos et Peripateticos sentire existimo, quantum ad uim rerum adtinet, non ad uocabulorum sonum. Ut enim alia omittam, quibus id ostendam, ne longum faciam, aliquid unum quod sit euidentissimum dicam. In libris, quibus titulus est Noctium Atticarum, scribit A. Gellius, uir elegantissimi eloquii et multae undecumque scientiae, se nauigasse aliquando cum quodam philosopho nobili Stoico. Is philosophus, sicut latius et uberius, quod ego breuiter adtingam, narrat A. Gellius, cum illud nauigium horribili caelo et mari periculosissime iactaretur, ui timoris expalluit. Id animaduersum est ab eis, qui aderant, quamuis in mortis uicinia curiosissime adtentis, utrumne philosophus animo turbaretur. Deinde tempestate transacta mox ut securitas praebuit conloquendi uel etiam garriendi locum, quidam ex his, quos nauis illa portabat, diues luxuriosus Asiaticus philosophum conpellat inludens, quod extimuisset adque palluisset, cum ipse mansisset intrepidus in eo quod inpendebat exitio. At ille Aristippi Socratici responsum rettulit, qui cum in re simili eadem uerba ab homine simili audisset, respondit illum pro anima nequissimi nebulonis merito non fuisse sollicitum, se autem pro Aristippi anima timere debuisse. Hac illo diuite responsione depulso postea quaesiuit A. Gellius a philosopho non exagitandi animo, sed discendi, quaenam illa ratio esset pauoris sui. Qui ut doceret hominem sciendi studio nauiter accensum, protulit statim de sarcinula sua Stoici Epicteti librum, in quo ea scripta essent, quae congruerent decretis Zenonis et Chrysippi, quos fuisse Stoicorum principes nouimus. In eo libro se legisse dicit A. Gellius hoc Stoicis placuisse, quod animi uisa, quas appellant phantasias, nec in potestate est utrum et quando incidant animo, cum ueniunt ex terribilibus et formidabilibus rebus, necesse est etiam sapientis animum moueant, ita ut paulisper uel pauescat metu, uel tristitia contrahatur, tamquam his passionibus praeuenientibus mentis et rationis officium; nec ideo tamen in mente fieri opinionem mali, nec adprobari ista eisque consentiri. Hoc enim esse uolunt in potestate idque interesse censent inter animum sapientis et stulti, quod stulti animus eisdem passionibus cedit adque adcommodat mentis adsensum; sapientes autem, quamuis eas necessitate patiantur, retinent tamen de his, quae adpetere uel fugere rationabiliter debent, ueram et stabilem inconcussa mente sententiam. Haec ut potui non quidem commodius A. Gellio, sed certe breuius et, ut puto, planius exposui, quae ille se in Epicteti libro legisse commemorat eum ex decretis Stoicorum dixisse adque sensisse. Quae si ita sunt, aut nihil aut paene nihil distat inter Stoicorum aliorumque philosophorum opinionem de passionibus et perturbationibus animorum; utrique enim mentem rationemque sapientis ab earum dominatione defendunt. Et ideo fortasse dicunt eas in sapientem non cadere Stoici, quia nequaquam eius sapientiam, qua utique sapiens est, ullo errore obnubilant aut labe subuertunt. Accidunt autem animo sapientis salua serenitate sapientiae propter illa, quae commoda uel incommoda appellant, quamuis ea nolint dicere bona uel mala. Nam profecto si nihili penderet eas res ille philosophus, quas amissurum se naufragio sentiebat, sicuti est uita ista salusque corporis, non ita illud periculum perhorresceret, ut palloris etiam testimonio proderetur. Verum tamen et illam poterat permotionem pati, et fixam tenere mente sententiam, uitam illam salutemque corporis, quorum amissionem minabatur tempestatis inmanitas, non esse bona, quae illos quibus inessent facerent bonos, sicut facit iustitia. Quod autem aiunt ea nec bona appellanda esse, sed commoda: uerborum certamini, non rerum examini deputandum est. Quid enim interest, utrum aptius bona uocentur an commoda, dum tamen ne his priuetur non minus Stoicus quam Peripateticus pauescat et palleat, ea non aequaliter appellando, sed aequaliter aestimando? Ambo sane, si bonorum istorum seu commodorum periculis ad flagitium uel facinus urgeantur, ut aliter ea retinere non possint, malle se dicunt haec amittere, quibus natura corporis salua et incolumis habetur, quam illa committere, quibus iustitia uiolatur. Ita mens, ubi fixa est ista sententia, nullas perturbationes, etiamsi accidunt inferioribus animi partibus, in se contra rationem praeualere permittit; quin immo eis ipsa dominatur eisque non consentiendo et potius resistendo regnum uirtutis exercet. Talem describit etiam Vergilius Aenean, ubi ait: Mens inmota manet, lacrimae uoluuntur inanes.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. What is the opinion of the Peripatetics and the Stoics about the perturbations that befall the soul.

There are two opinions of the philosophers about these movements of the soul which the Greeks call pathē, and some of our writers, like Cicero, call perturbations, some affections or feelings, and some, like this man, more exactly from the Greek, passions. Some philosophers say that these perturbations, or affections, or passions befall even the wise man, but moderated and subject to reason, so that the mastery of the mind imposes laws on them, as it were, by which they are brought to a necessary measure. Those who hold this are the Platonists or Aristotelians, since Aristotle, who founded the Peripatetic school, was a disciple of Plato. Others, like the Stoics, do not accept that any passions of this kind at all befall the wise man. But Cicero, in his books On the Ends of Good and Evil, proves that these, the Stoics, contend with the Platonists or Peripatetics in words rather than in reality. For the Stoics refuse to call bodily and external advantages goods, but call them “advantages,” because they hold that there is no good for man except virtue, as the art of living well, which exists only in the mind. The others call these things goods simply and according to the common usage of speech, but small and slight in comparison with the virtue by which one lives rightly. Hence, whatever they are called by either side, goods or advantages, they are weighed with equal valuation, and in this question the Stoics delight in nothing but the novelty of words. It seems to me, then, that in this point too, where it is asked whether passions of the soul befall the wise man or whether he is wholly free of them, they are arguing about words rather than things. For I think that they themselves hold nothing different from the Platonists and Peripatetics here, as far as concerns the force of the things, not the sound of the words. To pass over other things by which I might show this, so as not to be long, I shall mention one very clear instance. In the books entitled Attic Nights, Aulus Gellius, a man of most elegant style and wide learning on every subject, writes that he once sailed with a certain noted Stoic philosopher. This philosopher — as Aulus Gellius tells more fully and richly what I shall touch on briefly — when the ship was being most dangerously tossed by a terrible sky and sea, turned pale from the force of fear. This was noticed by those who were present, who, though in the neighborhood of death, were most curiously attentive to whether the philosopher was disturbed in mind. Then, when the storm had passed and safety soon gave room for conversation or even chatter, one of those whom the ship was carrying, a rich and luxurious Asiatic, accosted the philosopher mockingly, because he had been afraid and turned pale while he himself had remained undaunted in the destruction that threatened. But the philosopher repeated the answer of Aristippus the Socratic, who, when he had heard the same words from a similar man in a similar situation, replied that the other had rightly not been anxious for the soul of a most worthless scoundrel, but that he himself had had to fear for the soul of Aristippus. When the rich man had been repulsed by this answer, Aulus Gellius afterwards asked the philosopher, not in order to provoke him but in order to learn, what was the reason for his fear. To teach a man so eagerly fired with the desire of knowing, he at once brought out of his little bag a book of the Stoic Epictetus, in which were written things agreeing with the doctrines of Zeno and Chrysippus, who we know were the leaders of the Stoics. In that book Aulus Gellius says he read that the Stoics held this: that the appearances to the mind which they call phantasiai — it is not in our power whether and when they fall upon the mind — when they come from terrible and frightening things, must necessarily move even the mind of the wise man, so that for a little while he either trembles with fear or is contracted by sadness, as though these passions forestalled the office of mind and reason; yet not on that account is an opinion of evil formed in the mind, nor are these things approved or consented to. For this, they hold, is in our power, and they judge that this is the difference between the mind of the wise man and that of the fool: the fool's mind yields to these same passions and adapts the assent of the mind to them; but the wise, though they suffer them by necessity, retain with unshaken mind a true and stable judgment about what they ought rationally to seek or avoid. I have set this out as well as I could — not more elegantly than Aulus Gellius, but certainly more briefly and, I think, more plainly — what he records he read in the book of Epictetus, as said and held by him according to the doctrines of the Stoics. If these things are so, there is no difference, or almost none, between the opinion of the Stoics and that of the other philosophers about the passions and perturbations of souls; for both defend the mind and reason of the wise man from their domination. And perhaps the Stoics say that they do not befall the wise man because they by no means cloud with any error or overturn with any stain his wisdom, by which he is wise. But they befall the mind of the wise man, the serenity of wisdom remaining intact, on account of those things which they call advantages or disadvantages, though they will not call them goods or evils. For surely, if that philosopher had valued as nothing those things which he felt he was about to lose in the shipwreck, such as this life and the safety of the body, he would not have so dreaded that danger as to betray it even by the testimony of his pallor. Yet he could both suffer that disturbance and hold fixed in his mind the judgment that life and bodily safety, the loss of which the savagery of the storm threatened, were not goods that make good those in whom they are, as justice does. But as to their saying that these things should not even be called goods but advantages, this must be put down to a contest over words, not an examination of things. For what difference does it make whether they are more aptly called goods or advantages, provided that the Stoic no less than the Peripatetic trembles and turns pale lest he be deprived of them — naming them unequally, but valuing them equally? Both, certainly, if they were pressed by dangers to these goods or advantages to commit an outrage or crime, so that they could not otherwise keep them, say that they would rather lose these things, by which the nature of the body is kept safe and sound, than commit those things by which justice is violated. So the mind in which this judgment is fixed allows no perturbations, even if they befall the lower parts of the soul, to prevail in it against reason; rather, it rules them itself, and by not consenting to them, and even resisting them, exercises the reign of virtue. Such is Aeneas as Virgil describes him, where he says: “His mind remains unmoved; the tears roll down in vain.”

### Extrabiblical texts

- Aulus Gellius, Noct. att. 19.1 (Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights): allusion, high confidence
- Cicero, Fin. 3–4 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence
- Aristippus (Aristippus (fragments)): allusion, medium confidence
- Zeno of Citium, Zeno (Zeno of Citium): allusion, low confidence
- Chrysippus (Chrysippus): allusion, low confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 4.449 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Retells Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 19.1, including the saying of Aristippus and the Stoic doctrine of first impressions from Epictetus (fr. 9); refers to Cicero, On Ends books 3–4; quotes Virgil, Aeneid 4.449. The Greek word, garbled and marked sic in the digital text, is πάθη (“passions”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.4 (CSEL 40:410–414; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-26/#p-9-4).

## City of God 9.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-26/#p-9-5
- Source: CSEL 40:414–416
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine teaches that Christian discipline asks not whether one feels anger, sadness, or fear but why, praises mercy as a virtue against the Stoics, and explains that God's 'anger' describes his punishment, not a passion.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. Quod passiones, quae Christianos animos adficiunt, non in uitium trahant, sed uirtutem exerceant. Non est nunc necesse copiose ac diligenter ostendere, quid de istis passionibus doceat scriptura diuina, qua Christiana eruditio continetur. Deo quippe [illam] ipsam mentem subicit regendam et iuuandam mentique passiones ita moderandas adque frenandas, ut in usum iustitiae conuertantur. Denique in disciplina nostra non tam quaeritur utrum pius animus irascatur, sed quare irascatur; nec utrum sit tristis, sed unde sit tristis; nec utrum timeat, sed quid timeat. Irasci enim peccanti ut corrigatur, contristari pro adflicto ut liberetur, timere periclitanti ne pereat, nescio utrum quisquam sana consideratione reprehendat. Nam et misericordiam Stoicorum est solere culpare; sed quanto honestius ille Stoicus misericordia perturbaretur hominis liberandi quam timore naufragii. Longe melius et humanius et piorum sensibus adcommodatius Cicero in Caesaris laude locutus est, ubi ait: Nulla de uirtutibus tuis nec admirabilior nec gratior misericordia est. Quid est autem misericordia nisi alienae miseriae quaedam in nostro corde conpassio, qua utique si possumus subuenire conpellimur? Seruit autem motus iste rationi, quando ita praebetur misericordia, ut iustitia conseruetur, siue cum indigenti tribuitur, siue cum ignoscitur paenitenti. Hanc Cicero locutor egregius non dubitauit appellare uirtutem, quam Stoicos inter uitia numerare non pudet, qui tamen, ut docuit liber Epicteti, nobilissimi Stoici, ex decretis Zenonis et Chrysippi, qui huius sectae primas habuerunt, huiusce modi passiones in animum sapientis admittunt, quem uitiis omnibus liberum uolunt. Unde fit consequens, ut haec ipsa non putent uitia, quando sapienti sic accidunt, ut contra uirtutem mentis rationemque nihil possint, et una sit eademque sententia Peripateticorum uel etiam Platonicorum et ipsorum Stoicorum, sed, ut ait Tullius, uerbi controuersia iam diu torqueat homines Graeculos contentionis cupidiores quam ueritatis. Sed adhuc merito quaeri potest, utrum ad uitae praesentis pertineat infirmitatem etiam in quibusque bonis officiis huiusce modi perpeti affectus, sancti uero angeli et sine ira puniant, quos accipiunt aeterna Dei lege puniendos, et miseris sine miseriae conpassione subueniant, et periclitantibus eis, quos diligunt, sine timore opitulentur; et tamen istarum nomina passionum consuetudine locutionis humanae etiam in eos usurpentur propter quandam operum similitudinem, non propter affectionum infirmitatem, sicut ipse Deus secundum scripturas irascitur, nec tamen ulla passione turbatur. Hoc enim uerbum uindictae usurpauit effectus, non illius turbulentus affectus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. That the passions that affect Christian souls do not draw them into vice but exercise virtue.

There is no need now to show fully and carefully what the divine Scripture, in which Christian learning is contained, teaches about these passions. For it subjects the mind itself to God, to be ruled and helped by him, and the passions to the mind, to be so moderated and bridled that they are turned to the service of justice. In short, in our discipline the question is not so much whether a devout soul is angry, but why it is angry; not whether it is sad, but from what cause it is sad; not whether it fears, but what it fears. For to be angry with a sinner so that he may be corrected, to be saddened for the afflicted so that he may be freed, to fear for one in danger lest he perish — I do not know whether anyone on sound consideration would blame these. For it is the Stoics' habit to find fault even with compassion; but how much more honorably would that Stoic have been disturbed by compassion for a man to be rescued than by fear of shipwreck! Far better, more humanely, and more suitably to the feelings of the devout did Cicero speak in praise of Caesar, where he says: “Of your virtues none is more admirable or more pleasing than your mercy.” And what is mercy but a kind of fellow-suffering in our heart with the misery of another, by which we are certainly compelled to help, if we can? This movement serves reason when mercy is shown in such a way that justice is preserved, whether when it is given to the needy or when pardon is granted to the penitent. Cicero, that excellent speaker, did not hesitate to call this a virtue, which the Stoics are not ashamed to count among the vices — the Stoics who nevertheless, as the book of Epictetus, a most noted Stoic, taught from the doctrines of Zeno and Chrysippus, the leaders of this school, admit passions of this kind into the mind of the wise man, whom they want to be free from all vices. It follows, then, that they do not think these things vices when they befall the wise man in such a way that they can do nothing against the virtue of the mind and reason; and that the opinion of the Peripatetics, or even the Platonists, and of the Stoics themselves is one and the same, but, as Tully says, a controversy about a word has long tormented these little Greeks, more eager for contention than for truth. But it may still rightly be asked whether it belongs to the weakness of the present life to suffer affections of this kind even in all good duties, while the holy angels both punish without anger those whom they receive to be punished by the eternal law of God, and help the wretched without fellow-suffering in their misery, and assist without fear those whom they love when they are in danger; and yet the names of these passions are applied to them too by the custom of human speech, because of a certain likeness of works, not because of weakness of affections. So God himself, according to the Scriptures, is angry, and yet is not disturbed by any passion. For this word has been taken from the effect of his punishment, not from any turbulent affection of his.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Lig. 12.37 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence
- Cicero, De or. 1.11.47 (Cicero): quotation, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Cicero, For Ligarius 12.37; “little Greeks … more eager for contention than for truth” is from Cicero, On the Orator 1.11.47. The editor deletes “illam” before “ipsam mentem”. On God's anger without passion, compare Book 15.25.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.5 (CSEL 40:414–416; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-26/#p-9-5).

## City of God 9.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-26/#p-9-6
- Source: CSEL 40:416–417
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that since the demons' very minds are ruled by passions, they have no free and wise part by which to help men toward the gods.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. Quibus passionibus daemones confitente Apuleio exagitentur, quorum ope homines aput deos adserit adiuuari. Qua interim de sanctis angelis quaestione dilata uideamus quem ad modum dicant Platonici medios daemones inter deos et homines constitutos istis passionum aestibus fluctuare. Si enim mente ab his libera eisque dominante motus huiusce modi paterentur, non eos diceret Apuleius simili motu cordis et salo mentis per omnes cogitationum aestus fluctuare. Ipsa igitur mens eorum, id est pars animi superior, qua rationales sunt, in qua uirtus et sapientia, si ulla eis esset, passionibus turbulentis inferiorum animi partium regendis moderandisque dominaretur, — ipsa, inquam, mens eorum, sicut iste Platonicus confitetur, salo perturbationum fluctuat. Subiecta est ergo mens daemonum passionibus libidinum formidinum irarum adque huiusce modi ceteris. Quae igitur pars in eis libera est composque sapientiae, qua placeant dis et ad bonorum morum similitudinem hominibus consulant, cum eorum mens passionum uitiis subiugata et obpressa, quidquid rationis naturaliter habet, ad fallendum et decipiendum tanto acrius intendat, quanto eam magis possidet nocendi cupiditas?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. By what passions, on Apuleius's own admission, the demons are agitated — the demons by whose help he asserts men are aided with the gods.

Putting off for the moment this question about the holy angels, let us see how the Platonists say that the demons, placed midway between gods and men, are tossed on these tides of passions. For if they suffered movements of this kind with their mind free from them and ruling them, Apuleius would not say that they toss “with a like movement of heart and surge of mind through all the tides of thought.” Their very mind, then — that is, the higher part of the soul, by which they are rational, in which virtue and wisdom, if they had any, would rule, governing and moderating the turbulent passions of the lower parts of the soul — their very mind, I say, as this Platonist confesses, is tossed on a surge of perturbations. The mind of the demons, therefore, is subject to the passions of lusts, fears, angers, and the rest of this kind. What part of them, then, is free and in possession of wisdom, by which they might please the gods and counsel men toward the likeness of good morals, when their mind, subjugated and oppressed by the vices of the passions, bends whatever reason it naturally has to cheating and deceiving the more keenly, the more the desire of harming possesses it?

### Translation notes

- Quotes again Apuleius, On the God of Socrates 12.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.6 (CSEL 40:416–417; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-26/#p-9-6).

## City of God 9.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-26/#p-9-7
- Source: CSEL 40:417–419
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine shows that Apuleius makes the partisan 'gods' of Homer into demons, since he holds the true gods far from such passions.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. Quod Platonici figmentis poetarum infamatos adserant deos de contrariorum studiorum certamine, cum hae partes daemonum, non deorum sint. Quod si quisquam dicit, non ex omnium, sed ex malorum daemonum numero esse, quos poetae quorundam hominum osores et amatores deos non procul a ueritate confingunt (hos enim dixit Apuleius salo mentis per omnes cogitationum aestus fluctuare): quo modo istud intellegere poterimus, quando, cum hoc diceret, non quorundam, id est malorum, sed omnium daemonum medietatem propter aeria corpora inter deos et homines describebat? Hoc enim ait fingere poetas, quod ex istorum daemonum numero deos faciunt et eis deorum nomina inponunt et quibus uoluerint hominibus ex his amicos inimicosque distribuunt ficti carminis inpunita licentia, cum deos ab his daemonum moribus et caelesti loco et beatitudinis opulentia remotos esse perhibeat. Haec est ergo fictio poetarum deos dicere, qui di non sunt, eosque sub deorum nominibus inter se decertare propter homines, quos pro studio partium diligunt uel oderunt. Non procul autem a ueritate dicit hanc esse fictionem, quoniam deorum appellati uocabulis, qui di non sunt, tales tamen describuntur daemones, quales sunt. Denique hinc esse dicit Homericam illam Mineruam, (quae mediis coetibus Graium cohibendo Achilli interuenit. Quod ergo Minerua illa fuerit, poeticum uult esse figmentum, eo quod Mineruam deam putat eamque inter deos, quos omnes bonos beatosque credit, in alta aetheria sede conlocat, procul a conuersatione mortalium; quod autem aliquis daemon fuerit Graecis fauens Troianisque contrarius, sicut alius aduersus Graecos Troianorum opitulator, quem Veneris seu Martis nomine idem poeta commemorat, quos deos iste talia non agentes in habitationibus caelestibus ponit, et hi daemones pro eis, quos amabant, contra eos, quos oderant, inter se decertauerint, hoc non procul a ueritate poetas dixisse confessus est. De his quippe ista dixerunt, quos hominibus simili motu cordis et salo mentis per omnes cogitationum aestus fluctuare testatur, ut possint amores et odia non pro iustitia, sed sicut populus similis eorum in uenatoribus et aurigis secundum suarum studia partium pro aliis aduersus alios exercere. Id enim uidetur philosophus curasse Platonicus, ne, cum haec a poetis canerentur, non a daemonibus mediis, sed ab ipsis dis, quorum nomina poetae fingendo ponunt, fieri crederentur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. That the Platonists assert that the gods are defamed by the fictions of the poets concerning the conflict of opposing partisanships, when these roles belong to demons, not gods.

But if anyone says that it is not from the number of all demons, but of the bad ones, that the poets, not far from the truth, invent gods who hate and love certain men (for it was these, Apuleius said, that toss with a surge of mind through all the tides of thought) — how can we understand this, when, in saying it, he was describing the middle position of all demons, not just of some, that is, the bad ones, between gods and men, on account of their aerial bodies? For this, he says, is the poets' invention: that out of the number of these demons they make gods, give them the names of gods, and distribute them as friends and enemies to whatever men they please, with the unpunished licence of fictitious verse — while he declares that the gods are far removed from these ways of the demons, both by their heavenly place and by the wealth of their happiness. This, then, is the fiction of the poets: to call gods those who are not gods, and to make them contend among themselves under the names of gods on account of men, whom they love or hate out of partisanship. And he says that this fiction is not far from the truth, because, though called by the names of gods, which they are not, the demons are nevertheless described as they are. Finally, he says that from this comes Homer's Minerva, “who intervened in the midst of the Greek assembly to restrain Achilles.” That it was Minerva, he wants to be a poetic fiction, because he thinks Minerva a goddess and places her among the gods, all of whom he believes good and happy, in the high ethereal seat, far from the company of mortals. But that some demon favored the Greeks and opposed the Trojans, as another helped the Trojans against the Greeks, whom the same poet mentions under the name of Venus or Mars — gods whom Apuleius places in the heavenly dwellings, not doing such things — and that these demons contended among themselves for those they loved against those they hated: this he confessed the poets said not far from the truth. For they said these things of those whom he testifies toss, like men, with a like movement of heart and surge of mind through all the tides of thought, so that they can exercise loves and hatreds not according to justice, but, like the people who resemble them in their partisanship for hunters and charioteers, for some against others according to the zeal of their factions. For the Platonic philosopher seems to have taken care that, when these things were sung by the poets, they should not be believed to be done by the gods themselves, whose names the poets set on them in their fictions, rather than by the middle demons.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Homer, Il. 1.193–222 (Homer, Iliad): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Draws on Apuleius, On the God of Socrates 11–12; the Homeric scene is Iliad 1.193–222, where Athena restrains Achilles.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.7 (CSEL 40:417–419; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/8-26/#p-9-7).

## City of God 9.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-8
- Source: CSEL 40:419–421
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine notes that Apuleius' definitions give demons nothing good in common with gods or wise men, but only eternal bodies and minds tossed by passion like foolish men.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. De dis caelestibus et daemonibus aeriis hominibus que terrenis Apulei Platonici definitione. Quid? illa ipsa definitio daemonum parumne intuenda est (ubi certe omnes determinando conplexus est), quod ait daemones esse genere animalia, animo passiua, mente rationalia, corpore aeria, tempore aeterna? In quibus quinque commemoratis nihil dixit omnino, quod daemones cum bonis saltem hominibus id uiderentur habere commune, quod non esset in malis. Nam ipsos homines cum aliquanto latius describendo conplecteretur, suo loco de illis dicens tamquam de infimis adque terrenis, cum prius dixisset de caelestibus dis, ut commendatis duabus partibus ex summo et infimo ultimis tertio loco de mediis daemonibus loqueretur: Igitur homines, inquit, ratione cluentes, oratione pollentes, inmortalibus animis, moribundis membris, leuibus et anxiis mentibus, brutis et obnoxiis corporibus, dissimilibus moribus, similibus erroribus, peruicaci audacia, pertinaci spe, casso labore, fortuna caduca, singillatim mortales, cuncti tamen uniuerso genere perpetui, uicissim sufficienda prole mutabiles, uolucri tempore, tarda sapientia, cita morte, querula uita terras incolunt. Cum hic tam multa diceret, quae ad plurimos homines pertinent, numquid etiam illud tacuit, quod nouerat esse paucorum, ubi ait tarda sapientia? Quod si praetermisisset, nullo modo recte genus humanum descriptionis huius tam intenta diligentia terminasset. Cum uero deorum excellentiam commendaret, ipsam beatitudinem, quo uolunt homines per sapientiam peruenire, in eis adfirmauit excellere. Proinde si aliquos daemones bonos uellet intellegi, aliquid etiam in ipsorum descriptione poneret, unde uel cum dis aliquam beatitudinis partem, uel cum hominibus qualemcumque sapientiam putarentur habere communem. Nunc uero nullum bonum eorum commemorauit, quo boni discernuntur a malis. Quamuis et eorum malitiae liberius exprimendae pepercerit, non tam ne ipsos, quam ne cultores eorum, aput quos loquebatur, offenderet: significauit tamen prudentibus, quid de illis sentire deberent, quando quidem deos, quos omnes bonos beatosque credi uoluit, ab eorum passionibus adque, ut ait ipse, turbelis omni modo separauit, sola illos corporum aeternitate coniungens, animo autem non dis, sed hominibus similes daemones apertissime inculcans; et hoc non sapientiae bono, cuius et homines possunt esse participes, sed perturbatione passionum, quae stultis malisque dominatur, a sapientibus uero et bonis ita regitur, ut malint eam non habere quam uincere. Nam si non corporum, sed animorum aeternitatem cum dis habere daemones uellet intellegi, non utique homines ab huius rei consortio separaret, quia et hominibus aeternos esse animos procul dubio sicut Platonicus sentit. Ideo cum hoc genus animantum describeret, inmortalibus animis, moribundis membris dixit esse homines. Ac per hoc si propterea communem cum dis aeternitatem non habent homines, quia corpore sunt mortales: propterea ergo daemones habent, quia corpore sunt inmortales.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. On the definition given by Apuleius the Platonist of the heavenly gods, the aerial demons, and earthly men.

What of that definition of demons itself — is it to be given too little attention (where he certainly included all of them in his definition)? He says that demons are “in kind, animals; in soul, subject to passion; in mind, rational; in body, aerial; in time, eternal.” In these five things he said nothing at all by which demons might seem to have in common with at least good men something that is not in bad men. For when he included men themselves in a somewhat fuller description, speaking of them in their place as the lowest and earthly beings — after he had first spoken of the heavenly gods, so that, having set forth the two extreme parts, the highest and the lowest, he might speak last, in the third place, of the demons in the middle — he says: “Men, then, famed for reason, powerful in speech, with immortal souls and dying limbs, with light and anxious minds, brutish and vulnerable bodies, unlike in morals, alike in errors, of obstinate daring, persistent hope, vain labor, fleeting fortune, mortal as individuals, yet perpetual as a whole race, changing in turn by the offspring that succeeds them, of swift time, slow wisdom, quick death, and complaining life, inhabit the earth.” When he said so many things here that pertain to most men, did he keep silent even about that which he knew belongs to few, when he says “slow wisdom”? If he had omitted this, he would by no means have rightly defined the human race with such careful diligence of description. But when he commended the excellence of the gods, he affirmed that happiness itself, to which men wish to come through wisdom, is pre-eminent in them. Accordingly, if he had wanted some demons to be understood as good, he would have put something in their description too, by which they might be thought to have in common either some part of happiness with the gods or some wisdom with men. But as it is, he mentioned no good of theirs by which the good are distinguished from the bad. Though he refrained from expressing their malice more freely, not so much so as not to offend them as not to offend their worshippers, among whom he was speaking, yet he indicated to the prudent what they should think of them. For he separated the gods, whom he wanted to be believed all good and happy, in every way from the passions, and, as he himself says, the turmoils of the demons, joining them only in the eternity of their bodies; while he most plainly insisted that in mind the demons are like not the gods but men — and this not by the good of wisdom, in which men too can share, but by the perturbation of passions, which rules the foolish and the bad, but is so ruled by the wise and good that they would rather not have it than conquer it. For if he had wanted it understood that demons have in common with the gods the eternity not of bodies but of souls, he certainly would not have separated men from sharing in this, since he, as a Platonist, undoubtedly holds that men too have eternal souls. That is why, when he described this kind of living being, he said that men have “immortal souls and dying limbs.” And so, if men do not have eternity in common with the gods because they are mortal in body, then demons have it because they are immortal in body.

### Translation notes

- Quotes Apuleius, On the God of Socrates 4 and 13.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.8 (CSEL 40:419–421; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-8).

## City of God 9.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-9
- Source: CSEL 40:421–422
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that demons, with eternal bodies but vicious souls, are mediators hung upside down, their bodies not a vehicle of honor but a chain of condemnation.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. An amicitia caelestium deorum per intercessionem daemonum possit homini prouideri. Quales igitur mediatores sunt inter homines et deos, per quos ad deorum amicitias homines ambiant, qui hoc cum hominibus habent deterius, quod est in animante melius, id est animum; hoc autem habent cum dis melius, quod est in animante deterius, id est corpus? Cum enim animans, id est animal, ex anima constet et corpore, quorum duorum anima est utique corpore melior, etsi uitiosa et infirma, melior certe corpore etiam sanissimo adque firmissimo, quoniam natura eius excellentior nec labe uitiorum postponitur corpori, sicut aurum etiam sordidum argento seu plumbo, licet purissimo, carius aestimatur: ista mediatores deorum et hominum, per quos interpositos diuinis humana iunguntur, cum dis habent corpus aeternum, uitiosum autem cum hominibus animum: quasi religio, qua uolunt dis homines per daemones iungi, in corpore sit, non in animo constituta. Quaenam tandem istos mediatores falsos adque fallaces quasi capite deorsum nequitia uel poena suspendit, ut inferiorem animalis partem, id est corpus, cum superioribus, superiorem uero, id est animum, cum inferioribus habeant, et cum dis caelestibus in parte seruiente coniuncti, cum hominibus autem terrestribus in parte dominante sint miseri? Corpus quippe seruum est, sicut etiam Sallustius ait: Animi imperio, corporis seruitio magis utimur. Adiunxit autem ille: Alterum nobis cum dis, alterum cum beluis commune est, quoniam de hominibus loquebatur, quibus sicut beluis mortale corpus est. Isti autem, quos inter nos et deos mediatores nobis philosophi prouiderunt, possunt quidem dicere de animo et corpore: alterum nobis cum dis, alterum cum hominibus commune est; sed, sicut dixi, tamquam in peruersum ligati adque suspensi, seruum corpus cum dis beatis, dominum animum cum hominibus miseris habentes, parte inferiore exaltati, superiore deiecti. Unde etiamsi quisquam propter hoc eos putauerit aeternitatem habere cum dis, quia nulla morte, sicut animalium terrestrium, animi eorum soluuntur a corpore: nec sic existimandum est eorum corpus tamquam honoratorum aeternum uehiculum, sed aeternum uinculum damnatorum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. Whether the friendship of the heavenly gods can be secured for man through the intercession of demons.

What kind of mediators between men and gods, then, are these, through whom men are to court the friendship of the gods — beings who have in common with men the worse state of what is better in a living being, namely the soul, and have in common with the gods the better state of what is worse in a living being, namely the body? For a living being, that is, an animal, consists of soul and body, and of these two the soul is certainly better than the body — even if vicious and weak, it is certainly better than even the healthiest and strongest body, since its nature is more excellent and is not put below the body even by the stain of vices, as gold, even when dirty, is valued above silver or lead, however pure. These mediators between gods and men, through whose interposition human things are joined to divine, have an eternal body in common with the gods, but a vicious soul in common with men — as though the religion by which they want men to be joined to the gods through demons were established in the body, not in the soul! What wickedness or punishment, pray, has hung these false and deceitful mediators head downward, as it were, so that they have the lower part of a living being, that is, the body, with the higher beings, and the higher part, that is, the soul, with the lower; and are joined to the heavenly gods in the part that serves, while they are wretched with earthly men in the part that rules? For the body is a servant, as Sallust too says: “We use the mind rather to rule, the body to serve.” And he added: “The one we have in common with the gods, the other with the beasts,” since he was speaking of men, who, like beasts, have a mortal body. But these, whom the philosophers have provided for us as mediators between us and the gods, can indeed say of soul and body, “The one we have in common with the gods, the other with men”; but, as I said, they are as if bound and hung upside down, having the servant body with the happy gods and the master soul with wretched men, exalted in their lower part and cast down in their higher. Hence, even if anyone should think that they have eternity in common with the gods because their souls are not loosed from the body by any death, as those of earthly animals are, even so their body is not to be thought of as the eternal vehicle of the honored but as the eternal chain of the condemned.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sallust, Cat. 1.2 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Sallust, Catiline 1.2.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.9 (CSEL 40:421–422; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-9).

## City of God 9.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-10
- Source: CSEL 40:422–423
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine cites Plotinus, who called the mortality of the human body a mercy of the Father, to show that demons with eternal bodies are more wretched than men.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. Quod secundum Plotini sententiam minus miseri sint homines in corpore mortali quam daemones in aeterno. Plotinus certe nostrae memoriae uicinis temporibus Platonem ceteris excellentius intellexisse laudatur. Is cum de humanis animis ageret: Pater, inquit, misericors mortalia illis uincla faciebat. Ita hoc ipsum, quod mortales sunt homines corpore, ad misericordiam Dei patris pertinere arbitratus est, ne semper huius uitae miseria tenerentur. Hac misericordia indigna iudicata est iniquitas daemonum, quae in animi passiui miseria non mortale sicut homines, sed aeternum corpus accepit. Essent quippe feliciores hominibus, si mortale cum eis haberent corpus et cum dis animum beatum. Essent autem pares hominibus, si cum animo misero corpus saltem mortale cum eis habere meruissent; si tamen adquirerent aliquid pietatis, ut ab aerumnis uel in morte requiescerent. Nunc uero non solum feliciores hominibus non sunt animo misero, sed etiam miseriores sunt perpetuo corporis uinculo. Non enim aliqua pietatis et sapientiae disciplina proficientes intellegi uoluit ex daemonibus fieri deos, cum apertissime dixerit daemones aeternos.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. That, according to the opinion of Plotinus, men in a mortal body are less wretched than demons in an eternal one.

Plotinus, certainly, in times close to our own memory, is praised for having understood Plato better than the rest. When he was dealing with human souls, he says: “The Father, in his mercy, made their bonds mortal.” Thus he thought that the very fact that men are mortal in body belongs to the mercy of God the Father, so that they might not be held forever in the misery of this life. Of this mercy the wickedness of the demons was judged unworthy, which, in the misery of a soul subject to passion, received not a mortal body like men but an eternal one. For they would be happier than men if they had a mortal body in common with men and a happy soul in common with the gods. And they would be equal to men if, with a wretched soul, they had deserved at least to have a mortal body in common with them — provided, however, that they acquired some piety, so as to rest from their troubles at least in death. But as it is, they are not only not happier than men, having a wretched soul, but even more wretched, through the perpetual chain of the body. For he did not want it understood that demons become gods by progressing in some discipline of piety and wisdom, since he said most plainly that the demons are eternal.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plotinus, Enn. 4.3.12 (Plotinus, Enneads): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Plotinus, Enneads 4.3.12.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.10 (CSEL 40:422–423; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-10).

## City of God 9.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-11
- Source: CSEL 40:423–424
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine rejects the Platonist view that human souls become demons — lares, larvae, or Manes — after death, as an encouragement to wickedness.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. De opinione Platonicorum, qua putant animas hominum daemones esse post corpora. Dicit quidem et animas hominum daemones esse et ex hominibus fieri lares, si boni meriti sunt; lemures, si mali, seu laruas; manes autem deos dici, si incertum est bonorum eos seu malorum esse meritorum. In qua opinione quantam uoraginem aperiant sectandis perditis moribus, quis non uideat, si uel paululum adtendat? Quando quidem quamlibet nequam homines fuerint, uel laruas se fieri dum opinantur, uel dum manes deos, tanto peiores fiunt, quanto sunt nocendi cupidiores, ut etiam quibusdam sacrificiis tamquam diuinis honoribus post mortem se inuitari opinentur, ut noceant. Laruas quippe dicit esse noxios daemones ex hominibus factos. Sed hinc alia quaestio est. Inde autem perhibet appellari Graece beatos εὐδαίμονας, quod boni sint animi, hoc est boni daemones, animos quoque hominum daemones esse confirmans.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. On the opinion of the Platonists by which they think that the souls of men become demons after leaving their bodies.

He says, indeed, that the souls of men too are demons, and that from men there come lares, if they are of good merit; lemures or larvae, if bad; and that they are called gods Manes if it is uncertain whether they are of good or bad merit. Who does not see, if he pays even a little attention, how great an abyss this opinion opens for pursuing depraved morals? For however wicked men have been, while they suppose they will become larvae or gods Manes, they become all the worse the more eager they are to do harm, so that they even suppose they will be invited after death with certain sacrifices, as with divine honors, in order to do harm. For he says that larvae are harmful demons made from men. But that is another question. He also says that the happy are called in Greek eudaimones because they are good souls, that is, good demons, confirming that the souls of men too are demons.

### Translation notes

- From Apuleius, On the God of Socrates 15.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.11 (CSEL 40:423–424; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-11).

## City of God 9.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-12
- Source: CSEL 40:424–425
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine sets out Apuleius' three contrasts between gods and men: lofty place, eternity, and happiness against lowly place, mortality, and misery.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. De ternis contrariis, quibus secundum Platonicos daemonum hominumque natura distinguitur. Sed nunc de his agimus, quos in natura propria descripsit inter deos et homines genere animalia, mente rationalia, animo passiua, corpore aeria, tempore aeterna. Nempe cum prius deos in sublimi caelo, homines autem in terra infima disiunctos locis et naturae dignitate secerneret, ita conclusit: Habetis, inquit, interim bina animalia: deos ab hominibus plurimum differentes loci sublimitate, uitae perpetuitate, naturae perfectione, nullo inter se propinquo communicatu, cum et habitacula summa ab infimis tanta intercapedo fastigii dispescat, et uiuacitas illic aeterna et indefecta sit, hic caduca et subsiciua, et ingenia illa ad beatitudinem sublimata, haec ad miserias infimata. Hic terna uideo commemorata contraria de duabus naturae partibus ultimis, id est summis adque infimis. Nam tria quae proposuit de dis laudabilia, eadem repetiuit, aliis quidem uerbis, ut eis aduersa alia tria ex hominibus redderet. Tria deorum haec sunt: loci sublimitas, uitae perpetuitas, perfectio naturae. Haec aliis uerbis ita repetiuit, ut eis tria contraria humanae condicionis obponeret. Cum et habitacula, inquit, summa ab infimis tanta intercapedo fastigii dispescat, quia dixerat loci sublimitatem; et uiuacitas, inquit, illic aeterna et indefecta sit, hic caduca et subsiciua,) quia dixerat uitae perpetuitatem; (et ingenia illa, inquit, ad beatitudinem sublimata, haec ad miserias infimata, quia dixerat naturae perfectionem. Tria igitur ab eo posita sunt deorum, id est locus sublimis, aeternitas, beatitudo; et his contraria tria hominum, id est locus infimus, mortalitas, miseria.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. On the three contraries by which, according to the Platonists, the nature of demons and of men is distinguished.

But now we are dealing with those whom he described in their own nature, between gods and men, as in kind animals, in mind rational, in soul subject to passion, in body aerial, in time eternal. For after he had first distinguished the gods in the lofty heaven and men on the lowest earth, separated by place and by dignity of nature, he concluded thus: “You have, then, meanwhile, two kinds of living beings: gods, differing very greatly from men in loftiness of place, perpetuity of life, and perfection of nature, with no close communication between them, since so great an interval of height separates the highest dwellings from the lowest, and life there is eternal and unfailing, here fleeting and interrupted, and their minds are raised to happiness, ours lowered to miseries.” Here I see three contraries mentioned of the two extreme parts of nature, that is, the highest and the lowest. For the three praiseworthy things he proposed about the gods he repeated, in other words, so as to set against them three opposite things from men. The three belonging to the gods are these: loftiness of place, perpetuity of life, perfection of nature. These he repeated in other words so as to set three contraries of the human condition against them. “Since so great an interval of height,” he says, “separates the highest dwellings from the lowest” — because he had said loftiness of place; “and life,” he says, “there is eternal and unfailing, here fleeting and interrupted” — because he had said perpetuity of life; “and their minds,” he says, “are raised to happiness, ours lowered to miseries” — because he had said perfection of nature. So he has set out three things belonging to the gods, namely lofty place, eternity, happiness; and three contrary things belonging to men, namely lowest place, mortality, misery.

### Translation notes

- Quotes Apuleius, On the God of Socrates 4.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.12 (CSEL 40:424–425; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-12).

## City of God 9.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-13
- Source: CSEL 40:425–428
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that a true middle between happy immortal gods and wretched mortal men must be either mortal and happy or immortal and wretched — and the demons are the latter.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. Quo modo daemones, si nec cum dis beati nec cum hominibus sunt miseri, inter utramque partem sine utriusque communione sint medii. Inter haec terna deorum et hominum quoniam daemones medios posuit, de loco nulla est controuersia; inter sublimem quippe et infimum medius locus aptissime habetur et dicitur. Cetera bina restant, quibus cura adtentior adhibenda est, quem ad modum uel aliena esse a daemonibus ostendantur, uel si eis distribuantur, ut medietas uidetur exposcere. Sed ab eis aliena esse non possunt. Non enim sicut dicimus locum medium nec summum esse nec infimum, ita daemones, cum sint animalia rationalia, nec beatos esse nec miseros, sicuti sunt arbusta uel pecora, quae sunt sensus uel rationis expertia, recte possumus dicere. Quorum ergo ratio mentibus inest, aut miseros esse aut beatos necesse est. Item non possumus recte dicere nec mortales esse daemones nec aeternos. Omnia namque uiuentia aut in aeternum uiuunt, aut finiunt morte quod uiuunt. Iam uero iste tempore aeternos daemones dixit. Quid igitur restat, nisi ut hi medii de duobus summis unum habeant et de duobus infimis alterum? Nam si utraque de imis habebunt aut utraque de summis, medii non erunt, sed in alterutram partem uel resiliunt uel recumbunt. Quia ergo his binis, sicut demonstratum est, carere utrisque non possunt, acceptis ex utraque parte singulis mediabuntur. Ac per hoc quia de infimis habere non possunt aeternitatem, quae ibi non est, unum hoc de summis habent; et ideo non est alterum ad conplendam medietatem suam, quod de infimis habeant, nisi miseriam. Est itaque secundum Platonicos sublimium deorum uel beata aeternitas uel aeterna beatitudo; hominum uero infimorum uel miseria mortalis uel mortalitas misera; daemonum autem mediorum uel misera aeternitas uel aeterna miseria. Nam et quinque illis, quae in definitione daemonum posuit, non eos medios, sicut promittebat, ostendit; quoniam tria dixit eos habere nobiscum, quod genere animalia, quod mente rationalia, quod animo passiua sunt; cum dis autem unum, quod tempore aeterna; et unum proprium, quod corpore aeria. Quo modo ergo medii, quando unum habent cum summis, tria cum infimis? Quis non uideat relicta medietate quantum inclinentur et deprimantur ad infima? Sed plane etiam ibi medii possunt ita inueniri, ut unum habeant proprium, quod est corpus aerium, sicut et illi de summis adque infimis singula propria, di corpus aetherium hominesque terrenum; duo uero communia sint omnibus, quod genere sunt animalia et mente rationalia. Nam et ipse cum de dis et hominibus loqueretur: Habetis, inquit, bina animalia, et non solent isti deos nisi rationales mente perhibere. Duo sunt residua, quod sunt animo passiua et tempore aeterna; quorum habent unum cum infimis, cum summis alterum, ut proportionali ratione librata medietas neque sustollatur in summa, neque in infima deprimatur. Ipsa est autem illa daemonum misera aeternitas uel aeterna miseria. Qui enim ait animo passiua, etiam misera dixisset, nisi eorum cultoribus erubuisset. Porro quia prouidentia summi Dei, sicut etiam ipsi fatentur, non fortuita temeritate regitur mundus, numquam esset istorum aeterna miseria, nisi esset magna malitia. Si igitur beati recte dicuntur eudaemones, non sunt eudaemones daemones, quos inter homines et deos isti in medio locauerunt. Quis ergo est locus bonorum daemonum, qui supra homines, infra deos istis praebeant adiutorium, illis ministerium? Si enim boni aeternique sunt, profecto et beati sunt. Aeterna autem beatitudo medios eos esse non sinit, quia multum cum dis conparat multumque ab hominibus separat. Unde frustra isti conabuntur ostendere, quo modo daemones boni, si et inmortales sunt et beati, recte medii constituantur inter deos inmortales ac beatos et homines mortales ac miseros. Cum enim utrumque habeant cum dis, et beatitudinem scilicet et inmortalitatem, nihil autem horum cum hominibus et miseris et mortalibus: quo modo non potius remoti sunt ab hominibus disque coniuncti, quam inter utrosque medii constituti? Tunc enim medii essent, si haberent et ipsi duo quaedam sua, non cum binis alterutrorum, sed cum singulis utrorumque communia; sicut homo medium quiddam est, sed inter pecora et angelos, ut, quia pecus est animal inrationale adque mortale, angelus autem rationale et inmortale, medius homo est, sed inferior angelis, superior pecoribus, habens cum pecoribus mortalitatem, rationem cum angelis, animal rationale mortale. Ita ergo cum quaerimus medium inter beatos inmortales miserosque mortales, hoc inuenire debemus, quod aut mortale sit beatum, aut inmortale sit miserum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. How demons, if they are neither happy with the gods nor wretched with men, can be in the middle between the two without sharing in either.

Since he placed the demons in the middle between these three characteristics of gods and of men, there is no controversy about place; for between the highest and the lowest a middle place is most aptly held and said to be. The other two remain, to which more careful attention must be paid: how they are either shown to be foreign to the demons, or how they are distributed to them as their middle position seems to require. But they cannot be foreign to them. For we cannot rightly say that demons, since they are rational animals, are neither happy nor wretched, as we say that a middle place is neither highest nor lowest, or as shrubs and cattle are, which lack sense or reason. Those, then, whose minds have reason must necessarily be either wretched or happy. Likewise we cannot rightly say that demons are neither mortal nor eternal. For all living things either live forever or end their life by death. Now he said that demons are eternal in time. What remains, then, except that these middle beings have one of the two highest things and the other of the two lowest? For if they have both of the lowest, or both of the highest, they will not be in the middle, but will either spring up or sink down to one side or the other. Since, then, as has been shown, they cannot lack both of these pairs, they will be in the middle by taking one from each side. And so, since they cannot have eternity from the lowest, where it is not, they have this one thing from the highest; and therefore there is nothing else for them to have from the lowest to complete their middle position except misery. So, according to the Platonists, the lofty gods have either a happy eternity or an eternal happiness; lowly men have either a mortal misery or a miserable mortality; and the demons in the middle have either a miserable eternity or an eternal misery. For even by those five things which he put in the definition of demons he did not show them to be in the middle, as he promised; for he said that they have three things in common with us — that they are animals in kind, rational in mind, subject to passion in soul — one in common with the gods, that they are eternal in time, and one proper to themselves, that they are aerial in body. How, then, are they in the middle, when they have one thing with the highest and three with the lowest? Who does not see how far, the middle position abandoned, they are inclined and pressed down to the lowest? But plainly even there they can be found to be in the middle in this way: that they have one thing proper to themselves, which is the aerial body, as those at the highest and lowest have each their own, the gods an ethereal body and men an earthly one; and that two things are common to all, that they are animals in kind and rational in mind. For he himself, when speaking of gods and men, says, “You have two kinds of living beings”; and these men do not usually call the gods anything but rational in mind. Two things remain: that they are subject to passion in soul and eternal in time; of these they have one with the lowest and the other with the highest, so that their middle position, balanced in proportion, is neither raised to the highest nor pressed down to the lowest. But that is the miserable eternity, or eternal misery, of the demons. For he who said “subject to passion in soul” would also have said “miserable,” had he not been ashamed before their worshippers. Moreover, since the world is ruled by the providence of the supreme God, as they themselves admit, and not by chance and rashness, the misery of these beings would never be eternal unless their malice were great. If, then, the happy are rightly called eudaimones, the demons whom these men have placed in the middle between men and gods are not eudaimones. What place, then, is there for good demons, who, above men and below gods, might give help to the one and service to the other? For if they are good and eternal, they are certainly also happy. But eternal happiness does not allow them to be in the middle, because it greatly likens them to the gods and greatly separates them from men. Hence these men will try in vain to show how good demons, if they are both immortal and happy, are rightly placed in the middle between the immortal and happy gods and mortal and wretched men. For since they have both things in common with the gods, namely happiness and immortality, and neither in common with men, who are wretched and mortal, how are they not rather far from men and joined to the gods, instead of being placed in the middle between both? For they would be in the middle only if they too had two things of their own, in common not with both of either party, but with one of each; as man is something in the middle, but between beasts and angels. Since a beast is an irrational and mortal animal, and an angel a rational and immortal one, man is in the middle, lower than the angels and higher than the beasts, having mortality in common with the beasts and reason with the angels: a rational mortal animal. So when we seek a middle between the happy immortals and the wretched mortals, we must find something that is either mortal and happy or immortal and wretched.

### Translation notes

- Quotes Apuleius, On the God of Socrates 4. The Greek eudaimones means “happy,” literally “having a good daemon.”

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.13 (CSEL 40:425–428; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-13).

## City of God 9.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-14
- Source: CSEL 40:428
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine asks why, if some wise mortals are happy, they should not be the mediators, since the happy envy no one and would help others to happiness.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. An homines, cum sint mortales, possint uera beatitudine esse felices. Utrum et beatus et mortalis homo esse possit, magna est inter homines quaestio. Quidam enim condicionem suam humilius inspexerunt negaueruntque hominem capacem esse posse beatitudinis, quamdiu mortaliter uiuit. Quidam uero extulerunt se et ausi sunt dicere sapientiae compotes beatos esse posse mortales. Quod si ita est, quur non ipsi potius medii constituuntur inter mortales miseros et inmortales beatos, beatitudinem habentes cum inmortalibus beatis; mortalitatem cum mortalibus miseris? Profecto enim, si beati sunt, inuident nemini (nam quid miserius inuidentia?) et ideo mortalibus miseris, quantum possunt, ad consequendam beatitudinem consulunt, ut etiam inmortales ualeant esse post mortem et angelis inmortalibus beatisque coniungi.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. Whether men, since they are mortal, can be happy with true happiness.

Whether man can be both happy and mortal is a great question among men. For some have looked on their condition more humbly and denied that man can be capable of happiness as long as he lives mortally. But others have exalted themselves and dared to say that mortals who possess wisdom can be happy. If this is so, why are not these men rather placed in the middle between wretched mortals and happy immortals, having happiness in common with the happy immortals and mortality in common with the wretched mortals? For surely, if they are happy, they envy no one (for what is more wretched than envy?), and therefore they counsel wretched mortals as much as they can toward attaining happiness, so that after death they too may be able to be immortal and be joined to the immortal and happy angels.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.14 (CSEL 40:428; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-14).

## City of God 9.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-15
- Source: CSEL 40:428–431
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine presents Christ, mortal for a time yet ever happy, as the one true mediator who brings men to happy immortality, against the immortal and wretched demons who separate them from God.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. De mediatore Dei et hominum, homine Christo Iesu. Si autem, quod multo credibilius et probabilius disputatur, omnes homines, quamdiu mortales sunt, etiam miseri sint necesse est, quaerendus est medius, qui non solum homo, uerum etiam deus sit, ut homines ex mortali miseria ad beatam inmortalitatem huius medii beata mortalitas interueniendo perducat; quem neque non fieri mortalem oportebat, neque permanere mortalem. Mortalis quippe factus est non infirmata Verbi diuinitate, sed carnis infirmitate suscepta; non autem permansit in ipsa carne mortalis, quam resuscitauit a mortuis; quoniam ipse est fructus mediationis eius, ut nec ipsi, propter quos liberandos mediator effectus est, in perpetua uel carnis morte remanerent. Proinde mediatorem inter nos et Deum et mortalitatem habere oportuit transeuntem et beatitudinem permanentem, ut per id, quod transit, congrueret morituris, et ad id, quod permanet, transferret ex mortuis. Boni igitur angeli inter miseros mortales et beatos inmortales medii esse non possunt, quia ipsi quoque et beati et inmortales sunt; possunt autem medii esse angeli mali, quia inmortales sunt cum illis, miseri cum istis. His contrarius est mediator bonus, qui aduersus eorum inmortalitatem et miseriam et mortalis esse ad tempus uoluit, et beatus in aeternitate persistere potuit; ac sic eos et inmortales superbos et miseros noxios, ne inmortalitatis iactantia seducerent ad miseriam, et suae mortis humilitate et suae beatitudinis benignitate destruxit in eis, quorum corda per suam fidem mundans ab illorum inmundissima dominatione liberauit. Homo itaque mortalis et miser longe seiunctus ab inmortalibus et beatis quid eligat medium, per quod inmortalitati et beatitudini copuletur? Quod possit delectare in daemonum inmortalitate, miserum est; quod posset offendere in Christi mortalitate, iam non est. Ibi ergo cauenda est miseria sempiterna; hic mors timenda non est, quae non esse potuit sempiterna, et beatitudo amanda est sempiterna. Ad hoc se quippe interponit medius inmortalis et miser, ut ad inmortalitatem beatam transire non sinat, quoniam persistit quod inpedit, id est ipsa miseria; ad hoc se autem interposuit mortalis et beatus, ut mortalitate transacta et ex mortuis faceret inmortales, quod in se resurgendo monstrauit, et ex miseris beatos, unde numquam ipse discessit. Alius est ergo medius malus, qui separat amicos; alius bonus, qui reconciliat inimicos. Et ideo multi sunt medii separatores, quia multitudo, quae beata est, unius Dei participatione fit beata; cuius participationis priuatione misera multitudo malorum angelorum, quae se obponit potius ad inpedimentum, quam interponit ad beatitudinis adiutorium, etiam ipsa multitudine obstrepit quodam modo, ne possit ad illud unum beatificum perueniri, ad quod ut perduceremur, non multis, sed uno mediatore opus erat, et hoc eo ipso, cuius participatione simus beati, hoc est Verbo Dei non facto, per quod facta sunt omnia. Nec tamen ob hoc mediator est, quia Verbum; maxime quippe inmortale et maxime beatum Verbum longe est a mortalibus miseris; sed mediator, per quod homo, eo ipso utique ostendens ad illud non solum beatum, uerum etiam beatificum bonum non oportere quaeri alios mediatores, per quos arbitremur nobis peruentionis gradus esse moliendos, quia beatus et beatificus Deus factus particeps humanitatis nostrae conpendium praebuit participandae diuinitatis suae. Neque enim nos a mortalitate et miseria liberans ad angelos inmortales beatosque ita perducit, ut eorum participatione etiam nos inmortales et beati simus; sed ad illam Trinitatem, cuius et angeli participatione beati sunt. Ideo quando in forma serui, ut mediator esset, infra angelos esse uoluit, in forma Dei supra angelos mansit; idem in inferioribus uia uitae, qui in superioribus uita.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. On the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

But if, as is argued much more credibly and probably, all men, as long as they are mortal, must also be wretched, then we must seek a mediator who is not only man but also God, so that the happy mortality of this mediator, by intervening, may bring men from mortal misery to happy immortality. It was necessary that he should both become mortal and not remain mortal. He became mortal, not by the weakening of the divinity of the Word, but by taking on the weakness of the flesh; but he did not remain mortal in that flesh, which he raised from the dead. For this is the very fruit of his mediation: that those for whose deliverance he became mediator should not themselves remain in perpetual death, even of the flesh. Therefore the mediator between us and God had to have both a passing mortality and an abiding happiness, so that by what passes he might be fitted to those who must die, and might carry them over from the dead to what abides. The good angels, then, cannot be in the middle between wretched mortals and happy immortals, because they too are both happy and immortal; but the bad angels can be in the middle, because they are immortal with the one and wretched with the other. Contrary to these is the good mediator, who, against their immortality and misery, willed to be mortal for a time and was able to remain happy in eternity. And so, lest those proud immortals and harmful wretches should lead men astray to misery by boasting of immortality, he destroyed them, by the humility of his death and the kindness of his happiness, in those whose hearts he cleansed through faith in him and freed from their most unclean dominion. What mediator, then, should mortal and wretched man, far separated from the immortal and happy, choose, through whom he may be joined to immortality and happiness? What might delight in the immortality of the demons is wretched; what might offend in the mortality of Christ no longer exists. There, then, eternal misery is to be avoided; here death is not to be feared, which could not be eternal, and eternal happiness is to be loved. For the immortal and wretched mediator interposes himself for this purpose, that he may not let us pass over to happy immortality, since what hinders, namely misery itself, persists; but the mortal and happy mediator interposed himself for this purpose, that, when mortality had passed, he might make immortals out of the dead, as he showed in himself by rising again, and happy beings out of the wretched, from which state he himself never departed. There is, then, one bad mediator, who separates friends, and another good one, who reconciles enemies. And there are many separating mediators, because the multitude which is happy is made happy by participation in the one God. The multitude of evil angels, wretched through being deprived of this participation, sets itself in the way to hinder rather than interposing itself to help toward happiness, and by its very multitude it makes a kind of clamor, so that one cannot come to that one beatifying good. To be brought to it we needed not many mediators but one, and that the very one by participation in whom we are happy, that is, the Word of God, not made, through whom all things were made. Yet he is not the mediator because he is the Word; for the Word, supremely immortal and supremely happy, is far from wretched mortals. He is mediator because he is man, thereby showing that for that good, which is not only happy but beatifying, we must not seek other mediators, through whom we might think we must build steps of approach; for the happy and beatifying God, having become a partaker of our humanity, has given us a short way to partake of his divinity. For in freeing us from mortality and misery he does not lead us to the immortal and happy angels so that by participation in them we too may be immortal and happy, but to that Trinity by participation in which the angels too are happy. Therefore, when in the form of a servant, in order to be mediator, he willed to be below the angels, in the form of God he remained above the angels; the same one being the way of life in the lower realm who is the life in the higher.

### Scripture references

- 1 Tim 2:5: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:6: allusion, high confidence
- Phil 2:7: allusion, high confidence
- Heb 2:9: allusion, medium confidence
- John 1:3: allusion, high confidence
- John 14:6: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The title quotes 1 Tim 2:5. Echoes Phil 2:6–7 (“form of a servant … form of God”), Heb 2:9 (“below the angels”), John 1:3, and John 14:6 (“the way … and the life”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.15 (CSEL 40:428–431; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-15).

## City of God 9.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-16
- Source: CSEL 40:431–434
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine ridicules the claim that gods avoid men to escape contamination, since the supreme God touches wise minds and the sun's rays touch filth without being defiled.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. An rationabiliter Platonici definierint deos caelestes declinantes terrena contagia hominibus non misceri, quibus ad amicitiam deorum daemones suffragentur. Non enim uerum est, quod idem Platonicus ait Platonem dixisse: Nullus Deus miscetur homini; et hoc praecipuum eorum sublimitatis ait esse specimen, quod nulla adtrectatione hominum contaminantur. Ergo daemones contaminari fatetur, et ideo eos, a quibus contaminantur, mundare non possunt omnesque inmundi pariter fiunt, et daemones contrectatione hominum et homines cultu daemonum. Aut si et contrectari miscerique hominibus, nec tamen contaminari daemones possunt, dis profecto meliores sunt, quia illi, si miscerentur, contaminarentur. Nam hoc deorum dicitur esse praecipuum, ut eos sublimiter separatos humana contrectatio contaminare non possit. Deum quidem summum omnium creatorem, quem nos uerum Deum dicimus, sic a Platone praedicari adseuerat, quod ipse sit solus qui non possit penuria sermonis humani quauis oratione uel modice conprehendi; uix autem sapientibus uiris, cum se uigore animi quantum licuit a corpore remouerunt, intellectum huius Dei, id quoque interdum uelut in altissimis tenebris rapidissimo coruscamine lumen candidum intermicare. Si ergo supra omnia uere summus Deus intellegibili et ineffabili quadam praesentia, etsi interdum, etsi tamquam rapidissimo coruscamine lumen candidum intermicans, adest tamen sapientium mentibus, cum se quantum licuit a corpore remouerunt, nec ab eis contaminari potest: quid est quod isti di propterea constituuntur longe in sublimi loco, ne contrectatione contaminentur humana? Quasi uero aliud corpora illa aetheria quam uidere sufficiat, quorum luce terra, quantum sufficit, inlustratur. Porro si non contaminantur sidera, cum uidentur, quos deos omnes uisibiles dicit: nec daemones hominum contaminantur aspectu, quamuis de proximo uideantur. An forte uocibus humanis contaminarentur, qui acie non contaminantur oculorum, et ideo daemones medios habent, per quos eis uoces hominum nuntientur, a quibus longe absunt, ut incontaminatissimi perseuerent? Quid iam de ceteris sensibus dicam? Non enim olfaciendo contaminari uel di possent, si adessent, uel cum adsunt daemones possunt uiuorum corporum uaporibus humanorum, si tantis sacrificiorum cadauerinis non contaminantur nidoribus. In gustandi autem sensu nulla necessitate reficiendae mortalitatis urgentur, ut fame adacti cibos ab hominibus quaerant. Tactus uero in potestate est. Nam licet ab eo potissimum sensu contrectatio dicta uideatur, hactenus tamen, si uellent, miscerentur hominibus, ut uiderent et uiderentur, audirent et audirentur. Tangendi autem quae necessitas? Nam neque homines id concupiscere auderent, cum deorum uel daemonum bonorum conspectu uel conloquio fruerentur; et si in tantum curiositas progrederetur, ut uellet: quonam pacto quispiam posset inuitum tangere deum uel daemonem, qui nisi captum non potest passerem? Videndo igitur uisibusque se praebendo et loquendo et audiendo di corporaliter misceri hominibus possent. Hoc autem modo daemones si miscentur, ut dixi, et non contaminantur, di autem contaminarentur, si miscerentur: incontaminabiles dicunt daemones et contaminabiles deos. Si autem contaminantur et daemones, quid conferunt hominibus ad uitam post mortem beatam, quos contaminati mundare non possunt, ut eos mundos dis incontaminatis possint adiungere, inter quos et illos medii constituti sunt? Aut si hoc eis beneficii non conferunt, quid prodest hominibus daemonum amica mediatio? An ut post mortem non ad deos homines per daemones transeant, sed simul uiuant utrique contaminati ac per hoc neutri beati? Nisi forte quis dicat more spongiarum uel huiusce modi rerum mundare daemones amicos suos, ut tanto ipsi sordidiores fiant, quanto fiunt homines eis uelut tergentibus mundiores. Quod si ita est, contaminatioribus di miscentur daemonibus, qui, ne contaminarentur, hominum propinquitatem contrectationemque uitarunt. An forte di possunt ab hominibus contaminatos mundare daemones, nec ab eis contaminari, et eo modo non possent et homines? Quis talia sentiat, nisi quem fallacissimi daemones deceperunt? Quid quod, si uideri et uidere contaminat, uidentur ab hominibus di, quos uisibiles dicit, clarissima mundi lumina et cetera sidera, tutioresque sunt daemones ab ista hominum contaminatione, qui non possunt uideri, nisi uelint? Aut si non uideri, sed uidere contaminat, negent ab istis clarissimis mundi luminibus, quos deos opinantur, uideri homines, cum radios suos terras usque pertendant. Qui tamen eorum radii per quaeque inmunda diffusi non contaminantur, et di contaminarentur, si hominibus miscerentur, etiamsi esset necessarius in subueniendo contactus? Nam radiis solis et lunae terra contingitur, nec istam contaminat lucem.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. Whether the Platonists reasonably defined that the heavenly gods, shunning earthly contagion, do not mingle with men, whom demons assist toward the friendship of the gods.

For it is not true, what the same Platonist says Plato said: “No god mingles with man”; and he says that this is the chief mark of their exaltation, that they are not contaminated by any contact with men. He admits, then, that demons are contaminated; and therefore they cannot cleanse those by whom they are contaminated, and all become unclean alike, the demons by contact with men and men by the worship of demons. Or if demons can be touched by and mingle with men and yet not be contaminated, they are certainly better than the gods, since the gods would be contaminated if they mingled. For this is said to be the chief thing about the gods, that, being separated on high, human contact cannot contaminate them. He asserts, indeed, that the supreme God, the creator of all, whom we call the true God, is proclaimed by Plato to be the only one who cannot, through the poverty of human speech, be even moderately grasped by any discourse; and that to wise men, when they have removed themselves from the body by the vigor of the mind as far as they could, the understanding of this God comes hardly, and even that at times flashes out like a bright light with a most rapid gleam in the deepest darkness. If, then, the truly supreme God above all things is present, by a certain intelligible and ineffable presence — though only at times, and though like a bright light flashing with a most rapid gleam — to the minds of the wise when they have removed themselves from the body as far as they could, and cannot be contaminated by them, why are these gods placed far off in a lofty place, lest they be contaminated by human contact? As if those ethereal bodies, by whose light the earth is illumined as far as it needs, required anything more than to be seen! Further, if the stars are not contaminated when they are seen, all of whom he calls visible gods, neither are the demons contaminated by the sight of men, even though they are seen from close by. Or perhaps those who are not contaminated by the gaze of eyes would be contaminated by human voices, and therefore they have the demons in the middle, through whom men's voices are reported to them, while they remain far away, so as to continue utterly uncontaminated? What shall I say now of the other senses? For neither could the gods, if they were present, be contaminated by smelling, nor can the demons, when present, be contaminated by the vapors of living human bodies, if they are not contaminated by the great stench of carcasses from the sacrifices. As for the sense of taste, they are pressed by no necessity of refreshing mortality, so as to seek food from men when driven by hunger. And touch is in their power. For though contact seems to be named chiefly from that sense, yet they could mingle with men, if they wished, so far as to see and be seen, to hear and be heard. What necessity is there of touching? For men would not dare to desire it while they enjoyed the sight or conversation of gods or good demons; and if curiosity went so far as to wish it, how could anyone touch a god or demon against his will, when he cannot touch a sparrow unless he has caught it? By seeing, then, and offering themselves to be seen, and by speaking and hearing, the gods could mingle bodily with men. But if the demons mingle in this way, as I said, and are not contaminated, while the gods would be contaminated if they mingled, they call the demons uncontaminable and the gods contaminable. But if the demons too are contaminated, what do they contribute to men for the happy life after death? Being contaminated, they cannot cleanse them so as to join them, cleansed, to the uncontaminated gods, between whom and men they have been placed in the middle. Or if they confer no such benefit on them, what good to men is the friendly mediation of demons? Is it so that after death men may not pass over to the gods through the demons, but that both may live together contaminated, and therefore neither happy? Unless perhaps someone says that the demons cleanse their friends in the manner of sponges or such things, so that they themselves become the dirtier the cleaner men become by their wiping, as it were. If this is so, the gods mingle with demons who are more contaminated, although, to avoid being contaminated, they have shunned nearness and contact with men. Or can the gods perhaps cleanse demons contaminated by men without being contaminated by them, and could they not do the same for men? Who would think such things, unless the most deceitful demons had deceived him? And what of this: if seeing and being seen contaminate, the gods whom he calls visible, “the brightest lights of the world,” and the other stars, are seen by men; and the demons, who cannot be seen unless they wish, are safer from this contamination by men? Or if it is not being seen but seeing that contaminates, let them deny that men are seen by these brightest lights of the world, which they suppose to be gods, although they extend their rays all the way to the earth. Yet their rays, poured over all sorts of unclean things, are not contaminated — and would the gods be contaminated if they mingled with men, even if contact were necessary in helping them? For the earth is touched by the rays of the sun and moon, and it does not contaminate this light.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Symp. 203a (Plato (works)): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Apuleius, On the God of Socrates 3–4, including “No god mingles with man” (Plato, Symposium 203a) and Apuleius' account of Plato's teaching on the ineffable God.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.16 (CSEL 40:431–434; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-16).

## City of God 9.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-17
- Source: CSEL 40:434–435
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues, citing Plotinus' 'flight to the fatherland' by likeness to God, that we need a mediator who is mortal with us yet just and divine — Christ, uncontaminated by the flesh he took.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. Ad consequendam uitam beatam, quae in participatione est summi boni, non tali mediatore indigere hominem qualis est daemon, sed tali qualis est unus Christus. Miror autem plurimum tam doctos homines, qui cuncta corporalia et sensibilia prae incorporalibus et intellegibilibus postponenda iudicauerunt, cum agitur de beata uita, corporalium contrectationum facere mentionem. Ubi est illud Plotini, ubi ait: Fugiendum est igitur ad carissimam patriam, et ibi pater, et ibi omnia. Quae igitur, inquit, classis aut fuga? Similem Deo fieri. Si ergo deo quanto similior, tanto fit quisque propinquior, nulla est ab illo alia longinquitas quam eius dissimilitudo. Incorporali uero illi aeterno et incommutabili tanto est anima hominis dissimilior, quanto rerum temporalium mutabiliumque cupidior. Hoc ut sanetur, quoniam inmortali puritati, quae in summo est, ea quae in imo sunt mortalia et inmunda conuenire non possunt, opus est quidem mediatore; non tamen tali, qui corpus quidem habeat inmortale propinquum summis, animum autem morbidum similem infimis (quo morbo nobis inuideat potius ne sanemur, quam adiuuet ut sanemur); sed tali, qui nobis infimis ex corporis mortalitate coaptatus inmortali spiritus iustitia, per quam non locorum distantia, sed similitudinis excellentia mansit in summis, mundandis liberandisque nobis uere diuinum praebeat adiutorium. Qui profecto incontaminabilis Deus absit ut contaminationem timeret ex homine quo indutus est, aut ex hominibus inter quos in homine conuersatus est. Non enim parua sunt haec interim duo, quae salubriter sua incarnatione monstrauit, nec carne posse contaminari ueram diuinitatem, nec ideo putandos daemones nobis esse meliores, quia non habent carnem. Hic est, sicut eum sancta scriptura praedicat, mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus, de cuius et diuinitate, qua patri est semper aequalis, et humanitate, qua nobis factus est similis, non hic locus est ut conpetenter pro nostra facultate dicamus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. That to obtain the happy life, which consists in participation in the supreme good, man needs not such a mediator as a demon is, but such as Christ alone is.

I am very much surprised that such learned men, who judged that all bodily and sensible things are to be ranked below incorporeal and intelligible things, should mention bodily contacts when the happy life is in question. Where is that saying of Plotinus, when he says: “We must flee, then, to our dearest fatherland, and there is the Father, and there is everything. What, then,” he says, “is the fleet or the flight? To become like God.” If, then, the more like God one becomes, the nearer one comes to him, there is no other distance from him than unlikeness to him. And the soul of man is the more unlike that incorporeal, eternal, and unchangeable being the more eager it is for temporal and changeable things. For this to be healed, since the mortal and unclean things that are at the bottom cannot be fitted to the immortal purity that is at the top, a mediator is indeed needed — yet not such a one as has a body immortal and near to the highest, but a sick mind like the lowest (by which sickness he would rather begrudge our healing than help us to be healed); but such a one as, fitted to us who are lowest by the mortality of his body, and remaining among the highest by the immortal justice of his spirit — not by distance of place but by excellence of likeness — may give truly divine help for cleansing and freeing us. Far be it that he, the God who cannot be contaminated, should fear contamination from the man with whom he was clothed, or from the men among whom he lived as man. For these two things which he showed for our salvation by his incarnation are not small: that true divinity cannot be contaminated by flesh, and that demons are not therefore to be thought better than we are because they do not have flesh. This is, as holy Scripture proclaims him, “the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” of whose divinity, by which he is always equal to the Father, and humanity, by which he became like us, this is not the place to speak adequately, according to our ability.

### Scripture references

- 1 Tim 2:5: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:6: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plotinus, Enn. 1.6.8; 1.2.3 (Plotinus, Enneads): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Plotinus, Enneads 1.6.8 (the flight to the fatherland) and 1.2.3 (“to become like God”); and 1 Tim 2:5. The divinity “equal to the Father” and humanity “like us” echo Phil 2:6–7.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.17 (CSEL 40:434–435; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-17).

## City of God 9.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-18
- Source: CSEL 40:435–436
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that the demons' 'way' of bodily heights leads away from God, whereas the true way is spiritual likeness, by which the uncontaminable God cleanses men.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. Quod fallacia daemonum, dum sua intercessione uiam spondet ad Deum, hoc adnitatur, ut homines a uia ueritatis auertat. Falsi autem illi fallacesque mediatores daemones, qui, cum per spiritus inmunditiam miseri ac maligni multis effectibus clareant, per corporalium tamen locorum interualla et per aeriorum corporum leuitatem a prouectu animorum nos auocare adque auertere moliuntur, non uiam praebent ad Deum, sed, ne uia teneatur, inpediunt. Quando quidem et in ipsa uia corporali (quae falsissima est et plenissima erroris, qua non iter agit iustitia; quoniam non per corporalem altitudinem, sed per spiritalem, hoc est incorporalem, similitudinem ad Deum debemus ascendere) — in ipsa tamen uia corporali, quam daemonum amici per elementorum gradus ordinant inter aetherios deos et terrenos homines aeriis daemonibus mediis constitutis, hoc deos opinantur habere praecipuum, ut propter hoc interuallum locorum contrectatione non contaminentur humana. Ita daemones contaminari potius ab hominibus, quam homines mundari a daemonibus credunt, et deos ipsos contaminari potuisse, nisi loci altitudine munirentur. Quis tam infelix est, ut ista uia mundari se existimet, ubi homines contaminantes, daemones contaminati, di contaminabiles praedicantur, et non potius eligat uiam, ubi contaminantes magis daemones euitentur et ab incontaminabili Deo ad ineundam societatem incontaminatorum angelorum homines a contaminatione mundentur?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. That the deceit of demons, while it promises a way to God by their intercession, strives to turn men from the way of truth.

But those false and deceitful mediators, the demons, who, wretched and malignant through uncleanness of spirit, are yet renowned for many effects, try, by the intervals of bodily places and the lightness of their aerial bodies, to call us away and turn us aside from the progress of our souls. They do not provide a way to God, but hinder us from holding to the way. For even on that bodily way itself — which is most false and full of error, on which justice does not travel, since we must ascend to God not by bodily height but by spiritual, that is, incorporeal, likeness — even on that bodily way, which the friends of demons arrange by the grades of the elements, with aerial demons placed in the middle between ethereal gods and earthly men, they suppose that the gods have this chief privilege, that because of this interval of places they are not contaminated by human contact. So they believe that demons are contaminated by men rather than men cleansed by demons, and that the gods themselves could have been contaminated had they not been protected by the height of their place. Who is so unhappy as to think he is cleansed on this way, where men are proclaimed as contaminating, demons as contaminated, and gods as contaminable, and does not rather choose the way where the demons, who contaminate more, are avoided, and men are cleansed from contamination by the God who cannot be contaminated, so as to enter into fellowship with the uncontaminated angels?

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.18 (CSEL 40:435–436; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-18).

## City of God 9.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-19
- Source: CSEL 40:436–437
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine notes that Scripture and common usage speak of good and bad angels but never of good demons, so he will use the name 'angels' for the good spirits.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. Quod appellatio daemonum iam nec aput cultores eorum adsumatur in significationem alicuius boni. Sed ne de uerbis etiam nos certare uideamur, quoniam nonnulli istorum, ut ita dixerim, daemonicolarum, in quibus et Labeo est, eosdem perhibent ab aliis angelos dici, quos ipsi daemones nuncupant, iam mihi de bonis angelis aliquid uideo disserendum, quos isti esse non negant, sed eos bonos daemones uocare quam angelos malunt. Nos autem, sicut scriptura loquitur, secundum quam Christiani sumus, angelos quidem partim bonos, partim malos, numquam uero bonos daemones legimus; sed ubicumque illarum litterarum hoc nomen positum reperitur, siue daemones, siue daemonia dicantur, non nisi maligni significantur spiritus. Et hanc loquendi consuetudinem in tantum populi usquequaque secuti sunt, ut eorum etiam, qui pagani appellantur et deos multos ac daemones colendos esse contendunt, nullus fere sit tam litteratus et doctus, qui audeat in laude uel seruo suo dicere: Daemonem habes; sed quilibet hoc dicere uoluerit, non se aliter accipi, quam maledicere uoluisse, dubitare non possit. Quae igitur nos causa conpellit, ut post offensionem aurium tam multarum, ut iam paene sint omnium, quae hoc uerbum non nisi in malam partem audire consuerunt, quod diximus cogamur exponere, cum possimus angelorum nomine adhibito eandem offensionem, quae nomine daemonum fieri poterat, euitare?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. That the name of demons is no longer taken, even among their worshippers, to mean anything good.

But lest we too seem to be arguing about words, since some of these demon-worshippers, if I may so call them — among whom is Labeo — say that the same beings whom they call demons are called angels by others, I see that I must now discuss something about the good angels, whose existence these men do not deny, but whom they prefer to call good demons rather than angels. But we, as the Scripture speaks, according to which we are Christians, read of angels, some good and some bad, but never of good demons. Wherever this name is found in those writings, whether they are called daemones or daemonia, only malignant spirits are meant. And the peoples have everywhere followed this usage of speech so far that, even among those who are called pagans and contend that many gods and demons are to be worshipped, there is hardly anyone so lettered and learned that he would dare to say by way of praise, even to his slave, “You have a demon”; but whoever might wish to say this could not doubt that he would be understood only as meaning to curse. What reason, then, compels us, after offending so many ears — now almost all ears — which are accustomed to hear this word only in a bad sense, to be forced to explain what we have said, when by using the name of angels we can avoid the offense that could be caused by the name of demons?

### Translation notes

- On Labeo, see 2.11 and 8.13.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.19 (CSEL 40:436–437; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-8/#p-9-19).

## City of God 9.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-20/#p-9-20
- Source: CSEL 40:437–438
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that 'demon' derives from knowledge, and that knowledge without love puffs up, making demons proud; against their pride stands the humility of God in Christ.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. De qualitate scientiae, quae daemones superbos facit. Quamquam etiam ipsa origo huius nominis, si diuinos intueamur libros, aliquid adfert cognitione dignissimum. Daemones enim dicuntur (quoniam uocabulum Graecum est) ob scientiam nominati. Apostolus autem spiritu sancto locutus ait: Scientia inflat, caritas uero aedificat; quod recte aliter non intellegitur, nisi scientiam tunc prodesse, cum caritas inest; sine hac autem inflare, id est in superbiam inanissimae quasi uentositatis extollere. Est ergo in daemonibus scientia sine caritate, et ideo tam inflati, hoc est tam superbi sunt, ut honores diuinos et religionis seruitutem, quam uero Deo deberi sciunt, sibi satis egerint exhiberi, et quantum possunt aput quos possunt adhuc agant. Contra superbiam porro daemonum, qua pro meritis possidebatur genus humanum, Dei humilitas, quae in Christo apparuit, quantam uirtutem habeat, animae hominum nesciunt inmunditia elationis inflatae, daemonibus similes, non scientia sed superbia.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. On the quality of the knowledge that makes demons proud.

Yet even the very origin of this name, if we look at the divine books, offers something most worthy of knowing. For daemones (since the word is Greek) are said to be named from knowledge. But the apostle, speaking by the Holy Spirit, says: “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” This is rightly understood in no other way than that knowledge is profitable when love is present, but without love it puffs up, that is, lifts up into the pride of a most empty windiness, as it were. In demons, then, there is knowledge without love; and therefore they are so puffed up, that is, so proud, that they have striven hard to have divine honors and the service of religion, which they know to be due to the true God, paid to themselves, and still strive for it as far as they can and with whom they can. Against the pride of the demons, by which the human race was deservedly possessed, the humility of God which appeared in Christ has great power — how great, the souls of men do not know who are unclean with the swelling of self-exaltation, like demons not in knowledge but in pride.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 8:1: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Crat. 398b (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes 1 Cor 8:1. The derivation of daimōn from daēmōn, “knowing,” is from Plato, Cratylus 398b.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.20 (CSEL 40:437–438; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-20/#p-9-20).

## City of God 9.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-20/#p-9-21
- Source: CSEL 40:438–439
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that Christ made himself known to the demons not as eternal light but by signs of power, enough to terrify them, and that Satan tempted him because he was not sure who he was.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. Ad quem modum Dominus uoluerit daemonibus innotescere. Ipsi autem daemones etiam hoc ita sciunt, ut eidem Domino infirmitate carnis induto dixerint: Quid nobis et tibi, Iesu Nazarene? Venisti perdere nos? Clarum est in his uerbis, quod in eis et tanta scientia erat, et caritas non erat. Poenam suam quippe formidabant ab illo, non in illo iustitiam diligebant. Tantum uero eis innotuit, quantum uoluit; tantum autem uoluit, quantum oportuit. Sed innotuit non sicut angelis sanctis, qui eius, secundum id quod Dei Verbum est, participata aeternitate perfruuntur, sed sicut eis terrendis innotescendum fuit, ex quorum tyrannica quodam modo potestate fuerat liberaturus praedestinatos in suum regnum et gloriam semper ueracem et ueraciter sempiternam. Innotuit ergo daemonibus non per id, quod est uita aeterna et lumen incommutabile, quod inluminat pios, cui uidendo per fidem, quae in illo est, corda mundantur, sed per quaedam temporalia suae uirtutis effecta et occultissimae signa praesentiae, quae angelicis sensibus etiam malignorum spirituum potius quam infirmitati hominum possint esse conspicua. Denique quando ea paululum subprimenda iudicauit et aliquanto altius latuit, dubitauit de illo daemonum princeps eumque tentauit, an Christus esset explorans, quantum se tentari ipse permisit, ut hominem, quem gerebat, ad nostrae imitationis temperaret exemplum. Post illam uero tentationem, cum angeli, sicut scriptum est, ministrarent ei, boni utique et sancti ac per hoc spiritibus inmundis metuendi et tremendi, magis magisque innotescebat daemonibus quantus esset, ut ei iubenti, quamuis in illo contemtibilis uideretur carnis infirmitas, resistere nullus auderet.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. In what way the Lord willed to become known to the demons.

The demons themselves know even this, so that they said to that same Lord when he was clothed in the weakness of the flesh: “What have we to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us?” It is clear in these words that there was in them both great knowledge and no love. For they dreaded their punishment from him; they did not love the justice in him. He became known to them as much as he willed; and he willed as much as was fitting. But he became known not as to the holy angels, who enjoy his eternity, in that he is the Word of God, by participation in it; but as he had to become known to those who were to be terrified, from whose tyrannical power, as it were, he was going to free those predestined to his kingdom and glory, which is ever true and truly everlasting. He became known to the demons, then, not through that which is eternal life and the unchangeable light that enlightens the devout, by seeing which, through faith in him, hearts are cleansed; but through certain temporal effects of his power and signs of his most hidden presence, which could be more visible to the angelic senses even of malignant spirits than to the weakness of men. Finally, when he judged that these should be suppressed a little and he was hidden somewhat more deeply, the prince of the demons doubted about him and tempted him, trying to find out whether he was the Christ, as far as he himself allowed himself to be tempted, in order to shape the manhood he bore as an example for our imitation. But after that temptation, when angels, as it is written, ministered to him — good and holy angels, and therefore to be feared and dreaded by unclean spirits — it became more and more known to the demons how great he was, so that no one dared to resist his command, although the weakness of the flesh seemed contemptible in him.

### Scripture references

- Mark 1:24: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 4:1: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 4:11: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotes Mark 1:24 (Luke 4:34); alludes to the temptation and the angels' ministry in Matt 4:1–11.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.21 (CSEL 40:438–439; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-20/#p-9-21).

## City of God 9.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-20/#p-9-22
- Source: CSEL 40:439–440
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine contrasts the demons' conjectural knowledge of temporal things with the angels' sure knowledge of all things in the Word of God, whom they enjoy in love.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. Quid intersit inter scientiam sanctorum angelorum et scientiam daemonum. His igitur angelis bonis omnis corporalium temporaliumque rerum scientia, qua inflantur daemones, uilis est: non quod earum ignari sint, sed quod illis Dei, qua sanctificantur, caritas cara est, prae cuius non tantum incorporali, uerum etiam incommutabili et ineffabili pulchritudine, cuius sancto amore inardescunt, omnia, quae infra sunt et, quod illud est, non sunt seque ipsos inter illa contemnunt, ut ex toto, quod boni sunt, eo bono, ex quo boni sunt, perfruantur. Et ideo certius etiam temporalia et mutabilia ista nouerunt, quia eorum principales causas in Verbo Dei conspiciunt, per quod factus est mundus; quibus causis quaedam probantur, quaedam reprobantur, cuncta ordinantur. Daemones autem non aeternas temporum causas et quodam modo cardinales in Dei sapientia contemplantur, sed quorundam signorum nobis occultorum maiore experientia multo plura quam homines futura prospiciunt; dispositiones quoque suas aliquando praenuntiant. Denique saepe isti, numquam illi omnino falluntur. Aliud est enim temporalibus temporalia et mutabilibus mutabilia coniectare eisque temporalem et mutabilem modum suae uoluntatis et facultatis inserere, quod daemonibus certa ratione permissum est; aliud autem in aeternis adque incommutabilibus Dei legibus, quae in eius sapientia uiuunt, mutationes temporum praeuidere Deique uoluntatem, quae tam certissima quam potentissima est omnium, spiritus eius participatione cognoscere; quod sanctis angelis recta discretione donatum est. Itaque non solum aeterni, uerum etiam beati sunt. Bonum autem, quo beati sunt, Deus illis est, a quo creati sunt. Illius quippe indeclinabiliter participatione et contemplatione perfruuntur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. What is the difference between the knowledge of the holy angels and the knowledge of the demons.

To these good angels, then, all the knowledge of bodily and temporal things by which the demons are puffed up is of little worth — not because they are ignorant of such things, but because the love of God, by which they are sanctified, is dear to them. In comparison with his beauty, which is not only incorporeal but also unchangeable and ineffable, and with holy love for which they burn, they despise all things that are beneath it and are not what it is, and themselves among them, so that with all the good that they are, they may enjoy that good from which they are good. And therefore they know even these temporal and changeable things more surely, because they behold their principal causes in the Word of God, through whom the world was made — causes by which some things are approved, some rejected, and all set in order. But the demons do not contemplate the eternal causes of times, the hinges, as it were, in the wisdom of God; but by greater experience of certain signs hidden from us they foresee many more future things than men do; and sometimes they also announce beforehand what they themselves intend to do. In short, these are often deceived, those never at all. For it is one thing to conjecture temporal things from temporal things and changeable from changeable, and to insert into them the temporal and changeable measure of their own will and ability, which is allowed to the demons within a fixed limit; it is another thing to foresee the changes of times in the eternal and unchangeable laws of God, which live in his wisdom, and to know the will of God, which is the most certain and most powerful of all, by participation in his Spirit — which is given to the holy angels by a right discernment. And so they are not only eternal but also happy. And the good by which they are happy is God, by whom they were created. For they enjoy him by unfailing participation and contemplation.

### Scripture references

- John 1:3: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- “The Word of God, through whom the world was made” echoes John 1:3, 10.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.22 (CSEL 40:439–440; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-20/#p-9-22).

## City of God 9.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-20/#p-9-23
- Source: CSEL 40:440–444
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine allows the Platonists to call the blessed immortals 'gods' as Scripture calls angels and even men gods, but insists that such beings are not mediators and want worship given only to the one God.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. Nomen deorum falso adscribi dis gentium, quod tamen et angelis sanctis et hominibus iustis ex diuinarum scripturarum auctoritate commune est. Hos si Platonici malunt deos quam daemones dicere eisque adnumerare, quos a summo Deo conditos deos scribit eorum auctor et magister Plato: dicant quod uolunt; non enim cum eis de uerborum controuersia laborandum est. Si enim sic inmortales, ut tamen a summo Deo factos, et si non per se ipsos, sed ei, a quo facti sunt, adhaerendo beatos esse dicunt: hoc dicunt quod dicimus, quolibet eos nomine appellent. Hanc autem Platonicorum esse sententiam, siue omnium siue meliorum, in eorum litteris inueniri potest. Nam et de ipso nomine, quod huius modi inmortalem beatamque creaturam deos appellant, ideo inter nos et ipsos paene nulla dissensio est, quia et in nostris sacris litteris legitur: Deus deorum dominus locutus est, et alibi: Confitemini deo deorum, et alibi: Rex magnus super omnes deos. Illud autem ubi scriptum est: Terribilis est super omnes deos, quur dictum sit, deinceps ostenditur. Sequitur enim: Quoniam omnes di gentium daemonia, Dominus autem caelos fecit. Super omnes ergo deos dixit, sed gentium, id est quos gentes pro dis habent, quae sunt daemonia; ideo terribilis, sub quo terrore Domino dicebant: Venisti perdere nos? Illud uero, ubi dicitur: Deus deorum, non potest intellegi deus daemoniorum; et rex magnus super omnes deos absit ut dicatur rex magnus super omnia daemonia. Sed homines quoque in populo Dei eadem scriptura deos appellat. Ego, inquit, dixi, di estis et filii Excelsi omnes. Potest itaque intellegi horum deorum deus, qui dictus est deus deorum, et super hos deos rex magnus, qui dictus est rex magnus super omnes deos. Verum tamen cum a nobis quaeritur: si homines dicti sunt di, quod in populo Dei sunt, quem per angelos uel per homines adloquitur Deus, quanto magis inmortales eo nomine digni sunt, qui ea fruuntur beatitudine, ad quam Deum colendo cupiunt homines peruenire: quid respondebimus nisi non frustra in scripturis sanctis expressius homines nuncupatos deos, quam illos inmortales et beatos, quibus nos aequales futuros in resurrectione promittitur, ne scilicet propter illorum excellentiam aliquem eorum nobis constituere deum infidelis auderet infirmitas? Quod in homine facile est euitare. Et euidentius dici debuerunt homines di in populo Dei, ut certi ac fidentes fierent eum esse Deum suum, qui dictus est deus deorum; quia etsi appellentur di inmortales illi et beati, qui in caelis sunt, non tamen dicti sunt di deorum, id est di hominum in populo Dei constitutorum, quibus dictum est: Ego dixi, di estis et filii Excelsi omnes. Hinc est quod ait apostolus: Etsi sunt qui dicuntur di, siue in caelo siue in terra, sicuti sunt di multi et domini multi: nobis tamen unus Deus Pater, ex quo omnia et nos in ipso, et unus Dominus Iesus Christus, per quem omnia et nos per ipsum. Non multum ergo de nomine disceptandum est, cum res ipsa ita clareat, ut ab scrupulo dubitationis aliena sit. Illud uero, quod nos ex eorum inmortalium beatorum numero missos esse angelos dicimus, qui Dei uoluntatem hominibus adnuntiarent, illis autem non placet, quia hoc ministerium non per illos, quos deos appellant, id est inmortales et beatos, sed per daemones fieri credunt, quos inmortales tantum, non etiam beatos audent dicere, aut certe ita inmortales et beatos, ut tamen daemones bonos, non deos sublimiter conlocatos et ab humana contrectatione semotos, quamuis nominis controuersia uideatur, tamen ita detestabile est nomen daemonum, ut hoc modis omnibus a sanctis angelis nos remouere debeamus. Nunc ergo ita liber iste claudatur, ut sciamus inmortales et beatos, quodlibet uocentur, qui tamen facti et creati sunt, medios non esse ad inmortalem beatitudinem perducendis mortalibus miseris, a quibus utraque differentia separantur. Qui autem medii sunt communem habendo inmortalitatem cum superioribus, miseriam cum inferioribus, quoniam merito malitiae miseri sunt, beatitudinem, quam non habent, inuidere nobis possunt potius quam praebere. Unde nihil habent amici daemonum quod nobis dignum adferant, quur eos tamquam adiutores colere debeamus, quos potius ut deceptores uitare debemus. Quos autem bonos et ideo non solum inmortales, uerum etiam beatos deorum nomine sacris et sacrificiis propter uitam beatam post mortem adipiscendam colendos putant, qualescumque illi sint et quolibet uocabulo digni sint, non eos uelle per tale religionis obsequium nisi unum Deum coli, a quo creati et cuius participatione beati sunt, adiuuante ipso in sequenti libro diligentius disseremus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. That the name of gods is falsely ascribed to the gods of the nations, though by the authority of the divine Scriptures it is common to the holy angels and to just men.

If the Platonists prefer to call these beings gods rather than demons, and to count them among those whom their founder and teacher Plato writes were created as gods by the supreme God, let them say what they like; for we need not labor over a controversy about words with them. For if they say that they are immortal, yet made by the supreme God, and happy not through themselves but by cleaving to him by whom they were made, they say what we say, whatever name they call them by. That this is the opinion of the Platonists, whether of all or of the better ones, can be found in their writings. And as to the name itself — that they call this kind of immortal and happy creature gods — there is almost no disagreement between us, because in our sacred writings too we read: “The God of gods, the Lord, has spoken”; and elsewhere: “Give praise to the God of gods”; and elsewhere: “A great king above all gods.” But where it is written, “He is terrible above all gods,” why it was said is shown next. For it follows: “For all the gods of the nations are demons, but the Lord made the heavens.” So he said “above all gods,” but those of the nations, that is, those whom the nations hold as gods, which are demons; therefore “terrible,” and under this terror they said to the Lord, “Have you come to destroy us?” But where it is said, “the God of gods,” it cannot be understood as the god of demons; and far be it that “a great king above all gods” should be said to mean a great king above all demons. But the same Scripture also calls men among the people of God gods: “I have said,” it says, “you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High.” So he who is called the God of gods can be understood to be the God of these gods, and he who is called a great king above all gods the great king above these gods. Yet when we are asked: if men have been called gods because they are among the people of God, whom God addresses through angels or men, how much more worthy of this name are the immortals who enjoy that happiness to which men desire to come by worshipping God? What shall we answer except that it is not without reason that in the holy Scriptures men are more expressly called gods than those immortal and happy beings, to whom we are promised to be equal in the resurrection — namely, lest unbelieving weakness should dare, because of their excellence, to set up any of them as a god for us? This is easy to avoid in the case of a man. And men among the people of God had to be called gods more plainly, so that they might be sure and confident that he is their God who is called the God of gods; because, even though those immortal and happy beings in heaven may be called gods, they have not been called gods of gods, that is, gods of the men established among the people of God, to whom it was said, “I have said, you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High.” Hence the apostle says: “Though there are those who are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him.” We need not argue much, then, about the name, since the thing itself is so clear as to be free from any scruple of doubt. But as to what we say — that angels were sent from the number of those immortal and happy beings to announce the will of God to men — this does not please them, because they believe that this ministry is carried out not through those whom they call gods, that is, the immortal and happy, but through demons, whom they dare to call only immortal, not also happy; or at least immortal and happy in such a way that they are good demons, not gods placed on high and removed from human contact. Though this may seem a controversy about a name, yet the name of demons is so detestable that we ought in every way to keep it away from the holy angels. Now, then, let this book be closed in such a way that we know that immortal and happy beings, whatever they are called, who were nevertheless made and created, are not mediators for bringing wretched mortals to immortal happiness, since they are separated from them by both differences. But those who are in the middle, having immortality in common with those above and misery with those below, since they are wretched through the guilt of their malice, can envy us the happiness which they do not have rather than provide it. Hence the friends of demons have nothing worth offering us why we should worship as helpers those whom we ought rather to avoid as deceivers. But as for those whom they think good, and therefore not only immortal but also happy, and to be worshipped under the name of gods with rites and sacrifices for the sake of obtaining a happy life after death — whatever they are, and whatever name they deserve — that they do not want anyone to be worshipped by such religious service except the one God, by whom they were created and by participation in whom they are happy, we shall, with his help, discuss more carefully in the following book.

### Scripture references

- Ps 50:1 (49:1 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 136:2 (135:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 95:3 (94:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 96:4 (95:4 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 96:5 (95:5 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Mark 1:24: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 82:6 (81:6 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Luke 20:36: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 8:5: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 8:6: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Tim. 40d–41d (Plato (works)): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Scripture: Ps 50:1 (49:1 LXX); Ps 136:2 (135:2 LXX); Ps 95:3 (94:3 LXX); Ps 96:4–5 (95:4–5 LXX), with “all the gods of the nations are demons” in the LXX/Latin wording; Mark 1:24; Ps 82:6 (81:6 LXX); Luke 20:36 (equal to the angels); 1 Cor 8:5–6. The Platonist “created gods” are in Plato, Timaeus 40d–41d.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 9.23 (CSEL 40:440–444; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-20/#p-9-23).

## City of God 10.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-20/#p-10-1
- Source: CSEL 40:444–448
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine opens Book 10 by asking whether the blessed immortals wish worship and sacrifice for themselves or only for God, and defines the worship owed to God alone (latreia).

### Latin text

CAPUT I. Veram beatitudinem siue angelis siue hominibus per unum Deum tribui etiam Platonicos definisse: sed utrum hi, quos ob hoc ipsum colendos putant, uni tantum Deo, an etiam sibi sacrificari uelint, esse quaerendum. Omnium certa sententia est, qui ratione quoquo modo uti possunt, beatos esse omnes homines uelle. Qui autem sint uel unde fiant dum mortalium quaerit infirmitas, multae magnaeque controuersiae concitatae sunt, in quibus philosophi sua studia et otia contriuerunt, quas in medium adducere adque discutere et longum est et non necessarium. Si enim recolit qui haec legit, quid in libro egerimus octauo in eligendis philosophis, cum quibus haec de beata uita, quae post mortem futura est, quaestio tractaretur, utrum ad eam uni Deo uero, qui etiam effector est deorum, an plurimis dis religione sacrisque seruiendo peruenire possimus: non etiam hic eadem repeti expectat, praesertim cum possit relegendo, si forte oblitus est, adminiculari memoriam. Elegimus enim Platonicos omnium philosophorum merito nobilissimos, propterea quia sapere potuerunt licet inmortalem ac rationalem uel intellectualem hominis animam nisi participato lumine illius Dei, a quo et ipsa et mundus factus est, beatam esse non posse; ita illud, quod omnes homines adpetunt, id est uitam beatam, quemquam isti adsecuturum negant, qui non illi uni optimo, quod est incommutabilis Deus, puritate casti amoris adhaeserit. Sed quia ipsi quoque siue cedentes uanitati errorique populorum siue, ut ait apostolus, euanescentes in cogitationibus suis multos deos colendos ita putauerunt uel putari uoluerunt, ut quidam eorum etiam daemonibus diuinos honores sacrorum et sacrificiorum deferendos esse censerent, quibus iam non parua ex parte respondimus: nunc uidendum ac disserendum est, quantum Deus donat, inmortales ac beati in caelestibus sedibus dominationibus, principatibus potestatibus constituti, quos isti deos et ex quibus quosdam uel bonos daemones uel nobiscum angelos nominant, quo modo credendi sint uelle a nobis religionem pietatemque seruari; hoc est, ut apertius dicam, utrum etiam sibi an tantum Deo suo, qui etiam noster est, placeat eis ut sacra faciamus et sacrificemus, uel aliqua nostra seu nos ipsos religionis ritibus consecremus. Hic est enim diuinitati uel, si expressius dicendum est, deitati debitus cultus, propter quem uno uerbo significandum, quoniam mihi satis idoneum non occurrit Latinum, Graeco ubi necesse est insinuo quid uelim dicere. λατρείαν quippe nostri, ubicumque sanctarum scripturarum positum est, interpretati sunt seruitutem. Sed ea seruitus, quae debetur hominibus, secundum quam praecipit apostolus seruos dominis suis subditos esse debere, alio nomine Graece nuncupari solet; λατρεία uero secundum consuetudinem, qua locuti sunt qui nobis diuina eloquia condiderunt, aut semper aut tam frequenter ut paene semper ea dicitur seruitus, quae pertinet ad colendum Deum. Proinde si tantummodo cultus ipse dicatur, non soli Deo deberi uidetur. Dicimur enim colere etiam homines, quos honorifica uel recordatione uel praesentia frequentamus. Nec solum ea, quibus nos religiosa humilitate subicimus, sed quaedam etiam, quae subiecta sunt nobis, perhibentur coli. Nam ex hoc uerbo et agricolae et coloni et incolae uocantur, et ipsos deos non ob aliud appellant caelicolas, nisi quod caelum colant, non utique uenerando, sed inhabitando, tamquam caeli quosdam colonos; non sicut appellantur coloni, qui condicionem debent genitali solo, propter agriculturam sub dominio possessorum, sed, sicut ait quidam Latini eloquii magnus auctor: Urbs antiqua fuit, Tyrii tenuere coloni. Ab incolendo enim colonos uocauit, non ab agricultura. Hinc et ciuitates a maioribus ciuitatibus uelut populorum examinibus conditae coloniae nuncupantur. Ac per hoc cultum quidem non deberi nisi Deo propria quadam notione uerbi huius omnino uerissimum est; sed quia et aliarum rerum dicitur cultus, ideo Latine uno uerbo significari cultus Deo debitus non potest. Nam et ipsa religio quamuis distinctius non quemlibet, sed Dei cultum significare uideatur (unde isto nomine interpretati sunt nostri eam, quae Graece ϑρησϰεία dicitur): tamen quia Latina loquendi consuetudine, non inperitorum, uerum etiam doctissimorum, et cognationibus humanis adque adfinitatibus et quibusque necessitudinibus dicitur exhibenda religio, non eo uocabulo uitatur ambiguum, cum de cultu deitatis uertitur quaestio, ut fidenter dicere ualeamus religionem non esse nisi cultum Dei, quoniam uidetur hoc uerbum a significanda obseruantia propinquitatis humanae insolenter auferri. Pietas quoque proprie Dei cultus intellegi solet, quam Graeci εὐσέβειαν uocant. Haec tamen et erga parentes officiose haberi dicitur. More autem uulgi hoc nomen etiam in operibus misericordiae frequentatur; quod ideo arbitror euenisse, quia haec fieri praecipue mandat Deus eaque sibi uel pro sacrificiis uel prae sacrificiis placere testatur. Ex qua loquendi consuetudine factum est, ut et Deus ipse dicatur pius; quem sane Graeci nullo suo sermonis usu εὐσεβῆν uocant, quamuis εὐσέβειαν pro misericordia illorum etiam uulgus usurpet. Unde in quibusdam scripturarum locis, ut distinctio certior appareret, non εὐσέβειαν, quod ex bono cultu, sed ϑεοσέβειαν, quod ex Dei cultu conpositum resonat, dicere maluerunt. Utrumlibet autem horum nos uno uerbo enuntiare non possumus. Quae itaque λατρεία Graece nuncupatur et Latine interpretatur seruitus, sed ea qua colimus Deum; uel quae θρησκεία Graece, Latine autem religio dicitur, sed ea quae nobis est erga Deum; uel quam illi εὐσέβειαν, nos uero non uno uerbo exprimere, sed Dei cultum possumus appellare: hanc ei tantum Deo deberi dicimus, qui uerus est Deus facitque suos cultores deos. Quicumque igitur sunt in caelestibus habitationibus inmortales et beati, si nos non amant nec beatos esse nos uolunt, colendi utique non sunt. Si autem amant et beatos uolunt, profecto inde uolunt, unde et ipsi sunt; an aliunde ipsi beati, aliunde nos?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. That even the Platonists have defined true happiness, whether for angels or for men, as given by the one God; but that it must be asked whether those whom they think should be worshipped for this very reason wish sacrifice to be offered only to the one God, or to themselves as well.

It is the settled opinion of all who can use reason in any way that all men wish to be happy. But who are happy, or how they become so, is a question on which, as the weakness of mortals inquires, many great controversies have arisen, in which philosophers have spent their zeal and their leisure; to bring these forward and discuss them would be long and unnecessary. For if the reader recalls what we did in the eighth book in choosing the philosophers with whom to treat this question of the happy life that is to come after death, whether we can reach it by serving with religion and rites the one true God, who is also the maker of the gods, or very many gods, he does not expect the same things to be repeated here, especially since, if he has perhaps forgotten, he can help his memory by rereading. We chose the Platonists, deservedly the most noble of all philosophers, because they were able to perceive that the human soul, though immortal and rational or intellectual, cannot be happy except by participation in the light of that God by whom both it and the world were made; so they deny that anyone will attain what all men seek, that is, the happy life, who does not cleave with the purity of a chaste love to that one supreme good, which is the unchangeable God. But since they too, either yielding to the vanity and error of the peoples or, as the apostle says, becoming futile in their thinking, thought, or wished it to be thought, that many gods should be worshipped, so that some of them even held that divine honors of rites and sacrifices should be paid to demons, to whom we have already replied in no small part: we must now see and discuss, as far as God grants, how we are to believe that the immortal and blessed beings set in the heavenly seats, dominions, principalities, powers, whom these men call gods, and some of whom they call either good demons or, with us, angels, wish religion and piety to be observed by us; that is, to put it more plainly, whether it pleases them that we should perform rites and offer sacrifice, or consecrate some of our possessions or ourselves with religious ceremonies, to them as well, or only to their God, who is also ours. For this is the worship due to divinity or, to speak more precisely, to deity; and to signify it in one word, since no Latin word occurs to me that is suitable enough, I indicate what I mean by a Greek word where necessary. For latreia, wherever it occurs in the holy Scriptures, our translators have rendered “service” [seruitus]. But the service that is due to men, according to which the apostle commands slaves to be subject to their masters, is usually called by another name in Greek; whereas latreia, according to the usage of those who composed the divine oracles for us, always, or so often that it is almost always, means the service that belongs to the worship of God. So if we say only “worship” [cultus], it does not seem to be owed to God alone. For we are said to worship [colere] men too, whom we attend with honor either in remembrance or in their presence. And not only things to which we submit ourselves with religious humility, but some things that are subject to us, are said to be “cultivated” [coli]. For from this word come farmers [agricolae], tenants [coloni], and inhabitants [incolae]; and they call the gods themselves heaven-dwellers [caelicolae] for no other reason than that they “cultivate” heaven, certainly not by venerating it but by inhabiting it, like certain colonists of heaven; not in the sense in which those are called coloni who owe their status to their native soil, for agriculture, under the lordship of the owners, but in the sense in which a great master of Latin eloquence says: “There was an ancient city, held by colonists from Tyre.” For he called them colonists from inhabiting, not from agriculture. Hence also cities founded by greater cities, like swarms of peoples, are called colonies. And so it is entirely true that worship, in a certain proper sense of this word, is owed only to God; but because the worship of other things is also spoken of, the worship owed to God cannot be expressed in Latin by one word. For even the word religion, though it seems to signify more distinctly not any worship at all but the worship of God (which is why our translators have used this word for what is called in Greek thrēskeia), yet because by Latin usage, not only of the unlearned but also of the most learned, religion is said to be shown toward human kinships and relationships by marriage and all ties of obligation, the ambiguity is not avoided by this word when the question concerns the worship of deity, so that we could say with confidence that religion is nothing but the worship of God, since this word seems to be taken, contrary to usage, from its meaning of respect for human relationship. Piety [pietas], too, which the Greeks call eusebeia, is usually understood properly of the worship of God. Yet this is also said to be shown dutifully toward parents. And in common usage this name is often used even of works of mercy; which, I think, came about because God especially commands them to be done and testifies that they please him either as sacrifices or more than sacrifices. From this manner of speaking it has come about that God himself is called pius; whom, of course, the Greeks in no usage of their speech call eusebēs, although their common people also use eusebeia for mercy. Hence in some places of the Scriptures, so that the distinction might appear more certainly, they preferred to say not eusebeia, which is formed from “good worship”, but theosebeia, which is formed from “worship of God”. But we cannot express either of these in one word. That, then, which in Greek is called latreia and in Latin is rendered “service”, but the service by which we worship God; or that which in Greek is called thrēskeia and in Latin religion, but the religion we have toward God; or that which they call eusebeia and we cannot express in one word, but can call the worship of God: this we say is owed only to that God who is the true God and makes his worshippers gods. Whatever immortal and blessed beings there are, then, in the heavenly dwellings, if they do not love us and do not wish us to be happy, they are certainly not to be worshipped. But if they love us and wish us to be happy, they certainly wish us to be happy from the same source from which they are; or are they happy from one source and we from another?

### Scripture references

- Rom 1:21: quotation, high confidence
- Col 1:16: allusion, high confidence
- Eph 6:5: allusion, high confidence
- Hos 6:6: allusion, medium confidence
- Ps 82:6 (81:6 LXX): echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 1.12 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Terms used consistently in Book 10: latreia (Greek λατρεία) “the service/worship owed to God alone”, as distinct from the service owed to human masters (Greek douleia, not named here); sacrificium “sacrifice”; cultus “worship”; religio “religion”; pietas “piety”. The digital text prints the Greek word as “Aatfistav”/“Xatpeia” (a mis-encoding); corrected to λατρείαν/λατρεία. Virgil, Aeneid 1.12.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.1 (CSEL 40:444–448; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-20/#p-10-1).

## City of God 10.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-20/#p-10-2
- Source: CSEL 40:448–449
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine notes that Plotinus, like the Gospel of John, teaches that souls and blessed beings are happy only by the light of God, not their own.

### Latin text

CAPUT II De superna inluminatione quid Plotinus Platonicus senserit. Sed non est nobis ullus cum his excellentioribus philosophis in hac quaestione conflictus. Viderunt enim suisque litteris multis modis copiosissime mandauerunt hinc illos, unde et nos, fieri beatos, obiecto quodam lumine intellegibili, quod Deus est illis et aliud est quam illi, a quo inlustrantur, ut clareant adque eius participatione perfecti beatique subsistant. Saepe multumque Plotinus adserit sensum Platonis explanans, ne illam quidem, quam credunt esse uniuersitatis animam, aliunde beatam esse quam nostram, idque esse lumen quod ipsa non est, sed a quo creata est et quo intellegibiliter inluminante intellegibiliter lucet. Dat etiam similitudinem ad illa incorporea de his caelestibus conspicuis amplisque corporibus, tamquam ille sit sol et ipsa sit luna. Lunam quippe solis obiectu inluminari putant. Dicit ergo ille magnus Platonicus animam rationalem, siue potius intellectualis dicenda sit, ex quo genere etiam inmortalium beatorumque animas esse intellegit, quos in caelestibus sedibus habitare non dubitat, non habere supra se naturam nisi Dei, qui fabricatus est mundum, a quo et ipsa facta est; nec aliunde illis supernis praeberi uitam beatam et lumen intellegentiae ueritatis, quam unde praebetur et nobis, consonans euangelio, ubi legitur: Fuit homo missus a Deo, cui nomen erat Iohannes; hic uenit in testimonium, ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine, ut omnes crederent per eum. Non erat ille lumen, sed ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. Erat lumen uerum, quod inluminat omnem hominem uenientem in hunc mundum. In qua differentia satis ostenditur animam rationalem uel intellectualem, qualis erat in Iohanne, sibi lumen esse non posse, sed alterius ueri luminis participatione lucere. Hoc et ipse Iohannes fatetur, ubi ei perhibens testimonium dicit: Nos omnes de plenitudine eius accepimus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. What the Platonist Plotinus thought about illumination from above.

But we have no conflict on this question with these more excellent philosophers. For they saw, and committed to their writings in many ways and very fully, that those beings are made happy from the same source as we are, by a certain intelligible light shining upon them, which is God to them and is other than they are, by which they are illuminated so that they shine, and by participation in which they subsist perfect and happy. Plotinus often and at length asserts, explaining the meaning of Plato, that not even that soul which they believe to be the soul of the universe is happy from any other source than ours is, and that this source is a light which it is not itself, but by which it was created and by whose intelligible illumination it shines intelligibly. He also gives an illustration of those incorporeal things from these visible and vast heavenly bodies, as though that light were the sun and the soul the moon; for they think the moon is lit by the sun shining upon it. So that great Platonist says that the rational soul, or rather what should be called intellectual, of which kind he understands the souls of the immortal and blessed also to be, whom he does not doubt dwell in the heavenly seats, has no nature above it except that of God, who made the world and by whom the soul itself was made; and that the happy life and the light of understanding the truth are given to those beings above from no other source than that from which they are given to us. In this he agrees with the Gospel, where we read: “There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came for testimony, to bear testimony about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear testimony about the light. That was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world.” In this distinction it is shown clearly enough that the rational or intellectual soul, such as was in John, cannot be a light to itself, but shines by participation in another, true light. This John himself confesses, where, bearing testimony to him, he says: “We have all received of his fullness.”

### Scripture references

- John 1:6: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:7: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:8: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:9: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:16: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plotinus, Enn. 5.6.4 (Plotinus, Enneads): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Plotinus, Enneads 5.6.4 (sun and moon) and 5.1–3; the exact passages are uncertain.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.2 (CSEL 40:448–449; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-20/#p-10-2).

## City of God 10.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-20/#p-10-3
- Source: CSEL 40:449–451
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine describes the true worship of God as the offering of the heart, love, and oneself, and argues that blessed spirits who love us would not wish to be worshipped in God's place.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. De uero Dei cultu, a quo Platonici, quamuis creatorem uniuersitatis intellexerint, deuiarunt colendo angelos seu bonos seu malos honore diuino. Quae cum ita sint, si Platonici uel quicumque alii ista senserunt cognoscentes Deum sicut Deum glorificarent et gratias agerent nec euanescerent in cogitationibus suis nec populorum erroribus partim auctores fierent, partim resistere non auderent: profecto confiterentur et illis inmortalibus ac beatis et nobis mortalibus ac miseris, ut inmortales ac beati esse possimus, unum Deum deorum colendum, qui et noster est et illorum. Huic nos seruitutem, quae λατρεία Graece dicitur, siue in quibusque sacramentis siue in nobis ipsis debemus. Huius enim templum simul omnes et singuli templa sumus, quia et omnium concordiam et singulos inhabitare dignatur; non in omnibus quam in singulis maior, quoniam nec mole distenditur nec partitione minuitur. Cum ad illum sursum est, eius est altare cor nostrum; eum Unigenito eius sacerdote placamus; ei cruentas uictimas caedimus, quando usque ad sanguinem pro eius ueritate certamus: eum suauissimo adolemus incenso, cum in eius conspectum pio sanctoque amore flagramus: ei dona eius in nobis quoque ipsos uouemus et reddimus; ei beneficiorum eius sollemnitatibus festis et diebus statutis dicamus sacramusque memoriam, ne uolumine temporum ingrata subrepat obliuio; ei sacrificamus hostiam humilitatis et laudis in ara cordis igne feruidam caritatis. Ad hunc uidendum, sicut uideri poterit, eique cohaerendum ab omni peccatorum et cupiditatum malarum labe mundamur et eius nomine consecramur. Ipse enim fons nostrae beatitudinis, ipse omnis adpetitionis est finis. Hunc eligentes uel potius religentes (amiseramus enim neglegentes) — hunc ergo religentes, unde et religio dicta perhibetur, ad eum dilectione tendimus, ut perueniendo quiescamus, ideo beati, quia illo fine perfecti. Bonum enim nostrum, de cuius fine inter philosophos magna contentio est, nullum est aliud quam illi cohaerere, cuius unius anima intellectualis incorporeo, si dici potest, amplexu ueris inpletur fecundaturque uirtutibus. Hoc bonum diligere in toto corde, in tota anima et in tota uirtute praecipimur; ad hoc bonum debemus et a quibus diligimur duci, et quos diligimus ducere. Sic conplentur duo illa praecepta, in quibus tota lex pendet et prophetae: Diliges Dominum Deum tuum in toto corde tuo et in tota anima tua et in tota mente tua, et: Diliges proximum tuum tamquam te ipsum. Ut enim homo se diligere nosset, constitutus est ei finis, quo referret omnia quae ageret, ut beatus esset; non enim qui se diligit aliud uult esse quam beatus. Hic autem finis est adhaerere Deo. Iam igitur scienti diligere se ipsum, cum mandatur de proximo diligendo sicut se ipsum, quid aliud mandatur, nisi ut ei, quantum potest, commendet diligendum Deum? Hic est Dei cultus, haec uera religio, haec recta pietas, haec tantum Deo debita seruitus. Quaecumque igitur inmortalis potestas quantalibet uirtute praedita si nos diligit sicut se ipsam, ei uult esse subditos, ut beati simus, cui et ipsa subdita beata est. Si ergo non colit Deum, misera est, quia priuatur Deo; si autem colit Deum, non uult se coli pro Deo. Illi enim potius diuinae sententiae suffragatur et dilectionis uiribus fauet, qua scriptum est: Sacrificans dis eradicabitur, nisi Domino soli.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. On the true worship of God, from which the Platonists, though they understood the Creator of the universe, went astray by worshipping angels, whether good or evil, with divine honor.

This being so, if the Platonists, or any others who have thought these things, knowing God, had glorified him as God and given thanks, and had not become futile in their thinking, nor become partly the authors of the errors of the peoples and partly afraid to resist them, they would surely confess that for those immortal and blessed beings and for us mortal and wretched ones, so that we may be immortal and blessed, the one God of gods must be worshipped, who is both ours and theirs. To him we owe the service that is called latreia in Greek, whether in various sacraments or in ourselves. For we are all together his temple and each of us his temples, because he deigns to dwell both in the concord of all and in each one; not greater in all than in each, since he is neither stretched out by bulk nor diminished by division. When it is lifted up to him, our heart is his altar; we appease him with his Only-begotten as priest; we slay bloody victims to him when we fight even to blood for his truth; we burn the sweetest incense to him when we are aflame in his sight with pious and holy love; we vow and render to him his gifts in us, and ourselves; we dedicate and consecrate to him the memory of his benefits with solemn feasts and appointed days, lest ungrateful forgetfulness creep in with the rolling of the times; we sacrifice to him a victim of humility and praise on the altar of the heart, with the fire of fervent charity. To see him, as he can be seen, and to cleave to him, we are cleansed from every stain of sins and evil desires and consecrated in his name. For he is the fountain of our happiness, he the end of all our desire. Choosing him [eligentes], or rather choosing him again [religentes] (for we had lost him by neglect [neglegentes]), choosing him again, then, from which religion is said to be named, we tend toward him by love, so that by reaching him we may rest, happy because made perfect by that end. For our good, about whose end there is great dispute among philosophers, is nothing else than to cleave to him, by whose embrace alone, if one may say so, an incorporeal one, the intellectual soul is filled and made fruitful with true virtues. This good we are commanded to love with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our strength; to this good we ought both to be led by those who love us and to lead those whom we love. So those two commandments are fulfilled on which the whole law and the prophets depend: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,” and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” For in order that man might know how to love himself, an end was set for him to which he should refer all that he did, that he might be happy; for one who loves himself wishes nothing else than to be happy. And this end is to cleave to God. So when one who already knows how to love himself is commanded to love his neighbor as himself, what else is he commanded but to commend to him, as far as he can, the love of God? This is the worship of God, this true religion, this right piety, this the service owed to God alone. Whatever immortal power, then, endowed with whatever virtue, if it loves us as itself, wishes us to be subject, that we may be happy, to him to whom it too is subject and happy. If, then, it does not worship God, it is wretched, because it is deprived of God; but if it worships God, it does not wish to be worshipped in place of God. Rather it supports and favors with all the strength of its love that divine sentence in which it is written: “He who sacrifices to gods shall be rooted out, except to the Lord alone.”

### Scripture references

- Rom 1:21: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 3:16: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 3:17: allusion, high confidence
- Heb 12:4: echo, medium confidence
- Heb 13:15: echo, medium confidence
- Deut 6:5: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 22:37: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 22:39: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 22:40: quotation, high confidence
- Exod 22:20: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Augustine derives religio from religere, “to choose again” (elsewhere he also gives religare, “to bind”). Exodus 22:20 is quoted in the Old Latin/Septuagint wording (“rooted out”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.3 (CSEL 40:449–451; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-20/#p-10-3).

## City of God 10.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-20/#p-10-4
- Source: CSEL 40:451–452
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that sacrifice, unlike other honors, has always been offered only to one held to be God, as with Cain and Abel.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. Quod uni uero Deo sacrificium debeatur. Nam, ut alia nunc taceam, quae pertinent ad religionis obsequium, quo colitur Deus, sacrificium certe nullus hominum est qui audeat dicere deberi nisi deo. Multa denique de cultu diuino usurpata sunt, quae honoribus deferrentur humanis, siue humilitate nimia siue adulatione pestifera; ita tamen, ut, quibus ea deferrentur, homines haberentur, qui dicuntur colendi et uenerandi, si autem multum eis additur, et adorandi: quis uero sacrificandum censuit nisi ei, quem deum aut sciuit aut putauit aut finxit? Quam porro antiquus sit in sacrificando Dei cultus, duo illi fratres Cain et Abel satis indicant, quorum maioris Deus reprobauit sacrificium, minoris aspexit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. That sacrifice is owed to the one true God alone.

For, to say nothing now of other things belonging to the service of religion by which God is worshipped, certainly there is no man who would dare to say that sacrifice is owed except to God. Many things, indeed, have been taken over from divine worship to be paid as honors to men, whether from excessive humility or from pernicious flattery; yet in such a way that those to whom they were paid were held to be men, who are said to be worthy of worship and veneration, and, if much more is added, even of adoration. But who ever thought that sacrifice should be offered except to one whom he knew, or thought, or pretended to be a god? And how ancient the worship of God in sacrificing is, those two brothers Cain and Abel show well enough, the elder of whom God rejected in his sacrifice, while he looked with favor on that of the younger.

### Scripture references

- Gen 4:4: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 4:5: allusion, high confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.4 (CSEL 40:451–452; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-20/#p-10-4).

## City of God 10.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-20/#p-10-5
- Source: CSEL 40:452–454
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine teaches that God needs no sacrifices, and that the visible sacrifices of the old law were signs of the invisible sacrifice of a contrite heart, praise, and mercy.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. De sacrificiis, quae Deus non requirit, sed ad significationem eorum offerri uoluit, quae requirit. Quis autem ita desipiat, ut existimet aliquibus usibus Dei esse necessaria, quae in sacrificiis offeruntur? Quod cum multis locis diuina scriptura testetur, ne longum faciamus, breue illud de psalmo commemorare suffecerit: Dixi Domino, Deus meus es tu, quoniam bonorum meorum non eges. Non solum igitur pecore uel qualibet alia re corruptibili adque terrena, sed ne ipsa quidem iustitia hominis Deus egere credendus est, totumque quod recte colitur Deus homini prodesse, non Deo. Neque enim fonti se quisquam dixerit consuluisse, si biberit; aut luci, si uiderit. Nec quod ab antiquis patribus alia sacrificia facta sunt in uictimis pecorum, quae nunc Dei populus legit, non facit, aliud intellegendum est, nisi rebus illis eas res fuisse significatas, quae aguntur in nobis, ad hoc ut inhaereamus Deo et ad eundem finem proximo consulamus. Sacrificium ergo uisibile inuisibilis sacrificii sacramentum, id est sacrum signum est. Unde ille paenitens aput prophetam uel ipse propheta quaerens Deum peccatis suis habere propitium: Si uoluisses, inquit, sacrificium, dedissem utique; holocaustis non delectaberis. Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus: cor contritum et humiliatum Deus non spernet. Intueamur quem ad modum, ubi Deum dixit nolle sacrificium, ibi Deum ostendit uelle sacrificium. Non uult ergo sacrificium trucidati pecoris, sed uult sacrificium contriti cordis. Illo igitur quod eum nolle dixit, hoc significatur, quod eum uelle subiecit. Sic itaque illa Deum nolle dixit, quo modo ab stultis ea uelle creditur, uelut suae gratia uoluptatis. Nam si ea sacrificia quae uult (quorum hoc unum est: cor contritum et humiliatum dolore paenitendi) nollet eis sacrificiis significari, quae uelut sibi delectabilia desiderare putatus est: non utique de his offerendis in lege uetere praecepisset. Et ideo mutanda erant opportuno certoque iam tempore, ne ipsi Deo desiderabilia uel certe in nobis acceptabilia, ac non potius quae his significata sunt crederentur. Hinc et alio loco psalmi alterius: Si esuriero, inquit, non dicam tibi; meus est enim orbis terrae et plenitudo eius. Numquid manducabo carnes taurorum aut sanguinem hircorum potabo? Tamquam diceret: Utique si mihi essent necessaria, non a te peterem, quae habeo in potestate. Deinde subiungens quid illa significent: Immola, inquit, Deo sacrificium laudis et redde Altissimo uota tua et inuoca me in die tribulationis, et eripiam te et magnificabis me. Item aput alium prophetam: In quo, inquit, adprehendam Dominum, adsumam Deum meum excelsum? Si adprehendam illum in holocaustis, in uitulis anniculis? Si acceptauerit Dominus in milibus arietum aut in denis milibus hircorum pinguium? Si dedero primogenita mea inpietatis, fructum uentris mei pro peccato animae meae? Si adnuntiatum est tibi, homo, bonum? Aut quid Dominus exquirat a te nisi facere iudicium et diligere misericordiam et paratum esse ire cum Domino Deo tuo? Et in huius prophetae uerbis utrumque distinctum est satisque declaratum illa sacrificia per se ipsa non requirere Deum, quibus significantur haec sacrificia, quae requirit Deus. In epistula, quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos: Bene facere, inquit, et communicatores esse nolite obliuisci; talibus enim sacrificiis placetur Deo. Ac per hoc ubi scriptum est: Misericordiam uolo quam sacrificium nihil aliud quam sacrificium sacrificio praelatum oportet intellegi; quoniam illud, quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium, signum est ueri sacrificii. Porro autem misericordia uerum sacrificium est; unde dictum est, quod paulo ante commemoraui: Talibus enim sacrificiis placetur Deo. Quaecumque igitur in ministerio tabernaculi siue templi multis modis de sacrificiis leguntur diuinitus esse praecepta, ad dilectionem Dei et proximi significando referuntur. In his enim duobus praeceptis, ut scriptum est, tota lex pendet et prophetae.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. On the sacrifices which God does not require, but willed to be offered to signify the things he does require.

Who is so foolish as to think that the things offered in sacrifices are necessary to God for any uses? Since the divine Scripture testifies to this in many places, not to be long, it will suffice to recall that brief saying from the psalm: “I said to the Lord, ‘You are my God, for you have no need of my goods.’” We must believe, then, that God has no need not only of cattle or of any other corruptible and earthly thing, but not even of man's righteousness itself; and that all the right worship of God profits man, not God. For no one would say he had done a service to a fountain by drinking from it, or to the light by seeing. Nor is the fact that other sacrifices were made by the ancient fathers in victims of cattle, which God's people now read of but do not perform, to be understood otherwise than that those things signified the things that are done in us, to the end that we may cleave to God and seek the same end for our neighbor. A visible sacrifice, then, is the sacrament, that is, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice. So that penitent in the prophet, or the prophet himself, seeking to have God propitious to his sins, says: “If you had wished sacrifice, I would surely have given it; you will not delight in burnt offerings. The sacrifice to God is a troubled spirit; a contrite and humbled heart God will not despise.” Let us observe how, where he said that God does not wish sacrifice, there he showed that God does wish sacrifice. He does not wish, then, the sacrifice of a slaughtered beast, but he wishes the sacrifice of a contrite heart. By the one that he said God does not wish is signified the one that he added God does wish. So he said that God does not wish those sacrifices in the sense in which fools believe he wishes them, as if for his own pleasure. For if he had not willed that the sacrifices he wishes (of which this is one: a heart contrite and humbled by the grief of repentance) should be signified by those sacrifices which he was thought to desire as delightful to himself, he would certainly not have given commands about offering them in the old law. And so they had to be changed at a fitting and fixed time, lest they be believed to be desirable to God himself, or at least acceptable in us, rather than the things signified by them. Hence also in another place of another psalm: “If I were hungry,” he says, “I would not tell you; for the world is mine and all its fullness. Shall I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?” As if he said: “Surely, if they were necessary to me, I would not ask you for things I have in my power.” Then, adding what those things signify, he says: “Offer to God the sacrifice of praise, and pay your vows to the Most High, and call on me in the day of trouble, and I will deliver you, and you will glorify me.” Likewise in another prophet: “With what,” he says, “shall I lay hold of the Lord, shall I take hold of my God on high? Shall I lay hold of him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams or with ten thousands of fat goats? Shall I give my firstborn for my impiety, the fruit of my womb for the sin of my soul? Has it been told you, O man, what is good? Or what does the Lord require of you but to do justice and to love mercy and to be ready to walk with the Lord your God?” And in the words of this prophet both things are distinguished, and it is made clear enough that God does not require for their own sake those sacrifices by which are signified these sacrifices that God does require. In the letter entitled To the Hebrews it says: “Do not forget to do good and to share; for with such sacrifices God is pleased.” And so where it is written, “I desire mercy rather than sacrifice,” we must understand nothing else than that one sacrifice is preferred to another; since what everyone calls sacrifice is a sign of the true sacrifice. Now mercy is the true sacrifice; hence it was said, as I mentioned a little earlier: “For with such sacrifices God is pleased.” Whatever, then, we read of as divinely commanded in many ways about sacrifices in the ministry of the tabernacle or the temple refers, by signifying, to the love of God and of neighbor. For on these two commandments, as it is written, the whole law and the prophets depend.

### Scripture references

- Ps 16:2 (15:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 51:16 (50:18 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 51:17 (50:19 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 50:12 (49:12 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 50:13 (49:13 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 50:14 (49:14 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 50:15 (49:15 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Mic 6:6: quotation, high confidence
- Mic 6:7: quotation, high confidence
- Mic 6:8: quotation, high confidence
- Heb 13:16: quotation, high confidence
- Hos 6:6: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 9:13: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 22:40: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- “A visible sacrifice is the sacrament, that is, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice” is a key definition; sacramentum is rendered “sacrament” with Augustine's own gloss. Micah 6:6–8 is quoted in the Old Latin/Septuagint wording.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.5 (CSEL 40:452–454; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/9-20/#p-10-5).

## City of God 10.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-6
- Source: CSEL 40:454–457
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine defines true sacrifice as every work that unites us to God, and teaches that the whole redeemed city is offered to God through Christ the priest, as the church shows in the sacrament of the altar.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. De uero perfectoque sacrificio. Proinde uerum sacrificium est omne opus, quod agitur ut sancta societate inhaereamus Deo, relatum scilicet ad illum finem boni, quo ueraciter beati esse possimus. Unde et ipsa misericordia, qua homini subuenitur, si non propter Deum fit, non est sacrificium. Etsi enim ab homine fit uel offertur, tamen sacrificium res diuina est, ita ut hoc quoque uocabulo id Latini ueteres appellauerint. Unde ipse homo Dei nomine consecratus et Deo deuotus, in quantum mundo moritur ut Deo uiuat, sacrificium est. Nam et hoc ad misericordiam pertinet, quam quisque in se ipsum facit. Propterea scriptum est: Miserere animae tuae placens Deo. Corpus etiam nostrum cum temperantia castigamus, si hoc, quem ad modum debemus, propter Deum facimus, ut non exhibeamus membra nostra arma iniquitatis peccato, sed arma iustitiae Deo, sacrificium est. Ad quod exhortans apostolus ait: Obsecro itaque uos, fratres, per misericordiam Dei, ut exhibeatis corpora uestra hostiam uiuam, sanctam, Deo placentem, rationabile obsequium uestrum. Si ergo corpus, quo inferiore tamquam famulo uel tamquam instrumento utitur anima, cum eius bonus et rectus usus ad Deum refertur, sacrificium est: quanto magis anima ipsa cum se refert ad Deum, ut igne amoris eius accensa formam concupiscentiae saecularis amittat eique tamquam incommutabili formae subdita reformetur, hinc ei placens, quod ex eius pulchritudine acceperit, fit sacrificium! Quod idem apostolus consequenter adiungens: Et nolite, inquit, conformari huic saeculo; sed reformamini in nouitate mentis uestrae ad probandum uos quae sit uoluntas Dei, quod bonum et bene placitum et perfectum. Cum igitur uera sacrificia opera sint misericordiae siue in nos ipsos siue in proximos, quae referuntur ad Deum, opera uero misericordiae non ob aliud fiant, nisi ut a miseria liberemur ac per hoc ut beati simus (quod non fit nisi bono illo, de quo dictum est: Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est): profecto efficitur, ut tota ipsa redemta ciuitas, hoc est congregatio societasque sanctorum, uniuersale sacrificium offeratur Deo per sacerdotem magnum, qui etiam se ipsum obtulit in passione pro nobis, ut tanti capitis corpus essemus, secundum formam serui. Hanc enim obtulit, in hac oblatus est, quia secundum hanc mediator est, in hac sacerdos, in hac sacrificium est. Cum itaque nos hortatus esset apostolus, ut exhibeamus corpora nostra hostiam uiuam, sanctam, Deo placentem, rationabile obsequium nostrum, et non conformemur huic saeculo, sed reformemur in nouitate mentis nostrae: ad probandum quae sit uoluntas Dei, quod bonum et bene placitum et perfectum, quod totum sacrificium nos ipsi sumus: Dico enim, inquit, per gratiam Dei, quae data est mihi, omnibus, qui sunt in uobis, non plus sapere, quam oportet sapere, sed sapere ad temperantiam; sicut unicuique Deus partitus est mensuram fidei. Sicut enim in uno corpore multa membra habemus, omnia autem membra non eosdem actus habent: ita multi unum corpus sumus in Christo; singuli autem alter alterius membra, habentes dona diuersa secundum gratiam, quae data est nobis. Hoc est sacrificium Christianorum: multi unum corpus in Christo. Quod etiam sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat ecclesia, ubi ei demonstratur, quod in ea re, quam offert, ipsa offeratur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. On the true and perfect sacrifice.

Therefore a true sacrifice is every work done so that we may cleave to God in holy fellowship, that is, referred to that end of good by which we can be truly happy. So even the mercy by which a man is helped is not a sacrifice if it is not done for God's sake. For though it is done or offered by a man, still a sacrifice is a divine thing, so that the ancient Latins called it by this very word [sacrificium, “a sacred act”]. So man himself, consecrated in God's name and vowed to God, is a sacrifice inasmuch as he dies to the world that he may live to God. For this too belongs to mercy, which each one shows to himself. That is why it is written: “Have mercy on your own soul, pleasing God.” Our body too, when we chasten it by temperance, if we do this, as we ought, for God's sake, so as not to present our members as weapons of iniquity to sin, but as weapons of righteousness to God, is a sacrifice. Exhorting us to this, the apostle says: “I beseech you therefore, brothers, by the mercy of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God, your reasonable service.” If, then, the body, which the soul uses as a lower servant or as an instrument, is a sacrifice when its good and right use is referred to God, how much more does the soul itself become a sacrifice when it refers itself to God, so that, kindled by the fire of his love, it loses the form of worldly desire and, subject to him as to an unchangeable form, is re-formed, pleasing him from what it has received from his beauty! This the same apostle adds next, saying: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be re-formed in the newness of your mind, so that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and well-pleasing and perfect.” Since, then, true sacrifices are works of mercy, whether toward ourselves or toward our neighbors, which are referred to God; and since works of mercy are done for no other purpose than that we may be freed from misery and so be happy (which does not happen except by that good of which it was said, “But for me it is good to cleave to God”): it certainly follows that the whole redeemed city itself, that is, the congregation and fellowship of the saints, is offered as a universal sacrifice to God through the great priest, who also offered himself in his passion for us, that we might be the body of so great a head, according to the form of a servant. For this he offered, in this he was offered, because according to this he is mediator, in this he is priest, in this he is sacrifice. So when the apostle had exhorted us to present our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God, our reasonable service, and not to be conformed to this world but re-formed in the newness of our mind, to prove what is the will of God, what is good and well-pleasing and perfect, which whole sacrifice we ourselves are, he says: “For I say, by the grace of God that has been given to me, to all who are among you, not to think more highly than one ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, as God has assigned to each the measure of faith. For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another, having different gifts according to the grace that has been given to us.” This is the sacrifice of Christians: “we, being many, are one body in Christ.” This the church also celebrates continually in the sacrament of the altar, known to the faithful, where it is shown to her that in the thing she offers she herself is offered.

### Scripture references

- Rom 6:13: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 12:1: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 12:2: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 73:28 (72:28 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Eph 5:2: echo, medium confidence
- Phil 2:7: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 12:3: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 12:4: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 12:5: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 12:6: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 10:17: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sir 30:24 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sirach 30:24 (Vulgate numbering; 30:23 in the Greek) is quoted in the Latin wording. The closing sentence on the sacrament of the altar (the Eucharist) is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.6 (CSEL 40:454–457; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-6).

## City of God 10.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-7
- Source: CSEL 40:457
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine teaches that the holy angels, fellow citizens of the one city of God, wish us to sacrifice only to God, as the law they ministered commands.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. Quod sanctorum angelorum ea sit in nos dilectio, ut nos non suos, sed unius ueri Dei uelint esse cultores. Merito illi in caelestibus sedibus constituti inmortales et beati, qui creatoris sui participatione congaudent, cuius aeternitate firmi, cuius ueritate certi, cuius munere sancti sunt, quoniam nos mortales et miseros, ut inmortales beatique simus, misericorditer diligunt, nolunt nos sibi sacrificari, sed ei, cuius et ipsi nobiscum sacrificium se esse nouerunt. Cum ipsis enim sumus una ciuitas Dei, cui dicitur in psalmo: Gloriosissima dicta sunt de te, ciuitas Dei; cuius pars in nobis peregrinatur, pars in illis opitulatur. De illa quippe superna ciuitate, ubi Dei uoluntas intellegibilis adque incommutabilis lex est, de illa superna quodam modo curia (geritur namque ibi cura de nobis) ad nos ministrata per angelos sancta illa scriptura descendit, ubi legitur: Sacrificans dis eradicabitur, nisi Domino soli. Huic scripturae, huic legi, praeceptis talibus tanta sunt adtestata miracula, ut satis appareat, cui nos sacrificari uelint inmortales ac beati, qui hoc nobis uolunt esse quod sibi.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. That the love of the holy angels for us is such that they wish us to worship not them but the one true God.

Rightly do those immortal and blessed beings set in the heavenly seats, who rejoice together in participation in their Creator, firm by his eternity, certain by his truth, holy by his gift, since they love us mortal and wretched ones with mercy, so that we may be immortal and blessed, not wish sacrifice to be offered to themselves, but to him whose sacrifice they know that they themselves are, together with us. For with them we are one city of God, to which it is said in the psalm: “Most glorious things are spoken of you, O city of God”; part of which is on pilgrimage in us, and part gives help in them. For from that city above, where the will of God is the intelligible and unchangeable law, from that council-house above, as it were (for there care [cura] is taken for us), that holy Scripture came down to us, ministered by angels, in which we read: “He who sacrifices to gods shall be rooted out, except to the Lord alone.” To this Scripture, to this law, to such precepts such great miracles have borne witness that it is plain enough to whom the immortal and blessed beings, who wish for us what they wish for themselves, want us to sacrifice.

### Scripture references

- Ps 87:3 (86:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Gal 3:19: allusion, medium confidence
- Acts 7:53: allusion, medium confidence
- Exod 22:20: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Augustine plays on curia (“council-house”) and cura (“care”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.7 (CSEL 40:457; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-7).

## City of God 10.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-8
- Source: CSEL 40:457–460
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine recalls the miracles that confirmed God's promises and law, from Abraham and Lot to the Exodus and the wilderness, as witness that worship belongs to the one God.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. De miraculis, quae Deus ad conroborandam fidem piorum etiam per angelorum ministerium promissis suis adhibere dignatus est. Nam nimis uetera si commemorem, longius quam satis est reuoluere uidebor, quae miracula facta sint adtestantia promissis Dei, quibus ante annorum milia praedicit Abrahae, quod in semine eius omnes gentes benedictionem fuerant habiturae. Quis enim non miretur eidem Abrahae filium peperisse coniugem sterilem eo tempore senectutis, quo parere nec fecunda iam posset, adque in eiusdem Abrahae sacrificio flammam caelitus factam inter diuisas uictimas cucurrisse, eidemque Abrahae praedictum ab angelis caeleste incendium Sodomorum, quos angelos hominibus similes hospitio susceperat et per eos de prole uentura Dei promissa tenuerat, ipsoque inminente iam incendio miram de Sodomis per eosdem angelos liberationem Loth filii fratris eius, cuius uxor in uia retro respiciens adque in salem repente conuersa magno admonuit sacramento neminem in uia liberationis suae praeterita desiderare debere? Illa uero quae et quanta sunt, quae iam per Moysen pro populo Dei de iugo seruitutis eruendo in Aegypto mirabiliter gesta sunt, ubi magi Pharaonis, hoc est regis Aegypti, qui populum illum dominatione deprimebat, ad hoc facere quaedam mira permissi sunt, ut mirabilius uincerentur! Illi enim faciebant ueneficiis et incantationibus magicis, quibus sunt mali angeli, hoc est daemones, dediti; Moyses autem tanto potentius, quanto iustius, nomine Dei, qui fecit caelum et terram, seruientibus angelis eos facile superauit. Denique in tertia plaga deficientibus magis decem plagae per Moysen magna mysteriorum dispositione conpletae sunt, quibus ad Dei populum dimittendum Pharaonis et Aegyptiorum dura corda cesserunt. Moxque paenituit, et cum abscedentes Hebraeos consequi conarentur, illis diuiso mari per siccum transeuntibus unda hinc adque hinc in sese redeunte cooperti et obpressi sunt. Quid de illis miraculis dicam, quae, cum in deserto idem populus ductaretur, stupenda diuinitate crebuerunt: aquas, quae bibi non poterant, misso in eas, sicut Deus praeceperat, ligno amaritudine caruisse sitientesque satiasse; manna esurientibus uenisse de caelo et, cum esset colligentibus constituta mensura, quidquid amplius quisque collegerat, exortis uermibus putruisse, ante diem uero sabbati duplum collectum, quia sabbato colligere non licebat, nulla putredine uiolatum; desiderantibus carne uesci, quae tanto populo nulla sufficere posse uidebatur, uolatilibus castra conpleta et cupiditatis ardorem fastidio satietatis extinctum; obuios hostes transitumque prohibentes adque proeliantes orante Moyse manibusque eius in figuram crucis extentis nullo Hebraeorum cadente prostratos; seditiosos in populo Dei ac sese ab ordinata diuinitus societate diuidentes ad exemplum uisibile inuisibilis poenae uiuos terra dehiscente submersos; uirga percussam petram tantae multitudini abundantia fluenta, fudisse; serpentum morsus mortiferos, poenam iustissimam peccatorum, in ligno exaltato adque prospecto aeneo serpente sanatos, ut et populo subueniretur adflicto, et mors morte destructa uelut crucifixae mortis similitudine signaretur? Quem sane serpentem propter facti memoriam reseruatum cum postea populus errans tamquam idolum colere coepisset, Ezechias rex religiosa potestate Deo seruiens cum magna pietatis laude contriuit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. On the miracles which God has deigned to add to his promises, even through the ministry of angels, to strengthen the faith of the pious.

For if I were to recall events that are very old, I would seem to go back further than is enough to show what miracles were done in witness to the promises of God, by which he foretold to Abraham thousands of years ago that in his seed all nations would receive a blessing. For who would not marvel that a barren wife bore a son to that same Abraham at an age of such advanced years that even a fruitful woman could no longer bear; and that in Abraham's sacrifice a flame came from heaven and ran between the divided victims; and that the heavenly burning of the Sodomites was foretold to the same Abraham by angels, whom he had received as guests in the likeness of men, and through whom he had received God's promise about the offspring to come; and that, when the burning was already imminent, Lot, his brother's son, was wonderfully delivered from Sodom by the same angels, whose wife, looking back on the way and suddenly turned into salt, warned by a great sign [sacramentum] that no one on the way of his deliverance ought to long for what is past? And what, and how great, were the wonders done through Moses for delivering the people of God from the yoke of slavery in Egypt, where the magicians of Pharaoh, that is, of the king of Egypt, who oppressed that people with his domination, were allowed to do certain wonders only so that they might be more wonderfully defeated! For they worked by sorcery and magical incantations, to which evil angels, that is, demons, are devoted; but Moses, with power as much greater as his cause was juster, in the name of God who made heaven and earth, with angels serving, easily overcame them. Finally, when the magicians failed at the third plague, ten plagues were completed through Moses in a great arrangement of mysteries, by which the hard hearts of Pharaoh and the Egyptians gave way to let God's people go. And soon they repented, and when they tried to overtake the departing Hebrews, while these crossed on dry ground through the divided sea, the waves returning on themselves from this side and that covered and overwhelmed them. What shall I say of the miracles that abounded with astonishing divine power while that same people was led through the desert: that waters which could not be drunk lost their bitterness when wood was thrown into them, as God had commanded, and satisfied the thirsty; that manna came from heaven to the hungry, and when a measure was fixed for those gathering it, whatever anyone had gathered beyond it rotted with worms breeding in it, while before the sabbath a double portion was gathered, because it was not lawful to gather on the sabbath, and was spoiled by no rot; that when they longed to eat meat, which it seemed no amount could suffice for so great a people, the camp was filled with birds and the heat of craving was extinguished by the disgust of satiety; that enemies who met them, barred their passage, and fought them were laid low without one Hebrew falling, while Moses prayed with his hands stretched out in the figure of a cross; that rebels among the people of God, who were separating themselves from the fellowship ordained by God, were swallowed alive when the earth opened, as a visible example of an invisible punishment; that a rock struck with a rod poured out abundant streams for so great a multitude; that the deadly bites of serpents, a most just punishment for sins, were healed by looking at a bronze serpent lifted up on a pole, so that both the afflicted people might be helped and death destroyed by death might be signified by a likeness, as it were, of death crucified? That serpent, indeed, kept in memory of the event, when the people afterwards went astray and began to worship it as an idol, King Hezekiah, serving God with religious power, broke in pieces, to the great praise of his piety.

### Scripture references

- Gen 22:18: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 21:2: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 15:17: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 18:2: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 19:15: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 19:26: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 17:32: echo, medium confidence
- Exod 8:18: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 12:31: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 14:28: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 15:25: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 16:20: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 16:22: allusion, high confidence
- Num 11:31: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 17:11: allusion, high confidence
- Num 16:32: allusion, high confidence
- Num 20:11: allusion, high confidence
- Num 21:9: allusion, high confidence
- John 3:14: echo, medium confidence
- 2 Kgs 18:4: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Moses' outstretched hands (Exod 17:11–12) and the bronze serpent (John 3:14) are read as figures of the cross.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.8 (CSEL 40:457–460; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-8).

## City of God 10.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-9
- Source: CSEL 40:460–462
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine shows that Porphyry wavered on theurgy, granting it a limited purification of the soul while admitting that it cannot lead to God and involves envious powers.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. De inlicitis artibus erga daemonum cultum, in quibus Porphyrius Platonicus quaedam probando, quaedam quasi inprobando uersatur. Haec et alia multa huiusce modi, quae omnia commemorare nimis longum est, fiebant ad commendandum unius Dei ueri cultum et multorum falsorumque prohibendum. Fiebant autem simplici fide adque fiducia pietatis, non incantationibus et carminibus nefariae curiositatis arte conpositis, quam uel magian uel detestabiliori nomine goetian uel honorabiliori theurgian uocant, qui quasi conantur ista discernere et inlicitis artibus deditos alios damnabiles, quos et maleficos uulgus appellat (hos enim ad goetian pertinere dicunt), alios autem laudabiles uideri uolunt, quibus theurgian deputant; cum sint utrique ritibus fallacibus daemonum obstricti sub nominibus angelorum. Nam et Porphyrius quandam quasi purgationem animae per theurgian, cunctanter tamen et pudibunda quodam modo disputatione promittit; reuersionem uero ad Deum hanc artem praestare cuiquam negat; ut uideas eum inter uitium sacrilegae curiositatis et philosophiae professionem sententiis alternantibus fluctuare. Nunc enim hanc artem tamquam fallacem et in ipsa actione periculosam et legibus prohibitam cauendam monet; nunc autem uelut eius laudatoribus cedens utilem dicit esse mundandae parti animae, non quidem intellectuali, qua rerum intellegibilium percipitur ueritas, nullas habentium similitudines corporum; sed spiritali, qua corporalium rerum capiuntur imagines. Hanc enim dicit per quasdam consecrationes theurgicas, quas teletas uocant, idoneam fieri adque aptam susceptioni spirituum et angelorum et ad uidendos deos. Ex quibus tamen theurgicis teletis fateretur intellectuali animae nihil purgationis accedere, quod eam faciat idoneam ad uidendum Deum suum et perspicienda ea, quae uere sunt. Ex quo intellegi potest, qualium deorum uel qualem uisionem fieri dicat theurgicis consecrationibus, in qua non ea uidentur, quae uere sunt. Denique animam rationalem siue, quod magis amat dicere, intellectualem, in sua posse dicit euadere, etiamsi quod eius spiritale est nulla theurgica fuerit arte purgatum; porro autem a theurgo spiritalem purgari hactenus, ut non ex hoc ad inmortalitatem aeternitatemque perueniat. Quamquam itaque discernat a daemonibus angelos, aeria loca esse daemonum, aetheria uel empyrea disserens angelorum, et admoneat utendum alicuius daemonis amicitia, quo subuectante uel paululum a terra possit eleuari quisque post mortem, aliam uero uiam esse perhibeat ad angelorum superna consortia: cauendam tamen daemonum societatem expressa quodam modo confessione testatur, ubi dicit animam post mortem luendo poenas cultum daemonum a quibus circumueniebatur horrescere: ipsamque theurgian, quam uelut conciliatricem angelorum deorumque commendat, aput tales agere potestates negare non potuit, quae uel ipsae inuideant purgationi animae, uel artibus seruiant inuidorum, querelam de hac re Chaldaei nescio cuius expromens: Conqueritur, inquit, uir in Chaldaea bonus, purgandae animae magno in molimine frustratos sibi esse successus, cum uir ad eadem potens tactus inuidia adiuratas sacris precibus potentias adligasset, ne postulata concederent. Ergo et ligauit ille, inquit, et iste non soluit. Quo indicio dixit apparere theurgian esse tam boni conficiendi quam mali et aput deos et aput homines disciplinam; pati etiam deos et ad illas perturbationes passionesque deduci, quas communiter daemonibus et hominibus Apuleius adtribuit; deos tamen ab eis aetheriae sedis altitudine separans et Platonis adserens in illa discretione sententiam.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. On the unlawful arts connected with the worship of demons, in which the Platonist Porphyry is involved, approving some things and seeming to disapprove others.

These and many other things of this kind, which it would take too long to mention, were done to commend the worship of the one true God and to forbid that of many false ones. They were done by simple faith and pious confidence, not by incantations and spells composed by the art of wicked curiosity, which they call either magic, or by a more detestable name goētia, or by a more honorable one theurgy. They try, as it were, to distinguish these, and would have some of those devoted to unlawful arts seem worthy of condemnation, those whom the common people call sorcerers (for these, they say, belong to goētia), but others praiseworthy, to whom they assign theurgy; whereas both are bound by the deceitful rites of demons under the names of angels. For Porphyry too promises a kind of purification of the soul through theurgy, though hesitantly and in a somewhat shamefaced argument; but he denies that this art offers anyone a return to God. So you can see him wavering, with alternating opinions, between the vice of sacrilegious curiosity and the profession of philosophy. For at one time he warns that this art is to be avoided as deceitful, dangerous in its very practice, and forbidden by the laws; at another, as if yielding to its praisers, he says it is useful for cleansing a part of the soul, not indeed the intellectual part, by which the truth of intelligible things is perceived, which have no likeness to bodies, but the spiritual part, by which the images of bodily things are grasped. For he says that this part, by certain theurgic consecrations which they call teletai, is made fit and apt to receive spirits and angels and to see gods. Yet he admits that from these theurgic teletai no purification comes to the intellectual soul that would make it fit to see its God and to perceive the things that truly are. From this one can understand what kind of gods, or what kind of vision of them, he says comes about by theurgic consecrations, a vision in which the things that truly are are not seen. Finally, he says that the rational soul, or, as he prefers to say, the intellectual soul, can escape into its own realm even if its spiritual part has not been purified by any theurgic art; and that the spiritual part is purified by the theurgist only so far that it does not by this attain immortality and eternity. So although he distinguishes angels from demons, discoursing that the places of demons are in the air and those of angels in the ether or the empyrean, and advises that the friendship of some demon should be used, by whose lifting one may be raised even a little from the earth after death, while he declares that there is another way to the higher fellowship of the angels, he nevertheless testifies, by a kind of express confession, that the company of demons is to be avoided, where he says that the soul, paying its penalties after death, shudders at the worship of the demons by whom it was ensnared. And he could not deny that theurgy itself, which he commends as a reconciler of angels and gods, deals with such powers as either themselves envy the purification of the soul or serve the arts of the envious; bringing forward on this matter the complaint of some Chaldean or other. “A good man in Chaldea,” he says, “complains that his success was frustrated in a great effort to purify a soul, because a man powerful in the same arts, touched by envy, had bound the powers adjured by sacred prayers, so that they would not grant what was asked. So,” he says, “the one bound and the other did not loose.” By this sign, he said, it appears that theurgy is a discipline for accomplishing evil as well as good, both among gods and among men; and that the gods too suffer and are brought into those disturbances and passions which Apuleius attributes to demons and men in common; though he separates the gods from them by the height of their ethereal seat, and asserts the opinion of Plato in that distinction.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Porphyry, Regr. (Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul): quotation, medium confidence
- Plato (Plato (works)): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul (De regressu animae), known chiefly from Augustine's fragments; some scholars identify it with part of the Philosophy from Oracles. goētia is sorcery; teletai are rites of initiation. Apuleius, On the God of Socrates (see Book 8).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.9 (CSEL 40:460–462; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-9).

## City of God 10.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-10
- Source: CSEL 40:462–464
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine ridicules Porphyry's account of gods frightened by an envious theurgist and identifies theurgic visions with Satan's disguise as an angel of light.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. De theurgia, quae falsam purgationem animis daemonum inuocatione promittit. Ecce nunc alius Platonicus, quem doctiorem ferunt, Porphyrius, per nescio quam theurgicam disciplinam etiam ipsos deos obstrictos passionibus et perturbationibus dicit, quoniam sacris precibus adiurari terrerique potuerunt, ne praestarent animae purgationem, et ita terreri ab eo, qui imperabat malum, ut ab alio, qui poscebat bonum, per eandem artem theurgicam solui illo timore non possent et ad dandum beneficium liberari. Quis non uideat haec omnia fallacium daemonum esse commenta, nisi eorum miserrimus seruus et a gratia ueri liberatoris alienus? Nam si haec aput deos agerentur bonos, plus ibi utique ualeret beneficus purgator animae quam maleuolus inpeditor. Aut si dis iustis homo, pro quo agebatur, purgatione uidebatur indignus, non utique ab inuido territi nec, sicut ipse dicit, per metum ualentioris numinis inpediti, sed iudicio libero id negare debuerunt. Mirum est autem, quod benignus ille Chaldaeus, qui theurgicis sacris animam purgare cupiebat, non inuenit aliquem superiorem deum, qui uel plus terreret adque ad bene faciendum cogeret territos deos, uel ab eis terrentem conpesceret, ut libere bene facerent; si tamen theurgo bono sacra defuerunt, quibus ipsos deos, quos inuocabat animae purgatores, prius ab illa timoris peste purgaret. Quid enim causae est, quur deus potentior adhiberi possit a quo terreantur, nec possit a quo purgentur? An inuenitur deus qui exaudiat inuidum et timorem dis incutiat ne bene faciant; nec inuenitur deus qui exaudiat beneuolum et timorem dis auferat ut bene faciant? o theurgia praeclara, o animae praedicanda purgatio, ubi plus imperat inmunda inuidentia, quam inpetrat pura beneficentia! Immo uero malignorum spirituum cauenda et detestanda fallacia, et salutaris audienda doctrina. Quod enim qui has sordidas purgationes sacrilegis ritibus operantur quasdam mirabiliter pulchras, sicut iste commemorat, uel angelorum imagines uel deorum tamquam purgato spiritu uident (si tamen uel tale aliquid uident), illud est, quod apostolus dicit: Quoniam satanas transfigurat se uelut angelum lucis. Eius enim sunt illa phantasmata, qui miseras animas multorum falsorumque deorum fallacibus sacris cupiens inretire et a uero ueri Dei cultu, quo solo mundantur et sanantur, auertere, sicut de Proteo dictum est, formas se uertit in omnes, hostiliter insequens, fallaciter subueniens, utrobique nocens.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. On theurgy, which promises souls a false purification by invoking demons.

See now another Platonist, reputed more learned, Porphyry, saying that through some theurgic discipline or other even the gods themselves are bound by passions and disturbances, since they could be adjured and frightened by sacred prayers from granting purification to a soul; and so frightened by the one who commanded evil that they could not be released from that fear by another who asked for good through the same theurgic art, and be set free to confer the benefit. Who does not see that all these are the inventions of deceitful demons, unless he is their most wretched slave and a stranger to the grace of the true Liberator? For if these things were done among good gods, surely the kind purifier of the soul would have prevailed there more than the malevolent obstructer. Or if the just gods thought the man for whom it was being done unworthy of purification, they ought to have refused it by free judgment, not frightened by an envious man nor, as he himself says, hindered through fear of a stronger deity. It is surprising, too, that that kindly Chaldean who wished to purify a soul by theurgic rites did not find some higher god to frighten the frightened gods more and compel them to do good, or to restrain the one who frightened them so that they might do good freely; unless, indeed, the good theurgist lacked rites by which to purify first from that plague of fear the very gods he was invoking as purifiers of the soul. For what reason is there why a more powerful god can be brought in to frighten them, but not one to purify them? Or is a god found who hears the envious man and strikes fear into the gods so that they do not do good, and no god found who hears the benevolent man and takes fear away from the gods so that they do good? O splendid theurgy, O purification of the soul worthy to be proclaimed, where unclean envy commands more than pure beneficence obtains! Rather, the deceit of malignant spirits is to be avoided and detested, and saving doctrine is to be heard. For as to the fact that those who perform these filthy purifications with sacrilegious rites see, as he relates, certain wonderfully beautiful images either of angels or of gods, as if with a purified spirit (if indeed they see anything of the kind), this is what the apostle says: “For Satan transforms himself into an angel of light.” For his are those phantoms, who, wishing to ensnare wretched souls in the deceitful rites of many false gods and to turn them from the true worship of the true God, by which alone they are cleansed and healed, as was said of Proteus, “turns himself into all shapes,” pursuing as an enemy, helping deceitfully, harmful both ways.

### Scripture references

- 2 Cor 11:14: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Porphyry, Regr. (Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul): allusion, medium confidence
- Virgil, Georg. 4.411 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul (fragment). Virgil, Georgics 4.411, of Proteus.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.10 (CSEL 40:462–464; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-10).

## City of God 10.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-11
- Source: CSEL 40:464–468
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reviews Porphyry's letter to Anebo, whose questions about compelled gods, threats, and magic expose these powers as deceiving demons.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. De epistula Porphyrii ad Anebontem Aegyptium, in qua petit de diuersitate daemonum se doceri. Melius sapuit iste Porphyrius, cum ad Anebontem scribit Aegyptium, ubi consulenti similis et quaerenti et prodit artes sacrilegas et euertit. Et ibi quidem omnes daemones reprobat, quos dicit ob inprudentiam trahere humidum uaporem et ideo non in aethere, sed in aere esse sub luna adque in ipso lunae globo; uerum tamen non audet omnes fallacias et malitias et ineptias, quibus merito mouetur, omnibus daemonibus dare. Quosdam namque benignos daemones more appellat aliorum, cum omnes generaliter inprudentes esse fateatur. Miratur autem quod non solum di adliciantur uictimis, sed etiam conpellantur adque cogantur facere quod homines uolunt; et si corpore et incorporalitate di a daemonibus distinguuntur, quo modo deos esse existimandum sit solem et lunam et uisibilia cetera in caelo, quae corpora esse non dubitat; et si di sunt, quo modo alii benefici, alii malefici esse dicantur; et quo modo incorporalibus, cum sint corporei, coniungantur. Quaerit etiam ueluti dubitans, utrum in diuinantibus et quaedam mira facientibus animae sint passiones an aliqui spiritus extrinsecus ueniant, per quos haec ualeant; et potius uenire extrinsecus conicit, eo quod lapidibus et herbis adhibitis et adligent quosdam, et aperiant clausa ostia, uel aliquid eius modi mirabiliter operentur. Unde dicit alios opinari esse quoddam genus, cui exaudire sit proprium, natura fallax, omniforme, multimodum, simulans deos et daemones et animas defunctorum, et hoc esse quod efficiat haec omnia quae uidentur bona esse uel praua; ceterum circa ea, quae uere bona sunt, nihil opitulari, immo uero ista nec nosse, sed et male conciliare et insimulare adque inpedire nonnumquam uirtutis sedulos sectatores, et plenum esse temeritatis et fastus, gaudere nidoribus, adulationibus capi, et cetera, quae de hoc genere fallacium malignorumque spirituum, qui extrinsecus in animam ueniunt humanosque sensus sopitos uigilantesue deludunt, non tamquam sibi persuasa confirmat, sed tam tenuiter suspicatur aut dubitat, ut haec alios adserat opinari. Difficile quippe fuit tanto philosopho cunctam diabolicam societatem uel nosse uel fidenter arguere, quam quaelibet anicula Christiana nec cunctatur esse, et liberrime detestatur. Nisi forte iste et ipsum, ad quem scribit, Anebontem tamquam talium sacrorum praeclarissimum antistitem et alios talium operum tamquam diuinorum et ad deos colendos pertinentium admiratores uerecundatur offendere. Sequitur tamen et ea uelut inquirendo commemorat, quae sobrie considerata tribui non possunt nisi malignis et fallacibus potestatibus. Quaerit enim quur tamquam melioribus inuocatis quasi peioribus imperetur, ut iniusta praecepta hominis exsequantur; quur adtrectatum re Veneria non exaudiant inprecantem, cum ipsi ad incestos quosque concubitus quoslibet ducere non morentur; quur animantibus suos antistites oportere abstinere denuntient, ne uaporibus profecto corporeis polluantur, ipsi uero et aliis uaporibus inliciantur et nidoribus hostiarum, cumque a cadaueris contactu prohibeatur inspector, plerumque illa cadaueribus celebrentur; quid sit, quod non daemoni uel alicui animae defuncti, sed ipsi soli et lunae aut cuicumque caelestium homo uitio cuilibet obnoxius intendit minas eosque territat falso, ut eis extorqueat ueritatem. Nam et caelum se conlidere comminatur et cetera similia homini inpossibilia, ut illi di tamquam insipientissimi pueri falsis et ridiculis comminationibus territi quod imperatur efficiant. Dicit etiam scripsisse Chaeremonem quendam, talium sacrorum uel potius sacrilegiorum peritum, ea, quae aput Aegyptios sunt celebrata rumoribus uel de Iside uel de Osiri marito eius, maximam uim habere cogendi deos, ut faciant imperata, quando ille, qui carminibus cogit, ea se prodere uel euertere comminatur, ubi se etiam Osiridis membra dissipaturum terribiliter dicit, si facere iussa neglexerint. Haec adque huius modi uana et insana hominem dis minari, nec quibuslibet, sed ipsis caelestibus et siderea luce fulgentibus, nec sine effectu, sed uiolenta potestate cogentem adque his terroribus ad facienda quae uoluerit perducentem, merito Porphyrius admiratur; immo uero sub specie mirantis et causas rerum talium requirentis dat intellegi illos haec agere spiritus, quorum genus superius sub aliorum opinatione descripsit, non, ut ipse posuit, natura, sed uitio fallaces, qui simulant deos et animas defunctorum, daemones autem non, ut ait ipse, simulant, sed plane sunt. Et quod ei uidetur herbis et lapidibus et animantibus et sonis certis quibusdam ac uocibus et figurationibus adque figmentis, quibusdam etiam obseruatis in caeli conuersione motibus siderum fabricari in terra ab hominibus potestates idoneas uariis effectibus exsequendis, totum hoc ad eosdem ipsos daemones pertinet ludificatores animarum sibimet subditarum et uoluptaria sibi ludibria de hominum erroribus exhibentes. Aut ergo re uera dubitans et inquirens ista Porphyrius ea tamen commemorat, quibus conuincantur et redarguantur, nec ad eas potestates, quae nobis ad beatam uitam capessendam fauent, sed ad deceptores daemones pertinere monstrentur; aut, ut meliora de philosopho suspicemur, eo modo uoluit hominem Aegyptium talibus erroribus deditum et aliqua magna se scire opinantem non superba quasi auctoritate doctoris offendere, nec aperte aduersantis altercatione turbare, sed quasi quaerentis et discere cupientis humilitate ad ea cogitanda conuertere et quam sint contemnenda uel etiam deuitanda monstrare. Denique prope ad epistulae finem petit se ab eo doceri, quae sit ad beatitudinem uia ex Aegyptia sapientia. Ceterum illos, quibus conuersatio cum dis ad hoc esset, ut ob inueniendum fugitiuum uel praedium conparandum, aut propter nuptias uel mercaturam uel quid huius modi mentem diuinam inquietarent, frustra eos uideri dicit coluisse sapientiam; illa etiam ipsa numina, cum quibus conuersarentur, etsi de ceteris rebus uera praedicerent, tamen quoniam de beatitudine nihil cautum nec satis idoneum monerent, nec deos illos esse nec benignos daemones, sed aut illorum quod dicitur fallax, aut humanum omne commentum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. On Porphyry's letter to the Egyptian Anebo, in which he asks to be taught about the different kinds of demons.

This Porphyry showed better sense when he wrote to the Egyptian Anebo, where, like one consulting and asking questions, he both exposes and overthrows the sacrilegious arts. And there indeed he rejects all demons, who he says draw in moist vapor because of their lack of wisdom and so are not in the ether but in the air beneath the moon and in the very globe of the moon. Yet he does not dare to attribute to all demons all the deceits, malice, and follies by which he is rightly troubled. For he calls some demons benign, after the manner of others, though he admits that all in general lack wisdom. He wonders that gods are not only enticed by victims but even compelled and forced to do what men wish; and, if gods are distinguished from demons by body and incorporeality, how the sun and moon and the other visible things in the sky, which he does not doubt are bodies, are to be thought gods; and, if they are gods, how some can be called beneficent and others maleficent; and how, since they are bodily, they are joined to incorporeal beings. He also asks, as if in doubt, whether in those who divine and do certain wonders there are passions of the soul, or whether some spirits come from outside through whom they have this power; and he conjectures rather that they come from outside, because by using stones and herbs they bind certain people, open closed doors, or do something wonderful of that kind. Hence he says that others think there is a certain kind of being whose property it is to hear prayers, deceitful by nature, of every form, of many modes, feigning gods and demons and souls of the dead; and that this is what brings about all these things that seem good or bad; but that as for things truly good, it gives no help, and indeed does not even know them, but makes evil alliances and brings false charges against, and sometimes hinders, zealous followers of virtue; that it is full of rashness and pride, rejoices in the smoke of sacrifices, is caught by flattery; and the other things which he says about this kind of deceitful and malignant spirits, who come into the soul from outside and delude human senses asleep or awake, not affirming them as things he is persuaded of, but suspecting or doubting them so faintly that he asserts that others think so. It was hard, of course, for so great a philosopher either to know or confidently to denounce the whole diabolical fellowship, which any little old Christian woman does not hesitate to say exists, and detests most freely. Unless perhaps he is ashamed to offend Anebo himself, to whom he writes, as a most distinguished priest of such rites, and others who admire such works as divine and belonging to the worship of the gods. Yet he goes on and mentions, as if inquiring, things which, soberly considered, can be attributed only to malignant and deceitful powers. For he asks why, when they are invoked as better beings, they are commanded as if they were worse, to carry out a man's unjust orders; why they do not hear one who prays if he has had sexual intercourse, when they themselves do not hesitate to lead anyone to any incestuous unions; why they declare that their priests must abstain from animal food, lest they be polluted by bodily vapors, while they themselves are enticed both by other vapors and by the smoke of victims; and, while the one who examines the entrails is forbidden to touch a corpse, their rites are very often celebrated with corpses; what it means that a man liable to any vice directs threats, not at a demon or some soul of the dead, but at the sun and moon themselves or any of the heavenly beings, and frightens them with falsehoods to extort the truth from them. For he threatens to shatter the sky and other such things impossible to man, so that those gods, frightened like the silliest children by false and ridiculous threats, may do what they are commanded. He says also that a certain Chaeremon, skilled in such rites, or rather sacrileges, wrote that the things celebrated in Egyptian stories about Isis or her husband Osiris have the greatest power to compel the gods to do what they are commanded, when the one who compels them with spells threatens to reveal or overturn these things, and even says terribly that he will scatter the limbs of Osiris if they neglect to do what they are bidden. That a man should utter these and such empty and mad threats against gods, and not against any gods whatever but against the heavenly ones shining with starry light, and not without effect but compelling them by violent power and leading them by these terrors to do what he wishes, Porphyry rightly wonders; or rather, under the appearance of one wondering and asking the causes of such things, he gives us to understand that those spirits do these things whose kind he described above under the opinion of others: deceitful not by nature, as he put it, but by vice, who feign gods and souls of the dead, but do not feign demons, as he says, but plainly are demons. And as to his view that by herbs and stones and animals and certain sounds and words and shapes and figures, and by certain motions of the stars observed in the revolution of the sky, powers fit to carry out various effects are fashioned on earth by men, all this belongs to those same demons who make sport of the souls subject to them and provide themselves with pleasurable amusements from the errors of men. Either, then, Porphyry really doubted and inquired into these things and yet mentions things by which they are refuted and shown to belong not to the powers that help us to attain the happy life but to deceiving demons; or, to think better of the philosopher, he wished in this way not to offend the Egyptian, devoted to such errors and thinking he knew great things, with the proud authority, as it were, of a teacher, nor to disturb him by the altercation of an open opponent, but, with the humility of one asking and wishing to learn, to turn him to think about these things and to show how contemptible, or even to be shunned, they are. Finally, near the end of the letter he asks to be taught by him what the way to happiness is according to Egyptian wisdom. But those whose converse with the gods was for this, that they might trouble the divine mind to find a runaway slave, or buy an estate, or for marriage or trade or something of that kind, he says seemed to have cultivated wisdom in vain; and he says that those very deities with whom they conversed, even if they foretold the truth about other things, yet since they gave no careful or suitable counsel about happiness, were neither gods nor benign demons, but either that being which is called the deceiver, or entirely a human invention.

### Translation notes

- Porphyry, Letter to Anebo (fragments; answered by Iamblichus, On the Mysteries). Chaeremon, Egyptian priest and Stoic of the 1st century AD. No entry for these works in the site's list of extrabiblical texts.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.11 (CSEL 40:464–468; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-11).

## City of God 10.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-12
- Source: CSEL 40:468–469
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine distinguishes demonic wonders from true miracles, which commend the worship of the one God, and notes that creation itself is a greater miracle.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. De miraculis, quae per sanctorum angelorum ministerium Deus uerus operatur. Verum quia tanta et talia geruntur his artibus, ut uniuersum modum humanae facultatis excedant: quid restat, nisi ut ea, quae mirifice tamquam diuinitus praedici uel fieri uidentur nec tamen ad unius Dei cultum referuntur, cui simpliciter inhaerere fatentibus quoque Platonicis et per multa testantibus solum beatificum bonum est, malignorum daemonum ludibria et seductoria inpedimenta, quae uera pietate cauenda sunt, prudenter intellegantur? Porro autem quaecumque miracula siue per angelos siue quocumque modo ita diuinitus fiunt, ut Dei unius, in quo solo beata uita est, cultum religionemque commendent, ea uere ab eis uel per eos, qui nos secundum ueritatem pietatemque diligunt, fieri ipso Deo in illis operante credendum est. Neque enim audiendi sunt, qui Deum inuisibilem uisibilia miracula operari negant, cum ipse etiam secundum ipsos fecerit mundum, quem certe uisibilem negare non possunt. Quidquid igitur mirabile fit in hoc mundo, profecto minus est quam totus hic mundus, id est caelum et terra et omnia quae in eis sunt, quae certe Deus fecit. Sicut autem ipse qui fecit, ita modus quo fecit occultus est et inconprehensibilis homini. Quamuis itaque miracula uisibilium naturarum uidendi adsiduitate uiluerint, tamen, cum ea sapienter intuemur, inusitatissimis rarissimisque maiora sunt. Nam et omni miraculo, quod fit per hominem, maius miraculum est homo. Quapropter Deus, qui fecit uisibilia caelum et terram, non dedignatur facere uisibilia miracula in caelo uel terra, quibus ad se inuisibilem colendum excitet animam adhuc uisibilibus deditam; ubi uero et quando faciat, incommutabile consilium penes ipsum est, in cuius dispositione iam tempora facta sunt quaecumque futura sunt. Nam temporalia mouens temporaliter non mouetur, nec aliter nouit facienda quam facta, nec aliter inuocantes exaudit quam inuocaturos uidet. Nam et cum exaudiunt angeli eius, ipse in eis exaudit, tamquam in uero nec manu facto templo suo, sicut in hominibus sanctis suis, eiusque temporaliter fiunt iussa aeterna eius lege conspecta.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. On the miracles which the true God works through the ministry of the holy angels.

But since such great things are done by these arts that they exceed every measure of human ability, what remains but that those things which seem to be foretold or done wonderfully, as if by divine power, and yet are not referred to the worship of the one God, to cleave to whom simply is the only beatifying good, as even the Platonists admit and testify in many ways, should be wisely understood as the mockeries and seductive hindrances of malignant demons, to be avoided by true piety? On the other hand, whatever miracles are done by divine power, whether through angels or in any other way, such that they commend the worship and religion of the one God, in whom alone is the happy life, these we must believe are truly done by those, or through those, who love us according to truth and piety, God himself working in them. Nor should we listen to those who deny that the invisible God works visible miracles, since even according to them he made the world, which they certainly cannot deny is visible. Whatever wonderful thing happens in this world is surely less than this whole world, that is, heaven and earth and all that is in them, which God certainly made. But as he who made it is hidden and incomprehensible to man, so is the way in which he made it. So although the miracles of visible natures have become cheap through our constantly seeing them, yet when we look at them wisely they are greater than the most unusual and rarest. For man is a greater miracle than any miracle done through man. Therefore God, who made the visible heaven and earth, does not disdain to do visible miracles in heaven or on earth, by which to rouse the soul, still given over to visible things, to worship him, the invisible. But where and when he does them is an unchangeable counsel that rests with him, in whose arrangement all times that are to come have already been made. For he moves temporal things without being moved temporally, and he does not know things to be done otherwise than things done, nor does he hear those who call on him otherwise than as he sees those who will call. For even when his angels hear, he hears in them, as in his true temple not made with hands, as also in his holy men; and his commands are carried out in time, having been seen in his eternal law.

### Scripture references

- Ps 146:6: echo, medium confidence
- Acts 17:24: echo, medium confidence
- 2 Cor 5:1: echo, low confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.12 (CSEL 40:468–469; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-12).

## City of God 10.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-13
- Source: CSEL 40:469–470
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that the invisible God appeared in visible forms that were not himself, and that the giving of the law at Sinai was confirmed by public wonders.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. De inuisibili Deo, qui se uisibilem saepe praestiterit, non secundum quod est, sed secundum quod poterant ferre cernentes. Nec mouere debet, quod, cum sit inuisibilis, saepe uisibiliter patribus apparuisse memoratur. Sicut enim sonus, quo auditur sententia in silentio intellegentiae constituta, non est hoc quod ipsa: ita et species, qua uisus est Deus in natura inuisibili constitutus, non erat quod ipse. Verum tamen ipse in eadem specie corporali uidebatur, sicut illa sententia ipsa in sono uocis auditur; nec illi ignorabant inuisibilem Deum in specie corporali, quod ipse non erat, se uidere. Nam et loquebatur cum loquente Moyses et ei tamen dicebat: Si inueni gratiam ante te, ostende mihi temet ipsum, scienter ut uideam te. Cum igitur oporteret Dei legem in edictis angelorum terribiliter dari, non uni homini paucisue sapientibus, sed uniuersae genti et populo ingenti: coram eodem populo magna facta sunt in monte, ubi lex per unum dabatur, conspiciente multitudine metuenda et tremenda quae fiebant. Non enim populus Israel sic Moysi credidit, quem ad modum suo Lycurgo Lacedaemonii, quod a Ioue seu Apolline leges, quas condidit, accepisset. Cum enim lex dabatur populo, qua coli unus iubebatur Deus, in conspectu ipsius populi, quantum sufficere diuina prouidentia iudicabat, mirabilibus rerum signis et motibus apparebat ad eandem legem dandam creatori seruire creaturam.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. On the invisible God, who often made himself visible, not as he is, but as those who saw him could bear.

Nor should it trouble anyone that, though he is invisible, he is recorded to have often appeared visibly to the fathers. For just as the sound by which a thought is heard, a thought formed in the silence of the understanding, is not the same as the thought itself, so also the form in which God was seen, who exists in an invisible nature, was not what he himself is. Yet he himself was seen in that bodily form, as the thought itself is heard in the sound of the voice; and they were not ignorant that they were seeing the invisible God in a bodily form, which he himself was not. For Moses spoke with him as he spoke, and yet said to him: “If I have found favor before you, show me yourself, so that I may see you knowingly.” Since, then, the law of God had to be given in terrifying fashion in decrees delivered by angels, not to one man or to a few wise men, but to a whole nation and a huge people, great things were done before that same people on the mountain where the law was being given through one man, while the multitude looked on at the fearful and terrible things that were happening. For the people of Israel did not believe Moses as the Lacedaemonians believed their Lycurgus, that he had received the laws he established from Jupiter or Apollo. For when the law was being given to the people, by which they were commanded to worship one God, it appeared, in the sight of that people, by wonderful signs and movements of things, as far as divine providence judged sufficient, that the creation served the Creator in giving that same law.

### Scripture references

- Exod 33:11: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 33:13: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 3:19: allusion, medium confidence
- Exod 19:16: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 20:18: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Exodus 33:13 is quoted in the Old Latin/Septuagint wording.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.13 (CSEL 40:469–470; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-13).

## City of God 10.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-14
- Source: CSEL 40:470–471
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine teaches that God educated his people from temporal to eternal goods, and that even temporal benefits should be sought only from the one God, whose providence reaches the lilies of the field.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. De uno Deo colendo non solum propter aeterna, sed etiam propter temporalia beneficia, quia uniuersa in ipsius prouidentiae potestate consistunt. Sicut autem unius hominis, ita humani generis, quod ad Dei populum pertinet, recta eruditio per quosdam articulos temporum tamquam aetatum profecit accessibus, ut a temporalibus ad aeterna capienda et a uisibilibus ad inuisibilia surgeretur; ita sane ut etiam illo tempore, quo uisibilia promittebantur diuinitus praemia, unus tamen colendus commendaretur Deus, ne mens humana uel pro ipsis terrenis uitae transitoriae beneficiis cuiquam nisi uero animae creatori et domino subderetur. Omnia quippe, quae praestare hominibus uel angeli uel homines possunt, in unius esse Omnipotentis potestate quisquis diffitetur, insanit. De prouidentia certe Plotinus Platonicus disputat eamque a summo Deo, cuius est intellegibilis adque ineffabilis pulchritudo, usque ad haec terrena et ima pertingere flosculorum adque foliorum pulchritudine conprobat; quae omnia quasi abiecta et uelocissime pereuntia decentissimos formarum suarum numeros habere non posse confirmat, nisi inde formentur, ubi forma intellegibilis et incommutabilis simul habens omnia perseuerat. Hoc Dominus Iesus ibi ostendit, ubi ait: Considerate lilia agri, non laborant neque nent. Dico autem uobis, quia nec Salomon in tota gloria sua sic amictus est, sicut unum ex eis. Quod si faenum agri, quod hodie est et cras in clibanum mittitur, Deus sic uestit: quanto magis uos, modicae fidei? Optime igitur anima humana adhuc terrenis desideriis infirma ea ipsa, quae temporaliter exoptat bona infima adque terrena uitae huic transitoriae necessaria et prae illius uitae sempiternis beneficiis contemnenda, non tamen nisi ab uno Deo expectare consuescit, ut ab illius cultu etiam in istorum desiderio non recedat, ad quem contemtu eorum et ab eis auersione perueniat.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. That the one God is to be worshipped not only for eternal but also for temporal benefits, since all things lie in the power of his providence.

As with one man, so with the human race, as far as it belongs to the people of God, right education has advanced through certain stages of time, like the steps of a person's ages, so that it might rise from temporal things to the grasp of eternal ones, and from visible to invisible; yet in such a way that even at the time when visible rewards were promised by God, the one God was still commended as the one to be worshipped, lest the human mind should subject itself, even for the earthly benefits of this passing life, to anyone but the soul's true Creator and Lord. For anyone who denies that all that angels or men can give to men lies in the power of the one Almighty is mad. The Platonist Plotinus certainly discusses providence, and proves from the beauty of little flowers and leaves that it reaches from the supreme God, whose beauty is intelligible and ineffable, down to these earthly and lowest things; all of which, he affirms, cast away as it were and perishing very swiftly, could not have the most fitting proportions of their forms unless they were formed from there where the intelligible and unchangeable form, holding all things at once, endures. This the Lord Jesus showed where he said: “Consider the lilies of the field: they neither toil nor spin. But I tell you that not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these. And if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more you, O you of little faith?” It is best, then, that the human soul, still weak with earthly desires, should grow accustomed to expect from the one God alone even those lowest and earthly goods which it longs for in time, necessary for this passing life and to be despised in comparison with the everlasting benefits of that life, so that even in desiring these it may not withdraw from the worship of him to whom it comes by despising them and turning away from them.

### Scripture references

- Matt 6:28: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 6:29: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 6:30: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:46: echo, low confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plotinus, Enn. 3.2.13 (Plotinus, Enneads): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Plotinus, Enneads 3.2.13.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.14 (CSEL 40:470–471; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-14).

## City of God 10.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-15
- Source: CSEL 40:471–472
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that the law commanding worship of the one God was delivered by angels, through whom the invisible God spoke in visible signs and human words.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. De ministerio sanctorum angelorum, quo prouidentiae Dei seruiunt. Sic itaque diuinae prouidentiae placuit ordinare temporum cursum, ut, quem ad modum dixi et in actibus apostolorum legitur, lex in edictis angelorum daretur de unius ueri Dei cultu, in quibus et persona ipsius Dei, non quidem per suam substantiam, quae semper corruptibilibus oculis inuisibilis permanet, sed certis indiciis per subiectam creatori creaturam uisibiliter appareret et syllabatim per transitorias temporum morulas humanae linguae uocibus loqueretur, qui in sua natura non corporaliter, sed spiritaliter, non sensibiliter, sed intellegibiliter, non temporaliter, sed, ut ita dicam, aeternaliter nec incipit loqui nec desinit; quod aput illum sincerius audiunt, non corporis aure sed mentis, ministri eius et nuntii, qui eius ueritate incommutabili perfruuntur inmortaliter beati: et quod faciendum modis ineffabilibus audiunt et usque in ista uisibilia adque sensibilia perducendum, incunctanter adque indifficulter efficiunt. Haec autem lex distributione temporum data est, quae prius haberet, ut dictum est, promissa terrena, quibus tamen significarentur aeterna, quae uisibilibus sacramentis celebrarent multi, intellegerent pauci. Unius tamen Dei cultus apertissima illic et uocum et rerum omnium contestatione praecipitur, non unius de turba, sed qui fecit caelum et terram et omnem animam et omnem spiritum, qui non est quod ipse. Ille enim fecit, haec facta sunt, adque ut sint et bene se habeant, eius indigent, a quo facta sunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. On the ministry of the holy angels, by which they serve the providence of God.

So it pleased divine providence to order the course of the times that, as I have said and as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, the law about the worship of the one true God should be given in decrees delivered by angels; in which the person of God himself should appear visibly, not indeed through his own substance, which always remains invisible to corruptible eyes, but by definite signs through the creation subject to the Creator; and should speak syllable by syllable, through the passing moments of time, with the sounds of human language, he who in his own nature speaks not bodily but spiritually, not to the senses but to the understanding, not in time but, so to speak, eternally, and neither begins nor ceases to speak. This his ministers and messengers hear more purely in his presence, not with the ear of the body but of the mind, who enjoy his unchangeable truth, blessed immortally; and what they hear, in ineffable ways, is to be done and brought down into these visible and sensible things, they carry out without hesitation and without difficulty. This law was given according to a distribution of times, so that at first it contained, as has been said, earthly promises, by which, however, eternal things were signified, which many celebrated in visible sacraments, but few understood. Yet the worship of one God is commanded there with the plainest testimony of all words and things; not of one out of a crowd, but of him who made heaven and earth and every soul and every spirit that is not what he is. For he made, they were made; and in order to exist and to be well, they need him by whom they were made.

### Scripture references

- Acts 7:53: allusion, high confidence
- Gal 3:19: allusion, medium confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.15 (CSEL 40:471–472; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-6/#p-10-15).

## City of God 10.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-16
- Source: CSEL 40:472–475
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that the angels who command sacrifice to the one God, and confirm it with greater miracles, must be believed rather than those who demand worship for themselves.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. An de promerenda beata uita his angelis sit credendum, qui se coli exigunt honore diuino; an uero illis, qui non sibi, sed uni Deo sancta praecipiunt religione seruiri. Quibus igitur angelis de beata et sempiterna uita credendum esse censemus? Utrum eis, qui se religionis ritibus coli uolunt sibi sacra et sacrificia flagitantes a mortalibus exhiberi, an eis, qui hunc omnem cultum uni Deo creatori omnium deberi dicunt eique reddendum uera pietate praecipiunt, cuius et ipsi contemplatione beati sunt et nos futuros esse promittunt? Illa namque uisio Dei tantae pulchritudinis uisio est et tanto amore dignissima, ut sine hac quibuslibet aliis bonis praeditum adque abundantem non dubitet Plotinus infelicissimum dicere. Cum ergo ad hunc unum quidam angeli, quidam uero ad se ipsos latria colendos signis mirabilibus excitent, et hoc ita, ut illi istos coli prohibeant, isti autem illum prohibere non audeant: quibus potius sit credendum, respondeant Platonici, respondeant quicumque philosophi, respondeant theurgi uel potius periurgi; hoc enim sunt omnes illae artes uocabulo digniores; postremo respondeant homines, si ullus naturae suae sensus, quod rationales creati sunt, ex aliqua parte uiuit in eis; respondeant, inquam, eisne sacrificandum sit dis uel angelis, qui sibi sacrificari iubent, an illi uni, cui iubent hi qui et sibi et istis prohibent? Si nec isti nec illi ulla miracula facerent, sed tantum praeciperent, alii quidem ut sibi sacrificaretur, alii uero id uetarent, sed uni tantum iuberent Deo: satis deberet pietas ipsa discernere, quid horum de fastu superbiae, quid de uera religione descenderet. Plus etiam dicam: si tantum hi mirabilibus factis humanas animas permouerent, qui sacrificia sibi expetunt, illi autem, qui hoc prohibent et uni tantum Deo sacrificari iubent, nequaquam ista uisibilia miracula facere dignarentur: profecto non sensu corporis, sed ratione mentis praeponenda eorum esset auctoritas. Cum uero Deus id egerit ad commendanda eloquia ueritatis suae, ut per istos inmortales nuntios non sui fastum, sed maiestatem illius praedicantes faceret maiora, certiora, clariora miracula, ne infirmis piis illi, qui sacrificia sibi expetunt, falsam religionem facilius persuaderent, eo quod sensibus eorum quaedam stupenda monstrarent: quem tandem ita desipere libeat, ut non uera eligat quae sectetur, ubi et ampliora inuenit quae miretur? Illa quippe miracula deorum gentilium, quae commendat historia (non ea dico, quae interuallis temporum occultis ipsius mundi causis, uerum tamen sub diuina prouidentia constitutis et ordinatis monstrosa contingunt; quales sunt inusitati partus animalium et caelo terraque rerum insolita facies, siue tantum terrens siue etiam nocens, quae procurari adque mitigari daemonicis ritibus fallacissima eorum astutia perhibentur; sed ea dico, quae ui ac potestate eorum fieri satis euidenter apparet, ut est quod effigies deorum Penatium, quas de Troia Aeneas fugiens aduexit, de loco in locum migrasse referuntur; quod cotem Tarquinius nouacula secuit: quod Epidaurius serpens Aesculapio nauiganti Romam comes adhaesit; quod nauem, qua simulacrum matris Phrygiae uehebatur, tantis hominum boumque conatibus inmobilem redditam una muliercula zona adligatam ad suae pudicitiae testimonium mouit et traxit; quod uirgo Vestalis, de cuius corruptione quaestio uertebatur, aqua inpleto cribro de Tiberi neque perfluente abstulit controuersiam) — haec ergo adque huius modi nequaquam illis, quae in populo Dei facta legimus, uirtute ac magnitudine conferenda sunt; quanto minus ea, quae illorum quoque populorum, qui tales deos coluerunt, legibus iudicata sunt prohibenda adque plectenda, magica scilicet uel theurgica! quorum pleraque specie tenus mortalium sensus imaginaria ludificatione decipiunt, quale est lunam deponere, donec subpositas, ut ait Lucanus, propior despumet in herbas; quaedam uero etsi nonnullis piorum factis uideantur opere coaequari, finis ipse, quo discernuntur, incomparabiliter haec nostra ostendit excellere. Illis enim multi tanto minus sacrificiis colendi sunt, quanto magis haec expetunt; his uero unus commendatur Deus, qui se nullis talibus indigere et scripturarum suarum testificatione et eorundem postea sacrificiorum remotione demonstrat. Si ergo angeli sibi expetunt sacrificium, praeponendi eis sunt, qui non sibi, sed Deo creatori omnium, cui seruiunt. Hinc enim ostendunt quam sincero amore nos diligant, quando per sacrificium non sibi, sed ei nos subdere uolunt, cuius et ipsi contemplatione beati sunt, et ad eum nos peruenire, a quo ipsi non recesserunt. Si autem angeli, qui non uni sed plurimis sacrificia fieri uolunt, non sibi, sed eis dis uolunt, quorum deorum angeli sunt: etiam sic eis praeponendi sunt illi, qui unius Dei deorum angeli sunt, cui sacrificari sic iubent, ut alicui alteri uetent, cum eorum nullus huic uetet, cui uni isti sacrificari iubent. Porro si, quod magis indicat eorum superba fallacia, nec boni nec bonorum deorum angeli sunt, sed daemones mali, qui non unum solum ac summum Deum, sed se ipsos sacrificiis coli uolunt: quod maius quam unius Dei contra eos eligendum est praesidium, cui seruiunt angeli boni, qui non sibi, sed illi iubent ut sacrificio seruiamus, cuius nos ipsi esse sacrificium debemus?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. Whether, concerning the attainment of the happy life, we should believe those angels who demand to be worshipped with divine honor, or those who teach that holy service is to be given by religion not to them but to the one God.

Which angels, then, do we judge should be believed about the happy and everlasting life? Those who wish to be worshipped with religious rites, demanding that sacred rites and sacrifices be offered to them by mortals, or those who say that all this worship is owed to the one God, the Creator of all, and teach that it is to be rendered to him with true piety, in contemplating whom they themselves are blessed and promise that we shall be? For that vision of God is a vision of such great beauty and so supremely worthy of love that Plotinus does not hesitate to call one who lacks it most unhappy, however endowed and abounding in any other goods. Since, then, some angels by wonderful signs rouse us to worship this one God with latreia, and others to worship themselves, and this in such a way that the former forbid the latter to be worshipped while the latter do not dare to forbid him, let the Platonists answer which should rather be believed; let any philosophers answer; let the theurgists answer, or rather the periurgists [“meddlers”], for all those arts are more worthy of that name; finally, let men answer, if any sense of their nature, that they were created rational, lives in them in any part; let them answer, I say, whether sacrifice should be offered to the gods or angels who order sacrifice to themselves, or to that one to whom those command it who forbid it both to themselves and to the others? If neither the one nor the other did any miracles, but only gave commands, some that sacrifice be offered to themselves, others forbidding it and commanding it only to the one God, piety itself ought to be enough to discern which of these came from the arrogance of pride and which from true religion. I will say more: if only those who seek sacrifices for themselves moved human souls by wonderful deeds, while those who forbid this and command sacrifice to be offered only to the one God did not deign to do such visible miracles at all, their authority should certainly be preferred, not by bodily sense but by the reason of the mind. But since God has done this to commend the oracles of his truth, that through these immortal messengers, who proclaim not their own arrogance but his majesty, he has done greater, more certain, and more illustrious miracles, lest those who seek sacrifices for themselves should more easily persuade the weak among the pious of a false religion by showing their senses some astonishing things: who, pray, would choose to be so foolish as not to choose the true things to follow, when he also finds there greater things to wonder at? For those miracles of the gods of the Gentiles which history records (I do not mean the portents that happen at intervals of time from hidden causes of the world itself, yet established and ordered under divine providence, such as unusual births of animals and strange appearances in the sky and on earth, whether only frightening or also harmful, which by the most deceitful cunning of the demons are said to be expiated and softened by demonic rites; but I mean those which appear evidently enough to be done by their force and power, as that the images of the household gods which Aeneas brought when fleeing from Troy are said to have moved from place to place; that Tarquin cut a whetstone with a razor; that the serpent of Epidaurus attached itself as a companion to Aesculapius sailing to Rome; that one little woman, to prove her chastity, moved and drew with her girdle tied to it the ship carrying the image of the Phrygian mother, which had been made immovable against the great efforts of men and oxen; that a Vestal virgin, about whose defilement an inquiry was being held, ended the controversy by carrying water from the Tiber in a sieve without its running through): these and such things are in no way to be compared in power and greatness with those we read were done among the people of God; how much less those which even by the laws of the peoples who worshipped such gods were judged forbidden and punishable, that is, magical or theurgic things! Most of these deceive the senses of mortals in appearance only, by imaginary sport, such as drawing down the moon, “until, nearer, it foams upon the herbs placed beneath it,” as Lucan says. And some, even if they seem to equal in effect some of the deeds of the pious, the very end by which they are distinguished shows that ours excel incomparably. For by those the many are shown to be the less worthy of worship by sacrifice the more they demand it; but by these the one God is commended, who shows that he needs no such things, both by the testimony of his Scriptures and by the later removal of those very sacrifices. If, then, angels seek sacrifice for themselves, those are to be preferred to them who seek it not for themselves but for God, the Creator of all, whom they serve. For by this they show with how sincere a love they love us, when by sacrifice they wish to subject us not to themselves but to him in contemplating whom they themselves are blessed, and to bring us to him from whom they have not departed. But if the angels who wish sacrifices to be made not to one but to many wish them not for themselves but for those gods whose angels they are, even so those are to be preferred who are angels of the one God of gods, to whom they command sacrifice in such a way as to forbid it to any other, while none of the others forbids it to him to whom alone these command it. And if, as their proud deceit rather indicates, they are neither good angels nor angels of good gods, but evil demons, who wish not only the one supreme God but themselves to be worshipped with sacrifices, what greater protection against them is to be chosen than that of the one God, whom the good angels serve, who command us to serve with sacrifice not themselves but him whose sacrifice we ourselves ought to be?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plotinus, Enn. 1.6.7 (Plotinus, Enneads): allusion, high confidence
- Lucan, 6.506 (Lucan, Civil War): quotation, high confidence
- Livy, 1.36 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence
- Livy, 29.14 (Livy, History of Rome): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Latria (latreia) as in 10.1. The legends: the Penates (Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1.67), Attus Navius and the whetstone (Livy 1.36), Aesculapius' serpent (Livy, Periochae 11), Claudia Quinta (Livy 29.14), the Vestal Tuccia (Valerius Maximus 8.1.5). Lucan, Pharsalia 6.506. Plotinus, Enneads 1.6.7.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.16 (CSEL 40:472–475; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-16).

## City of God 10.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-17
- Source: CSEL 40:476–478
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine recounts the miracles connected with the ark of the testimony, which commended the law of worship of the one God.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. De arca testamenti miraculisque signorum, quae ad commendandam legis ac promissionis auctoritatem diuinitus facta sunt. Proinde lex Dei, quae in edictis data est angelorum, in qua unus Deus deorum religione sacrorum iussus est coli, alii uero quilibet prohibiti, in arca erat posita, quae arca testimonii nuncupata est. Quo nomine satis significatur non Deum, qui per illa omnia colebatur, circumcludi solere uel contineri loco, cum responsa eius et quaedam humanis sensibus darentur signa ex illius arcae loco, sed uoluntatis eius hinc testimonia perhiberi; quod etiam ipsa lex erat in tabulis conscripta lapideis et in arca, ut dixi, posita, quam tempore peregrinationis in eremo cum tabernaculo, quod similiter appellatum est tabernaculum testimonii, cum debita sacerdotes ueneratione portabant; signumque erat, quod per diem nubes apparebat, quae sicut ignis nocte fulgebat; quae nubes cum moueretur, castra mouebantur, et ubi staret, castra ponebantur. Reddita sunt autem illi legi magni miraculi testimonia praeter ista, quae dixi, et praeter uoces, quae ex illius arcae loco edebantur. Nam cum terram promissionis intrantibus eadem arca transiret, Iordanes fluuius ex parte superiore subsistens et ex inferiore decurrens et ipsi et populo siccum praebuit transeundi locum. Deinde ciuitatis, quae prima hostilis occurrit more gentium deos plurimos colens, septiens eadem arca circumacta muri repente ceciderunt, nulla manu oppugnati, nullo ariete percussi. Post haec etiam cum iam in terra promissionis essent et eadem arca propter eorum peccata fuisset ab hostibus capta, hi, qui ceperant, in templo eam dei sui, quem prae ceteris colebant, honorifice conlocarunt abeuntesque clauserunt, apertoque postridie simulacrum, cui supplicabant, inuenerunt conlapsum deformiterque confractum. Deinde ipsi prodigiis acti deformiusque puniti arcam diuini testimonii populo, unde ceperant, reddiderunt. Ipsa autem redditio qualis fuit! Inposuerunt eam plaustro eique iuuencas, a quibus uitulos sugentes abstraxerant, subiunxerunt et eas quo uellent ire siuerunt, etiam inde uim diuinam explorare cupientes. At illae sine duce homine adque rectore ad Hebraeos uiam pertinaciter gradientes nec reuocatae mugitibus esurientium filiorum magnum sacramentum suis cultoribus reportarunt. Haec adque huius modi Deo parua sunt, sed magna terrendis salubriter erudiendisque mortalibus. Si enim philosophi praecipueque Platonici rectius ceteris sapuisse laudantur, sicut paulo ante commemoraui, quod diuinam prouidentiam haec quoque rerum infima adque terrena administrare docuerunt numerosarum testimonio pulchritudinum, quae non solum in corporibus animalium, uerum in herbis etiam faenoque gignuntur: quanto euidentius haec adtestantur diuinitati, quae ad horam praedicationis eius fiunt, ubi ea religio commendatur, quae omnibus caelestibus, terrestribus, infernis sacrificari uetat, uni Deo tantum iubens, qui solus diligens et dilectus beatos facit eorumque sacrificiorum tempora imperata praefiniens eaque per meliorem sacerdotem in melius mutanda praedicens non ista se adpetere, sed per haec alia potiora significare testatur, non ut ipse his honoribus sublimetur, sed ut nos ad eum colendum eique cohaerendum igne amoris eius accensi, quod nobis, non illi, bonum est, excitemur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. On the ark of the covenant and the miraculous signs done by God to commend the authority of the law and the promise.

Accordingly, the law of God, given in decrees delivered by angels, in which the one God of gods was commanded to be worshipped with sacred religion and all others forbidden, was placed in the ark, which was called the ark of the testimony. By this name it is sufficiently signified, not that God, who was worshipped through all those things, was usually enclosed or contained in a place, although his answers and certain signs to human senses were given from the place of that ark, but that testimonies of his will were borne from there; for the law itself was written on tables of stone and placed, as I said, in the ark, which the priests carried with due veneration during the time of wandering in the desert, together with the tabernacle, which was likewise called the tabernacle of the testimony. And there was a sign: a cloud appeared by day, which shone like fire by night; when the cloud moved the camp moved, and where it stood the camp was pitched. Besides these that I have mentioned, and besides the voices which came from the place of that ark, testimonies of great miracles were given to that law. For when the same ark was crossing as they entered the land of promise, the river Jordan, halting in its upper part and running off in its lower, gave dry ground for it and for the people to cross. Then, when the same ark had been carried round seven times, the walls of the first hostile city they met, which worshipped very many gods after the manner of the Gentiles, suddenly fell, attacked by no hand, struck by no battering ram. After this, too, when they were now in the land of promise and the same ark had been captured by enemies because of their sins, those who had captured it placed it with honor in the temple of their god, whom they worshipped above the rest, and went away and shut it; and when it was opened next day, they found the image to which they prayed fallen down and shamefully broken. Then, driven by portents and more shamefully punished, they returned the ark of the divine testimony to the people from whom they had taken it. And what a return it was! They put it on a cart and yoked to it heifers from whom they had taken away their suckling calves, and let them go where they would, wishing to test the divine power in this way too. And they, without any man to lead or guide them, pressing steadily on the way to the Hebrews, not called back by the lowing of their hungry young, carried back a great sign [sacramentum] to its worshippers. To God these and such things are small, but they are great for terrifying and instructing mortals for their salvation. For if the philosophers, and especially the Platonists, are praised for having thought more rightly than the rest, as I mentioned a little earlier, because they taught that divine providence administers even these lowest and earthly things, by the testimony of the numerous beauties that are produced not only in the bodies of animals but also in plants and grass, how much more clearly do these things bear witness to divinity, which happen at the time of its preaching, where that religion is commended which forbids sacrifice to all heavenly, earthly, and infernal beings, commanding it to the one God alone, who alone, loving and loved, makes men happy; and who, fixing beforehand the times of the sacrifices he commanded, and foretelling that they would be changed for the better through a better priest, testifies that he does not desire these things but signifies through them other, better things; not that he himself may be exalted by these honors, but that we may be roused, kindled by the fire of his love, to worship him and cleave to him, which is good for us, not for him.

### Scripture references

- Exod 25:16: allusion, high confidence
- Num 9:15: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 13:21: allusion, high confidence
- Josh 3:16: allusion, high confidence
- Josh 6:20: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Sam 4:11: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Sam 5:4: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Sam 6:12: allusion, high confidence
- Heb 7:12: allusion, medium confidence
- Phil 2:10: echo, low confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plotinus, Enn. 3.2.13 (Plotinus, Enneads): allusion, medium confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.17 (CSEL 40:476–478; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-17).

## City of God 10.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-18
- Source: CSEL 40:478–479
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine defends the reliability of the scriptural miracles and teaches, from Psalm 73, that the good of man is to cleave to God.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. Contra eos, qui de miraculis, quibus Dei populus eruditus est, negant ecclesiasticis libris esse credendum. An dicet aliquis ista falsa esse miracula nec fuisse facta, sed mendaciter scripta? Quisquis hoc dicit, si de his rebus negat omnino ullis litteris esse credendum, potest etiam dicere nec deos ullos curare mortalia. Non enim se aliter colendos esse persuaserunt nisi mirabilium operum effectibus, quorum et historia gentium testis est, quarum di se ostentare mirabiles potius quam utiles ostendere potuerunt. Unde hoc opere nostro, cuius hunc iam decimum librum habemus in manibus, non eos suscepimus refellendos, qui uel ullam esse uim diuinam negant uel humana non curare contendunt, sed eos, qui nostro Deo conditori sanctae et gloriosissimae ciuitatis deos suos praeferunt, nescientes eum ipsum esse etiam mundi huius uisibilis et mutabilis inuisibilem et incommutabilem conditorem et uitae beatae non de his, quae condidit, sed de se ipso uerissimum largitorem. Eius enim propheta ueracissimus ait: Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est. De fine boni namque inter philosophos quaeritur, ad quod adipiscendum omnia officia referenda sunt. Nec dixit iste: Mihi autem diuitiis abundare bonum est, aut insigniri purpura et sceptro uel diademate excellere, aut, quod nonnulli etiam philosophorum dicere non erubuerunt: Mihi uoluptas corporis bonum est; aut quod melius uelut meliores dicere uisi sunt: Mihi uirtus animi mei bonum est; sed: Mihi, inquit, adhaerere Deo bonum est. Hoc eum docuerat, cui uni tantummodo sacrificandum sancti quoque angeli eius miraculorum etiam contestatione monuerunt. Unde et ipse sacrificium eius factus erat, cuius igne intellegibili correptus ardebat, et in eius ineffabilem incorporeumque conplexum sancto desiderio ferebatur. Porro autem si multorum deorum cultores (qualescumque deos suos esse arbitrentur) ab eis facta esse miracula uel ciuilium rerum historiae uel libris magicis siue, quod honestius putant, theurgicis credunt: quid causae est, quur illis litteris nolint credere ista facta esse, quibus tanto maior debetur fides, quanto super omnes est magnus, cui uni soli sacrificandum esse praecipiunt?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. Against those who deny that the church's books should be believed about the miracles by which the people of God were taught.

Will someone say that these miracles are false, that they were not done but written falsely? Whoever says this, if he denies that any writings at all should be believed about these matters, can also say that no gods care for mortal affairs. For they have persuaded men that they should be worshipped only by the effects of wonderful works, to which the history of the nations also bears witness, whose gods could display themselves as wonderful rather than show themselves useful. So in this work of ours, of which we now have the tenth book in hand, we have not undertaken to refute those who either deny that there is any divine power or contend that it does not care for human affairs, but those who prefer their own gods to our God, the founder of the holy and most glorious city, not knowing that he himself is also the invisible and unchangeable founder of this visible and changeable world, and the most true giver of the happy life, not from the things he has made but from himself. For his most truthful prophet says: “But for me it is good to cleave to God.” For among the philosophers the question is asked about the end of good, to the attainment of which all duties are to be referred. And this man did not say, “For me it is good to abound in riches,” or “to be distinguished by purple and scepter, or to excel with a diadem,” or what some of the philosophers too have not blushed to say, “For me the pleasure of the body is good,” or what those who seemed better appeared to say better, “For me the virtue of my mind is good”; but, he says, “For me it is good to cleave to God.” This he had been taught by him to whom alone, as his holy angels too admonished by the testimony of miracles, sacrifice is to be offered. So he himself had become his sacrifice, burning, seized by his intelligible fire, and borne by holy desire into his ineffable and incorporeal embrace. Moreover, if the worshippers of many gods (whatever sort of gods they think theirs to be) believe that miracles were done by them, on the authority of the histories of civil affairs, or of books of magic, or, as they think more respectable, of theurgy, what reason is there why they should refuse to believe the writings that report these things, which deserve belief as much greater as he is great above all, to whom alone they command sacrifice to be offered?

### Scripture references

- Ps 73:28 (72:28 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 95:3 (94:3 LXX): echo, medium confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.18 (CSEL 40:478–479; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-18).

## City of God 10.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-19
- Source: CSEL 40:479–480
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that visible sacrifices are signs of the invisible sacrifice of ourselves, and that holy angels and apostles refused the honor due to God.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. Quae ratio sit uisibilis sacrificii, quod uni uero et inuisibili Deo offerri docet uera religio. Qui autem putant haec uisibilia sacrificia dis aliis congruere, illi uero tamquam inuisibili inuisibilia et maiori maiora meliorique meliora, qualia sunt purae mentis et bonae uoluntatis officia: profecto nesciunt haec ita signa esse illorum, sicut uerba sonantia signa sunt rerum. Quocirca sicut orantes adque laudantes ad eum dirigimus significantes uoces, cui res ipsas in corde quas significamus offerimus: ita sacrificantes non alteri uisibile sacrificium offerendum esse nouerimus quam illi, cuius in cordibus nostris inuisibile sacrificium nos ipsi esse debemus. Tunc nobis fauent nobisque congaudent adque ad hoc ipsum nos pro suis uiribus adiuuant angeli quique uirtutesque superiores et ipsa bonitate ac pietate potentiores. Si autem illis haec exhibere uoluerimus, non libenter accipiunt, et cum ad homines ita mittuntur, ut eorum praesentia sentiatur, apertissime uetant. Sunt exempla in litteris sanctis. Putauerunt quidam deferendum angelis honorem uel adorando uel sacrificando, qui debetur Deo, et eorum sunt admonitione prohibiti iussique hoc ei deferre, cui uni fas esse nouerunt. Imitati sunt angelos sanctos etiam sancti homines Dei. Nam Paulus et Barnabas in Lycaonia facto quodam miraculo sanitatis putati sunt di, eisque Lycaonii uictimas immolare uoluerunt; quod a se humili pietate remouentes eis in quem crederent adnuntiauerunt Deum. Nec ob aliud fallaces illi superbe sibi hoc exigunt, nisi quia uero Deo deberi sciunt. Non enim re uera, ut ait Porphyrius et nonnulli putant, cadauerinis nidoribus, sed diuinis honoribus gaudent. Copiam uero nidorum magnam habent undique, et si amplius uellent, ipsi sibi poterant exhibere. Qui ergo diuinitatem sibi adrogant spiritus, non cuiuslibet corporis fumo, sed supplicantis animo delectantur, cui decepto subiectoque dominentur, intercludentes iter ad Deum uerum, ne sit homo illius sacrificium, dum sacrificatur cuipiam praeter illum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. What the reason is for the visible sacrifice which true religion teaches is to be offered to the one true and invisible God.

Those who think that these visible sacrifices suit other gods, but that to him, as invisible, invisible sacrifices, and as greater, greater ones, and as better, better ones, are fitting, such as the services of a pure mind and a good will, certainly do not know that the former are signs of the latter, as spoken words are signs of things. Therefore, as when we pray and praise we direct signifying words to him to whom we offer in our heart the very things we signify, so when we sacrifice we should know that visible sacrifice is to be offered to no other than him whose invisible sacrifice we ourselves ought to be in our hearts. Then the angels and all the higher powers, more powerful by their very goodness and piety, favor us, rejoice with us, and help us toward this very end with all their strength. But if we wish to offer these things to them, they do not accept them willingly, and when they are sent to men in such a way that their presence is felt, they forbid it most plainly. There are examples in the holy writings. Some thought that the honor owed to God should be paid to angels, either by adoring or by sacrificing, and they were forbidden by the angels' admonition and ordered to pay it to him to whom alone they knew it was lawful. Holy men of God, too, have imitated the holy angels. For Paul and Barnabas in Lycaonia, when they had done a certain miracle of healing, were thought to be gods, and the Lycaonians wished to sacrifice victims to them; turning this away from themselves with humble piety, they proclaimed to them the God in whom they should believe. And those deceivers proudly demand this for themselves for no other reason than that they know it is owed to the true God. For they do not really delight, as Porphyry says and some think, in the smell of corpses, but in divine honors. They have a great abundance of smells from every side, and if they wanted more, they could provide it for themselves. The spirits, then, that arrogate divinity to themselves are delighted not by the smoke of any body but by the soul of the suppliant, which they may rule when it is deceived and subjected, shutting off the way to the true God, so that man may not be his sacrifice while sacrifice is offered to someone other than him.

### Scripture references

- Rev 19:10: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 22:9: allusion, high confidence
- Judg 13:16: allusion, medium confidence
- Acts 14:11: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 14:15: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Porphyry, On Abstinence 2.42 (no entry in the site's list of extrabiblical texts).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.19 (CSEL 40:479–480; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-19).

## City of God 10.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-20
- Source: CSEL 40:480–481
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine teaches that Christ, the Mediator, is both priest and offering, and that the church's daily sacrifice is the sacrament of this one sacrifice, prefigured by all the ancient ones.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. De summo ueroque sacrificio, quod ipse Dei et hominum mediator effectus est. Unde uerus ille mediator, in quantum formam serui accipiens mediator effectus est Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus, cum in forma Dei sacrificium cum Patre sumat, cum quo et unus Deus est, tamen in forma serui sacrificium maluit esse quam sumere, ne uel hac occasione quisquam existimaret cuilibet sacrificandum esse creaturae. Per hoc et sacerdos est, ipse offerens, ipse et oblatio. Cuius rei sacramentum cottidianum esse uoluit ecclesiae sacrificium, quae cum ipsius capitis corpus sit, se ipsam per ipsum discit offerre. Huius ueri sacrificii multiplicia uariaque signa erant sacrificia prisca sanctorum, cum hoc unum per multa figuraretur, tamquam uerbis multis res una diceretur, ut sine fastidio multum commendaretur. Huic summo ueroque sacrificio cuncta sacrificia falsa cesserunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. On the supreme and true sacrifice which the Mediator between God and men himself became.

Hence that true Mediator, inasmuch as, taking the form of a servant, he became the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, though in the form of God he receives sacrifice together with the Father, with whom he is also one God, yet in the form of a servant preferred to be the sacrifice rather than to receive it, lest even on this occasion anyone should think that sacrifice should be offered to any creature. By this he is both the priest, himself offering, and himself also the offering. And he willed that the daily sacrifice of the church should be the sacrament of this reality; the church, since it is the body of him, the head, learns to offer itself through him. The ancient sacrifices of the saints were many and various signs of this true sacrifice, since this one was prefigured by many, as one thing might be said in many words, so that it might be much commended without weariness. To this supreme and true sacrifice all false sacrifices have given way.

### Scripture references

- 1 Tim 2:5: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:6: allusion, high confidence
- Phil 2:7: allusion, high confidence
- John 10:30: echo, medium confidence
- Heb 7:27: allusion, high confidence
- Heb 9:14: allusion, medium confidence
- Col 1:18: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The church's daily sacrifice is the Eucharist; translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.20 (CSEL 40:480–481; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-20).

## City of God 10.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-21
- Source: CSEL 40:481–483
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that God permits demons to persecute the church so that the martyrs may be glorified, and that the martyrs conquer the powers of the air by virtue, not by appeasing them.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. De modo potestatis daemonibus datae ad glorificandos sanctos per tolerantiam passionum, qui aerios spiritus non placando ipsos, sed in Deo permanendo uicerunt. Moderatis autem praefinitisque temporibus etiam potestas permissa daemonibus, ut hominibus quos possident excitatis inimicitias aduersus Dei ciuitatem tyrannice exerceant sibique sacrificia non solum ab offerentibus sumant et a uolentibus expetant, uerum etiam ab inuitis persequendo uiolenter extorqueant, non solum perniciosa non est, sed etiam utilis inuenitur ecclesiae, ut martyrum numerus inpleatur; quos ciuitas Dei tanto clariores et honoratiores ciues habet, quanto fortius aduersus inpietatis peccatum et usque ad sanguinem certant. Hos multo elegantius, si ecclesiastica loquendi consuetudo pateretur, nostros heroas uocaremus. Hoc enim nomen a Iunone dicitur tractum, quod Graece Iuno Ἥρα appellatur, et ideo nescio quis filius eius secundum Graecorum fabulas Heros fuerit nuncupatus, hoc uidelicet ueluti mysticum significante fabula, quod aer Iunoni deputetur, ubi uolunt cum daemonibus heroas habitare, quo nomine appellant alicuius meriti animas defunctorum. Sed a contrario martyres nostri heroes nuncuparentur, si, ut dixi, usus ecclesiastici sermonis admitteret, non quo eis esset cum daemonibus in aere societas, sed quod eosdem daemones, id est aerias uincerent potestates et in eis ipsam, quidquid putatur significare, Iunonem, quae non usquequaque inconuenienter a poetis inducitur inimica uirtutibus et caelum petentibus uiris fortibus inuida. Sed rursus ei succumbit infeliciter ceditque Vergilius, ut, cum aput eum illa dicat: Vincor ab Aenea, ipsum Aenean admoneat Helenus quasi consilio religioso et dicat: Iunoni cane nota libens, dominamque potentem Supplicibus supera donis. Ex qua opinione Porphyrius, quamuis non ex sua sententia, sed ex aliorum, dicit bonum deum uel genium non uenire in hominem, nisi malus fuerit ante placatus; tamquam fortiora sint aput eos numina mala quam bona, quando quidem mala inpediunt adiutoria bonorum, nisi eis placata dent locum, malisque nolentibus bona prodesse non possunt; nocere autem mala possunt, non sibi ualentibus resistere bonis. Non est ista uerae ueraciterque sanctae religionis uia; non sic Iunonem, hoc est aerias potestates piorum uirtutibus inuidentes, nostri martyres uincunt. Non omnino, si dici usitate posset, heroes nostri supplicibus donis, sed uirtutibus diuinis Heran superant. Commodius quippe Scipio Africanus est cognominatus, quod uirtute Africam uicerit, quam si hostes donis placasset, ut parcerent.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. On the measure of power given to demons for the glorifying of the saints through the endurance of sufferings; the saints overcame the spirits of the air not by appeasing them but by abiding in God.

At limited and predetermined times the power permitted to the demons, to stir up the men whom they possess and so exercise tyrannical hostility against the city of God, and to receive sacrifices not only from those who offer them and to seek them from those who are willing, but also to extort them violently from the unwilling by persecution, is not only not harmful but is even found useful to the church, so that the number of the martyrs may be filled up; and the city of God holds them as citizens the more illustrious and honored, the more bravely they strive against the sin of impiety, even to blood. These we would call our heroes, much more elegantly, if the church's usage of speech allowed it. For this name is said to be derived from Juno, because Juno is called Hēra in Greek; and so one of her sons or other, according to the fables of the Greeks, was named Heros, the fable signifying, as it were, a mystery: that the air is assigned to Juno, where they hold that heroes dwell with the demons, by which name they call the souls of the dead of some merit. But on the contrary our martyrs would be called heroes, if, as I said, the usage of church speech admitted it, not because they had fellowship with the demons in the air, but because they conquered those same demons, that is, the powers of the air, and in them Juno herself, whatever she is thought to signify, who is not altogether inappropriately brought in by the poets as the enemy of virtues and envious of brave men seeking heaven. But Virgil again unhappily gives way and yields to her; so that, though she says in his poem, “I am conquered by Aeneas,” Helenus warns Aeneas himself, as if by religious counsel, saying: “Sing willing vows to Juno, and overcome the mighty mistress with suppliant gifts.” From this opinion Porphyry, though not in his own view but in that of others, says that a good god or genius does not come to a man unless the evil one has first been appeased; as if evil deities were stronger among them than good ones, since the evil hinder the help of the good unless they are appeased and give way, and the good cannot help against the will of the evil, while the evil can harm, since the good cannot resist them. This is not the way of the true and truly holy religion; not thus do our martyrs conquer Juno, that is, the powers of the air who envy the virtues of the pious. Our heroes, if the word could be used in the usual way, overcome Hera not by suppliant gifts at all, but by divine virtues. Scipio was more fittingly surnamed Africanus because he conquered Africa by valor than if he had appeased the enemy with gifts to spare him.

### Scripture references

- Heb 12:4: echo, medium confidence
- Rev 6:11: allusion, medium confidence
- Eph 2:2: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 7.310 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 3.438–439 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Porphyry, Regr. (Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Virgil, Aeneid 7.310 and 3.438–439. Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul (fragment).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.21 (CSEL 40:481–483; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-21).

## City of God 10.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-22
- Source: CSEL 40:483–484
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine teaches that the saints overcome demons by prayer to God, and that purification from sin comes only by grace through Christ the Mediator.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. Unde sit sanctis aduersum daemones potestas et unde cordis uera purgatio. Vera pietate homines Dei aeriam potestatem inimicam contrariamque pietati exorcizando eiciunt, non placando, omnesque tentationes aduersitatis eius uincunt orando non ipsam, sed Deum suum aduersus ipsam. Non enim aliquem uincit aut subiugat nisi societate peccati. In eius ergo nomine uincitur, qui hominem adsumsit egitque sine peccato, ut in ipso sacerdote ac sacrificio fieret remissio peccatorum, id est per mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem Christum Iesum, per quem facta peccatorum purgatione reconciliamur Deo. Non enim nisi peccatis homines separantur a Deo, quorum in hac uita non fit nostra uirtute, sed diuina miseratione purgatio, per indulgentiam illius, non per nostram potentiam; quia et ipsa quantulacumque uirtus, quae dicitur nostra, illius est nobis bonitate concessa. Multum autem nobis in hac carne tribueremus, nisi usque ad eius depositionem sub uenia uiueremus. Propterea ergo nobis per Mediatorem praestita est gratia, ut polluti carne peccati carnis peccati similitudine mundaremur. Hac Dei gratia, qua in nos ostendit magnam misericordiam suam, et in hac uita per fidem regimur, et post hanc uitam per ipsam speciem incommutabilis ueritatis ad perfectionem plenissimam perducemur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. From where the saints have power against demons, and from where comes the true purification of the heart.

By true piety men of God cast out the power of the air, hostile and opposed to piety, by exorcising it, not by appeasing it; and they overcome all the temptations of its hostility by praying, not to it, but to their God against it. For it conquers or subjugates no one except through fellowship in sin. It is conquered, then, in the name of him who took on manhood and lived without sin, so that in him, as priest and sacrifice, the forgiveness of sins might come about; that is, through the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, through whom, when the purification of sins has been made, we are reconciled to God. For men are separated from God only by sins, and in this life their purification is accomplished not by our virtue but by divine mercy, through his forgiveness, not through our power; because even that little virtue, however small, which is called ours, has been granted to us by his goodness. We would attribute much to ourselves in this flesh, were we not to live under pardon until we lay it down. For this reason, then, grace has been given us through the Mediator, so that we, polluted by the flesh of sin, might be cleansed by the likeness of the flesh of sin. By this grace of God, by which he has shown his great mercy toward us, we are both guided by faith in this life, and after this life we shall be brought to the fullest perfection by the very sight of unchangeable truth.

### Scripture references

- Heb 4:15: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Tim 2:5: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 5:10: echo, medium confidence
- Rom 8:3: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:7: echo, medium confidence
- Eph 2:2: echo, medium confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.22 (CSEL 40:483–484; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-22).

## City of God 10.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-23
- Source: CSEL 40:484–485
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine notes that Porphyry, citing an oracle, held that only the “principles” purify, and compares his Father, paternal Mind, and intermediate principle with the Christian Trinity.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. De principiis, in quibus Platonici purgationem animae esse profitentur. Dicit etiam Porphyrius diuinis oraculis fuisse responsum nos non purgari lunae teletis adque solis, ut hinc ostenderetur nullorum deorum teletis hominem posse purgari. Cuius enim teletae purgant, si lunae solisque non purgant, quos inter caelestes deos praecipuos habent? Denique eodem dicit oraculo expressum principia posse purgare, ne forte, cum dictum esset non purgare teletas solis et lunae, alicuius alterius dei de turba ualere ad purgandum teletae crederentur. Quae autem dicat esse principia tamquam Platonicus, nouimus. Dicit enim Deum Patrem et Deum Filium, quem Graece appellat paternum intellectum uel paternam mentem; de Spiritu autem sancto aut nihil aut non aperte aliquid dicit; quamuis quem alium dicat horum medium, non intellego. Si enim tertiam, sicut Plotinus, ubi de tribus principalibus substantiis disputat, animae naturam etiam iste uellet intellegi, non utique diceret horum medium, id est Patris et Filii medium. Postponit quippe Plotinus animae naturam paterno intellectui; iste autem cum dicit medium, non postponit, sed interponit. Et nimirum hoc dixit, ut potuit siue ut uoluit, quod nos sanctum Spiritum, nec Patris tantum nec Filii tantum, sed utriusque Spiritum dicimus. Liberis enim uerbis loquuntur philosophi, nec in rebus ad intellegendum difficillimis offensionem religiosarum aurium pertimescunt. Nobis autem ad certam regulam loqui fas est, ne uerborum licentia etiam de rebus, quae his significantur, inpiam gignat opinionem.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. On the principles in which, the Platonists declare, the purification of the soul lies.

Porphyry also says that it was answered by divine oracles that we are not purified by the teletai of the moon and the sun, so that it might be shown from this that man cannot be purified by the teletai of any gods. For whose teletai purify, if those of the moon and sun do not, whom they hold chief among the heavenly gods? Finally, he says it was declared by the same oracle that the principles can purify, lest perhaps, when it had been said that the teletai of the sun and moon do not purify, the teletai of some other god out of the crowd should be believed to have power to purify. What he, as a Platonist, says the principles are, we know. For he speaks of God the Father and God the Son, whom he calls in Greek the paternal intellect or paternal mind; of the Holy Spirit he says either nothing or nothing clearly; though I do not understand what other being he calls the one between these. For if he, like Plotinus where he discusses the three principal substances, wished the third to be understood as the nature of the soul, he would certainly not call it the one between these, that is, between the Father and the Son. For Plotinus places the nature of the soul after the paternal intellect; but this man, when he says “between”, does not place it after but in between. And no doubt he said, as he could or as he would, what we call the Holy Spirit, the Spirit not of the Father only nor of the Son only, but of both. For philosophers speak with free words and do not fear to offend religious ears in matters most difficult to understand. But it is right for us to speak according to a fixed rule, lest freedom of words beget an impious opinion even about the things they signify.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Porphyry, Regr. (Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul): allusion, medium confidence
- Plotinus, Enn. 5.1 (Plotinus, Enneads): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul (fragment), drawing on the Chaldean Oracles; Plotinus, Enneads 5.1 on the three hypostases. The comparison with the Trinity is Augustine's own; translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.23 (CSEL 40:484–485; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-23).

## City of God 10.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-24
- Source: CSEL 40:485–487
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine confesses one God in three persons against Sabellianism and teaches that Christ, the Word made flesh, is the one Principle who purifies human nature, which Porphyry's pride would not accept.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIIII. De uno ueroque principio, quod solum naturam humanam purgat adque renouat. Nos itaque ita non dicimus duo uel tria principia, cum de Deo loquimur, sicut nec duos deos uel tres nobis licitum est dicere quamuis de unoquoque loquentes, uel de Patre uel de Filio uel de Spiritu sancto, etiam singulum quemque Deum esse fateamur, nec dicamus tamen quod haeretici Sabelliani, eundem esse Patrem, qui est et Filius, et eundem Spiritum sanctum, qui est et Pater et Filius, sed Patrem esse Filii Patrem, et Filium Patris Filium, et Patris et Filii Spiritum sanctum nec Patrem esse nec Filium. Verum itaque dictum est non purgari hominem nisi principio, quamuis pluraliter aput eos sint dicta principia. Sed subditus Porphyrius inuidis potestatibus, de quibus et erubescebat, et eas libere redarguere formidabat, noluit intellegere Dominum Christum esse principium, cuius incarnatione purgamur. Eum quippe in ipsa carne contemsit, quam propter sacrificium nostrae purgationis adsumsit, magnum scilicet sacramentum ea superbia non intellegens, quam sua ille humilitate deiecit uerus benignusque Mediator, in ea se ostendens mortalitate mortalibus, quam maligni fallacesque mediatores non habendo se superbius extulerunt miserisque hominibus adiutorium deceptorium uelut inmortales mortalibus promiserunt. Bonus itaque uerusque Mediator ostendit peccatum esse malum, non carnis substantiam uel naturam, quae cum anima hominis et suscipi sine peccato potuit et haberi, et morte deponi et in melius resurrectione mutari; nec ipsam mortem, quamuis esset poena peccati, quam tamen pro nobis sine peccato ipse persoluit, peccando esse uitandam, sed potius, si facultas datur, pro iustitia perferendam. Ideo enim soluere potuit moriendo peccata, quia et mortuus est, et non pro peccato. Hunc ille Platonicus non cognouit esse principium; nam cognosceret purgatorium. Neque enim caro principium est aut anima humana, sed Verbum per quod facta sunt omnia. Non ergo caro per se ipsam mundat, sed per Verbum a quo suscepta est, cum Verbum caro factum est et habitauit in nobis. Nam de carne sua manducanda mystice loquens, cum hi qui non intellexerunt offensi recederent dicentes: Durus est hic sermo, quis eum potest audire? respondit manentibus ceteris: Spiritus est qui uiuificat, caro autem non prodest quidquam. Principium ergo suscepta anima et carne et animam credentium mundat et carnem. Ideo quaerentibus Iudaeis quis esset respondit se esse principium. Quod utique carnales, infirmi, peccatis obnoxii et ignorantiae tenebris obuoluti nequaquam percipere possemus, nisi ab eo mundaremur adque sanaremur per hoc quod eramus et non eramus. Eramus enim homines, sed iusti non eramus; in illius autem incarnatione natura humana erat, sed iusta, non peccatrix erat. Haec est mediatio, qua manus lapsis iacentibusque porrecta est; hoc est semen dispositum per angelos, in quorum edictis et lex dabatur, qua et unus Deus coli iubebatur et hic Mediator uenturus promittebatur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 24. On the one true Principle, which alone purifies and renews human nature.

So we do not speak of two or three principles when we speak of God, just as it is not lawful for us to speak of two or three gods, although, speaking of each one, whether of the Father or of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, we confess that each one singly is God. Nor do we say what the Sabellian heretics say, that the Father is the same as the Son, and the Holy Spirit the same as the Father and the Son; but that the Father is the Father of the Son, and the Son the Son of the Father, and the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son is neither the Father nor the Son. It was said truly, then, that man is not purified except by a Principle, although among them “principles” are spoken of in the plural. But Porphyry, subject to envious powers, of whom he was both ashamed and afraid to rebuke freely, would not understand that the Lord Christ is the Principle by whose incarnation we are purified. For he despised him in that very flesh which he took for the sacrifice of our purification, not understanding the great mystery [sacramentum] because of that pride which the true and kind Mediator cast down by his humility, showing himself to mortals in that mortality which the malignant and deceitful mediators, by not having it, used to exalt themselves the more proudly and, as immortals to mortals, to promise wretched men a deceitful help. So the good and true Mediator showed that sin is evil, not the substance or nature of the flesh, which, together with a human soul, could be taken on and held without sin, and laid down by death, and changed for the better by resurrection; and that death itself, though it is the punishment of sin, which he nevertheless paid for us without sin, is not to be avoided by sinning, but rather endured, if the opportunity is given, for righteousness. For he could loose sins by dying precisely because he both died and did not die for his own sin. This man, the Platonist, did not recognize as the Principle; for he would have recognized him as the purifier. For neither the flesh nor the human soul is the Principle, but the Word, through whom all things were made. The flesh, then, does not cleanse by itself, but through the Word by whom it was taken up, when “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” For when he spoke mystically of eating his flesh, and those who did not understand went away offended, saying, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”, he answered those who remained: “It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing.” The Principle, then, having taken up a soul and flesh, cleanses both the soul and the flesh of believers. That is why, when the Jews asked who he was, he answered that he was the Principle. We, fleshly, weak, liable to sins and wrapped in the darkness of ignorance, could never have grasped this unless we had been cleansed and healed by him through what we were and what we were not. For we were men, but we were not righteous; but in his incarnation there was human nature, but righteous, not sinful. This is the mediation by which a hand was stretched out to the fallen and prostrate; this is the seed ordained through angels, in whose decrees the law too was given, by which both the one God was commanded to be worshipped and this Mediator was promised as coming.

### Scripture references

- John 1:3: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:14: quotation, high confidence
- John 6:60: quotation, high confidence
- John 6:63: quotation, high confidence
- John 8:25: allusion, high confidence
- Gal 3:19: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Pet 2:22: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Porphyry, Regr. (Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- John 8:25 is cited in the Latin form “(I am) the Principle [or Beginning]”. Sabellians taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are one person under different names. The editor's chapter number “[XXIHI.]” leaked into the digital text and is removed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.24 (CSEL 40:485–487; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-24).

## City of God 10.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-25
- Source: CSEL 40:487–490
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine teaches that the righteous of old were justified by faith in the mystery of Christ, and expounds Psalm 73 to show that man's good is to cleave to God and hope in him with the angels.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXV. Omnes sanctos et sub legis tempore et sub prioribus saeculis in sacramento et fide Christi iustificatos fuisse. Huius sacramenti fide etiam iusti antiqui mundari pie uiuendo potuerunt, non solum antequam lex populo Hebraeo daretur (neque enim eis praedicator Deus uel angeli defuerunt), sed ipsius quoque legis temporibus, quamuis in figuris rerum spiritalium habere uideretur promissa carnalia, propter quod uetus dicitur testamentum. Nam et prophetae tunc erant, per quos, sicut per angelos, eadem promissio praedicata est, et ex illorum numero erat, cuius tam magnam diuinamque sententiam de boni humani fine paulo ante commemoraui: Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est. In quo plane psalmo duorum testamentorum, quae dicuntur uetus et nouum, satis est declarata distinctio. Propter carnales enim terrenasque promissiones, cum eas inpiis abundare perspiceret, dicit pedes suos paene fuisse commotos et effusos in lapsum propemodum gressus suos, tamquam frustra Deo ipse seruisset, cum ea felicitate, quam de illo expectabat, contemtores eius florere perspiceret; seque in rei huius inquisitione laborasse, uolentem quur ita esset adprehendere, donec intraret in sanctuarium Dei et intellegeret in nouissima eorum, qui felices uidebantur erranti. Tunc eos intellexit in eo, quod se extulerunt, sicut dicit, fuisse deiectos et defecisse ac perisse propter iniquitates suas; totumque illud culmen temporalis felicitatis ita eis factum tamquam somnium euigilantis, qui se repente inuenit suis quae somniabat fallacibus gaudiis destitutum. Et quoniam in hac terra uel in ciuitate terrena magni sibi uidebantur: Domine, inquit, imaginem illorum in ciuitate tua ad nihilum rediges. Quod huic tamen utile fuerit etiam ipsa terrena non nisi ab uno uero Deo quaerere, in cuius potestate sunt omnia, satis ostendit ubi ait: Velut pecus factus sum aput te, et ego semper tecum. Velut pecus dixit utique non intellegens. Ea quippe a te desiderare debui, quae mihi cum inpiis non possunt esse communia, quibus eos cum abundare cernerem, putaui me incassum tibi seruisse, quando et illi haec haberent, qui tibi seruire noluissent. Tamen ego semper tecum, qui etiam in talium rerum desiderio deos alios non quaesiui. Ac per hoc sequitur: Tenuisti manum dexterae meae, et in uoluntate tua deduxisti me, et cum gloria adsumsisti me; tamquam ad sinistram cuncta illa pertineant, quae abundare aput inpios cum uidisset paene conlapsus est. Quid enim mihi est, inquit, in caelo, et a te quid uolui super terram? Reprehendit se ipsum iusteque sibi displicuit, quia, cum tam magnum bonum haberet in caelo (quod post intellexit), rem transitoriam, fragilem et quodam modo luteam felicitatem a suo Deo quaesiuit in terra. Defecit, inquit, cor meum et caro mea, Deus cordis mei, defectu utique bono ab inferioribus ad superna; unde in alio psalmo dicitur: Desiderat et deficit anima mea in atria Domini; item in alio: Defecit in salutare tuum anima mea. Tamen cum de utroque dixisset, id est de corde et carne deficiente, non subiecit: Deus cordis et carnis meae, sed Deus cordis mei. Per cor quippe caro mundatur. Unde dicit Dominus: Mundate, quae intus sunt, et quae foris sunt munda erunt. Partem deinde suam dicit ipsum Deum, non aliquid ab eo, sed ipsum. Deus, inquit, cordis mei, et pars mea Deus in saecula; quod inter multa, quae ab hominibus eliguntur, ipse illi placuerit eligendus. Quia ecce, inquit, qui longe se faciunt a te, peribunt; perdidisti omnem, qui fornicatur abs te, hoc est, qui multorum deorum uult esse prostibulum. Unde sequitur illud, propter quod et cetera de eodem psalmo dicenda uisa sunt: Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est, non longe ire, non per plurima fornicari. Adhaerere autem Deo tunc perfectum erit, cum totum, quod liberandum est, fuerit liberatum. Nunc uero fit illud, quod sequitur: Ponere in Deo spem meam. Spes enim quae uidetur, non est spes; quod enim uidet quis, quid sperat? ait apostolus. Si autem quod non uidemus speramus, per patientiam expectamus, In hac autem spe nunc constituti agamus quod sequitur, et simus nos quoque pro modulo nostro angeli Dei, id est nuntii eius, adnuntiantes eius uoluntatem et gloriam gratiamque laudantes. Unde cum dixisset: Ponere in Deo spem meam, ut adnuntiem, inquit, omnes laudes tuas in portis filiae Sion. Haec est gloriosissima ciuitas Dei: haec unum Deum nouit et colit; hanc angeli sancti adnuntiauerunt, qui nos ad eius societatem inuitauerunt ciuesque suos in illa esse uoluerunt; quibus non placet ut eos colamus tamquam nostros deos, sed cum eis et illorum et nostrum Deum; nec eis sacrificemus, sed cum ipsis sacrificium simus Deo. Nullo itaque dubitante, qui haec deposita maligna obstinatione considerat, omnes inmortales beati, qui nobis non inuident (neque enim si inuiderent, essent beati), sed potius nos diligunt, ut et nos cum ipsis beati simus, plus nobis fauent, plus adiuuant, quando unum Deum cum illis colimus, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum, quam si eos ipsos per sacrificia coleremus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 25. That all the saints, both under the time of the law and in earlier ages, were justified in the mystery and faith of Christ.

By faith in this mystery the righteous of old too could be cleansed by living piously, not only before the law was given to the Hebrew people (for God or the angels did not fail them as preachers), but also in the times of the law itself, although it seemed to contain fleshly promises as figures of spiritual things, for which reason it is called the Old Testament. For there were prophets then too, through whom, as through angels, the same promise was proclaimed; and of their number was he whose great and divine saying about the end of human good I mentioned a little earlier: “But for me it is good to cleave to God.” In this psalm the distinction between the two testaments, which are called old and new, is clearly enough declared. For because of fleshly and earthly promises, when he saw that the impious abounded in them, he says that his feet were almost moved and his steps had nearly slipped, as though he had served God in vain, when he saw those who despised him flourishing with that happiness which he himself expected from God; and that he labored in inquiring into this, wishing to grasp why it was so, until he entered the sanctuary of God and understood the last end of those who seemed happy to him in his error. Then he understood that in exalting themselves, as he says, they had been cast down, had failed and perished because of their iniquities; and that all that height of temporal happiness had become for them like the dream of one who awakes and suddenly finds himself deprived of the deceitful joys he was dreaming. And since in this land, or in the earthly city, they seemed great to themselves, he says: “O Lord, in your city you will reduce their image to nothing.” Yet how useful it was to him to seek even earthly things only from the one true God, in whose power all things are, he shows clearly enough when he says: “I became like a beast before you, and I am always with you.” “Like a beast”, he said, meaning without understanding: “For I ought to have desired from you such things as cannot be common to me and the impious; when I saw them abounding in these, I thought I had served you in vain, since those who had refused to serve you had these things. Yet I am always with you, for even in desiring such things I did not seek other gods.” And so it follows: “You have held my right hand, and in your will you have led me, and with glory you have taken me up”; as though all those things belonged to the left hand which, when he saw them abounding among the impious, almost made him fall. “For what have I in heaven,” he says, “and what have I wished from you on earth?” He reproached himself and was justly displeased with himself because, when he had so great a good in heaven (as he afterwards understood), he sought from his God on earth a passing, fragile, and in a way muddy happiness. “My heart and my flesh have failed,” he says, “O God of my heart”: a good failing, certainly, from lower things to higher. So in another psalm it is said: “My soul longs and faints for the courts of the Lord”; and in another: “My soul has fainted for your salvation.” Yet when he had spoken of both, that is, of the heart and the flesh failing, he did not add, “God of my heart and my flesh,” but “God of my heart.” For the flesh is cleansed through the heart. So the Lord says: “Cleanse what is within, and what is outside will be clean.” Then he says that his portion is God himself, not something from him, but himself. “God of my heart,” he says, “and God my portion forever”; because among the many things that men choose, it pleased him to choose God himself. “For behold,” he says, “those who make themselves far from you will perish; you have destroyed everyone who commits fornication away from you,” that is, who wishes to be the prostitute of many gods. From which follows that saying for whose sake the rest of this psalm seemed worth discussing: “But for me it is good to cleave to God”: not to go far away, not to commit fornication with very many. Cleaving to God will be perfect when all that is to be set free has been set free. But now what follows is done: “To put my hope in God.” For “hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one hope for what he sees?” says the apostle. “But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.” Being now set in this hope, let us do what follows, and let us too, in our small measure, be angels of God, that is, his messengers, announcing his will and praising his glory and grace. So when he had said, “To put my hope in God,” he says, “that I may announce all your praises in the gates of the daughter of Zion.” This is the most glorious city of God; this city knows and worships the one God; the holy angels announced it, who invited us to its fellowship and wished us to be their fellow citizens in it; it does not please them that we should worship them as our gods, but that with them we should worship their God and ours; nor that we should sacrifice to them, but that with them we should be a sacrifice to God. No one, then, who considers these things without malignant obstinacy doubts that all the blessed immortals, who do not envy us (for if they envied, they would not be blessed), but rather love us so that we too may be blessed with them, favor us more and help us more when we worship with them the one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, than if we worshipped them themselves by sacrifices.

### Scripture references

- Ps 73:2 (72:2 LXX): allusion, high confidence
- Ps 73:17 (72:17 LXX): allusion, high confidence
- Ps 73:20 (72:20 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 73:22 (72:22 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 73:23 (72:23 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 73:24 (72:24 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 73:25 (72:25 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 73:26 (72:26 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 73:27 (72:27 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 73:28 (72:28 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 84:2 (83:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 119:81 (118:81 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Matt 23:26: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:24: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:25: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Psalm 73 (LXX/Vulgate 72) is quoted in the Old Latin wording (e.g. v. 27 “commits fornication away from you”, v. 28 “in the gates of the daughter of Zion”). “Fornication” here is the psalm's image of idolatry.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.25 (CSEL 40:487–490; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-16/#p-10-25).

## City of God 10.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-26/#p-10-26
- Source: CSEL 40:490–491
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine presses Porphyry, who distinguished angels announcing the Father's will from those serving theurgists, to admit openly that the latter are demons.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVI. De inconstantia Porphyrii inter confessionem ueri Dei et cultum daemonum fluctuantis. Nescio quo modo (quantum mihi uidetur) amicis suis theurgis erubescebat Porphyrius. Nam ista utcumque sapiebat, sed contra multorum deorum cultum non libere defendebat. Et angelos quippe alios esse dixit, qui deorsum descendentes hominibus theurgicis diuina pronuntient; alios autem, qui in terris ea, quae Patris sunt, et altitudinem eius profunditatemque declarent. Num igitur hos angelos, quorum ministerium est declarare uoluntatem Patris, credendum est uelle nos subdi nisi ei, cuius nobis adnuntiant uoluntatem? Unde optime admonet etiam ipse Platonicus imitandos eos potius quam inuocandos. Non itaque debemus metuere, ne inmortales et beatos uni Deo subditos non eis sacrificando offendamus. Quod enim non nisi uni uero Deo deberi sciunt, cui et ipsi adhaerendo beati sunt, procul dubio neque per ullam significantem figuram, neque per ipsam rem, quae sacramentis significatur, sibi exhiberi uolunt. Daemonum est haec adrogantia superborum adque miserorum, a quibus longe diuersa est pietas subditorum Deo nec aliunde quam illi cohaerendo beatorum. Ad quod bonum percipiendum etiam nobis sincera benignitate oportet ut faueant, neque sibi adrogent quo eis subiciamur, sed eum adnuntient sub quo eis in pace sociemur. Quid adhuc trepidas, o philosophe, aduersus potestates et ueris uirtutibus et ueri Dei muneribus inuidas habere liberam uocem? Iam distinxisti angelos, qui Patris adnuntiant uoluntatem, ab eis angelis, qui ad theurgos homines nescio qua deducti arte descendunt. Quid adhuc eos honoras, ut dicas pronuntiare diuina? Quae tandem diuina pronuntiant, qui non uoluntatem Patris adnuntiant? Nempe illi sunt, quos sacris precibus inuidus adligauit, ne praestarent animae purgationem, nec a bono, ut dicis, purgare cupiente ab illis uinculis solui et suae potestati reddi potuerunt. Adhuc dubitas haec maligna esse daemonia, uel te fingis fortasse nescire, dum non uis theurgos offendere, a quibus curiositate deceptus ista perniciosa et insana pro magno beneficio didicisti? Audes istam inuidam non potentiam, sed pestilentiam, et non dicam dominam, sed, quod tu fateris, ancillam potius inuidorum isto aere transcenso leuare in caelum et inter deos uestros etiam sidereos conlocare, uel ipsa quoque sidera his obprobriis infamare?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 26. On the inconsistency of Porphyry, wavering between confessing the true God and worshipping demons.

Somehow, as it seems to me, Porphyry was ashamed before his friends the theurgists. For he knew these things in some measure, but did not defend them freely against the worship of many gods. For he said that there are some angels who come down and announce divine things to theurgists, and others who declare on earth the things that are the Father's, his height and his depth. Are we then to believe that these angels, whose ministry is to declare the will of the Father, wish us to be subject to anyone but him whose will they announce to us? So this Platonist himself advises very well that they should be imitated rather than invoked. We need not fear, then, that we offend the immortal and blessed beings subject to the one God by not sacrificing to them. For what they know is owed only to the one true God, by cleaving to whom they too are blessed, they certainly do not wish to be offered to themselves, either by any signifying figure or by the very reality which is signified by the sacraments. This is the arrogance of proud and wretched demons, from whom the piety of those who are subject to God, and blessed from no other source than by cleaving to him, is far different. And in order that we too may receive this good, they must favor us with sincere kindness, and not claim for themselves that we be subjected to them, but announce him under whom we may be joined with them in peace. Why do you still tremble, O philosopher, to speak freely against the powers that envy true virtues and the gifts of the true God? You have already distinguished the angels who announce the will of the Father from those angels who come down to theurgist men, drawn by some art or other. Why do you still honor these, so as to say that they announce divine things? What divine things, pray, do they announce who do not announce the will of the Father? These are surely the ones whom the envious man bound with sacred prayers so that they would not grant purification to a soul, and who, as you say, could not be released from those bonds by the good man who wished to purify it, and restored to their own power. Do you still doubt that these are malignant demons, or do you perhaps pretend not to know, because you do not wish to offend the theurgists, from whom, deceived by curiosity, you learned these ruinous and insane things as a great benefit? Do you dare to raise this envious thing, not a power but a pestilence, and, I will not say a mistress, but, as you admit, rather the handmaid of the envious, above this air into heaven, and to place it among your gods, even the starry ones, or to defame the stars themselves with these reproaches?

### Scripture references

- Eph 3:18: echo, low confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Porphyry, Regr. (Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul): quotation, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul (fragment).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.26 (CSEL 40:490–491; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-26/#p-10-26).

## City of God 10.27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-26/#p-10-27
- Source: CSEL 40:491–494
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine accuses Porphyry of placing human vices in the heavenly gods and sending the unlearned to theurgists, while Christ, whom even Porphyry's oracles called holy and immortal, purifies the whole man.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVII. De inpietate Porphyrii, qua etiam Apulei transcendit errorem. Quanto humanius et tolerabilius consectaneus tuus Platonicus Apuleius errauit, qui tantummodo daemones a luna et infra ordinatos agitari morbis passionum mentisque turbelis honorans eos quidem, sed uolens nolensque confessus est: deos tamen caeli superiores ad aetheria spatia pertinentes, siue uisibiles, quos conspicuos lucere cernebat, solem ac lunam et cetera ibidem lumina, siue inuisibiles, quos putabat, ab omni labe istarum perturbationum quanta potuit disputatione secreuit! Tu autem hoc didicisti non a Platone, sed a Chaldaeis magistris tuis, ut in aetherias uel empyreas mundi sublimitates et firmamenta caelestia extolleres uitia humana, ut possent di uestri theurgis pronuntiare diuina; quibus diuinis te tamen per intellectualem uitam facis altiorem, ut tibi uidelicet tamquam philosopho theurgicae artis purgationes nequaquam necessariae uideantur; sed aliis eas tamen inportas, ut hanc ueluti mercedem reddas magistris tuis, quod eos, qui philosophari non possunt, ad ista seducis, quae tibi tamquam superiorum capaci esse inutilia confiteris; ut uidelicet quicumque a philosophiae uirtute remoti sunt, quae ardua nimis adque paucorum est, te auctore theurgos homines, a quibus non quidem in anima intellectuali, uerum saltem in anima spiritali purgentur, inquirant, et quoniam istorum, quos philosophari piget, incomparabiliter maior est multitudo, plures ad secretos et inlicitos magistros tuos, quam ad scholas Platonicas uenire cogantur. Hoc enim tibi inmundissimi daemones, deos aetherios se esse fingentes, quorum praedicator et angelus factus es, promiserunt, quod in anima spiritali theurgica arte purgati ad Patrem quidem non redeunt, sed super aerias plagas inter deos aetherios habitabunt. Non audit ista hominum multitudo, propter quos a daemonum dominatu liberandos Christus aduenit. In illo enim habent misericordissimam purgationem et mentis et spiritus et corporis sui. Propterea quippe totum hominem sine peccato ille suscepit, ut totum, quo constat homo, a peccatorum peste sanaret. Quem tu quoque utinam cognouisses eique te potius quam uel tuae uirtuti, quae humana, fragilis et infirma est, uel perniciosissimae curiositati sanandum tutius commisisses. Non enim te decepisset, quem uestra, ut tu ipse scribis, oracula sanctum inmortalemque confessa sunt; de quo etiam poeta nobilissimus poetice quidem, quia in alterius adumbrata persona, ueraciter tamen, si ad ipsum referas, dixit: Te duce, si qua manent sceleris uestigia nostri, Inrita perpetua soluent formidine terras. Ea quippe dixit, quae etiam multum proficientium in uirtute iustitiae possunt propter huius uitae infirmitatem, etsi non scelera, scelerum tamen manere uestigia, quae non nisi ab illo saluatore sanantur, de quo iste uersus expressus est. Nam utique non hoc a se ipso se dixisse Vergilius in eclogae ipsius quarto ferme uersu indicat, ubi ait: Ultima Cumaei uenit iam carminis aetas; unde hoc a Cumaea Sibylla dictum esse incunctanter apparet. Theurgi uero illi uel potius daemones deorum species figurasque fingentes inquinant potius quam purgant humanum spiritum falsitate phantasmatum et deceptoria uanarum ludificatione formarum. Quo modo enim purgent hominis spiritum, qui inmundum habent proprium? Alioquin nullo modo carminibus inuidi hominis ligarentur ipsumque inane beneficium, quod praestaturi uidebantur, aut metu premerent aut simili inuidentia denegarent. Sufficit quod purgatione theurgica neque intellectualem animam, hoc est mentem nostram, dicis posse purgari, et ipsam spiritalem, id est nostrae animae partem mente inferiorem, quam tali arte purgari posse adseris, inmortalem tamen aeternamque non posse hac arte fieri confiteris. Christus autem uitam promittit aeternam; unde ad eum mundus uobis quidem stomachantibus, mirantibus tamen stupentibusque concurrit. Quid prodest quia negare non potuisti errare homines theurgica disciplina et quam plurimos fallere per caecam insipientemque sententiam adque esse certissimum errorem agendo et supplicando ad principes angelosque decurrere, et rursum, quasi ne operam perdidisse uidearis ista discendo, mittis homines ad theurgos, ut per eos anima spiritalis purgetur illorum, qui non secundum intellectualem animam uiuunt?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 27. On the impiety of Porphyry, by which he goes beyond even the error of Apuleius.

How much more humanely and tolerably your fellow Platonist Apuleius erred! For he honored the demons, set from the moon downward, as agitated by the diseases of passions and the disturbances of mind, though he confessed it willy-nilly; but the higher gods of heaven, belonging to the ethereal spaces, whether visible, whom he saw shining conspicuously, the sun and moon and the other lights there, or invisible, as he thought, he separated with all the argument he could from every stain of these disturbances. But you learned, not from Plato but from your Chaldean masters, to lift human vices into the ethereal or empyrean heights of the world and the heavenly firmaments, so that your gods could announce divine things to theurgists; and yet you make yourself higher than these divine things by the intellectual life, so that, as a philosopher, the purifications of the theurgic art seem to you in no way necessary. Yet you urge them on others, to pay this, as it were, as a fee to your masters, that you lead astray to these things those who cannot philosophize, things which you confess to be useless to you as one capable of higher things; so that, of course, all who are far from the virtue of philosophy, which is too arduous and belongs to few, may on your authority seek out theurgist men, by whom they may be purified, not indeed in the intellectual soul, but at least in the spiritual soul; and since the multitude of those who are too lazy to philosophize is incomparably greater, more may be driven to your secret and unlawful masters than to the Platonic schools. For this is what the most unclean demons, pretending to be ethereal gods, whose preacher and angel you have become, promised you: that those purified in the spiritual soul by the theurgic art do not indeed return to the Father, but will dwell above the regions of the air among the ethereal gods. The multitude of men does not listen to these things, for whose deliverance from the dominion of demons Christ came. For in him they have the most merciful purification of their mind, their spirit, and their body. For this reason he took on the whole man without sin, that he might heal from the plague of sins the whole of which man consists. Would that you too had known him and had more safely committed yourself to him for healing, rather than either to your own virtue, which is human, fragile, and weak, or to a most ruinous curiosity! For he would not have deceived you, whom your own oracles, as you yourself write, confessed to be holy and immortal; of whom also a most famous poet said, poetically indeed, because in the shadowed person of another, yet truly, if you refer it to him:

“Under your leadership, if any traces of our crime remain,
made void, they will free the lands from perpetual fear.”

For he said what may remain, because of the weakness of this life, even in those who make much progress in the virtue of righteousness: if not crimes, yet traces of crimes, which are healed only by that Savior of whom this verse speaks. For Virgil indicates, at about the fourth line of that eclogue, that he did not say this of himself, where he says: “Now has come the last age of the Cumaean song”; from which it plainly appears that this was said by the Cumaean Sibyl. But those theurgists, or rather demons feigning the appearances and shapes of gods, defile rather than purify the human spirit by the falsity of phantoms and the deceitful sport of empty forms. For how could those purify the spirit of man who have an unclean one of their own? Otherwise they would in no way be bound by the spells of an envious man, and would not either hold back out of fear, or deny out of a like envy, the empty benefit which they seemed about to bestow. It is enough that you say that neither the intellectual soul, that is, our mind, can be purified by theurgic purification, and that you confess that the spiritual soul itself, that is, the part of our soul lower than the mind, which you assert can be purified by such an art, cannot by this art be made immortal and eternal. But Christ promises eternal life; so the world runs to him, while you people fume, yet wonder and are amazed. What good is it that you could not deny that men err by the theurgic discipline and deceive very many by a blind and foolish notion, and that it is a most certain error to run with rites and supplications to principalities and angels; and then again, as if not to seem to have wasted your effort in learning these things, you send men to the theurgists so that through them the spiritual soul may be purified of those who do not live according to the intellectual soul?

### Scripture references

- Heb 4:15: echo, medium confidence
- John 3:15: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Porphyry, Porphyry, Phil. orac. (Porphyry, Philosophy from Oracles (fragments)): allusion, high confidence
- Virgil, Ecl. 4.13–14 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Ecl. 4.4 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Apuleius, On the God of Socrates. Porphyry's oracles praising Christ as holy and immortal come from his Philosophy from Oracles (see 19.23). Virgil, Eclogue 4.13–14 and 4.4, read by Augustine as referring to Christ.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.27 (CSEL 40:491–494; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-26/#p-10-27).

## City of God 10.28

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-26/#p-10-28
- Source: CSEL 40:494–496
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that Porphyry, who held that only the paternal Mind purifies, rejected Christ, the Wisdom of God, out of pride at the incarnation and the cross.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIII. Quibus persuasionibus Porphyrius obcaecatus non potuerit ueram sapientiam, quod est Christus, agnoscere. Mittis ergo homines in errorem certissimum, neque hoc tantum malum te pudet, cum uirtutis et sapientiae profitearis amatorem; quam si uere ac fideliter amasses, Christum Dei uirtutem et Dei sapientiam cognouisses nec ab eius saluberrima humilitate tumore inflatus uanae scientiae resiluisses. Confiteris tamen etiam spiritalem animam sine theurgicis artibus et sine teletis, quibus frustra discendis elaborasti, posse continentiae uirtute purgari. Aliquando etiam dicis, quod teletae non post mortem eleuant animam, ut iam nec eidem ipsi, quam spiritalem uocas, aliquid post huius uitae finem prodesse uideantur; et tamen uersas haec multis modis et repetis, ad nihil aliud, quantum existimo, nisi ut talium quoque rerum quasi peritus appareas et placeas inlicitarum artium curiosis, uel ad eas facias ipse curiosos. Sed bene, quod metuendam dicis hanc artem uel legum periculis uel ipsius actionis. Adque utinam hoc saltem abs te miseri audiant et inde, ne illic absorbeantur, abscedant aut eo penitus non accedant. Ignorantiam certe et propter eam multa uitia per nullas teletas purgari dicis, sed per solum πατριϰὸν νοῦν, id est paternam mentem siue intellectum, qui paternae est conscius uoluntatis. Hunc autem Christum esse non credis; contemnis enim eum propter corpus ex femina acceptum et propter crucis obprobrium, excelsam uidelicet sapientiam spretis adque abiectis infimis idoneus de superioribus carpere. At ille inplet, quod prophetae sancti de illo ueraciter praedixerunt: Perdam sapientiam sapientium et prudentiam prudentium reprobabo. Non enim suam in eis perdit et reprobat, quam ipse donauit, sed quam sibi adrogant, qui non habent ipsius. Unde commemorato isto prophetico testimonio sequitur et dicit apostolus: Ubi sapiens? ubi scriba? ubi conquisitor huius saeculi? Nonne stultam fecit Deus sapientiam huius mundi? Nam quoniam in Dei sapientia non cognouit mundus per sapientiam Deum, placuit Deo per stultitiam praedicationis saluos facere credentes. Quoniam quidem Iudaei signa petunt et Graeci sapientiam quaerunt; nos autem, inquit, praedicamus Christum crucifixum, Iudaeis quidem scandalum, gentibus autem stultitiam, ipsis uero uocatis Iudaeis et Graecis Christum Dei uirtutem et Dei sapientiam; quoniam stultum Dei sapientius est hominibus, et infirmum Dei fortius est hominibus. Hoc quasi stultum et infirmum tamquam sua uirtute sapientes fortesque contemnunt. Sed haec est gratia, quae sanat infirmos, non superbe iactantes falsam beatitudinem suam, sed humiliter potius ueram miseriam confitentes.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 28. By what persuasions Porphyry was blinded so that he could not recognize the true Wisdom, which is Christ.

So you send men into the most certain error, and you are not ashamed of so great an evil, though you profess yourself a lover of virtue and wisdom; if you had loved it truly and faithfully, you would have recognized Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God, and would not have recoiled from his most wholesome humility, puffed up with the swelling of empty knowledge. Yet you confess that even the spiritual soul can be purified by the virtue of continence without theurgic arts and without the teletai which you labored in vain to learn. Sometimes you even say that the teletai do not raise the soul after death, so that they seem to be of no use after the end of this life even to that very part which you call spiritual; and yet you turn these things over in many ways and repeat them, for no other purpose, as far as I can judge, than to appear skilled in such things too and to please those curious about unlawful arts, or to make people curious about them yourself. But you do well to say that this art is to be feared, both for the dangers of the laws and for those of its very practice. Would that the wretched would at least hear this from you, and withdraw from there so as not to be swallowed up in it, or not approach it at all! You certainly say that ignorance, and the many vices that come from it, are not purified by any teletai, but only by the patrikos nous, that is, the paternal mind or intellect, which is conscious of the paternal will. But you do not believe that this is Christ; for you despise him because of the body taken from a woman and because of the shame of the cross, being fit, no doubt, to pluck lofty wisdom from higher things, spurning and casting away the lowest. But he fulfills what the holy prophets truly foretold of him: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the prudence of the prudent I will reject.” For he does not destroy and reject in them his own wisdom, which he himself gave, but that which they claim for themselves who do not have his. So, having cited this prophetic testimony, the apostle goes on to say: “Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe. For the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks seek wisdom; but we,” he says, “preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God; for the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” This, as though foolish and weak, those despise who are wise and strong, as it were, by their own power. But this is the grace that heals the weak, who do not proudly boast of their false happiness, but rather humbly confess their true misery.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 1:24: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 8:1: echo, medium confidence
- Isa 29:14: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:19: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:20: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:21: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:22: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:23: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:25: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Porphyry, Regr. (Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul): quotation, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul (fragment). The Greek patrikos nous (πατρικὸς νοῦς, “paternal mind”) is mis-encoded in the digital text (“voov”, marked sic) and corrected.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.28 (CSEL 40:494–496; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-26/#p-10-28).

## City of God 10.29

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-26/#p-10-29
- Source: CSEL 40:496–500
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine urges the Platonists, who glimpse the Trinity and even confess grace, to accept the incarnation, virgin birth, and bodily resurrection of Christ, rejected only out of pride.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIIII. De incarnatione Domini nostri Iesu Christi, quam confiteri Platonicorum erubescit inpietas. Praedicas Patrem et eius Filium, quem uocas paternum intellectum seu mentem, et horum medium, quem putamus te dicere Spiritum sanctum, et more uestro appellas tres deos. Ubi, etsi uerbis indisciplinatis utimini, uidetis tamen qualitercumque et quasi per quaedam tenuis imaginationis umbracula, quo nitendum sit; sed incarnationem incommutabilis Filii Dei, qua saluamur, ut ad illa, quae credimus uel ex quantulacumque parte intellegimus, uenire possimus, non uultis agnoscere. Itaque uidetis utcumque, etsi de longinquo, etsi acie caligante, patriam in qua manendum est, sed uiam qua eundum est non tenetis. Confiteris tamen gratiam, quando quidem ad Deum per uirtutem intellegentiae peruenire paucis dicis esse concessum. Non enim dicis: Paucis placuit, uel: Pauci uoluerunt; sed cum dicis esse concessum, procul dubio Dei gratiam, non hominis sufficientiam confiteris. Uteris etiam hoc uerbo apertius, ubi Platonis sententiam sequens nec ipse dubitas in hac uita hominem nullo modo ad perfectionem sapientiae peruenire, secundum intellectum tamen uiuentibus omne quod deest prouidentia Dei et gratia post hanc uitam posse conpleri. O si cognouisses Dei gratiam per Iesum Christum dominum nostrum ipsamque eius incarnationem, qua hominis animam corpusque suscepit, summum esse exemplum gratiae uidere potuisses. Sed quid faciam? Scio me frustra loqui mortuo, sed quantum ad te adtinet: quantum autem ad eos, qui te magnipendunt et te uel qualicumque amore sapientiae uel curiositate artium, quas non debuisti discere, diligunt, quos potius in tua conpellatione adloquor, fortasse non frustra. Gratia Dei non potuit gratius commendari, quam ut ipse unicus Dei Filius in se incommutabiliter manens indueretur hominem et spem dilectionis suae daret hominibus homine medio, qua ad illum ab hominibus ueniretur, qui tam longe erat inmortalis a mortalibus, incommutabilis a commutabilibus, iustus ab inpiis, beatus a miseris. Et quia naturaliter indidit nobis, ut beati inmortalesque esse cupiamus, manens beatus suscipiensque mortalem, ut nobis tribueret quod amamus, perpetiendo docuit contemnere quod timemus. Sed huic ueritati ut possetis adquiescere, humilitate opus erat, quae ceruici uestrae difficillime persuaderi potest. Quid enim incredibile dicitur, praesertim uobis qui talia sapitis, quibus ad hoc credendum uos ipsos admonere debeatis; quid, inquam, uobis incredibile dicitur, cum dicitur Deus adsumsisse humanam animam et corpus? Vos certe tantum tribuitis animae intellectuali, quae anima utique humana est, ut eam consubstantialem paternae illi menti, quem Dei Filium confitemini, fieri posse dicatis. Quid ergo incredibile est, si aliqua una intellectualis anima modo quodam ineffabili et singulari pro multorum salute suscepta est? Corpus uero animae cohaerere, ut homo totus et plenus sit, natura ipsa nostra teste cognoscimus. Quod nisi usitatissimum esset, hoc profecto esset incredibilius; facilius quippe in fidem recipiendum est, etsi humanum diuino, etsi mutabilem incommutabili, tamen spiritum spiritui, aut ut uerbis utar quae in usu habetis, incorporeum incorporeo, quam corpus incorporeo cohaerere. An forte uos offendit inusitatus corporis partus ex uirgine? Neque hoc debet offendere, immo potius ad pietatem suscipiendam debet adducere, quod mirabilis mirabiliter natus est. An uero quod ipsum corpus morte depositum et in melius resurrectione mutatum iam incorruptibile neque mortale in superna subuexit, hoc fortasse credere recusatis intuentes Porphyrium in his ipsis libris, ex quibus multa posui, quos de regressu animae scripsit, tam crebro praecipere omne corpus esse fugiendum, ut anima possit beata permanere cum Deo? Sed ipse potius ista sentiens corrigendus fuit, praesertim cum de anima mundi huius uisibilis et tam ingentis corporeae molis cum illo tam incredibilia sapiatis. Platone quippe auctore animal esse dicitis mundum et animal beatissimum, quod uultis esse etiam sempiternum. Quo modo ergo nec umquam soluetur a corpore, nec umquam carebit beatitudine, si, ut beata sit anima, corpus sit omne fugiendum? Solem quoque istum et cetera sidera non solum in libris uestris corpora esse fatemini, quod uobiscum omnes homines et conspicere non cunctantur et dicere; uerum etiam altiore, ut putatis, peritia haec esse animalia beatissima perhibetis et cum his corporibus sempiterna. Quid ergo est, quod, cum uobis fides Christiana suadetur, tunc obliuiscimini, aut ignorare uos fingitis, quid disputare aut docere soleatis? Quid causae est, quur propter opiniones uestras, quas uos ipsi obpugnatis, Christiani esse nolitis, nisi quia Christus humiliter uenit et uos superbi estis? Qualia sanctorum corpora in resurrectione futura sint, potest aliquanto scrupulosius inter Christianarum scripturarum doctissimos disputari; futura tamen sempiterna minime dubitamus, et talia futura, quale sua resurrectione Christus demonstrauit exemplum. Sed qualiacumque sint, cum incorruptibilia prorsus et inmortalia nihiloque animae contemplationem, qua in Deo figitur, inpedientia praedicentur uosque etiam dicatis esse in caelestibus inmortalia corpora inmortaliter beatorum: quid est quod, ut beati simus, omne corpus fugiendum esse opinamini, ut fidem Christianam quasi rationabiliter fugere uideamini, nisi quia illud est, quod iterum dico: Christus est humilis, uos superbi? An forte corrigi pudet? Et hoc uitium non nisi superborum est. Pudet uidelicet doctos homines ex discipulis Platonis fieri discipulos Christi, qui piscatorem suo spiritu docuit sapere ac dicere: In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat aput Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Hoc erat in principio aput Deum. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil, quod factum est. In ipso uita erat, et uita erat lux hominum, et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non conprehenderunt. Quod initium sancti euangelii, cui nomen est secundum Iohannem, quidam Platonicus, sicut a sancto sene Simpliciano, qui postea Mediolanensi ecclesiae praesedit episcopus, solebamus audire, aureis litteris conscribendum et per omnes ecclesias in locis eminentissimis proponendum esse dicebat. Sed ideo uiluit superbis Deus ille magister, quia Verbum caro factum est et habitauit in nobis; ut parum sit miseris quod aegrotant, nisi se etiam in ipsa aegritudine extollant et de medicina, qua sanari poterant, erubescant. Non enim hoc faciunt ut erigantur, sed ut cadendo grauius adfligantur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 29. On the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the impiety of the Platonists is ashamed to confess.

You proclaim the Father and his Son, whom you call the paternal intellect or mind, and the one between these, whom we think you mean to be the Holy Spirit; and in your fashion you call them three gods. Here, though you use undisciplined words, you still see in some way, and as it were through certain shadows of a thin imagination, where one must strive to go; but the incarnation of the unchangeable Son of God, by which we are saved, so that we may come to the things we believe or understand in however small a part, you will not acknowledge. So you see, in some way, though from afar and with clouded vision, the country in which we must abide; but you do not hold to the way by which we must go. Yet you confess grace, since you say that it has been granted to few to reach God by the power of the understanding. For you do not say, “It has pleased few,” or “Few have willed”; but when you say “it has been granted,” you certainly confess the grace of God, not the sufficiency of man. You also use this word more openly where, following the opinion of Plato, you yourself do not doubt that in this life man in no way reaches the perfection of wisdom, but that for those who live according to the intellect, all that is lacking can be completed after this life by the providence and grace of God. O, if you had known the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, you could have seen that his very incarnation, by which he took a human soul and body, is the supreme example of grace! But what shall I do? I know that I speak in vain to a dead man, as far as you are concerned; but as far as those are concerned who think much of you and love you, whether from some love of wisdom or from curiosity about the arts you ought not to have learned, whom I rather address in addressing you, perhaps not in vain. The grace of God could not have been commended more graciously than that the only Son of God himself, remaining unchangeably in himself, should put on man and give men the hope of his love through man as mediator, by which men might come to him, who was so far off: the immortal from mortals, the unchangeable from the changeable, the just from the impious, the blessed from the wretched. And since he has implanted in us by nature the desire to be blessed and immortal, he, remaining blessed and taking on the mortal, in order to give us what we love, taught us by suffering to despise what we fear. But for you to be able to assent to this truth, humility was needed, which can be urged on your neck only with the greatest difficulty. For what is said that is incredible, especially to you who think such things that you ought to remind yourselves of them in order to believe this; what, I say, is said that is incredible to you when it is said that God took on a human soul and body? You certainly attribute so much to the intellectual soul, which is of course a human soul, that you say it can become consubstantial with that paternal mind which you confess to be the Son of God. What then is incredible if one intellectual soul was taken up in an ineffable and singular way for the salvation of many? That a body is joined to a soul, so that a man is whole and complete, we know from the testimony of our own nature. If this were not so very common, it would certainly be more incredible; for it is easier to accept in faith that spirit is joined to spirit, even the human to the divine, the changeable to the unchangeable, or, to use the words you are used to, the incorporeal to the incorporeal, than that a body is joined to the incorporeal. Or perhaps the unusual birth of a body from a virgin offends you? Neither ought this to offend; rather it ought to lead you to embrace piety, that one who is wonderful was born wonderfully. Or perhaps you refuse to believe that he carried up to heaven that very body, laid down in death and changed for the better by resurrection, now incorruptible and no longer mortal, because you see Porphyry, in these very books from which I have cited much, which he wrote On the Return of the Soul, so often teaching that every body must be fled from, so that the soul may remain blessed with God? But he himself should rather have been corrected in holding this, especially since you, with him, hold such incredible things about the soul of this visible world and so immense a bodily mass. For on Plato's authority you say that the world is a living being, and a most blessed living being, which you also want to be everlasting. How then will it never be released from a body and never lack blessedness, if, for a soul to be blessed, every body must be fled from? The sun too and the other stars you not only admit in your books to be bodies, as all men with you do not hesitate both to see and to say; but by a higher skill, as you think, you declare that they are most blessed living beings, everlasting with these bodies. Why is it, then, that when the Christian faith is urged on you, you forget, or pretend not to know, what you are accustomed to argue or teach? What reason is there why, because of your opinions, which you yourselves attack, you will not be Christians, except that Christ came humbly and you are proud? What the bodies of the saints will be like in the resurrection can be discussed somewhat more precisely among those most learned in the Christian Scriptures; yet we do not doubt in the least that they will be everlasting, and that they will be such as Christ showed in his own resurrection as an example. But whatever they are like, since they are proclaimed to be wholly incorruptible and immortal and in no way hindering the contemplation of the soul by which it is fixed on God, and since you too say that there are in the heavens immortal bodies of those who are immortally blessed, why do you think that every body must be fled from in order for us to be blessed, so that you may seem to flee the Christian faith with reason, unless it is because of what I say again: Christ is humble, you are proud? Or perhaps you are ashamed to be corrected? This too is a vice only of the proud. It shames learned men, of course, to become disciples of Christ instead of disciples of Plato: of Christ, who taught a fisherman by his Spirit to understand and say: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men; and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.” This beginning of the holy Gospel called according to John a certain Platonist used to say, as we often heard from the holy old man Simplician, who afterwards presided as bishop over the church of Milan, ought to be written in letters of gold and set up in the most prominent places in all the churches. But that God, the Master, became cheap in the eyes of the proud because “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us”; so that it is not enough for the wretched to be sick unless they also exalt themselves in their very sickness and are ashamed of the medicine by which they could be healed. For they do not do this to be raised up, but to be more gravely afflicted by falling.

### Scripture references

- John 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:2: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:3: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:4: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:5: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:14: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Tim 2:5: allusion, medium confidence
- Phil 3:21: echo, medium confidence
- 1 Cor 15:42: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Porphyry, Regr. (Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul): allusion, medium confidence
- Plato, Tim. 30b (Plato (works)): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul, named here by Augustine. Plato, Timaeus 30b–d, 40b (the world and the stars as living beings). Simplician succeeded Ambrose as bishop of Milan (397). Porphyry's “three gods” and the comparison with the Trinity are translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.29 (CSEL 40:496–500; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-26/#p-10-29).

## City of God 10.30

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-26/#p-10-30
- Source: CSEL 40:500–502
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine commends Porphyry for correcting Plato by rejecting transmigration into beasts and the endless cycle of souls, and holds that souls return once to their own bodies in the resurrection.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXX. Quanta Platonici dogmatis Porphyrius refutauerit et dissentiendo correxerit. Si post Platonem aliquid emendare existimatur indignum, quur ipse Porphyrius nonnulla et non parua emendauit? Nam Platonem animas hominum post mortem reuolui usque ad corpora bestiarum scripsisse certissimum est. Hanc sententiam Porphyrii doctor tenuit et Plotinus; Porphyrio tamen iure displicuit. In hominum sane non sua quae dimiserant, sed alia noua corpora redire humanas animas arbitratus est. Puduit scilicet illud credere, ne mater fortasse filium in mulam reuoluta uectaret; et non puduit hoc credere, ubi reuoluta mater in puellam filio forsitan nuberet. Quanto creditur honestius, quod sancti et ueraces angeli docuerunt, quod prophetae Dei spiritu acti locuti sunt, quod ipse quem uenturum Saluatorem praemissi nuntii praedixerunt, quod missi apostoli qui orbem terrarum euangelio repleuerunt, — quanto, inquam, honestius creditur reuerti animas semel ad corpora propria quam reuerti totiens ad diuersa! Verum tamen, ut dixi, ex magna parte correctus est in hac opinione Porphyrius, ut saltem in solos homines humanas animas praecipitari posse sentiret, beluinos autem carceres euertere minime dubitaret. Dicit etiam ad hoc Deum animam mundo dedisse, ut materiae cognoscens mala ad Patrem recurreret nec aliquando iam talium polluta contagione teneretur. Ubi etsi aliquid inconuenienter sapit (magis enim data est corpori, ut bona faceret; non enim mala disceret, si non faceret), in eo tamen aliorum Platonicorum opinionem et non in re parua emendauit, quod mundatam ab omnibus malis animam et cum Patre constitutam numquam iam mala mundi huius passuram esse confessus est. Qua sententia profecto abstulit, quod esse Platonicum maxime perhibetur, ut mortuos ex uiuis, ita uiuos ex mortuis semper fieri; falsumque esse ostendit, quod Platonice uidetur dixisse Vergilius, in campos Elysios purgatas animas missas (quo nomine tamquam per fabulam uidentur significari gaudia beatorum) ad fluuium Letheum euocari, hoc est ad obliuionem praeteritorum: Scilicet inmemores supera ut conuexa reuisant Rursus et incipiant in corpora uelle reuerti. Merito displicuit hoc Porphyrio, quoniam re uera credere stultum est ex illa uita, quae beatissima esse non poterit nisi de sua fuerit aeternitate certissima, desiderare animas corruptibilium corporum labem et inde ad ista remeare, tamquam hoc agat summa purgatio, ut inquinatio requiratur. Si enim quod perfecte mundantur hoc efficit, ut omnium obliuiscantur malorum, malorum autem obliuio facit corporum desiderium, ubi rursus inplicentur malis: profecto erit infelicitatis causa summa felicitas et stultitiae causa perfectio sapientiae et inmunditiae causa summa mundatio. Nec ueritate ibi beata erit anima, quamdiucumque erit, ubi oportet fallatur, ut beata sit. Non enim beata erit nisi secura; ut autem secura sit, falso putabit semper se beatam fore, quoniam aliquando erit et misera. Cui ergo gaudendi causa falsitas erit, quo modo de ueritate gaudebit? Vidit hoc Porphyrius purgatamque animam ob hoc reuerti dixit ad Patrem, ne aliquando iam malorum polluta contagione teneatur. Falso igitur a quibusdam est Platonicis creditus quasi necessarius orbis ille ab eisdem abeundi et ad eadem reuertendi. Quod etiamsi uerum esset, quid hoc scire prodesset, nisi forte inde se nobis auderent praeferre Platonici, quia id nos in hac uita iam nesciremus, quod ipsi in alia meliore uita purgatissimi et sapientissimi fuerant nescituri et falsum credendo beati futuri? Quod si absurdissimum et stultissimum est dicere, Porphyrii profecto est praeferenda sententia his, qui animarum circulo alternantem semper beatitudinem et miseriam suspicati sunt. Quod si ita est, ecce Platonicus in melius a Platone dissentit; ecce uidit, quod ille non uidit, nec post talem ac tantum magistrum refugit correctionem, sed homini praeposuit ueritatem.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 30. How many of Plato's doctrines Porphyry refuted and corrected by disagreeing.

If it is thought unworthy to correct anything after Plato, why did Porphyry himself correct a number of things, and those not small? For it is quite certain that Plato wrote that the souls of men after death return even into the bodies of beasts. This opinion was also held by Plotinus, Porphyry's teacher; yet Porphyry rightly disliked it. He thought, indeed, that human souls return into the bodies of men, not their own which they had left, but other, new ones. He was ashamed, of course, to believe the former, lest a mother, perhaps returned as a mule, should carry her son; and he was not ashamed to believe this, where a mother returned as a girl might perhaps marry her son! How much more honorable it is to believe what the holy and truthful angels taught, what the prophets, moved by the Spirit of God, spoke, what he himself foretold, whom the messengers sent before foretold as the coming Savior, what the apostles sent out, who filled the world with the Gospel, taught: how much more honorable, I say, to believe that souls return once to their own bodies than that they return so often to different ones! Yet, as I said, Porphyry was corrected in large part in this opinion, so that he at least held that human souls can be cast down only into men, and did not hesitate at all to overturn the prisons of beasts. He also says that God gave the soul to the world for this purpose, that, knowing the evils of matter, it might run back to the Father and never again be held by the polluting contagion of such things. Here, though he thinks something unfitting (for it was given to the body rather that it might do good; for it would not learn evils if it did not do them), yet in this he corrected the opinion of other Platonists, and in no small matter: he confessed that the soul, cleansed from all evils and established with the Father, will never again suffer the evils of this world. By this opinion he certainly removed what is said to be most characteristically Platonic, that as the dead come from the living, so the living always come from the dead; and he showed to be false what Virgil seems to have said in Platonic fashion, that purified souls sent into the Elysian fields (by which name, as in a fable, the joys of the blessed seem to be signified) are called to the river Lethe, that is, to forgetfulness of the past:

“That, forgetful, they may see again the vault above
and begin to wish to return into bodies.”

Rightly did this displease Porphyry, since it is truly foolish to believe that from that life, which could not be most blessed unless it were most certain of its own eternity, souls should long for the corruption of corruptible bodies and return from there to these things, as if the supreme purification brought it about that defilement is sought. For if being perfectly cleansed causes them to forget all evils, and forgetfulness of evils causes a desire for bodies, in which they are again entangled in evils, then supreme happiness will be the cause of unhappiness, the perfection of wisdom the cause of folly, and supreme cleansing the cause of uncleanness. Nor will the soul be blessed there in truth, however long it is there, where it must be deceived in order to be blessed. For it will not be blessed unless secure; but to be secure, it will think falsely that it will always be blessed, since at some time it will also be wretched. How, then, will the soul whose cause of joy is falsehood rejoice in truth? Porphyry saw this, and said that the purified soul returns to the Father so that it may never again be held by the polluting contagion of evils. False, then, is that circuit, believed necessary by certain Platonists, of departing from the same things and returning to the same things. And even if it were true, what good would it be to know it, unless perhaps the Platonists should dare to prefer themselves to us on the ground that we already did not know in this life what they themselves, most purified and most wise, were not going to know in another, better life, and would be blessed by believing a falsehood? If it is most absurd and most foolish to say this, then certainly the opinion of Porphyry is to be preferred to those who supposed a circuit of souls, always alternating happiness and misery. If this is so, see, a Platonist disagrees with Plato for the better; see, he saw what Plato did not see, and after such a great master he did not shrink from correction, but put truth before a man.

### Scripture references

- 2 Pet 1:21: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Phaed. 70c–72e (Plato (works)): allusion, high confidence
- Plotinus (Plotinus, Enneads): allusion, medium confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 6.750–751 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Porphyry, Regr. (Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Plato, Phaedo 70c–72e and Phaedrus 249b; Virgil, Aeneid 6.750–751. Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul (fragment).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.30 (CSEL 40:500–502; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-26/#p-10-30).

## City of God 10.31

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-26/#p-10-31
- Source: CSEL 40:502–503
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine refutes the Platonist argument that the soul must be coeternal with God, since even Porphyry admits a happiness of the soul that begins in time and never ends.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXI. Contra argumentum Platonicorum, quo animam humanam Deo adserunt esse coaeternam. Quur ergo non potius diuinitati credimus de his rebus, quas humano ingenio peruestigare non possumus, quae animam quoque ipsam non Deo coaeternam, sed creatam dicit esse, quae non erat? Ut enim hoc Platonici nollent credere, hanc utique causam idoneam sibi uidebantur adferre, quia, nisi quod semper antea fuisset, sempiternum deinceps esse non posset; quamquam et de mundo et de his, quos in mundo deos a Deo factos scribit Plato, apertissime dicat eos esse coepisse et habere initium, finem tamen non habituros, sed per conditoris potentissimam uoluntatem in aeternum mansuros esse perhibeat. Verum id quo modo intellegant inuenerunt, non esse hoc uidelicet temporis, sed substitutionis initium. *Sicut enim, inquiunt, si pes ex aeternitate semper fuisset in puluere, semper ei subesset uestigium, quod tamen uestigium a calcante factum nemo dubitaret, nec alterum altero prius esset, quamuis alterum ab altero factum esset: sic, inquiunt, et mundus adque in illo di creati et semper fuerunt semper existente qui fecit, et tamen facti sunt. Numquid ergo, si anima semper fuit, etiam miseria eius semper fuisse dicenda est? Porro si aliquid in illa, quod ex aeterno non fuit, esse coepit ex tempore, quur non fieri potuerit, ut ipsa esset ex tempore quae antea non fuisset? Deinde beatitudo quoque eius post experimentum malorum firmior et sine fine mansura, sicut iste confitetur, procul dubio coepit ex tempore, et tamen semper erit, cum antea non fuerit. Illa igitur omnis argumentatio dissoluta est, qua putatur nihil esse posse sine fine temporis, nisi quod initium non habet temporis. Inuenta est enim animae beatitudo, quae cum initium temporis habuerit, finem temporis non habebit. Quapropter diuinae auctoritati humana cedat infirmitas, eisque beatis et inmortalibus de uera religione credamus, qui sibi honorem non expetunt, quem Deo suo, qui etiam noster est, deberi sciunt, nec iubent, ut sacrificium faciamus, nisi ei tantum, cuius et nos cum illis, ut saepe dixi et saepe dicendum est, sacrificium esse debemus, per eum sacerdotem offerendi, qui in homine, quem suscepit, secundum quem et sacerdos esse uoluit, etiam usque ad mortem sacrificium pro nobis dignatus est fieri.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 31. Against the argument of the Platonists by which they assert that the human soul is coeternal with God.

Why then do we not rather believe the divine authority about those things which we cannot investigate by human wit, which says that even the soul itself is not coeternal with God but created, when it did not exist? For the Platonists thought they offered a sufficient reason for refusing to believe this: that nothing could be everlasting hereafter unless it had always existed before; although Plato, speaking both of the world and of those whom he writes were made gods in the world by God, says quite plainly that they began to be and have a beginning, but declares that they will not have an end, but will remain forever by the most powerful will of their maker. But they have found a way to understand this, namely that this is not a beginning in time but a beginning of dependence. “For just as,” they say, “if a foot had been in dust from eternity, there would always be a footprint under it, and yet no one would doubt that the footprint was made by the one treading, nor would one be prior to the other, although one was made by the other: so,” they say, “both the world and the gods created in it have always existed, since he who made them always exists, and yet they were made.” If, then, the soul always existed, must its misery also be said to have always existed? And if something in it which did not exist from eternity began to exist in time, why could it not be that the soul itself existed from a point in time, not having existed before? Then too its happiness, made firmer after the experience of evils and lasting without end, as this man confesses, certainly began in time, and yet will always be, though it was not before. So that whole argument is undone by which it is thought that nothing can be without an end in time except what has no beginning in time. For the happiness of the soul has been found, which, having had a beginning in time, will not have an end in time. Therefore let human weakness yield to divine authority; and let us believe about the true religion those blessed and immortal beings who do not seek for themselves the honor which they know is owed to their God, who is ours too, and who do not command us to offer sacrifice except to him alone, whose sacrifice we too, together with them, ought to be, as I have often said and must often say, offered through that priest who, in the manhood that he took on and according to which he willed to be a priest, deigned even to become a sacrifice for us unto death.

### Scripture references

- Heb 9:14: echo, medium confidence
- Phil 2:8: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Tim. 41a–b (Plato (works)): allusion, high confidence
- Porphyry, Regr. (Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Plato, Timaeus 41a–b. Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul (fragment).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.31 (CSEL 40:502–503; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-26/#p-10-31).

## City of God 10.32

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-32/#p-10-32
- Source: CSEL 40:503–510
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine answers Porphyry's search for a universal way of liberating the soul by presenting the Christian religion, promised to Abraham and foretold by the prophets, as that way, and closes the first ten books.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXII. De uniuersali uia animae liberandae, quam Porphyrius male quaerendo non repperit, et quam sola gratia Christiana reserauit. Haec est religio, quae uniuersalem continet uiam animae liberandae, quoniam nulla nisi hac liberari potest. Haec est enim quodam modo regalis uia, quae una ducit ad regnum, non temporali fastigio nutabundum, sed aeternitatis firmitate securum. Cum autem dicit Porphyrius in primo iuxta finem de regressu animae libro nondum receptum in unam quandam sectam, quae uniuersalem contineat uiam animae liberandae, uel a philosophia uerissima aliqua uel ab Indorum moribus ac disciplina, aut inductione Chaldaeorum aut alia qualibet uia, nondumque in suam notitiam eandem uiam historiali cognitione perlatam: procul dubio confitetur esse aliquam, sed nondum in suam uenisse notitiam. Ita ei non sufficiebat quidquid de anima liberanda studiosissime didicerat sibique uel potius aliis nosse ac tenere uidebatur. Sentiebat enim adhuc sibi deesse aliquam praestantissimam auctoritatem, quam de re tanta sequi oporteret. Cum autem dicit uel a philosophia uerissima aliqua nondum in suam notitiam peruenisse sectam, quae uniuersalem contineat uiam animae liberandae: satis, quantum arbitror, ostendit uel eam philosophiam, in qua ipse philosophatus est, non esse uerissimam, uel ea non contineri talem uiam. Et quo modo iam potest esse uerissima, qua non continetur haec uia? Nam quae alia uia est uniuersalis animae liberandae, nisi qua uniuersae animae liberantur ac per hoc sine illa nulla anima liberatur? Cum autem addit et dicit: uel ab Indorum moribus ac disciplina, uel ab inductione Chaldaeorum uel alia qualibet uia, manifestissima uoce testatur neque illis quae ab Indis neque illis quae a Chaldaeis didicerat hanc uniuersalem uiam liberandae animae contineri; et utique se a Chaldaeis oracula diuina sumsisse, quorum adsiduam commemorationem facit, tacere non potuit. Quam uult ergo intellegi animae liberandae uniuersalem uiam nondum receptam uel ex aliqua uerissima philosophia uel ex earum gentium doctrinis, quae magnae uelut in diuinis rebus habebantur, quia plus aput eas curiositas ualuit quorumque angelorum cognoscendorum et colendorum, nondumque in suam notitiam historiali cognitione perlatam? Quaenam ista est uniuersalis uia, nisi quae non suae cuique genti propria, sed uniuersis gentibus quae communis esset diuinitus inpertita est? Quam certe iste homo non mediocri ingenio praeditus esse non dubitat. Prouidentiam quippe diuinam sine ista uniuersali uia liberandae animae genus humanum relinquere potuisse non credit. Neque enim ait non esse, sed hoc tantum bonum tantumque adiutorium nondum receptum, nondum in suam notitiam esse perlatum; nec mirum. Tunc enim Porphyrius erat in rebus humanis, quando ista liberandae animae uniuersalis uia, quae non est alia quam religio Christiana, obpugnari permittebatur ab idolorum daemonumque cultoribus regibusque terrenis, propter adserendum et consecrandum martyrum numerum, hoc est testium ueritatis, per quos ostenderetur omnia corporalia mala pro fide pietatis et commendatione ueritatis esse toleranda. Videbat ergo ista Porphyrius et per huius modi persecutiones cito istam uiam perituram et propterea non esse ipsam liberandae animae uniuersalem putabat, non intellegens hoc, quod eum mouebat et quod in eius electione perpeti metuebat, ad eius confirmationem robustioremque commendationem potius pertinere. Haec est igitur animae liberandae uniuersalis uia, id est uniuersis gentibus diuina miseratione concessa, cuius profecto notitia ad quoscumque iam uenit et ad quoscumque uentura est, nec debuit nec debebit ei dici: Quare modo? et: Quare sero? quoniam mittentis consilium non est humano ingenio penetrabile. Quod sensit etiam iste, cum dixit, nondum receptum hoc donum Dei et nondum in suam notitiam fuisse perlatum. Neque enim propterea uerum non esse iudicauit, quia nondum in fidem suam receptum fuerat uel in notitiam nondum peruenerat. Haec est, inquam, liberandorum credentium uniuersalis uia, de qua fidelis Abraham diuinum accepit oraculum: In semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes. Qui fuit quidem gente Chaldaeus, sed ut talia promissa perciperet et ex illo propagaretur semen dispositum per angelos in manu Mediatoris, in quo esset ista liberandae animae uniuersalis uia, hoc est omnibus gentibus data, iussus est discedere de terra sua et de cognatione sua et de domo patris sui. Tunc ipse primitus a Chaldaeorum superstitionibus liberatus unum uerum Deum sequendo coluit, cui haec promittenti fideliter credidit. Haec est uniuersalis uia, de qua in sancta prophetia dictum est: Deus misereatur nostri et benedicat nos; inluminet uultum suum super nos et misereatur nostri, ut cognoscamus in terra uiam tuam, in omnibus gentibus salutare tuum. Unde tanto post ex Abrahae semine carne suscepta de ipso ait ipse Saluator: Ego sum uia, ueritas et uita. Haec est uniuersalis uia, de qua tanto ante praedictum est: Erit in nouissimis diebus manifestatus mons domus Domini, paratus super cacumina montium et extolletur super colles, et uenient ad eum uniuersae gentes et ingredientur nationes multae et dicent: Venite, ascendamus in montem Domini et in domum Dei Iacob; et adnuntiabit nobis uiam suam, et ingrediemur in eam. Ex Sion enim prodiet lex et uerbum Domini ab Hierusalem. Via ergo ista non est unius gentis, sed uniuersarum gentium; et lex uerbumque Domini non in Sion et Hierusalem remansit, sed inde processit, ut se per uniuersa diffunderet. Unde ipse Mediator post resurrectionem suam discipulis trepidantibus ait: Oportebat inpleri quae scripta sunt in lege et prophetis et psalmis de me. Tunc aperuit illis sensum, ut intellegerent scripturas, et dixit eis, quia oportebat Christum pati et resurgere a mortuis tertio die et praedicari in nomine eius paenitentiam et remissionem peccatorum per omnes gentes incipientibus ab Hierusalem. Haec est igitur uniuersalis animae liberandae uia, quam sancti angeli sanctique prophetae prius in paucis hominibus ubi potuerunt Dei gratiam reperientibus et maxime in Hebraea gente, cuius erat ipsa quodam modo sacrata res publica in prophetationem et praenuntiationem ciuitatis Dei ex omnibus gentibus congregandae, et tabernaculo et templo et sacerdotio et sacrificiis significauerunt et eloquiis quibusdam manifestis, plerisque mysticis praedixerunt: praesens autem in carne ipse Mediator et beati eius apostoli iam testamenti noui gratiam reuelantes apertius indicarunt, quae aliquanto occultius superioribus sunt significata temporibus, pro aetatum generis humani distributione, sicut eam Deo sapienti placuit ordinare, mirabilium operum diuinorum, quorum superius pauca iam posui, contestantibus signis. Non enim apparuerunt tantummodo uisiones angelicae et caelestium ministrorum sola uerba sonuerunt, uerum etiam hominibus Dei uerbo simplicis pietatis agentibus spiritus inmundi de hominum corporibus ac sensibus pulsi sunt, uitia corporis languoresque sanati, fera animalia terrarum et aquarum, uolatilia caeli, ligna, elementa, sidera diuina iussa fecerunt, inferna cesserunt, mortui reuixerunt; exceptis ipsius Saluatoris propriis singularibusque miraculis, maxime natiuitatis et resurrectionis, quorum in uno maternae uirginitatis tantummodo sacramentum, in altero autem etiam eorum, qui in fine resurrecturi sunt, demonstrauit exemplum. Haec uia totum hominem mundat et inmortalitati mortalem ex omnibus quibus constat partibus praeparat. Ut enim non alia purgatio ei parti quaereretur, quam uocat intellectualem Porphyrius, alia ei, quam uocat spiritalem, aliaque ipsi corpori: propterea totum suscepit ueracissimus potentissimusque mundator adque saluator. Praeter hanc uiam, quae, partim cum haec futura praenuntiantur, partim cum facta nuntiantur, numquam generi humano defuit, nemo liberatus est, nemo liberatur, nemo liberabitur. Quod autem Porphyrius uniuersalem uiam animae liberandae nondum in suam notitiam historiali cognitione dicit esse perlatam: quid hac historia uel inlustrius inueniri potest, quae uniuersum orbem tanto apice auctoritatis obtinuit, uel fidelius, in qua ita narrantur praeterita, ut futura etiam praedicantur, quorum multa uidemus inpleta, ex quibus ea quae restant sine dubio speremus inplenda? Non enim potest Porphyrius uel quicumque Platonici etiam in hac uia quasi terrenarum rerum et ad uitam istam mortalem pertinentium diuinationem praedictionemque contemnere, quod merito in aliis uaticinationibus et quorumlibet modorum uel artium diuinationibus faciunt. Negant enim haec uel magnorum hominum uel magni esse pendenda, et recte. Nam uel inferiorum fiunt praesensione causarum, sicut arte medicinae quibusdam antecedentibus signis plurima euentura ualetudine praeuidentur; uel inmundi daemones sua disposita facta praenuntiant, quorum ius et in mentibus adque cupiditatibus iniquorum ad quaeque congruentia facta ducendis quodam modo sibi uindicant, et in materia infima fragilitatis humanae. Non talia sancti homines in ista uniuersali animarum liberandarum uia gradientes tamquam magna prophetare curarunt, quamuis et ista eos non fugerint et ab eis saepe praedicta sint ad eorum fidem faciendam, quae mortalium sensibus non poterant intimari nec ad experimentum celeri facilitate perduci. Sed alia erant uere magna adque diuina, quae quantum dabatur cognita Dei uoluntate futura nuntiabant. Christus quippe in carne uenturus et quae in illo tam clara perfecta sunt adque in eius nomine inpleta, paenitentia hominum et ad Deum conuersio uoluntatum, remissio peccatorum, gratia iustitiae, fides piorum et per uniuersum orbem in ueram diuinitatem multitudo credentium, culturae simulacrorum daemonumque subuersio et a tentationibus exercitatio, proficientium purgatio et liberatio ab omni malo, iudicii dies, resurrectio mortuorum, societatis inpiorum aeterna damnatio regnumque aeternum gloriosissimae ciuitatis Dei conspectu eius inmortaliter perfruentis in huius uiae scripturis praedicta adque promissa sunt; quorum tam multa inpleta conspicimus, ut recta pietate futura esse cetera confidamus. Huius uiae rectitudinem usque ad Deum uidendum eique in aeternum cohaerendum in sanctarum scripturarum qua praedicatur adque adseritur ueritate quicumque non credunt et ob hoc nec intellegunt, obpugnare possunt, sed expugnare non possunt. Quapropter in decem istis libris, etsi minus quam nonnullorum de nobis expectabat intentio, tamen quorundam studio, quantum uerus Deus et Dominus adiuuare dignatus est, satisfecimus refutando contradictiones inpiorum, qui conditori sanctae ciuitatis, de qua disputare instituimus, deos suos praeferunt. Quorum decem librorum quinque superiores aduersus eos conscripti sunt, qui propter bona uitae huius deos colendos putant; quinque autem posteriores aduersus eos, qui cultura deorum propter uitam, quae post mortem futura est, seruandum existimant. Deinceps itaque, ut in primo libro polliciti sumus, de duarum ciuitatum, quas in hoc saeculo perplexas diximus inuicemque permixtas, exortu et procursu et debitis finibus quod dicendum arbitror, quantum diuinitus adiuuabor, expediam.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 32. On the universal way of the soul's liberation, which Porphyry, seeking it wrongly, did not find, and which Christian grace alone has opened.

This is the religion that contains the universal way of the soul's liberation, since by no way but this can any soul be liberated. For this is in a manner the royal way, which alone leads to the kingdom, not tottering with temporal eminence but secure in the firmness of eternity. When Porphyry says, near the end of the first book On the Return of the Soul, that there has not yet been received into any one school a teaching that contains the universal way of the soul's liberation, either from some most true philosophy or from the customs and discipline of the Indians, or from the initiation of the Chaldeans, or by any other way, and that this same way has not yet been brought to his knowledge by historical inquiry, he certainly confesses that there is such a way, but that it has not yet come to his knowledge. So whatever he had most zealously learned about the liberation of the soul, and seemed to himself, or rather to others, to know and hold, did not satisfy him. For he felt that he still lacked some most excellent authority which ought to be followed on so great a matter. And when he says that not even from some most true philosophy has a school come to his knowledge that contains the universal way of the soul's liberation, he shows clearly enough, as I think, either that the philosophy in which he himself philosophized is not the truest, or that such a way is not contained in it. And how can it now be the truest, if this way is not contained in it? For what other universal way of the soul's liberation is there, except that by which all souls are liberated, and without which, therefore, no soul is liberated? And when he adds and says, “or from the customs and discipline of the Indians, or from the initiation of the Chaldeans, or by any other way,” he testifies in the plainest words that this universal way of the soul's liberation is contained neither in what he had learned from the Indians nor in what he had learned from the Chaldeans; and certainly he could not keep silent that he had taken from the Chaldeans the divine oracles which he mentions constantly. What universal way of the soul's liberation, then, does he wish to be understood as not yet received, either from some most true philosophy or from the teachings of those nations which were held great in divine matters because among them curiosity about knowing and worshipping angels of all kinds prevailed more, and not yet brought to his knowledge by historical inquiry? What is this universal way, except that which has been imparted by God, not as proper to each nation, but as common to all nations? This man, endowed with no mean ability, does not doubt that it exists. For he does not believe that divine providence could have left the human race without this universal way of the soul's liberation. For he does not say that it does not exist, but that this great good and this great help has not yet been received, has not yet been brought to his knowledge; and no wonder. For Porphyry lived in the world at the time when this universal way of the soul's liberation, which is none other than the Christian religion, was permitted to be attacked by the worshippers of idols and demons and by earthly kings, for the sake of establishing and consecrating the number of the martyrs, that is, the witnesses to the truth, by whom it might be shown that all bodily evils are to be endured for the faith of piety and the commendation of the truth. Porphyry saw these things and thought that through persecutions of this kind this way would soon perish, and therefore that it was not the universal way of the soul's liberation; not understanding that what moved him, and what he feared to suffer in choosing it, served rather to confirm it and commend it more strongly. This, then, is the universal way of the soul's liberation, that is, granted by divine mercy to all nations; and to whomever the knowledge of it has already come, and to whomever it will come, it neither ought to be nor will need to be said, “Why now?” and “Why so late?”, since the counsel of him who sends it cannot be penetrated by human wit. This he too perceived when he said that this gift of God had not yet been received and had not yet been brought to his knowledge. For he did not judge it untrue because it had not yet been received into his belief or had not yet come to his knowledge. This, I say, is the universal way for the liberation of believers, concerning which faithful Abraham received the divine oracle: “In your seed all nations shall be blessed.” He was indeed a Chaldean by race; but that he might receive such promises, and that from him might be propagated the seed “ordained through angels in the hand of a Mediator,” in whom this universal way of the soul's liberation would be, that is, given to all nations, he was commanded to depart from his land and from his kindred and from his father's house. Then he, first freed from the superstitions of the Chaldeans, followed and worshipped the one true God, and believed him faithfully when he promised these things. This is the universal way of which it is said in holy prophecy: “May God have mercy on us and bless us; may he make his face shine upon us and have mercy on us, that we may know your way on earth, your salvation among all nations.” Hence, so long afterward, having taken flesh from the seed of Abraham, the Savior himself says of himself: “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” This is the universal way of which it was foretold so long before: “In the last days the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be manifest, established on the tops of the mountains, and it shall be lifted above the hills, and all nations shall come to it, and many peoples shall go and say: ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will announce to us his way, and we will walk in it.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” This way, then, is not of one nation but of all nations; and the law and the word of the Lord did not remain in Zion and Jerusalem, but went out from there to spread through the whole world. So the Mediator himself, after his resurrection, said to his trembling disciples: “All that is written about me in the law and the prophets and the psalms had to be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and the forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. This, then, is the universal way of the soul's liberation, which the holy angels and the holy prophets, first among a few men who found the grace of God where they could, and above all in the Hebrew nation, whose commonwealth was in a manner consecrated to prophesy and foretell the city of God to be gathered from all nations, signified by the tabernacle and the temple, by the priesthood and the sacrifices, and foretold in certain words, some plain, most mystical; but the Mediator himself, present in the flesh, and his blessed apostles, revealing now the grace of the New Testament, showed more openly what had been signified somewhat more obscurely in earlier times, according to the distribution of the ages of the human race as it pleased the wise God to order it, with signs of wonderful divine works bearing witness, a few of which I have set down above. For not only did angelic visions appear and the words of heavenly ministers alone sound, but also, when men of God acted by the word of simple piety, unclean spirits were driven out of men's bodies and senses, bodily defects and diseases were healed, wild animals of land and water, birds of the sky, trees, elements, stars did the divine commands, the powers of the underworld gave way, the dead came to life again; not to mention the Savior's own singular miracles, above all those of his birth and resurrection, in one of which he showed only the mystery of a mother's virginity, but in the other also an example for those who will rise at the end. This way cleanses the whole man and prepares the mortal for immortality in all the parts of which he consists. For so that one purification should not be sought for the part that Porphyry calls intellectual, another for the part he calls spiritual, and another for the body itself, the most truthful and most powerful Cleanser and Savior took on the whole man. Apart from this way, which has never been lacking to the human race, sometimes when these things are foretold as future, sometimes when they are announced as done, no one has been set free, no one is set free, no one will be set free. As for Porphyry's saying that the universal way of the soul's liberation has not yet been brought to his knowledge by historical inquiry: what history can be found more illustrious than this, which has taken hold of the whole world with such a height of authority, or more trustworthy, in which past things are so narrated that future things are also foretold, many of which we see fulfilled, so that from these we may hope without doubt that the rest will be fulfilled? For Porphyry, or any Platonists, cannot despise in this way, as mere divination and prediction of earthly things belonging to this mortal life, what they rightly despise in other prophecies and divinations of whatever mode or art. For they deny that these are the concern of great men or to be held of great account, and rightly. For they come either from foreseeing lower causes, as by the art of medicine many future states of health are foreseen by certain preceding signs; or unclean demons foretell deeds they have themselves arranged, claiming for themselves a kind of right both over the minds and desires of the wicked, to lead them to fitting deeds, and over the lowest matter of human frailty. Holy men walking in this universal way of the liberation of souls did not care to prophesy such things as though they were great, though these things did not escape them and were often foretold by them to win faith for those things which could not be conveyed to the senses of mortals or brought quickly and easily to the test. But there were other things, truly great and divine, which, knowing the will of God as far as was given them, they announced as future. For Christ to come in the flesh, and the things so gloriously accomplished in him and fulfilled in his name: the repentance of men and the conversion of their wills to God, the forgiveness of sins, the grace of righteousness, the faith of the pious and the multitude of believers in the true divinity throughout the world, the overthrow of the worship of idols and demons and the testing by temptations, the purification of those who make progress and their liberation from all evil, the day of judgment, the resurrection of the dead, the eternal damnation of the fellowship of the impious, and the eternal kingdom of the most glorious city of God, enjoying immortally the sight of him: these were foretold and promised in the Scriptures of this way; and we see so many of them fulfilled that with right piety we trust the rest will come. Whoever does not believe, and therefore does not understand, the straightness of this way, leading to the vision of God and to cleaving to him forever, in the truth of the holy Scriptures by which it is proclaimed and asserted, can attack it but cannot overthrow it. Therefore in these ten books, though less than some expected of us, we have satisfied the zeal of certain people, as far as the true God and Lord has deigned to help, by refuting the objections of the impious who prefer their own gods to the founder of the holy city of which we undertook to treat. Of these ten books, the first five were written against those who think the gods should be worshipped for the goods of this life; the last five against those who think the worship of the gods should be kept for the sake of the life that is to come after death. Next, then, as we promised in the first book, I will set out, as far as I am helped by God, what I think should be said about the origin, progress, and due ends of the two cities, which we have said are in this world entangled and mixed with each other.

### Scripture references

- Gen 22:18: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 3:19: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 12:1: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 67:1 (66:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 67:2 (66:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- John 14:6: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 2:2: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 2:3: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 24:44: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 24:45: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 24:46: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 24:47: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 11:33: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Porphyry, Regr. (Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul): quotation, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul, book 1 (named by Augustine). Isaiah 2:2–3 and Psalm 67:1–2 are quoted in the Old Latin/Septuagint wording.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 10.32 (CSEL 40:503–510; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/10-32/#p-10-32).

## City of God 11.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-1/#p-11-1
- Source: CSEL 40:510–512
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine opens the second part of the work: the origin, course, and ends of the two cities, beginning with the angels.

### Latin text

CAPUT I. De ea parte operis, qua duarum ciuitatum, id est caelestis adque terrenae, initia et fines incipient demonstrari. Ciuitatem Dei dicimus, cuius ea scriptura testis est, quae non fortuitis motibus animorum, sed plane summae dispositione prouidentiae super omnes omnium gentium litteras omnia sibi genera ingeniorum humanorum diuina excellens auctoritate subiecit. Ibi quippe scriptum est: Gloriosa dicta sunt de te, ciuitas Dei; et in alio psalmo legitur: Magnus Dominus et laudabilis nimis in ciuitate Dei nostri, in monte sancto eius, dilatans exultationes uniuersae terrae; et paulo post in eodem psalmo: Sicut audiuimus, ita et uidimus, in ciuitate domini uirtutum, in ciuitate Dei nostri; Deus fundauit eam in aeternum; item in alio: Fluminis inpetus laetificat ciuitatem Dei, sanctificauit tabernaculum suum Altissimus; Deus in medio eius non commouebitur. His adque huius modi testimoniis, quae omnia commemorare nimis longum est, didicimus esse quandam ciuitatem Dei, cuius ciues esse concupiscimus illo amore, quem nobis illius conditor inspirauit. Huic conditori sanctae ciuitatis ciues terrenae ciuitatis deos suos praeferunt ignorantes eum esse Deum deorum, non deorum falsorum, hoc est inpiorum et superborum, qui eius incommutabili omnibusque communi luce priuati et ob hoc ad quandam egenam potestatem redacti suas quodam modo priuatas potentias consectantur honoresque diuinos a deceptis subditis quaerunt; sed deorum piorum adque sanctorum, qui potius se ipsos uni subdere quam multos sibi, potiusque Deum colere quam pro Deo coli delectantur. Sed huius sanctae ciuitatis inimicis decem superioribus libris, quantum potuimus, domino et rege nostro adiuuante respondimus. Nunc uero quid a me iam expectetur agnoscens meique non inmemor debiti de duarum ciuitatum, terrenae scilicet et caelestis, quas in hoc interim saeculo perplexas quodam modo diximus inuicemque permixtas, exortu et excursu et debitis finibus, quantum ualuero, disputare eius ipsius domini et regis nostri ubique opitulatione fretus adgrediar, primumque dicam, quem ad modum exordia duarum istarum ciuitatum in angelorum diuersitate praecesserint.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. Of that part of the work in which the beginnings and ends of the two cities, the heavenly and the earthly, begin to be set out.

We speak of the city of God, to which that Scripture bears witness which, not by chance movements of minds but plainly by the arrangement of the highest providence, surpassing by its divine authority all the writings of all nations, has brought every kind of human genius under its sway. For there it is written: “Glorious things are spoken of you, city of God”; and in another psalm we read: “Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, on his holy mountain, spreading the rejoicing of the whole earth”; and a little later in the same psalm: “As we have heard, so we have seen, in the city of the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God; God has founded it forever”; and again in another: “The rush of the river gladdens the city of God; the Most High has sanctified his tabernacle; God is in the midst of her, she shall not be moved.” From these and similar testimonies, which it would take too long to recall in full, we have learned that there is a certain city of God, whose citizens we long to be, with that love which its founder has breathed into us. To this founder of the holy city the citizens of the earthly city prefer their own gods, not knowing that he is the God of gods: not of false gods, that is, of the impious and proud, who, deprived of his unchangeable light that is common to all, and so reduced to a kind of needy power, pursue what are, in a manner, private powers of their own and seek divine honors from their deceived subjects; but of pious and holy gods, who delight rather to submit themselves to the One than to have many submit to them, and rather to worship God than to be worshipped instead of God. But to the enemies of this holy city we have replied in the ten preceding books, as far as we could, with the help of our Lord and King. Now, recognizing what is expected of me, and not forgetful of my debt, I shall undertake, relying everywhere on the aid of the same Lord and King, to discuss as well as I can the rise, the progress, and the appointed ends of the two cities, the earthly and the heavenly, which, as we have said, are in this present age in some way entangled and mixed with one another. And first I shall say how the beginnings of these two cities arose earlier, in the difference among the angels.

### Scripture references

- Ps 87:3 (86:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 48:1 (47:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 48:8 (47:9 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 46:4 (45:5 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 46:5 (45:6 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Psalms quoted: Ps 87:3 (LXX 86:3); Ps 48:1–2, 8 (LXX 47:2–3, 9); Ps 46:4–5 (LXX 45:5–6), in Augustine's Latin. “Gods” who are pious and holy are the holy angels, as in earlier books.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.1 (CSEL 40:510–512; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-1/#p-11-1).

## City of God 11.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-1/#p-11-2
- Source: CSEL 40:512–513
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Knowledge of the unchangeable God is reached only through faith in Christ the mediator, who as man is the way and as God the goal.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. De cognoscendo Deo, ad cuius notitiam nemo hominum peruenit, nisi per mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem Christum Iesum. Magnum est et admodum rarum uniuersam creaturam corpoream et incorpoream consideratam conpertamque mutabilem intentione mentis excedere adque ad incommutabilem Dei substantiam peruenire et illic discere ex ipso, quod cunctam naturam, quae non est quod ipse, non fecit nisi ipse. Sic enim Deus cum homine non per aliquam creaturam loquitur corporalem, corporalibus instrepens auribus, ut inter sonantem et audientem aeria spatia uerberentur, neque per eius modi spiritalem, quae corporum similitudinibus figuratur, sicut in somnis uel quo alio tali modo (nam et sic uelut corporis auribus loquitur, quia uelut per corpus loquitur et uelut interposito corporalium locorum interuallo; multum enim similia sunt talia uisa corporibus); sed loquitur ipsa ueritate, si quis sit idoneus ad audiendum mente, non corpore. Ad illud enim hominis ita loquitur, quod in homine ceteris, quibus homo constat, est melius, et quo ipse Deus solus est melior. Cum enim homo rectissime intellegatur uel, si hoc non potest, saltem credatur factus ad imaginem Dei: profecto ea sui parte est propinquior superiori Deo, qua superat inferiores suas, quas etiam cum pecoribus communes habet. Sed quia ipsa mens, cui ratio et intellegentia naturaliter inest, uitiis quibusdam tenebrosis et ueteribus inualida est, non solum ad inhaerendum fruendo, uerum etiam ad perferendum incommutabile lumen, donec de die in diem renouata adque sanata fiat tantae felicitatis capax, fide primum fuerat inbuenda adque purganda. In qua ut fidentius ambularet ad ueritatem, ipsa ueritas, Deus Dei filius, homine adsumto, non Deo consumto, eandem constituit et fundauit fidem, ut ad hominis Deum iter esset homini per hominem Deum. Hic est enim mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus. Per hoc enim mediator, per quod homo, per hoc et uia. Quoniam si inter eum qui tendit et illud quo tendit uia media est, spes est perueniendi; si autem desit aut. ignoretur qua eundum sit, quid prodest nosse quo eundum sit? Sola est autem aduersus omnes errores uia munitissima, ut idem ipse sit Deus et homo; quo itur Deus, qua itur homo.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. Of knowing God, to the knowledge of whom no one among men attains except through the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

It is a great and very rare thing to go beyond the whole of creation, bodily and incorporeal, by the effort of the mind, having considered it and found it changeable, and to arrive at the unchangeable substance of God, and there to learn from God himself that all nature which is not what he is was made by none but him. For in this way God speaks with man, not through some bodily creature, sounding in bodily ears so that the spaces of air between the speaker and the hearer are struck; nor through a spiritual creature of the kind that is shaped in the likenesses of bodies, as in dreams or in some other such way (for so also he speaks as if to the ears of the body, since he speaks as if through a body and as if across an interval of bodily places; for such visions are very like bodies); but he speaks by the truth itself, if anyone is fit to hear with the mind and not with the body. For he speaks to that part of man which is better than the other parts of which man consists, and than which God himself alone is better. For since man is most rightly understood, or, if this is not possible, at least believed, to have been made in the image of God, he is surely nearer to the God above him by that part of himself in which he surpasses his lower parts, which he has in common even with the beasts. But because the mind itself, in which reason and understanding are naturally present, is weakened by certain dark and long-standing vices, not only for cleaving to the unchangeable light in enjoyment but even for bearing it, until, renewed and healed from day to day, it becomes capable of so great a happiness, it first had to be steeped in faith and purified. That it might walk more confidently toward the truth in this faith, the Truth himself, God the Son of God, taking on man without consuming God, established and founded this same faith, so that there might be a way for man to man's God through the man who is God. For this is “the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” For he is mediator by this, that he is man; by this he is also the way. For if there is a way between the one who strives and that to which he strives, there is hope of arriving; but if it is lacking, or it is not known by which way one must go, what use is it to know where one must go? And the only way that is fully protected against all errors is that the same one be both God and man: God where one goes, man by which one goes.

### Scripture references

- 1 Tim 2:5: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:27: allusion, medium confidence
- John 14:6: allusion, medium confidence
- 2 Cor 4:16: echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- 1 Tim 2:5 quoted.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.2 (CSEL 40:512–513; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-1/#p-11-2).

## City of God 11.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-1/#p-11-3
- Source: CSEL 40:513–514
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The canonical Scripture, given through prophets, Christ, and apostles, is the witness we must believe about things beyond our own perception.

### Latin text

CAPUT III De auctoritate canonicae scripturae diuino spiritu conditae. Hic prius per prophetas, deinde per se ipsum, postea per apostolos, quantum satis esse iudicauit, locutus etiam scripturam condidit, quae canonica nominatur, eminentissimae auctoritatis, cui fidem habemus de his rebus, quas ignorare non expedit nec per nos ipsos nosse idonei sumus. Nam si ea sciri possunt testibus nobis, quae remota non sunt a sensibus nostris siue interioribus siue etiam exterioribus (unde et praesentia nuncupantur, quod ita ea dicimus esse prae sensibus, sicut prae oculis quae praesto sunt oculis): profecto ea, quae remota sunt a sensibus nostris, quoniam nostro testimonio scire non possumus, de his alios testes requirimus eisque credimus, a quorum sensibus remota esse uel fuisse non credimus. Sicut ergo de uisibilibus, quae non uidimus, eis credimus, qui uiderunt, adque ita de ceteris, quae ad suum quemque sensum corporis pertinent: ita de his, quae animo ac mente sentiuntur (quia et ipse rectissime dicitur sensus, unde et sententia uocabulum accepit), hoc est de inuisibilibus quae a nostro sensu interiore remota sunt, his nos oportet credere, qui haec in illo incorporeo lumine disposita didicerunt uel manentia contuentur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. Of the authority of the canonical Scripture, composed by the divine Spirit.

This Mediator, having spoken first through the prophets, then through himself, afterward through the apostles, as much as he judged sufficient, also produced the Scripture which is called canonical, of the most eminent authority, which we believe concerning those things which it is not good for us to be ignorant of and which we are not able to know by ourselves. For if those things can be known by our own witness which are not remote from our senses, whether inner or outer (hence they are also called “present,” because we say they are before the senses [prae sensibus], as things are before the eyes which are at hand to the eyes), then certainly with regard to things remote from our senses, since we cannot know them by our own testimony, we look for other witnesses and believe them, from whose senses we do not believe these things to be or to have been remote. So then, just as concerning visible things which we have not seen we believe those who have seen them, and so also concerning the other things that belong to each bodily sense, so concerning the things perceived by the soul and mind (for this too is most rightly called a sense, whence also the word sententia, “judgment,” takes its name), that is, concerning invisible things which are remote from our inner sense, we must believe those who have learned them as arranged in that incorporeal light, or who behold them as they abide.

### Scripture references

- Heb 1:1: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Augustine plays on praesentia as prae sensibus (“before the senses”) and derives sententia from sensus.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.3 (CSEL 40:513–514; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-1/#p-11-3).

## City of God 11.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-1/#p-11-4
- Source: CSEL 40:514–517
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The world's beauty and order proclaim that God made it; its beginning in time implies no change in God's eternal will, as the Platonists themselves must grant regarding the soul's new happiness.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. De conditione mundi, quae nec intemporalis sit. nec nouo Dei ordinata consilio, quasi postea uoluerit, quod ante noluerat. Visibilium omnium maximus mundus est, inuisibilium omnium maximus Deus est. Sed mundum esse conspicimus, Deum esse credimus. Quod autem Deus fecerit mundum, nulli tutius credimus quam ipsi Deo. Ubi eum audiuimus? Nusquam interim nos melius quam in scripturis sanctis, ubi dixit propheta eius: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram. Numquidnam ibi fuit iste propheta, quando fecit Deus caelum et terram? Non; sed ibi fuit sapientia Dei, per quam facta sunt omnia, quae in animas sanctas etiam se transferens amicos Dei et prophetas constituit eisque opera sua sine strepitu intus enarrat. Loquuntur eis quoque angeli Dei, qui semper uident faciem Patris uoluntatemque eius quibus oportet adnuntiant. Ex his unus erat iste propheta, qui dixit et scripsit: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram. Qui tam idoneus testis est, per quem Deo credendum sit, ut eodem spiritu Dei, quo haec sibi reuelata cognouit, etiam ipsam fidem nostram futuram tanto ante praedixerit. Sed quid placuit aeterno Deo tunc facere caelum et terram, quae antea non fecisset? Qui hoc dicunt, si mundum aeternum sine ullo initio et ideo nec a Deo factum uideri uolunt, nimis auersi sunt a ueritate et letali morbo inpietatis insaniunt. Exceptis enim propheticis uocibus mundus ipse ordinatissima sua mutabilitate et mobilitate et uisibilium omnium pulcherrima specie quodam modo tacitus et factum se esse et non nisi a Deo ineffabiliter adque inuisibiliter magno et ineffabiliter adque inuisibiliter pulchro fieri se potuisse proclamat. Qui autem a Deo quidem factum fatentur, non tamen eum temporis uolunt habere sed suae creationis initium, ut modo quodam uix intellegibili semper sit factus, dicunt quidem aliquid, unde sibi Deum uidentur uelut a fortuita temeritate defendere, ne subito illi uenisse credatur in mentem, quod numquam ante uenisset, facere mundum, et accidisse illi nouam uoluntatem, cum in nullo sit omnino mutabilis; sed non uideo quo modo eis possit in ceteris rebus ratio ista subsistere maximeque in anima, quam si Deo coaeternam esse contenderint, unde illi acciderit noua miseria, quae numquam antea per aeternum, nullo modo poterunt explicare. Si enim alternasse semper eius miseriam et beatitudinem dixerint, necesse est dicant etiam semper alternaturam; unde illa eos sequetur absurditas, ut etiam cum beata dicitur in hoc utique non sit beata, si futuram suam miseriam et turpitudinem praeuidet; si autem non praeuidet nec se turpem ac miseram fore, sed beatam semper existimat, falsa opinione sit beata; quo dici stultius nihil potest. Si autem semper quidem per saecula retro infinita cum beatitudine alternasse animae miseriam putant, sed nunc iam de cetero, cum fuerit liberata, ad miseriam non esse redituram, nihilo minus conuincuntur numquam eam fuisse uere beatam, sed deinceps esse incipere noua quadam nec fallaci beatitudine; ac per hoc fatebuntur accidere illi aliquid noui, et hoc magnum adque praeclarum, quod numquam retro per aeternitatem accidisset. Cuius nouitatis causam si Deum negabunt in aeterno habuisse consilio, simul eum negabunt beatitudinis eius auctorem, quod nefandae inpietatis est; si autem dicent etiam ipsum nouo consilio excogitasse, ut de cetero sit anima in aeternum beata, quo modo eum alienum ab ea, quae illis quoque displicet, mutabilitate monstrabunt? Porro si ex tempore creatam, sed nullo ulterius tempore perituram, tamquam numerum, habere initium, sed non habere finem fatentur, et ideo semel expertam miserias, si ab eis fuerit liberata, numquam miseram postea futuram: non utique dubitabunt hoc fieri manente incommutabilitate consilii Dei. Sic ergo credant et mundum ex tempore fieri potuisse, nec tamen ideo Deum in eo faciendo aeternum consilium uoluntatemque mutasse.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. Of the creation of the world, which is neither timeless nor ordered by a new decision of God, as if he afterward willed what he had not willed before.

Of all visible things the world is the greatest; of all invisible things the greatest is God. But that the world exists we see; that God exists we believe. And that God made the world we believe no one more safely than God himself. Where have we heard him? Nowhere, so far, better than in the holy Scriptures, where his prophet said: “In the beginning God made heaven and earth.” Was this prophet there when God made heaven and earth? No; but the wisdom of God was there, through which all things were made, which also, passing into holy souls, makes them friends of God and prophets, and tells them his works inwardly, without noise. The angels of God also speak to them, who always see the face of the Father and announce his will to those to whom it is fitting. This prophet was one of these, who said and wrote: “In the beginning God made heaven and earth.” And he is so fit a witness, through whom we should believe God, that by the same Spirit of God by which he knew that these things had been revealed to him, he also foretold, so long before, this very faith of ours that was to come.

But why did it please the eternal God to make heaven and earth then, when he had not made them before? Those who say this, if they want the world to be thought eternal, without any beginning, and therefore not made by God, are far turned away from the truth and rave with the deadly disease of impiety. For, setting aside the prophetic voices, the world itself, by its perfectly ordered changeableness and motion and by the most beautiful form of all visible things, silently in a way proclaims both that it was made and that it could not have been made except by God, who is ineffably and invisibly great and ineffably and invisibly beautiful. But those who admit that it was made by God, yet want it to have a beginning not of time but of its creation, so that in some scarcely intelligible way it has always been made, do indeed say something by which they seem to themselves to defend God from, as it were, a chance impulse, lest it be believed that there suddenly came into his mind what had never come into it before, to make the world, and that a new will befell him, though he is in no way changeable at all. But I do not see how this reasoning of theirs can stand in other matters, and especially in the case of the soul. If they contend that it is coeternal with God, they will be quite unable to explain whence there befell it a new misery, which had never before befallen it through all eternity. For if they say that its misery and happiness have always alternated, they must also say that they will always alternate; and from this that absurdity will follow them, that even when it is called happy it is surely not happy in this, if it foresees its future misery and shame; but if it does not foresee it, and does not think it will be shameful and wretched but always happy, then it is happy by a false opinion; and nothing more foolish can be said. But if they think that the soul's misery alternated with happiness through infinite ages past, but that now for the future, once it has been set free, it will not return to misery, they are nonetheless convicted of saying that it was never truly happy, but begins from now on to enjoy a new and undeceived happiness; and so they will admit that something new befalls it, and this great and glorious, which had never befallen it through all eternity before. If they deny that God had the cause of this newness in his eternal counsel, they will at the same time deny that he is the author of its happiness, which is an abominable impiety. But if they say that he too devised by a new counsel that the soul should henceforth be happy forever, how will they show that he is free from that changeableness which they too reject? Further, if they admit that it was created in time, but will perish at no later time, like number, having a beginning but not an end, and that therefore, having once experienced miseries, if it is freed from them, it will never afterward be wretched, they will certainly not doubt that this happens while the counsel of God remains unchangeable. Let them therefore believe in the same way that the world could have been made in time without God's having changed his eternal counsel and will in making it.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 18:10: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 1:20: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 7:27 (Wisdom of Solomon): allusion, high confidence
- Plato (Plato (works)): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 1:1 quoted. The opponents are Platonists who held the world everlasting though made by God; the soul's alternation of happiness and misery refers to Platonist views of the soul's cycles. “Like number”: a series with a first term but no last.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.4 (CSEL 40:514–517; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-1/#p-11-4).

## City of God 11.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-1/#p-11-5
- Source: CSEL 40:517–519
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Asking why God made the world at one time rather than earlier is as empty as asking why it is in one place rather than another; there is neither time before nor place outside the world.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. Tam non esse cogitandum de infinitis temporum spatiis ante mundum, quam nec de infinitis locorum spatiis extra mundum, quia, sicut nulla ante ipsum sunt tempora, ita nulla extra ipsum sunt loca. Deinde uidendum est, isti, qui Deum conditorem mundi esse consentiunt et tamen quaerunt de mundi tempore quid respondeamus, quid ipsi respondeant de mundi loco. Ita enim quaeritur, quur potius tunc et non antea factus sit, quem ad modum quaeri potest, quur hic potius ubi est et non alibi. Nam si infinita spatia temporis ante mundum cogitant, in quibus eis non uidetur Deus ab opere cessare potuisse, similiter cogitent extra mundum infinita spatia locorum, in quibus si quisquam dicat non potuisse uacare Omnipotentem, nonne consequens erit, ut innumerabiles mundos cum Epicuro somniare cogantur (ea tantum differentia, quod eos ille fortuitis motibus atomorum gigni adserit et resolui, isti autem opere Dei factos dicturi sunt), si eum per interminabilem inmensitatem locorum extra mundum circumquaque patentium uacare noluerint, nec eosdem mundos, quod etiam de isto sentiunt, ulla causa posse dissolui? Cum his enim agimus, qui et Deum incorporeum et omnium naturarum, quae non sunt quod ipse, creatorem nobiscum sentiunt; alios autem nimis indignum est ad istam disputationem religionis admittere, maxime quod aput eos, qui multis dis sacrorum obsequium deferendum putant, isti philosophos ceteros nobilitate adque auctoritate uicerunt, non ob aliud, nisi quia longo quidem interuallo, uerum tamen reliquis propinquiores sunt ueritati. An forte substantiam Dei, quam nec includunt nec determinant nec distendunt loco, sed eam, sicut de Deo sentire dignum est, fatentur incorporea praesentia ubique totam, a tantis locorum extra mundum spatiis absentem esse dicturi sunt, et uno tantum adque in conparationem illius infinitatis tam exiguo loco, in quo mundus est, occupatam? Non opinor eos in haec uaniloquia progressuros. Cum igitur unum mundum ingenti quidem mole corporea, finitum tamen et loco suo determinatum et operante Deo factum esse dicant: quod respondent de infinitis extra mundum locis, quur in eis ab opere Deus cesset, hoc sibi respondeant de infinitis ante mundum temporibus, quur in eis ab opere Deus cessauerit. Et sicut non est consequens, ut fortuito potius quam ratione diuina Deus non alio, sed isto in quo est loco mundum constituerit, cum pariter infinitis ubique patentibus nullo excellentiore merito posset hic eligi, quamuis eandem diuinam rationem, qua id factum est, nulla possit humana conprehendere: ita non est consequens, ut Deo aliquid existimemus accidisse fortuitum, quod illo potius quam anteriore tempore condidit mundum, cum aequaliter anteriora tempora per infinitum retro spatium praeterissent nec fuisset aliqua differentia, unde tempus tempori eligendo praeponeretur. Quod si dicunt inanes esse hominum cogitationes, quibus infinita imaginantur loca, cum locus nullus sit praeter mundum, respondetur eis isto modo: inaniter homines cogitare praeterita tempora uacationis Dei, cum tempus nullum sit ante mundum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. That we ought no more to think of infinite spaces of time before the world than of infinite spaces of place outside the world; for just as there are no times before it, so there are no places outside it.

Next it must be seen what those who agree that God is the maker of the world, and yet ask us what we answer about the time of the world, themselves answer about the place of the world. For to ask why it was made then and not earlier is like asking why it is here, where it is, and not elsewhere. For if they imagine infinite spaces of time before the world, in which it does not seem to them that God could have been idle from work, let them likewise imagine infinite spaces of place outside the world; and if anyone says that the Almighty could not have been inactive in these, will it not follow that they are forced to dream of innumerable worlds with Epicurus? (With this difference only, that he asserts that they come into being and are dissolved by chance movements of atoms, while these will say they were made by the work of God.) That is, if they will not have him idle through the boundless immensity of places lying open all around outside the world; and they will say that these worlds, as they also hold of this one, cannot be dissolved by any cause. For we are dealing with those who agree with us that God is incorporeal and the creator of all natures which are not what he is; as for others, it is too unworthy to admit them to this discussion of religion, especially since among those who think that the service of sacred rites must be offered to many gods, these men surpassed the other philosophers in renown and authority, for no other reason than that, though at a great distance, they are nevertheless nearer to the truth than the rest. Or will they perhaps say that the substance of God, which they neither enclose nor bound nor extend in place, but confess, as is worthy to think of God, to be wholly present everywhere by an incorporeal presence, is absent from such great spaces of place outside the world, and occupied in only one place, so small in comparison with that infinity, in which the world is? I do not think they will go so far into such empty talk. Since, then, they say that the one world, of vast bodily mass but finite and bounded by its place, was made by God's working, whatever they answer about the infinite places outside the world, why God ceases from working in them, let them give themselves the same answer about the infinite times before the world, why God ceased from working in them. And just as it does not follow that it was by chance rather than by divine reason that God established the world in this place where it is and not in another, since, with infinite places lying equally open everywhere, this one could be chosen for no greater merit, although no human reason can comprehend the divine reason by which it was done; so it does not follow that we should think that something by chance befell God because he founded the world at that time rather than an earlier one, since earlier times had equally passed through an infinite space backward, and there was no difference by which one time should be preferred to another in choosing. But if they say that the thoughts of men by which they imagine infinite places are empty, since there is no place besides the world, they are answered in the same way: men think emptily of past times of God's inactivity, since there is no time before the world.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Epicurus (Epicurus (sayings and fragments)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The Platonists are meant (“nearer to the truth than the rest”). Epicurus's innumerable worlds made of atoms are cited by report.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.5 (CSEL 40:517–519; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-1/#p-11-5).

## City of God 11.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-1/#p-11-6
- Source: CSEL 40:519–520
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Since time is the measure of change in creatures, the world was made not in time but with time.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. Creationis mundi et temporum unum esse principium nec aliud alio praeueniri. Si enim recte discernuntur aeternitas et tempus, quod tempus sine aliqua mobili mutabilitate non est, in aeternitate autem nulla mutatio est: quis non uideat, quod tempora non fuissent, nisi creatura fieret, quae aliquid aliqua motione mutaret, cuius motionis et mutationis cum aliud adque aliud, quae simul esse non possunt, cedit adque succedit, in breuioribus uel productioribus morarum interuallis tempus sequeretur? Cum igitur Deus, in cuius aeternitate nulla est omnino mutatio, creator sit temporum et ordinator: quo modo dicatur post temporum spatia mundum creasse non uideo, nisi dicatur ante mundum iam aliquam fuisse creaturam, cuius motibus tempora currerent. Porro si litterae sacrae maximeque ueraces ita dicunt, in principio fecisse Deum caelum et terram, ut nihil antea fecisse intellegatur, quia hoc potius in principio fecisse diceretur, si quid fecisset ante cetera cuncta quae fecit: procul dubio non est mundus factus in tempore, sed cum tempore. Quod enim fit in tempore, et post aliquod fit et ante aliquod tempus; post id quod praeteritum est, ante id quod futurum est; nullum autem posset esse praeteritum, quia nulla erat creatura, cuius mutabilibus motibus ageretur. Cum tempore autem factus est mundus, si in eius conditione factus est mutabilis motus, sicut uidetur se habere etiam ordo ille primorum sex uel septem dierum, in quibus et mane et uespera nominantur, donec omnia, quae his diebus Deus fecit, sexto perficiantur die septimoque in magno mysterio Dei uacatio commendetur. Qui dies cuius modi sint, aut perdifficile nobis aut etiam inpossibile est cogitare, quanto magis dicere.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. That the creation of the world and of times has one beginning, and that one does not precede the other.

For if eternity and time are rightly distinguished in this, that time does not exist without some motion and change, while in eternity there is no change, who does not see that there would have been no times had no creature been made that might change something by some motion; and that from this motion and change, as one thing and then another, which cannot exist at once, gives way and succeeds, in longer or shorter intervals of duration, time would follow? Since, then, God, in whose eternity there is no change at all, is the creator and ordainer of times, I do not see how it can be said that he created the world after spaces of time, unless it is said that before the world there was already some creature by whose motions times ran. Further, if the sacred and most truthful writings say that in the beginning God made heaven and earth in such a way that he is understood to have made nothing before (since it would rather have been said that he made in the beginning whatever he had made before all the other things he made), then beyond doubt the world was made not in time but with time. For what is made in time is made both after some time and before some time: after that which is past, before that which is future; but there could be no past, because there was no creature by whose changing motions it could be brought about. But the world was made with time, if in its creation changing motion was made, as that order of the first six or seven days also seems to show, in which both morning and evening are named, until all the things which God made in these days were completed on the sixth day, and on the seventh God's resting is set forth as a great mystery. What kind of days these are is very difficult or even impossible for us to conceive, how much more to express.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:2: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 1:1 and the six days of Gen 1:1–2:3 in view.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.6 (CSEL 40:519–520; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-1/#p-11-6).

## City of God 11.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-1/#p-11-7
- Source: CSEL 40:520–521
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The light and the evenings and mornings of the first days may signify the angels' knowledge of creatures, dim in itself and bright when referred to the Creator.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. De qualitate primorum dierum, qui etiam antequam sol fieret uesperam et mane traduntur habuisse. Videmus quippe istos dies notos non habere uesperam nisi de solis occasu nec mane nisi de solis exortu; illorum autem priores tres dies sine sole peracti sunt, qui die quarto factus refertur. Et primitus quidem lux uerbo Dei facta adque inter ipsam et tenebras Deus separasse narratur et eandem lucem uocasse diem, tenebras autem noctem; sed qualis illa sit lux et quo alternante motu qualemque uesperam et mane fecerit, remotum est a sensibus nostris, nec ita ut est intellegi a nobis potest, quod tamen sine ulla haesitatione credendum est. Aut enim aliqua lux corporea est, siue in superioribus mundi partibus longe a conspectibus nostris siue unde sol postmodum accensus est; aut lucis nomine significata est sancta ciuitas in sanctis angelis et spiritibus beatis, de qua dicit apostolus: Quae sursum est Hierusalem, mater nostra aeterna in caelis; ait quippe et alio loco: Omnes enim uos filii lucis estis et filii diei; non sumus noctis neque tenebrarum; si tamen et uesperam diei huius et mane aliquatenus congruenter intellegere ualeamus. Quoniam scientia creaturae in conparationem scientiae Creatoris quodam modo uesperascit, itemque lucescit et mane fit, cum et ipsa refertur ad laudem dilectionemque Creatoris; nec in noctem uergitur, ubi non Creator creaturae dilectione relinquitur. Denique scriptura cum illos dies dinumeraret ex ordine, nusquam interposuit uocabulum noctis. Non enim ait alicubi: Facta est nox; sed: Facta est uespera et factum est mane dies unus. Ita dies secundus et ceteri. Cognitio quippe creaturae in se ipsa decoloratior est, ut ita dicam, quam cum in Dei sapientia cognoscitur, uelut in arte qua facta est. Ideo uespera quam nox congruentius dici potest; quae tamen, ut dixi, cum ad laudandum et ad amandum refertur Creatorem, recurrit in mane. Et hoc cum facit in cognitione sui ipsius, dies unus est; cum in cognitione firmamenti, quod inter aquas inferiores et superiores caelum appellatum est, dies secundus; cum in cognitione terrae ac maris omniumque gignentium, quae radicibus continuata sunt terrae, dies tertius; cum in cognitione luminarium maioris et minoris omniumque siderum, dies quartus; cum in cognitione omnium ex aquis animalium natatilium adque uolatilium, dies quintus; cum in cognitione omnium animalium terrenorum adque ipsius hominis, dies sextus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. Of the nature of the first days, which are said to have had evening and morning even before the sun was made.

For we see that these days we know have no evening except from the setting of the sun, and no morning except from its rising; but the first three of those days passed without the sun, which is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first, indeed, light is said to have been made by the word of God, and God to have divided between it and the darkness, and to have called this light day and the darkness night; but what that light was, and by what alternating motion, and what kind of evening and morning it made, is remote from our senses, nor can it be understood by us as it is; yet it must be believed without any hesitation. For either it is some bodily light, whether in the upper parts of the world far from our sight or whence the sun was afterward kindled; or by the name of light is signified the holy city in the holy angels and blessed spirits, of which the apostle says: “The Jerusalem above, our eternal mother in the heavens”; for he says also in another place: “For you are all children of light and children of the day; we are not of the night nor of darkness”; if, that is, we can in some measure fittingly understand the evening and morning of this day too. For the knowledge of the creature, in comparison with the knowledge of the Creator, in a way grows dusk, and likewise it dawns and becomes morning when it too is referred to the praise and love of the Creator; nor does it sink into night where the Creator is not forsaken by the love of the creature. And indeed Scripture, when it numbered those days in order, nowhere inserted the word “night.” For it nowhere says, “There was night,” but, “There was evening and there was morning, one day.” So also the second day and the rest. For the knowledge of the creature in itself is, so to speak, more faded than when it is known in the wisdom of God, as in the art by which it was made. Therefore it can more fittingly be called evening than night; which, however, as I said, returns into morning when it is referred to praising and loving the Creator. And when it does this in the knowledge of itself, it is one day; when in the knowledge of the firmament, which was called heaven between the lower and the upper waters, the second day; when in the knowledge of earth and sea and all growing things which are joined by their roots to the earth, the third day; when in the knowledge of the greater and lesser lights and all the stars, the fourth day; when in the knowledge of all the animals from the waters that swim and fly, the fifth day; when in the knowledge of all land animals and of man himself, the sixth day.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:3: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 1:4: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 1:5: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:14: allusion, high confidence
- Gal 4:26: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Thess 5:5: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Gal 4:26 is quoted with “eternal … in the heavens,” a form found in Augustine's Latin; 1 Thess 5:5 quoted. The Latin has a stray mark (■) after “corporea”; it does not affect the sense.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.7 (CSEL 40:520–521; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-1/#p-11-7).

## City of God 11.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-1/#p-11-8
- Source: CSEL 40:521–522
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God's rest on the seventh day signifies the rest of those who rest in him, promised to the faithful and prefigured by the sabbath.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. Quae qualisque intellegenda sit Dei requies, qua post opera sex dierum requieuit in septimo. Cum uero in die septimo requiescit Deus ab omnibus operibus suis et sanctificat eum, nequaquam est accipiendum pueriliter, tamquam Deus laborauerit operando, qui dixit et facta sunt uerbo intellegibili et sempiterno, non sonabili et temporali. Sed requies Dei requiem significat eorum qui requiescunt in Deo, sicut laetitia domus laetitiam significat eorum, qui laetantur in domo, etiamsi non eos domus ipsa, sed alia res aliqua laetos facit. Quanto magis, si eadem domus pulchritudine sua faciat laetos habitatores, ut non solum eo loquendi modo laeta dicatur, quo significamus per id quod continet id quod continetur (sicut theatra plaudunt, prata mugiunt, cum in illis homines plaudunt, in his boues mugiunt); sed etiam illo, quo significatur per efficientem id quod efficitur; sicut laeta epistula dicitur, significans eorum laetitiam, quos legentes efficit laetos. Conuenientissime itaque, cum Deum requieuisse prophetica narrat auctoritas, significatur requies eorum, qui in illo requiescunt et quos facit ipse requiescere; hoc etiam hominibus, quibus loquitur et propter quos utique conscripta est, promittente prophetia, quod etiam ipsi post bona opera, quae in eis et per eos operatur Deus, si ad illum prius in ista uita per fidem quodam modo accesserint, in illo habebunt requiem sempiternam. Hoc enim et sabbati uacatione ex praecepto legis in uetere Dei populo figuratum est, unde suo loco diligentius arbitror disserendum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. What God's rest is to be understood to be, and of what kind, by which he rested on the seventh day after the works of the six days.

When God rests on the seventh day from all his works and sanctifies it, this is by no means to be taken childishly, as if God had toiled in working, who “spoke and they were made” by an intelligible and eternal word, not a sounding and temporal one. But God's rest signifies the rest of those who rest in God, just as the joy of a house signifies the joy of those who rejoice in the house, even if it is not the house itself but something else that makes them joyful. How much more if the house itself by its beauty makes its inhabitants joyful, so that it is called joyful not only in that manner of speaking by which we signify what is contained by what contains it (as when theaters applaud and meadows low, when people applaud in the one and oxen low in the other), but also in that by which what is effected is signified by what effects it, as a letter is called joyful, signifying the joy of those whom it makes joyful as they read it. Most fittingly, then, when the prophetic authority tells that God rested, there is signified the rest of those who rest in him and whom he himself makes to rest. The prophecy also promises this to the men to whom it speaks and for whose sake it was certainly written: that they too, after the good works which God works in them and through them, if they have first in this life in some way drawn near to him by faith, will have everlasting rest in him. For this was prefigured also in the ancient people of God by the rest of the sabbath according to the precept of the law, of which I think I must speak more carefully in its place.

### Scripture references

- Gen 2:2: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:3: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 33:9 (32:9 LXX): allusion, medium confidence
- Heb 4:9: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Ps 33:9 (LXX 32:9) / Ps 148:5 echoed in “he spoke and they were made.”

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.8 (CSEL 40:521–522; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-1/#p-11-8).

## City of God 11.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-1/#p-11-9
- Source: CSEL 40:522–525
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The angels were created as the light of the first day, enlightened by the eternal Word; those who turned away became darkness, for evil is only the loss of good.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. De angelorum conditione quid secundum diuina testimonia sentiendum sit. Nunc, quoniam de sanctae ciuitatis exortu dicere institui et prius quod ad sanctos angelos adtinet dicendum putaui, quae huius ciuitatis et magna pars est et eo beatior, quod numquam peregrinata, quae hinc diuina testimonia subpetant, quantum satis uidebitur, Deo largiente explicare curabo. Ubi de mundi constitutione sacrae litterae loquuntur, non euidenter dicitur, utrum uel quo ordine creati sint angeli; sed si praetermissi non sunt, uel caeli nomine, ubi dictum est: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram, uel potius lucis huius, de qua loquor, significati sunt. Non autem esse praetermissos hinc existimo, quod scriptum est, requieuisse Deum in die septimo ab omnibus operibus suis quae fecit, cum liber ipse ita sit exorsus: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram, ut ante caelum et terram nihil aliud fecisse uideatur. Cum ergo a caelo et terra coeperit, adque ipsa terra, quam primitus fecit, sicut scriptura consequenter eloquitur, inuisibilis et incomposita nondumque luce facta utique tenebrae fuerint super abyssum, id est super quandam terrae et aquae indistinctam confusionem (ubi enim lux non est, tenebrae sint necesse est); deinde si omnia creando disposita sunt, quae per sex dies consummata narrantur: quo modo angeli praetermitterentur, tamquam non essent in operibus Dei, a quibus in die septimo requieuit? Opus autem Dei esse angelos hic quidem etsi non praetermissum, non tamen euidenter expressum est; sed alibi hoc sancta scriptura clarissima uoce testatur. Nam et in hymno trium in camino uirorum cum praedictum esset: Benedicite omnia opera Domini Dominum, in executione eorundem operum etiam angeli nominati sunt: et in psalmo canitur: Laudate Dominum de caelis, laudate eum in excelsis; laudate eum omnes angeli eius, laudate eum omnes uirtutes eius; laudate eum sol et luna, laudate eum omnes stellae et lumen; laudate eum caeli caelorum, et aquae, quae super caelos sunt, laudent nomen Domini; quoniam ipse dixit, et facta sunt; ipse mandauit, et creata sunt. Etiam hic apertissime a Deo factos esse angelos diuinitus dictum est. cum eis inter cetera caelestia commemoratis infertur ad omnia: Ipse dixit, et facta sunt. Quis porro audebit opinari post omnia ista, quae sex diebus enumerata sunt, angelos factos? Sed etsi quisquam ita desipit, redarguit istam uanitatem illa scriptura paris auctoritatis, ubi Deus dicit: Quando facta sunt sidera, laudauerunt me uoce magna omnes angeli mei. Iam ergo erant angeli, quando facta sunt sidera. Facta sunt autem quarto die. Numquidnam ergo die tertio factos esse dicemus? Absit. In promtu est enim, quid illo die factum sit. Ab aquis utique terra discreta est et distinctas sui generis species duo ista elementa sumserunt et produxit terra quidquid ei radicitus inhaeret. Numquidnam secundo? Ne hoc quidem. Tunc enim firmamentum factum est inter aquas superiores et inferiores caelumque appellatum est; in quo firmamento quarto die facta sunt sidera. Nimirum ergo si ad istorum dierum opera Dei pertinent angeli, ipsi sunt illa lux, quae diei nomen accepit. cuius unitas ut commendaretur, non est dictus dies primus, sed dies unus. Nec alius est dies secundus aut tertius aut ceteri; sed idem ipse unus ad inplendum senarium uel septenarium numerum repetitus est propter senariam uel septenariam cognitionem; senariam scilicet operum, quae fecit Deus, et septenariam quietis Dei. Cum enim dixit Deus: Fiat lux, et facta est lux, si recte in hac luce creatio intellegitur angelorum, profecto facti sunt participes lucis aeternae, quod est ipsa incommutabilis sapientia Dei, per quam facta sunt omnia, quem dicimus unigenitum Dei filium; ut ea luce inluminati, qua creati, fierent lux et uocarentur dies participatione incommutabilis lucis et diei, quod est uerbum Dei, per quod et ipsi et omnia facta sunt. Lumen quippe uerum, quod inluminat omnem hominem uenientem in hunc mundum, hoc inluminat et omnem angelum mundum, ut sit lux non in se ipso, sed in Deo; a quo si auertitur angelus. fit inmundus; sicut sunt omnes, qui uocantur inmundi spiritus, nec iam lux in Domino, sed in se ipsis tenebrae, priuati participatione lucis aeternae. Mali enim nulla natura est; sed amissio boni mali nomen accepit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. What we are to believe about the creation of the angels according to the divine testimonies.

Now, since I have set out to speak of the rise of the holy city, and have thought I should speak first of what concerns the holy angels, who are a great part of this city, and the more blessed in that they have never been pilgrims, I shall take care, with God's gift, to explain what divine testimonies are available on this, as far as seems sufficient. Where the sacred writings speak of the establishment of the world, it is not clearly said whether, or in what order, the angels were created; but if they are not passed over, they are signified either by the name “heaven,” where it is said, “In the beginning God made heaven and earth,” or rather by this “light” of which I am speaking. That they are not passed over I judge from this, that it is written that God rested on the seventh day from all his works which he made, while the book itself begins thus: “In the beginning God made heaven and earth,” so that he seems to have made nothing else before heaven and earth. Since, then, he began with heaven and earth, and the earth itself which he made first was, as Scripture goes on to say, invisible and unformed, and, since light was not yet made, darkness was certainly upon the abyss, that is, upon a kind of undistinguished confusion of earth and water (for where there is no light there must be darkness); and then, if all things were set in order by creating which are told as completed in six days, how would the angels be passed over, as though they were not among the works of God, from which he rested on the seventh day? That the angels are God's work, however, though not passed over here, is not clearly expressed; but elsewhere Holy Scripture testifies to it in the clearest voice. For in the hymn of the three men in the furnace, after it had been said first, “Bless the Lord, all you works of the Lord,” in the listing of those works the angels too are named; and in the psalm it is sung: “Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights; praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his hosts; praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you stars and light; praise him, heavens of heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens; let them praise the name of the Lord; for he spoke and they were made, he commanded and they were created.” Here too it is divinely said most plainly that the angels were made by God, since, after they had been mentioned among the other heavenly things, it is added of them all, “He spoke and they were made.” Who, further, will dare to suppose that the angels were made after all the things enumerated in the six days? But even if anyone is so foolish, that scripture of equal authority refutes this vanity, where God says: “When the stars were made, all my angels praised me with a loud voice.” So the angels already existed when the stars were made. But the stars were made on the fourth day. Shall we then say that they were made on the third day? Far from it. For what was made on that day is plain: the earth was separated from the waters, and these two elements took on their distinct forms after their kind, and the earth brought forth whatever clings to it by roots. On the second day, then? Not this either. For then the firmament was made between the upper and lower waters and called heaven; and in this firmament the stars were made on the fourth day. Clearly, then, if the angels belong to the works of God of these days, they are that light which received the name of “day”; and to commend its unity it was not called “the first day” but “one day.” Nor is the second or third or any other day a different day; but the same one day was repeated to complete the number six or seven, because of a sixfold or sevenfold knowledge: sixfold of the works which God made, and sevenfold of God's rest. For when God said, “Let there be light, and there was light,” if the creation of the angels is rightly understood in this light, they were certainly made partakers of the eternal light, which is the unchangeable wisdom of God itself, through which all things were made, whom we call 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, through whom both they and all things were made. For “the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world,” also enlightens every pure angel, so that he is light not in himself but in God; and if an angel turns away from him, he becomes impure, as are all those who are called unclean spirits, no longer “light in the Lord” but darkness in themselves, deprived of participation in the eternal light. For evil has no nature; but the loss of good has received the name of evil.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:2: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:2: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 148:1: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 148:2: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 148:3: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 148:4: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 148:5: quotation, high confidence
- Job 38:7: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:9: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 1:6: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 1:3: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:3: allusion, high confidence
- John 1:9: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 5:8: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Pr Azar (Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Young Men): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sources: Gen 1:1–10; the Song of the Three Young Men (Dan 3:57–58 in the Greek and Latin Daniel, part of the additions); Ps 148:1–5; Job 38:7 in the form of the Old Latin/LXX (“When the stars were made, all my angels praised me”); John 1:3, 9; Eph 5:8. Augustine reads the wording “mundum” (pure) as a pun on “mundum” (world) in John 1:9; the translation gives the sense “pure angel.”

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.9 (CSEL 40:522–525; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-1/#p-11-9).

## City of God 11.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-10
- Source: CSEL 40:525–528
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God, the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is simple because he is what he has; creatures, even incorruptible ones, differ from their qualities.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. De simplici et incommutabili trinitate Dei Patris et Dei Filii et Dei Spiritus sancti, unius Dei, cui non est aliud qualitas aliudque substantia. Est itaque bonum solum simplex et ob hoc solum incommutabile, quod est Deus. Ab hoc bono creata sunt omnia bona, sed non simplicia et ob hoc mutabilia. Creata sane, inquam, id est facta, non genita. Quod enim de simplici bono genitum est, pariter simplex est et hoc est quod illud de quo genitum est; quae duo Patrem et Filium dicimus; et utrumque hoc cum spiritu suo unus Deus est; qui spiritus Patris et Filii Spiritus sanctus propria quadam notione huius nominis in sacris litteris nuncupatur. Alius est autem quam Pater et Filius, quia nec Pater est nec Filius; sed alius dixi, non aliud, quia et hoc pariter simplex pariterque incommutabile bonum est et coaeternum. Et haec trinitas unus est Deus; nec ideo non simplex, quia trinitas. Neque enim propter hoc naturam istam boni simplicem dicimus, quia Pater in ea solus aut solus Filius aut solus Spiritus sanctus, aut uero sola est ista nominis trinitas sine subsistentia personarum, sicut Sabelliani haeretici putauerunt; sed ideo simplex dicitur, quoniam quod habet hoc est, excepto quod relatiue quaeque persona ad alteram dicitur. Nam utique Pater habet Filium, nec tamen ipse est Filius [et Filius habet Patrem, nec tamen ipse est Pater]. In quo ergo ad semet ipsum dicitur, non ad alterum, hoc est quod habet; sicut ad se ipsum dicitur uiuus habendo utique uitam, et eadem uita ipse est. Propter hoc utique natura dicitur simplex, cui non sit aliquid habere, quod uel possit amittere; uel aliud sit habens, aliud quod habet; sicut uas aliquem liquorem aut corpus colorem aut aer lucem siue feruorem aut anima sapientiam. Nihil enim horum est id quod habet; nam neque uas liquor est, nec corpus color, nec aer lux siue feruor, neque anima sapientia est. Hinc est quod etiam priuari possunt rebus quas habent, et in alios habitus uel qualitates uerti adque mutari, ut et uas euacuetur umore quo plenum est, et corpus decoloretur et aer tenebrescat siue frigescat et anima desipiat. Sed etsi sit corpus incorruptibile, quale sanctis in resurrectione promittitur, habet quidem ipsius incorruptionis inamissibilem qualitatem, sed manente substantia corporali non hoc est, quod ipsa incorruptio. Nam illa etiam per singulas partes corporis tota est nec alibi maior, alibi minor; neque enim ulla pars est incorruptior quam altera; corpus uero ipsum maius est in toto quam in parte; et cum aliqua pars est in eo amplior, alia minor, non ea quae amplior est incorruptior quam ea quae minor. Aliud est itaque corpus, quod non ubique sui totum est, alia incorruptio, quae ubique eius tota est, quia omnis pars incorruptibilis corporis etiam ceteris inaequalis aequaliter incorrupta est. Neque enim uerbi gratia, quia digitus minor est quam tota manus, ideo incorruptibilior manus quam digitus. Ita cum sint inaequales manus et digitus, aequalis est tamen incorruptibilitas manus et digiti. Ac per hoc quamuis a corpore incorruptibili inseparabilis incorruptibilitas sit, aliud est tamen substantia, qua corpus dicitur, aliud qualitas eius, qua incorruptibile nuncupatur. Et ideo etiam sic non hoc est quod habet. Anima quoque ipsa, etiamsi semper sit sapiens, sicut erit cum liberabitur in aeternum, participatione tamen incommutabilis sapientiae sapiens erit, quae non est quod ipsa. Neque enim si aer infusa luce numquam deseratur, ideo non aliud est ipse, aliud lux qua inluminatur. Neque hoc ita dixerim, quasi aer sit anima, quod putauerunt quidam qui non potuerunt incorpoream cogitare naturam. Sed habent haec ad illa etiam in magna disparilitate quandam similitudinem, ut non inconuenienter dicatur sic inluminari animam incorpoream luce incorporea simplicis sapientiae Dei, sicut inluminatur aeris corpus luce corporea; et sicut aer tenebrescit ista luce desertus (nam nihil sunt aliud quae dicuntur locorum quorumcumque corporalium tenebrae quam aer carens luce), ita tenebrescere animam sapientiae luce priuatam. Secundum hoc ergo dicuntur illa simplicia, quae principaliter uereque diuina sunt, quod non aliud est in eis qualitas, aliud substantia, nec aliorum participatione uel diuina uel sapientia uel beata sunt. Ceterum dictus est in scripturis sanctis Spiritus sapientiae multiplex, eo quod multa in sese habeat; sed quae habet, haec et est, et ea omnia unus est. Neque enim multae, sed una sapientia est, in qua sunt infiniti quidam eique finiti thensauri rerum intellegibilium, in quibus sunt omnes inuisibiles adque incommutabiles rationes rerum etiam uisibilium et mutabilium, quae per ipsam factae sunt. Quoniam Deus non aliquid nesciens fecit, quod nec de quolibet homine artifice recte dici potest; porro si sciens fecit omnia, ea utique fecit quae nouerat. Ex quo occurrit animo quiddam mirum, sed tamen uerum, quod iste mundus nobis notus esse non posset, nisi esset; Deo autem nisi notus esset, esse non posset.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. Of the simple and unchangeable Trinity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, one God, in whom quality and substance are not different.

There is, then, a good which alone is simple and for that reason alone unchangeable, and this is God. By this good all goods were created, but not simple ones, and therefore changeable. Created, I say, that is, made, not begotten. For what is begotten of the simple good is equally simple, and is the same as that of which it is begotten; these two we call the Father and the Son; and both of these with their Spirit are one God; which Spirit of the Father and the Son is called the Holy Spirit in the sacred writings, by a certain proper sense of this name. He is other than the Father and the Son, because he is neither the Father nor the Son; but I said “other” [alius], not “another thing” [aliud], because he too is equally simple and equally the unchangeable and coeternal good. And this Trinity is one God; nor is it therefore not simple because it is a Trinity. For we do not call this nature of the good simple because the Father alone is in it, or the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone, or because there is only this trinity of names without the subsistence of persons, as the Sabellian heretics thought; but it is called simple because it is what it has, except that each person is spoken of relatively to another. For the Father certainly has the Son, and yet he is not himself the Son. In what is said of it with respect to itself, then, not to another, it is what it has: as it is said to be living with respect to itself, by having life, and it is itself that life. For this reason a nature is called simple to which it does not belong to have anything which it could lose, or in which the one having is different from what it has, as a vessel has some liquid, or a body a color, or the air light or heat, or a soul wisdom. For none of these is what it has: the vessel is not the liquid, nor the body the color, nor the air light or heat, nor the soul wisdom. Hence it is that they can also be deprived of the things they have and be turned and changed into other states or qualities, so that a vessel is emptied of the liquid with which it is full, a body loses its color, the air grows dark or cold, and the soul grows foolish. But even if a body is incorruptible, such as is promised to the saints in the resurrection, it has indeed the quality of incorruption itself, which cannot be lost; but while the bodily substance remains, it is not the same thing as incorruption. For incorruption is whole in each part of the body, not greater in one place and less in another; for no part is more incorrupt than another; but the body itself is greater in the whole than in a part; and when one part in it is larger and another smaller, the one that is larger is not more incorrupt than the smaller. So the body, which is not wholly itself everywhere, is one thing, and incorruption, which is wholly everywhere in it, is another, because every part of an incorruptible body, however unequal to the others, is equally incorrupt. For example, because a finger is smaller than the whole hand, the hand is not therefore more incorruptible than the finger. So, though hand and finger are unequal, the incorruptibility of hand and finger is equal. And therefore, although incorruptibility is inseparable from an incorruptible body, yet the substance by which it is called a body is one thing, and its quality by which it is called incorruptible is another. And so even here it is not what it has. The soul itself, too, even if it is always wise, as it will be when it is freed forever, will yet be wise by participation in the unchangeable wisdom, which is not what the soul is. For even if the air is never forsaken by the light poured into it, it is not therefore any less true that the air is one thing and the light by which it is lit another. I do not say this as if the soul were air, as some thought who could not conceive an incorporeal nature. But these things have, even in great unlikeness, a certain likeness to those, so that it is not unfittingly said that the incorporeal soul is enlightened by the incorporeal light of the simple wisdom of God as the body of the air is enlightened by bodily light; and as the air grows dark when forsaken by this light (for what are called the darkness of any bodily places is nothing but air lacking light), so the soul grows dark when deprived of the light of wisdom.

According to this, then, those things are called simple which are principally and truly divine, because in them quality and substance are not different, nor are they divine or wise or blessed by participation in other things. It is true that in the holy Scriptures the Spirit of wisdom is called “manifold,” because it has many things in itself; but what it has, it also is, and all these it is as one. For there are not many wisdoms but one, in which are certain treasures of intelligible things, infinite and yet finite to it, in which are all the invisible and unchangeable reasons of things, even of the visible and changeable things which were made through it. For God did not make anything unknowingly, which cannot rightly be said even of any human craftsman; further, if he made all things knowingly, he certainly made what he knew. From this something strikes the mind which is wonderful yet true: that this world could not be known to us if it did not exist, but could not exist if it were not known to God.

### Scripture references

- Col 2:3: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Cor 15:42: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 7:22 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The Latin sentence “and the Son has the Father, and yet he is not himself the Father” stands in square brackets in the edition, which the editor deletes; it is omitted here. On Sabellianism: the view that Father, Son, and Spirit are only names of one person. Wis 7:22 (“manifold spirit”) and Col 2:3 (“treasures”) are alluded to. The dump ends with stray marks after the last word.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.10 (CSEL 40:525–528; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-10).

## City of God 11.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-11
- Source: CSEL 40:528–530
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The angels who fell cannot have shared the holy angels' full happiness, which includes certainty of its eternity.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. An eius beatitudinis, quam sancti angeli ab initio sui semper habuerunt, etiam illos spiritus, qui in ueritate non steterunt, participes fuisse credendum sit. Quae cum ita sint, nullo modo quidem secundum spatium aliquod temporis prius erant spiritus illi tenebrae, quos angelos dicimus; sed simul ut facti sunt, lux facti sunt; non tamen tantum ita creati, ut quoquo modo essent et quoquo modo uiuerent; sed etiam inluminati, ut sapienter beateque uiuerent. Ab hac inluminatione auersi quidam angeli non obtinuerunt excellentiam sapientis beataeque uitae, quae procul dubio non nisi aeterna est aeternitatisque suae certa adque secura; sed rationalem uitam licet insipientem sic habent, ut eam non possint amittere, nec si uelint. Quatenus autem, antequam peccassent, illius sapientiae fuerint participes, definire quis potest? In eius tamen participatione aequales fuisse istos illis, qui propterea uere pleneque beati sunt, quoniam nequaquam de suae beatitudinis aeternitate falluntur, quo modo dicturi sumus? quando quidem si aequales in ea fuissent, etiam isti in eius aeternitate mansissent pariter beati, quia pariter certi. Neque enim sicut uita, quamdiucumque fuerit, ita aeterna uita ueraciter dici poterit, si finem habitura sit; si quidem uita tantummodo uiuendo, aeterna uero finem non habendo nominata est. Quapropter quamuis non, quidquid aeternum, continuo beatum sit (dicitur enim etiam poenalis ignis aeternus): tamen si uere perfecteque beata uita non nisi aeterna est, non erat talis istorum, quandoque desitura et propterea non aeterna, siue id scirent, siue nescientes aliud putarent; quia scientes timor, nescientes error beatos esse utique non sinebat. Si autem hoc ita nesciebant, ut falsis incertisue non fiderent, sed utrum sempiternum an quandoque finem habiturum esset bonum suum, in neutram partem firma adsensione ferrentur: ipsa de tanta felicitate cunctatio eam beatae uitae plenitudinem, quam in sanctis angelis esse credimus, non habebat. Neque enim beatae uitae uocabulum ita contrahimus ad quasdam significationis angustias, ut solum Deum dicamus beatum; qui tamen uere ita beatus est, ut maior beatitudo esse non possit, in cuius conparatione, quod angeli beati sunt summa quadam sua beatitudine, quanta esse in angelis potest, quid aut quantum est?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. Whether we should believe that those spirits who did not stand in the truth also shared in that happiness which the holy angels have always had from their beginning.

This being so, those spirits whom we call angels were in no way first darkness for any space of time; but as soon as they were made, they were made light. Yet they were not only so created that they might exist in some way and live in some way, but were also enlightened so that they might live wisely and happily. Some angels, turning away from this enlightenment, did not obtain the excellence of the wise and happy life, which beyond doubt is only eternal and is sure and secure of its own eternity; but they have a rational life, although foolish, in such a way that they cannot lose it, even if they wished. But how far they shared in that wisdom before they sinned, who can define? Yet how shall we say that they were equal in their participation in it to those who are truly and fully happy precisely because they are in no way deceived about the eternity of their happiness? For if they had been equal in it, these too would have remained in its eternity, equally happy because equally certain. For as life, however long it lasts, can be truly called life, it cannot truly be called eternal life if it is to have an end; since it is called life only by living, but eternal by having no end. Therefore, although whatever is eternal is not straightway happy (for the fire of punishment too is called eternal), yet if the truly and perfectly happy life is only eternal, theirs was not such a life, since it was to cease at some time and was therefore not eternal, whether they knew it, or, not knowing it, thought otherwise; because if they knew it, fear, and if they did not, error, certainly did not allow them to be happy. But if they were ignorant of it in such a way that they did not rely on false or uncertain things, but were not borne with firm assent to either side, whether their good was everlasting or would at some time end, then this very hesitation about so great a felicity did not have that fullness of the happy life which we believe to be in the holy angels. For we do not narrow the term “happy life” to such a strait meaning as to call God alone happy; and yet he is truly happy in such a way that there can be no greater happiness; and in comparison with him, what, or how great, is the fact that the angels are happy with a certain highest happiness of their own, as great as can be in angels?

### Scripture references

- John 8:44: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 25:41: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- John 8:44 (“did not stand in the truth”) in the heading; Matt 25:41 (eternal fire) alluded to.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.11 (CSEL 40:528–530; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-11).

## City of God 11.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-12
- Source: CSEL 40:530–531
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Adam in paradise had greater present delight, but the righteous now, though suffering, have the surer hope of eternal happiness.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. De conparatione beatitudinis iustorum necdum obtinentium promissionis diuinae praemium et primorum in paradiso hominum ante peccatum. Nec ipsos tantum, quod adtinet ad rationalem uel intellectualem creaturam, beatos nuncupandos putamus. Quis enim primos illos homines in paradiso negare audeat beatos fuisse ante peccatum, quamuis sua beatitudo quam diuturna uel utrum aeterna esset incertos (esset autem aeterna, nisi peccassent), cum hodie non inpudenter beatos uocemus, quos uidemus iuste ac pie cum spe futurae inmortalitatis hanc uitam ducere sine crimine uastante conscientiam, facile inpetrantes peccatis huius infirmitatis diuinam misericordiam. Qui licet de suae perseuerantiae praemio certi sint, de ipsa tamen perseuerantia sua reperiuntur incerti. Quis enim hominum se in actione prouectuque iustitiae perseueraturum usque in finem sciat, nisi aliqua reuelatione ab illo fiat certus, qui de hac re iusto latentique iudicio non omnes instruit, sed neminem fallit? Quantum itaque pertinet ad delectationem praesentis boni, beatior erat primus homo in paradiso, quam quilibet iustus in hac infirmitate mortali; quantum autem ad spem futuri, beatior quilibet in quibuslibet cruciatibus corporis, cui non opinione, sed certa ueritate manifestum est, sine fine se habiturum omni molestia carentem societatem angelorum in participatione summi Dei, quam erat ille homo sui casus incertus in magna illa felicitate paradisi.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. A comparison of the happiness of the righteous who have not yet obtained the reward of the divine promise with that of the first human beings in paradise before sin.

Nor do we think that only they, as far as rational or intellectual creatures are concerned, should be called happy. For who would dare to deny that those first human beings in paradise were happy before sin, although they were uncertain how long their happiness would last, or whether it would be eternal (and it would have been eternal had they not sinned), when today we are not shameless in calling happy those whom we see leading this life justly and piously with the hope of future immortality, without any crime devastating their conscience, and readily obtaining God's mercy for the sins of this weakness? These, though they are certain of the reward of their perseverance, are found uncertain of their perseverance itself. For who among men can know that he will persevere to the end in the practice and advance of righteousness, unless he is made certain by some revelation from him who, by a just and hidden judgment, does not instruct all about this matter, but deceives none? As far, then, as the delight of present good is concerned, the first man in paradise was happier than any righteous man in this mortal weakness; but as far as the hope of the future is concerned, happier is anyone, in whatever torments of the body, to whom it is made plain, not by opinion but by certain truth, that he will have without end the fellowship of the angels, free from all trouble, in participation of the supreme God, than was that man, uncertain of his fall, in the great felicity of paradise.

### Scripture references

- Matt 24:13: echo, medium confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.12 (CSEL 40:530–531; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-12).

## City of God 11.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-13
- Source: CSEL 40:531–533
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The holy angels are certain of their eternal happiness; the fallen ones never had that certainty, and the devil fell from the truth rather than being evil by nature, against the Manichees.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. An ita unius felicitatis omnes angeli sint creati, ut neque lapsuros se possent nosse qui lapsi sunt, et post ruinam labentium perseuerantiae suae praescientiam acceperint qui steterunt. Quocirca cuiuis iam non difficulter occurrit utroque coniuncto effici beatitudinem, quam recto proposito intellectualis natura desiderat, hoc est, ut et bono incommutabili, quod Deus est, sine ulla molestia perfruatur et in eo se in aeternum esse mansurum nec ulla dubitatione cunctetur nec ullo errore fallatur. Hanc habere angelos lucis pia fide credimus; hanc nec antequam caderent habuisse angelos peccatores, qui sua prauitate illa luce priuati sunt, consequenti ratione colligimus; habuisse tamen aliquam, etsi non praesciam, beatitudinem, si uitam egerunt ante peccatum, profecto credendi sunt. Aut si durum uidetur, quando facti sunt angeli, alios credere ita factos ut non acciperent praescientiam uel perseuerantiae uel casus sui, alios autem ita ut ueritate certissima aeternitatem suae beatitudinis nossent, sed aequalis felicitatis omnes ab initio creati sunt, et ita fuerunt, donec isti, qui nunc mali sunt, ab illo bonitatis lumine sua uoluntate cecidissent: procul dubio multo est durius nunc putare angelos sanctos aeternae suae beatitudinis incertos, et ipsos de semet ipsis ignorare, quod nos de illis per scripturas sanctas nosse potuimus. Quis enim catholicus Christianus ignorat nullum nouum diabolum ex bonis angelis ulterius futurum, sicut nec istum in societatem bonorum angelorum ulterius rediturum? Veritas quippe in euangelio sanctis fidelibusque promittit, quod erunt aequales angelis Dei; quibus etiam promittitur, quod ibunt in uitam aeternam. Porro autem si nos certi sumus numquam nos ex illa inmortali felicitate casuros, illi uero si certi non sunt, iam potiores, non aequales eis erimus. Sed quia nequaquam Veritas fallit et aequales eis erimus, profecto etiam ipsi certi sunt suae felicitatis aeternae. Cuius illi alii quia certi non fuerunt (non enim erat eorum aeterna felicitas cuius certi essent, quae finem fuerat habitura), restat, ut aut inpares fuerint, aut, si pares fuerunt, post istorum ruinam illis certa scientia suae sempiternae felicitatis accesserit. Nisi forte quis dicat id, quod Dominus ait de diabolo in euangelio: Ille homicida erat ab initio et in ueritate non stetit, sic esse accipiendum, ut non solum homicida fuerit ab initio, id est initio humani generis, ex quo utique homo factus est, quem decipiendo posset occidere, uerum etiam ab initio suae conditionis in ueritate non steterit et ideo numquam beatus cum sanctis angelis fuerit, suo recusans esse subditus creatori et sua per superbiam uelut priuata potestate laetatus, ac per hoc falsus et fallax, quia nec quisquam potestatem Omnipotentis euadit, et qui per piam subiectionem noluit tenere quod uere est, adfectat per superbam elationem simulare quod non est, ut sic intellegatur etiam quod beatus Iohannes apostolus ait: Ab initio diabolus peccat, hoc est, ex quo creatus est, iustitiam recusauit, quam nisi pia Deoque subdita uoluntas habere non posset. Huic sententiae quisquis adquiescit, non cum illis haereticis sapit, id est Manichaeis, et si quae aliae pestes ita sentiunt, quod suam quandam propriam tamquam ex aduerso quodam principio diabolus habeat naturam mali; qui tanta uanitate desipiunt, ut, cum uerba ista euangelica in auctoritate nobiscum habeant, non adtendant non dixisse Dominum: A ueritate alienus fuit; sed: In ueritate non stetit, ubi a ueritate lapsum intellegi uoluit, in qua utique si stetisset, eius particeps factus beatus cum sanctis angelis permaneret.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. Whether all the angels were created in one and the same happiness, so that those who fell could not know that they would fall, and those who stood received foreknowledge of their own perseverance after the ruin of those who fell.

Hence it now readily occurs to anyone that the happiness which an intellectual nature rightly desires results from the joining of two things: that it enjoy the unchangeable good, which is God, without any trouble, and that it neither hesitate with any doubt nor be deceived by any error that it will remain in him forever. That the angels of light have this happiness we believe with pious faith; that the sinful angels, who by their own depravity were deprived of that light, did not have it even before they fell, we infer by logical consequence; yet, if they lived any life before sin, they must certainly be believed to have had some happiness, though not a happiness that foresaw its future. Or, if it seems hard to believe that when the angels were made some were so made that they did not receive foreknowledge either of their perseverance or of their fall, while others were so made that they knew by most certain truth the eternity of their happiness, but rather that all were created from the beginning with equal felicity and remained so until those who are now evil fell by their own will from that light of goodness, then it is beyond doubt much harder to think now that the holy angels are uncertain of their eternal happiness, and are ignorant about themselves of what we have been able to know about them through the holy Scriptures. For what catholic Christian does not know that no new devil will ever come from the good angels, just as this one will never return to the fellowship of the good angels? For the Truth promises in the Gospel to the holy and faithful that they will be equal to the angels of God; and it is also promised them that they will go into eternal life. Further, if we are certain that we shall never fall from that immortal felicity, while they are not certain, then we shall be not equal to them but superior. But since the Truth in no way deceives and we shall be equal to them, they too are certainly sure of their eternal felicity. And since those others were not sure of it (for theirs was not an eternal felicity of which they could be sure, since it was to have an end), it remains that either they were unequal, or, if they were equal, that after the ruin of the others a certain knowledge of their own everlasting felicity was added to the good.

Unless perhaps someone says that what the Lord says of the devil in the Gospel, “He was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth,” is to be taken to mean not only that he was a murderer from the beginning, that is, from the beginning of the human race, since man was certainly made whom he could kill by deceiving him, but also that from the beginning of his own creation he did not stand in the truth, and was therefore never happy with the holy angels, refusing to be subject to his Creator and delighting through pride in his own, as it were private, power, and so false and deceitful, since no one escapes the power of the Almighty, and he who would not hold by pious submission to what truly is, affects by proud self-exaltation to feign what is not. In this way would also be understood what the blessed apostle John says: “The devil sins from the beginning,” that is, from the moment he was created he refused righteousness, which only a will pious and subject to God can have. Whoever agrees with this opinion does not think with those heretics, the Manichees, or any other pests who hold that the devil has from some opposing principle a nature of evil proper to himself. These men are so foolish in their vanity that, although they hold these words of the Gospel as authoritative as we do, they do not notice that the Lord did not say, “He was a stranger to the truth,” but, “He did not stand in the truth,” by which he meant us to understand a fall from the truth; and if he had stood in it, he would have become a partaker of it and would have remained happy with the holy angels.

### Scripture references

- Luke 20:36: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 25:46: allusion, high confidence
- John 8:44: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 3:8: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sources: Luke 20:36 (equal to the angels); Matt 25:46 (eternal life); John 8:44; 1 John 3:8. The Manichees held that evil is a substance from a second, opposing principle.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.13 (CSEL 40:531–533; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-13).

## City of God 11.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-14
- Source: CSEL 40:533–534
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: “There is no truth in him” gives the sign, not the cause, of the devil's not standing in the truth, as in a similar psalm expression.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. Quo genere locutionis dictum sit de diabolo, quod in ueritate non steterit, quia ueritas non est in eo. Subiecit autem indicium, quasi quaesissemus, unde ostendatur, quod in ueritate non steterit, adque ait: Quia non est ueritas in eo. Esset autem in eo, si in illa stetisset. Locutione autem dictum est minus usitata. Sic enim uidetur sonare: In ueritate non stetit, quia ueritas non est in eo, tamquam ea sit causa, ut in ueritate non steterit, quod in eo ueritas non sit; cum potius ea sit causa, ut in eo ueritas non sit, quod in ueritate non stetit. Ista locutio est et in psalmo: Ego clamaui, quoniam exaudisti me Deus; cum dicendum fuisse uideatur: Exaudisti me Deus, quoniam clamaui. Sed cum dixisset: Ego clamaui, tamquam ab eo quaereretur, unde se clamasse monstraret, ab effectu exauditionis Dei clamoris sui ostendit affectum; tamquam diceret: Hinc ostendo clamasse me, quoniam exaudisti me.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. By what figure of speech it is said of the devil that he did not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him.

He added a sign, as if we had asked how it is shown that he did not stand in the truth, and says: “Because there is no truth in him.” But it would be in him if he had stood in it. The expression is a less usual one. For it seems to mean: “He did not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him,” as if the cause of his not standing in the truth were that there is no truth in him; whereas rather the cause of there being no truth in him is that he did not stand in the truth. This expression is also in the psalm: “I have cried, because you heard me, O God,” when it seems it should have been said, “You heard me, O God, because I cried.” But having said, “I have cried,” as though he were asked how he could show that he had cried, he shows the fact of his crying from the effect, God's hearing; as if he said, “I show that I cried by this, that you heard me.”

### Scripture references

- John 8:44: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 17:6 (16:6 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- John 8:44; Ps 17:6 (Vulgate 16:6), in Augustine's Latin. A stray asterisk after “clamaui” is removed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.14 (CSEL 40:533–534; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-14).

## City of God 11.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-15
- Source: CSEL 40:534–535
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Isaiah and Ezekiel show the devil was once without sin; “from the beginning” means from the beginning of sin, and his nature is God's good creation.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. Quid sentiendum sit de eo, quod dictum est: Ab initio diabolus peccat. Illud etiam, quod ait de diabolo Iohannes: Ab initio diabolus peccat, non intellegunt, si natura talis est, nullo modo esse peccatum. Sed quid respondetur propheticis testimoniis, siue quod ait Esaias sub figurata persona principis Babyloniae diabolum notans: Quo modo cecidit Lucifer, qui mane oriebatur; siue quod Hiezechiel: In deliciis paradisi Dei fuisti, omni lapide pretioso ornatus es? Ubi intellegitur fuisse aliquando sine peccato. Nam expressius ei paulo post dicitur: Ambulasti in diebus tuis sine uitio. Quae si aliter conuenientius intellegi nequeunt, oportet etiam illud, quod dictum est: In ueritate non stetit, sic accipiamus, quod in ueritate fuerit, sed non permanserit; et illud, quod ab initio diabolus peccat, non ab initio, ex quo creatus est, peccare putandus est, sed ab initio peccati, quod ab ipsius superbia coeperit esse peccatum. Nec illud, quod scriptum est in libro Iob, cum de diabolo sermo esset: Hoc est initium figmenti Domini, quod fecit ad inludendum ab angelis suis (cui consonare uidetur et psalmus, ubi legitur: Draco hic, quem finxisti ad inludendum ei), sic intellegendum est, ut existimemus talem ab initio creatum, cui ab angelis inluderetur, sed in hac poena post peccatum ordinatum. Initium ergo eius figmentum est Domini; non enim est ulla natura etiam in extremis infimisque bestiolis, quam non ille constituit, a quo est omnis modus, omnis species, omnis ordo, sine quibus nihil rerum inueniri uel cogitari potest; quanto magis angelica creatura, quae omnia cetera, quae Deus condidit, naturae dignitate praecedit!

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. What we should think of the saying, “The devil sins from the beginning.”

As for what John says of the devil, “The devil sins from the beginning,” they do not understand that, if his nature is such, it is not sin at all. But what answer is given to the prophetic testimonies, whether that of Isaiah, who, under the figure of the prince of Babylon, points to the devil: “How has Lucifer fallen, who rose in the morning!”; or that of Ezekiel: “You were in the delights of God's paradise; you were adorned with every precious stone”? From this it is understood that he was once without sin. For a little later it is said to him more expressly: “You walked in your days without fault.” If these cannot more fittingly be understood otherwise, we must take that saying, “He did not stand in the truth,” to mean that he was in the truth but did not remain in it; and the saying that “the devil sins from the beginning” is to be taken not as from the beginning, from the time he was created, but from the beginning of sin, because sin first came to exist from his pride. Nor is what is written in the book of Job, when the devil is spoken of, “This is the beginning of the Lord's creation, which he made to be mocked by his angels” (with which the psalm also seems to agree, where we read, “This dragon whom you formed to mock him”), to be so understood that we think he was created from the beginning such as to be mocked by the angels, but that he was assigned to this punishment after sin. His beginning, then, is the Lord's creation; for there is no nature, even among the least and lowest little creatures, which he did not establish from whom is every measure, every form, every order, without which nothing can be found or conceived; how much more the angelic creature, which surpasses in the dignity of its nature all the other things that God has made.

### Scripture references

- 1 John 3:8: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 14:12: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 28:13: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 28:15: quotation, high confidence
- John 8:44: quotation, high confidence
- Job 40:19: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 104:26 (103:26 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sources: 1 John 3:8; Isa 14:12; Ezek 28:13, 15; Job 40:19 (in the Old Latin/LXX form, 40:14 in the Vulgate numbering); Ps 104:26 (LXX 103:26), in Augustine's Latin. The opening sentence refers to the Manichees of ch. 13. Augustine's triad “measure, form, order” (modus, species, ordo) recurs in his works.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.15 (CSEL 40:534–535; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-15).

## City of God 11.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-16
- Source: CSEL 40:535–536
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Creatures are ranked by nature above one another, but human valuation follows use, and in rational beings the will decides: good men rank above evil angels.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. De gradibus et differentiis creaturarum, quas aliter pendit usus utilitatis, aliter ordo rationis. In his enim, quae quoquo modo sunt et non sunt quod Deus est a quo facta sunt, praeponuntur uiuentia non uiuentibus, sicut ea, quae habent uim gignendi uel etiam adpetendi, his, quae isto motu carent; et in his, quae uiuunt, praeponuntur sentientia non sentientibus, sicut arboribus animalia; et in his, quae sentiunt, praeponuntur intellegentia non intellegentibus, sicut homines pecoribus; et in his, quae intellegunt, praeponuntur inmortalia mortalibus, sicut angeli hominibus. Sed ita praeponuntur naturae ordine; est autem alius adque alius pro suo cuiusque usu aestimationis modus, quo fit, ut quaedam sensu carentia quibusdam sentientibus praeponamus, in tantum, ut si potestas esset ea prorsus de natura rerum auferre uellemus, siue quem in ea locum habeant ignorantes, siue etiamsi sciamus nostris ea commodis postponentes. Quis enim non domi suae panem habere quam mures, nummos quam pulices malit? Sed quid mirum, cum in ipsorum etiam hominum aestimatione, quorum certe natura tantae est dignitatis, plerumque carius conparetur equus quam seruus, gemma quam famula? Ita libertate iudicandi plurimum distat ratio considerantis a necessitate indigentis seu uoluptate cupientis, cum ista quid per se ipsum in rerum gradibus pendat, necessitas autem quid propter quid expetat cogitat, et ista quid uerum luci mentis appareat, uoluptas uero quid iucundum corporis sensibus blandiatur expectat. Sed tantum ualet in naturis rationalibus quoddam ueluti pondus uoluntatis et amoris, ut, cum ordine naturae angeli hominibus, tamen lege iustitiae boni homines malis angelis praeferantur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. Of the ranks and differences of creatures, which are weighed one way by the use of utility and another by the order of reason.

For among the things which in any way exist and are not what God is, by whom they were made, the living are ranked above the non-living, as those which have the power of generating or even of desiring are above those that lack this movement; and among living things the sentient are ranked above the non-sentient, as animals above trees; and among the sentient the intelligent above the unintelligent, as men above cattle; and among the intelligent the immortal above the mortal, as angels above men. But they are ranked so by the order of nature; there is, however, another and different mode of valuing, according to the use each of us has for a thing, by which it happens that we prefer certain things without sensation to certain sentient beings; so much so that, if it were in our power, we would wish to remove them altogether from the nature of things, whether not knowing what place they have in it, or, even if we know it, putting them after our own convenience. For who would not rather have bread in his house than mice, money than fleas? But what wonder, when even in the valuation of men themselves, whose nature is surely of such great dignity, a horse is often bought at a higher price than a slave, a jewel than a maidservant? Thus in freedom of judgment the reason of one who considers differs greatly from the need of one who lacks or the pleasure of one who desires: reason weighs what each thing is worth in itself in the ranks of things, while need considers what it seeks for the sake of what; reason looks for what appears true to the light of the mind, pleasure for what agreeably charms the bodily senses. But among rational natures a certain weight, as it were, of will and love has so much force that, though by the order of nature angels are ranked above men, yet by the law of justice good men are ranked above evil angels.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.16 (CSEL 40:535–536; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-16).

## City of God 11.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-17
- Source: CSEL 40:536–537
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Vice is contrary to nature and proves the goodness of the nature it harms; God uses even the devil's evil will for the good of the saints.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. Vitium malitiae non naturam esse, sed contra naturam, cui ad peccandum non Conditor causa est, sed uoluntas. Propter naturam igitur, non propter malitiam diaboli, dictum recte intellegimus: Hoc est initium figmenti Domini. Quia sine dubio, ubi esset uitium malitiae, natura non uitiata praecessit. Vitium autem ita contra naturam est, ut non possit nisi nocere naturae. Non itaque esset uitium recedere a Deo, nisi naturae, cuius id uitium est, potius conpeteret esse cum Deo. Quapropter etiam uoluntas mala grande testimonium est naturae bonae. Sed Deus sicut naturarum bonarum optimus creator est, ita malarum uoluntatum iustissimus ordinator, ut, cum illae male utuntur naturis bonis, ipse bene utatur etiam uoluntatibus malis. Itaque fecit, ut diabolus institutione illius bonus, uoluntate sua malus, in inferioribus ordinatus inluderetur ab angelis eius, id est, ut prosint tentationes eius sanctis, quibus eas obesse desiderat. Et quoniam Deus, cum eum conderet, futurae malignitatis eius non erat utique ignarus et praeuidebat quae bona de malo eius esset ipse facturus: propterea psalmus ait: Draco hic, quem finxisti ad inludendum ei, ut in eo ipso quod eum finxit, licet per suam bonitatem bonum, iam per suam praescientiam praeparasse intellegatur quo modo illo uteretur et malo.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. That the fault of wickedness is not nature but contrary to nature, and that its cause in sinning is not the Creator but the will.

It is on account of his nature, then, not his wickedness, that we rightly understand the saying, “This is the beginning of the Lord's creation.” For without doubt, where there is the fault of wickedness, an unvitiated nature came first. And fault is so contrary to nature that it can only harm nature. It would not be a fault, then, to depart from God, unless it rather befitted the nature whose fault it is to be with God. Therefore even an evil will is a great witness to a good nature. But God, as he is the supremely good creator of good natures, so is he the most just ruler of evil wills, so that, while they make evil use of good natures, he makes good use even of evil wills. So he brought it about that the devil, good by God's creation, evil by his own will, being ranked among the lower things, should be mocked by his angels; that is, that his temptations should benefit the saints whom he desires them to harm. And since God, when he created him, was certainly not unaware of his future malignity, and foresaw what good he himself would bring out of his evil, the psalm therefore says: “This dragon whom you formed to mock him,” so that it may be understood that in the very act of forming him, good though he was by God's goodness, he had already prepared by his foreknowledge how he would use him even when evil.

### Scripture references

- Job 40:19: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 104:26 (103:26 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Job 40:19 (Old Latin/LXX form) and Ps 104:26 (LXX 103:26) again. “His angels” may be read as God's angels (who mock the devil); Augustine's point is that the devil's temptations serve the saints.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.17 (CSEL 40:536–537; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-17).

## City of God 11.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-18
- Source: CSEL 40:537–538
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God orders even evil beings into the beauty of history as a poem is adorned by antitheses, as Paul's rhetoric and Sirach show.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. De pulchritudine uniuersitatis, quae per ordinationem Dei etiam ex contrariorum fit obpositione luculentior. Neque enim Deus ullum, non dico angelorum, sed uel hominum crearet, quem malum futurum esse praescisset, nisi pariter nosset quibus eos bonorum usibus commodaret adque ita ordinem saeculorum tamquam pulcherrimum carmen etiam ex quibusdam quasi antithetis honestaret. Antitheta enim quae appellantur in ornamentis elocutionis sunt decentissima, quae Latine uel appellentur obposita, uel, quod expressius dicitur, contraposita. Non est aput nos huius uocabuli consuetudo, cum tamen eisdem ornamentis locutionis etiam sermo Latinus utatur, immo linguae omnium gentium. His antithetis et Paulus apostolus in secunda ad Corinthios epistula illum locum suauiter explicat, ubi dicit: Per arma iustitiae dextra et sinistra: per gloriam et ignobilitatem, per infamiam et bonam famam; ut seductores et ueraces, ut qui ignoramur et cognoscimur; quasi morientes, et ecce uiuimus, ut coherciti et non mortificati; ut tristes, semper autem gaudentes; sicut egeni, multos autem ditantes; tamquam nihil habentes et omnia possidentes. Sicut ergo ista contraria contrariis obposita sermonis pulchritudinem reddunt: ita quadam non uerborum, sed rerum eloquentia contrariorum obpositione saeculi pulchritudo conponitur. Apertissime hoc positum est in libro ecclesiastico isto modo: Contra malum bonum est et contra mortem uita; sic contra pium peccator. Et sic intuere in omnia opera Altissimi, bina bina, unum contra unum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. Of the beauty of the universe, which by God's ordering is made more splendid even by the opposition of contraries.

For God would not create any one, I do not say of the angels, but even of men, whom he foreknew would be evil, unless he equally knew to what uses of the good he would turn them, and so adorn the order of the ages like a most beautiful poem, set off also with antitheses, as it were. For what are called antitheses are among the most becoming ornaments of speech; in Latin they might be called opposita, or, more expressively, contraposita. This word is not in customary use among us, although Latin speech also uses these same ornaments of style, indeed the languages of all nations do. With these antitheses the apostle Paul too, in the second letter to the Corinthians, sweetly unfolds that passage where he says: “By the weapons of righteousness on the right hand and the left: through glory and dishonor, through ill report and good report; as deceivers and yet true; as unknown and yet known; as dying, and behold, we live; as chastened and not killed; as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and possessing all things.” As, then, these contraries set against contraries give beauty to speech, so the beauty of the world is composed by the opposition of contraries, by a kind of eloquence not of words but of things. This is set down most plainly in the book Ecclesiasticus, thus: “Against evil is good, and against death life; so against the godly the sinner. And so look upon all the works of the Most High, two and two, one against one.”

### Scripture references

- 2 Cor 6:7: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 6:8: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 6:9: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 6:10: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sir 33:14 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- 2 Cor 6:7–10 and Sir 33:14–15 (called “the book Ecclesiasticus,” i.e. Sirach) quoted.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.18 (CSEL 40:537–538; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-18).

## City of God 11.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-19
- Source: CSEL 40:538–539
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God's dividing of light from darkness on the first day may signify his separation of the holy from the fallen angels, whose fall he foreknew.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. Quid sentiendum uideatur de eo quod scriptum est: Diuisit Deus inter lucem et tenebras. Quamuis itaque diuini sermonis obscuritas etiam ad hoc sit utilis, quod plures sententias ueritatis parit et in lucem notitiae producit, dum alius eum sic, alius sic intellegit (ita tamen ut, quod in obscuro loco intellegitur, uel adtestatione rerum manifestarum uel aliis locis minime dubiis adseratur: siue, cum multa tractantur, ad id quoque perueniatur, quod sensit ille qui scripsit, siue id lateat, sed ex occasione tractandae profundae obscuritatis alia quaedam uera dicantur): non mihi uidetur ab operibus Dei absurda sententia, si, cum lux prima illa facta est, angeli creati intelleguntur, inter sanctos angelos et inmundos fuisse discretum, ubi dictum est: Et diuisit Deus inter lucem et tenebras; et uocauit Deus lucem diem et tenebras uocauit noctem. Solus quippe ille ista discernere potuit, qui potuit etiam priusquam caderent praescire casuros et priuatos lumine ueritatis in tenebrosa superbia remansuros. Nam inter istum nobis notissimum diem et noctem, id est inter hanc lucem et has tenebras, uulgatissima sensibus nostris luminaria caeli ut diuiderent imperauit: Fiant, inquit, luminaria in firmamento caeli, ut luceant super terram et diuidant inter diem et noctem; et paulo post: Et fecit, inquit, Deus duo luminaria magna, luminare maius in principia diei, et luminare minus in principia noctis, et stellas; et posuit illa Deus in firmamento caeli lucere super terram et praeesse diei et nocti et diuidere inter lucem et tenebras. Inter illam uero lucem, quae sancta societas angelorum est inlustratione ueritatis intellegibiliter fulgens, et ei contrarias tenebras, id est malorum angelorum auersorum a luce iustitiae taeterrimas mentes, ipse diuidere potuit, cui etiam futurum non naturae, sed uoluntatis malum occultum aut incertum esse non potuit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. What we should think of the words, “God divided between the light and the darkness.”

Although the obscurity of the divine word is useful even in this, that it gives birth to many true opinions and brings them into the light of knowledge, as one understands it one way and another another (yet so that what is understood in an obscure passage is supported either by the witness of evident facts or by other passages that are not at all doubtful; whether, as many things are discussed, one also arrives at what the writer meant, or that remains hidden but, on the occasion of discussing a deep obscurity, certain other true things are said), it does not seem to me an opinion out of keeping with the works of God, if the angels are understood to have been created when that first light was made, that a distinction was made between the holy and the unclean angels where it is said: “And God divided between the light and the darkness; and God called the light day and the darkness he called night.” For he alone could distinguish these who was able, even before they fell, to foreknow that they would fall and, deprived of the light of truth, would remain in dark pride. For between this day and night so well known to us, that is, between this light and this darkness, he commanded the lights of heaven, so familiar to our senses, to divide: “Let there be lights,” he says, “in the firmament of heaven, to shine upon the earth and to divide between the day and the night”; and a little later: “And God made,” it says, “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 firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth and to rule over the day and the night and to divide between the light and the darkness.” But between that light, which is the holy fellowship of the angels, shining intelligibly with the illumination of truth, and the darkness opposed to it, that is, the foulest minds of the evil angels turned away from the light of righteousness, he alone could divide from whom even a future evil, not of nature but of will, could not be hidden or uncertain.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:4: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:5: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:14: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:16: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:17: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:18: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 1:4–5, 14, 16–18 quoted. Augustine's Latin reads “in principia diei/noctis” (for the beginning, i.e. rule, of day/night), rendered by sense.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.19 (CSEL 40:538–539; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-19).

## City of God 11.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-20
- Source: CSEL 40:539–540
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Scripture approves the light before the division on the first day but not after, so that the angelic darkness is not called good.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. De eo, quod post discretionem lucis adque tenebrarum dictum est: Et uidit Deus lucem quia bona est. Denique nec illud est praetereundum silentio, quod, ubi dixit Deus: Fiat lux, et facta est lux, continuo subiunctum est: Et uidit Deus lucem quia bona est; non postea quam separauit inter lucem et tenebras et uocauit lucem diem et tenebras noctem, ne simul cum luce etiam talibus tenebris testimonium placiti sui perhibuisse uideretur. Nam ubi tenebrae inculpabiles sunt, inter quas et lucem istam his oculis conspicuam luminaria caeli diuidunt, non ante, sed post infertur: Et uidit Deus quia bonum est. Posuit illa, inquit, in firmamento caeli lucere super terram et praeesse diei et nocti et separare inter lucem et tenebras. Et uidit Deus quia bonum est. Utrumque placuit, quia utrumque sine peccato est. Ubi autem dixit Deus: Fiat lux, et facta est lux. Et uidit Deus lucem quia bona est; et postmodum infertur: Et separauit Deus inter lucem et tenebras; et uocauit Deus lucem diem et tenebras uocauit noctem: non hoc loco additum est: Et uidit Deus quia bonum est, ne utrumque appellaretur bonum, cum esset horum alterum malum, uitio proprio, non natura. Et ideo sola ibi lux placuit Conditori; tenebrae autem angelicae, etsi fuerant ordinandae, non tamen fuerant adprobandae.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. Of the words said after the separation of the light and the darkness, “And God saw the light, that it was good.”

Nor, finally, must we pass over in silence that, where God said, “Let there be light, and there was light,” it is immediately added, “And God saw the light, that it was good”; not after he separated between the light and the darkness and called the light day and the darkness night, lest he should seem to have given the testimony of his approval to such darkness together with the light. For where the darkness is blameless, between which and this light visible to our eyes the lights of heaven divide, it is added not before but after: “And God saw that it was good.” “He set them,” it says, “in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth and to rule over the day and the night and to separate between the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good.” Both pleased 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 afterward it is added, “And God separated between the light and the darkness; and God called the light day and the darkness he called night,” it is not added in this place, “And God saw that it was good,” lest both should be called good, when one of them was evil, by its own fault, not by nature. And so there the light alone pleased the Creator; but the angelic darkness, though it was to be given its place in the order, was not to be approved.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:3: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:4: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:5: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:17: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:18: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 1:3–5 and 1:17–18 quoted.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.20 (CSEL 40:539–540; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-20).

## City of God 11.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-21
- Source: CSEL 40:540–542
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God knows all times in one unchanging present; “God saw that it was good” teaches that God, through his Word, made things for no cause but his goodness, as even Plato saw.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. De aeterna et incommutabili scientia Dei ac uoluntate, qua semper illi uniuersa quae fecit sic placuerunt facienda, quem ad modum facta. Quid est enim aliud intellegendum in eo, quod per omnia dicitur: Vidit Deus quia bonum est, nisi operis adprobatio secundum artem facti, quae sapientia Dei est? Deus autem usque adeo non, cum factum est, tunc didicit bonum, ut nihil eorum fieret, si ei fuisset incognitum. Dum ergo uidet quia bonum est, quod, nisi uidisset antequam fieret, non utique fieret: docet bonum esse, non discit. Et Plato quidem plus ausus est dicere, elatum esse scilicet Deum gaudio mundi uniuersitate perfecta. Ubi et ipse non usque adeo desipiebat, ut putaret Deum sui operis nouitate factum beatiorem; sed sic ostendere uoluit artifici suo placuisse iam factum, quod placuerat in arte faciendum; non quod ullo modo Dei scientia uarietur, ut aliud in ea faciant quae nondum sunt, aliud quae iam sunt, aliud quae fuerunt; non enim more nostro ille uel quod futurum est prospicit, uel quod praesens est aspicit, uel quod praeteritum est respicit; sed alio modo quodam a nostrarum cogitationum consuetudine longe alteque diuerso. Ille quippe non ex hoc in illud cogitatione mutata, sed omnino incommutabiliter uidet; ita ut illa quidem, quae temporaliter fiunt, et futura nondum sint et praesentia iam sint et praeterita iam non sint, ipse uero haec omnia stabili ac sempiterna praesentia conprehendat; nec aliter oculis, aliter mente; non enim ex animo constat et corpore; nec aliter nunc et aliter antea et aliter postea; quoniam non sicut nostra, ita eius quoque scientia trium temporum, praesentis uidelicet et praeteriti uel futuri, uarietate mutatur, aput quem non est inmutatio nec momenti obumbratio. Neque enim eius intentio de cogitatione in cogitationem transit, in cuius incorporeo contuitu simul adsunt cuncta quae nouit; quoniam tempora ita nouit nullis suis temporalibus notionibus, quem ad modum temporalia mouet nullis suis temporalibus motibus. Ibi ergo uidit bonum esse quod fecit, ubi bonum esse uidit ut faceret; nec quia factum uidit scientiam duplicauit uel ex aliqua parte auxit, tamquam minoris scientiae fuerit priusquam faceret quod uideret, qui tam perfecte non operaretur, nisi tam perfecta scientia, cui nihil ex eius operibus adderetur. Quapropter si tantummodo nobis insinuandum esset quis fecerit lucem, sufficeret dicere, fecit Deus lucem; si autem non solum quis fecerit, uerum etiam per quid fecerit, satis esset ita enuntiari: Et dixit Deus: Fiat lux, et facta est lux; ut non tantum Deum, sed etiam per Verbum lucem fecisse nossemus. Quia uero tria quaedam maxime scienda de creatura nobis oportuit intimari, quis eam fecerit, per quid fecerit, quare fecerit: Dixit Deus, inquit: Fiat lux, et facta est lux. Et uidit Deus lucem quia bona est. Si ergo quaerimus, quis fecerit: Deus est; si per quid fecerit: Dixit: Fiat, et facta est; si quare fecerit: Quia bona est. Nec auctor est excellentior Deo, nec ars efficacior Dei uerbo, nec causa melior quam ut bonum crearetur a [Deo] bono. Hanc etiam Plato causam condendi mundi iustissimam dicit, ut a bono Deo bona opera fierent; siue ista legerit, siue ab his qui legerant forte cognouerit; siue acerrimo ingenio inuisibilia Dei per ea, quae facta sunt, intellecta conspexerit, siue ab his qui ista conspexerant et ipse didicerit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. Of the eternal and unchangeable knowledge and will of God, by which all the things he made always pleased him to be made just as they were made.

For what else is to be understood in what is said throughout, “God saw that it was good,” but the approval of the work as made according to the art, which is the wisdom of God? But God is so far from having learned that it was good only when it was made, that none of these things would have been made had it been unknown to him. When, then, he sees that it is good, which would certainly not have been made had he not seen it before it was made, he teaches that it is good; he does not learn it. Plato indeed dared to say more, namely that God was elated with joy when the universe was completed. In this he too was not so foolish as to think God was made happier by the newness of his work; but he wished to show in this way that the work, once made, pleased its maker, as it had pleased him in his art that it should be made. Not that God's knowledge varies in any way, so that things which are not yet, things which now are, and things which have been make different impressions in it; for he does not, as we do, look forward to what is future, look at what is present, or look back at what is past, but in some other way, far and deeply different from the habit of our thoughts. For he sees, not by passing in thought from this to that, but altogether unchangeably; so that those things which come about in time, the future which are not yet, the present which now are, and the past which are no longer, he comprehends all in a stable and everlasting presence; nor in one way with the eyes and another with the mind, for he does not consist of soul and body; nor in one way now, another before, and another afterward; since his knowledge, unlike ours, is not changed by the variation of three times, present, past, and future, “with whom there is no change nor shadow of turning.” For his attention does not pass from thought to thought; in his incorporeal gaze all that he knows is present at once; for he knows times with no temporal notions of his own, just as he moves temporal things with no temporal motions of his own. There, then, he saw that what he made was good, where he saw that it was good in order to make it; nor, because he saw it made, did he double his knowledge or increase it in any part, as though he had been of less knowledge before he made what he saw; he who would not work so perfectly except with a knowledge so perfect that nothing from his works could be added to it.

Therefore, if we only had to be told who made the light, it would be enough to say, “God made the light”; but if not only who made it but also through what, it would suffice to state it thus: “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light,” so that we might know not only that God made light but also that he made it through the Word. But because three things above all that we must know about a creature had to be made known to us, who made it, through what he made it, and why he made it, it says: “God said, Let there be light, and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good.” If, then, we ask who made it, it is God; if through what, he said, “Let there be,” and it was; if why he made it, “because it is good.” No author is more excellent than God, no art more effective than the Word of God, no cause better than that something good should be created by the good. Plato too says that this is the most just cause of making the world, that good works should be made by a good God; whether he read these things, or perhaps learned them from those who had read them, or whether with his most penetrating mind he beheld the invisible things of God understood through the things that are made, or learned them from those who had beheld them.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:3: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:4: quotation, high confidence
- Jas 1:17: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:20: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Tim. 37c (Plato (works)): allusion, high confidence
- Plato, Tim. 29e (Plato (works)): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Plato, Timaeus 37c (the Maker rejoiced when the universe was set in motion) and 29e (the Maker was good and wished all things to be like himself). Jas 1:17 quoted; Rom 1:20 alluded to. Gen 1:3–4 quoted. The edition's square brackets around “Deo” in “a [Deo] bono” mean the editor deletes the word: “by the good.”

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.21 (CSEL 40:540–542; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-10/#p-11-21).

## City of God 11.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-22/#p-11-22
- Source: CSEL 40:542–544
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Things harmful to us are good in their place; evil is only the privation of good, and the Manichees err in making evil a nature and the soul a part of God.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. De his, quibus in uniuersitate rerum a bono Creatore bene conditarum quaedam displicent, et putant nonnullam malam esse naturam. Hanc tamen causam, id est ad bona creanda bonitatem Dei, hanc, inquam, causam tam iustam adque idoneam, quae diligenter considerata et pie cogitata omnes controuersias quaerentium mundi originem terminat, quidam haeretici non uiderunt, quia egenam carnis huius fragilemque mortalitatem iam de iusto supplicio uenientem, dum ei non conueniunt, plurima offendunt, sicut ignis aut frigus aut fera bestia aut quid eius modi; nec adtendunt, quam uel in suis locis naturisque uigeant pulchroque ordine disponantur, quantumque uniuersitati rerum pro sui portione decoris tamquam in communem rem publicam conferant uel nobis ipsis, si eis congruenter adque scienter utamur, commoditatis adtribuant, ita ut uenena ipsa, quae per inconuenientiam perniciosa sunt, conuenienter adhibita in salubria medicamenta uertantur; quamque a contrario etiam haec, quibus delectantur, sicut cibus et potus et ista lux, inmoderato et inopportuno usu noxia sentiantur. Unde nos admonet diuina prouidentia non res insipienter uituperare, sed utilitatem rerum diligenter inquirere, et ubi nostrum ingenium uel infirmitas deficit, ita credere occultam, sicut erant quaedam, quae uix potuimus inuenire; quia et ipsa utilitatis occultatio aut humilitatis exercitatio est aut elationis adtritio; cum omnino natura nulla sit malum nomenque hoc non sit nisi priuationis boni. Sed a terrenis usque ad caelestia et a uisibilibus usque ad inuisibilia sunt aliis alia bona meliora, ad hoc inaequalia, ut essent omnia; Deus autem ita est artifex magnus in magnis, ut minor non sit in paruis; quae parua non sua granditate (nam nulla est), sed artificis sapientia metienda sunt; sicut in specie uisibilis hominis, si unum radatur supercilium, quam propemodum nihil corpori, et quam multum detrahitur pulchritudini, quoniam non mole constat, sed parilitate ac dimensione membrorum! Nec sane multum mirandum est, quod hi, qui nonnullam malam putant esse naturam suo quodam contrario exortam propagatamque principio, nolunt accipere istam causam creationis rerum, ut bonus Deus conderet bona, credentes eum potius ad haec mundana molimina rebellantis aduersum se mali repellendi extrema necessitate perductum suamque naturam bonam malo cohercendo superandoque miscuisse, quam turpissime pollutam et crudelissime captiuatam et obpressam labore magno uix mundet ac liberet; non tamen totam, sed quod eius non potuerit ab illa inquinatione purgari, tegmen ac uinculum futurum hostis uicti et inclusi. Sic autem Manichaei non desiperent uel potius insanirent, si Dei naturam, sicuti est, incommutabilem adque omnino incorruptibilem crederent, cui nocere nulla res possit; animam uero, quae uoluntate mutari in deterius et peccato corrumpi potuit adque ita incommutabilis ueritatis luce priuari, non Dei partem nec eius naturae, quae Dei est, sed ab illo conditam longe inparem Conditori Christiana sanitate sentirent.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. Of those who are displeased with certain things in the universe, well made by the good Creator, and think there is some evil nature.

Yet this cause, that is, God's goodness in creating good things, this cause, I say, so just and fitting, which, when carefully considered and piously reflected upon, ends all the disputes of those who inquire into the origin of the world, certain heretics have not seen. For the needy and fragile mortality of this flesh, which already comes from just punishment, is offended by very many things that do not suit it, such as fire or cold or a wild beast or the like. They do not notice how these things flourish in their own places and natures and are arranged in beautiful order, and how much they contribute, each in its measure, to the beauty of the universe, as to a common commonwealth, or how much convenience they supply to ourselves if we use them fittingly and knowingly; so that poisons themselves, which are deadly when unsuitably used, are turned into wholesome medicines when suitably applied; and how, on the contrary, even those things they delight in, such as food and drink and this light, are felt to be harmful through immoderate and untimely use. Hence divine providence admonishes us not to find fault with things foolishly but to inquire diligently into their usefulness, and where our wit or weakness fails, to believe that it is hidden, as some things were which we could scarcely discover; for the very hiding of their usefulness is either an exercise of humility or a wearing down of pride; since no nature at all is evil, and this name is nothing but the privation of good. But from earthly to heavenly things and from visible to invisible there are some goods better than others, and they are unequal to this end, that all might exist; and God is so great an artificer in great things that he is not less in small ones; and these small things are to be measured not by their own greatness (for they have none) but by the wisdom of the artificer. So in the appearance of the visible human form, if one eyebrow is shaved off, how almost nothing is taken from the body, and how much from its beauty, since that is made up not of bulk but of the evenness and proportion of the members!

Nor indeed is it much to be wondered at that those who think there is some evil nature, arisen and propagated from a certain opposing principle of its own, will not accept this cause of the creation of things, that the good God made good things. They believe rather that he was driven to these works of the world by extreme necessity, to repel the evil that rebelled against him, and that he mixed his own good nature with the evil to restrain and overcome it; and that this nature, most foully polluted and most cruelly captured and oppressed, he scarcely cleanses and frees with great labor; and yet not all of it, but whatever of it could not be purged from that defilement is to become the covering and chain of the conquered and imprisoned enemy. But the Manichees would not be so foolish, or rather so mad, if they believed the nature of God to be, as it is, unchangeable and altogether incorruptible, a nature which nothing can harm; and if with Christian soundness they held that the soul, which could be changed for the worse by the will and corrupted by sin and so deprived of the light of unchangeable truth, is not a part of God nor of that nature which is God's, but created by him and far unequal to its Creator.

### Translation notes

- The Manichaean myth described: God's substance mixed with the realm of darkness, the world made to liberate it, and the unredeemed remainder used to bind the conquered enemy.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.22 (CSEL 40:542–544; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-22/#p-11-22).

## City of God 11.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-22/#p-11-23
- Source: CSEL 40:544–547
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine rejects Origen's view that the world was made to imprison souls fallen from God, since Scripture calls creation very good and bodies do not match the deserts of souls.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. De errore, in quo Origenis doctrina culpatur. Sed multo est mirandum amplius, quod etiam quidam, qui unum nobiscum credunt omnium rerum esse principium, ullamque naturam, quae non est quod Deus est, nisi ab illo conditore esse non posse, noluerunt tamen istam causam fabricandi mundi tam bonam ac simplicem bene ac simpliciter credere, ut Deus bonus conderet bona et essent post Deum quae non essent quod est Deus, bona tamen, quae non faceret nisi bonus Deus; sed animas dicunt, non quidem partes Dei, sed factas a Deo, peccasse a Conditore recedendo et diuersis progressibus pro diuersitate peccatorum a caelis usque ad terras diuersa corpora quasi uincula meruisse, et hunc esse mundum eamque causam mundi fuisse faciendi, non ut conderentur bona, sed ut mala cohiberentur. Hinc Origenes iure culpatur. In libris enim, quos appellat περὶ ἀρχῶν, id est de principiis, hoc sensit, hoc scripsit. Ubi plus quam dici potest miror hominem in ecclesiasticis litteris tam doctum et exercitatum non adtendisse, primum quam hoc esset contrarium scripturae huius tantae auctoritatis intentioni, quae per omnia opera Dei subiungens: Et uidit Deus, quia bonum est, conpletisque omnibus inferens: Et uidit Deus omnia, quae fecit, et ecce bona ualde, nullam aliam causam faciendi mundi intellegi uoluit, nisi ut bona fierent a bono Deo. Ubi si nemo peccasset, tantummodo naturis bonis esset mundus ornatus et plenus; et quia peccatum est, non ideo cuncta sunt inpleta peccatis, cum bonorum longe maior numerus in caelestibus suae naturae ordinem seruet; nec mala uoluntas, quia naturae ordinem seruare noluit, ideo iusti Dei leges omnia bene ordinantis effugit; quoniam sicut pictura cum colore nigro loco suo posito, ita uniuersitas rerum, si quis possit intueri, etiam cum peccatoribus pulchra est, quamuis per se ipsos consideratos sua deformitas turpet. Deinde uidere debuit Origenes et quicumque ita sapiunt, si haec opinio uera esset, mundum ideo factum, ut animae pro meritis peccatorum suorum tamquam ergastula, quibus poenaliter includerentur, corpora acciperent, superiora et leuiora quae minus, inferiora uero et grauiora quae amplius peccauerunt, daemones, quibus deterius nihil est, terrena corpora, quibus inferius et grauius nihil est, potius quam homines etiam bonos habere debuisse. Nunc uero, ut intellegeremus animarum merita non qualitatibus corporum esse pensanda, aerium pessimus daemon, homo autem, et nunc licet malus longe minoris mitiorisque malitiae, et certe ante peccatum, tamen luteum corpus accepit. Quid autem stultius dici potest, quam isto sole, ut in uno mundo unus esset, non decori pulchritudinis uel etiam saluti rerum corporalium consuluisse artificem Deum, sed hoc potius euenisse, quia una anima sic peccauerat, ut tali corpore mereretur includi? ac per hoc si contigisset, ut non una, sed duae; immo non duae, sed decem uel centum similiter aequaliterque peccassent, centum soles haberet hic mundus? Quod ut non fieret, non opificis prouisione mirabili ad rerum corporalium salutem decoremque consultum est, sed contigit potius tanta unius animae progressione peccantis, ut sola corpus tale mereretur. Non plane animarum, de quibus nesciunt quid loquantur, sed eorum ipsorum, qui talia sapiunt multum longe a ueritate, [et] merito est cohercenda progressio. Haec ergo tria, quae superius commendaui, cum in unaquaque creatura requirantur, quis eam fecerit, per quid fecerit, quare fecerit, ut respondeatur Deus, per Verbum, quia bona est, utrum altitudine mystica nobis ipsa trinitas intimetur, hoc est Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, an aliquid occurrat, quod hoc loco scripturarum id accipiendum esse prohibeat, multi sermonis est quaestio, nec omnia uno uolumine ut explicemus urgendum est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. Of the error for which the teaching of Origen is blamed.

But it is much more to be wondered at that some who believe with us that there is one principle of all things, and that no nature which is not what God is can exist except from him as creator, nonetheless have not been willing to believe well and simply this cause of making the world, so good and simple, that the good God made good things, and that after God there should be things which were not what God is, yet good, which only a good God would make. Instead they say that souls, not indeed parts of God but made by God, sinned by departing from the Creator, and by various descents, according to the diversity of their sins, from the heavens down to the earth, deserved various bodies as chains; and that this is the world, and that the cause of making the world was not that good things should be established but that evil ones should be restrained. For this Origen is rightly blamed. For in the books which he calls Peri Archōn, that is, On First Principles, he thought this and wrote this. And here I am more astonished than I can say that a man so learned and practiced in the church's literature did not notice, first, how contrary this was to the intent of this Scripture of such great authority, which, adding to all God's works, “And God saw that it was good,” and when all were finished, “And God saw all that he had made, and behold, it was very good,” meant no other cause of making the world to be understood than that good things should be made by a good God. Here, if no one had sinned, the world would have been adorned and filled with good natures only; and though sin has occurred, not all things are therefore filled with sins, since by far the greater number of the good in heaven keep the order of their nature; nor has the evil will, because it would not keep the order of nature, therefore escaped the laws of the just God, who orders all things well; since, as a picture with the color black set in its place, so the universe, if one could see it whole, is beautiful even with sinners, although, considered in themselves, their own deformity disfigures them.

Next, Origen and all who think so ought to have seen that, if this opinion were true that the world was made so that souls, according to the deserts of their sins, received bodies as prisons in which to be shut up as punishment, the higher and lighter bodies for those who sinned less, the lower and heavier for those who sinned more, then the demons, than whom nothing is worse, ought to have had earthly bodies, than which nothing is lower and heavier, rather than men, even good men. But as it is, that we might understand that the deserts of souls are not to be weighed by the qualities of bodies, the worst demon received an aerial body, while man, though now evil, of far less and milder malice, and certainly before sin, nonetheless received a body of clay. What can be said more foolish than that, in the case of this sun, so that there might be one in the one world, God the artificer did not consult the beauty of the whole or even the welfare of bodily things, but that this came about rather because one soul had so sinned as to deserve to be enclosed in such a body? And so, if it had happened that not one but two, indeed not two but ten or a hundred, had sinned similarly and equally, this world would have a hundred suns? That this did not happen was not provided for by the wonderful foresight of the maker for the welfare and beauty of bodily things, but came about rather through the so great descent of one sinning soul, so that it alone deserved such a body. Plainly it is not the descent of souls, of which they do not know what they are saying, but of these men themselves, whose thoughts are so far from the truth, that should rightly be restrained.

As to these three things, then, which I commended above, which are to be asked of every creature, who made it, through what he made it, why he made it, so that the answer is “God,” “through the Word,” “because it is good”: whether the Trinity itself, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is intimated to us by a mystical depth, or whether something occurs that forbids us to take it so in this passage of the Scriptures, is a question requiring long discussion; nor need we be pressed to explain everything in one volume.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:4: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:31: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Origen, Princ. (Origen, On First Principles): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Origen, On First Principles (Peri Archōn), esp. 1.8 and 2.9, is meant. Gen 1:31 quoted. The Latin prints the Greek title corruptly (“nep2 ἀρχω̄ν”); corrected to περὶ ἀρχῶν. The edition's square brackets around “et” (“[et] merito”) mean the editor deletes it; it is left out. The aerial bodies of demons were a common ancient belief.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.23 (CSEL 40:544–547; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-22/#p-11-23).

## City of God 11.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-22/#p-11-24
- Source: CSEL 40:547–548
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine states the faith in the Trinity and suggests that the Father, the Word, and the Spirit as goodness are signified in every work of creation and in the holy city's being, wisdom, and joy.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIIII. De trinitate diuina, quae per omnia opera sua significationis suae sparsit indicia. Credimus et tenemus et fideliter praedicamus, quod Pater genuerit Verbum, hoc est sapientiam, per quam facta sunt omnia, unigenitum Filium, unus unum, aeternus coaeternum, summe bonus aequaliter bonum; et quod Spiritus sanctus simul et Patris et Filii sit Spiritus et ipse consubstantialis et coaeternus ambobus; adque hoc totum et trinitas sit propter proprietatem personarum et unus Deus propter inseparabilem diuinitatem, sicut unus Omnipotens propter inseparabilem omnipotentiam; ita tamen, ut etiam cum de singulis quaeritur unusquisque eorum et Deus et omnipotens esse respondeatur; cum uero de omnibus simul, non tres di uel tres omnipotentes, sed unus Deus omnipotens; tanta ibi est in tribus inseparabilis unitas, quae sic se uoluit praedicari. Utrum autem boni Patris et boni Filii Spiritus sanctus, quia communis ambobus est, recte bonitas dici possit amborum, non audeo temerariam praecipitare sententiam; uerum tamen amborum eum dicere sanctitatem facilius ausus fuero, non amborum quasi qualitatem, sed ipsum quoque substantiam et tertiam in trinitate personam. Ad hoc enim me probabilius ducit, quod, cum sit et Pater spiritus et Filius spiritus, et Pater sanctus et Filius sanctus, proprie tamen ipse uocatur Spiritus sanctus tamquam sanctitas substantialis et consubstantialis amborum. Sed si nihil est aliud bonitas diuina quam sanctitas, profecto et intellegentia rationis est, non praesumtionis audacia, ut in operibus Dei secreto quodam loquendi modo, quo nostra exerceatur intentio, eadem nobis insinuata intellegatur trinitas, unamquamque creaturam quis fecerit, per quid fecerit, propter quid fecerit. Pater quippe intellegitur Verbi, qui dixit ut fiat; quod autem illo dicente factum est, procul dubio per Verbum factum est; in eo uero quod dicitur: Vidit Deus, quia bonum est, satis significatur Deum nulla necessitate, nulla suae cuiusquam utilitatis indigentia, sed sola bonitate fecisse quod factum est, id est, quia bonum est; quod ideo postea quam factum est dicitur, ut res, quae facta est, congruere bonitati, propter quam facta est, indicetur. Quae bonitas si Spiritus sanctus recte intellegitur, uniuersa nobis trinitas in suis operibus intimatur. Inde est ciuitatis sanctae, quae in sanctis angelis sursum est, et origo et informatio et beatitudo. Nam si quaeratur unde sit: Deus eam condidit; si unde sit sapiens: a Deo inluminatur; si unde sit felix: Deo fruitur; subsistens modificatur, contemplans inlustratur, inhaerens iucundatur; est, uidet, amat; in aeternitate Dei uiget, in ueritate Dei lucet, in bonitate Dei gaudet.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 24. Of the divine Trinity, which has scattered indications of itself throughout all its works.

We believe and hold and faithfully proclaim that the Father begot the Word, that is, the wisdom through which all things were made, the only-begotten Son, one begetting one, eternal begetting coeternal, supremely good begetting one equally good; and that the Holy Spirit is at once the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son, and is himself consubstantial and coeternal with both; and that this whole is both a Trinity because of the distinctness of the persons and one God because of the inseparable divinity, as it is one Almighty because of the inseparable omnipotence; yet so that, when the question is asked of each one singly, the answer is that each of them is both God and almighty; but when of all together, not three gods or three almighties, but one God almighty; so great is the inseparable unity in the three, which willed to be proclaimed in this way. But whether the Holy Spirit of the good Father and the good Son, because he is common to both, can rightly be called the goodness of both, I do not dare to put forward a rash opinion; yet I would more readily dare to call him the holiness of both, not as if a quality of both, but himself also a substance and the third person in the Trinity. What leads me to this as more probable is that, although the Father is spirit and the Son is spirit, and the Father is holy and the Son is holy, yet he himself is properly called the Holy Spirit, as the substantial holiness of both, consubstantial with both. But if divine goodness is nothing other than holiness, then it is surely an understanding of reason, not the boldness of presumption, that in God's works, by a certain hidden manner of speaking by which our attention is exercised, the same Trinity is understood to be intimated to us: who made each creature, through what he made it, and for what he made it. For the Father of the Word is understood as the one who said, “Let it be”; and what was made when he spoke was without doubt made through the Word; and in the words, “God saw that it was good,” it is sufficiently signified that God made what was made by no necessity, by no need of any advantage of his own, but by goodness alone, that is, because it is good; which is said after it was made in order to indicate that the thing made agrees with the goodness for the sake of which it was made. If this goodness is rightly understood as the Holy Spirit, the whole Trinity is intimated to us in its works.

Thence comes the origin, the formation, and the happiness of the holy city which is above in the holy angels. For if it is asked whence it is: God founded it; whence it is wise: it is enlightened by God; whence it is happy: it enjoys God. Subsisting, it is given its measure; contemplating, it is illuminated; cleaving, it is gladdened. It is, it sees, it loves. In God's eternity it flourishes, in God's truth it shines, in God's goodness it rejoices.

### Scripture references

- John 1:3: allusion, high confidence
- John 1:14: allusion, medium confidence
- John 4:24: echo, medium confidence
- Gen 1:4: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Augustine offers the identification of the Spirit with divine goodness or holiness tentatively (“I do not dare”). John 1:3 alluded to; John 4:24 (God is spirit) echoed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.24 (CSEL 40:547–548; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-22/#p-11-24).

## City of God 11.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-22/#p-11-25
- Source: CSEL 40:548–550
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The philosophers' division into physics, logic, and ethics mirrors our dependence on God for being, wisdom, and happiness; Augustine distinguishes enjoying from using.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXV. De tripertita totius philosophiae disciplina. Quantum intellegi datur, hinc philosophi sapientiae disciplinam tripertitam esse uoluerunt, immo tripertitam esse animaduertere potuerunt (neque enim ipsi instituerunt ut ita esset, sed ita esse potius inuenerunt), cuius una pars appellaretur physica, altera logica, tertia ethica (quarum nomina Latina iam multorum litteris frequentata sunt, ut naturalis, rationalis moralisque uocarentur; quas etiam in octauo libro breuiter strinximus); non quo sit consequens, ut isti in his tribus aliquid secundum Deum de trinitate cogitauerint, quamuis Plato primus istam distributionem repperisse et commendasse dicatur, cui neque naturarum omnium auctor nisi Deus uisus est neque intellegentiae dator neque amoris, quo bene beateque uiuitur, inspirator. Sed certe cum et de natura rerum et de ratione indagandae ueritatis et de boni fine, ad quem cuncta quae agimus referre debemus, diuersi diuersa sentiant: in his tamen tribus magnis et generalibus quaestionibus omnis eorum uersatur intentio. Ita cum in unaquaque earum quid quisque sectetur multiplex discrepantia sit opinionum, esse tamen aliquam naturae causam, scientiae formam, uitae summam nemo cunctatur. Tria etiam sunt, quae in unoquoque homine artifice spectantur, ut aliquid efficiat: natura, doctrina, usus; natura ingenio, doctrina scientia, usus fructu diiudicandus est. Nec ignoro, quod proprie fructus fruentis, usus utentis sit, adque hoc interesse uideatur, quod ea re frui dicimur, quae nos non ad aliud referenda per se ipsa delectat; uti uero ea re, quam propter aliud quaerimus (unde temporalibus magis utendum est, quam fruendum, ut frui mereamur aeternis; non sicut peruersi, qui frui uolunt nummo, uti autem Deo; quoniam non nummum propter Deum inpendunt, sed Deum propter nummum colunt); uerum tamen eo loquendi modo, quem plus obtinuit consuetudo, et fructibus utimur et usibus fruimur; nam et fructus iam proprie dicuntur agrorum, quibus utique omnes temporaliter utimur. Hoc itaque more usum dixerim, in his tribus, quae in homine spectanda commonui, quae sunt natura, doctrina, usus. Ex his propter obtinendam beatam uitam tripertita, ut dixi, a philosophis inuenta est disciplina, naturalis propter naturam, rationalis propter doctrinam, moralis propter usum. Si ergo natura nostra esset a nobis, profecto et nostram nos genuissemus sapientiam, nec eam doctrina, id est aliunde discendo, percipere curaremus; et noster amor a nobis profectus et ad nos relatus et ad beate uiuendum sufficeret, nec bono alio quo frueremur ullo indigeret; nunc uero quia natura nostra, ut esset, Deum habet auctorem, procul dubio ut uera sapiamus ipsum debemus habere doctorem, ipsum etiam ut beati simus suauitatis intimae largitorem.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 25. Of the threefold division of all philosophy.

As far as it is given to understand, it is for this reason that the philosophers wanted the discipline of wisdom to be threefold, or rather were able to observe that it is threefold (for they did not themselves arrange that it should be so, but rather discovered that it is so): one part was called physics, another logic, the third ethics (their Latin names, natural, rational, and moral, are now common in the writings of many, and we touched on them briefly in the eighth book). Not that it follows that in these three they thought anything about a trinity in God, although Plato is said to have been the first to discover and commend this division, and to him it seemed that none but God is the author of all natures, the giver of understanding, and the inspirer of the love by which one lives well and happily. But certainly, though different men hold different views about the nature of things, about the method of investigating truth, and about the end of the good to which we ought to refer all that we do, yet all their effort is concerned with these three great and general questions. So, though in each of them there is a manifold disagreement of opinion as to what each follows, yet no one hesitates that there is some cause of nature, some form of knowledge, some sum of life.

There are also three things which are looked for in every human craftsman if he is to accomplish anything: nature, training, and use; nature is to be judged by talent, training by knowledge, use by fruit. I am not unaware that, properly speaking, fruit belongs to the one who enjoys and use to the one who uses; and the difference seems to be this: we are said to enjoy a thing which delights us in itself, not as referred to something else; to use a thing which we seek for the sake of something else. (Hence temporal things are to be used rather than enjoyed, so that we may deserve to enjoy eternal things; not like the perverse, who want to enjoy money but use God, since they do not spend money for God's sake but worship God for money's sake.) Yet in the manner of speaking which custom has more commonly established, we both use fruits and enjoy uses; for the produce of the fields too is now properly called fruits, and we all certainly use it in this temporal life. It is in this customary sense, then, that I have spoken of use among the three things I pointed out as to be looked for in a man, namely nature, training, and use. From these, for the sake of attaining the happy life, the threefold discipline, as I said, was found by the philosophers: natural because of nature, rational because of training, moral because of use. If, then, our nature were from ourselves, we would surely have begotten our own wisdom too, and would not take pains to acquire it by training, that is, by learning from elsewhere; and our love, proceeding from ourselves and referred to ourselves, would suffice for living happily and would need no other good to enjoy. But as it is, since our nature has God as its author in order to exist, beyond doubt we must have him as our teacher in order to know true things, and him also as the giver of inward sweetness in order to be happy.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The attribution of the threefold division to Plato goes back to the eighth book (8.4). A final stray mark in the Latin is ignored.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.25 (CSEL 40:548–550; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-22/#p-11-25).

## City of God 11.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-22/#p-11-26
- Source: CSEL 40:550–551
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The human mind bears an image of the Trinity in being, knowing, and loving, of which it is certain even against the skeptics: if I am deceived, I am.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVI De imagine summae trinitatis, quae secundum quendam modum in natura etiam necdum beatificati hominis inuenitur. Et nos quidem in nobis, tametsi non aequalem, immo ualde longeque distantem, neque coaeternam et, quo breuius totum dicitur, non eiusdem substantiae, cuius Deus est, tamen qua Deo nihil sit in rebus ab eo factis natura propinquius, imaginem Dei, hoc est illius summae trinitatis, agnoscimus, adhuc reformatione perficiendam, ut sit etiam similitudine proxima. Nam et sumus et nos esse nouimus et id esse ac nosse diligimus. In his autem tribus, quae dixi, nulla nos falsitas ueri similis turbat. Non enim ea sicut illa, quae foris sunt, ullo sensu corporis tangimus, uelut colores uidendo, sonos audiendo, odores olfaciendo, sapores gustando, dura et mollia contrectando sentimus, quorum sensibilium etiam imagines eis simillimas nec iam corporeas cogitatione uersamus, memoria tenemus et per ipsas in istorum desideria concitamur; sed sine ulla phantasiarum uel phantasmatum imaginatione ludificatoria mihi esse me idque nosse et amare certissimum est. Nulla in his ueris Academicorum argumenta formido dicentium: Quid si falleris? Si enim fallor, sum. Nam qui non est, utique nec falli potest: ac per hoc sum, si fallor. Quia sum ergo si fallor, quo modo esse me fallor, quando certum est me esse, si fallor? Quia igitur essem qui fallerer, etiamsi fallerer, procul dubio in eo, quod me noui esse, non fallor. Consequens est autem, ut etiam in eo, quod me noui nosse, non fallar. Sicut enim noui esse me, ita noui etiam hoc ipsum, nosse me. Eaque duo cum amo, eundem quoque amorem quiddam tertium nec inparis aestimationis eis quas noui rebus adiungo. Neque enim fallor amare me, cum in his quae amo non fallar; quamquam etsi illa falsa essent, falsa me amare uerum esset. Nam quo pacto recte reprehenderer et recte prohiberer ab amore falsorum, si me illa amare falsum esset? Cum uero et illa uera adque certa sint, quis dubitet quod eorum, cum amantur, et ipse amor uerus et certus est? Tam porro nemo est qui esse se nolit, quam nemo est qui non esse beatus uelit. Quo modo enim potest beatus esse, si nihil sit?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 26. Of the image of the supreme Trinity, which is found in a certain way even in the nature of man not yet made blessed.

And we indeed recognize in ourselves an image of God, that is, of that supreme Trinity, though not equal to it, indeed very far removed from it, nor coeternal, and, to say it all more briefly, not of the same substance as God, yet nearer to God in nature than anything else among the things he has made; an image still to be perfected by reformation, so that it may also be most near in likeness. For we both are, and know that we are, and love this being and knowing. And in these three things of which I have spoken no falsehood that looks like truth disturbs us. For we do not touch them, as we do things outside us, by any bodily sense, as we perceive colors by seeing, sounds by hearing, smells by smelling, tastes by tasting, hard and soft things by handling; of these sensible things we also turn over in thought images very like them, no longer bodily, hold them in memory, and are roused by them to desire the things themselves. But without any deceptive imagining of fancies or phantoms, it is most certain to me that I am, and that I know and love this. In these truths I have no fear of the arguments of the Academics, who say: “What if you are deceived?” For if I am deceived, I am. For he who is not cannot be deceived either; and so I am, if I am deceived. Since, then, I am if I am deceived, how am I deceived in believing that I am, when it is certain that I am if I am deceived? Since, therefore, I who was deceived would be, even if I were deceived, beyond doubt I am not deceived in knowing that I am. It follows that I am not deceived either in knowing that I know. For as I know that I am, so I know this too, that I know. And when I love these two, I add to the things I know this same love as a third thing of no less value. For I am not deceived that I love, since I am not deceived in the things I love; though even if they were false, it would be true that I loved false things. For how could I rightly be blamed and rightly forbidden to love false things, if it were false that I loved them? But since they are true and certain, who doubts that, when they are loved, the love of them is itself true and certain? Further, there is no one who does not wish to be, just as there is no one who does not wish to be happy. For how can one be happy if one is nothing?

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:26: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 3:18: echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- The Academics were the skeptical successors of Plato's Academy, whom Augustine had answered in Against the Academics. Gen 1:26–27 is in view.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.26 (CSEL 40:550–551; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-22/#p-11-26).

## City of God 11.27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-22/#p-11-27
- Source: CSEL 40:551–554
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: All creatures cling to being, and the human mind loves knowledge more than happiness in delusion; by an inner sense it judges justice and knows that it is, knows, and loves.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVII. De essentia et scientia et utriusque amore. Ita uero ui quadam naturali ipsum esse iucundum est, ut non ob aliud et hi qui miseri sunt nolint interire et, cum se miseros esse sentiant, non se ipsos de rebus, sed miseriam suam potius auferri uelint. Illis etiam, qui et sibi miserrimi apparent et plane sunt et non solum a sapientibus, quoniam stulti, uerum et ab his, qui se beatos putant, miseri iudicantur, quia pauperes adque mendici sunt, si quis inmortalitatem daret, qua nec ipsa miseria moreretur, proposito sibi quod, si in eadem miseria semper esse nollent, nulli et nusquam essent futuri, sed omni modo perituri, profecto exultarent laetitia et sic semper eligerent esse quam omnino non esse. Huius rei testis est notissimus sensus illorum. Unde enim mori metuunt et malunt in illa aerumna uiuere, quam eam morte finire, nisi quia satis apparet quam refugiat natura non esse? Adque ideo cum se nouerint esse morituros, pro magno beneficio sibi hanc inpendi misericordiam desiderant, ut aliquanto productius in eadem miseria uiuant tardiusque moriantur. Procul dubio ergo indicant, inmortalitatem, saltem talem quae non habeat finem mendicitatis, quanta gratulatione susciperent. Quid? animalia omnia etiam inrationalia, quibus datum non est ista cogitare, ab inmensis draconibus usque ad exiguos uermiculos nonne se esse uelle adque ob hoc interitum fugere omnibus quibus possunt motibus indicant? Quid? arbusta omnesque frutices, quibus nullus est sensus ad uitandam manifesta motione perniciem, nonne ut in auras tutum cacuminis germen emittant, aliud terrae radicis adfigunt, quo alimentum trahant adque ita suum quodam modo esse conseruent? Ipsa postremo corpora, quibus non solum sensus, sed nec ulla saltem seminalis est uita, ita tamen uel exiliunt in superna uel in ima descendunt uel librantur in mediis, ut essentiam suam, ubi secundum naturam possunt esse, custodiant. Iam uero nosse quantum ametur quamque falli nolit humana natura, uel hinc intellegi potest, quod lamentari quisque sana mente mauult quam laetari in amentia. Quae uis magna adque mirabilis mortalibus praeter hominem animantibus nulla est, licet eorum quibusdam ad istam lucem contuendam multo quam nobis sit acrior sensus oculorum; sed lucem illam incorpoream contingere nequeunt, qua mens nostra quodam modo radiatur, ut de his omnibus recte iudicare possimus. Nam in quantum eam capimus, in tantum id possumus. Verum tamen inest in sensibus inrationalium animantium, etsi scientia nullo modo, at certe quaedam scientiae similitudo; cetera autem rerum corporalium, non quia sentiunt, sed quia sentiuntur, sensibilia nuncupata sunt. Quorum in arbustis hoc simile est sensibus, quod aluntur et gignunt. Verum tamen et haec et omnia corporalia latentes in natura causas habent; sed formas suas, quibus mundi huius uisibilis structura formosa est, sentiendas sensibus praebent, ut pro eo, quod nosse non possunt, quasi innotescere uelle uideantur. Sed nos ea sensu corporis ita capimus, ut de his non sensu corporis iudicemus. Habemus enim alium interioris hominis sensum isto longe praestantiorem, quo iusta et iniusta sentimus, iusta per intellegibilem speciem, iniusta per eius priuationem. Ad huius sensus officium non acies pupulae, non foramen auriculae, non spiramenta narium, non gustus faucium, non ullus corporeus tactus accedit. Ibi me et esse et hoc nosse certus sum, et haec amo adque amare me similiter certus sum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 27. Of being and knowledge and the love of both.

Being itself is so pleasant by a certain natural force that for no other reason do even those who are wretched not wish to perish, and when they feel that they are wretched, they wish not themselves to be removed from the world but rather their wretchedness. Take even those who both seem most wretched to themselves and plainly are so, and who are judged wretched not only by the wise, because they are foolish, but also by those who think themselves happy, because they are poor and beggars: if someone were to give them an immortality in which even their wretchedness would not die, on the terms that, if they did not wish to be always in the same wretchedness, they would be nothing and nowhere but would perish utterly, they would certainly leap for joy and would choose to be forever thus rather than not to be at all. Their well-known feeling is a witness to this. For why do they fear to die and prefer to live in that misery rather than end it by death, unless it is quite plain how nature shuns not being? And so, when they know that they are going to die, they long for this mercy to be shown them as a great benefit, that they may live somewhat longer in the same misery and die later. Beyond doubt, then, they show with what thankfulness they would receive immortality, even one that would not put an end to their begging. What of all the animals, even the irrational ones, to whom it is not given to think of these things, from huge serpents to tiny worms? Do they not show, by every movement they can, that they wish to exist and therefore flee destruction? What of shrubs and all bushes, which have no sense to avoid harm by visible motion? Do they not, in order to send the tip of their crown safely into the air, fix another part, the root, in the earth, to draw nourishment from it, and so in a way preserve their being? Finally, bodies themselves, which have not only no sense but not even any seminal life, either leap upward or descend downward or are balanced in the middle, so as to preserve their being where they can exist according to their nature.

And how much knowing is loved and how human nature does not wish to be deceived may be understood from this, that everyone of sound mind would rather grieve than be glad in madness. This great and wonderful power belongs to no mortal living creature except man, although some of them have a far sharper sense of sight than we for beholding this light; but they cannot reach that incorporeal light by which our mind is in some way irradiated, so that we can judge rightly of all these things. For in so far as we receive it, in so far can we do this. Yet in the senses of irrational animals there is, if in no way knowledge, at least a certain likeness of knowledge; but the other bodily things are called sensible not because they sense but because they are sensed. Among these, what is like the senses in shrubs is that they are nourished and reproduce. Yet both these and all bodily things have their causes hidden in nature; but they offer their forms, by which the structure of this visible world is beautiful, to the senses to be perceived, so that, in place of the knowing which they cannot do, they seem as it were to wish to be known. But we so take them in by the bodily sense that we do not judge of them by the bodily sense. For we have another sense, of the inner man, far more excellent than this, by which we perceive just and unjust things: the just by an intelligible form, the unjust by its privation. To the working of this sense no keenness of the pupil, no opening of the ear, no nostrils, no taste in the throat, no bodily touch contributes. There I am certain both that I am and that I know this; and I love these things and am likewise certain that I love them.

### Scripture references

- Rom 7:22: echo, low confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.27 (CSEL 40:551–554; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-22/#p-11-27).

## City of God 11.28

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-22/#p-11-28
- Source: CSEL 40:554–556
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: We also love the love by which we love; all things seek their place as by a love, and man, as God's image, should return like the prodigal son to God, in whom being, knowing, and loving will be perfected.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIII. An etiam ipsum amorem, quo et esse et scire diligimus, diligere debeamus, quo magis diuinae trinitatis imagini propinquemus. Sed de duobus illis, essentia scilicet et notitia, quantum amentur in nobis, et quem ad modum etiam in ceteris rebus, quae infra sunt, eorum reperiatur, etsi differens, quaedam tamen similitudo, quantum suscepti huius operis ratio uisa est postulare, satis diximus; de amore autem, quo amantur, utrum et ipse amor ametur, non dictum est. Amatur autem; et hinc probamus, quod in hominibus, qui rectius amantur, ipse magis amatur. Neque enim uir bonus merito dicitur qui scit quod bonum est, sed qui diligit. Quur ergo et in nobis ipsis non et ipsum amorem nos amare sentimus, quo amamus quidquid boni amamus? Est enim et amor, quo amatur et quod amandum non est, et istum amorem odit in se, qui illum diligit, quo id amatur quod amandum est. Possunt enim ambo esse in uno homine, et hoc bonum est homini, ut illo proficiente quo bene uiuimus, iste deficiat quo male uiuimus, donec ad perfectum sanetur et in bonum commutetur omne quod uiuimus. Si enim pecora essemus, carnalem uitam et quod secundum sensum eius est amaremus idque esset sufficiens bonum nostrum et secundum hoc, cum esset nobis bene, nihil aliud quaereremus. Item si arbores essemus, nihil quidem sentiente motu amare possemus, uerum tamen id quasi adpetere uideremur, quo feracius essemus uberiusque fructuosae. Si essemus lapides aut fluctus aut uentus aut flamma uel quid huius modi, sine ullo quidem sensu adque uita, non tamen nobis deesset quasi quidam nostrorum locorum adque ordinis adpetitus. Nam uelut amores corporum momenta sunt ponderum, siue deorsum grauitate siue sursum leuitate nitantur. Ita enim corpus pondere, sicut animus amore fertur, quocumque fertur. Quoniam igitur homines sumus ad nostri creatoris imaginem creati, cuius est uera aeternitas, aeterna ueritas, aeterna et uera caritas, estque ipse aeterna et uera et cara trinitas neque confusa neque separata: in his quidem rebus, quae infra nos sunt, quoniam et ipsa nec aliquo modo essent nec aliqua specie continerentur nec aliquem ordinem uel adpeterent uel tenerent, nisi ab illo facta essent, qui summe est, qui summe sapiens est, qui summe bonus est, tamquam per omnia, quae fecit mirabili stabilitate, currentes quasi quaedam eius alibi magis, alibi minus inpressa uestigia colligamus; in nobis autem ipsis eius imaginem contuentes tamquam minor ille euangelicus filius ad nosmet ipsos reuersi surgamus et ad illum redeamus, a quo peccando recesseramus. Ibi esse nostrum non habebit mortem, ibi nosse nostrum non habebit errorem, ibi amare nostrum non habebit offensionem. Nunc autem tria ista nostra quamuis certa teneamus nec aliis ea credamus testibus, sed nos ipsi praesentia sentiamus adque interiore ueracissimo cernamus aspectu, tamen, quamdiu futura uel utrum numquam defutura et quo si male, quo autem si bene agantur peruentura sint, quoniam per nos ipsos nosse non possumus, alios hinc testes uel quaerimus uel habemus: de quorum fide quur nulla debeat esse dubitatio, non est iste, sed posterior erit diligentius disserendi locus. In hoc autem libro de ciuitate Dei, quae non peregrinatur in huius uitae mortalitate, sed inmortalis semper in caelis est, id est de angelis sanctis Deo cohaerentibus, qui nec fuerunt umquam nec futuri sunt desertores, inter quos et illos, qui aeternam lucem deserentes tenebrae facti sunt, Deum primitus diuisisse iam diximus, illo adiuuante quod coepimus ut possumus explicemus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 28. Whether we ought also to love the very love by which we love both being and knowing, so as to come nearer to the image of the divine Trinity.

But about those two, being and knowing, how much they are loved in us, and how a certain likeness of them, though different, is found also in the other things that are below us, we have said enough, as far as the plan of this work seemed to require. But about the love by which they are loved, whether this love itself is loved, nothing has been said. It is loved, however; and we prove it from this, that in men who are loved more rightly, it is love itself that is loved more. For he is not rightly called a good man who knows what is good, but who loves it. Why then do we not perceive in ourselves too that we love the very love by which we love whatever good we love? For there is also a love by which what ought not to be loved is loved; and whoever loves that love by which what ought to be loved is loved hates this other love in himself. For both can exist in one man; and this is good for a man, that as the love by which we live well advances, the love by which we live badly may fail, until our whole life is healed to perfection and changed into good. For if we were cattle, we would love the carnal life and what accords with its sense, and this would be our sufficient good, and when it was well with us in this respect we would seek nothing else. Likewise, if we were trees, we could indeed love nothing by a sentient movement, yet we would seem as it were to seek that by which we might be more fertile and bear fruit more abundantly. If we were stones, or waves, or wind, or flame, or anything of that kind, without any sense or life, we would still not lack a kind of seeking of our own places and order. For the movements of weights are, as it were, the loves of bodies, whether they strive downward by heaviness or upward by lightness. For a body is carried by its weight, as the soul by its love, wherever it is carried.

Since, then, we are men created in the image of our Creator, whose is true eternity, eternal truth, eternal and true love, and who is himself the eternal, true, and beloved Trinity, neither confused nor separated: in the things that are below us, since they too would not exist in any way, nor be held together by any form, nor seek or keep any order, unless they had been made by him who supremely is, who is supremely wise, who is supremely good, let us, running as it were through all the things he has made with wonderful stability, gather up his traces, as it were, more deeply impressed in one place and less in another; but beholding his image in ourselves, let us, like that younger son in the Gospel, come back to ourselves, rise, and return to him from whom we had departed by sinning. There our being will have no death, our knowing no error, our loving no offense. But now, though we hold these three of ours as certain, and do not believe them on the word of other witnesses but perceive them ourselves as present and discern them with the most truthful inner sight, yet, since we cannot know by ourselves how long they will last, or whether they will never fail, and where they will come to if we act badly and where if we act well, we seek or have other witnesses on this; and why there should be no doubt about their trustworthiness is not to be discussed here, but more carefully later. In this book, however, about the city of God that is not a pilgrim in the mortality of this life but is always immortal in the heavens, that is, about the holy angels who cleave to God, who never have been and never will be deserters, and between whom and those who, forsaking the eternal light, became darkness, God, as we have said, first divided, let us with his help go on to explain, as we can, what we have begun.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:27: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 15:17: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 15:18: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Luke 15:17–20 (the prodigal son) alluded to. “A body is carried by its weight, as the soul by its love” echoes Confessions 13.9.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.28 (CSEL 40:554–556; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-22/#p-11-28).

## City of God 11.29

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-22/#p-11-29
- Source: CSEL 40:556–557
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The holy angels know God and all creatures in the Word as in a “day” knowledge, more clearly than in the creatures themselves, their “evening” knowledge.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIIII. De sanctorum angelorum scientia, qua trinitatem in ipsa eius deitate nouerunt et qua operum causas prius in operantis arte quam in ipsis operibus artificis intuentur. Illi quippe angeli sancti non per uerba sonantia Deum discunt, sed per ipsam praesentiam inmutabilis ueritatis, hoc est Verbum eius unigenitum, et ipsum Verbum et Patrem et eorum Spiritum sanctum, eamque esse inseparabilem trinitatem singulasque in ea personas esse substantiam, et tamen omnes non tres deos esse, sed unum Deum, ita nouerunt, ut eis magis ista, quam nos ipsi nobis cogniti simus. Ipsam quoque creaturam melius ibi, hoc est in sapientia Dei, tamquam in arte, qua facta est, quam in ea ipsa sciunt; ac per hoc et se ipsos ibi melius quam in se ipsis, uerum tamen et in se ipsis. Facti sunt enim et aliud sunt quam ille qui fecit. Ibi ergo tamquam in diurna cognitione, in se ipsis autem tamquam in uespertina, sicut iam supra diximus. Multum enim differt, utrum in ea ratione cognoscatur aliquid, secundum quam factum est, an in se ipso; sicut aliter scitur rectitudo linearum seu ueritas figurarum, cum intellecta conspicitur, aliter cum in puluere scribitur; et aliter iustitia in ueritate incommutabili, aliter in anima iusti. Sic deinde cetera, sicut firmamentum inter aquas superiores et inferiores, quod caelum uocatum est; sicut deorsum aquarum congeries terraeque nudatio et herbarum institutio adque lignorum; sicut solis ac lunae stellarumque conditio; sicut ex aquis animalium, uolucrum scilicet adque piscium beluarumque natantium; sicut quorumque in terra gradientium adque repentium et ipsius hominis, qui cunctis in terra rebus excelleret. Omnia haec aliter in Verbo Dei cognoscuntur ab angelis, ubi habent causas rationesque suas, id est secundum quas facta sunt, incommutabiliter permanentes, aliter in se ipsis; illa clariore, hac obscuriore cognitione, uelut artis adque operum; quae tamen opera cum ad ipsius Creatoris laudem uenerationemque referuntur, tamquam mane lucescit in mentibus contemplantium.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 29. Of the knowledge of the holy angels, by which they know the Trinity in its very Godhead, and by which they behold the causes of works in the art of the worker before they see them in the works of the artist themselves.

For those holy angels learn God not through sounding words but through the very presence of the unchangeable truth, that is, his only-begotten Word; and they know the Word himself, and the Father, and their Holy Spirit, and that this is an inseparable Trinity, and that each of the persons in it is substance, and yet that all are not three gods but one God, in such a way that these things are better known to them than we are to ourselves. The creation itself, too, they know better there, that is, in the wisdom of God, as in the art by which it was made, than in the creation itself; and so they know themselves also better there than in themselves, yet in themselves too. For they were made, and are other than he who made them. There, then, they know as in daytime knowledge, but in themselves as in evening knowledge, as we said above. For it makes a great difference whether something is known in the reason according to which it was made or in itself; just as the straightness of lines or the truth of figures is known one way when it is beheld by the understanding, another when it is drawn in the dust; and justice one way in the unchangeable truth, another in the soul of a just man. So then with the rest: as the firmament between the upper and lower waters, which was called heaven; as the gathering of the waters below and the laying bare of the land and the making of plants and trees; as the creation of the sun and moon and stars; as that of the animals from the waters, namely birds and fishes and swimming monsters; as that of all things that walk and creep on the earth and of man himself, who was to excel all things on earth. All these are known by the angels one way in the Word of God, where they have their causes and reasons, that is, according to which they were made, abiding unchangeably, and another way in themselves: by that knowledge more clearly, by this more dimly, as the knowledge of the art and of the works; and yet when these works are referred to the praise and veneration of the Creator himself, it dawns, as it were, like morning in the minds of those who contemplate.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:6: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 1:9: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 1:16: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 1:20: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 1:24: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 1:26: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Recalls 11.7. The works of Gen 1:6–27 are listed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.29 (CSEL 40:556–557; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-22/#p-11-29).

## City of God 11.30

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-22/#p-11-30
- Source: CSEL 40:557–559
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The six days signify perfection, since six is the first number equal to the sum of its divisors.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXX. De senarii numeri perfectione, qui primus partium suarum quantitate conpletur. Haec autem propter senarii numeri perfectionem eodem die sexiens repetito sex diebus perfecta narrantur, non quia Deo fuerit necessaria mora temporum, quasi qui non potuerit creare omnia simul, quae deinceps congruis motibus peragerent tempora; sed quia per senarium numerum est operum significata perfectio. Numerus quippe senarius primus conpletur suis partibus, id est sexta sui parte et tertia et dimidia, quae sunt unum et duo et tria, quae in summam ducta sex fiunt. Partes autem in hac consideratione numerorum illae intellegendae sunt, quae quotae sint dici potest; sicut dimidia, tertia, quarta et deinceps ab aliquo numero denominatae. Neque enim exempli gratia quia in nouenario numero quattuor pars aliqua eius est, ideo dici potest quota eius sit; unum autem potest, nam nona eius est: et tria potest, nam tertia eius est. Coniunctae uero istae duae partes eius, nona scilicet adque tertia, id est unum et tria, longe sunt a tota summa eius, quod est nouem. Itemque in denario quaeternarius est aliqua pars eius; sed quota sit dici non potest; unum autem potest; nam decima pars eius est. Habet et quintam, quod sunt duo; habet et dimidiam, quod sunt quinque. Sed hae tres partes eius, decima et quinta et dimidia, id est unum et duo et quinque, simul ductae non conplent decem; sunt enim octo. Duodenarii uero numeri partes in summam ductae transeunt eum; habet enim duodecimam, quod est unum; habet sextam, quae sunt duo; habet quartam, quae sunt tria; habet tertiam, quae sunt quattuor; habet et dimidiam, quae sunt sex; unum autem et duo et tria et quattuor et sex non duodecim, sed amplius, id est sedecim, fiunt. Hoc breuiter commemorandum putaui ad commendandam senarii numeri perfectionem, qui primus, ut dixi, partibus suis in summam redactis ipse perficitur; in quo perfecit Deus opera sua. Unde ratio numeri contemnenda non est, quae in multis sanctarum scripturarum locis quam magni aestimanda sit elucet diligenter intuentibus. Nec frustra in laudibus Dei dictum est: Omnia in mensura et numero et pondere deposuisti.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 30. Of the perfection of the number six, which is the first to be completed by the sum of its parts.

These works are said to have been completed in six days, the same day being repeated six times, because of the perfection of the number six; not because God needed a delay of time, as though he could not create all things at once, which would thereafter complete the times by fitting motions, but because the perfection of the works is signified by the number six. For six is the first number that is completed by its parts, that is, by its sixth, its third, and its half, which are one, two, and three, and these added together make six. And in this consideration of numbers those are to be understood as parts of which it can be said what fraction they are, as a half, a third, a quarter, and so on, named from some number. For example, although in the number nine four is some part of it, it cannot therefore be said what fraction of it it is; but one can, for it is its ninth, and three can, for it is its third. But these two parts of it joined together, the ninth and the third, that is, one and three, are far short of its whole sum, which is nine. Likewise in ten, four is some part of it, but it cannot be said what fraction; but one can, for it is its tenth part. It also has a fifth, which is two, and a half, which is five. But these three parts of it, the tenth, the fifth, and the half, that is, one, two, and five, added together do not make up ten; they are eight. But the parts of the number twelve, added together, exceed it; for it has a twelfth, which is one, a sixth, which is two, a fourth, which is three, a third, which is four, and a half, which is six; but one and two and three and four and six make not twelve but more, namely sixteen. I thought I should mention this briefly to commend the perfection of the number six, which, as I said, is the first to be completed by its own parts brought into a sum; and in it God completed his works. Hence the reason of number is not to be despised; how highly it is to be valued shines out in many passages of the holy Scriptures to those who look carefully. Nor was it said in vain in the praises of God: “You have ordered all things in measure and number and weight.”

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 11:20 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Wis 11:20 quoted. Six is the first “perfect number” of ancient arithmetic.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.30 (CSEL 40:557–559; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-22/#p-11-30).

## City of God 11.31

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-31/#p-11-31
- Source: CSEL 40:559–560
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The seventh day's rest, which has no evening, signifies fullness; seven stands for the whole and for the Holy Spirit, and rest belongs to perfect knowledge, as the angels enjoy it.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXI. De die septimo, in quo plenitudo et requies commendatur. In septimo autem die, id est eodem die septiens repetito, qui numerus etiam ipse alia ratione perfectus est, Dei requies commendatur, in qua primum sanctificatio sonat. Ita Deus noluit istum diem in ullis suis operibus sanctificare, sed in requie sua, quae non habet uesperam; neque enim ulla creatura est, ut etiam ipse aliter in Dei Verbo, aliter in se cognita faciat aliam uelut diurnam, aliam uelut uespertinam notitiam. De septenarii porro numeri perfectione dici quidem plura possunt; sed et liber iste iam prolixus est, et uereor ne occasione conperta scientiolam nostram leuiter magis quam utiliter iactare uelle uideamur. Habenda est itaque ratio moderationis adque grauitatis, ne forte, cum de numero multum loquimur, mensuram et pondus neglegere iudicemur. Hoc itaque satis sit admonere, quod totus inpar primus numerus ternarius est, totus par quaternarius; ex quibus duobus septenarius constat. Ideo pro uniuerso saepe ponitur, sicuti est: Septiens cadet iustus, et resurget; id est: Quotienscumque ceciderit, non peribit; quod non de iniquitatibus, sed de tribulationibus ad humilitatem perducentibus intellegi uoluit: et: Septiens in die laudabo te; quod alibi alio modo dictum est: Semper laus eius in ore meo; et multa huius modi in diuinis auctoritatibus reperiuntur, in quibus septenarius numerus, ut dixi, pro cuiusque rei uniuersitate poni solet. Propter hoc eodem saepe numero significatur Spiritus sanctus, de quo Dominus ait: Docebit uos omnem ueritatem. Ibi requies Dei, qua requiescitur in Deo. In toto quippe, id est in plena perfectione, requies; in parte autem labor. Ideo laboramus, quamdiu ex parte scimus, sed cum uenerit quod perfectum est, quod ex parte est euacuabitur. Hinc est quod etiam scripturas istas cum labore rimamur. Sancti uero angeli quorum societati et congregationi in hac peregrinatione laboriosissima suspiramus, sicut habent permanendi aeternitatem, ita cognoscendi facilitatem et requiescendi felicitatem. Sine difficultate quippe nos adiuuant, quoniam spiritalibus motibus puris et liberis non laborant.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 31. Of the seventh day, in which fullness and rest are set forth.

On the seventh day, that is, the same day repeated seven times, which number is also perfect for another reason, God's rest is set forth, in which sanctification is first mentioned. So God willed to sanctify this day not in any of his works but in his rest, which has no evening; for it is not a creature, so as also, being known one way in the Word of God and another in itself, to produce one knowledge like day and another like evening. Many more things could indeed be said of the perfection of the number seven; but this book is already long, and I fear lest, having found an occasion, I seem to want to show off my little knowledge frivolously rather than usefully. So a measure of moderation and gravity must be kept, lest perhaps, while we talk much of number, we be judged to neglect measure and weight. Let it suffice, then, to point out that three is the first whole odd number and four the first whole even number, and of these two seven is made up. Therefore it is often put for the whole, as in: “The righteous man will fall seven times and rise again,” that is, however often he falls, he will not perish (which is meant to be understood not of iniquities but of tribulations that lead to humility); and: “Seven times a day I will praise you,” which is said elsewhere in another way: “His praise is always in my mouth.” And many passages of this kind are found in the divine writings, in which, as I said, the number seven is commonly put for the whole of anything. For this reason the Holy Spirit is often signified by the same number, of whom the Lord says: “He will teach you all truth.” There is the rest of God, by which rest is had in God. For in the whole, that is, in full perfection, there is rest; but in the part there is toil. Therefore we toil as long as we know in part; “but when that which is perfect has come, that which is in part will be done away.” Hence it is that we search even these Scriptures with toil. But the holy angels, for whose fellowship and assembly we sigh in this most toilsome pilgrimage, as they have eternity of abiding, so they have ease of knowing and happiness of resting. For they help us without difficulty, since in their spiritual movements, pure and free, they do not toil.

### Scripture references

- Gen 2:3: allusion, high confidence
- Prov 24:16: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 119:164 (118:164 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 34:1 (33:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- John 16:13: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 13:9: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 13:10: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 11:20 (Wisdom of Solomon): echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Sources: Gen 2:3; Prov 24:16; Ps 119:164 (LXX 118:164); Ps 34:1 (LXX 33:2); John 16:13; 1 Cor 13:9–10. Wis 11:20 (measure, number, weight) is echoed again.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.31 (CSEL 40:559–560; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-31/#p-11-31).

## City of God 11.32

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-31/#p-11-32
- Source: CSEL 40:560–562
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: If some place the angels' creation before heaven and earth, Augustine will not dispute it, gladly noting the Trinity in Genesis 1:1–2, provided the angels' secure happiness is held.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXII, De opinione eorum, qui angelorum creationem anteriorem uolunt esse quam mundi. Ne quis autem contendat et dicat non sanctos angelos esse significatos in eo quod scriptum est: Fiat lux, et facta est lux, sed quamlibet lucem tunc primum factam esse corpoream aut opinetur aut doceat; angelos autem prius esse factos non tantum ante firmamentum, quod inter aquas et aquas factum appellatum est caelum, sed ante illud de quo dictum est: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram; adque illud, quod dictum est: In principio, non ita dictum tamquam primum hoc factum sit, cum ante fecerit angelos, sed quia omnia in sapientia fecit, quod est Verbum eius et ipsum scriptura principium nominauit (sicut ipse in euangelio Iudaeis quaerentibus quis esset respondit se esse principium): non e contrario referam contentionem, maxime quia hoc me delectat plurimum, quod etiam in summo exordio sancti libri geneseos trinitas commendatur. Cum enim ita dicitur: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram, ut Pater fecisse intellegatur in Filio, sicut adtestatur psalmus, ubi legitur: Quam magnificata sunt opera tua Domine! omnia in sapientia fecisti: conuenientissime paulo post commemoratur etiam Spiritus sanctus. Cum enim dictum esset, qualem terram Deus primitus fecerit, uel quam molem materiamue futurae constructionis mundi caeli et terrae nomine nuncupauerit subiciendo et addendo: Terra autem erat inuisibilis et inconposita et tenebrae erant super abyssum: mox ut trinitatis commemoratio conpleretur: Et spiritus, inquit, dei superferebatur super aquam. Proinde ut uolet quisque accipiat, quod ita profundum est, ut ad exercitationem legentium a fidei regula non abhorrentes plures possit generare sententias, dum tamen angelos sanctos in sublimibus sedibus non quidem Deo coaeternos, sed tamen de sua sempiterna et uera felicitate securos et certos esse nemo ambigat. Ad quorum societatem pertinere paruulos suos Dominus docens non solum illud ait: Erunt aequales angelis Dei; uerum ipsi quoque angeli qua contemplatione fruantur ostendit, ubi ait: Videte, ne contemnatis unum ex pusillis istis; dico enim uobis, quia angeli eorum in caelis semper uident faciem Patris mei, qui in caelis est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 32. Of the opinion of those who hold that the creation of the angels was earlier than that of the world.

But suppose someone contends and says that the holy angels are not signified in what is written, “Let there be light, and there was light,” but either thinks or teaches that some bodily light was then first made; and that the angels were made earlier, not only before the firmament which, made between the waters and the waters, was called heaven, but before that of which it was said, “In the beginning God made heaven and earth”; and that the words “In the beginning” were not said as if this was made first, since he had made the angels before, but because he made all things in wisdom, which is his Word, and which Scripture itself called the Beginning (as he himself in the Gospel, when the Jews asked him who he was, answered that he was the Beginning). I shall not argue against him in return, especially because I am greatly delighted that the Trinity is commended even at the very beginning of the holy book of Genesis. For when it is said, “In the beginning God made heaven and earth,” so that the Father is understood to have made them in the Son, as the psalm attests, where we read, “How magnified are your works, O Lord! You have made all things in wisdom,” the Holy Spirit too is most fittingly mentioned a little after. For when it had been said what kind of earth God first made, or what mass or matter of the future construction of the world he called by the name of heaven and earth, by adding, “But the earth was invisible and unformed, and darkness was upon the abyss,” straightway, to complete the mention of the Trinity, it says: “And the Spirit of God was borne above the water.” Let each, then, take it as he will; it is so deep that for the exercise of readers it can produce many opinions not at variance with the rule of faith, provided no one doubts that the holy angels in their lofty seats, though not coeternal with God, are yet secure and certain of their everlasting and true happiness. Teaching that his little ones belong to their fellowship, the Lord not only said, “They will be equal to the angels of God,” but also showed what contemplation the angels themselves enjoy, where he says: “See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.”

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:3: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:6: allusion, high confidence
- John 8:25: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 104:24 (103:24 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:2: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 20:36: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 18:10: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sources: Gen 1:1–3, 6; John 8:25 in the Latin form “I am the Beginning” (principium); Ps 104:24 (LXX 103:24); Luke 20:36; Matt 18:10.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.32 (CSEL 40:560–562; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-31/#p-11-32).

## City of God 11.33

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-31/#p-11-33
- Source: CSEL 40:562–564
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The holy and fallen angels form two contrary societies, fittingly called light and darkness, whether or not Moses meant this in Genesis 1.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXIII. De duabus angelorum societatibus diuersis adque disparibus, quae non incongrue intelleguntur lucis et tenebrarum nominibus nuncupatae. Peccasse autem quosdam angelos et in huius mundi ima detrusos, qui eis uelut carcer est, usque ad futuram in die iudicii ultimam damnationem apostolus Petrus apertissime ostendit dicens, quod Deus angelis peccantibus non pepercerit, sed carceribus caliginis inferi retrudens tradiderit in iudicio puniendos reseruari. Inter hos ergo et illos Deum uel praescientia uel opere diuisisse quis dubitet? illosque lucem merito appellari quis contradicat? quando quidem nos adhuc in fide uiuentes eorum aequalitatem adhuc sperantes, utique nondum tenentes, iam lux dicti ab apostolo sumus: Fuistis enim, inquit, aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in Domino. Istos uero desertores tenebras aptissime nuncupari profecto aduertunt, qui peiores esse hominibus infidelibus siue intellegunt siue credunt. Quapropter, etsi alia lux in isto huius libri loco intellegenda est, ubi legimus: Dixit Deus: Fiat lux, et facta est lux, et aliae tenebrae significatae sunt in eo quod scriptum est: Diuisit Deus inter lucem et tenebras: nos tamen has duas angelicas societates, unam fruentem Deo, alteram tumentem typho; unam cui dicitur: Adorate eum omnes angeli eius, aliam cuius princeps dicit: Haec omnia tibi dabo, si prostratus adoraueris me: unam Dei sancto amore flagrantem, alteram propriae celsitudinis inmundo amore fumantem; et quoniam, sicut scriptum est, Deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam, illam in caelis caelorum habitantem, istam inde deiectam in hoc infimo aerio caelo tumultuantem; illam luminosa pietate tranquillam, istam tenebrosis cupiditatibus turbulentam; illam Dei nutu clementer subuenientem, iuste ulciscentem, istam suo fastu subdendi et nocendi libidine exaestuantem; illam, ut quantum uult consulat, Dei bonitati ministram, istam, ne quantum uult noceat, Dei potestate frenatam; illam huic inludentem ut nolens prosit persecutionibus suis, hanc illi inuidentem, cum peregrinos colligit suos, — nos ergo has duas societates angelicas inter se dispares adque contrarias, unam et natura bonam et uoluntate rectam, aliam uero natura bonam, sed uoluntate peruersam, aliis manifestioribus diuinarum scripturarum testimoniis declaratas, quod etiam in hoc libro, cui nomen est genesis, lucis tenebrarumque uocabulis significatas existimauimus, etiamsi aliud hoc loco sensit forte qui scripsit, non est inutiliter obscuritas huius pertractata sententiae, quia, etsi uoluntatem auctoris libri huius indagare nequiuimus, a regula tamen fidei, quae per alias eiusdem auctoritatis sacras litteras satis fidelibus nota est, non abhorruimus. Etsi enim corporalia hic commemorata sunt opera Dei, habent procul dubio nonnullam similitudinem spiritalium, secundum quam dicit apostolus: Omnes enim uos filii lucis estis et filii diei, non sumus noctis neque tenebrarum. Si autem hoc sensit etiam ille qui scripsit, ad perfectiorem disputationis finem nostra peruenit intentio, ut homo Dei tam eximiae diuinaeque sapientiae, immo per eum Spiritus Dei in commemorandis operibus Dei, quae omnia sexto die dixit esse perfecta, nullo modo angelos praetermisisse credatur siue in principio, quia primo fecit, siue quod conuenientius intellegitur, in principio, quia in Verbo unigenito fecit, scriptum sit: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram; quibus nominibus uniuersalis est significata creatura, uel spiritalis et corporalis, quod est credibilius, uel magnae duae mundi partes, quibus omnia quae creata sunt continentur, ut primitus eam totam proponeret ac deinde partes eius secundum mysticum dierum numerum exsequeretur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 33. Of the two different and unequal societies of angels, which are not unfittingly understood to be called by the names of light and darkness.

That some angels sinned and were thrust down into the lowest parts of this world, which is a kind of prison for them, until their final condemnation to come on the day of judgment, the apostle Peter shows most plainly when he says that God did not spare the angels who sinned, but thrust them into the prisons of the darkness of the underworld and handed them over to be kept for punishment in the judgment. Who then would doubt that God, either by foreknowledge or by act, divided between these and those? And who would deny that those are rightly called light, since even we, still living by faith, still hoping for equality with them and certainly not yet possessing it, have already been called light by the apostle: “For you were once darkness,” he says, “but now you are light in the Lord”? And those who either understand or believe that these deserters are worse than unbelieving men surely see that they are most fittingly called darkness. Therefore, even if another light is to be understood in this passage of this book where we read, “God said, Let there be light, and there was light,” and another darkness is signified in what is written, “God divided between the light and the darkness,” we nevertheless have judged that these two angelic societies are signified by the words light and darkness even in this book called Genesis: the one enjoying God, the other swollen with pride; the one to which it is said, “Worship him, all his angels,” the other whose prince says, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me”; the one ablaze with the holy love of God, the other smoking with the unclean love of its own exaltation; and since, as it is written, “God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble,” the one dwelling in the heavens of heavens, the other cast down from there and raging in this lowest, airy heaven; the one tranquil with luminous piety, the other turbulent with dark desires; the one, at God's bidding, helping mercifully and avenging justly, the other seething with its own arrogance, with the lust to subdue and to harm; the one the servant of God's goodness to help as much as it wills, the other bridled by God's power lest it harm as much as it wills; the one mocking the other, so that it helps against its will by its persecutions, the other envying the one when it gathers in its pilgrims. These two angelic societies, unequal and contrary to each other, the one good by nature and upright in will, the other good by nature but perverse in will, are declared by other, plainer testimonies of the divine Scriptures; and we have judged that they are signified in this book called Genesis too by the words light and darkness. Even if the writer perhaps meant something else in this place, the obscurity of this passage has not been discussed without profit, because, even if we could not track down the intention of the author of this book, we have not departed from the rule of faith, which is sufficiently known to the faithful through other sacred writings of the same authority. For even if it is bodily works of God that are mentioned here, they certainly have some likeness to spiritual ones, according to which the apostle says: “For you are all children of light and children of the day; we are not of the night nor of darkness.” But if the writer also meant this, our effort has reached a more perfect end of the discussion: that the man of God, of such exceptional and divine wisdom, or rather the Spirit of God through him, in recounting the works of God, all of which he said were completed on the sixth day, should by no means be thought to have passed over the angels; whether “In the beginning God made heaven and earth” is written “in the beginning” because he made them first, or, as is more fittingly understood, “in the beginning” because he made them in the only-begotten Word. By these names the whole creation is signified, either the spiritual and the bodily, which is more credible, or the two great parts of the world in which all created things are contained, so that he first set it forth as a whole and then went through its parts according to the mystical number of the days.

### Scripture references

- 2 Pet 2:4: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 5:8: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:3: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:4: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 97:7 (96:7 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Matt 4:9: quotation, high confidence
- Jas 4:6: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Pet 5:5: quotation, medium confidence
- 1 Thess 5:5: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:1: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sources: 2 Pet 2:4; Eph 5:8; Gen 1:3–4; Ps 97:7 (LXX 96:7) in the LXX/Latin form “Worship him, all his angels” (cf. Heb 1:6); Matt 4:9; Jas 4:6 / 1 Pet 5:5 (Prov 3:34 LXX); 1 Thess 5:5; Gen 1:1.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.33 (CSEL 40:562–564; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-31/#p-11-33).

## City of God 11.34

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-31/#p-11-34
- Source: CSEL 40:564–566
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine notes views that the waters above the firmament are angels, rejects the claim that the waters were uncreated, and closes the book on the two angelic societies.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXIIII. De eo quod quidam putant in conditione firmamenti aquarum discretarum nomine angelos significatos, et quod quidam aquas existimant non creatas. Quamquam nonnulli putauerint aquarum nomine significatos quodam modo populos angelorum et hoc esse quod dictum est: Fiat firmamentum inter aquam et aquam, ut supra firmamentum angeli intellegantur, infra uero uel aquae istae uisibiles uel malorum angelorum multitudo uel omnium hominum gentes. Quod si ita est, non illic apparet ubi facti sint angeli, sed ubi discreti; quamuis et aquas, quod peruersissimae adque inpiae uanitatis est, negent quidam factas a Deo, quoniam nusquam scriptum est: Dixit Deus: Fiant aquae. Quod possunt simili uanitate etiam de terra dicere; nusquam enim legitur: Dixit Deus: Fiat terra. Sed, inquiunt, scriptum est: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram. Illic ergo et aqua intellegenda est; uno enim nomine utrumque conprehensum est. Nam ipsius est mare, sicut in psalmo legitur, et ipse fecit illud, et aridam terram manus eius finxerunt. Sed hi, qui in nomine aquarum, quae super caelos sunt, angelos intellegi uolunt, ponderibus elementorum mouentur et ideo non putant aquarum fluuidam grauemque naturam in superioribus mundi locis potuisse constitui; qui secundum rationes suas, si ipsi hominem facere possent, non ei pituitam, quod Graece ϕλέγμα dicitur et tamquam in elementis corporis nostri aquarum uicem obtinet, in capite ponerent. Ibi enim sedes est phlegmatis, secundum Dei opus utique aptissime, secundum istorum autem coniecturam tam absurde, ut, si hoc nesciremus et in hoc libro similiter scriptum esset, quod Deus umorem fluuidum et frigidum ac per hoc grauem in superiore omnibus ceteris humani corporis parte posuerit, isti trutinatores elementorum nequaquam crederent, et si auctoritati eiusdem scripturae subditi essent, aliquid aliud ex hoc intellegendum esse censerent. Sed quoniam, si diligenter singula scrutemur adque tractemus, quae in illo diuino libro de constitutione mundi scripta sunt, et multa dicenda et a proposito instituti operis longe digrediendum est, iamque de duabus istis diuersis inter se adque contrariis societatibus angelorum, in quibus sunt quaedam exordia duarum etiam in rebus humanis ciuitatum, de quibus deinceps dicere institui, quantum satis esse uisum est, disputauimus: hunc quoque librum aliquando claudamus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 34. Of the view of some that in the making of the firmament the angels are signified by the name of the separated waters, and of the view of some that the waters were not created.

Some, however, have thought that peoples of angels are in some way signified by the name of the waters, and that this is what was said: “Let there be a firmament between water and water,” so that the angels are understood to be above the firmament, and below either these visible waters, or the multitude of evil angels, or the nations of all men. If this is so, it does not show there where the angels were made, but where they were separated; although some even deny, which is a most perverse and impious vanity, that the waters were made by God, since it is nowhere written, “God said, Let there be waters.” With similar vanity they could say this of the earth too; for nowhere do we read, “God said, Let there be earth.” But, they say, it is written, “In the beginning God made heaven and earth”; there, then, the water too must be understood, for both are included under one name. For “the sea is his,” as we read in the psalm, “and he made it, and his hands formed the dry land.” But those who want the angels to be understood by the name of the waters that are above the heavens are moved by the weights of the elements, and so do not think that the fluid and heavy nature of the waters could be placed in the upper regions of the world. By their own reasoning, if they could make a man themselves, they would not put phlegm, which in Greek is called phlegma and holds, as it were, the place of water among the elements of our body, in the head. For the seat of phlegm is there, most fittingly, certainly, according to God's work, but, according to their conjecture, so absurdly that, if we did not know it and it were likewise written in this book that God put a fluid and cold humor, and therefore a heavy one, in the highest part of the human body above all the others, these weighers of the elements would by no means believe it; and if they were subject to the authority of the same Scripture, they would decide that something else was to be understood by it. But since, if we were to examine and treat carefully each thing written in that divine book about the establishment of the world, much would have to be said and we would have to digress far from the purpose of the work we have undertaken, and since we have now discussed, as much as seemed sufficient, these two different and contrary societies of angels, in which are certain beginnings of the two cities also in human affairs, of which I have decided to speak next, let us at last close this book too.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:6: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 95:5 (94:5 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 1:1, 6; Ps 95:5 (LXX 94:5). The physiology of phlegm in the head follows ancient medicine.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 11.34 (CSEL 40:564–566; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-31/#p-11-34).

## City of God 12.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-31/#p-12-1
- Source: CSEL 40:566–568
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Good and evil angels share one good nature; they differ only by will, the good cleaving to God and the evil turning from him, and their fault itself shows how good that nature is.

### Latin text

CAPUT I. De una bonorum angelorum malorumque natura. Antequam de institutione hominis dicam, ubi duarum ciuitatum, quantum ad rationalium mortalium genus adtinet, apparebit exortus, sicut superiore libro apparuisse in angelis iam uidetur: prius mihi quaedam de ipsis angelis uideo esse dicenda, quibus demonstretur, quantum a nobis potest, quam non inconueniens neque incongrua dicatur esse hominibus angelisque societas, ut non quattuor (duae scilicet angelorum totidemque hominum), sed duae potius ciuitates, hoc est societates, merito esse dicantur, una in bonis, altera in malis non solum angelis, uerum etiam hominibus constitutae. Angelorum bonorum et malorum inter se contrarios adpetitus non naturis principiisque diuersis, cum Deus omnium substantiarum bonus auctor et conditor utrosque creauerit, sed uoluntatibus et cupiditatibus extitisse dubitare fas non est, dum alii constanter in communi omnibus bono, quod ipse illis Deus est, adque in eius aeternitate ueritate caritate persistunt; alii sua potestate potius delectati, uelut bonum suum sibi ipsi essent, a superiore communi omnium beatifico bono ad propria defluxerunt et habentes elationis fastum pro excelsissima aeternitate, uanitatis astutiam pro certissima ueritate, studia partium pro indiuidua caritate superbi fallaces inuidi effecti sunt. Beatitudinis igitur illorum causa est adhaerere Deo; quocirca istorum miseriae causa ex contrario est intellegenda, quod est non adhaerere Deo. Quam ob rem si, cum quaeritur, quare illi beati sint, recte respondetur: Quia Deo adhaerent; et cum quaeritur, quur isti sint miseri, recte respondetur: Quia non adhaerent Deo: non est creaturae rationalis uel intellectualis bonum, quo beata sit, nisi Deus. Ita quamuis non omnis beata possit esse creatura (neque enim hoc munus adipiscuntur aut capiunt ferae ligna saxa et si quid huius modi est), ea tamen, quae potest, non ex se ipsa potest, quia ex nihilo creata est, sed ex illo, a quo creata est. Hoc enim adepto beata, quo amisso misera est. Ille uero qui non alio, sed se ipso bono beatus est, ideo miser non potest esse, quia non se potest amittere. Dicimus itaque incommutabile bonum non esse nisi unum uerum beatum Deum; ea uero, quae fecit, bona quidem esse, quod ab illo, uerum tamen mutabilia, quod non de illo, sed de nihilo facta sunt. Quamquam ergo summa non sint, quibus est Deus maius bonum: magna sunt tamen ea mutabilia bona, quae adhaerere possunt, ut beata sint, inmutabili bono, quod usque adeo bonum eorum est, ut sine illo misera esse necesse sit. Nec ideo cetera in hac creaturae uniuersitate meliora sunt, quia misera esse non possunt; neque enim cetera membra corporis nostri ideo dicendum est oculis esse meliora, quia caeca esse non possunt. Sicut autem melior est natura sentiens et cum dolet quam lapis qui dolere nullo modo potest: ita rationalis natura praestantior etiam misera, quam illa quae rationis uel sensus est expers, et ideo in eam non cadit miseria. Quod cum ita sit, huic naturae, quae in tanta excellentia creata est, ut, licet sit ipsa mutabilis, inhaerendo tamen incommutabili bono, id est summo Deo, beatitudinem consequatur, nec expleat indigentiam suam nisi utique beata sit, eique explendae non sufficiat nisi Deus, profecto non illi adhaerere uitium est. Omne autem uitium naturae nocet ac per hoc contra naturam est. Ab illa igitur, quae adhaeret Deo, non natura differt ista, sed uitio; quo tamen etiam uitio ualde magna multumque laudabilis ostenditur ipsa natura. Cuius enim recte uituperatur uitium, procul dubio natura laudatur. Nam recta uitii uituperatio est, quod illo dehonestatur natura laudabilis. Sicut ergo, cum uitium oculorum dicitur caecitas, id ostenditur, quod ad naturam oculorum pertinet uisus; et cum uitium aurium dicitur surditas, ad earum naturam pertinere demonstratur auditus: ita, cum uitium creaturae angelicae dicitur, quo non adhaeret Deo, hinc apertissime declaratur, eius naturae ut Deo adhaereat conuenire. Quam porro magna sit laus adhaerere Deo, ut ei uiuat, inde sapiat, illo gaudeat tantoque bono sine morte sine errore sine molestia perfruatur, quis digne cogitare possit aut eloqui? Quapropter etiam uitio malorum angelorum, quo non adhaerent Deo, quoniam omne uitium naturae nocet, satis manifestatur Deum tam bonam eorum creasse naturam, cui noxium sit non esse cum Deo.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. Of the one nature of the good and the evil angels.

Before I speak of the creation of man, where the rise of the two cities will appear as far as the race of rational mortals is concerned, as it seems already to have appeared among the angels in the preceding book, I see that I must first say some things about the angels themselves, by which it may be shown, as far as we can, how it is not unfitting or incongruous to speak of a fellowship of men and angels, so that there are rightly said to be not four cities (two, namely, of angels, and as many of men), but rather two, that is, two societies, one made up of the good, the other of the evil, not only angels but also men.

That the contrary desires of the good and evil angels arose not from different natures and principles, since God, the good author and founder of all substances, created both, but from wills and desires, it is not lawful to doubt. For some steadfastly remain in the good common to all, which is God himself for them, and in his eternity, truth, and love; others, delighted rather with their own power, as if they were their own good to themselves, slipped away from the higher good common to all, the source of happiness, to goods of their own; and having the arrogance of self-exaltation in place of the loftiest eternity, the cunning of vanity in place of the most certain truth, the zeal of factions in place of undivided love, they became proud, deceitful, and envious. The cause of the happiness of the one, then, is to cleave to God; so the cause of the misery of the other is to be understood as the contrary, which is not to cleave to God. Therefore, if, when it is asked why the one are happy, the right answer is, “Because they cleave to God,” and when it is asked why the others are wretched, the right answer is, “Because they do not cleave to God,” then there is no good for a rational or intellectual creature by which it may be happy except God. So, although not every creature can be happy (for beasts, trees, stones, and the like do not attain or receive this gift), yet the creature that can be happy cannot be so of itself, since it was created from nothing, but from him by whom it was created. For it is happy by attaining him, wretched by losing him. But he who is happy not by another good but by himself cannot be wretched, because he cannot lose himself.

We say, then, that there is no unchangeable good except the one, true, happy God; and that the things he made are indeed good, because they are from him, yet changeable, because they were made not from him but from nothing. Although, then, they are not supreme goods, since God is a greater good, yet those changeable goods are great which can cleave, in order to be happy, to the unchangeable good, which is so much their good that without it they must be wretched. Nor are the other things in this whole creation better because they cannot be wretched; for neither must we say that the other members of our body are better than the eyes because they cannot be blind. But as a sentient nature is better even when it feels pain than a stone which can in no way feel pain, so a rational nature is more excellent even when wretched than one which lacks reason or sense and therefore is not liable to misery. This being so, for this nature, which was created in such excellence that, though it is itself changeable, it yet attains happiness by cleaving to the unchangeable good, that is, the supreme God, and does not satisfy its need unless it is happy, and nothing but God suffices to satisfy it, not to cleave to him is certainly a fault. But every fault harms nature and is therefore contrary to nature. The one nature, then, differs from the one that cleaves to God not by nature but by fault; and yet by this very fault the nature itself is shown to be very great and highly praiseworthy. For when the fault of anything is rightly blamed, its nature is beyond doubt praised. For the right blame of a fault is that by it a praiseworthy nature is disgraced. As, then, when blindness is called a fault of the eyes, it is shown that sight belongs to the nature of the eyes, and when deafness is called a fault of the ears, it is shown that hearing belongs to their nature, so, when the fault of the angelic creature by which it does not cleave to God is spoken of, it is thereby most plainly declared that it befits its nature to cleave to God. And how great a praise it is to cleave to God, so as to live for him, be wise from him, rejoice in him, and enjoy so great a good without death, without error, without trouble, who can worthily think or say? Therefore, even by the fault of the evil angels, by which they do not cleave to God, since every fault harms nature, it is plainly enough shown that God created their nature so good that it is harmful to it not to be with God.

### Scripture references

- Ps 73:28 (72:28 LXX): echo, medium confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.1 (CSEL 40:566–568; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-31/#p-12-1).

## City of God 12.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-31/#p-12-2
- Source: CSEL 40:568–569
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Since God is supreme being, the only thing contrary to him is non-being; no being or nature is contrary to God.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. Nullam essentiam Deo esse contrariam, quia ab eo, qui summe et semper est, hoc in totum uidetur diuersum esse quod non est. Haec dicta sint, nec quisquam, cum de angelis apostaticis loquimur, existimet eos aliam uelut ex alio principio habere potuisse naturam, nec eorum naturae auctorem Deum. Cuius erroris inpietate tanto quisque carebit expeditius et facilius, quanto perspicacius intellegere potuerit, quod per angelum Deus dixit, quando Moysen mittebat ad filios Israel: Ego sum, qui sum. Cum enim Deus summa essentia sit, hoc est summe sit, et ideo inmutabilis sit: rebus, quas ex nihilo creauit, esse dedit, Sed non summe esse, sicut est ipse; et aliis dedit esse amplius, aliis minus, adque ita naturas essentiarum gradibus ordinauit (sicut enim ab eo, quod est sapere, uocatur sapientia, sic ab eo, quod est esse, uocatur essentia, nouo quidem nomine, quo usi ueteres non sunt Latini sermonis auctores, sed iam nostris temporibus usitato, ne deesset etiam linguae nostrae, quod Graeci appellant οὐσίαν; hoc enim uerbum e uerbo expressum est, ut diceretur essentia); ac per hoc ei naturae, quae summe est, qua faciente sunt quaecumque sunt, contraria natura non est, nisi quae non est. Ei quippe, quod est, non esse contrarium est. Et propterea Deo, id est summae essentiae et auctori omnium qualiumcumque essentiarum, essentia nulla contraria est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. That no being is contrary to God, since what seems wholly different from him who supremely and always is, is that which is not.

Let this be said so that no one, when we speak of the apostate angels, may suppose that they could have had another nature, as if from another principle, and that God is not the author of their nature. Everyone will be free of the impiety of this error the more readily and easily the more clearly he can understand what God said through an angel when he was sending Moses to the children of Israel: “I am who am.” For since God is the supreme being, that is, he supremely is, and is therefore unchangeable, he gave being to the things he created from nothing, but not supreme being, as he himself is; and to some he gave being more fully, to others less, and so ordered the natures of beings by degrees. (For as wisdom [sapientia] is named from being wise [sapere], so being [essentia] is named from to be [esse]; a new word indeed, which the ancient authors of the Latin language did not use, but already in use in our times, so that our language too should not lack what the Greeks call ousia; for this word was rendered word for word so as to say essentia.) And therefore to that nature which supremely is, by whose making all things that are exist, there is no contrary nature except that which is not. For to what is, not being is contrary. And therefore to God, that is, to the supreme being and the author of all beings of whatever kind, no being is contrary.

### Scripture references

- Exod 3:14: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Exod 3:14 quoted in the Latin form “Ego sum qui sum.” The digital text prints the Greek word ousia corruptly (“coatav”); corrected to οὐσίαν.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.2 (CSEL 40:568–569; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-31/#p-12-2).

## City of God 12.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-31/#p-12-3
- Source: CSEL 40:569–571
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God's enemies are so by fault, not nature; fault harms only a good nature, so evil can exist only in something good.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. De inimicis Dei non per naturam, sed per contrariam uoluntatem, quae cum ipsis nocet, bonae utique naturae nocet, quia uitium, si non nocet, non est. Dicuntur autem in scripturis inimici Dei, qui non natura, sed uitiis aduersantur eius imperio, nihil ei ualentes nocere, sed sibi. Inimici enim sunt resistendi uoluntate, non potestate laedendi. Deus namque inmutabilis est et omni modo incorruptibilis. Idcirco uitium, quo resistunt Deo qui eius appellantur inimici, non est Deo, sed ipsis malum, neque hoc ob aliud, nisi quia corrumpit in eis naturae bonum. Natura igitur contraria non est Deo sed uitium, quia malum contrarium est bono. Quis autem neget Deum summe bonum? Vitium ergo contrarium est Deo, tamquam malum bono. Porro autem bonum est et natura quam uitiat; unde et huic bono utique contrarium est; sed Deo tantummodo tamquam bono malum, naturae uero, quam uitiat, non tantum malum, sed etiam noxium. Nulla quippe mala Deo noxia sed mutabilibus corruptibilibusque naturis, bonis tamen ipsorum quoque testimonio uitiorum. Si enim bonae non essent, eis uitia nocere non possent. Nam quid eis nocendo faciunt, nisi adimunt integritatem pulchritudinem, salutem uirtutem et quidquid boni naturae per uitium detrahi siue minui consueuit? Quod si omnino desit, nihil boni adimendo non nocet ac per hoc nec uitium est. Nam esse uitium et non nocere non potest. Unde colligitur, quamuis non possit uitium nocere incommutabili bono, non tamen posse nocere nisi bono, quia non inest, nisi ubi nocet. Hoc etiam isto modo dici potest, uitium esse nec in summo posse bono nec nisi in aliquo bono. Sola ergo bona alicubi esse possunt, sola mala nusquam; quoniam naturae etiam illae, quae ex malae uoluntatis initio uitiatae sunt, in quantum uitiosae sunt, malae sunt, in quantum autem naturae sunt, bonae sunt. Et cum in poenis est natura uitiosa, excepto eo, quod natura est, etiam hoc ibi bonum est, quod inpunita non est. Hoc enim est iustum et omne iustum procul dubio bonum. Non enim quisquam de uitiis naturalibus, sed de uoluntariis poenas luit. Nam etiam quod uitium consuetudine nimioue progressu roboratum uelut naturaliter inoleuit, a uoluntate sumsit exordium. De uitiis quippe nunc loquimur eius naturae, cui mens inest capax intellegibilis lucis, qua discernitur iustum ab iniusto.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. Of the enemies of God, who are so not by nature but by a contrary will, which, harming themselves, harms a good nature; for a fault that does no harm is not a fault.

Those are called enemies of God in the Scriptures who oppose his rule not by nature but by faults, able to harm not him but themselves. For they are enemies by the will to resist, not by the power to injure. For God is unchangeable and in every way incorruptible. Therefore the fault by which those who are called his enemies resist God is an evil not to God but to themselves, and this for no other reason than that it corrupts the good of nature in them. It is not nature, then, that is contrary to God, but fault, because evil is contrary to good. And who would deny that God is supremely good? Fault, then, is contrary to God, as evil to good. Further, the nature which it vitiates is also good; hence it is certainly contrary to this good too; but to God only as evil to good, whereas to the nature which it vitiates it is not only evil but also harmful. For no evils are harmful to God, but to changeable and corruptible natures, which are nonetheless good by the very testimony of their faults. For if they were not good, faults could not harm them. For what do faults do to them by harming them but take away their integrity, beauty, health, strength, and whatever good of nature is usually taken away or diminished by fault? If this is wholly absent, the fault does no harm by taking away no good, and therefore is not a fault either. For to be a fault and not to harm is impossible. From this it follows that, although fault cannot harm the unchangeable good, it can yet harm nothing but a good, since it exists only where it does harm. This can also be put thus: fault can be neither in the supreme good nor except in some good. Goods alone, then, can exist somewhere; evils alone nowhere. For even those natures which have been vitiated from the beginning of an evil will are evil in so far as they are vitiated, but good in so far as they are natures. And when a vitiated nature is under punishment, besides its being a nature, this too is good in it, that it is not unpunished. For this is just, and everything just is beyond doubt good. For no one pays penalties for natural faults, but for voluntary ones. For even a fault which, strengthened by habit or excessive growth, has become ingrained as if by nature, took its beginning from the will. For we are now speaking of the faults of that nature in which there is a mind capable of the intelligible light by which the just is distinguished from the unjust.

### Scripture references

- Rom 5:10: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Rom 5:10 (enemies of God) in view.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.3 (CSEL 40:569–571; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-31/#p-12-3).

## City of God 12.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-31/#p-12-4
- Source: CSEL 40:571–572
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The decay of irrational things is part of the order of the universe; natures that harm us are good in themselves, as fire is both useful and destructive.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. De naturis inrationalium aut uita carentium, quae in suo genere adque ordine ab uniuersitatis decore non discrepant. Ceterum uitia pecorum et arborum aliarumque rerum mutabilium adque mortalium uel intellectu uel sensu uel uita omnino carentium, quibus eorum dissolubilis natura corrumpitur, damnabilia putare ridiculum est, cum istae creaturae eum modum nutu Creatoris acceperint, ut cedendo ac succedendo peragant infimam pulchritudinem temporum in genere suo istius mundi partibus congruentem. Neque enim caelestibus fuerant terrena coaequanda, aut ideo uniuersitati deesse ista debuerunt, quoniam sunt illa meliora. Cum ergo in his locis, ubi esse talia conpetebat, aliis alia deficientibus oriuntur et succumbunt minora maioribus adque in qualitates superantium superata uertuntur, rerum est ordo transeuntium. Cuius ordinis decus nos propterea non delectat, quoniam parti eius pro condicione nostrae mortalitatis intexti uniuersum, cui particulae, quae nos offendunt, satis apte decenterque conueniunt, sentire non possumus. Unde nobis, in quibus eam contemplari minus idonei sumus, rectissime credenda praecipitur prouidentia Conditoris, ne tanti artificis opus in aliquo reprehendere uanitate humanae temeritatis audeamus. Quamquam et uitia rerum terrenarum non uoluntaria neque poenalia naturas ipsas, quarum nulla omnino est, cuius non sit auctor et conditor Deus, si prudenter adtendamus, eadem ratione commendant, quia et in eis hoc nobis per uitium tolli displicet, quod in natura placet; nisi quia hominibus etiam ipsae naturae plerumque displicent, cum eis fiunt noxiae, non eas considerantibus, sed utilitatem suam, sicut illa animalia, quorum abundantia Aegyptiorum superbia uapulauit. Sed isto modo possunt et solem uituperare, quoniam quidam peccantes uel debita non reddentes poni a iudicibus iubentur ad solem. Non itaque ex commodo uel incommodo nostro, sed per se ipsam considerata natura dat artifici suo gloriam. Sic est et natura ignis aeterni sine ulla dubitatione laudabilis, quamuis damnatis inpiis futura poenalis. Quid enim est igne flammante uigente lucente pulchrius? quid calfaciente curante coquente utilius? quamuis eo nihil sit urente molestius. Idem igitur ipse aliter adpositus perniciosus, qui conuenienter adhibitus commodissimus inuenitur. Nam eius in uniuerso mundo utilitates uerbis explicare quis sufficit? Nec audiendi sunt, qui laudant in igne lucem, ardorem autem uituperant, uidelicet non ex ui naturae, sed ex suo commodo uel incommodo. Videre enim uolunt, ardere nolunt. Sed parum adtendunt eam ipsam lucem, quae certe et illis placet, oculis infirmis per inconuenientiam nocere, et in illo ardore, qui eis displicet, nonnulla animalia per conuenientiam salubriter uiuere.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. Of the natures of irrational or lifeless things, which in their own kind and order are not out of harmony with the beauty of the universe.

But it is ridiculous to think that the faults of cattle and trees and other changeable and mortal things, which lack understanding or sense or life altogether, by which their dissoluble nature is corrupted, are damnable, since these creatures received by the Creator's will this measure, that by passing away and succeeding one another they should complete the lowest beauty of the seasons, in its own kind befitting the parts of this world. For earthly things were not to be made equal to heavenly, nor ought they to be lacking from the universe because the heavenly are better. When, therefore, in those places where such things belong, some arise as others fail, and the lesser succumb to the greater, and the conquered are changed into the qualities of the conquerors, this is the order of transient things. We do not take delight in the beauty of this order because, woven into a part of it by the condition of our mortality, we cannot perceive the whole, to which the small parts that offend us fit quite aptly and becomingly. Hence we, who are less fit to contemplate it in these things, are most rightly commanded to believe in the providence of the Creator, lest we dare in the vanity of human rashness to find fault with anything in the work of so great an artificer. Yet even the faults of earthly things, which are neither voluntary nor penal, commend, if we consider wisely, the natures themselves (of which there is none at all whose author and founder is not God) by the same reasoning: that in them too what we are displeased to see taken away by fault is what pleases us in the nature. Except that even the natures themselves often displease men when they become harmful to them, as they consider not the natures but their own advantage, like those animals by whose abundance the pride of the Egyptians was scourged. But in this way they could also find fault with the sun, since certain offenders, or those who do not pay their debts, are ordered by judges to be set in the sun. Not by our convenience or inconvenience, then, but considered in itself, nature gives glory to its maker. So also the nature of the eternal fire is without any doubt praiseworthy, although it will be penal for the damned wicked. For what is more beautiful than fire, blazing, vigorous, and shining? What more useful, warming, healing, cooking? Although nothing is more painful than when it burns. The same thing, then, applied in one way, is found destructive, and, used fittingly, most beneficial. For who is equal to setting out in words its uses in the whole world? Nor are those to be heeded who praise the light in fire but find fault with its heat, judging not by the force of its nature but by their own convenience or inconvenience. For they want to see, but not to burn. But they do not notice that this very light, which certainly pleases them too, harms weak eyes by being unsuited to them, and that in that heat which displeases them some animals live healthily by being suited to it.

### Scripture references

- Exod 8:6: allusion, medium confidence
- Exod 10:13: allusion, low confidence
- Matt 25:41: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The plagues of Egypt (Exod 8, frogs, gnats, flies, locusts) are alluded to. Some animals living in fire: the salamander was so believed in antiquity.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.4 (CSEL 40:571–572; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-31/#p-12-4).

## City of God 12.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-31/#p-12-5
- Source: CSEL 40:572–573
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Every nature, having measure, form, and peace, is good and serves the order of providence; God is to be praised for all natures and blamed for no fault.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. Quod in omni naturae specie ac modo laudabilis sit Creator. Naturae igitur omnes, quoniam sunt et ideo habent modum suum, speciem suam et quandam secum pacem suam, profecto bonae sunt; et cum ibi sunt, ubi esse per naturae ordinem debent, quantum acceperunt, suum esse custodiunt; et quae semper esse non acceperunt, pro usu motuque rerum, quibus Creatoris lege subduntur, in melius deteriusue mutantur, in eum diuina prouidentia tendentes exitum, quem ratio gubernandae uniuersitatis includit; ita ut nec tanta corruptio, quanta usque ad interitum naturas mutabiles mortalesque perducit, sic faciat non esse quod erat, ut non inde fiat consequenter quod esse debebat. Quae cum ita sint, Deus, qui summe est adque ob hoc ab illo facta est omnis essentia, quae non summe est (quia neque illi aequalis esse deberet, quae de nihilo facta esset, neque ullo modo esse posset, si ab illo facta non esset), nec ullorum uitiorum offensione uituperandus et omnium naturarum consideratione laudandus est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. That in every form and measure of nature the Creator is to be praised.

All natures, then, since they exist and therefore have their own measure, their own form, and a certain peace with themselves, are certainly good; and when they are where they ought to be by the order of nature, they preserve their being as far as they have received it; and those which have not received everlasting being are changed for the better or the worse according to the use and motion of the things to which they are subject by the Creator's law, tending by divine providence to that end which the plan of governing the universe contains; so that even so great a corruption as brings changeable and mortal natures to destruction does not so make what was cease to be as to prevent what ought to be from following from it in due order. This being so, God, who supremely is, and by whom therefore every being that is not supreme was made (for it ought not to be equal to him, since it was made from nothing, nor could it exist in any way if it had not been made by him), is neither to be blamed for the offense of any faults, and is to be praised in the consideration of all natures.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.5 (CSEL 40:572–573; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/11-31/#p-12-5).

## City of God 12.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-6
- Source: CSEL 40:573–577
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The good angels are happy by cleaving to God, the evil wretched through pride; an evil will has no efficient cause, and arises not from nature but from a nature's having been made from nothing.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. Quae causa sit beatitudinis angelorum bonorum et quae causa sit miseriae angelorum malorum. Proinde causa beatitudinis angelorum bonorum ea uerissima reperitur, quod ei adhaerent qui summe est. Cum uero causa miseriae malorum angelorum quaeritur, ea merito occurrit, quod ab illo, qui summe est, auersi ad se ipsos conuersi sunt, qui non summe sunt; et hoc uitium quid aliud quam superbia nuncupetur? Initium quippe omnis peccati superbia. Noluerunt ergo ad illum custodire fortitudinem suam, et qui magis essent, si ei qui summe est adhaererent, se illi praeferendo id quod minus est praetulerunt. Hic primus defectus et prima inopia primumque uitium eius naturae, quae ita creata est, ut nec summe esset, et tamen ad beatitudinem habendam eo, qui summe est, frui posset, a quo auersa non quidem nulla, sed tamen minus esset adque ob hoc misera fieret. Huius porro malae uoluntatis causa efficiens si quaeratur, nihil inuenitur. Quid est enim quod facit uoluntatem malam, cum ipsa faciat opus malum? Ac per hoc mala uoluntas efficiens est operis mali, malae autem uoluntatis efficiens nihil est. Quoniam si res aliqua est, aut habet aut non habet aliquam uoluntatem; si habet, aut bonam profecto habet aut malam; si bonam, quis ita desipiat, ut dicat quod bona uoluntas faciat uoluntatem malam? Erit enim, si ita est, bona uoluntas causa peccati, quo absurdius putari nihil potest. Si autem res ista, quae putatur facere uoluntatem malam, ipsa quoque habet uoluntatem malam, etiam eam quae fecerit res consequenter interrogo, adque ita, ut sit aliquis inquirendi modus, causam primae malae uoluntatis inquiro. Non est enim prima uoluntas mala, quam fecit uoluntas mala; sed illa prima est, quam nulla fecit. Nam si praecessit a qua fieret, illa prior est, quae alteram fecit. Si respondetur quod eam nulla res fecerit et ideo semper fuerit: quaero utrum in aliqua natura fuerit. Si enim in nulla fuit, omnino non fuit; si autem in aliqua, uitiabat eam et corrumpebat eratque illi noxia ac per hoc bono priuabat. Et ideo in mala natura uoluntas mala esse non poterat, sed in bona, mutabili tamen, cui uitium hoc posset nocere. Si enim non nocuit, non utique uitium fuit, ac per hoc nec mala uoluntas fuisse dicenda est. Porro si nocuit, bonum auferendo uel minuendo utique nocuit. Non igitur esse potuit sempiterna uoluntas mala in ea re, in qua bonum naturale praecesserat, quod mala uoluntas nocendo posset adimere. Si ergo non erat sempiterna, quis eam fecerit quaero. Restat ut dicatur, quod ea res fecerit malam uoluntatem, in qua nulla uoluntas fuit. Haec utrum superior sit, requiro, an inferior, an aequalis. Sed superior utique melior; quo modo ergo nullius, ac non potius bonae uoluntatis? Hoc idem profecto et aequalis. Duo quippe quamdiu sunt pariter uoluntatis bonae, non facit alter in altero uoluntatem malam. Relinquitur ut inferior res, cui nulla uoluntas est, fecerit angelicae naturae, quae prima peccauit, uoluntatem malam. Sed etiam res ipsa quaecumque est inferior usque ad infimam terram, quoniam natura et essentia est, procul dubio bona est, habens modum et speciem suam in genere adque ordine suo. Quo modo ergo res bona efficiens est uoluntatis malae? Quo modo, inquam, bonum est causa mali? Cum enim se uoluntas relicto superiore ad inferiora conuertit, efficitur mala, non quia malum est, quo se conuertit, sed quia peruersa est ipsa conuersio. Idcirco non res inferior uoluntatem malam fecit, sed rem inferiorem praue adque inordinate, ipsa quia facta est, adpetiuit. Si enim aliqui duo aequaliter affecti animo et corpore uideant unius corporis pulchritudinem, qua uisa unus eorum ad inlicite fruendum moueatur, alter in uoluntate pudica stabilis perseueret, quid putamus esse causae, ut in illo fiat, in illo non fiat uoluntas mala? Quae illam res fecit in quo facta est? Neque enim pulchritudo illa corporis; nam eam non fecit in ambobus, quando quidem amborum non dispariliter occurrit aspectibus. An caro intuentis in causa est? quur non et illius? An uero animus? quur non utriusque? Ambos enim et animo et corpore aequaliter affectos fuisse praediximus. An dicendum est alterum eorum occulta maligni spiritus suggestione tentatum, quasi non eidem suggestioni et qualicumque suasioni propria uoluntate consenserit? Hanc igitur consensionem, hanc malam quam male suadenti adhibuit uoluntatem, quae in eo res fecerit, quaerimus. Nam ut hoc quoque inpedimentum ab ista quaestione tollatur, si eadem tentatione ambo tententur, et unus ei cedat adque consentiat, alter idem qui fuerat perseueret: quid aliud apparet, nisi unum noluisse, alterum uoluisse a castitate deficere? Unde, nisi propria uoluntate, ubi eadem fuerat in utroque corporis et animi affectio? Amborum oculis pariter uisa est eadem pulchritudo, ambobus pariter institit occulta tentatio; propriam igitur in uno eorum uoluntatem malam res quae fecerit scire uolentibus, si bene intueantur, nihil occurrit. Si enim dixerimus quod ipse eam fecerit, quid erat ipse ante uoluntatem malam nisi natura bona, cuius auctor Deus, qui est inmutabile bonum? Qui ergo dicit eum, qui consensit tentanti adque suadenti, cui non consensit alius, ad inlicite utendum pulchro corpore, quod uidendum ambobus pariter adfuit, cum ante illam uisionem ac tentationem similes ambo animo et corpore fuerint, ipsum sibi fecisse uoluntatem malam, qui utique bonus ante uoluntatem malam fuerit: quaerat quur eam fecerit, utrum quia natura est, an quia ex nihilo facta est, et inueniet uoluntatem malam non ex eo esse incipere quod natura est, sed ex eo quod de nihilo facta natura est. Nam si natura causa est uoluntatis malae, quid aliud cogimur dicere, nisi a bono fieri malum et bonum esse causam mali? si quidem a natura bona fit uoluntas mala. Quod unde fieri potest, ut natura bona, quamuis mutabilis, antequam habeat uoluntatem malam, faciat aliquid mali, hoc est ipsam uoluntatem malam?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. What is the cause of the happiness of the good angels, and what is the cause of the misery of the evil angels.

Accordingly the truest cause of the happiness of the good angels is found to be that they cleave to him who supremely is. But when the cause of the misery of the evil angels is sought, this rightly occurs: that, turned away from him who supremely is, they turned to themselves, who do not supremely exist; and what else is this fault to be called but pride? For “pride is the beginning of all sin.” They would not, then, keep their strength for him; and though they would have been more if they had cleaved to him who supremely is, by preferring themselves to him they preferred what is less. This was the first defect, the first want, and the first fault of that nature which was so created that it did not supremely exist, and yet could enjoy him who supremely is in order to have happiness; and turned away from him it would not indeed be nothing, but would yet be less, and so become wretched.

If, further, the efficient cause of this evil will is sought, none is found. For what makes the will evil, when the will itself makes the evil work? And therefore the evil will is the efficient cause of the evil work, but nothing is the efficient cause of the evil will. For if something is, either it has some will or it has none. If it has, it certainly has either a good will or an evil one. If a good one, who would be so foolish as to say that a good will makes an evil will? For then a good will would be the cause of sin, than which nothing more absurd can be thought. But if the thing which is thought to make the evil will itself also has an evil will, I ask in turn what thing made that will, and so, that there may be some limit to the inquiry, I ask for the cause of the first evil will. For an evil will which an evil will made is not the first, but that is the first which no will made. For if one preceded from which it was made, that one is prior which made the other. If the answer is that nothing made it, and that therefore it has always existed, I ask whether it existed in some nature. For if it existed in none, it did not exist at all; but if in some nature, it vitiated it and corrupted it and was harmful to it, and so deprived it of good. And therefore an evil will could not be in an evil nature, but in a good one, yet a changeable one, which this fault could harm. For if it did not harm it, it certainly was not a fault, and so it must not be called an evil will either. Further, if it harmed it, it certainly harmed it by taking away or diminishing good. An everlasting evil will, then, could not be in that thing in which a natural good had preceded, which the evil will could take away by harming. If, then, it was not everlasting, I ask who made it. It remains to be said that that thing made the evil will in which there was no will. I ask whether this thing is superior, inferior, or equal. But a superior is certainly better; how then is it without will, and not rather possessed of a good will? The same surely holds for an equal. For as long as two are equally of good will, one does not make an evil will in the other. It remains that an inferior thing, which has no will, made the evil will of the angelic nature which first sinned. But even that thing, whatever it is, inferior even down to the lowest earth, since it is a nature and a being, is beyond doubt good, having its own measure and form in its own kind and order. How then is a good thing the efficient cause of an evil will? How, I say, is good the cause of evil? For when the will, forsaking the higher, turns to lower things, it becomes evil, not because that to which it turns is evil, but because the turning itself is perverse. Therefore it was not the lower thing that made the will evil, but the will itself, because it was made, desired the lower thing perversely and inordinately.

For if two men, alike in disposition of mind and body, see the beauty of one body, and at the sight of it one of them is moved to enjoy it unlawfully, while the other remains steadfast in a chaste will, what do we think is the cause why the evil will comes to be in the one and not in the other? What thing made it in him in whom it came to be? Not that bodily beauty; for it did not make it in both, since it met the sight of both alike. Is the flesh of the beholder the cause? Why not also that of the other? Or is it the mind? Why not of both? For we have said that both were alike in disposition of mind and body. Or must it be said that one of them was tempted by the hidden suggestion of an evil spirit, as though he had not consented by his own will to that suggestion and persuasion, whatever it was? It is this consent, then, this evil will which he gave to the evil persuader, that we are asking what thing made in him. For, to remove this obstacle too from the question, if both are tempted by the same temptation, and one yields and consents to it, while the other remains the same as he was, what else appears but that one was unwilling, the other willing, to fall away from chastity? Whence, if not from his own will, where the disposition of body and mind had been the same in both? The same beauty was seen alike by the eyes of both, the same hidden temptation pressed alike upon both; for those, then, who want to know what thing made the evil will proper to one of them, if they look closely, nothing presents itself. For if we say that he himself made it, what was he himself before the evil will but a good nature, whose author is God, who is the unchangeable good? Let him, then, who says that the one who consented to the tempter and persuader, to whom the other did not consent, to make unlawful use of a beautiful body which was present to be seen by both alike, although before that sight and temptation both were alike in mind and body, himself made the evil will for himself, he who was certainly good before the evil will, let him ask why he made it: whether because he is a nature, or because he was made from nothing; and he will find that the evil will begins not from the fact that he is a nature but from the fact that he is a nature made from nothing. For if nature is the cause of the evil will, what else are we forced to say but that evil comes from good and good is the cause of evil? Since indeed an evil will comes from a good nature. And how can it happen that a good nature, though changeable, should do something evil, that is, the evil will itself, before it has an evil will?

### Scripture references

- Ps 59:9 (58:10 LXX): allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sir 10:13 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- “Pride is the beginning of all sin” is Sir 10:13 (Vulgate 10:15). “They would not keep their strength for him” adapts Ps 59:9 (LXX 58:10, “my strength I will keep for you”). The example of two men seeing the same beauty illustrates the will's own consent.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.6 (CSEL 40:573–577; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-6).

## City of God 12.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-7
- Source: CSEL 40:577–578
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: An evil will has no efficient cause but only a deficient one; its origin, like darkness or silence, is known only as a privation.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. Causam efficientem malae uoluntatis non esse quaerendam. Nemo igitur quaerat efficientem causam malae uoluntatis; non enim est efficiens sed deficiens, quia nec illa effectio sed defectio. Deficere namque ab eo, quod summe est, ad id, quod minus est, hoc est incipere habere uoluntatem malam. Causas porro defectionum istarum, cum efficientes non sint, ut dixi, sed deficientes, uelle inuenire tale est, ac si quisquam uelit uidere tenebras uel audire silentium, quod tamen utrumque nobis notum est, neque illud nisi per oculos, neque hoc nisi per aures, non sane in specie, sed in speciei priuatione. Nemo ergo ex me scire quaerat, quod me nescire scio, nisi forte ut nescire discat, quod sciri non posse sciendum est. Ea quippe quae non in specie, sed in eius priuatione sciuntur, si dici aut intellegi potest, quodam modo nesciendo sciuntur, ut sciendo nesciantur. Cum enim acies etiam oculi corporalis currit per species corporales, nusquam tenebras uidet, nisi ubi coeperit non uidere. Ita etiam non ad aliquem alium sensum, sed ad solas aures pertinet sentire silentium, quod tamen nullo modo nisi non audiendo sentitur. Sic species intellegibiles mens quidem nostra intellegendo conspicit; sed ubi deficiunt, nesciendo condiscit. Delicta enim quis intellegit?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. That the efficient cause of an evil will is not to be sought.

Let no one, then, seek the efficient cause of an evil will; for it is not efficient but deficient, since the evil will itself is not an effecting but a defecting. For to fall away from that which supremely is to that which is less, this is to begin to have an evil will. Further, to want to find the causes of these defections, since they are, as I said, not efficient but deficient, is as if someone wanted to see darkness or hear silence; yet both are known to us, the one only through the eyes, the other only through the ears, not indeed as a form but as the privation of form. Let no one, then, seek to know from me what I know I do not know, unless perhaps to learn not to know what must be known cannot be known. For things that are known not by their form but by its privation are, if it can be said or understood, in a way known by not knowing, so that they are not known by knowing. For when even the sight of the bodily eye runs over bodily forms, it sees darkness nowhere except where it begins not to see. So too it belongs to no other sense but the ears alone to perceive silence, which yet is perceived in no way except by not hearing. So our mind indeed beholds intelligible forms by understanding; but where they fail, it learns by not knowing. For “who understands his faults?”

### Scripture references

- Ps 19:12 (18:13 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Ps 19:12 (LXX 18:13) quoted: “Delicta quis intellegit?” Augustine plays on efficiens/deficiens and effectio/defectio.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.7 (CSEL 40:577–578; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-7).

## City of God 12.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-8
- Source: CSEL 40:578–579
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The will sins not by turning to evil things but by turning evilly, out of order, to lesser goods: avarice, lust, boasting, and pride lie in the soul's perverse love, not in their objects.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. De amore peruerso, quo uoluntas ab incommutabili bono ad mutabile bonum deficit. Hoc scio, naturam Dei numquam, nusquam, nulla ex parte posse deficere, et ea posse deficere, quae ex nihilo facta sunt. Quae tamen quanto magis sunt et bona faciunt (tunc enim aliquid faciunt), causas habent efficientes; in quantum autem deficiunt et ex hoc mala faciunt (quid enim tunc faciunt nisi uana?), causas habent deficientes. Itemque scio, in quo fit mala uoluntas, id in eo fieri, quod si nollet non fieret, et ideo non necessarios, sed uoluntarios defectus iusta poena consequitur. Deficitur enim non ad mala, sed male, id est non ad malas naturas, sed ideo male, quia contra ordinem naturarum ab eo quod summe est ad id quod minus est. Neque enim auri uitium est auaritia, sed hominis peruerse amantis aurum iustitia derelicta, quae incomparabiliter auro debuit anteponi; nec luxuria uitium est pulchrorum suauiumque corporum, sed animae peruerse amantis corporeas uoluptates neglecta temperantia, qua rebus spiritaliter pulchrioribus et incorruptibiliter suauioribus coaptamur; nec iactantia uitium est laudis humanae, sed animae peruerse amantis laudari ab hominibus spreto testimonio conscientiae; nec superbia uitium est dantis potestatem uel ipsius etiam potestatis, sed animae peruerse amantis potestatem suam potentioris iustiore contemta. Ac per hoc qui peruerse amat cuiuslibet naturae bonum, etiamsi adipiscatur, ipse fit in bono malus et miser meliore priuatus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. Of the perverse love by which the will falls away from the unchangeable good to a changeable good.

This I know: that the nature of God can never, nowhere, in no part fall away, and that things made from nothing can fall away. Yet these, in so far as they more fully are and do good (for then they do something), have efficient causes; but in so far as they fall away and so do evil (for what then do they do but vain things?), they have deficient causes. Likewise I know that when an evil will arises in anyone, what happens in him would not happen if he did not will it; and therefore just punishment follows defections that are not necessary but voluntary. For the falling away is not to evil things but evilly, that is, not to evil natures, but evilly because contrary to the order of natures, from that which supremely is to that which is less. For avarice is not a fault of gold but of the man who perversely loves gold, forsaking justice, which ought to have been set incomparably above gold; nor is lust a fault of beautiful and pleasant bodies, but of the soul that perversely loves bodily pleasures, neglecting temperance, by which we are fitted to things spiritually more beautiful and incorruptibly more pleasant; nor is boasting a fault of human praise, but of the soul that perversely loves to be praised by men, despising the testimony of conscience; nor is pride a fault of the one who gives power, or of power itself, but of the soul that perversely loves its own power, despising the more just power of one more powerful. And therefore he who perversely loves the good of any nature, even if he obtains it, himself becomes evil in the good, and wretched, deprived of a better good.

### Translation notes

- “Lust” renders luxuria here.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.8 (CSEL 40:578–579; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-8).

## City of God 12.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-9
- Source: CSEL 40:579–582
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The good angels' good will was made by God with them, by grace; the fallen either received less grace or the good were helped further; both angels and saints form one city of God, whose human part begins from one man.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. An sancti angeli, quem habent creatorem naturae, eundem habeant bonae uoluntatis auctorem per Spiritum sanctum in eis caritate diffusa. Cum ergo malae uoluntatis efficiens naturalis uel, si dici potest, essentialis nulla sit causa (ab ipsa quippe incipit spirituum mutabilium malum, quo minuitur adque deprauatur naturae bonum, nec talem uoluntatem facit nisi defectio, qua deseritur Deus, cuius defectionis etiam causa utique deficit): si dixerimus nullam esse efficientem causam etiam uoluntatis bonae, cauendum est, ne uoluntas bona bonorum angelorum non facta, sed Deo coaeterna esse credatur. Cum ergo ipsi facti sint, quo modo illa non esse facta dicetur? Porro quia facta est, utrum cum ipsis facta est, an sine illa fuerunt prius? Sed si cum ipsis, non dubium quod ab illo facta sit, a quo et ipsi; simulque ut facti sunt, ei, a quo facti sunt, amore, cum quo facti sunt, adhaeserunt; eoque sunt isti ab illorum societate discreti, quod illi in eadem bona uoluntate manserunt, isti ab ea deficiendo mutati sunt, mala scilicet uoluntate hoc ipso quod a bona defecerunt; a qua non defecissent, si utique noluissent. Si autem boni angeli fuerunt prius sine bona uoluntate eamque in se ipsi Deo non operante fecerunt, ergo meliores a se ipsis quam ab illo facti sunt. Absit. Quid enim erant sine bona uoluntate nisi mali? Aut si propterea non mali, quia nec mala uoluntas eis inerat (neque enim ab ea, quam nondum coeperant habere, defecerant), certe nondum tales, nondum tam boni quam esse cum bona uoluntate coeperunt. At si non potuerunt se ipsos facere meliores, quam eos ille fecerat, quo nemo melius quidquam facit: profecto et bonam uoluntatem, qua meliores essent, nisi operante adiutorio Creatoris habere non possent. Et cum id egit eorum uoluntas bona, ut non ad se ipsos, qui minus erant, sed ad illum, qui summe est, conuerterentur eique adhaerentes magis essent eiusque participatione sapienter beateque uiuerent: quid aliud ostenditur nisi uoluntatem quamlibet bonam inopem fuisse in solo desiderio remansuram, nisi ille, qui bonam naturam ex nihilo sui capacem fecerat, ex se ipso faceret inplendo meliorem, prius faciens excitando auidiorem? Nam et hoc discutiendum est, si boni angeli ipsi in se fecerunt bonam uoluntatem, utrum aliqua eam an nulla uoluntate fecerunt. Si nulla, utique nec fecerunt. Si aliqua, utrum mala an bona? Si mala, quo modo esse potuit mala uoluntas bonae uoluntatis effectrix? Si bona, iam ergo habebant. Et istam quis fecerat nisi ille, qui eos cum bona uoluntate, id est cum amore casto quo illi adhaererent, creauit, simul eis et condens naturam et largiens gratiam? Unde sine bona uoluntate, hoc est Dei amore, numquam sanctos angelos fuisse credendum est. Isti autem, qui, cum boni creati essent, tamen mali sunt (mala propria uoluntate, quam bona natura non fecit, nisi cum a bono sponte defecit, ut mali causa non sit bonum, sed defectus a bono), aut minorem acceperunt diuini amoris gratiam quam illi, qui in eadem perstiterunt, aut si utrique boni aequaliter creati sunt, istis mala uoluntate cadentibus illi amplius adiuti ad eam beatitudinis plenitudinem, unde se numquam casuros certissimi fierent, peruenerunt; sicut iam etiam in libro, quem sequitur iste, tractauimus. Confitendum est igitur cum debita laude Creatoris non ad solos sanctos homines pertinere, uerum etiam de sanctis angelis posse dici, quod caritas Dei diffusa sit in eis per Spiritum sanctum, qui datus est eis; nec tantum hominum, sed primitus praecipueque angelorum bonum esse, quod scriptum est: Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est. Hoc bonum quibus commune est, habent et cum illo cui adhaerent et inter se sanctam societatem et sunt una ciuitas Dei eademque uiuum sacrificium eius uiuumque templum eius. Cuius pars, quae coniungenda inmortalibus angelis ex mortalibus hominibus congregatur et nunc mortaliter peregrinatur in terris uel in eis, qui mortem obierunt, secretis animarum receptaculis sedibusque requiescit, eodem Deo creante quem ad modum exorta sit, sicut de angelis dictum est, iam uideo esse dicendum. Ex uno quippe homine, quem primum Deus condidit, humanum genus sumsit exordium secundum sanctae scripturae fidem, quae mirabilem auctoritatem non inmerito habet in orbe terrarum adque in omnibus gentibus, quas sibi esse credituras inter cetera uera, quae dixit, uera diuinitate praedixit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. Whether the holy angels have the same one as author of their good will whom they have as creator of their nature, through the Holy Spirit, who pours love into them.

Since, then, there is no natural or, if one may say so, essential efficient cause of an evil will (for from it begins the evil of changeable spirits, by which the good of their nature is lessened and depraved, and nothing makes such a will but the defection by which God is forsaken, and the cause of this defection also is certainly deficient), if we say that there is no efficient cause of a good will either, we must beware lest the good will of the good angels be believed not to have been made but to be coeternal with God. Since, then, they themselves were made, how can it be said that their good will was not made? Further, since it was made, was it made with them, or were they without it at first? But if with them, there is no doubt that it was made by him by whom they too were made; and as soon as they were made, they cleaved to him by whom they were made, with the love with which they were made; and these were separated from the fellowship of the others in this, that they remained in the same good will, while the others were changed by falling away from it, namely by an evil will, in the very fact that they fell away from the good; from which they would not have fallen away had they not willed it. But if the good angels were at first without a good will and made it in themselves without God's working, then they were made better by themselves than by him. Far from it. For what were they without a good will but evil? Or if they were not evil because there was no evil will in them either (for they had not fallen away from a will which they had not yet begun to have), certainly they were not yet such, not yet as good, as they began to be with a good will. But if they could not make themselves better than he had made them, than whom no one makes anything better, then certainly they could not have the good will by which they would be better except by the working help of the Creator. And when their good will brought it about that they turned not to themselves, who were less, but to him who supremely is, and cleaving to him were more, and by participation in him lived wisely and happily, what else is shown but that any good will would have been poor and would have remained in mere desire, had not he who had made a good nature from nothing, capable of himself, made it better by filling it from himself, first making it more eager by stirring it up? For this too must be discussed: if the good angels themselves made the good will in themselves, did they make it by some will or by none? If by none, they certainly did not make it. If by some, was it evil or good? If evil, how could an evil will be the maker of a good will? If good, then they already had it. And who had made this but he who created them with a good will, that is, with the chaste love by which they might cleave to him, at the same time establishing their nature and bestowing grace on them? Hence it must be believed that the holy angels were never without a good will, that is, without the love of God. But those who, though created good, are yet evil (evil by their own will, which a good nature did not make except when it freely fell away from the good, so that the cause of evil is not the good but the falling away from the good), either received less grace of divine love than those who persevered in it, or, if both were created equally good, then, while these fell by an evil will, the others, more fully helped, came to that fullness of happiness from which they became most certain that they would never fall; as we have also discussed in the book before this one.

We must confess, then, with due praise of the Creator, that it belongs not only to holy men but can be said also of the holy angels that “the love of God has been poured out in them through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to them”; and that it is the good not only of men but first and chiefly of angels, as it is written: “But for me it is good to cleave to God.” Those to whom this good is common have a holy fellowship both with him to whom they cleave and among themselves, and are one city of God, and likewise his living sacrifice and his living temple. Of this city, the part which is gathered from mortal men to be joined to the immortal angels, and which now as a mortal pilgrim sojourns on earth, or, in those who have died, rests in the hidden receptacles and abodes of souls, I see that I must now say, as was said of the angels, how it arose by the creating of the same God. For the human race took its beginning from one man, whom God first made, according to the faith of Holy Scripture, which not undeservedly has wonderful authority throughout the world and among all the nations whom, among the other true things it said, it foretold with true divinity would believe it.

### Scripture references

- Rom 5:5: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 73:28 (72:28 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 12:1: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Cor 3:16: allusion, medium confidence
- Acts 17:26: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Rom 5:5 adapted (“in them … to them”); Ps 73:28 (LXX 72:28); Rom 12:1; 1 Cor 3:16–17. Augustine leaves open whether the fallen angels received less grace or the good received more help after the fall (cf. 11.13).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.9 (CSEL 40:579–582; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-9).

## City of God 12.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-10
- Source: CSEL 40:582–583
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Some pagans held that the human race is everlasting, explaining recorded origins by periodic floods and fires; Augustine calls this opinion, not knowledge.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. De opinione eorum, qui humanum genus sicut ipsum mundum semper fuisse existimant. Omittamus igitur coniecturas hominum nescientium quid loquantur de natura uel institutione generis humani. Alii namque, sicut de ipso mundo crediderunt, semper fuisse homines opinantur. Unde et ait Apuleius, cum hoc animantium genus describeret: Singillatim mortales, cuncti tamen uniuerso genere perpetui. Et cum illis dictum fuerit, si semper fuit humanum genus, quonam modo uerum eorum loquatur historia narrans qui fuerint quarumque rerum inuentores, qui primi liberalium disciplinarum aliarumque artium institutores, uel a quibus primum illa uel illa regio parsque terrarum, illa adque illa insula incoli coeperit, respondent diluuiis et conflagrationibus per certa interualla temporum non quidem omnia, sed plurima terrarum ita uastari, ut redigantur homines ad exiguam paucitatem, ex quorum progenie rursus multitudo pristina reparetur; ac sic identidem reperiri et institui quasi prima, cum restituantur potius, quae fuerant illis nimiis uastationibus interrupta et extincta; ceterum hominem nisi ex homine existere omnino non posse. Dicunt autem quod putant, non quod sciunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. Of the opinion of those who think that the human race, like the world itself, has always existed.

Let us leave aside, then, the conjectures of men who do not know what they are saying about the nature or creation of the human race. For some, as they believed of the world itself, think that there have always been men. Hence Apuleius too says, when describing this kind of living being: “Mortal individually, yet as a whole race everlasting.” And when it is said to them: if the human race has always existed, how does their history speak truly in telling who were the inventors of what things, who first founded the liberal disciplines and the other arts, or by whom this or that region and part of the earth, this or that island, first began to be inhabited? they answer that at certain intervals of time floods and conflagrations lay waste, not indeed all, but most of the lands, so that men are reduced to a small number, from whose offspring the former multitude is restored again; and that thus things are again and again discovered and established as if for the first time, when rather they are restored, having been interrupted and extinguished by those excessive devastations; but that man cannot come into existence at all except from man. But they say what they think, not what they know.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Tim. 22c (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence
- Apuleius (Apuleius): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Apuleius, On the God of Socrates 4, quoted. The cyclical floods and conflagrations recall Plato, Timaeus 22c–23b. No extrabiblical entry exists for Apuleius.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.10 (CSEL 40:582–583; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-10).

## City of God 12.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-11
- Source: CSEL 40:583–584
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Egyptian chronologies of many thousands of years, as in Alexander's letter to Olympias, disagree even with Greek history and deserve no credit against Scripture's reckoning of under six thousand years.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. De falsitate eius historiae, quae multa milia annorum praeteritis temporibus adscribit. Fallunt eos etiam quaedam mendacissimae litterae, quas perhibent in historia temporum multa annorum milia continere, cum ex litteris sacris ab institutione hominis nondum conpleta annorum sex milia conputemus. Unde ne multa disputem quem ad modum illarum litterarum, in quibus longe plura annorum milia referuntur, uanitas refellatur et nulla in illis rei huius idonea reperiatur auctoritas: illa epistula Alexandri Magni ad Olympiadem matrem suam, quam scripsit narrationem cuiusdam Aegyptii sacerdotis insinuans, quam protulit ex litteris quae sacrae aput illos haberentur, continet etiam regna, quae Graeca quoque nouit historia; in quibus regnum Assyriorum in eadem epistula Alexandri quinque milia excedit annorum; in Graeca uero historia mille ferme et trecentos habet ab ipsius Beli principatu, quem regem et ille Aegyptius in eiusdem regni ponit exordio; Persarum autem et Macedonum imperium usque ad ipsum Alexandrum, cui loquebatur, plus quam octo annorum milia ille constituit, cum aput Graecos Macedonum usque ad mortem Alexandri quadringenti octoginta quinque reperiantur, Persarum uero, donec ipsius Alexandri uictoria finiretur, ducenti et triginta tres conputentur. Longe itaque hi numeri annorum illis Aegyptiis sunt minores, nec eis, etiamsi ter tantum conputarentur, aequarent. Perhibentur enim Aegyptii quondam tam breues annos habuisse, ut quaternis mensibus finirentur; unde annus plenior et uerior, qualis nunc et nobis et illis est, tres eorum annos conplectebatur antiquos. Sed ne sic quidem, ut dixi, Graeca Aegyptiae numero temporum concordat historia. Et ideo Graecae potius fides habenda est, quia ueritatem non excedit annorum, qui litteris nostris, quae uere sacrae sunt, continentur. Porro si haec epistula Alexandri, quae maxime innotuit, multum abhorret in spatiis temporum a probabili fide rerum: quanto minus credendum est illis litteris, quas plenas fabulosis uelut antiquitatibus proferre uoluerint contra auctoritatem notissimorum diuinorumque librorum, quae totum orbem sibi crediturum esse praedixit, et cui totus orbis, sicut ab ea praedictum est, credidit; quae uera se narrasse praeterita ex his, quae futura praenuntiauit, cum tanta ueritate inplentur, ostendit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. Of the falsity of that history which assigns many thousands of years to past times.

They are also deceived by certain most lying writings which they claim contain many thousands of years in the history of the times, whereas from the sacred writings we reckon that not yet six thousand years have been completed since the creation of man. So, not to argue at length how the vanity of those writings, in which far more thousands of years are recorded, may be refuted, and how no fit authority for this matter is found in them: that letter of Alexander the Great to his mother Olympias, in which he conveyed the account of a certain Egyptian priest, which the priest produced from writings held sacred among them, contains also kingdoms which Greek history too knows. Among these, the kingdom of the Assyrians in that same letter of Alexander exceeds five thousand years; but in Greek history it has about thirteen hundred from the reign of Belus himself, whom that Egyptian too places at the beginning of the same kingdom. And the empire of the Persians and Macedonians down to Alexander himself, to whom he was speaking, he reckoned at more than eight thousand years, whereas among the Greeks four hundred and eighty-five are found for the Macedonians down to the death of Alexander, and two hundred and thirty-three are reckoned for the Persians until they were ended by Alexander's own victory. These numbers of years are thus far smaller than those of the Egyptians, and would not equal them even if they were counted three times over. For the Egyptians are said once to have had years so short that they ended every four months; hence the fuller and truer year, such as both we and they have now, would comprise three of their ancient years. But not even so, as I have said, does Greek history agree with the Egyptian in the number of its times. And therefore faith is to be given rather to the Greek, because it does not exceed the true number of years contained in our writings, which are truly sacred. Further, if this letter of Alexander, which became very widely known, is far removed in its spans of time from probable truth, how much less are those writings to be believed which, full of fabulous and pretended antiquities, they have wished to set up against the authority of the most famous and divine books, which foretold that the whole world would believe them, and which the whole world, as they foretold, has believed; and which show that they told the truth about things past by the things they foretold of the future, which are being fulfilled with such great truth.

### Translation notes

- The letter of Alexander to Olympias (a pseudonymous work known to Augustine, also cited in 8.5 and 8.27) is not in the extrabiblical list. The chronology of under six thousand years follows the Septuagint-based reckoning of Augustine's time.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.11 (CSEL 40:583–584; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-11).

## City of God 12.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-12
- Source: CSEL 40:584–585
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Those who hold that there are many worlds, or that the world perishes and is reborn, must admit that the first humans arose without human parents.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. De his, qui hunc quidem mundum non sempiternum putant, sed aut innumerabiles aut eundem unum certa conclusione saeculorum semper nasci et resolui opinantur. Alii uero, qui mundum istum non existimant sempiternum, siue non eum solum, sed innumerabiles opinentur, siue solum quidem esse, sed certis saeculorum interuallis innumerabiliter oriri et occidere, necesse est fateantur hominum genus prius sine hominibus gignentibus extitisse. Neque enim ut alluuionibus incendiisque terrarum, quas illi non putant toto prorsus orbe contingere, et ideo paucos homines, ex quibus multitudo pristina reparetur, semper remanere contendunt, ita et hi possunt putare, quod aliquid hominum pereunte mundo relinquatur in mundo; sed sicut ipsum mundum ex materia sua renasci existimant, ita in illo ex elementis eius genus humanum ac deinde a parentibus progeniem pullulare mortalium, sicut aliorum animalium.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. Of those who think that this world is indeed not everlasting, but hold either that there are innumerable worlds or that one and the same world is always born and dissolved at a fixed completion of ages.

Others, who do not think this world everlasting, whether they suppose that there is not this one only but innumerable worlds, or that there is indeed only one but that it rises and perishes innumerable times at fixed intervals of ages, must admit that the human race first came into existence without men to beget them. For these cannot think, as those do who hold that floods and conflagrations do not reach absolutely the whole earth and therefore contend that a few men always remain from whom the former multitude is restored, that when the world perishes some part of mankind is left in the world; but as they think that the world itself is reborn from its own matter, so they think that in it the human race springs from its elements, and then a progeny of mortals from parents, as with the other animals.

### Translation notes

- Epicureans (innumerable worlds) and Stoics (cyclical conflagration and rebirth) are in view.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.12 (CSEL 40:584–585; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-12).

## City of God 12.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-13
- Source: CSEL 40:585–587
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Any finite span of human history, however long, is nothing beside eternity, so the complaint that man was created late could be raised at any time.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. Quid respondendum sit his, qui primam conditionem hominis tardam esse causantur. Quod autem respondimus, cum de mundi origine quaestio uerteretur, eis, qui nolunt credere non eum semper fuisse, sed esse coepisse, sicut etiam Plato apertissime confitetur, quamuis a nonnullis contra quam loquitur sensisse credatur: hoc etiam de prima hominis conditione responderim, propter eos, qui similiter mouentur, quur homo per innumerabilia adque infinita retro tempora creatus non sit tamque sero sit creatus, ut minus quam sex milia sint annorum, ex quo esse coepisse in sacris litteris inuenitur. Si enim breuitas eos offendit temporis, quod tam pauci eis uidentur anni, ex quo institutus homo in nostris auctoritatibus legitur: considerent nihil esse diuturnum, in quo est aliquid extremum, et omnia saeculorum spatia definita, si aeternitati interminae comparentur, non exigua existimanda esse, sed nulla. Ac per hoc si non quinque uel sex, uerum etiam sexaginta milia siue sescenta, aut sexagiens, aut sescentiens, aut sescentiens miliens dicerentur annorum, aut itidem per totidem totiens multiplicaretur haec summa, ubi iam nullum numeri nomen haberemus, ex quo Deus hominem fecit: similiter quaeri posset, quur ante non fecerit. Dei quippe ab hominis creatione cessatio retrorsus aeterna sine initio tanta est, ut, si ei conferatur quamlibet magna et ineffabilis numerositas temporum, quae tamen fine conclusa certi spatii terminatur, nec saltem tanta uideri debeat, quanta si umoris breuissimam guttam uniuerso mari, etiam quantum oceanus circumfluit, conparemus; quoniam istorum duorum unum quidem perexiguum est, alterum incomparabiliter magnum, sed utrumque finitum; illud uero temporis spatium, quod ab aliquo initio progreditur et aliquo termino cohercetur, magnitudine quantacumque tendatur, conparatum illi, quod initium non habet, nescio utrum pro minimo an potius pro nullo deputandum est. Hinc enim si a fine uel breuissima singillatim momenta detrahantur, decrescente numero licet tam ingenti, ut uocabulum non inueniat, retrorsum redeundo (tamquam si hominis dies ab illo, in quo nunc uiuit, usque ad illum, in quo natus est, detrahas) quandoque ad initium illa detractio perducetur. Si autem detrahantur retrorsus in spatio, quod a nullo coepit exordio, non dico singillatim minuta momenta uel horarum aut dierum aut mensum aut annorum etiam quantitates, sed tam magna spatia, quanta illa summa conprehendit annorum, quae iam dici a quibuslibet conputatoribus non potest, quae tamen momentorum minutatim detractione consumitur, et detrahantur haec tanta spatia non semel adque iterum saepiusque, sed semper: quid fit, quid agitur, quando numquam ad initium, quod omnino nullum est, peruenitur? Quapropter quod nos modo quaerimus post quinque milia et quod excurrit annorum, possent et posteri etiam post annorum sescentiens miliens eadem curiositate requirere, si in tantum haec mortalitas hominum exoriendo et occubando et inperita perseueraret infirmitas. Potuerunt et qui fuerunt ante nos ipsis recentibus hominis creati temporibus istam mouere quaestionem. Ipse denique primus homo uel postridie uel eodem die postea quam factus est potuit inquirere, quur non ante sit factus; et quandocumque antea factus esset, non uires tunc alias et alias nunc uel etiam postea ista de initio rerum temporalium controuersia reperiret.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. What answer is to be given to those who object that the first creation of man was late.

What we answered, when the question turned on the origin of the world, to those who will not believe that it did not always exist but began to be, as even Plato most plainly confesses (though some believe he thought the contrary of what he says), I would answer also about the first creation of man, on account of those who are similarly troubled why man was not created through innumerable and infinite past ages, and was created so late that it is less than six thousand years since he began to exist, as is found in the sacred writings. For if the shortness of the time offends them, because so few years seem to them to have passed since man was made, as we read in our authorities, let them consider that nothing is long in which there is some last point, and that all the spaces of the ages, being defined, if compared with endless eternity, must be reckoned not small but nothing. And so, if not five or six, but sixty thousand or six hundred thousand, or sixty times or six hundred times or six hundred thousand times as many years were said to have passed since God made man, or if this sum were multiplied again by the same amount as many times, until we had no longer any name of a number, it could similarly be asked why he did not make him earlier. For God's abstention from creating man, stretching back eternally without beginning, is so great that, if any number of times, however great and unspeakable, is compared with it, which is yet closed by an end and bounded by a fixed span, it ought not even to seem as great as if we compared the smallest drop of water to the whole sea, even all that the ocean flows around. For of these two, one is very small and the other incomparably great, but both are finite; but that span of time which proceeds from some beginning and is bounded by some end, however great its extent, compared with that which has no beginning, I do not know whether it should be reckoned as very small or rather as nothing. For if from the end even the briefest moments are taken away one by one, the number, however huge, so that it finds no name, will decrease, and going backward (as if you were to take away a man's days from the one in which he now lives back to the one on which he was born) the subtraction will at some time be brought to the beginning. But if, in a span that began from no starting point, you subtract backward, I do not say single small moments, or quantities of hours or days or months or years, but spans as great as that sum of years comprises which no reckoner can now name, which is nonetheless used up by the subtraction of moments one by one; and if these so great spans are subtracted not once and again and more often, but always: what happens, what is achieved, when one never reaches a beginning, which does not exist at all? Therefore what we now ask after five thousand years and a little more, our descendants too might ask with the same curiosity after six hundred thousand times as many years, if this mortality of men, rising and setting, and this unskilled weakness were to last so long. Those who were before us, in the very times close to man's creation, could have raised this question. Finally, the first man himself, the day after or even on the same day on which he was made, could have asked why he was not made before; and whenever he had been made before, this dispute about the beginning of temporal things would have found no other force then than now, or even later.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Plato's Timaeus teaches that the world had a beginning, though some Platonists read it otherwise (cf. 10.31). “Five thousand years and a little more”: Augustine's reckoning of the time since Adam. The Latin “non uires tunc alias et alias nunc” is awkward in the digital text; it is rendered by sense (the question would have the same force at any time).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.13 (CSEL 40:585–587; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-13).

## City of God 12.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-14
- Source: CSEL 40:587–589
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine rejects the philosophers' doctrine of eternal recurrence, which denies the soul true happiness and misreads Ecclesiastes, since Christ died once and the saints will be with the Lord forever.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. De reuolutione saeculorum, quibus certo fine con- clusis uniuersa semper in eundem ordinem eandemque speciem reditura quidam philosophi crediderunt. Hanc autem se philosophi mundi huius non aliter putauerunt posse uel debere dissoluere, nisi ut circuitus temporum inducerent, quibus eadem semper fuisse renouata adque repetita in rerum natura adque ita deinceps fore sine cessatione adseuerarent uolumina uenientium et praetereuntium saeculorum; siue in mundo permanente isti circuitus fierent, siue certis interuallis oriens et occidens mundus eadem semper quasi noua, quae transacta et uentura sunt, exhiberet. A quo ludibrio prorsus inmortalem animam, etiam cum sapientiam perceperit, liberare non possunt, euntem sine cessatione ad falsam beatitudinem et ad ueram miseriam sine cessatione redeuntem. Quo modo enim uera beatitudo est, de cuius numquam aeternitate confiditur, dum anima uenturam miseriam aut inperitissime in ueritate nescit aut infelicissime in beatitudine pertimescit? At si ad miserias numquam ulterius reditura ex his ad beatitudinem pergit: fit ergo aliquid noui in tempore, quod finem non habet temporis. Quur non ergo et mundus? quur non et homo factus in mundo? ut illi nescio qui falsi circuitus a falsis sapientibus fallacibusque conperti in doctrina sana tramite recti itineris euitentur. Nam quidam et illud, quod legitur in libro Salomonis, qui uocatur ecclesiastes: Quid est quod fuit? Ipsum quod erit. Et quid est quod factum est? Ipsum quod fiet; et non est omne recens sub sole. Qui loquetur et dicet: Ecce hoc nouum est: iam fuit saeculis quae fuerunt ante nos, propter hos circuitus in eadem redeuntes et in eadem cuncta reuocantes dictum intellegi uolunt; quod ille aut de his rebus dixit, de quibus superius loquebatur, hoc est de generationibus aliis euntibus, aliis uenientibus, de solis anfractibus, de torrentium lapsibus: aut certe de omnium rerum generibus, quae oriuntur adque occidunt. Fuerunt enim homines ante nos, sunt et nobiscum, erunt et post nos: ita quaeque animantia uel arbusta. Monstra quoque ipsa, quae inusitata nascuntur, quamuis inter se diuersa sint et quaedam eorum semel facta narrentur, tamen secundum id, quod generaliter miracula et monstra sunt, utique et fuerunt et erunt. nec recens et nouum est, ut monstrum sub sole nascatur. Quamuis haec uerba quidam sic intellexerint, tamquam in praedestinatione Dei iam facta fuisse omnia sapiens ille uoluisset intellegi, et ideo nihil recens esse sub sole. Absit autem a recta fide, ut his Salomonis uerbis illos circuitus significatos esse credamus, quibus illi putant sic eadem temporum temporaliumque rerum uolumina repeti, ut uerbi gratia, sicut isto saeculo Plato philosophus in urbe Atheniensi et in ea schola, quae Academia dicta est, discipulos docuit, ita per innumerabilia retro saecula multum quidem prolixis interuallis, sed tamen certis, et idem Plato et eadem ciuitas et eadem schola idemque discipuli repetiti et per innumerabilia deinde saecula repetendi sint. Absit, inquam, ut nos ista credamus. Semel enim Christus mortuus est pro peccatis nostris; surgens autem a mortuis iam non moritur, et mors ei ultra non dominabitur; et nos post resurrectionem semper cum Domino erimus, cui modo dicimus, quod sacer admonet psalmus: Tu, Domine, seruabis nos et custodies nos a generatione hac et in aeternum. Satis autem istis existimo conuenire quod sequitur: In circuitu inpii ambulabunt; non quia per circulos, quos opinantur, eorum uita est recursura, sed quia modo talis est erroris eorum uia, id est falsa doctrina.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. Of the revolution of ages, at the fixed end of which some philosophers believed that all things always return to the same order and the same form.

The philosophers of this world have thought that they could and should solve this controversy in no other way than by introducing cycles of times, in which they asserted that the same things have always been renewed and repeated in the nature of things, and that so the revolutions of coming and passing ages will go on hereafter without ceasing; whether these cycles take place while the world continues, or whether the world, rising and perishing at fixed intervals, always presents the same things, past and future, as if new. From this mockery they cannot free even the immortal soul, even when it has attained wisdom; it goes without ceasing to a false happiness and without ceasing returns to a true misery. For how is that true happiness of whose eternity one is never confident, while the soul either, most ignorantly, does not know in the truth of the misery to come, or, most unhappily, dreads it in its happiness? But if it passes from these miseries to happiness never to return to them again, then something new happens in time which has no end in time. Why not, then, the world too? Why not also man, made in the world? So that those false cycles, discovered by false and deceitful wise men, may be avoided in sound doctrine by the path of the straight way.

For some want that saying which we read in the book of Solomon called Ecclesiastes, “What is it that has been? The same that will be. And what is it that has been done? The same that will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun. Who will speak and say, Behold, this is new? It has already been in the ages that were before us,” to be understood as said of these cycles returning to the same things and recalling all things to the same. But he said it either of the things of which he was speaking above, that is, of generations going and coming, of the circuits of the sun, of the flowing of torrents; or certainly of the kinds of all things that arise and perish. For there were men before us, there are men with us, and there will be men after us; and so with all living things and trees. Even monsters, which are born unusual, though they differ from one another and some are reported to have occurred only once, yet in so far as they are, generally speaking, marvels and monsters, certainly have been and will be; and it is nothing recent and new that a monster should be born under the sun. Some, however, have understood these words as though that wise man meant it to be understood that all things had already been made in God's predestination, and therefore that there is nothing recent under the sun. But far be it from right faith to believe that by these words of Solomon those cycles are meant by which they think the same revolutions of times and temporal things are repeated, so that, for example, just as in this age the philosopher Plato taught his pupils in the city of Athens and in the school called the Academy, so through innumerable ages past, at very long but fixed intervals, the same Plato and the same city and the same school and the same pupils have been repeated and are to be repeated through innumerable ages to come. Far be it, I say, that we should believe this. For Christ died once for our sins; and rising from the dead he dies no more, and death will no more have dominion over him; and after the resurrection we shall be always with the Lord, to whom we now say what the sacred psalm admonishes: “You, O Lord, will keep us and preserve us from this generation and forever.” And what follows, I think, fits these men well enough: “The wicked will walk in a circle”; not because their life will return through the cycles they imagine, but because such is now the way of their error, that is, their false teaching.

### Scripture references

- Eccl 1:9: quotation, high confidence
- Eccl 1:10: quotation, high confidence
- Eccl 1:4: allusion, high confidence
- Eccl 1:5: allusion, high confidence
- Eccl 1:7: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 6:9: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 6:10: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:3: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Thess 4:17: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 12:7 (11:8 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 12:8 (11:9 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Eccl 1:9–10 quoted; Eccl 1:4–7 alluded to. Rom 6:9–10; 1 Cor 15:3; 1 Thess 4:17; Ps 12:7–8 (LXX 11:8–9), where the Latin reads “the wicked will walk in a circle.” The recurrence doctrine was held by Stoics and some Pythagoreans; Origen discussed it critically.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.14 (CSEL 40:587–589; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-14).

## City of God 12.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-15
- Source: CSEL 40:589–591
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God created man in time by an eternal and unchanging counsel, a depth beyond human search, as the psalm says: “According to your depth you have multiplied the sons of men.”

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. De temporali conditione generis humani, quam Deus nec nouo consilio instituerit nec mutabili uoluntate. Quid autem mirum est, si in his circuitibus errantes nec aditum nec exitum inueniunt? quia genus humanum adque ista nostra mortalitas nec quo initio coepta sit sciunt, nec quo fine claudatur; quando quidem altitudinem Dei penetrare non possunt, qua, cum ipse sit aeternus et sine initio, ab aliquo tamen initio exorsus est tempora et hominem, quem numquam antea fecerat, fecit in tempore, non tamen nouo et repentino, sed inmutabili aeternoque consilio. Quis hanc ualeat altitudinem inuestigabilem uestigare et inscrutabilem perscrutari, secundum quam Deus hominem temporalem, ante quem nemo umquam hominum fuit, non mutabili uoluntate in tempore condidit et genus humanum ex uno multiplicauit? Quando quidem psalmus ipse cum praemisisset adque dixisset: Tu, Domine, seruabis nos et custodies nos a generatione hac et in aeternum, ac deinde repercussisset eos, in quorum stulta inpiaque doctrina nulla liberationis et beatitudinis animae seruatur aeternitas, continuo subiciens: In circuitu inpii ambulabunt: tamquam ei diceretur: Quid ergo tu credis, sentis, intellegis? numquidnam existimandum est subito Deo placuisse hominem facere, quem numquam antea infinita retro aeternitate fecisset, cui nihil noui accidere potest, in quo mutabile aliquid non est? continuo respondit ad ipsum Deum loquens: Secundum altitudinem tuam multiplicasti filios hominum. Sentiant, inquit, homines quod putant, et quod eis placet opinentur et disputent: Secundum altitudinem tuam, quam nullus potest nosse hominum, multiplicasti filios hominum. Valde quippe altum est et semper fuisse, et hominem, quem numquam fecerat, ex aliquo tempore primum facere uoluisse, nec consilium uoluntatemque mutasse.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. Of the creation of the human race in time, which God established neither by a new counsel nor by a changeable will.

What wonder is it, then, if, wandering in these cycles, they find neither entrance nor exit? For they know neither from what beginning the human race and this mortality of ours began nor with what end it will close, since they cannot penetrate the depth of God, by which, though he himself is eternal and without beginning, he nonetheless began times from some beginning, and made man in time, whom he had never made before, yet not by a new and sudden counsel but by an unchangeable and eternal one. Who could track out this untrackable depth and search out this unsearchable one, according to which God, not by a changeable will, founded in time temporal man, before whom no man ever existed, and multiplied the human race from one? For the psalm itself, when it had first said, “You, O Lord, will keep us and preserve us from this generation and forever,” and had then struck back at those in whose foolish and impious teaching no eternity of the soul's deliverance and happiness is preserved, immediately adding, “The wicked will walk in a circle,” as if it were said to it: “What then do you believe, think, understand? Must it be thought that it suddenly pleased God to make man, whom he had never made before through an infinite past eternity, God to whom nothing new can happen, in whom there is nothing changeable?”, at once answered, speaking to God himself: “According to your depth you have multiplied the sons of men.” Let men, it says, think what they think, and hold and argue what pleases them: “According to your depth,” which no man can know, “you have multiplied the sons of men.” For it is very deep both that he always existed, and that he willed to make man for the first time at some time, whom he had never made before, and yet did not change his counsel and will.

### Scripture references

- Ps 12:7 (11:8 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 12:8 (11:9 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 11:33: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 17:26: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Ps 12:7–8 (LXX 11:8–9), whose Latin reads “secundum altitudinem tuam multiplicasti filios hominum”; Rom 11:33 echoed (“unsearchable … untrackable”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.15 (CSEL 40:589–591; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-6/#p-12-15).

## City of God 12.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-16/#p-12-16
- Source: CSEL 40:591–595
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine tentatively discusses how God can always have been Lord without any creature being coeternal with him, concluding that such questions exceed his powers and counseling sober restraint.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. An ut Deus semper etiam dominus fuisse intellegatur, credendum sit creaturam quoque numquam defuisse cui dominaretur, et quo modo dicatur semper creatum quod dici non potest coaeternum. Ego quidem sicut Dominum Deum aliquando dominum non fuisse dicere non audeo, ita hominem numquam antea fuisse et ex quodam tempore primum hominem creatum esse dubitare non debeo. Sed cum cogito cuius rei dominus semper fuerit, si semper creatura non fuit, adfirmare aliquid pertimesco, quia et me ipsum intueor et scriptum esse recolo: Quis hominum potest scire consilium Dei, aut quis poterit cogitare quid uelit Dominus? Cogitationes enim mortalium timidae et incertae adinuentiones nostrae. Corruptibile enim corpus adgrauat animam, et deprimit terrena inhabitatio sensum multa cogitantem. Ex his igitur, quae in hac terrena inhabitatione multa cogito (ideo utique multa, quia unum, quod ex illis uel praeter illa, quod forte non cogito, uerum est, inuenire non possum), si dixero semper fuisse creaturam, cuius dominus esset, qui semper est dominus nec dominus umquam non fuit; sed nunc illam, nunc aliam per alia adque alia temporum spatia, ne aliquam Creatori coaeternam esse dicamus, quod fides ratioque sana condemnat: cauendum est, ne sit absurdum et a luce ueritatis alienum mortalem quidem per uices temporum semper fuisse creaturam, decedentem aliam, aliam succedentem; inmortalem uero non esse coepisse, nisi cum ad nostrum saeculum uentum est, quando et angeli creati sunt, si eos recte lux illa primum facta significat aut illud potius caelum, de quo dictum est: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram, cum tamen non fuerint, antequam fierent, ne inmortales, si semper fuisse dicuntur, Deo coaeterni esse credantur. Si autem dixero non in tempore creatos angelos, sed ante omnia tempora et ipsos fuisse, quorum Deus dominus esset, qui numquam nisi dominus fuit: quaeretur a me etiam, si ante omnia tempora facti sunt, utrum semper potuerint esse qui facti sunt. Hic respondendum forte uideatur: Quo modo non semper, cum id, quod est omni tempore, non inconuenienter semper esse dicatur? Usque adeo autem isti omni tempore fuerunt, ut etiam ante omnia tempora facti sint; si tamen a caelo coepta sunt tempora, et illi iam erant ante caelum. At si tempus non a caelo, uerum et ante caelum fuit; non quidem in horis et diebus et mensibus et annis (nam istae dimensiones temporalium spatiorum, quae usitate ac proprie dicuntur tempora, manifestum est quod a motu siderum coeperint; unde et Deus, cum haec institueret, dixit: Et sint in signa et in tempora et in dies et in annos), sed in aliquo mutabili motu, cuius aliud prius, aliud posterius praeterit, eo quod simul esse non possunt; — si ergo ante caelum in angelicis motibus tale aliquid fuit et ideo tempus iam fuit adque angeli, ex quo facti sunt, temporaliter mouebantur: etiam sic omni tempore fuerunt, quando quidem cum illis facta sunt tempora. Quis autem dicat: Non semper fuit, quod omni tempore fuit? Sed si hoc respondero, dicetur mihi: Quo modo ergo non coaeterni Creatori, si semper ille, semper illi fuerunt? Quo modo etiam creati dicendi sunt, si semper fuisse intelleguntur? Ad hoc quid respondebitur? An dicendum est et semper eos fuisse, quoniam omni tempore fuerunt, qui cum tempore facti sunt, aut cum quibus facta sunt tempora, et tamen creatos? Neque enim et ipsa tempora creata esse negabimus, quamuis omni tempore tempus fuisse nemo ambigat. Nam si non omni tempore fuit tempus, erat ergo tempus, quando nullum erat tempus. Quis hoc stultissimus dixerit? Possumus enim recte dicere: Erat tempus, quando non erat Roma; erat tempus, quando non erat Hierusalem; erat tempus, quando non erat Abraham; erat tempus, quando non erat homo, et si quid huius modi; postremo si non cum initio temporis, sed post aliquod tempus factus est mundus, possumus dicere: Erat tempus, quando non erat mundus; at uero: Erat tempus, quando nullum erat tempus, tam inconuenienter dicimus, ac si quisquam dicat: Erat homo, quando nullus erat homo, aut: Erat iste mundus, quando iste non erat mundus. Si enim de alio adque alio intellegatur, potest dici aliquo modo, hoc est: Erat alius homo, quando non erat iste homo; sic ergo: Erat aliud tempus, quando non erat hoc tempus, recte possumus dicere; at uero: Erat tempus, quando nullum erat tempus, quis uel insipientissimus dixerit? Sicut ergo dicimus creatum tempus, cum ideo semper fuisse dicatur, quia omni tempore tempus fuit: ita non est consequens, ut, si semper fuerunt angeli, ideo non sint creati, ut propterea semper fuisse dicantur, quia omni tempore fuerunt, et propterea omni tempore fuerunt, quia nullo modo sine his ipsa tempora esse potuerunt. Ubi enim nulla creatura est, cuius mutabilibus motibus tempora peragantur, tempora omnino esse non possunt; ac per hoc etsi semper fuerunt, creati sunt, nec si semper fuerunt, ideo Creatori coaeterni sunt. Ille enim semper fuit aeternitate inmutabili; isti autem facti sunt; sed ideo semper fuisse dicuntur, quia omni tempore fuerunt, sine quibus tempora nullo modo esse potuerunt; tempus autem quoniam mutabilitate transcurrit, aeternitati inmutabili non potest esse coaeternum. Ac per hoc etiamsi inmortalitas angelorum non transit in tempore, nec praeterita est quasi iam non sit, nec futura quasi nondum sit: tamen eorum motus, quibus tempora peraguntur, ex futuro in praeteritum transeunt, et ideo Creatori, in cuius motu dicendum non est uel fuisse quod iam non sit, uel futurum esse quod nondum sit, coaeterni esse non possunt. Quapropter si Deus semper dominus fuit, semper habuit creaturam suo dominatui seruientem; uerum tamen non de ipso genitam, sed ab ipso de nihilo factam nec ei coaeternam; erat quippe ante illam, quamuis nullo tempore sine illa; non eam spatio transcurrente, sed manente perpetuitate praecedens. Sed hoc si respondero eis qui requirunt, quo modo semper creator, semper dominus fuit, si creatura seruiens non semper fuit; aut quo modo creata est et non potius creatori coaeterna est, si semper fuit: uereor ne facilius iudicer adfirmare quod nescio, quam docere quod scio. Redeo igitur ad id, quod creator noster scire nos uoluit; illa uero, quae uel sapientioribus in hac uita scire permisit uel omnino perfectis in alia uita scienda seruauit, ultra uires meas esse confiteor. Sed ideo putaui sine adfirmatione tractanda, ut qui haec legunt uideant, a quibus quaestionum periculis debeant temperare, nec ad omnia se idoneos arbitrentur potiusque intellegant quam sit apostolo obtemperandum praecipienti salubriter, ubi ait: Dico autem per gratiam Dei quae data est mihi omnibus qui sunt in uobis, non plus sapere quam oportet sapere, sed sapere ad temperantiam, unicuique sicut Deus partitus est mensuram fidei. Si enim pro uiribus suis alatur infans, fiet, ut crescendo plus capiat; si autem uires suae capacitatis excedat, deficiet antequam crescat.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. Whether, so that God may be understood always to have been Lord, we must believe that there never lacked a creature over which he might be Lord; and how something can be said to have been always created which cannot be called coeternal.

For my part, just as I do not dare to say that the Lord God was at some time not Lord, so I ought not to doubt that man did not exist before and that at a certain time the first man was created. But when I think of what he was always Lord, if there was not always a creature, I am afraid to affirm anything, because I look at myself and remember that it is written: “What man can know the counsel of God, or who can think what the Lord wills? For the thoughts of mortals are timid and our devices uncertain. For the corruptible body weighs down the soul, and the earthly dwelling presses down the mind that thinks many things.” From these many things, then, which I think in this earthly dwelling (many, surely, because I cannot find the one among them, or beyond them, which I perhaps do not think, which is true): if I say that there was always a creature of which he who is always Lord and was never not Lord might be Lord, but now this one, now another, through different spans of time, so that we may not say that any is coeternal with the Creator, which faith and sound reason condemn, I must beware lest it be absurd and foreign to the light of truth that there has always been a mortal creature through the succession of times, one passing away, another succeeding, while an immortal one began to exist only when our age was reached, when the angels too were created, if that light first made signifies them rightly, or rather that heaven of which it was said, “In the beginning God made heaven and earth”; yet they did not exist before they were made, lest, if they are said always to have existed, they be believed coeternal with God as immortal.

But if I say that the angels were not created in time but existed before all times, and that God, who was never anything but Lord, was their Lord, I shall be asked also whether, if they were made before all times, those who were made could always have existed. Here perhaps the answer might seem to be: How not always, since what exists at all time is not unfittingly said to exist always? And these existed at all time to such an extent that they were made even before all times, if indeed times began from heaven, and they were already before heaven. But if time did not begin from heaven, but existed even before heaven, not indeed in hours and days and months and years (for it is plain that these measures of temporal spans, which are customarily and properly called times, began from the motion of the stars; hence God too, when he established them, said, “And let them be for signs and for times and for days and for years”), but in some changeable motion, of which one thing passes before and another after, since they cannot exist together; if, then, before heaven there was something of this kind in the movements of the angels, and so time already existed, and the angels, from the time they were made, moved in time, even so they existed at all time, since times were made with them. And who would say, “That did not always exist which existed at all time”? But if I give this answer, it will be said to me: How then are they not coeternal with the Creator, if he always existed and they always existed? How too are they to be called created, if they are understood always to have existed? What will be answered to this? Must it be said that they always existed, since they existed at all time, being made with time, or times being made with them, and yet that they were created? For we shall not deny that times themselves were created, although no one doubts that time existed at all time. For if time did not exist at all time, then there was a time when there was no time. Who would say this, however foolish? For we can rightly say: There was a time when Rome was not; there was a time when Jerusalem was not; there was a time when Abraham was not; there was a time when man was not, and so on; finally, if the world was made not with the beginning of time but after some time, we can say, There was a time when the world was not. But to say, There was a time when there was no time, is as unfitting as if one said, There was a man when there was no man, or, This world existed when this world did not exist. For if it is understood of different things, it can be said in some way, namely: There was another man when this man was not; so we can rightly say, There was another time when this time was not; but who, even the most foolish, would say, There was a time when there was no time? As, then, we say that time was created, although it is said always to have existed because time existed at all time, so it does not follow that, if the angels always existed, they were therefore not created; for they are said always to have existed because they existed at all time, and they existed at all time because times themselves could in no way exist without them. For where there is no creature by whose changeable motions times are carried on, there can be no times at all. And therefore, even if they always existed, they were created; nor, if they always existed, are they therefore coeternal with the Creator. For he always existed in unchangeable eternity; but they were made; and they are said always to have existed because they existed at all time, without which times could in no way exist; but time, since it runs on by changeableness, cannot be coeternal with unchangeable eternity. And therefore, even though the immortality of the angels does not pass in time, and is neither past as though it no longer were, nor future as though it were not yet, yet their movements, by which times are carried on, pass from future to past; and therefore they cannot be coeternal with the Creator, in whose movement it cannot be said that anything has been which no longer is, or will be which is not yet.

Therefore, if God was always Lord, he always had a creature serving his lordship; yet not begotten of him, but made by him from nothing, and not coeternal with him; for he was before it, though at no time without it; preceding it not by a span of passing time but by abiding perpetuity. But if I give this answer to those who ask how he was always Creator, always Lord, if a serving creature did not always exist, or how it was created and is not rather coeternal with the Creator if it always existed, I fear I may more readily be judged to be affirming what I do not know than teaching what I know. I return, then, to what our Creator wished us to know; and those things which he has allowed wiser men to know in this life, or reserved to be known by the altogether perfect in another life, I confess are beyond my powers. But I thought they should be discussed without affirmation, so that those who read these things may see from what dangerous questions they ought to refrain, and not think themselves fit for everything, but rather understand how the apostle is to be obeyed when he gives the wholesome command: “I say, through the grace of God that has been given to me, to all who are among you, not to think more highly than one ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, as God has distributed to each the measure of faith.” For if an infant is fed according to its strength, it will come about that by growing it takes in more; but if it goes beyond the strength of its capacity, it will fail before it grows.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:14: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 12:3: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 9:13 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Wis 9:13–15 quoted; Gen 1:1, 14; Rom 12:3. Augustine explicitly treats the matter “without affirmation.”

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.16 (CSEL 40:591–595; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-16/#p-12-16).

## City of God 12.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-16/#p-12-17
- Source: CSEL 40:595–596
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Paul's “eternal times” past were not coeternal with God; God's promise of eternal life before them was fixed in his eternal predestination and fulfilled in his Word.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. Quo modo intellegenda sit promissa homini a Deo uita aeterna ante tempora aeterna. Quae saecula praeterierint antequam genus institueretur humanum, me fateor ignorare; non tamen dubito nihil omnino creaturae Creatori esse coaeternum. Dicit etiam apostolus tempora aeterna, nec ea futura, sed, quod magis est mirandum, praeterita. Sic enim ait: In spem uitae aeternae, quam promisit non mendax Deus ante tempora aeterna; manifestauit autem temporibus suis uerbum suum. Ecce dixit retro quod fuerint tempora aeterna, quae tamen non fuerint Deo coaeterna, si quidem ille ante tempora aeterna non solum erat, uerum etiam promisit uitam aeternam, quam manifestauit temporibus suis, id est congruis, quid aliud quam Verbum suum? Hoc est enim uita aeterna. Quo modo autem promisit, cum hominibus utique promiserit, qui nondum erant ante tempora aeterna, nisi quia in eius aeternitate adque in ipso Verbo eius eidem coaeterno iam praedestinatione fixum erat, quod suo tempore futurum erat?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. How the eternal life promised to man by God before eternal times is to be understood.

What ages passed before the human race was established I confess I do not know; yet I do not doubt that nothing at all of creation is coeternal with the Creator. The apostle too speaks of eternal times, and not future ones but, what is more to be wondered at, past ones. For he says: “In hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before eternal times, but has manifested in his own times his Word.” See, he has said that there were eternal times in the past, which yet were not coeternal with God, since he not only existed before eternal times but also promised eternal life, which he manifested in his own times, that is, fitting times; and what else is this than his Word? For this is eternal life. But how did he promise, since he certainly promised it to men, who did not yet exist before eternal times, unless because in his eternity and in his Word, coeternal with him, what was to come to pass in its time was already fixed by predestination?

### Scripture references

- Titus 1:2: quotation, high confidence
- Titus 1:3: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 5:20: echo, medium confidence
- John 17:3: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Titus 1:2–3 quoted; John 17:3 and 1 John 5:20 echoed (“this is eternal life”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.17 (CSEL 40:595–596; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-16/#p-12-17).

## City of God 12.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-16/#p-12-18
- Source: CSEL 40:596–598
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Against philosophers who argue that God's infinite knowledge and unceasing goodness require eternal cycles, Augustine answers that God's unchangeable will created in time without any change in himself, out of sheer goodness.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. Quid de incommutabili consilio ac uoluntate Dei fides sana defendat contra ratiocinationes eorum, qui opera Dei ex aeternitate repetita per eosdem semper uolunt saeculorum redire circuitus. Illud quoque non dubito, antequam homo primus creatus esset, numquam quemquam fuisse hominem; nec eundem ipsum nescio quibus circuitibus nescio quotiens reuolutum, nec alium aliquem, natura similem. Neque ab hac fide me philosophorum argumenta deterrent, quorum acutissimum illud putatur, quod dicunt nulla infinita ulla scientia posse conprehendi; ac per hoc Deus, inquiunt, rerum quas facit omnium finitarum omnes finitas aput se rationes habet; bonitas autem eius numquam uacua fuisse credenda est, ne sit temporalis eius operatio, cuius retro fuerit aeterna cessatio, quasi paenituerit eum prioris sine initio uacationis ac propterea sit operis adgressus initium; et ideo necesse est, inquiunt, eadem semper repeti eademque semper repetenda transcurrere, uel manente mundo mutabiliter, qui licet numquam non fuerit et sine initio temporis tamen factus est, uel eius quoque ortu et occasu semper illis circuitibus repetito semperque repetendo; ne uidelicet, si aliquando primum Dei opera coepta dicuntur, priorem suam sine initio uacationem tamquam inertem ac desidiosam et ideo sibi displicentem damnasse quodam modo adque ob hoc mutasse credatur; si autem semper quidem temporalia, sed alia adque alia perhibetur operatus ac sic aliquando etiam ad hominem faciendum, quem numquam antea fecerat, peruenisse, non scientia, qua putant non posse quaecumque infinita conprehendi, sed quasi ad horam, sicut ueniebat in mentem, fortuita quadam inconstantia uideatur fecisse quae fecit. Porro si illi circuitus admittantur, inquiunt, quibus uel manente mundo uel ipso quoque reuolubiles ortus suos et occasus eisdem circuitibus inserente eadem temporalia repetuntur, nec ignauum otium, praesertim tam longae sine initio diuturnitatis, Deo tribuitur, nec inprouida temeritas operum suorum; quoniam si non eadem repetantur, non possunt infinita diuersitate uariata ulla eius scientia uel praescientia conprehendi. Has argumentationes, quibus inpii nostram simplicem pietatem, ut cum illis in circuitu ambulemus, de uia recta conantur auertere, si ratio refutare non posset, fides inridere deberet. Huc accedit, quod in adiutorio Domini Dei nostri hos uolubiles circulos, quos opinio confingit, ratio manifesta confringit. Hinc enim maxime isti errant, ut in circuitu falso ambulare quam uero et recto itinere malint, quod mentem diuinam omnino inmutabilem, cuiuslibet infinitatis capacem et innumera omnia sine cogitationis alternatione numerantem, de sua humana mutabili angustaque metiuntur; et fit illis quod ait apostolus: Conparantes enim semet ipsos sibimet ipsis non intellegunt. Nam quia illis quidquid noui faciendum uenit in mentem, nouo consilio faciunt (mutabiles quippe mentes gerunt): profecto non Deum, quem cogitare non possunt, sed semet ipsos pro illo cogitantes, non illum, sed se ipsos, nec illi, sed sibi conparant. Nobis autem fas non est credere, aliter affici Deum cum uacat, aliter cum operatur; quia nec affici dicendus est, tamquam in eius natura fiat aliquid, quod ante non fuerit. Patitur quippe qui afficitur, et mutabile est omne quod aliquid patitur. Non itaque in eius uacatione cogitetur ignauia desidia inertia, sicut nec in eius opere labor conatus industria. Nouit quiescens agere et agens quiescere. Potest ad opus nouum non nouum, sed sempiternum adhibere consilium; nec paenitendo, quia prius cessauerat, coepit facere quod non fecerat. Sed et si prius cessauit et posterius operatus est (quod nescio quem ad modum ab homine possit intellegi): hoc procul dubio, quod dicitur prius et posterius, in rebus prius non existentibus et posterius existentibus fuit; in illo autem non alteram praecedentem altera subsequens mutauit aut abstulit uoluntatem, sed una eademque sempiterna et inmutabili uoluntate res, quas condidit, et ut prius non essent egit, quamdiu non fuerunt, et ut posterius essent, quando esse coeperunt, hinc eis, qui talia uidere possunt, mirabiliter fortassis ostendens, quam non eis indiguerit, sed eas gratuita bonitate condiderit, cum sine illis ex aeternitate initio carente in non minore beatitate permansit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. What sound faith defends concerning the unchangeable counsel and will of God, against the reasonings of those who hold that the works of God, repeated from eternity, always return through the same cycles of ages.

This too I do not doubt: that before the first man was created there was never any man at all; neither this same man revolved I know not how many times in I know not what cycles, nor any other like him in nature. Nor do the arguments of the philosophers deter me from this faith, of which the sharpest is thought to be their saying that no infinite things can be comprehended by any knowledge. And therefore, they say, God has in himself finite reasons of all the finite things which he makes; but his goodness must never be believed to have been idle, lest his working be temporal, preceded by an eternal cessation, as if he repented of his former idleness without beginning and therefore began his work. And therefore, they say, the same things must always be repeated, and the same things always pass that are always to be repeated, either while the world remains, changeably (which, though it has never not existed and is without beginning in time, was nevertheless made), or with its rising and perishing also always repeated and always to be repeated in those cycles; lest, if God's works are said to have begun for the first time at some time, he should be believed in some way to have condemned his former idleness without beginning as inert and slothful and therefore displeasing to himself, and so to have changed; but if he is said always to have made temporal things, but different ones, and so at some time to have come also to making man, whom he had never made before, he would seem to have made what he made not by knowledge, by which they think no infinite things can be comprehended, but as it were on the spur of the moment, as it came into his mind, by a sort of chance inconstancy. But if those cycles are admitted, they say, by which the same temporal things are repeated, either while the world remains or with the world too inserting its own revolving risings and settings into the same cycles, neither slothful idleness, especially of so long a duration without beginning, is ascribed to God, nor improvident rashness in his works; since, if the same things are not repeated, things varied by infinite diversity cannot be comprehended by any knowledge or foreknowledge of his.

These arguments, by which the impious try to turn our simple piety from the right way so that we may walk in a circle with them, faith ought to laugh at, if reason could not refute them. But in addition, with the help of the Lord our God, clear reason shatters these revolving circles which opinion fashions. For these men err chiefly in this, and prefer to walk in a false circle rather than on the true and straight way, that they measure the divine mind, altogether unchangeable, capable of any infinity and numbering all innumerable things without alternation of thought, by their own human mind, changeable and narrow; and there happens to them what the apostle says: “For comparing themselves with themselves, they do not understand.” For because whatever new thing occurs to them to be done they do by a new counsel (for they have changeable minds), they surely think not of God, whom they cannot conceive, but of themselves in his place, and compare not him but themselves, not with him but with themselves. But it is not lawful for us to believe that God is affected one way when he is at rest and another when he works; for he must not even be said to be affected, as though something came to be in his nature which was not there before. For he who is affected undergoes something, and everything that undergoes something is changeable. So let no sloth, idleness, or inertness be thought of in his resting, as no toil, effort, or industry in his working. He knows how to act while resting and to rest while acting. He can apply to a new work a counsel not new but everlasting; nor did he begin to do what he had not done because he repented of having ceased before. But even if he first ceased and afterward worked (which I do not know how a man can understand), this “first” and “afterward” without doubt lay in the things, which first did not exist and afterward existed; but in him no subsequent will changed or removed a preceding one, but by one and the same everlasting and unchangeable will he brought it about with regard to the things he founded both that they should not exist earlier, as long as they did not exist, and that they should exist later, when they began to exist; thereby perhaps showing wonderfully to those who can see such things how he did not need them, but founded them by gratuitous goodness, since without them he remained from an eternity without beginning in no less happiness.

### Scripture references

- 2 Cor 10:12: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 12:8 (11:9 LXX): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- 2 Cor 10:12 quoted; Ps 12:8 (LXX 11:9) echoed (“walk in a circle”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.18 (CSEL 40:596–598; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-16/#p-12-18).

## City of God 12.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-16/#p-12-19
- Source: CSEL 40:598–600
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God knows even the infinite series of numbers, so he needs no repeating cycles in order to know or foreknow his works.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. Contra eos, qui dicunt ea, quae infinita sunt, nec Dei posse scientia conprehendi. Illud autem aliud quod dicunt, nec Dei scientia quae infinita sunt posse conprehendi: restat eis, ut dicere audeant adque huic se uoragini profundae inpietatis inmergant, quod non omnes numeros Deus nouerit. Eos quippe infinitos esse, certissimum est; quoniam in quocumque numero finem faciendum putaueris, idem ipse, non dico uno addito augeri, sed quamlibet sit magnus et quamlibet ingentem multitudinem continens, in ipsa ratione adque scientia numerorum non solum duplicari, uerum etiam multiplicari potest. Ita uero suis quisque numerus proprietatibus terminatur, ut nullus eorum par esse cuicumque alteri possit. Ergo et dispares inter se adque diuersi sunt, et singuli quique finiti sunt, et omnes infiniti sunt. Itane numeros propter infinitatem nescit omnes Deus, et usque ad quandam summam numerorum scientia Dei peruenit, ceteros ignorat? Quis hoc etiam dementissimus dixerit? Nec audebunt isti contemnere numeros et eos dicere ad Dei scientiam non pertinere, aput quos Plato Deum magna auctoritate commendat mundum numeris fabricantem. Et aput nos Deo dictum legitur: Omnia in mensura et numero et pondere disposuisti; de quo et propheta dicit: Qui profert numerose saeculum, et Saluator in euangelio: Capilli, inquit, uestri omnes numerati sunt. Absit itaque ut dubitemus, quod ei notus sit omnis numerus, cuius intellegentiae, sicut in psalmo canitur, non est numerus. Infinitas itaque numeri, quamuis infinitorum numerorum nullus sit numerus, non est tamen inconprehensibilis ei, cuius intellegentiae non est numerus. Quapropter si, quidquid scientia conprehenditur, scientis conprehensione finitur: profecto et omnis infinitas quodam ineffabili modo Deo finita est, quia scientiae ipsius inconprehensibilis non est. Quare si infinitas numerorum scientiae Dei, qua conprehenditur, esse non potest infinita: qui tandem nos sumus homunculi, qui eius scientiae limites figere praesumamus, dicentes quod, nisi eisdem circuitibus temporum eadem temporalia repetantur, non potest Deus cuncta quae facit uel praescire ut faciat, uel scire cum fecerit? cuius sapientia simpliciter multiplex et uniformiter multiformis tam inconprehensibili conprehensione omnia inconprehensibilia conprehendit, ut, quaecumque noua et dissimilia consequentia praecedentibus si semper facere uellet, inordinata et inprouisa habere non posset, nec ea prouideret ex proximo tempore, sed aeterna praescientia contineret.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. Against those who say that infinite things cannot be comprehended even by God's knowledge.

As to their other saying, that infinite things cannot be comprehended even by God's knowledge, it remains for them to dare to say, and to plunge themselves into this deep abyss of impiety, that God does not know all numbers. For it is most certain that they are infinite; since at whatever number you think an end is to be made, that same number, I do not say can be increased by adding one, but however great it is and however vast a multitude it contains, can, by the very reason and science of numbers, be not only doubled but multiplied. And each number is so bounded by its own properties that none of them can be equal to any other. They are therefore unequal and different from one another, and each is finite, and all are infinite. Does God then not know all numbers because of their infinity, and does God's knowledge reach up to a certain sum of numbers and not know the rest? Who, even the most insane, would say this? Nor will these men dare to despise numbers and say they do not belong to God's knowledge, since among them Plato, with great authority, commends God as fashioning the world by numbers. And among us we read it said to God: “You have arranged all things in measure and number and weight”; of whom the prophet also says, “Who brings forth the world by number,” and the Savior in the Gospel, “The hairs of your head are all numbered.” Far be it, then, from us to doubt that every number is known to him “whose understanding,” as is sung in the psalm, “has no number.” The infinity of number, then, though there is no number of infinite numbers, is not incomprehensible to him whose understanding has no number. Therefore, if whatever is comprehended by knowledge is bounded by the comprehension of the knower, then surely every infinity is in some ineffable way finite to God, because it is not incomprehensible to his knowledge. Therefore, if the infinity of numbers cannot be infinite to the knowledge of God by which it is comprehended, who are we little men, that we should presume to fix limits to his knowledge, saying that, unless the same temporal things are repeated in the same cycles of times, God cannot either foreknow all that he makes in order to make it, or know it when he has made it? His wisdom, simply manifold and uniformly multiform, comprehends all incomprehensible things by so incomprehensible a comprehension that, if he always wished to make new things, unlike those that went before, he could not have them unordered and unforeseen, nor would he foresee them from the time just before, but would contain them in eternal foreknowledge.

### Scripture references

- Isa 40:26: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 10:30: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 147:5 (146:5 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 11:20 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence
- Plato, Tim. 31b (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Plato's Timaeus (e.g. 31b–32c, 35b–36b) describes the world as framed by number. Wis 11:20; Isa 40:26 in the LXX/Old Latin form (“who brings forth the world by number”); Matt 10:30; Ps 147:5 (LXX 146:5).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.19 (CSEL 40:598–600; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-16/#p-12-19).

## City of God 12.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-16/#p-12-20
- Source: CSEL 40:600–601
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Whatever “ages of ages” means, it gives no support to cyclical recurrence, which the eternal life of the saints refutes.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. De saeculis saeculorum. Quod utrum ita faciat, et continuata sibi conexione copulentur quae appellantur saecula saeculorum, alia tamen adque alia ordinata dissimilitudine procurrentia, eis dumtaxat, qui ex miseria liberantur, in sua beata inmortalitate sine fine manentibus; an ita dicantur saecula saeculorum, ut intellegantur saecula in sapientia Dei inconcussa stabilitate manentia istorum, quae cum tempore transeunt, tamquam efficientia saeculorum, definire non audeo. Fortassis enim possit dici saeculum, quae sunt saecula, ut nihil aliud perhibeatur saeculum saeculi quam saecula saeculorum, sicut nihil aliud dicitur caelum caeli quam caeli caelorum. Nam caelum Deus uocauit firmamentum super quod sunt aquae; et tamen psalmus: Et aquae, inquit, quae super caelos, laudent nomen Domini. Quid ergo istorum duorum sit, an praeter haec duo aliquid aliud de saeculis saeculorum possit intellegi, profundissima quaestio est, neque hoc quod nunc agimus inpedit, si indiscussa interim differatur; siue aliquid in ea definire ualeamus, siue nos faciat cautiores diligentior ipsa tractatio, ne in tanta obscuritate rerum adfirmare temere aliquid audeamus. Nunc enim contra opinionem disputamus, qua illi circuitus adseruntur, quibus semper eadem per interualla temporum necesse esse repeti existimantur. Quaelibet autem illarum sententiarum de saeculis saeculorum uera sit, ad hos circuitus nihil pertinet; quoniam siue saecula saeculorum sint non eadem repetita, sed alterum ex altero conexione ordinatissima procurrentia, liberatorum beatitudine sine ullo recursu miseriarum certissima permanente, siue saecula saeculorum aeterna sint temporalium tamquam dominantia subditorum, circuitus illi eadem reuoluentes locum non habent, quos maxime refellit aeterna uita sanctorum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. Of the ages of ages.

Whether he does this, and the so-called ages of ages are joined together in a continuous connection, yet running on one after another in ordered unlikeness, while only those who are freed from misery remain without end in their happy immortality; or whether they are called ages of ages in the sense that ages are understood which remain in God's wisdom with unshaken stability, as, it were, the efficient causes of those ages which pass with time, I do not dare to define. For perhaps “age” can be said of what are ages, so that “the age of the age” is declared to be nothing else than “ages of ages,” just as “the heaven of heaven” is said to be nothing else than “the heavens of heavens.” For God called the firmament heaven, above which are the waters; and yet the psalm says, “And let the waters that are above the heavens praise the name of the Lord.” Which of these two it is, or whether anything else besides these two can be understood of the ages of ages, is a very deep question; nor does it hinder what we are now doing if it is put off meanwhile undiscussed, whether we can define something in it or whether the very treatment of it, more carefully done, makes us more cautious not to dare to affirm anything rashly in so great an obscurity. For we are now arguing against the opinion by which those cycles are asserted, in which it is thought that the same things must always be repeated at intervals of time. But whichever of those views about the ages of ages is true, it has nothing to do with these cycles; since, whether the ages of ages are not the same things repeated but run on one from another in a most ordered connection, the happiness of the freed remaining most certain without any return of miseries, or whether the ages of ages are eternal, as it were ruling over temporal ones as their subjects, those cycles that bring back the same things have no place; and the eternal life of the saints refutes them above all.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:8: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 148:4: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 1:5: echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 1:8; Ps 148:4 quoted. “Ages of ages” (saecula saeculorum) is the biblical and liturgical phrase for “forever and ever.”

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.20 (CSEL 40:600–601; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-16/#p-12-20).

## City of God 12.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-16/#p-12-21
- Source: CSEL 40:601–606
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The doctrine that the blessed must return to misery in endless cycles is impious and destroys love and hope; even Porphyry rejected it, and the souls' final freedom shows that genuinely new things happen, such as man's creation.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. De inpietate eorum, qui adserunt animas summae ueraeque beatitudinis participes iterum adque iterum per circuitus temporum ad easdem miserias laboresque redituras. Quorum enim aures piorum ferant post emensam tot tantisque calamitatibus uitam (si tamen uita ista dicenda est, quae potius mors est, ita grauis, ut mors, quae ab hac liberat, mortis huius amore timeatur), post tam magna mala tamque multa et horrenda tandem aliquando per ueram religionem adque sapientiam expiata adque finita ita peruenire ad conspectum Dei adque ita fieri beatum contemplatione incorporeae lucis per participationem inmutabilis inmortalitatis eius, cuius adipiscendae amore flagramus, ut eam quandoque necesse sit deseri et eos, qui deserunt, ab illa aeternitate ueritate felicitate deiectos tartareae mortalitati, turpi stultitiae, miseriis exsecrabilibus inplicari, ubi Deus amittatur, ubi odio ueritas habeatur, ubi per inmundas nequitias beatitudo quaeratur, et hoc itidem adque itidem sine ullo fine priorum et posteriorum certis interuallis et dimensionibus saeculorum factum et futurum; et hoc propterea, ut possint Deo circuitibus definitis euntibus semper adque redeuntibus per nostras falsas beatitudines et ueras miserias alternatim quidem, sed reuolutione incessabili sempiternas nota esse opera sua, quoniam neque a faciendo quiescere neque sciendo potest ea, quae infinita sunt, indagare? Quis haec audiat? quis credat? quis ferat? Quae si uera essent, non solum tacerentur prudentius, uerum etiam (ut quo modo ualeo dicam quod uolo) doctius nescirentur. Nam si haec illic in memoria non habebimus et ideo beati erimus, quur hic per eorum scientiam grauatur amplius nostra miseria? Si autem ibi ea necessario scituri sumus, hic saltem nesciamus, ut hic felicior sit expectatio quam illic adeptio summi boni; quando hic aeterna uita consequenda expectatur; ibi autem beata, sed non aeterna, quandoque amittenda cognoscitur. Si autem dicunt neminem posse ad illam beatitudinem peruenire, nisi hos circuitus, ubi beatitudo et miseria uicissim alternant, in huius uitae eruditione cognouerit: quo modo ergo fatentur, quanto plus quisque amauerit Deum, tanto eum facilius ad beatitudinem peruenturum, qui ea docent, quibus amor ipse torpescat? Nam quis non remissius et tepidius amet eum, quem se cogitat necessario deserturum et contra eius ueritatem sapientiamque sensurum, et hoc cum ad eius plenam pro sua capacitate notitiam beatitudinis perfectione peruenerit? quando nec hominem amicum possit quisque amare fideliter, cui se futurum nouit inimicum. Sed absit ut uera sint, quae nobis minantur ueram miseriam numquam finiendam, sed interpositionibus falsae beatitudinis saepe ac sine fine rumpendam. Quid enim illa beatitudine falsius adque fallacius, ubi nos futuros miseros aut in tanta ueritatis luce nesciamus aut in summa felicitatis arce timeamus? Si enim uenturam calamitatem ignoraturi sumus, peritior est hic nostra miseria, ubi uenturam beatitudinem nouimus; si autem nos illic clades inminens non latebit, beatius tempora transigit anima misera, quibus transactis ad beatitudinem subleuetur, quam beata, quibus transactis in miseriam reuoluatur. Adque ita spes nostrae infelicitatis est felix et felicitatis infelix. Unde fit, ut, quia hic mala praesentia patimur, ibi metuimus inminentia, uerius semper miseri quam beati aliquando esse possimus. Sed quoniam haec falsa sunt clamante pietate, conuincente ueritate (illa enim nobis ueraciter promittitur uera felicitas, cuius erit semper retinenda et nulla infelicitate rumpenda certa securitas): uiam rectam sequentes, quod nobis est Christus, eo duce ac saluatore a uano et inepto inpiorum circuitu iter fidei mentemque auertamus. Si enim de istis circuitibus et sine cessatione alternantibus itionibus et reditionibus animarum Porphyrius Platonicus suorum opinionem sequi noluit, siue ipsius rei uanitate permotus siue iam tempora Christiana reueritus, et, quod in libro decimo commemoraui, dicere maluit animam propter cognoscenda mala traditam mundo, ut ab eis liberata adque purgata, cum ad Patrem redierit, nihil ulterius tale patiatur: quanto magis nos istam inimicam Christianae fidei falsitatem detestari ac deuitare debemus! His autem circuitibus euacuatis adque frustratis nulla necessitas nos conpellit ideo putare non habere initium temporis ex quo esse coeperit genus humanum, quia per nescio quos circuitus nihil sit in rebus noui, quod non et antea certis interuallis temporum fuerit et postea sit futurum. Si enim liberatur anima non reditura ad miserias, sicut numquam antea liberata est, fit in illa aliquid, quod antea numquam factum est, et hoc quidem ualde magnum, id est quae numquam desinat aeterna felicitas. Si autem in natura inmortali fit tanta nouitas nullo repetita, nullo repetenda circuitu, quur in rebus mortalibus fieri non posse contenditur? Si dicunt non fieri in anima beatitudinis nouitatem, quoniam ad eam reuertitur, in qua semper fuit, ipsa certe liberatio noua fit, cum de miseria liberatur in qua numquam fuit, et ipsa miseriae nouitas in ea facta est quae numquam fuit. Haec autem nouitas si non in rerum, quae diuina prouidentia gubernantur, ordinem uenit, sed casu potius euenit, ubi sunt illi determinati dimensique circuitus, in quibus nulla noua fiunt, sed repetuntur eadem quae fuerunt? Si autem et haec nouitas ab ordinatione prouidentiae non excluditur, siue data sit anima siue lapsa sit: possunt fieri noua, quae neque antea facta sint nec tamen a rerum ordine aliena sint. Et si potuit anima per inprudentiam facere sibi nouam miseriam, quae non esset inprouisa diuinae prouidentiae, ut hanc quoque in rerum ordine includeret et ab hac eam non inprouide liberaret: qua tandem temeritate humanae uanitatis audemus negare diuinitatem facere posse res, non sibi, sed mundo nouas, quas neque antea fecerit nec umquam habuerit inprouisas? Si autem dicunt liberatas quidem animas ad miseriam non reuersuras, sed cum hoc fit in rebus nihil noui fieri, quoniam semper aliae adque aliae liberatae sunt et liberantur et liberabuntur: hoc certe concedunt, si ita est, nouas animas fieri, quibus sit et noua miseria et noua liberatio. Nam si antiquas eas esse dicunt et retrorsum sempiternas, ex quibus cottidie noui fiant homines, de quorum corporibus, si sapienter uixerint, ita liberentur, ut numquam ad miserias reuoluantur, consequenter dicturi sunt infinitas. Quantuslibet namque finitus numerus fuisset animarum, infinitis retro saeculis sufficere non ualeret, ut ex illo semper homines fierent, quorum essent animae ab ista semper mortalitate liberandae, numquam ad eam deinceps rediturae. Nec ullo modo explicabunt, quo modo in rebus, quas, ut Deo notae esse possint, finitas uolunt, infinitus sit numerus animarum. Quapropter quoniam circuitus illi iam explosi sunt, quibus ad easdem miserias necessario putabatur anima reditura: quid restat conuenientius pietati quam credere non esse inpossibile Deo et ea, quae numquam fecerit, noua facere et ineffabili praescientia uoluntatem mutabilem non habere? Porro autem utrum animarum liberatarum nec ulterius ad miserias rediturarum numerus possit semper augeri, ipsi uiderint, qui de rerum infinitate cohibenda tam subtiliter disputant; nos uero ratiocinationem nostram ex utroque latere terminamus. Si enim potest, quid causae est, ut negetur creari potuisse quod numquam antea creatum esset, si liberatarum animarum numerus, qui numquam antea fuit, non solum factus est semel, sed fieri numquam desinet? Si autem oportet ut certus sit liberatarum aliquis numerus animarum, quae ad miseriam numquam redeant, neque iste numerus ulterius augeatur: etiam ipse sine dubio, quicumque erit, ante utique numquam fuit; qui profecto crescere et ad suae quantitatis terminum peruenire sine aliquo non posset initio; quod initium eo modo antea numquam fuit. Hoc ergo ut esset, creatus est homo, ante quem nullus fuit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. Of the impiety of those who assert that souls which share in the supreme and true happiness will return again and again, through cycles of time, to the same miseries and toils.

What pious ears could bear to hear that, after a life passed through so many and so great calamities (if indeed this is to be called life, which is rather a death, so heavy that the death which frees us from it is feared out of love for this death), after evils so great and so many and so dreadful have at last been expiated and ended through true religion and wisdom, one should so come to the sight of God, and so become happy by the contemplation of incorporeal light through participation in his unchangeable immortality, for love of attaining which we burn, that at some time it must be forsaken; and that those who forsake it, cast down from that eternity, truth, and felicity, are entangled in hellish mortality, shameful folly, and accursed miseries, where God is lost, where truth is hated, where happiness is sought through unclean wickedness; and that this has happened and will happen again and again without any end, at fixed intervals and measures of ages before and after; and this so that God, by these fixed cycles always going and returning through our false happinesses and true miseries, alternately indeed but everlasting by unceasing revolution, may know his own works, since he can neither rest from making nor by knowing trace out infinite things? Who could listen to this? Who could believe it? Who could bear it? If these things were true, it would be not only more prudent to keep silent about them, but even (to say what I mean as best I can) more learned not to know them. For if we shall not have them in memory there, and shall be happy for that reason, why is our misery here made heavier by knowledge of them? But if there we shall necessarily know them, let us at least not know them here, so that here the expectation of the supreme good may be happier than the attainment of it there; since here eternal life is expected to be attained, but there it is known to be happy but not eternal, to be lost at some time.

But if they say that no one can come to that happiness unless he has learned in the instruction of this life these cycles, in which happiness and misery alternate by turns, how then do they admit that the more anyone loves God, the more easily he will come to happiness, they who teach things by which love itself grows numb? For who would not love more slackly and lukewarmly one whom he thinks he must necessarily forsake and whose truth and wisdom he must oppose, and this when he has come to full knowledge of him, as far as his capacity allows, in the perfection of happiness? For no one can love faithfully even a human friend whose enemy he knows he will become. But far be it that those things should be true which threaten us with a true misery never to be ended, but often and endlessly to be broken by interludes of false happiness. For what is more false and deceitful than that happiness in which, in such a great light of truth, we either do not know that we shall be wretched, or, in the highest citadel of felicity, fear it? For if we are to be ignorant of the calamity to come, our misery here is wiser, where we know the happiness to come; but if the impending disaster will not be hidden from us there, the soul passes the time of its misery more happily, at the end of which it will be lifted up to happiness, than the time of its happiness, at the end of which it will be rolled back into misery. And so the hope of our unhappiness is happy, and that of our happiness unhappy. Hence it comes about that, since here we suffer present evils and there we fear impending ones, we could more truly be always wretched than at any time happy.

But since these things are false, as piety cries out and truth proves (for that true felicity is truly promised to us, whose sure security will always be kept and broken by no unhappiness), let us follow the straight way, which for us is Christ, and with him as our guide and savior turn away the path of our faith and our mind from the empty and foolish circuit of the impious. For if, concerning these cycles and the unceasingly alternating goings and returnings of souls, Porphyry the Platonist refused to follow the opinion of his own school, whether moved by the vanity of the thing itself or already in awe of Christian times, and preferred to say, as I mentioned in the tenth book, that the soul was given to the world in order to know evils, so that, freed and cleansed from them, when it has returned to the Father, it may suffer nothing of the kind again: how much more ought we to detest and avoid this falsehood, hostile to the Christian faith! And these cycles being emptied and frustrated, no necessity compels us to think that the human race has no beginning in time from which it began to exist, on the ground that through I know not what cycles there is nothing new in things which has not existed before at fixed intervals of time and will not exist afterward. For if the soul is freed not to return to miseries, as it was never freed before, something happens in it which never happened before, and this indeed something very great, namely eternal felicity that never ceases. But if in an immortal nature so great a newness occurs, repeated by no cycle and to be repeated by none, why is it contended that it cannot happen in mortal things? If they say that no newness of happiness occurs in the soul, since it returns to that in which it always was, at least the freeing itself is new, when it is freed from a misery in which it never was, and the very newness of misery came to be in it, which never was before. And if this newness did not come into the order of things governed by divine providence but rather happened by chance, where are those determined and measured cycles in which nothing new happens but the same things that were are repeated? But if this newness too is not excluded from the ordering of providence, whether the soul was given to the world or fell into it, then new things can happen which have not happened before and yet are not foreign to the order of things. And if the soul could by imprudence make for itself a new misery, which was not unforeseen by divine providence, so that it included this too in the order of things and not improvidently freed it from it, with what rashness of human vanity do we dare to deny that the Godhead can make things new, not to itself but to the world, which it neither made before nor ever had unforeseen?

But if they say that freed souls will indeed not return to misery, but that when this happens nothing new happens in things, since other and other souls always have been freed, are being freed, and will be freed, they certainly grant, if so, that new souls come to be, for whom there is both a new misery and a new freeing. For if they say that they are ancient and everlasting backward, from which new men come to be every day, from whose bodies, if they have lived wisely, they are so freed that they never return to miseries, they will have to say consequently that they are infinite. For however great a finite number of souls there had been, it could not have sufficed for infinite past ages, so that men might always come to be from it whose souls were always to be freed from this mortality, never to return to it thereafter. Nor will they in any way explain how there is an infinite number of souls among things which, so that they may be known to God, they will have to be finite. Therefore, since those cycles are now exploded by which the soul was thought necessarily to return to the same miseries, what remains more fitting to piety than to believe that it is not impossible for God both to make new things which he has never made, and, by his ineffable foreknowledge, not to have a changeable will? Further, whether the number of freed souls, never to return to miseries, can always be increased, let them see to it who argue so subtly about restricting the infinity of things; we for our part close our reasoning on either side. For if it can, what reason is there to deny that what had never before been created could be created, if the number of freed souls, which never existed before, has not only been made once but will never cease to be made? But if there must be some fixed number of freed souls who never return to misery, and this number is not further increased, it too, whatever it will be, certainly never existed before; and it certainly could not grow and reach the limit of its quantity without some beginning; and that beginning in this way never existed before. That this might exist, then, man was created, before whom there was none.

### Scripture references

- John 14:6: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Porphyry, Regr. (Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Porphyry's view is from On the Return of the Soul, discussed in 10.30. John 14:6 (Christ the way) echoed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.21 (CSEL 40:601–606; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-16/#p-12-21).

## City of God 12.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-16/#p-12-22
- Source: CSEL 40:606–607
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God created the human race from one man, intermediate between angels and beasts, so that all humans would be bound by kinship as well as nature, and even Eve was made from Adam.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. De conditione unius primi hominis adque in eo generis humani. Hac igitur quaestione difficillima propter aeternitatem Dei noua creantis sine nouitate aliqua uoluntatis, quantum potuimus, explicata non est arduum uidere multo fuisse melius quod factum est, ut ex uno homine, quem primum condidit, multiplicaret genus humanum, quam si id incohasset a pluribus. Nam cum animantes alias solitarias et quodam modo soliuagas, id est, quae solitudinem magis adpetant, sicuti sunt aquilae milui, leones lupi et quaecumque ita sunt, alias congreges instituerit, quae congregatae adque in gregibus malint uiuere, ut sunt columbi sturni, cerui damulae et cetera huius modi: utrumque tamen genus non ex singulis propagauit, sed plura simul iussit existere. Hominem uero, cuius naturam quodam modo mediam inter angelos bestiasque condebat, ut, si Creatori suo tamquam uero domino subditus praeceptum eius pia oboedientia custodiret, in consortium transiret angelicum, sine morte media beatam inmortalitatem absque ullo termino consecutus; si autem Dominum Deum suum libera uoluntate superbe adque inoboedienter usus offenderet, morti addictus bestialiter uiueret, libidinis seruus aeternoque post mortem supplicio destinatus, unum ac singulum creauit, non utique solum sine humana societate deserendum, sed ut eo modo uehementius ei commendaretur ipsius societatis unitas uinculumque concordiae, si non tantum inter se naturae similitudine, uerum etiam cognationis affectu homines necterentur; quando ne ipsam quidem feminam copulandam uiro sicut ipsum creare illi placuit, sed ex ipso, ut omnino ex homine uno diffunderetur genus humanum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. Of the creation of the one first man, and of the human race in him.

This most difficult question, then, arising from the eternity of God creating new things without any newness of will, having been explained as far as we could, it is not hard to see that it was much better, as was done, that he should multiply the human race from the one man whom he first made than if he had begun it from several. For while he made some animals solitary and, so to speak, lone-wandering, that is, such as prefer solitude, like eagles, kites, lions, wolves, and all such, and others gregarious, which prefer to live together and in flocks, like doves, starlings, deer, fallow deer, and others of this kind, yet he did not propagate either kind from single individuals, but commanded several to come into being at once. But man, whose nature he was founding as in a way intermediate between angels and beasts, so that, if he remained subject to his Creator as his true Lord and kept his command with pious obedience, he might pass into the fellowship of the angels, attaining a happy immortality without end without death intervening; but if he offended the Lord his God, using his free will proudly and disobediently, he would be given over to death and live like a beast, a slave of lust, and destined after death to eternal punishment: man he created one and single, not, certainly, to be left alone without human society, but so that the unity of society itself and the bond of concord might be the more strongly commended to him, if men were bound together not only by likeness of nature but also by the affection of kinship; since it did not please him to create even the woman herself, who was to be joined to the man, as he created him, but from him, so that the human race might be spread entirely from one man.

### Scripture references

- Gen 2:21: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:22: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 17:26: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- “Lust” renders libido here and throughout Books 12–14 (see the note at 14.15). Gen 2:21–22 in view.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.22 (CSEL 40:606–607; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-16/#p-12-22).

## City of God 12.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-16/#p-12-23
- Source: CSEL 40:607–608
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God foresaw man's sin and violence, and also the people he would call by grace to adoption and eternal peace with the angels, to whom the single origin of mankind commends unity.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. Quod praescierit Deus hominem, quem primum condidit, peccaturum simulque praeuiderit, quan- tum piorum populum ex eius genere in angelicum consortium sua esset gratia translaturus. Nec ignorabat Deus hominem peccaturum et morti iam obnoxium morituros propagaturum eoque progressuros peccandi inmanitate mortales, ut tutius adque pacatius inter se rationalis uoluntatis expertes bestiae sui generis uiuerent, quarum ex aquis et terris plurium pullulauit exordium, quam homines, quorum genus ex uno est ad commendandam concordiam propagatum. Neque enim umquam inter se leones aut inter se dracones, qualia homines, bella gesserunt. Sed praeuidebat etiam gratia sua populum piorum in adoptionem uocandum remissisque peccatis iustificatum Spiritu sancto sanctis angelis in aeterna pace sociandum, nouissima inimica morte destructa; cui populo esset huius rei consideratio profutura, quod ex uno homine Deus ad commendandum hominibus, quam ei grata sit etiam in pluribus unitas, genus instituisset humanum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. That God foreknew that the man whom he first made would sin, and at the same time foresaw how great a people of the godly from his race he would, by his grace, transfer into the fellowship of the angels.

God was not unaware that man would sin and that, now liable to death, he would propagate those who would die, and that mortals would go so far in the monstrousness of sin that beasts lacking a rational will would live more safely and peacefully among themselves, beasts of their own kind, whose beginnings sprang in larger numbers from the waters and the land, than men, whose race was propagated from one in order to commend concord. For never have lions among themselves, or serpents among themselves, waged such wars as men have. But he also foresaw that a people of the godly would be called by his grace to adoption, and, their sins forgiven and justified by the Holy Spirit, would be joined with the holy angels in eternal peace, when death, the last enemy, has been destroyed; and to this people the consideration of this would be of benefit, that God had established the human race from one man in order to commend to men how pleasing to him is unity even in many.

### Scripture references

- Rom 8:15: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Cor 15:26: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Rom 8:15 and Gal 4:5 (adoption), Rom 5:1 (justified), 1 Cor 15:26 (death the last enemy).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.23 (CSEL 40:607–608; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-16/#p-12-23).

## City of God 12.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-12-24
- Source: CSEL 40:608–609
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God made man in his image with a rational soul, formed Adam from dust and gave him a soul, and made Eve from his side, not with hands but by his power.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIIII. De natura humanae animae creatae ad imaginem Dei. Fecit ergo Deus hominem ad imaginem suam. Talem quippe illi animam creauit, qua per rationem adque intellegentiam omnibus esset praestantior animalibus terrestribus et natatilibus et uolatilibus, quae mentem huius modi non haberent. Et cum uirum terreno formasset ex puluere eique animam qualem dixi siue quam iam fecerat sufflando indidisset siue potius sufflando fecisset eumque flatum, quem sufflando fecit (nam quid est aliud sufflare quam flatum facere?), animam hominis esse uoluisset, etiam coniugem illi in adiutorium generandi ex eius latere osse detracto fecit, ut Deus. Neque enim haec carnali consuetudine cogitanda sunt, ut uidere solemus opifices ex materia quacumque terrena corporalibus membris, quod artis industria potuerint, fabricantes. Manus Dei potentia Dei est, qui etiam uisibilia inuisibiliter operatur. Sed haec fabulosa potius quam uera esse arbitrantur, qui uirtutem ac sapientiam Dei, qua nouit et potest etiam sine seminibus ipsa certe facere semina, ex his usitatis et cottidianis metiuntur operibus; ea uero, quae primitus instituta sunt, quoniam non nouerunt, infideliter cogitant; quasi non haec ipsa, quae nouerunt de humanis conceptibus adque partubus, si inexpertis narrarentur, incredibiliora uiderentur; quamuis et ea ipsa plerique magis naturae corporalibus causis quam operibus diuinae mentis adsignent.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 24. Of the nature of the human soul, created in the image of God.

God therefore made man in his own image. For he created for him such a soul that by reason and understanding he would be more excellent than all the animals of land and water and air, which did not have a mind of this kind. And when he had formed the man from the dust of the earth, and had put into him a soul such as I have described, either one he had already made, by breathing, or rather made by breathing, and willed that breath which he made by breathing (for what else is to breathe than to make breath?) to be the soul of man, he also made him a wife, to help in generation, from a bone taken from his side, doing it as God. For these things are not to be thought of in a fleshly way, as we are used to seeing craftsmen fashioning, from whatever earthly material, with bodily limbs, what they can by the skill of their art. The hand of God is the power of God, who works even visible things invisibly. But those who measure the power and wisdom of God, by which he knows how and is able to make even seeds themselves without seeds, by these usual and everyday works think these things fabulous rather than true; and the things that were first established, since they do not know them, they think of without faith; as if these very things which they know about human conceptions and births would not seem even more incredible if they were told to the inexperienced; although even these very things most people ascribe more to the bodily causes of nature than to the works of the divine mind.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:27: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:7: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:21: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:22: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:24: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 1:27; Gen 2:7, 21–22; 1 Cor 1:24 (the power and wisdom of God) echoed. Augustine leaves open whether the soul was made beforehand or made by the breathing.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.24 (CSEL 40:608–609; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-12-24).

## City of God 12.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-12-25
- Source: CSEL 40:609
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Against Plato's lesser gods as makers of mortal creatures, Augustine holds that only God creates any nature; angels who assist are no more creators than farmers are of crops.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXV. An ullius uel minimae creaturae possint dici angeli creatores. Sed cum his nullum nobis est in his libris negotium, qui diuinam mentem facere uel curare ista non credunt. Illi autem qui Platoni suo credunt non ab illo summo Deo, qui fabricatus est mundum, sed ab aliis minoribus, quos quidem ipse creauerit, permissu siue iussu eius animalia facta esse cuncta mortalia, in quibus homo praecipuum disque ipsis cognatum teneret locum, si superstitione careant, qua quaerunt unde iuste uideantur sacra et sacrificia facere quasi conditoribus suis, facile carebunt etiam huius opinionis errore. Neque enim fas est ullius naturae quamlibet minimae mortalisque creatorem nisi Deum credere ac dicere, et antequam possit intellegi. Angeli autem, quos illi deos libentius appellant, etiamsi adhibent uel iussi uel permissi operationem suam rebus quae gignuntur in mundo, tam non eos dicimus creatores animalium, quam nec agricolas frugum adque arborum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 25. Whether angels can be called creators of any creature, even the least.

But in these books we have no business with those who do not believe that the divine mind makes or cares for these things. As for those who believe their Plato, that all mortal living things, among which man held the chief place and one akin to the gods themselves, were made not by that supreme God who fashioned the world but by other lesser gods whom he indeed created, by his permission or command: if they are free of the superstition by which they seek a way to seem justified in offering rites and sacrifices to these as their makers, they will easily be free also of the error of this opinion. For it is not lawful to believe and say that anyone but God is the creator of any nature, however small and mortal, even before it can be understood. And the angels, whom they more willingly call gods, even if, by command or permission, they apply their activity to the things that are born in the world, we no more call creators of living things than we call farmers creators of crops and trees.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Tim. 41a (Plato (works)): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Plato, Timaeus 41a–d (the created gods form mortal beings).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.25 (CSEL 40:609; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-12-25).

## City of God 12.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-12-26
- Source: CSEL 40:609–612
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Only God gives natures and their inner forms; angels, farmers, the earth, and mothers are not creators, as Rome and Alexandria are credited to their kings rather than their builders.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVI. Omnem naturam et omnem speciem uniuersae creaturae non nisi opere Dei fieri adque formari. Cum enim alia sit species, quae adhibetur extrinsecus cuicumque materiae corporali, sicut operantur homines figuli et fabri adque id genus opifices, qui etiam pingunt et effingunt formas similes corporibus animalium; alia uero, quae intrinsecus efficientes causas habet de secreto et occulto naturae uiuentis adque intellegentis arbitrio, quae non solum naturales corporum species, uerum etiam ipsas animantium animas, dum non fit, facit: supra dicta illa species artificibus quibusque tribuatur; haec autem altera non nisi uni artifici, creatori et conditori Deo, qui mundum ipsum et angelos sine ullo mundo et sine ullis angelis fecit. Qua enim ui diuina et, ut ita dicam, effectiua, quae fieri nescit, sed facere, accepit speciem, cum mundus fieret, rutunditas caeli et rutunditas solis: eadem ui diuina et effectiua, quae fieri nescit, sed facere, accepit speciem rutunditas oculi et rutunditas pomi et ceterae figurae naturales, quas uidemus in rebus quibusque nascentibus non extrinsecus adhiberi, sed intima Creatoris potentia, qui dixit: Caelum et terram ego inpleo, et cuius sapientia est, quae adtingit a fine usque ad finem fortiter et disponit omnia suauiter. Proinde facti primitus angeli cuius modi ministerium praebuerint Creatori cetera facienti nescio; nec tribuere illis audeo quod forte non possunt, nec debeo derogare quod possunt. Creationem tamen conditionemque omnium naturarum, qua fit ut omnino naturae sint, eis quoque fauentibus illi Deo tribuo, cui se etiam ipsi debere quod sunt cum gratiarum actione nouerunt. Non solum igitur agricolas non dicimus fructuum quorumque creatores, cum legamus: Neque qui plantat est aliquid neque qui rigat, sed qui incrementum dat Deus; sed ne ipsam quidem terram, quamuis mater omnium fecunda uideatur, quae germinibus erumpentia promouet et fixa radicibus continet, cum itidem legamus: Deus illi dat corpus quo modo uoluerit et unicuique seminum proprium corpus. Ita nec feminam sui puerperii creatricem appellare debemus, sed potius illum qui cuidam famulo suo dixit: Priusquam te formarem in utero, noui te. Et quamuis anima sic uel sic affecta praegnantis ualeat aliquibus uelut induere qualitatibus fetum, sicut de uirgis uariatis fecit Iacob, ut pecora colore uaria gignerentur: naturam tamen illam, quae gignitur, tam ipsa non fecit, quam nec ipsa se fecit. Quaelibet igitur corporales uel seminales causae gignendis rebus adhibeantur, siue operationibus angelorum aut hominum aut quorumque animalium siue marium feminarumque mixtionibus; quaelibet etiam desideria motusue animae matris ualeant aliquid liniamentorum aut colorum aspergere teneris mollibusque conceptibus: ipsas omnino naturas, quae sic uel sic in suo genere afficiantur, non facit nisi summus Deus, cuius occulta potentia cuncta penetrans incontaminabili praesentia facit esse quidquid aliquo modo est, in quantumcumque est; quia nisi faciente illo non tale uel tale esset, sed prorsus esse non posset. Quapropter si in illa specie, quam forinsecus corporalibus opifices rebus inponunt, urbem Romam et urbem Alexandriam non fabros et architectos, sed reges, quorum uoluntate consilio imperio fabricatae sunt, illam Romulum, illam Alexandrum habuisse dicimus conditores: quanto potius non nisi Deum debemus conditorem dicere naturarum, qui neque ex ea materia facit aliquid, quam ipse non fecerit, nec operarios habet, nisi quos ipse creauerit; et si potentiam suam, ut ita dicam, fabricatoriam rebus subtrahat, ita non erunt, sicut ante quam fierent non fuerunt. Sed ante dico aeternitate, non tempore. Quis enim alius creator est temporum, nisi qui fecit ea, quorum motibus currerent tempora?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 26. That every nature and every form of the whole creation is made and formed only by the work of God.

For there is one kind of form which is applied from outside to any bodily matter, as potters and smiths and craftsmen of that kind work, who also paint and mold forms like the bodies of living creatures; and there is another which has its efficient causes from within, from the secret and hidden decision of a living and understanding nature, which, itself not made, makes not only the natural forms of bodies but even the very souls of living things. Let the first-named form be attributed to any craftsmen; but this other only to one craftsman, God, the creator and founder, who made the world itself and the angels without any world and without any angels. For by the same divine and, so to speak, effective power, which knows not how to be made but only to make, by which the roundness of the heaven and the roundness of the sun received their form when the world was made, by that same divine and effective power, which knows not how to be made but only to make, the roundness of the eye and the roundness of an apple and the other natural shapes received their form, which we see in all things that are born, not applied from outside, but by the inmost power of the Creator, who said, “I fill heaven and earth,” and whose wisdom it is that “reaches mightily from end to end and orders all things sweetly.” What service, therefore, the angels, made first, gave to the Creator as he made the rest, I do not know; nor do I dare to attribute to them what perhaps they cannot do, nor ought I to take away from them what they can do. But the creation and establishment of all natures, by which it comes about that they are natures at all, I attribute, with their own approval, to that God to whom they themselves know with thanksgiving that they owe their being.

We do not, then, call farmers the creators of any fruits, since we read: “Neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the growth”; nor even the earth itself, though it seems the fruitful mother of all, which pushes forward what bursts out in sprouts and holds what is fixed by roots, since we likewise read: “God gives it a body as he wills, and to each of the seeds its own body.” So too we ought not to call a woman the creator of her offspring, but rather him who said to one of his servants: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.” And although the soul of a pregnant woman, affected in this way or that, can as it were clothe the fetus with certain qualities, as Jacob did with the peeled rods, so that the flocks were born varied in color, yet she no more made the nature that is born than she made herself. Whatever bodily or seminal causes, then, are applied to the generation of things, whether by the operations of angels or of men or of any animals, or by the unions of males and females; whatever desires or emotions of the mother's soul can sprinkle some features or colors on the tender and soft conceptions: the natures themselves, which are affected this way or that in their own kind, are made by none but the supreme God, whose hidden power, penetrating all things with undefilable presence, makes to be whatever in any way is, in so far as it is; for without his making it, it would not be of this kind or that, but could not be at all. Therefore, if in the case of that form which craftsmen impose from outside on bodily things, we say that the city of Rome and the city of Alexandria had as founders not the smiths and architects but the kings by whose will, counsel, and command they were built, the one Romulus, the other Alexander, how much more ought we to call none but God the founder of natures, who neither makes anything from a matter which he has not himself made, nor has workmen except those he himself has created; and if he were to withdraw from things his, so to speak, constructive power, they would not exist, just as they did not exist before they were made. But I say “before” in eternity, not in time. For who else is the creator of times but he who made those things by whose motions times run?

### Scripture references

- Jer 23:24: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 3:7: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:38: quotation, high confidence
- Jer 1:5: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 30:37: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 8:1 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sources: Jer 23:24; Wis 8:1; 1 Cor 3:7; 1 Cor 15:38; Jer 1:5; Gen 30:37–39 (Jacob's rods). The belief that the mother's imagination marks the fetus was common in antiquity.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.26 (CSEL 40:609–612; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-12-26).

## City of God 12.27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-12-27
- Source: CSEL 40:612–613
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The Platonist view that lesser gods made our bodies as prisons for punishment is self-contradictory, since Plato also calls the world with its mortal creatures most good, and God's mind contains the forms of all.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVII. De Platonicorum opinione, qua putauerunt angelos quidem a Deo conditos, sed ipsos esse humanorum corporum conditores. Ita sane Plato minores et a summo Deo factos deos effectores esse uoluit animalium ceterorum, ut inmortalem partem ab ipso sumerent, ipsi uero mortalem adtexerent. Proinde animarum nostrarum eos creatores noluit esse, sed corporum. Unde quoniam Porphyrius propter animae purgationem dicit corpus omne fugiendum simulque cum suo Platone aliisque Platonicis sentit eos, qui inmoderate adque inhoneste uixerint, propter luendas poenas ad corpora redire mortalia, Plato quidem etiam bestiarum, Porphyrius tantummodo ad hominum: sequitur eos, ut dicant deos istos, quos a nobis uolunt quasi parentes et conditores nostros coli, nihil esse aliud quam fabros conpedum carcerumue nostrorum, nec institutores, sed inclusores adligatoresque nostros ergastulis aerumnosis et grauissimis uinculis. Aut ergo desinant Platonici poenas animarum ex istis corporibus comminari, aut eos nobis deos colendos non praedicent, quorum in nobis operationem, ut quantum possumus fugiamus et euadamus, hortantur, cum tamen sit utrumque falsissimum. Nam neque ita luunt poenas animae, cum ad istam uitam denuo reuoluuntur, et omnium uiuentium siue in caelo siue in terra nullus est conditor, nisi a quo facta sunt caelum et terra. Nam si nulla causa est uiuendi in hoc corpore nisi propter pendenda supplicia: quo modo dicit idem Plato aliter mundum fieri non potuisse pulcherrimum adque optimum, nisi omnium animalium, id est et inmortalium et mortalium, generibus inpleretur? Si autem nostra institutio, qua uel mortales conditi sumus, diuinum munus est: quo modo poena est ad ista corpora, id est ad diuina beneficia, remeare? Et si Deus, quod adsidue Plato commemorat, sicut mundi uniuersi, ita omnium animalium species aeterna intellegentia continebat: quo modo non ipse cuncta condebat? An aliquorum esse artifex nollet, quorum efficiendorum artem ineffabilis eius et ineffabiliter laudabilis mens haberet?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 27. Of the opinion of the Platonists, who thought that the angels were indeed created by God, but were themselves the creators of human bodies.

Plato indeed held that the lesser gods, made by the supreme God, were the makers of the other living things, so that these received the immortal part from him, while they themselves wove on the mortal part. So he held them to be the creators not of our souls but of our bodies. Hence, since Porphyry says that for the purification of the soul every body must be fled, and holds with his Plato and other Platonists that those who have lived immoderately and dishonorably return to mortal bodies to pay their penalties (Plato even to the bodies of beasts, Porphyry only to those of men), it follows for them to say that these gods, whom they want us to worship as our parents and founders, are nothing else than the smiths of our fetters or prisons, not our makers but those who shut us up and bind us in wretched workhouses and very heavy chains. Either, then, let the Platonists stop threatening souls with punishments from these bodies, or let them not preach to us that those gods are to be worshipped whose work in us they urge us to flee and escape as much as we can; while both are in fact utterly false. For souls do not pay penalties in this way when they are rolled back again into this life, and of all living things, whether in heaven or on earth, there is no founder but him by whom heaven and earth were made. For if there is no reason for living in this body except to pay penalties, how does the same Plato say that the world could not have been made most beautiful and best unless it were filled with all kinds of living things, that is, both immortal and mortal? But if our creation, by which we were founded even as mortals, is a divine gift, how is it a punishment to return to these bodies, that is, to divine benefits? And if God, as Plato constantly recalls, contained in his eternal intelligence the forms of all living things, as of the whole world, how did he not himself found them all? Or would he be unwilling to be the maker of some, the art of making which his ineffable and ineffably praiseworthy mind possessed?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Tim. 41c (Plato (works)): allusion, high confidence
- Plato, Tim. 92c (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence
- Porphyry, Regr. (Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Plato, Timaeus 41c–d, 42b–c, 30c–31a, 92c; Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul (“every body must be fled,” cf. 10.29, 22.26).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.27 (CSEL 40:612–613; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-12-27).

## City of God 12.28

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-12-28
- Source: CSEL 40:613–615
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Man was created one so that the social human race might remember its unity, and woman from his side to show the dearness of marriage; in Adam the two cities already existed in God's foreknowledge.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIII. In primo homine exortam fuisse omnem plenitu- dinem generis humani, in qua praeuiderit Deus, quae pars honoranda esset praemio, quae damnanda supplicio. Merito igitur uera religio, quem mundi uniuersi, eum animalium quoque uniuersorum, hoc est et animarum et corporum, conditorem agnoscit et praedicat. In quibus terrenis praecipuus ab illo ad eius imaginem homo propter eam causam, quam dixi, et si qua forte alia maior latet, factus est unus, sed non relictus est solus. Nihil enim est quam hoc genus tam discordiosum uitio, tam sociale natura. Neque commodius contra uitium discordiae uel cauendum ne existeret, uel sanandum cum extitisset, natura loqueretur humana, quam recordationem illius parentis, quem propterea Deus creare uoluit unum, de quo multitudo propagaretur, ut hac admonitione etiam in multis concors unitas seruaretur. Quod uero femina illi ex eius latere facta est, etiam hic satis significatum est quam cara mariti et uxoris debeat esse coniunctio. Haec opera Dei propterea sunt utique inusitata, quia prima. Qui autem ista non credunt, nulla facta prodigia debent credere; neque enim et ipsa, si usitato naturae curriculo gignerentur, prodigia dicerentur. Quid autem sub tanta gubernatione diuinae prouidentiae, quamuis eius causa lateat, frustra gignitur? Ait quidam psalmus sacer: Venite et uidete opera Domini, quae posuit prodigia super terram. Quur ergo ex latere uiri femina facta sit, et hoc primum quodam modo prodigium quid praefigurauerit, dicetur alio loco, quantum me Deus adiuuerit. Nunc quoniam liber iste claudendus est, in hoc [primo] homine, qui primitus factus est, nondum quidem secundum euidentiam, iam tamen secundum Dei praescientiam exortas fuisse existimemus in genere humano societates tamquam ciuitates duas. Ex illo enim futuri erant homines, alii malis angelis in supplicio, alii bonis in praemio sociandi, quamuis occulto Dei iudicio, sed tamen iusto. Cum enim scriptum sit: Uniuersae uiae Domini misericordia et ueritas: nec iniusta eius gratia nec crudelis potest esse iustitia.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 28. That the whole fullness of the human race arose in the first man, in whom God foresaw what part was to be honored with reward and what part condemned to punishment.

Rightly, therefore, true religion acknowledges and proclaims the same founder of the whole world as of all living things, that is, of both souls and bodies. Among these earthly things man, the chief of them, was made by him in his image, one, for the reason I have given, and perhaps some other greater one that lies hidden; but he was not left alone. For there is nothing so quarrelsome by fault, so social by nature, as this race. Nor could human nature speak more fittingly against the fault of discord, whether to prevent its arising or to heal it once it had arisen, than by the remembrance of that parent whom God willed to create one for this reason, that a multitude might be propagated from him, so that by this reminder a concordant unity might be preserved even among many. And that the woman was made for him from his side, here too it is sufficiently signified how dear the union of husband and wife ought to be. These works of God are unusual precisely because they are the first. But those who do not believe them ought not to believe any prodigies that have occurred; for these too would not be called prodigies if they were produced in the usual course of nature. But what, under so great a government of divine providence, is produced in vain, though its cause may be hidden? A sacred psalm says: “Come and see the works of the Lord, what prodigies he has set upon the earth.” Why, then, the woman was made from the man's side, and what this first prodigy, as it were, prefigured, will be said in another place, as far as God helps me. Now, since this book must be closed, let us consider that in this man who was made first there arose in the human race, not yet indeed in evident fact but already in God's foreknowledge, societies like two cities. For from him were to come men, some to be joined with the evil angels in punishment, others with the good in reward, by the hidden judgment of God, but a just one. For since it is written, “All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth,” his grace cannot be unjust nor his justice cruel.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:27: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:21: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:22: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 46:8 (45:9 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 25:10 (24:10 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 2:21–22; Ps 46:8 (LXX 45:9) and Ps 25:10 (LXX 24:10) quoted. The edition's square brackets around “primo” mean the editor deletes it; it is left out. The meaning of Eve's creation from Adam's side is treated in 22.17.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 12.28 (CSEL 40:613–615; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-12-28).

## City of God 13.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-13-1
- Source: CSEL 40:615
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine turns to the fall of the first humans, who, unlike the angels, would have passed to immortality without death had they obeyed, but were justly condemned to death for disobedience.

### Latin text

CAPUT I. De lapsu primorum hominum, per quem est contracta mortalitas. Expeditis de nostri saeculi exortu et de initio generis humani difficillimis quaestionibus nunc iam de lapsu primi hominis, immo primorum hominum, et de origine ac propagine mortis humanae disputationem a nobis institutam rerum ordo deposcit. Non enim eo modo, quo angelos, condiderat Deus homines, ut etiam si peccassent mori omnino non possent; sed ita ut perfunctos oboedientiae munere sine interuentu mortis angelica inmortalitas et beata aeternitas sequeretur; inoboedientes autem mors plecteret damnatione iustissima; quod etiam in libro superiore iam diximus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. Of the fall of the first human beings, through which mortality was contracted.

The most difficult questions about the rise of our world and the beginning of the human race having been dealt with, the order of things now requires us to undertake a discussion of the fall of the first man, or rather of the first human beings, and of the origin and propagation of human death. For God had not made men in the same way as the angels, so that even if they sinned they could not die at all; but so that, if they fulfilled the duty of obedience, angelic immortality and a blessed eternity would follow without the intervention of death, but if they were disobedient, death would punish them by a most just condemnation; as we have also said in the preceding book.

### Scripture references

- Gen 2:17: allusion, medium confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.1 (CSEL 40:615; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-13-1).

## City of God 13.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-13-2
- Source: CSEL 40:615–617
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The soul dies when God forsakes it, the body when the soul leaves it; the second death is the eternal punishment of body and soul, good to no one.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. De ea morte, quae animae semper utcumque uicturae accidere potest, et ea, cui corpus obnoxium est. Sed de ipso genere mortis uideo mihi paulo diligentius disserendum. Quamuis enim anima humana ueraciter inmortalis perhibeatur, habet tamen quandam etiam ipsa mortem suam. Nam ideo dicitur inmortalis, quia modo quodam quantulocumque non desinit uiuere adque sentire; corpus autem ideo mortale, quoniam deseri omni uita potest nec per se ipsum aliquatenus uiuit. Mors igitur animae fit, cum eam deserit Deus, sicut corporis, cum id deserit anima. Ergo utriusque rei, id est totius hominis, mors est, cum anima Deo deserta deserit corpus. Ita enim nec ex Deo uiuit ipsa nec corpus ex ipsa. Huius modi autem totius hominis mortem illa sequitur, quam secundam mortem diuinorum eloquiorum appellat auctoritas. Hanc Saluator significauit, ubi ait: Eum timete, qui habet potestatem et corpus et animam perdere in gehennam. Quod cum ante non fiat, quam cum anima corpori sic fuerit copulata, ut nulla diremtione separentur: mirum uideri potest quo modo corpus ea morte dicatur occidi, qua non anima deseritur, sed animatum sentiensque cruciatur. Nam in illa ultima poena ac sempiterna, de qua suo loco diligentius disserendum est, recte mors animae dicitur, quia non uiuit ex Deo; mors autem corporis quonam modo, cum uiuat ex anima? Non enim aliter potest ipsa corporalia, quae post resurrectionem futura sunt, sentire tormenta. An quia uita qualiscumque aliquod bonum est, dolor autem malum, ideo nec uiuere corpus dicendum est, in quo anima non uiuendi causa est, sed dolendi? Viuit itaque anima ex Deo, cum uiuit bene; non enim potest bene uiuere nisi Deo in se operante quod bonum est; uiuit autem corpus ex anima, cum anima uiuit in corpore, seu uiuat ipsa seu non uiuat ex Deo. Inpiorum namque in corporibus uita non animarum, sed corporum uita est; quam possunt eis animae etiam mortuae, hoc est Deo deserente, quantulacumque propria uita, ex qua et inmortales sunt, non desistente, conferre. Verum in damnatione nouissima quamuis homo sentire non desinat, tamen, quia sensus ipse nec uoluptate suauis nec quiete salubris, sed dolore poenalis est, non inmerito mors est potius appellata quam uita. Ideo autem secunda, quia post illam primam est, qua fit cohaerentium diremtio naturarum, siue Dei et animae siue animae et corporis. De prima igitur corporis morte dici potest, quod bonis bona sit, malis mala; secunda uero sine dubio sicut nullorum bonorum est, ita nulli bona.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. Of the death which can befall the soul, which will in some way always live, and of that to which the body is subject.

But I see that I must discuss the very kind of death a little more carefully. For although the human soul is truly said to be immortal, it too has a certain death of its own. For it is called immortal because in some manner, however slight, it does not cease to live and feel; but the body is called mortal because it can be forsaken by all life and does not live at all by itself. The death of the soul, then, occurs when God forsakes it, as the death of the body when the soul forsakes it. The death of both, therefore, that is, of the whole man, is when the soul, forsaken by God, forsakes the body. For then neither does it live from God nor the body from it. And such a death of the whole man is followed by that which the authority of the divine oracles calls the second death. The Savior signified this when he said: “Fear him who has power to destroy both body and soul in Gehenna.” Since this does not happen before the soul has been so joined to the body that they are separated by no severance, it may seem strange how the body is said to be killed by that death in which it is not forsaken by the soul but, animated and sensate, is tormented. For in that final and everlasting punishment, of which we must speak more carefully in its place, it is rightly called the death of the soul, because it does not live from God; but how is it the death of the body, when it lives from the soul? For otherwise it cannot feel the bodily torments that will be after the resurrection. Or is it because life of any kind is some good, and pain an evil, that the body must not be said to live, in which the soul is the cause not of living but of suffering?

The soul lives from God, then, when it lives well; for it cannot live well unless God works in it what is good; but the body lives from the soul when the soul lives in the body, whether or not the soul itself lives from God. For the life of the wicked in their bodies is the life not of their souls but of their bodies, which their souls can give them even when dead, that is, forsaken by God, since their own life, however slight, from which they are also immortal, does not cease. But in the final condemnation, although man does not cease to feel, yet because the feeling itself is neither sweet with pleasure nor wholesome with rest, but penal with pain, it is not undeservedly called death rather than life. And it is called second because it comes after that first, in which there is a severance of natures that cohere, whether of God and the soul or of the soul and the body. Of the first death of the body, then, it can be said that it is good to the good and evil to the evil; but the second, beyond doubt, as it belongs to none of the good, so is good to none.

### Scripture references

- Matt 10:28: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 20:14: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 21:8: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Matt 10:28 quoted; the “second death” is from Rev 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.2 (CSEL 40:615–617; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-13-2).

## City of God 13.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-13-3
- Source: CSEL 40:617–619
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Death is the penalty of the first sin, passed to all Adam's descendants because human nature was changed in him; he did not become infantile, but suffered rebellious concupiscence and mortality, from which grace frees infants as to the second death.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. Utrum mors, quae per peccatum primorum homi- num in omnes homines pertransiit, etiam in sanctis poena peccati sit. Non autem dissimulanda nascitur quaestio, utrum re uera mors, qua separantur anima et corpus, bonis sit bona; quia si ita est, quo modo poterit obtineri, quod etiam ipsa sit poena peccati? Hanc enim primi homines, nisi peccauissent, perpessi utique non fuissent. Quo pacto igitur bona esse possit bonis, quae accidere non posset nisi malis? Et rursus si non nisi malis posset accidere, non deberet bonis bona esse, sed nulla. Quur enim esset ulla poena in quibus non essent ulla punienda? Quapropter fatendum est primos quidem homines ita fuisse institutos, ut, si non peccassent, nullum mortis experirentur genus; sed eosdem primos peccatores ita fuisse morte multatos, ut etiam quidquid de eorum stirpe esset exortum eadem poena teneretur obnoxium. Non enim aliud ex eis, quam quod ipsi fuerant, nasceretur. Pro magnitudine quippe culpae illius naturam damnatio mutauit in peius, ut, quod poenaliter praecessit in peccantibus hominibus primis, etiam naturaliter sequeretur in nascentibus ceteris. Neque enim ita homo ex homine, sicut homo ex puluere. Puluis namque homini faciendo materies fuit, homo autem homini gignendo parens. Proinde quod est terra, non hoc est caro, quamuis ex terra facta sit caro; quod est autem parens homo, hoc est et proles homo. In primo igitur homine per feminam in progeniem transiturum uniuersum genus humanum fuit, quando illa coniugum copula diuinam sententiam suae damnationis excepit; et quod homo factus est, non cum crearetur, sed cum peccaret et puniretur, hoc genuit, quantum quidem adtinet ad peccati et mortis originem. Non enim ad infantilem hebetudinem et infirmitatem animi et corporis, quam uidemus in paruulis, peccato uel poena ille redactus est (quae Deus uoluit esse tamquam primordia catulorum, quorum parentes in bestialem uitam mortemque deiecerat; sicut enim scriptum est: Homo in honore cum esset, non intellexit; conparatus est pecoribus non intellegentibus et similis factus est illis; nisi quod infantes infirmiores etiam cernimus in usu motuque membrorum et sensu adpetendi adque uitandi, quam sunt aliorum tenerrimi fetus animalium; tamquam se tanto adtollat excellentius supra cetera animantia uis humana, quanto magis inpetum suum, uelut sagitta cum arcus extenditur, retrorsum reducta distulerit); — non ergo ad ista infantilia rudimenta praesumtione inlicita et damnatione iusta prolapsus uel inpulsus est primus homo; sed hactenus in eo natura humana uitiata adque mutata est, ut repugnantem pateretur in membris inoboedientiam concupiscendi et obstringeretur necessitate moriendi, adque ita id, quod uitio poenaque factus est, id est obnoxios peccato mortique generaret. A quo peccati uinculo si per Mediatoris Christi gratiam soluuntur infantes, hanc solam mortem perpeti possunt, quae animam seiungit a corpore; in secundam uero illam sine fine poenalem liberati a peccati obligatione non transeunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. Whether death, which through the sin of the first human beings passed to all men, is the penalty of sin even in the saints.

A question arises which must not be passed over: whether in truth death, by which soul and body are separated, is good to the good; for if so, how can it be maintained that it is also the penalty of sin? For the first human beings would certainly not have suffered it had they not sinned. How then can that be good to the good which could happen only to the evil? And again, if it could happen only to the evil, it ought not to be good to the good but not exist for them. For why would there be any penalty for those in whom there was nothing to punish? Therefore it must be confessed that the first human beings were indeed so established that, had they not sinned, they would have experienced no kind of death; but that these same first sinners were so punished with death that whatever sprang from their stock would also be held liable to the same penalty. For nothing else would be born of them than what they themselves had been. For according to the greatness of that guilt, the condemnation changed their nature for the worse, so that what came first as a penalty in the first human beings who sinned followed as nature in the rest who are born. For man is not from man as man was from dust. For dust was the material for making man, but man is the parent for begetting man. Hence what earth is, flesh is not, although flesh was made from earth; but what man the parent is, man the offspring is too. In the first man, then, the whole human race was present, to pass through the woman into its progeny, when that union of the couple received the divine sentence of its condemnation; and what man became, not when he was created but when he sinned and was punished, that he begot, so far as concerns the origin of sin and death.

For he was not reduced by sin or punishment to that infantile dullness and weakness of mind and body which we see in little children (God willed these to be, as it were, the beginnings of whelps, whose parents he had cast down into a bestial life and death, as it is written: “Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he has been compared to the senseless cattle and has become like them”; except that we see infants weaker even in the use and movement of their limbs and in the sense of seeking and avoiding than the tenderest young of other animals; as if human strength would rise so much more excellently above the other living things the more it has held back its impetus, like an arrow drawn back when the bow is stretched). Not, then, to these infantile rudiments was the first man brought down or driven by his unlawful presumption and just condemnation; but human nature was vitiated and changed in him so far that he suffered in his members a rebellious disobedience of concupiscence and was bound by the necessity of dying; and so he begot, as what he had become by fault and punishment, offspring liable to sin and death. If infants are loosed from this bond of sin through the grace of Christ the Mediator, they can suffer only this death which separates the soul from the body; but, freed from the obligation of sin, they do not pass into that second, endlessly penal one.

### Scripture references

- Rom 5:12: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:7: allusion, medium confidence
- Ps 49:12 (48:13 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 7:23: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Tim 2:5: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Rom 5:12 in the heading; Ps 49:12, 20 (LXX 48:13, 21) quoted. On “concupiscence” (concupiscentia) see the note at 14.15. The doctrine of inherited sin and the baptism of infants is stated as Augustine teaches it.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.3 (CSEL 40:617–619; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-13-3).

## City of God 13.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-13-4
- Source: CSEL 40:619–620
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The baptized still die so that faith may remain faith and martyrs may conquer the fear of death; by grace the penalty of sin becomes the martyr's weapon of righteousness.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. Quur ab his, qui per gratiam regenerationis absoluti sunt a peccato, non auferatur mors, id est poena peccati. Si quem uero mouet, quur uel ipsam patiantur, si et ipsa peccati poena est, quorum per gratiam reatus aboletur: iam ista quaestio in alio nostro opere, quod scripsimus de baptismo paruulorum, tractata ac soluta est; ubi dictum est ad hoc relinqui animae experimentum separationis a corpore, quamuis ablato iam criminis nexu, quoniam, si regenerationis sacramentum continuo sequeretur inmortalitas corporis, ipsa fides eneruaretur, quae tunc est fides, quando expectatur in spe, quod in re nondum uidetur. Fidei autem robore adque certamine, in maioribus dumtaxat aetatibus, etiam mortis fuerat superandus timor, quod in sanctis martyribus maxime eminuit; cuius profecto certaminis esset nulla uictoria, nulla gloria (quia nec ipsum omnino posset esse certamen), si post lauacrum regenerationis iam sancti non possent mortem perpeti corporalem. Cum paruulis autem baptizandis quis non ad Christi gratiam propterea potius curreret, ne a corpore solueretur? Adque ita non inuisibili praemio probaretur fides, sed iam nec fides esset, confestim sui operis quaerendo et sumendo mercedem. Nunc uero maiore et mirabiliore gratia Saluatoris in usus iustitiae peccati poena conuersa est. Tunc enim dictum est homini: Morieris, si peccaueris: nunc dicitur martyri: Morere, ne pecces. Tunc dictum est: Si mandatum transgressi fueritis, morte moriemini; nunc dicitur: Si mortem recusaueritis, mandatum transgrediemini. Quod tunc timendum fuerat, ut non peccaretur, nunc suscipiendum est, ne peccetur. Sic per ineffabilem Dei misericordiam et ipsa poena uitiorum transit in arma uirtutis, et fit iusti meritum etiam supplicium peccatoris. Tunc enim mors est adquisita peccando, nunc inpletur iustitia moriendo. Verum hoc in sanctis martyribus, quibus alterutrum a persecutore proponitur, ut aut deserant fidem aut sufferant mortem. Iusti enim malunt credendo perpeti, quod sunt primi iniqui non credendo perpessi. Nisi enim peccassent illi, non morerentur; peccabunt autem isti, nisi moriantur. Mortui ergo sunt illi, quia peccauerunt; non peccant isti, quia moriuntur. Factum est per illorum culpam, ut ueniretur in poenam; fit per istorum poenam, ne ueniatur in culpam; non quia mors bonum aliquod facta est, quae antea malum fuit; sed tantam Deus fidei praestitit gratiam, ut mors, quam uitae constat esse contrariam, instrumentum fieret, per quod transiretur ad uitam.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. Why death, the penalty of sin, is not taken away from those who have been absolved from sin by the grace of regeneration.

If anyone is troubled why those whose guilt is abolished by grace should suffer even this death, if it too is the penalty of sin, this question has already been treated and resolved in another work of ours, which we wrote On the Baptism of Infants. There it was said that the experience of separation from the body is left to the soul, although the bond of guilt has already been removed, because, if the immortality of the body immediately followed the sacrament of regeneration, faith itself would be weakened, which is faith only when what is not yet seen in reality is awaited in hope. And by the strength and struggle of faith, at least in those of older years, even the fear of death had to be overcome, which was most conspicuous in the holy martyrs. Of that struggle there would certainly be no victory, no glory (since there could be no struggle at all), if after the washing of regeneration the saints could no longer suffer bodily death. With little children to be baptized, who would not rather run to the grace of Christ in order not to be released from the body? And so faith would not be tested by an invisible reward, but would no longer even be faith, seeking and taking at once the reward of its work.

But now, by a greater and more wonderful grace of the Savior, the penalty of sin has been turned to the uses of righteousness. For then it was said to man, “You will die if you sin”; now it is said to the martyr, “Die, lest you sin.” Then it was said, “If you transgress the commandment, you will die the death”; now it is said, “If you refuse death, you will transgress the commandment.” What had then to be feared so as not to sin must now be undertaken lest one sin. Thus, by the ineffable mercy of God, even the penalty of faults passes into the weapons of virtue, and even the punishment of the sinner becomes the merit of the righteous. For then death was acquired by sinning; now righteousness is fulfilled by dying. But this is in the holy martyrs, to whom one of two things is offered by the persecutor, either to forsake the faith or to endure death. For the righteous prefer to suffer by believing what the first wicked ones suffered by not believing. For unless those had sinned, they would not have died; but these will sin unless they die. Those, then, died because they sinned; these do not sin because they die. By the guilt of those it came about that they came into punishment; by the punishment of these it comes about that they do not come into guilt; not because death, which was formerly an evil, has become some good, but because God has granted so great a grace to faith that death, which is plainly contrary to life, has become the instrument by which one passes to life.

### Scripture references

- Gen 2:17: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 8:24: allusion, high confidence
- Titus 3:5: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Augustine refers to his On the Merits and Remission of Sins and on the Baptism of Infants (2.30.49–34.56); this work is not in the site's list. Gen 2:17 paraphrased; Rom 8:24–25 and Titus 3:5 echoed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.4 (CSEL 40:619–620; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-13-4).

## City of God 13.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-13-5
- Source: CSEL 40:620–622
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: As sinners abuse the good law, so the righteous use evil death well; death remains an evil, the wages of sin, even when it crowns martyrs.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. Quod sicut iniqui male utuntur lege, quae bona est, ita iusti bene utantur morte, quae mala est. Apostolus cum uellet ostendere, quantum peccatum gratia non subueniente ad nocendum ualeret, etiam ipsam legem, qua prohibetur peccatum, non dubitauit dicere uirtutem esse peccati. Aculeus, inquit, mortis est peccatum, uirtus autem peccati lex. Verissime omnino. Auget enim prohibitio desiderium operis inliciti, quando iustitia non sic diligitur, ut peccandi cupiditas eius delectatione uincatur. Ut autem diligatur et delectet uera iustitia, non nisi diuina subuenit gratia. Sed ne propterea lex putaretur malum, quoniam uirtus est dicta peccati: ideo ipse alio loco uersans huius modi quaestionem: Itaque, inquit, lex quidem sancta et mandatum sanctum et iustum et bonum. Quod ergo bonum est, inquit, mihi factum est mors? Absit. Sed peccatum, ut appareat peccatum, per bonum mihi operatum est mortem, ut fiat super modum peccator aut peccatum per mandatum. Super modum dixit, quia etiam praeuaricatio additur, cum peccandi aucta libidine etiam lex ipsa contemnitur. Quur hoc commemorandum putauimus? Quia scilicet, sicut lex non est malum, quando auget peccantium concupiscentiam, ita nec mors bonum est, quando auget patientium gloriam, cum uel illa pro iniquitate deseritur et efficit praeuaricatores, uel ista pro ueritate suscipitur et efficit martyres. Ac per hoc lex quidem bona est, quia prohibitio est peccati; mors autem mala, quia stipendium est peccati; sed quem ad modum iniustitia male utitur non tantum malis, uerum etiam bonis: ita iustitia bene non tantum bonis, sed etiam malis. Hinc fit, ut et mali male lege utantur, quamuis sit lex bonum, et boni bene moriantur, quamuis sit mors malum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. That as the wicked make bad use of the law, which is good, so the righteous make good use of death, which is evil.

The apostle, wishing to show how much power sin has to harm when grace does not come to the rescue, did not hesitate to call even the law itself, by which sin is forbidden, the power of sin. “The sting of death,” he says, “is sin, and the power of sin is the law.” Most truly indeed. For prohibition increases the desire for the unlawful deed when righteousness is not so loved that the desire to sin is overcome by delight in it. And that true righteousness may be loved and delight, only divine grace comes to the rescue. But lest the law should be thought evil because it was called the power of sin, he himself, turning over a question of this kind in another place, says: “So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means. But sin, that it might appear as sin, worked death in me through what is good, so that the sinner or sin might become beyond measure sinful through the commandment.” He said “beyond measure” because transgression is added too, when, the lust for sinning having increased, even the law itself is despised. Why did we think this worth mentioning? Because, just as the law is not evil when it increases the concupiscence of sinners, so death is not good when it increases the glory of those who suffer it, when either the law is forsaken for iniquity and makes transgressors, or death is undertaken for the truth and makes martyrs. And so the law indeed is good, because it is the prohibition of sin; but death is evil, because it is the wages of sin; but as injustice makes bad use not only of evil things but also of good ones, so justice makes good use not only of good things but also of evil ones. Hence it comes about that the evil make bad use of the law, although the law is a good, and the good die well, although death is an evil.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 15:56: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 7:12: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 7:13: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 6:23: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- 1 Cor 15:56; Rom 7:12–13; Rom 6:23.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.5 (CSEL 40:620–622; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-13-5).

## City of God 13.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-13-6
- Source: CSEL 40:622
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Bodily death is an unnatural tearing apart, good to no one; borne faithfully it gains merit and may even win forgiveness, but it remains a punishment.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. De generali mortis malo, quo animae et corporis societas separatur. Quapropter quod adtinet ad corporis mortem, id est separationem animae a corpore, cum eam patiuntur, qui morientes appellantur, nulli bona est. Habet enim asperum sensum et contra naturam uis ipsa, qua utrumque diuellitur, quod fuerat in uiuente coniunctum adque consertum, quamdiu moratur, donec omnis adimatur sensus, qui ex ipso inerat animae carnisque conplexu. Quam totam molestiam nonnumquam unus ictus corporis uel animae raptus intercipit nec eam sentiri praeueniente celeritate permittit. Quidquid tamen illud est in morientibus, quod cum graui sensu adimit sensum, pie fideliterque tolerando auget meritum patientiae, non aufert uocabulum poenae. Ita cum ex hominis primi perpetuata propagine procul dubio sit mors poena nascentis, tamen si pro pietate iustitiaque pendatur, fit gloria renascentis; et cum sit mors peccati retributio, aliquando inpetrat, ut nihil retribuatur peccato.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. Of the general evil of death, by which the fellowship of soul and body is severed.

Therefore, as far as the death of the body is concerned, that is, the separation of the soul from the body, when those who are called dying suffer it, it is good to no one. For the very force by which the two are torn apart, which had been joined and bound together in the living being, has a harsh feeling contrary to nature, as long as it lasts, until all the feeling is taken away which was present from the very embrace of soul and flesh. Sometimes a single blow to the body or a snatching away of the soul cuts off all this distress and, by its speed, does not allow it to be felt. Yet whatever that is in the dying which, with painful feeling, takes away feeling, it increases the merit of patience when it is borne piously and faithfully; it does not take away the name of punishment. So, while death, from the perpetuated propagation of the first man, is beyond doubt the punishment of the one who is born, yet if it is paid for piety and righteousness, it becomes the glory of the one who is reborn; and though death is the retribution of sin, it sometimes obtains that nothing is paid in retribution to sin.

### Scripture references

- Rom 6:23: allusion, medium confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.6 (CSEL 40:622; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-13-6).

## City of God 13.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-13-7
- Source: CSEL 40:622–624
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Martyrdom for Christ avails the unbaptized for forgiveness as baptism does, by grace, and exceeds the merit of deathbed baptism, though death itself remains no good.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. De morte, quam quidam non regenerati pro Christi confessione suscipiunt. Nam quicumque etiam non percepto regenerationis lauacro pro Christi confessione moriuntur, tantum eis ualet ad dimittenda peccata, quantum si abluerentur sacro fonte baptismatis. Qui enim dixit: Si quis non renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu, non intrabit in regnum caelorum, alia sententia istos fecit exceptos, ubi non minus generaliter ait: Qui me confessus fuerit coram hominibus confitebor [et ego] eum coram Patre meo qui in caelis est; et alio loco: Qui perdiderit animam suam propter me, inueniet eam. Hinc est quod scriptum est: Pretiosa in conspectu Domini mors sanctorum eius. Quid enim pretiosius quam mors, per quam fit ut et delicta omnia dimittantur et merita cumulatius augeantur? Neque enim tanti sunt meriti, qui, cum mortem differre non possent, baptizati sunt deletisque omnibus peccatis ex hac uita emigrarunt, quanti sunt hi, qui mortem, cum possent, ideo non distulerunt, quia maluerunt Christum confitendo finire uitam quam eum negando ad eius baptismum peruenire. Quod utique si fecissent, etiam hoc eis in illo lauacro dimitteretur, quod timore mortis negauerant Christum, in quo lauacro et illis facinus tam inmane dimissum est, qui occiderant Christum. Sed quando sine abundantia gratiae Spiritus illius, qui ubi uult spirat, tantum Christum amare possent, ut eum in tanto uitae discrimine sub tanta spe ueniae negare non possent? Mors igitur pretiosa sanctorum, quibus cum tanta gratia est praemissa et praerogata mors Christi, ut ad eum adquirendum suam non cunctarentur inpendere, in eos usus redactum esse monstrauit, quod ad poenam peccati antea fuerat constitutum, ut inde iustitiae fructus uberior nasceretur. Mors ergo non ideo bonum uideri debet, quia in tantam utilitatem non ui sua, sed diuina opitulatione conuersa est, ut, quae tunc metuenda proposita est, ne peccatum committeretur, nunc suscipienda proponatur, ut peccatum non committatur commissumque deleatur magnaeque uictoriae debita iustitiae palma reddatur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. Of the death which some who are not regenerated undergo for confessing Christ.

For whoever die for confessing Christ, even without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails them as much for the forgiveness of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he who said, “If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven,” made an exception for these in another saying, where he says no less generally: “Whoever confesses me before men, I will confess him before my Father who is in heaven”; and in another place: “Whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” Hence it is written: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.” For what is more precious than a death by which it comes about that all offenses are forgiven and merits are more abundantly increased? For those who, when they could not put off death, were baptized and departed this life with all their sins blotted out, are not of such great merit as those who, when they could, did not put off death, because they preferred to end their life by confessing Christ than to come to his baptism by denying him. Had they done this, even this, that they had denied Christ for fear of death, would have been forgiven them in that washing, in which even so monstrous a crime was forgiven to those who had killed Christ. But without the abundance of the grace of that Spirit who “breathes where he wills,” how could they love Christ so much that in so great a peril of life, with so great a hope of pardon, they could not deny him? The precious death of the saints, then, to whom the death of Christ was sent before and granted in advance with such great grace that they did not hesitate to spend their own to gain him, has shown that what was formerly appointed for the punishment of sin has been turned to such uses that from it a richer fruit of righteousness is born. Death, then, ought not to seem a good for this reason, that it has been turned to so great a benefit, not by its own force but by divine help; so that what was then set before us to be feared, lest sin be committed, is now set before us to be undertaken, that sin may not be committed, and that committed sin may be blotted out, and the palm due to righteousness be rendered for a great victory.

### Scripture references

- John 3:5: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 10:32: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 10:39: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 116:15 (115:6 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- John 3:8: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 2:36: allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- John 3:5 (quoted as “kingdom of heaven”); Matt 10:32; Matt 10:39 / 16:25; Ps 116:15 (LXX 115:6); John 3:8. The edition's square brackets around “et ego” (“I too”) in Matt 10:32 mean the editor deletes them; they are left out. On the “baptism of blood” as Augustine states it.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.7 (CSEL 40:622–624; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-13-7).

## City of God 13.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-13-8
- Source: CSEL 40:624
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The martyr accepts the first death to escape the second; after death the souls of the godly rest and those of the wicked are punished until the resurrection.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. Quod in sanctis primae mortis pro ueritate susceptio secundae sit mortis abolitio. Si enim diligentius consideremus, etiam cum quisque pro ueritate fideliter et laudabiliter moritur, mors cauetur. Ideo quippe aliquid eius suscipitur, ne tota contingat et secunda insuper, quae numquam finiatur, accedat. Suscipitur enim animae a corpore separatio, ne Deo ab anima separato etiam ipsa separetur a corpore, ac sic totius hominis prima morte conpleta secunda excipiat sempiterna. Quocirca mors quidem, ut dixi, cum eam morientes patiuntur cumque in eis ut moriantur facit, nemini bona est, sed laudabiliter toleraretur pro tenendo uel adipiscendo bono; cum uero in ea sunt, qui iam mortui nuncupantur, non absurde dicitur et malis mala et bonis bona. In requie sunt enim animae piorum a corpore separatae, inpiorum autem poenas luunt, donec istarum ad aeternam uitam, illarum uero ad aeternam mortem, quae secunda dicitur, corpora reuiuescant.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. That in the saints the acceptance of the first death for the truth is the abolition of the second death.

For if we consider more carefully, even when anyone dies faithfully and laudably for the truth, it is death that is guarded against. For some part of it is accepted precisely so that the whole of it may not befall, and the second besides, which never ends, may not come. For the separation of the soul from the body is accepted, lest, God being separated from the soul, it too should be separated from the body, and so, the first death of the whole man being completed, the everlasting second should follow. Therefore death indeed, as I have said, when the dying suffer it and when it works in them to make them die, is good to no one, but it is laudably endured for the sake of keeping or obtaining good; but when those are in it who are already called dead, it is not absurdly said to be evil to the evil and good to the good. For the souls of the godly, separated from the body, are at rest, while those of the ungodly pay penalties, until the bodies of the former come to life again to eternal life, and those of the latter to eternal death, which is called the second.

### Scripture references

- Rev 20:14: allusion, medium confidence
- Dan 12:2: echo, medium confidence
- John 5:29: echo, medium confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.8 (CSEL 40:624; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-13-8).

## City of God 13.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-13-9
- Source: CSEL 40:624–626
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine probes the puzzle of when one is “in death”: the dying still live, and the dead are already past death.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. Tempus mortis, quo uitae sensus aufertur, in morientibus an in mortuis esse dicendum sit. Sed id tempus, quo animae a corpore separatae aut in bonis sunt aut in malis, utrum post mortem potius an in morte dicendum est? Si enim post mortem est, iam non ipsa mors, quae transacta adque praeterita est, sed post eam uita praesens animae bona seu mala est. Mors autem tunc eis mala erat, quando erat, hoc est quando eam patiebantur, cum morerentur, quoniam grauis et molestus eius inerat sensus; quo malo bene utuntur boni. Peracta autem mors quonam modo uel bona uel mala est, quae iam non est? Porro si adhuc diligentius adtendamus, nec illa mors esse apparebit, cuius grauem ac molestum in morientibus diximus sensum. Quamdiu enim sentiunt, adhuc utique uiuunt, et si adhuc uiuunt, ante mortem quam in morte potius esse dicendi sunt; quia illa, cum uenerit, aufert omnem corporis sensum, qui ea propinquante molestus est. Ac per hoc quo modo morientes dicamus eos, qui nondum mortui sunt, sed inminente morte iam extrema et mortifera adflictione iactantur, explicare difficile est, etiamsi recte isti appellantur morientes, quia, cum mors quae iam inpendet aduenerit, non morientes, sed mortui nuncupantur. Nullus est ergo moriens nisi uiuens, quoniam, cum in tanta est extremitate uitae, in quanta sunt quos agere animam dicimus, profecto qui nondum anima caruit adhuc uiuit. Idem ipse igitur simul et moriens est et uiuens, sed morti accedens, uita cedens; adhuc tamen in uita, quia inest anima corpori; nondum autem in morte, quia nondum abscessit a corpore. Sed si, cum abscesserit, nec tunc in morte, sed post mortem potius erit: quando sit in morte quis dixerit? Nam neque ullus moriens erit, si moriens et uiuens simul esse nullus potest. Quamdiu quippe anima in corpore est, non possumus negare uiuentem. Aut si moriens potius dicendus est, in cuius iam corpore agitur ut moriatur, nec simul quisquam potest esse uiuens et moriens: nescio quando sit uiuens.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. Whether the time of death, in which the sense of life is taken away, should be said to be in the dying or in the dead.

But that time in which souls, separated from the body, are either in good or in evil, is it to be said to be after death rather than in death? For if it is after death, then it is not death itself, which is completed and past, but the present life of the soul after it that is good or bad. But death was evil to them when it existed, that is, when they suffered it while dying, since a heavy and distressing feeling of it was present; and the good make good use of this evil. But death once completed, how is it good or evil, when it no longer exists? Further, if we attend still more carefully, it will appear that not even that is death whose heavy and distressing feeling we said is in the dying. For as long as they feel, they certainly still live; and if they still live, they should be said to be before death rather than in death; since death, when it comes, takes away all bodily feeling, which is distressing as it draws near. And therefore it is hard to explain how we call dying those who are not yet dead, but, with death imminent, are tossed in the last and mortal affliction; although they are rightly called dying, because, when the death that now threatens has come, they are called not dying but dead. No one, then, is dying except the living, since, when he is at so great an extremity of life as those whom we say are breathing their last, surely he who has not yet lost his soul still lives. The same man, then, is at once both dying and living, but approaching death and departing from life; still in life, however, because the soul is in the body; not yet in death, because it has not yet gone from the body. But if, when it has gone, he will not even then be in death but rather after death, who can say when he is in death? For no one will be dying either, if no one can be dying and living at once. For as long as the soul is in the body, we cannot deny that he is living. Or if he should rather be called dying in whose body the work of dying is already going on, and no one can be at once living and dying, I do not know when he is living.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.9 (CSEL 40:624–626; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/12-24/#p-13-9).

## City of God 13.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-10/#p-13-10
- Source: CSEL 40:626–627
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Mortal life is a race toward death in which all run at equal speed; from birth one is in a sense already in death.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. An uita mortalium mors potius quam uita dicenda sit. Ex quo enim quisque in isto corpore morituro esse coeperit, numquam in eo non agitur ut mors ueniat. Hoc enim agit eius mutabilitas toto tempore uitae huius (si tamen uita dicenda est), ut ueniatur in mortem. Nemo quippe est, qui non ei post annum sit, quam ante annum fuit, et cras quam hodie, et hodie quam heri, et paulo post quam nunc, et nunc quam paulo ante propinquior; quoniam, quidquid temporis uiuitur, de spatio uiuendi demitur, et cottidie fit minus minusque quod restat, ut omnino nihil sit aliud tempus uitae huius, quam cursus ad mortem, in quo nemo uel paululum stare uel aliquanto tardius ire permittitur; sed urgentur omnes pari motu nec diuerso inpelluntur accessu. Neque enim, cui uita breuior fuit, celerius diem duxit quam ille, cui longior; sed cum aequaliter et aequalia momenta raperentur ambobus, alter habuit propius, alter remotius, quo non inpari uelocitate ambo currebant. Aliud est autem amplius uiae peregisse, aliud tardius ambulasse. Qui ergo usque ad mortem productiora spatia temporis agit, non lentius pergit, sed plus itineris conficit. Porro si ex illo quisque incipit mori, hoc est esse in morte, ex quo in illo agi coeperit ipsa mors, id est uitae detractio (quia, cum detrahendo finita fuerit, post mortem iam erit, non in morte): profecto, ex quo esse incipit in hoc corpore, in morte est. Quid enim aliud diebus horis momentisque singulis agitur, donec ea consumta mors, quae agebatur, inpleatur, et incipiat iam tempus esse post mortem, quod, cum uita detraheretur, erat in morte? Numquam igitur in uita homo est, ex quo est in isto corpore moriente potius quam uiuente, si et in uita et in morte simul non potest esse. An potius et in uita et in morte simul est; in uita scilicet, in qua uiuit, donec tota detrahatur; in morte autem, quia iam moritur, cum uita detrahitur? Si enim non est in uita, quid est quod detrahitur, donec eius fiat perfecta consumtio? Si autem non est in morte, quid est uitae ipsa detractio? Non enim frustra, cum uita fuerit corpori tota detracta, post mortem iam dicitur, nisi quia mors erat, cum detraheretur. Nam si ea detracta non est homo in morte, sed post mortem: quando, nisi cum detrahitur, erit in morte?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. Whether the life of mortals should be called death rather than life.

For from the moment anyone begins to exist in this body that is to die, the work of bringing death never ceases in it. For its changeableness brings this about through the whole time of this life (if indeed it is to be called life), that it comes to death. For there is no one who is not nearer to it after a year than a year before, and tomorrow than today, and today than yesterday, and a little later than now, and now than a little before; since whatever time is lived is taken from the span of living, and every day what remains becomes less and less, so that the time of this life is nothing else at all than a race to death, in which no one is allowed to stand still even a little or to go somewhat more slowly; but all are pressed on with equal motion and driven by no different approach. For he whose life was shorter did not pass his day more quickly than he whose life was longer; but, since equal moments were snatched equally from both, one had nearer, the other farther off, the goal to which both were running with no unequal speed. It is one thing to have covered more of the road, another to have walked more slowly. He, then, who passes longer spans of time until death does not go more slowly, but completes more of the journey. Further, if each begins to die, that is, to be in death, from the moment death itself, that is, the subtraction of life, begins to work in him (since, when the subtraction is finished, he will then be after death, not in death), then surely from the moment he begins to exist in this body he is in death. For what else is done in each day, hour, and moment, until, these being used up, the death that was being worked is fulfilled, and the time begins that is after death, which, while life was being subtracted, was in death? Never, then, is man in life from the moment he is in this body, which is dying rather than living, if he cannot be in life and death at once. Or is he rather in life and death at once: in life, namely, in which he lives until it is all taken away; but in death, because he is already dying when life is being taken away? For if he is not in life, what is it that is taken away until its consumption is complete? But if he is not in death, what is this very subtraction of life? For it is not in vain that, when life has been wholly taken away from the body, it is then said to be after death, unless because it was death while it was being taken away. For if, when it has been taken away, man is not in death but after death, when, if not while it is being taken away, will he be in death?

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.10 (CSEL 40:626–627; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-10/#p-13-10).

## City of God 13.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-10/#p-13-11
- Source: CSEL 40:627–630
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The moment of death cannot be located, and even Latin cannot properly “decline” the verb to die; but by Christ's grace we can “decline” the second death, an endless dying.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. An quisquam simul et uiuens esse possit et mortuus. Si autem absurdum est, ut hominem, antequam ad mortem perueniat, iam esse dicamus in morte (cui enim propinquat peragendo uitae suae tempora, si iam in illa est?), maxime quia nimis est insolens, ut simul et uiuens esse dicatur et moriens, cum uigilans et dormiens simul esse non possit: quaerendum est quando erit moriens. Etenim antequam mors ueniat, non est moriens, sed uiuens; cum uero mors uenerit, mortuus erit, non moriens. Illud ergo est adhuc ante mortem, hoc iam post mortem. Quando ergo in morte? Tunc enim est moriens, ut, quem ad modum tria sunt cum dicimus ante mortem, in morte, post mortem, ita tria singulis singula uiuens, moriens mortuusque reddantur. Quando itaque sit moriens, id est in morte, ubi neque sit uiuens, quod est ante mortem, neque mortuus, quod est post mortem, sed moriens, id est in morte, difficillime definitur. Quamdiu quippe est anima in corpore, maxime si etiam sensus adsit, procul dubio uiuit homo, qui constat ex anima et corpore, ac per hoc adhuc ante mortem, non in morte esse dicendus est; cum uero anima abscesserit omnemque abstulerit corporis sensum, iam post mortem mortuusque perhibetur. Perit igitur inter utrumque, quo moriens uel in morte sit; quoniam si adhuc uiuit, ante mortem est; si uiuere destitit, iam post mortem est. Numquam ergo moriens, id est in morte, esse conprehenditur. Ita etiam in transcursu temporum quaeritur praesens, nec inuenitur, quia sine ullo spatio est, per quod transitur ex futuro in praeteritum. Nonne ergo uidendum est, ne ista ratione mors corporis nulla esse dicatur? Si enim est, quando est, quae in ullo et in qua ullus esse non potest? Quando quidem si uiuitur, adhuc non est, quia hoc ante mortem, non in morte; si autem uiuere iam cessatum est, iam non est, quia et hoc post mortem est, non in morte. Sed rursus si nulla mors est ante quid uel post, quid est quod dicitur ante mortem siue post mortem? Nam et hoc inaniter dicitur, si mors nulla est. Adque utinam in paradiso bene uiuendo egissemus, ut re uera nulla mors esset. Nunc autem non solum est, uerum etiam tam molesta est, ut nec ulla explicari locutione possit nec ulla ratione uitari. Loquamur ergo secundum consuetudinem (non enim aliter debemus) et dicamus ante mortem, priusquam mors accidat; sicut scriptum est: Ante mortem ne laudes hominem quemquam. Dicamus etiam cum acciderit: Post mortem illius uel illius factum est illud aut illud. Dicamus et de praesenti tempore ut possumus, uelut cum ita loquimur: Moriens ille testatus est, et: Illis adque illis illud adque illud moriens dereliquit; quamuis hoc nisi uiuens omnino facere non posset et potius hoc ante mortem fecerit, non in morte. Loquamur etiam sicut loquitur scriptura diuina, quae mortuos quoque non post mortem, sed in morte esse non dubitat dicere. Hinc enim est illud: Quoniam non est in morte, qui memor sit tui. Donec enim reuiuescant, recte esse dicuntur in morte, sicut in somno esse quisque, donec euigilet, dicitur; quamuis in somno positos dicamus dormientes, nec tamen eo modo possumus dicere eos, qui iam sunt mortui, morientes. Non enim adhuc moriuntur, qui, quantum adtinet ad corporis mortem, de qua nunc disserimus, iam sunt a corporibus separati. Sed hoc est, quod dixi explicari aliqua locutione non posse, quonam modo uel morientes dicantur uiuere uel iam mortui etiam post mortem adhuc esse dicantur in morte. Quo modo enim post mortem, si adhuc in morte? praesertim cum eos nec morientes dicamus, sicuti eos, qui in somno sunt, dicimus dormientes, et qui in languore, languentes, et qui in dolore, utique dolentes, et qui in uita, uiuentes; at uero mortui, priusquam resurgant, esse dicuntur in morte, nec tamen possunt appellari morientes. Unde non inportune neque incongrue arbitror accidisse, etsi non humana industria, iudicio fortasse diuino, ut hoc uerbum, quod est moritur, in Latina lingua nec grammatici declinare potuerint, ea regula qua cetera talia declinantur. Namque ab eo quod est oritur, fit uerbum praeteriti temporis ortus est; et si qua similia sunt, per temporis praeteriti participia declinantur. Ab eo uero, quod est moritur, si quaeramus praeteriti temporis uerbum, responderi adsolet mortuus est, u littera geminata. Sic enim dicitur mortuus, quo modo fatuus, arduus, [carduus], conspicuus et si qua similia, quae non sunt praeteriti temporis, sed quoniam nomina sunt, sine tempore declinantur. Illud autem, quasi ut declinetur, quod declinari non potest, pro participio praeteriti temporis ponitur nomen. Conuenienter itaque factum est, ut, quem ad modum id quod significat non potest agendo, ita ipsum uerbum non posset loquendo declinari. Agi tamen potest in adiutorio gratiae Redemtoris nostri, ut saltem secundam mortem declinare possimus. Illa est enim grauior et omnium malorum pessima, quae non fit separatione animae et corporis, sed in aeternam poenam potius utriusque conplexu. Ibi e contrario non erunt homines ante mortem adque post mortem, sed semper in morte; ac per hoc numquam uiuentes, numquam mortui, sed sine fine morientes. Numquam enim erit homini peius in morte, quam ubi erit mors ipsa sine morte.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. Whether anyone can be at once living and dead.

But if it is absurd for us to say that a man is already in death before he reaches death (for what does he approach in passing the times of his life, if he is already in it?), especially since it is very unusual to say that he is at once living and dying, since he cannot be at once waking and sleeping, we must ask when he will be dying. For before death comes, he is not dying but living; but when death has come, he will be dead, not dying. The one, then, is still before death, the other already after death. When, then, is he in death? For then he is dying; so that, as there are three things when we say before death, in death, after death, so to the three correspond the three, living, dying, and dead. When, then, he is dying, that is, in death, where he is neither living, which is before death, nor dead, which is after death, but dying, that is, in death, is most difficult to define. For as long as the soul is in the body, especially if feeling is present too, beyond doubt the man, who consists of soul and body, lives, and so must be said to be still before death, not in death; but when the soul has departed and taken away all feeling of the body, he is then said to be after death and dead. There perishes, then, between the two, the time in which he would be dying or in death; since, if he still lives, he is before death; if he has ceased to live, he is already after death. He is never, then, found to be dying, that is, in death. So also in the passage of times the present is sought and not found, because it is without any extent through which one passes from future to past. Must we not beware, then, lest by this reasoning it be said that there is no death of the body? For if it exists, when does it exist, which can be in no one and in which no one can be? Since, if one is living, it is not yet, because this is before death, not in death; but if living has already ceased, it no longer is, because this too is after death, not in death. But again, if there is no death, what is it that is called before death or after death? For this too is said in vain if there is no death. And would that by living well in paradise we had brought it about that there were really no death! But as it is, it not only exists but is so distressing that it can neither be explained by any form of speech nor avoided by any reasoning.

Let us speak, then, according to custom (for we ought not to do otherwise), and say “before death,” before death happens, as it is written: “Praise no man before his death.” Let us say too, when it has happened: “After the death of this or that man, this or that was done.” Let us speak also of the present time as we can, as when we say: “That man, when dying, made his will,” and, “When dying he left this and that to these and those,” although he could not do this at all unless living, and did it rather before death, not in death. Let us speak also as the divine Scripture speaks, which does not hesitate to say that even the dead are not after death but in death. Hence is that saying: “For in death there is no one who remembers you.” For until they come to life again, they are rightly said to be in death, as anyone is said to be in sleep until he wakes; although we call those who are in sleep sleeping, yet we cannot in the same way call those who are already dead dying. For they are no longer dying who, as far as concerns the death of the body, of which we are now speaking, are already separated from their bodies. But this is what I said cannot be explained by any form of speech: how either the dying are said to live, or those already dead are said to be still in death even after death. For how are they after death if they are still in death? Especially since we do not call them dying, as we call those who are in sleep sleeping, and those in languor languishing, and those in pain certainly suffering, and those in life living; but the dead, before they rise again, are said to be in death, and yet cannot be called dying.

Hence I think it has come about not unfittingly or incongruously, though not by human effort, perhaps by divine judgment, that the grammarians could not decline this verb moritur (“he dies”) in the Latin language by the rule by which others of the kind are declined. For from oritur (“he rises”) comes the past-tense verb ortus est; and any similar verbs are declined by their past participles. But from moritur, if we ask for the past-tense verb, the usual answer is mortuus est, with the letter u doubled. For mortuus is said in the same way as fatuus, arduus, conspicuus, and similar words, which are not of past time but, since they are nouns, are declined without tense. But that word, as if to decline what cannot be declined, is put as a noun in place of the past participle. It has come about fittingly, then, that as the thing it signifies cannot be declined (avoided) by acting, so the word itself could not be declined in speaking. Yet it can be brought about, with the help of the grace of our Redeemer, that we may at least decline (avoid) the second death. For that is heavier and the worst of all evils, which comes not by the separation of soul and body but rather by the embrace of both in eternal punishment. There, on the contrary, men will not be before death and after death, but always in death; and therefore never living, never dead, but dying without end. For never will it be worse for man in death than where death itself will be without death.

### Scripture references

- Ps 6:5 (6:6 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sir 11:28 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sir 11:28 and Ps 6:5 (LXX 6:6) quoted. The wordplay on declinare (to inflect a word; to avoid) is explained in brackets. The edition's square brackets around “carduus” mean the editor deletes it; it is left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.11 (CSEL 40:627–630; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-10/#p-13-11).

## City of God 13.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-10/#p-13-12
- Source: CSEL 40:630–631
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The death threatened to Adam included every kind: the soul's loss of God, the body's loss of the soul, and the eternal second death.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. Quam mortem primis hominibus Deus, si mandatum eius transgrederentur, fuerit comminatus. Cum ergo requiritur, quam mortem Deus primis hominibus fuerit comminatus, si ab eo mandatum transgrederentur acceptum nec oboedientiam custodirent, utrum animae an corporis an totius hominis an illam quae appellatur secunda: respondendum est: Omnes. Prima enim constat ex duabus, [secunda] ex omnibus tota. Sicut enim uniuersa terra ex multis terris et uniuersa ecclesia ex multis constat ecclesiis: sic uniuersa mors ex omnibus. Quoniam prima constat ex duabus, una animae, altera corporis; ut sit prima totius hominis mors, cum anima sine Deo et sine corpore ad tempus poenas luit; secunda uero, ubi anima sine Deo cum corpore poenas aeternas luit. Quando ergo dixit Deus primo illi homini, quem in paradiso constituerat, de cibo uetito: Quacumque die ederitis ex illo, morte moriemini: non tantum primae mortis partem priorem, ubi anima priuatur Deo, nec tantum posteriorem, ubi corpus priuatur anima, nec solam ipsam totam primam, ubi anima et a Deo et a corpore separata punitur; sed quidquid mortis est usque ad nouissimam, quae secunda dicitur, qua est nulla posterior, comminatio illa conplexa est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. What death God threatened to the first human beings if they transgressed his command.

When, then, it is asked what death God threatened to the first human beings if they transgressed the command they had received from him and did not keep obedience, whether that of the soul, or of the body, or of the whole man, or that which is called the second, the answer must be: all. For the first consists of two; the whole consists of all. For as the whole earth consists of many lands, and the whole church of many churches, so the whole of death consists of all deaths. For the first consists of two, one of the soul, the other of the body; so that the first is the death of the whole man, when the soul, without God and without the body, pays penalties for a time; but the second when the soul, without God but with the body, pays eternal penalties. When, therefore, God said to that first man, whom he had placed in paradise, about the forbidden food, “On whatever day you eat of it, you will die the death,” that threat embraced not only the former part of the first death, where the soul is deprived of God, nor only the latter, where the body is deprived of the soul, nor only the whole first death itself, where the soul, separated both from God and from the body, is punished; but whatever there is of death, up to the last, which is called the second, after which there is none.

### Scripture references

- Gen 2:17: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 2:17 quoted in the Latin plural form (“you will die the death”). The edition's square brackets around “secunda” mean the editor deletes it (“the second consists of all”); the sentence is translated without it.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.12 (CSEL 40:630–631; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-10/#p-13-12).

## City of God 13.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-10/#p-13-13
- Source: CSEL 40:631–632
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The first penalty of sin was shame at the new, disobedient motion of the flesh: having deserted God, the soul lost its command over the body, and the flesh began to lust against the spirit.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. Praeuaricatio primorum hominum quam primam senserit poenam. Nam postea quam praecepti facta transgressio est, confestim gratia deserente diuina de corporum suorum nuditate confusi sunt. Unde etiam foliis ficulneis, quae forte a perturbatis prima conperta sunt, pudenda texerunt; quae prius eadem membra erant, sed pudenda non erant. Senserunt ergo nouum motum inoboedientis carnis suae, tamquam reciprocam poenam inoboedientiae suae. Iam quippe anima libertate in peruersum propria delectata et Deo dedignata seruire pristino corporis seruitio destituebatur, et quia superiorem dominum suo arbitrio deseruerat, inferiorem famulum ad suum arbitrium non tenebat, nec omni modo habebat subditam carnem, sicut semper habere potuisset, si Deo subdita ipsa mansisset. Tunc ergo coepit caro concupiscere aduersus spiritum, cum qua controuersia nati sumus, trahentes originem mortis et in membris nostris uitiataque natura contentionem eius siue uictoriam de prima praeuaricatione gestantes.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. What was the first penalty that the transgression of the first human beings felt.

For after the transgression of the command had taken place, as soon as divine grace forsook them, they were confounded at the nakedness of their bodies. Hence they covered their shameful parts with fig leaves, which were perhaps the first found by them in their confusion; these were the same members before, but they were not shameful. They felt, then, a new motion of their disobedient flesh, as a punishment answering to their own disobedience. For now the soul, delighting in its own freedom to do perversely and disdaining to serve God, was stripped of the former service of the body; and because it had of its own will forsaken the higher Lord, it did not hold the lower servant to its own will, nor did it have the flesh subject in every way, as it could always have had it had it itself remained subject to God. Then, therefore, the flesh began to lust against the spirit, and with this conflict we are born, drawing the origin of death, and bearing in our members and vitiated nature its contest, or its victory, from the first transgression.

### Scripture references

- Gen 3:7: allusion, high confidence
- Gal 5:17: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 7:23: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 3:7; Gal 5:17 (“the flesh lusts against the spirit”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.13 (CSEL 40:631–632; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-10/#p-13-13).

## City of God 13.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-10/#p-13-14
- Source: CSEL 40:632
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God made man upright, but Adam's free sin corrupted the seminal nature in which all were present, so that all are born depraved and bound for the second death unless freed by grace.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. Qualis homo sit factus a Deo et in quam sortem deciderit suae uoluntatis arbitrio. Deus enim creauit hominem rectum, naturarum auctor, non utique uitiorum; sed sponte deprauatus iusteque damnatus deprauatos damnatosque generauit. Omnes enim fuimus in illo uno, quando omnes fuimus ille unus, qui per feminam lapsus est in peccatum, quae de illo facta est ante peccatum. Nondum erat nobis singillatim creata et distributa forma, in qua singuli uiueremus; sed iam erat natura seminalis, ex qua propagaremur; qua scilicet propter peccatum uitiata et uinculo mortis obstricta iusteque damnata non alterius condicionis homo ex homine nasceretur. Ac per hoc a liberi arbitrii malo usu series calamitatis huius exorta est, quae humanum genus origine deprauata, uelut radice corrupta, usque ad secundae mortis exitium, quae non habet finem, solis eis exceptis qui per Dei gratiam liberantur, miseriarum conexione perducit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. In what state man was made by God, and into what lot he fell by the choice of his own will.

For God, the author of natures, not of faults, created man upright; but he, depraved of his own accord and justly condemned, begot the depraved and condemned. For we were all in that one man, since we all were that one man who fell into sin through the woman, who was made from him before sin. The form in which each of us would live had not yet been created and distributed to us individually; but there already was the seminal nature from which we would be propagated; and when this was vitiated because of sin, bound by the chain of death, and justly condemned, man would not be born of man in any other condition. And so from the bad use of free will arose the series of this calamity, which leads the human race, depraved in its origin as from a corrupted root, by a chain of miseries to the destruction of the second death, which has no end, excepting only those who are freed by the grace of God.

### Scripture references

- Eccl 7:29: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 5:12: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Eccl 7:29 (“God made man upright”); Rom 5:12 in view. Augustine's teaching that “we were all in that one man” is stated as he gives it.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.14 (CSEL 40:632; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-10/#p-13-14).

## City of God 13.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-10/#p-13-15
- Source: CSEL 40:632–633
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Adam forsook God before God forsook him; the soul's death was felt at once in the disobedient flesh, and bodily death followed as the penalty of sin, not a law of nature.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. Quod Adam peccaturus prius ipse reliquerit Deum, quam relinqueretur a Deo, et primam fuisse animae mortem a Deo recessisse. Quam ob rem etiamsi in eo quod dictum est: Morte moriemini, quoniam non est dictum: Mortibus, eam solam intellegamus, quae fit cum anima deseritur sua uita, quod illi Deus est (non enim deserta est ut desereret, sed ut desereretur deseruit; ad malum quippe eius prior est uoluntas eius; ad bonum uero eius prior est uoluntas Creatoris eius; siue ut eam faceret, quae nulla erat, siue ut reficiat, quia lapsa perierat), — etiamsi ergo hanc intellegamus Deum denuntiasse mortem in eo quod ait: Qua die ederitis ex illo, morte moriemini, tamquam diceret: Qua die me deserueritis per inoboedientiam, deseram uos per iustitiam: profecto in ea morte etiam ceterae denuntiatae sunt, quae procul dubio fuerant secuturae. Nam in eo, quod inoboediens motus in carne animae inoboedientis exortus est, propter quem pudenda texerunt, sensa est mors una, in qua deseruit animam Deus. Ea significata est uerbis eius, quando timore dementi sese abscondenti homini dixit: Adam, ubi es? non utique ignorando quaerens, sed increpando admonens, ut adtenderet ubi esset, in quo Deus non esset. Cum uero corpus anima ipsa deseruit aetate corruptum et senectute confectum, uenit in experimentum mors altera, de qua Deus peccatum adhuc puniens homini dixerat: Terra es et in terram ibis; ut ex his duabus mors illa prima, quae totius est hominis, conpleretur, quam secunda in ultimo sequitur, nisi homo per gratiam liberetur. Neque enim corpus, quod de terra est, rediret in terram nisi sua morte, quae illi accidit, cum deseritur sua uita, id est anima. Unde constat inter Christianos ueraciter catholicam tenentes fidem etiam ipsam nobis corporis mortem non lege naturae, qua nullam mortem homini Deus fecit, sed merito inflictam esse peccati, quoniam peccatum uindicans Deus dixit homini, in quo tunc omnes eramus: Terra es et in terram ibis.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. That Adam, when about to sin, first forsook God before he was forsaken by God, and that the first death of the soul was to depart from God.

Therefore, even if in the words, “You will die the death,” since it was not said “deaths,” we understand only that death which occurs when the soul is forsaken by its life, which God is to it (for it was not forsaken in order that it should forsake, but it forsook in order to be forsaken; for in its evil its own will comes first, but in its good the will of its Creator comes first, whether to make it when it did not exist, or to remake it because it had fallen and perished); even if, I say, we understand that God announced this death when he said, “On the day you eat of it, you will die the death,” as if he said, “On the day you forsake me by disobedience, I will forsake you by justice,” yet certainly in that death the others too were announced, which were beyond doubt to follow. For in that a disobedient motion arose in the flesh of the disobedient soul, because of which they covered their shameful parts, one death was felt, that in which God forsook the soul. This was signified by his words when he said to the man hiding himself in senseless fear: “Adam, where are you?” not asking out of ignorance, but reproving and admonishing him to consider where he was, in whom God was not. But when the soul itself forsook the body, worn out by age and exhausted by old age, the other death came into experience, of which God, still punishing sin, had said to man: “You are earth, and to earth you will go”; so that from these two that first death, which is of the whole man, might be completed, which the second follows at the last, unless man is freed by grace. For the body, which is from earth, would not return to earth except by its own death, which befalls it when it is forsaken by its life, that is, the soul. Hence it is agreed among Christians who truly hold the catholic faith that even the death of the body itself was inflicted on us not by a law of nature, by which God made no death for man, but as the desert of sin; since God, punishing sin, said to the man in whom we all then were: “You are earth, and to earth you will go.”

### Scripture references

- Gen 2:17: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 3:7: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 3:9: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 3:19: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 1:13 (Wisdom of Solomon): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 2:17; 3:9; 3:19. “God made no death” echoes Wis 1:13.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.15 (CSEL 40:632–633; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-10/#p-13-15).

## City of God 13.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-10/#p-13-16
- Source: CSEL 40:634–636
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The Platonists mock the Christian view that the soul's separation from the body is a punishment, yet Plato himself has the supreme god promise the lesser gods that they will never lose their bodies.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. De philosophis, qui animae separationem a corpore non putant esse poenalem, cum Plato inducat summum deum dis minoribus promittentem, quod numquam sint corporibus exuendi. Sed philosophi, contra quorum calumnias defendimus ciuitatem Dei, hoc est eius ecclesiam, sapienter sibi uidentur inridere, quod dicimus animae a corpore separationem inter poenas eius esse deputandam, quia uidelicet eius perfectam beatitudinem tunc illi fieri existimant, cum omni prorsus corpore exuta ad Deum simplex et sola et quodam modo nuda redierit. Ubi si nihil, quo ista refelleretur opinio, in eorum litteris inuenirem, operosius mihi disputandum esset, quo demonstrarem non corpus esse animae, sed corruptibile corpus onerosum. Unde illud est quod de scripturis nostris in superiore libro commemorauimus: Corpus enim corruptibile adgrauat animam. Addendo utique corruptibile non qualicumque corpore, sed quale factum est ex peccato consequente uindicta, animam perhibuit adgrauari. Quod etiamsi non addidisset, nihil aliud intellegere deberemus. Sed cum apertissime Plato deos a summo Deo factos habere inmortalia corpora praedicet eisque ipsum Deum, a quo facti sunt, inducat pro magno beneficio pollicentem, quod in aeternum cum suis corporibus permanebunt nec ab eis ulla morte soluentur: quid est quod isti ad exagitandam Christianam fidem fingunt se nescire quod sciunt, aut etiam sibi repugnantes aduersum se ipsos malunt dicere, dum nobis non desinant contradicere? Nempe Platonis haec uerba sunt, sicut ea Cicero in Latinum uertit, quibus inducit summum deum deos quos fecit adloquentem ac dicentem: Vos, qui deorum satu orti estis, adtendite: quorum operum ego parens effectorque sum, haec sunt indissolubilia me inuito, quamquam omne conligatum solui potest; sed haudquaquam bonum est ratione uinctum uelle dissoluere. Sed quoniam estis orti, inmortales uos quidem esse et indissolubiles non potestis; ne utiquam tamen dissoluemini, neque uos ulla mortis fata periment, nec erunt ualentiora quam consilium meum, quod maius est uinculum ad perpetuitatem uestram, quam illa quibus estis [tum, cum gignebamini,] conligati. Ecce deos Plato dicit et corporis animaeque conligatione mortales, et tamen inmortales dei a quo facti sunt uoluntate adque consilio. Si ergo animae poena est in qualicumque corpore conligari, quid est quod eos adloquens deus tamquam sollicitos, ne forte moriantur, id est dissoluantur a corpore, de sua facit inmortalitate securos; non propter eorum naturam, quae sit conpacta, non simplex, sed propter suam inuictissimam uoluntatem, qua potens est facere, ut nec orta occidant nec conexa soluantur, sed incorruptibiliter perseuerent? Et hoc quidem utrum Plato uerum de sideribus dicat, alia quaestio est. Neque enim ei continuo concedendum est globos istos luminum siue orbiculos luce corporea super terras seu die seu nocte fulgentes suis quibusdam propriis animis uiuere eisque intellectualibus et beatis, quod etiam de ipso uniuerso mundo, tamquam uno animali maximo, quo cuncta cetera continerentur animalia, instanter adfirmat. Sed haec, ut dixi, alia quaestio est, quam nunc discutiendam non suscepimus. Hoc tantum contra istos commemorandum putaui, qui se Platonicos uocari uel esse gloriantur, cuius superbia nominis erubescunt esse Christiani, ne commune illis cum uulgo uocabulum uilem faciat palliatorum tanto magis inflatam, quanto magis exiguam paucitatem; et quaerentes, quid in doctrina Christiana reprehendant, exagitant aeternitatem corporum, tamquam haec sint inter se contraria, ut et beatitudinem quaeramus animae et eam semper esse uelimus in corpore, uelut aerumnoso uinculo conligatam; cum eorum auctor et magister Plato donum a deo summo dis ab illo factis dicat esse concessum, ne aliquando moriantur, id est a corporibus, quibus eos conexuit, separentur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. Of the philosophers who do not think that the separation of the soul from the body is penal, though Plato represents the supreme god as promising the lesser gods that they will never be stripped of their bodies.

But the philosophers, against whose slanders we are defending the city of God, that is, his church, think they wisely mock our saying that the separation of the soul from the body is to be counted among its penalties, since they think that its perfect happiness comes about when, stripped of every body whatever, it returns to God simple and alone and, as it were, naked. If I found nothing in their writings by which this opinion could be refuted, I would have to argue more laboriously to show that it is not the body as such but the corruptible body that is burdensome to the soul. Hence that saying from our Scriptures which we recalled in the preceding book: “For the corruptible body weighs down the soul.” By adding “corruptible,” he surely declared that the soul is weighed down not by any body whatever, but by such as it has become from sin, the punishment following. And even if he had not added it, we ought to understand nothing else.

But since Plato most plainly declares that the gods made by the supreme God have immortal bodies, and represents God himself, by whom they were made, promising them as a great benefit that they will remain forever with their bodies and will not be loosed from them by any death, why do these men, to harass the Christian faith, pretend not to know what they know, or even, contradicting themselves, prefer to speak against themselves, provided they do not cease to contradict us? These are certainly the words of Plato, as Cicero translated them into Latin, in which he represents the supreme god addressing the gods whom he made and saying: “You who are sprung from the seed of gods, attend: those works of which I am the parent and maker are indissoluble against my will, although everything that has been bound together can be loosed; but it is by no means good to wish to dissolve what has been joined by reason. But since you have been born, you cannot indeed be immortal and indissoluble; yet you will by no means be dissolved, nor will any fates of death destroy you, nor will they be stronger than my counsel, which is a greater bond for your perpetuity than those by which you were bound together.” See, Plato says that the gods are mortal by the binding together of body and soul, and yet immortal by the will and counsel of the god by whom they were made. If, then, it is a punishment for the soul to be bound in any body whatever, why does the god, addressing them as though anxious lest they should die, that is, be dissolved from the body, make them secure of their immortality, not because of their nature, which is compound, not simple, but because of his own most invincible will, by which he is able to bring it about that things born do not perish and things joined are not loosed, but endure incorruptibly?

Whether Plato says this truly of the stars is another question. For it is not to be granted him at once that those globes of lights, or little orbs shining with bodily light over the earth by day or by night, live by certain souls of their own, and these intellectual and happy, which he also insistently affirms of the whole world itself, as of one very great living being in which all other living beings are contained. But this, as I said, is another question, which we have not undertaken to discuss now. I thought only this should be mentioned against these men who glory in being called or being Platonists, through pride in which name they are ashamed to be Christians, lest a name shared with the common people should cheapen the cloaked few, who are the more puffed up the fewer they are; and who, seeking something to find fault with in Christian doctrine, attack the eternity of bodies, as if these things were contrary to one another, that we should both seek the soul's happiness and wish it always to be in the body, bound as it were by a wretched chain; whereas their author and master Plato says that it was granted as a gift by the supreme god to the gods made by him, that they should never die, that is, be separated from the bodies to which he joined them.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 9:15 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence
- Plato, Tim. 41a (Plato (works)): quotation, high confidence
- Cicero (Cicero): quotation, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Wis 9:15 quoted (cf. 12.16). Plato, Timaeus 41a–b, quoted in Cicero's Latin translation (Cicero's Timaeus 40). The edition's square brackets around “tum, cum gignebamini” (“then, when you were begotten”) mean the editor deletes the words; they are left out. “The cloaked few”: philosophers wore the pallium.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.16 (CSEL 40:634–636; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-10/#p-13-16).

## City of God 13.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-10/#p-13-17
- Source: CSEL 40:636–639
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Platonists who hold the world-soul and the star-gods happy in eternal bodies cannot consistently deny that God can make human bodies immortal; only corruptible bodies, the result of sin, burden the soul.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. Contra eos, qui adserunt corpora terrena incorruptibilia fieri et aeterna non posse. Contendunt etiam isti terrestria corpora sempiterna esse non posse, cum ipsam uniuersam terram dei sui, non quidem summi, sed tamen magni, id est totius huius mundi, membrum in medio positum et sempiternum esse non dubitent. Cum ergo deus ille summus fecerit eis alterum quem putant deum, id est istum mundum, ceteris dis, qui infra eum sunt, praeferendum, eundemque esse existiment animantem, anima scilicet, sicut adserunt, rationali uel intellectuali in tam magna mole corporis eius inclusa, ipsiusque corporis tamquam membra locis suis posita adque digesta quattuor constituerit elementa, quorum iuncturam, ne umquam deus eorum tam magnus moriatur, insolubilem ac sempiternam uelint: quid causae est, ut in corpore maioris animantis tamquam medium membrum aeterna sit terra, et aliorum animantium terrestrium corpora, si Deus sicut illud uelit, aeterna esse non possint? Sed terrae, inquiunt, terra reddenda est, unde animalium terrestria sumta sunt corpora; ex quo fit, inquiunt, ut ea sit necesse dissolui et emori et eo modo terrae stabili ac sempiternae, unde fuerant sumta, restitui. Si quis hoc etiam de igne similiter adfirmet et dicat reddenda esse uniuerso igni corpora, quae inde sumta sunt, ut caelestia fierent animalia: nonne inmortalitas, quam talibus dis, uelut deo summo loquente, promisit Plato, tamquam uiolentia disputationis huius intercidet? An ibi propterea non fit, quia Deus non uult, cuius uoluntatem, ut ait Plato, nulla uis uincit? Quid ergo prohibet, ut hoc etiam de terrestribus corporibus Deus possit efficere, quandoquidem, ut nec ea quae orta sunt occidant nec ea quae sunt uincta soluantur nec ea quae sunt ex elementis sumta reddantur adque ut animae in corporibus constitutae nec umquam ea deserant et cum eis inmortalitate ac sempiterna beatitudine perfruantur, posse Deum facere confitetur Plato? Quur ergo non possit, ut nec terrestria moriantur? An Deus non est potens quo usque Christiani credunt, sed quo usque Platonici uolunt? Nimirum quippe consilium Dei et potestatem potuerunt philosophi, nec potuerunt nosse prophetae; cum potius e contrario Dei prophetas ad enuntiandam eius, quantum dignatus est, uoluntatem Spiritus eius docuerit, philosophos autem in ea cognoscenda coniectura humana deceperit. Verum non usque adeo decipi debuerunt, non solum ignorantia, uerum etiam peruicacia, ut et sibi apertissime refragentur magnis disputationum uiribus adserentes animae, ut beata esse possit, non terrenum tantum, sed omne corpus esse fugiendum, et deos rursus dicentes habere beatissimas animas et tamen aeternis corporibus inligatas, caelestes quidem igneis, Iouis autem ipsius animam, quem mundum istum uolunt, omnibus omnino corporeis elementis, quibus haec tota moles a terra in caelum surgit, inclusam. Hanc enim animam Plato ab intimo terrae medio, quod geometrae centron uocant, per omnes partes eius usque ad caeli summa et extrema diffundi et extendi per numeros musicos opinatur, ut sit iste mundus animal maximum beatissimum sempiternum, cuius anima et perfectam sapientiae felicitatem teneret et corpus proprium non relinqueret, cuiusque corpus et in aeternum ex illa uiueret et eam quamuis non simplex, sed tot corporibus tantisque conpactum hebetare adque tardare non posset. Cum igitur suspicionibus suis ista permittant, quur nolunt credere, diuina uoluntate adque potentia inmortalia corpora fieri posse terrena, in quibus animae nulla ab eis morte separatae, nullis eorum oneribus adgrauatae sempiterne ac feliciter uiuant, quod deos suos posse adserunt in corporibus igneis Iouemque ipsum eorum regem in omnibus corporeis elementis? Nam si animae, ut beata sit, corpus est omne fugiendum, fugiant di eorum de globis siderum, fugiat Iuppiter de caelo et terra; aut si non possunt, miseri iudicentur. Sed neutrum isti uolunt, qui neque a corporibus separationem audent dare dis suis, ne illos mortales colere uideantur, nec beatitudinis priuationem, ne infelices eos esse fateantur. Non ergo ad beatitudinem consequendam omnia fugienda sunt corpora; sed corruptibilia molesta, grauia moribunda; non qualia fecit primis hominibus bonitas Dei, sed qualia esse conpulit poena peccati.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. Against those who assert that earthly bodies cannot become incorruptible and eternal.

These men also contend that earthly bodies cannot be everlasting, although they do not doubt that the whole earth itself, placed in the middle as a member of their god, not the supreme one indeed but still a great one, that is, of this whole world, is everlasting. Since, then, that supreme god made for them another whom they think a god, namely this world, to be ranked above the other gods below him, and they think it a living being, with a soul, namely, as they assert, rational or intellectual, enclosed in so great a mass of its body; and since he set in their places and arranged as members of that body the four elements, whose joining they want to be indissoluble and everlasting, lest their god, so great, should ever die: what reason is there that in the body of the greater living being the earth, as its middle member, should be eternal, and the bodies of other earthly living beings could not be eternal if God willed it as he wills that? But earth, they say, must be returned to earth, from which the earthly bodies of animals were taken; and hence, they say, it happens that these must be dissolved and die and in this way be restored to the stable and everlasting earth from which they were taken. If someone asserts the same of fire and says that the bodies which were taken from it to become heavenly living beings must be returned to the universal fire, will not the immortality which Plato promised to such gods, as though the supreme god were speaking, perish by the violence, as it were, of this argument? Or does it not happen there because God does not will it, whose will, as Plato says, no force overcomes? What then prevents God from being able to bring this about in earthly bodies too, since Plato confesses that God can bring it about that things born do not perish, and things bound are not loosed, and things taken from the elements are not returned, and that souls placed in bodies never forsake them and enjoy with them immortality and everlasting happiness? Why, then, can he not bring it about that earthly things too do not die? Or is God not powerful as far as Christians believe, but only as far as Platonists wish? No doubt the philosophers could know the counsel and power of God, and the prophets could not! Whereas on the contrary his Spirit taught the prophets of God to declare his will, as far as he deigned, while human conjecture deceived the philosophers in coming to know it.

But they ought not to have been so far deceived, not only by ignorance but also by obstinacy, as to contradict themselves most openly, asserting with great force of argument that the soul, in order to be happy, must flee not only the earthly body but every body, and again saying that the gods have most happy souls and yet are bound to eternal bodies, the heavenly ones to fiery bodies, and the soul of Jupiter himself, whom they take to be this world, enclosed in all the bodily elements altogether, by which this whole mass rises from earth to heaven. For Plato thinks that this soul is spread from the innermost middle of the earth, which geometers call the center, through all its parts up to the highest and furthest reaches of heaven, and extended by musical numbers, so that this world is a living being, very great, most happy, and everlasting, whose soul both holds the perfect felicity of wisdom and does not leave its own body, and whose body both lives forever from it and, though not simple but compounded of so many and such great bodies, cannot dull and slow it. Since, then, they allow these things to their own conjectures, why will they not believe that by the divine will and power earthly bodies can be made immortal, in which souls, separated from them by no death, weighed down by no burdens of theirs, may live everlastingly and happily, as they assert their gods can in fiery bodies, and Jupiter himself, their king, in all the bodily elements? For if, for the soul to be happy, every body must be fled, let their gods flee from the globes of the stars, let Jupiter flee from heaven and earth; or if they cannot, let them be judged wretched. But these men want neither: they neither dare to grant their gods separation from bodies, lest they seem to worship mortals, nor deprivation of happiness, lest they confess them unhappy. It is not, then, all bodies that must be fled for the attainment of happiness, but corruptible, troublesome, heavy, dying ones; not such as the goodness of God made for the first human beings, but such as the penalty of sin compelled them to be.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Tim. 34b (Plato (works)): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Plato, Timaeus 34b–36e (the world-soul extended by musical ratios), 40a–d, 41a–b. Jupiter identified with the world-soul follows Varro (cf. Book 7). The ironic sentence about philosophers and prophets is rendered as irony, as the Latin requires.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.17 (CSEL 40:636–639; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-10/#p-13-17).

## City of God 13.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-10/#p-13-18
- Source: CSEL 40:639–641
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The weight of earthly bodies is no objection to their being in heaven: God can make them light and incorruptible, as even art makes metal float and Plato's gods kept fire's light without its heat.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. De terrenis corporibus, quae philosophi adfirmant in caelestibus esse non posse, quia, quod terrenum est, naturali pondere reuocetur ad terram. Sed necesse est, inquiunt, ut terrena corpora naturale pondus uel in terra teneat uel cogat ad terram et ideo in caelo esse non possint. Primi quidem illi homines in terra erant nemorosa adque fructuosa, quae paradisi nomen obtinuit; sed quia et ad hoc respondendum est uel propter Christi corpus cum quo ascendit in caelum uel propter sanctorum qualia in resurrectione futura sunt, intueantur paulo adtentius pondera ipsa terrena. Si enim ars humana efficit, ut ex metallis, quae in aquis posita continuo submerguntur, quibusdam modis uasa fabricata etiam natare possint: quanto credibilius et efficacius occultus aliquis modus operationis Dei, cuius omnipotentissima uoluntate Plato dicit nec orta interire nec conligata posse dissolui, cum multo mirabilius incorporea corporeis quam quaecumque corpora quibuscumque corporibus copulentur, potest molibus praestare terrenis, ut nullo in ima pondere deprimantur, ipsisque animis perfectissime beatis, ut quamuis terrena, tamen incorruptibilia iam corpora ubi uolunt ponant et quo uolunt agant, situ motuque facillimo! An uero si hoc angeli faciant et quaelibet animalia terrestria rapiant unde libet constituantque ubi libet, aut eos non posse aut onera sentire credendum est? Quur ergo sanctorum perfectos et beatos diuino munere spiritus sine ulla difficultate posse ferre quo uoluerint et sistere ubi uoluerint sua corpora non credamus? Nam cum terrenorum corporum, sicut onera in gestando sentire consueuimus, quanto maior est quantitas, tanto sit maior et grauitas, ita ut plura pondo quam pauciora plus premant: membra tamen suae carnis leuiora portat anima, cum in sanitate robusta sunt quam in languore cum macra sunt. Et cum aliis gestantibus onerosior sit saluus et ualidus quam exilis et morbidus, ipse tamen ad suum corpus mouendum adque portandum agilior est, cum in bona ualetudine plus habet molis, quam cum in peste uel fame minimum roboris. Tantum ualet in habendis etiam terrenis corporibus, quamuis adhuc corruptibilibus adque mortalibus, non quantitatis pondus, sed temperationis modus. Et quis uerbis explicat, quantum distet inter praesentem quam dicimus sanitatem et inmortalitatem futuram? Non itaque nostram fidem redarguunt philosophi de ponderibus corporum. Nolo enim quaerere, quur non credant terrenum esse posse corpus in caelo, cum terra uniuersa libretur in nihilo. Fortassis enim de ipso medio mundi loco, eo quod in eum coeant quaeque grauiora, etiam argumentatio ueri similior habeatur. Illud dico: Si di minores, quibus inter animalia terrestria cetera etiam hominem faciendum commisit Plato, potuerunt, sicut dicit, ab igne remouere urendi qualitatem, lucendi relinquere quae per oculos emicaret: itane Deo summo concedere dubitabimus, cuius ille uoluntati potestatique concessit, ne moriantur quae orta sint, et tam diuersa, tam dissimilia, id est corporea et incorporea, sibimet conexa nulla possint dissolutione seiungi, ut de carne hominis, cui donat inmortalitatem, corruptionem auferat, naturam relinquat, congruentiam figurae membrorumque detineat, detrahat ponderis tarditatem? Sed de fide resurrectionis mortuorum et de corporibus eorum inmortalibus diligentius, si Deus uoluerit, in fine huius operis disserendum est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. Of earthly bodies, which the philosophers affirm cannot be in heavenly places, because what is earthly is drawn back to the earth by its natural weight.

But, they say, the natural weight of earthly bodies must either keep them on earth or force them to earth, and therefore they cannot be in heaven. The first human beings, indeed, were on an earth, wooded and fruitful, which received the name of paradise; but since this too must be answered, whether because of the body of Christ, with which he ascended into heaven, or because of those of the saints, such as they will be in the resurrection, let them look a little more attentively at these earthly weights. For if human art brings it about that from metals which sink at once when placed in water, vessels made in certain ways can even float, how much more credibly and effectively can some hidden mode of God's working, by whose most omnipotent will, Plato says, neither can things born perish nor things bound together be loosed (since incorporeal things are joined to corporeal far more wonderfully than any bodies to any bodies), grant to earthly masses that they be pressed down to the depths by no weight, and grant to the souls themselves, perfectly happy, that they place their bodies, though earthly yet now incorruptible, wherever they will and move them where they will, with the easiest position and motion! Or if angels do this, and snatch up any earthly animals from wherever they please and set them wherever they please, are we to believe either that they cannot, or that they feel burdened? Why then should we not believe that the spirits of the saints, made perfect and happy by divine gift, can without any difficulty carry their bodies where they will and set them where they will? For though with earthly bodies, as we are used to feeling loads when carrying them, the greater the quantity, the greater the weight, so that more pounds press more than fewer, yet the soul carries the members of its own flesh more lightly when they are robust in health than when they are thin in sickness. And though to others who carry him a healthy and strong man is heavier than a thin and sickly one, yet he himself is more agile in moving and carrying his own body when in good health he has more bulk than when in plague or famine he has very little strength. So much does it count, even in having earthly bodies, still corruptible and mortal, not the weight of quantity but the manner of balance. And who can express in words how great the distance is between what we call health at present and the immortality to come? The philosophers, then, do not refute our faith by the weights of bodies. For I do not wish to ask why they do not believe that an earthly body can be in heaven, when the whole earth is balanced on nothing. For perhaps from the very middle place of the world, since all heavier things converge on it, a more plausible argument could be made. This I say: if the lesser gods, to whom Plato entrusted the making of man among the other earthly living beings, were able, as he says, to remove from fire the quality of burning and leave that of shining, which would flash out through the eyes, shall we then hesitate to grant to the supreme God, to whose will and power Plato granted that things born should not die, and that things so diverse, so unlike, that is, bodily and incorporeal, joined to one another, could be separated by no dissolution, that from the flesh of man, to whom he gives immortality, he should take away corruption, leave its nature, keep the harmony of its shape and members, and remove the sluggishness of weight? But of the faith in the resurrection of the dead and of their immortal bodies we must speak more carefully, if God wills, at the end of this work.

### Scripture references

- Acts 1:9: allusion, high confidence
- Job 26:7: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Tim. 45b (Plato (works)): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Acts 1:9 (Christ's ascension). Job 26:7 (“the earth hangs on nothing”) echoed. Plato, Timaeus 45b (the fire of the eyes that shines but does not burn). The resurrection body is treated in Book 22.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.18 (CSEL 40:639–641; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-10/#p-13-18).

## City of God 13.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-19/#p-13-19
- Source: CSEL 40:641–643
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Had the first humans not sinned, they would never have died; the Platonists, who give their gods everlasting bodies and even let the wise return to bodies, cannot reasonably scorn Christian faith in the resurrection of incorruptible bodies.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. Contra eorum dogmata, qui primos homines, si non peccassent, inmortales futuros fuisse non credunt, aeternitatem animarum uolunt carere corporibus. Nunc de corporibus primorum hominum quod instituimus explicemus; quoniam nec mors ista, quae bona perhibetur bonis nec tantum paucis intellegentibus siue credentibus, sed omnibus nota est, qua fit animae a corpore separatio, qua certe corpus animantis, quod euidenter uiuebat, euidenter emoritur, eis potuisset accidere, nisi peccati meritum sequeretur. Licet enim iustorum ac piorum animae defunctorum quod in requie uiuant dubitare fas non sit, usque adeo tamen eis melius esset cum suis corporibus bene ualentibus uiuere, ut etiam illi, qui omni modo esse sine corpore beatissimum existimant, hanc opinionem suam sententia repugnante conuincant. Neque enim quisquam audebit illorum sapientes homines, siue morituros siue iam mortuos, id est aut carentes corporibus aut corpora relicturos, dis inmortalibus anteponere, quibus Deus summus aput Platonem munus ingens, indissolubilem scilicet uitam, id est aeternum cum suis corporibus consortium, pollicetur. Optime autem cum hominibus agi arbitratur idem Plato, si tamen hanc uitam pie iusteque peregerint, ut a suis corporibus separati in ipsorum deorum, qui sua corpora numquam deserunt, recipiantur sinum. Scilicet inmemores supera ut conuexa reuisant Rursus et incipiant in corpora uelle reuerti; quod Vergilius ex Platonico dogmate dixisse laudatur. Ita quippe animas mortalium nec in suis corporibus semper esse posse existimat, sed mortis necessitate dissolui, nec sine corporibus durare perpetuo, sed alternantibus uicibus indesinenter uiuos ex mortuis et ex uiuis mortuos fieri putat; ut a ceteris hominibus hoc uideantur differre sapientes, quod post mortem feruntur ad sidera, ut aliquanto diutius in astro sibi congruo quisque requiescat adque inde rursus miseriae pristinae oblitus et cupiditate habendi corporis uictus redeat ad labores aerumnasque mortalium; illi uero, qui stultam duxerint uitam, ad corpora suis meritis debita siue hominum siue bestiarum de proximo reuoluantur. In hac itaque durissima condicione constituit etiam bonas adque sapientes animas, quibus non talia corpora distributa sunt, cum quibus semper adque inmortaliter uiuerent, ut neque in corporibus permanere neque sine his possint in aeterna puritate durare. De quo Platonico dogmate iam in libris superioribus diximus Christiano tempori erubuisse Porphyrium et non solum ab animis humanis remouisse corpora bestiarum, uerum etiam sapientium animas ita uoluisse de corporeis nexibus liberari, ut corpus omne fugientes beatae aput Patrem sine fine teneantur. Itaque ne a Christo uinci uideretur uitam sanctis pollicente perpetuam, etiam ipse purgatas animas sine ullo ad miserias pristinas reditu in aeterna felicitate constituit; et ut Christo aduersaretur, resurrectionem incorruptibilium corporum negans non solum sine terrenis, sed sine ullis omnino corporibus eas adseruit in sempiternum esse uicturas. Nec tamen ista qualicumque opinione praecepit saltem ne dis corporatis religionis obsequio subderentur. Quid ita, nisi quia eas, quamuis nulli corpori sociatas, non credidit illis esse meliores? Quapropter, si non audebunt isti, sicut eos ausuros esse non arbitror, dis beatissimis et tamen in aeternis corporibus constitutis humanas animas anteponere: quur eis uidetur absurdum, quod fides Christiana praedicat, et primos homines ita fuisse conditos, ut, si non peccassent, nulla morte a suis corporibus soluerentur, sed pro meritis oboedientiae custoditae inmortalitate donati cum eis uiuerent in aeternum; et talia sanctos in resurrectione habituros ea ipsa, in quibus hic laborauerunt, corpora, ut nec eorum carni aliquid corruptionis uel difficultatis nec eorum beatitudini aliquid doloris et infelicitatis possit accidere?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. Against the teachings of those who do not believe that the first human beings would have been immortal had they not sinned, and who want the eternity of souls to be without bodies.

Now let us explain what we set out to say about the bodies of the first human beings: that not even this death, which is said to be good to the good, and is known not only to a few who understand or believe but to all, by which the soul is separated from the body, by which certainly the body of a living being, which evidently was living, evidently dies, could have befallen them had it not followed as the desert of sin. For although it is not lawful to doubt that the souls of the righteous and godly departed live in rest, yet it would be so much better for them to live with their bodies in good health that even those who think that to be without a body is in every way most happy refute this opinion of theirs by a view that contradicts it. For none of them will dare to set their wise men, whether about to die or already dead, that is, either lacking bodies or about to leave them, above the immortal gods, to whom the supreme God in Plato promises a great gift, namely indissoluble life, that is, eternal partnership with their bodies. And the same Plato thinks that it goes best with men if, having passed this life piously and justly, they are received, separated from their bodies, into the bosom of those very gods who never forsake their bodies:

That, forgetful, they may see again the vault above,
and begin once more to wish to return into bodies;

which Virgil is praised for having said from Platonic teaching. For so he thinks that the souls of mortals can neither be always in their bodies, but are dissolved by the necessity of death, nor last perpetually without bodies, but thinks that by alternating turns the living are unceasingly made from the dead and the dead from the living; so that the wise seem to differ from other men in this, that after death they are carried to the stars, so that each may rest somewhat longer in the star suited to him, and from there again, forgetting his former misery and overcome by the desire to have a body, return to the toils and hardships of mortals; while those who have led a foolish life are rolled back at once into bodies owed to their deserts, whether of men or of beasts. In this very harsh condition, then, he has placed even good and wise souls, to whom such bodies are not allotted with which they might live always and immortally, so that they can neither remain in bodies nor endure without them in eternal purity. Of this Platonic teaching we have already said in earlier books that Porphyry was ashamed of it in Christian times, and not only removed the bodies of beasts from human souls, but also wanted the souls of the wise to be so freed from bodily bonds that, fleeing every body, they may be held happy with the Father without end. And so, lest he seem to be outdone by Christ, who promises everlasting life to the saints, he too established purified souls in eternal felicity without any return to their former miseries; and, to oppose Christ, denying the resurrection of incorruptible bodies, he asserted that they would live forever not only without earthly bodies but without any bodies at all. Yet with this opinion of his, whatever it is worth, he did not at least teach that they should not be subject in religious worship to gods with bodies. Why so, unless because he did not believe that they, though joined to no body, were better than those gods? Therefore, if these men will not dare, as I do not think they will, to set human souls above the most happy gods who are nevertheless established in eternal bodies, why does it seem absurd to them, what the Christian faith proclaims, both that the first human beings were so created that, had they not sinned, they would have been loosed from their bodies by no death, but, gifted with immortality for the merit of obedience kept, would live with them forever; and that the saints in the resurrection will have those same bodies in which they toiled here, such that neither any corruption or difficulty can befall their flesh, nor any pain or unhappiness their happiness?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Tim. 42b (Plato (works)): allusion, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 6.750 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Porphyry, Regr. (Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Plato, Timaeus 41a–b, 42b, and Phaedrus; Virgil, Aeneid 6.750–751 quoted (verse rendered in lines). Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul (cf. 10.30, 12.27).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.19 (CSEL 40:641–643; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-19/#p-13-19).

## City of God 13.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-19/#p-13-20
- Source: CSEL 40:643–645
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The saints' bodies will rise spiritual, better even than Adam's before sin, which needed food and was kept from aging by the tree of life, a sacrament of God's wisdom; the forbidden tree was not evil but a test of obedience.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. Quod caro sanctorum, quae nunc requiescit in spe, in meliorem reparanda sit qualitatem, quam fuit primorum hominum ante peccatum. Proinde nunc sanctorum animae defunctorum ideo non habent grauem mortem, qua separatae sunt a corporibus suis, quia caro eorum requiescit in spe, quaslibet sine ullo iam sensu contumelias accepisse uideatur. Non enim, sicut Platoni uisum est, corpora obliuione desiderant, sed potius, quia meminerunt quid sibi ab eo sit promissum, qui neminem fallit, qui eis etiam de capillorum suorum integritate securitatem dedit, resurrectionem corporum, in quibus multa dura perpessi sunt, nihil in eis ulterius tale sensuri desiderabiliter et patienter expectant. Si enim carnem suam non oderant, quando eam suae menti infirmitate resistentem spiritali iure cohercebant, quanto magis eam diligunt etiam ipsam spiritalem futuram! Sicut enim spiritus carni seruiens non incongrue carnalis, ita caro spiritui seruiens recte appellabitur spiritalis, non quia in spiritum conuertetur, sicut nonnulli putant ex eo quod scriptum est: Seminatur corpus animale, surget corpus spiritale, sed quia spiritui summa et mirabili obtemperandi facilitate subdetur usque ad inplendam inmortalitatis indissolubilis securissimam uoluntatem, omni molestiae sensu, omni corruptibilitate et tarditate detracta. Non solum enim non erit tale, quale nunc est in quauis optima ualetudine, sed nec tale quidem, quale fuit in primis hominibus ante peccatum, qui licet morituri non essent, nisi peccassent, alimentis tamen ut homines utebantur, nondum spiritalia, sed adhuc animalia corpora terrena gestantes. Quae licet senio non ueterescerent, ut necessitate perducerentur ad mortem (qui status eis de ligno uitae, quod in medio paradiso cum arbore uetita simul erat, mirabili Dei gratia praestabatur), tamen et alios sumebant cibos praeter unam arborem, quae fuerat interdicta, non quia ipsa erat malum, sed propter commendandum purae et simplicis oboedientiae bonum, quae magna uirtus est rationalis creaturae sub Creatore Domino constitutae. Nam ubi nullum malum tangebatur, profecto, si prohibitum tangeretur, sola inoboedientia peccabatur. Agebatur ergo aliis quae sumebant, ne animalia corpora molestiae aliquid esuriendo ac sitiendo sentirent; de ligno autem uitae propterea gustabatur, ne mors eis undecumque subreperet uel senectute confecta decursis temporum spatiis interirent; tamquam cetera essent alimento, illud sacramento; ut sic fuisse accipiatur lignum uitae in paradiso corporali, sicut in spiritali, hoc est intellegibili, paradiso sapientia Dei, de qua scriptum est: Lignum uitae est amplectentibus eam.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. That the flesh of the saints, which now rests in hope, is to be restored to a better quality than that of the first human beings before sin.

Accordingly the souls of the departed saints do not now find heavy the death by which they have been separated from their bodies, because their flesh rests in hope, whatever insults it may seem to have received, now without any feeling. For they do not, as Plato thought, desire bodies through forgetfulness; but rather, because they remember what has been promised them by him who deceives no one, who gave them assurance even of the preservation of their hair, they await with longing and patience the resurrection of the bodies in which they suffered many hardships, and in which they will feel nothing of the kind any more. For if they did not hate their flesh when, as it resisted their mind by its weakness, they restrained it by spiritual right, how much more do they love it, since it too is to be spiritual! For as the spirit serving the flesh is not unfittingly called carnal, so the flesh serving the spirit will rightly be called spiritual; not because it will be converted into spirit, as some think from what is written, “It is sown an animal body, it will rise a spiritual body,” but because it will be subject to the spirit with a supreme and wonderful readiness of obedience, to the point of fulfilling the most secure will of indissoluble immortality, every feeling of trouble, all corruptibility and sluggishness being taken away. For it will not only not be such as it is now in the very best health, but not even such as it was in the first human beings before sin. They, though they would not have died had they not sinned, nevertheless used food as men do, bearing earthly bodies not yet spiritual but still animal. And though these did not grow old with age so as to be brought by necessity to death (this state was given them, by the wonderful grace of God, from the tree of life, which was in the middle of paradise together with the forbidden tree), yet they took other foods besides the one tree which had been forbidden, not because it was itself evil, but in order to commend the good of pure and simple obedience, which is a great virtue of a rational creature set under the Lord Creator. For where nothing evil was touched, surely, if the forbidden thing were touched, the sin was disobedience alone. They ate, then, of the other things they took so that their animal bodies might not feel any distress through hunger and thirst; and they tasted of the tree of life so that death might not creep upon them from anywhere, or that they might not perish, worn out by old age, when the spans of time had run their course; as if the other things were for nourishment, that one for a sacrament; so that the tree of life may be taken to have been in the bodily paradise what the wisdom of God is in the spiritual, that is, the intelligible, paradise, of which it is written: “She is a tree of life to those who embrace her.”

### Scripture references

- Ps 16:9 (15:9 LXX): allusion, medium confidence
- Luke 21:18: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:44: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:9: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:17: allusion, high confidence
- Prov 3:18: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Ps 16:9 (LXX 15:9) echoed (“my flesh will rest in hope”); Luke 21:18; 1 Cor 15:44; Gen 2:9, 16–17; Prov 3:18. On Plato and the forgetfulness of souls, see 13.19 (Virgil, Aeneid 6.750). “Animal body” renders corpus animale, a body animated by a soul (Paul's “natural body”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.20 (CSEL 40:643–645; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-19/#p-13-20).

## City of God 13.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-19/#p-13-21
- Source: CSEL 40:645–646
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Paradise may be read spiritually, of virtues or of the church and Christ, but only while its literal history as a real place is also believed, as with Hagar and Sarah or the rock that was Christ.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. De paradiso, in quo primi homines fuerunt, quod recte per significationem eius spiritale aliquid intellegatur, salua ueritate narrationis historicae de corporali loco. Unde nonnulli totum ipsum paradisum, ubi primi homines parentes generis humani sanctae scripturae ueritate fuisse narrantur, ad intellegibilia referunt arboresque illas et ligna fructifera in uirtutes uitae moresque conuertunt; tamquam uisibilia et corporalia illa non fuerint, sed intellegibilium significandorum causa eo modo dicta uel scripta sint. Quasi propterea non potuerit esse paradisus corporalis, quia potest etiam spiritalis intellegi; tamquam ideo non fuerint duae mulieres, Agar et Sarra, et ex eis duo filii Abrahae, unus de ancilla, alius de libera, quia duo testamenta in eis figurata dicit apostolus; aut ideo de nulla petra Moyse percutiente aqua defluxerit, quia potest illic figurata significatione etiam Christus intellegi, eodem apostolo dicente: Petra autem erat Christus. Nemo itaque prohibet intellegere paradisum uitam beatorum, quattuor eius flumina quattuor uirtutes, prudentiam, fortitudinem, temperantiam adque iustitiam, et ligna eius omnes utiles disciplinas, et lignorum fructus mores piorum, et lignum uitae ipsam bonorum omnium matrem sapientiam, et lignum scientiae boni et mali transgressi mandati experimentum. Poenam enim peccatoribus bene utique, quoniam iuste, constituit Deus, sed non suo bono experitur homo. Possunt haec etiam in ecclesia intellegi, ut ea melius accipiamus tamquam prophetica indicia praecedentia futurorum; paradisum scilicet ipsam ecclesiam, sicut de illa legitur in cantico canticorum; quattuor autem paradisi flumina quattuor euangelia, ligna fructifera sanctos, fructus autem eorum opera eorum, lignum uitae sanctum sanctorum utique Christum, lignum scientiae boni et mali proprium uoluntatis arbitrium. Nec se ipso quippe homo diuina uoluntate contemta nisi perniciose uti potest, adque ita discit, quid intersit, utrum inhaereat communi omnibus bono an proprio delectetur. Se quippe amans donatur sibi, ut inde timoribus maeroribusque conpletus cantet in psalmo, si tamen mala sua sentit: Ad me ipsum turbata est anima mea; correctusque iam dicat: Fortitudinem meam ad te custodiam. Haec et si qua alia commodius dici possunt de intellegendo spiritaliter paradiso nemine prohibente dicantur, dum tamen et illius historiae ueritas fidelissima rerum gestarum narratione commendata credatur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. Of the paradise in which the first human beings were: that something spiritual is rightly understood by its signification, while the truth of the historical narrative about a bodily place is kept.

Hence some refer the whole of paradise itself, where the first human beings, the parents of the human race, are told by the truth of Holy Scripture to have been, to intelligible things, and turn those trees and fruit-bearing woods into virtues and ways of life; as if those things were not visible and bodily, but were said or written in that way for the sake of signifying intelligible things. As if, because a spiritual paradise can also be understood, there could not have been a bodily one; as if, therefore, there were not two women, Hagar and Sarah, and from them two sons of Abraham, one of the slave woman and the other of the free, because the apostle says that the two covenants were prefigured in them; or as if no water flowed from any rock when Moses struck it, because Christ too can be understood there by a figurative signification, the same apostle saying: “And the rock was Christ.” No one, then, forbids understanding paradise as the life of the blessed; its four rivers as the four virtues, prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice; its trees as all useful disciplines; the fruits of the trees as the ways of life of the godly; the tree of life as wisdom itself, the mother of all goods; and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as the experience of a commandment transgressed. For God appointed a penalty for sinners well, since justly; but man does not experience it to his own good. These things can also be understood of the church, so that we may better take them as prophetic signs going before of things to come: namely, paradise as the church itself, as we read of her in the Song of Songs; the four rivers of paradise as the four Gospels; the fruit-bearing trees as the saints, and their fruits as their works; the tree of life as the Holy of Holies, Christ himself; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as the will's own choice. For man, if he despises the divine will, can only use himself to his own ruin; and so he learns what a difference it makes whether he cleaves to the good common to all or delights in his own. For loving himself, he is given over to himself, so that, filled then with fears and sorrows, he may sing in the psalm, if indeed he feels his evils: “My soul is troubled within me”; and, once corrected, may say: “My strength I will keep for you.” These things, and any others that can be said more fittingly about understanding paradise spiritually, may be said without anyone forbidding it, provided that the truth of that history too, commended by a most faithful narrative of events, is believed.

### Scripture references

- Gal 4:22: allusion, high confidence
- Gal 4:24: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 17:6: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 10:4: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:10: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:9: allusion, high confidence
- Song 4:12: allusion, medium confidence
- Ps 42:6 (41:7 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 59:9 (58:10 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Gal 4:22–26; Exod 17:6 and Num 20:11 with 1 Cor 10:4; Gen 2:9–14; Song 4:12–13 (the church as an enclosed garden); Ps 42:6 (LXX 41:7); Ps 59:9 (LXX 58:10).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.21 (CSEL 40:645–646; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-19/#p-13-21).

## City of God 13.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-19/#p-13-22
- Source: CSEL 40:646–647
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Risen bodies will need no food but may eat, as the angels did with Abraham and Tobit and as the risen Christ did; they will be spiritual yet remain true bodies.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. De corporibus sanctorum post resurrectionem, quae sic spiritalia erunt, ut non in spiritum caro uertatur. Corpora ergo iustorum, quae in resurrectione futura sunt, neque ullo ligno indigebunt, quo fiat ut nullo morbo uel senectute inueterata moriantur, neque ullis aliis corporalibus alimentis, quibus esuriendi ac sitiendi qualiscumque molestia deuitetur; quoniam certo et omni modo inuiolabili munere inmortalitatis induentur, ut non nisi uelint, possibilitate, non necessitate uescantur. Quod angeli quoque uisibiliter et tractabiliter apparentes, non quia indigebant, sed quia uolebant et poterant, ut hominibus congruerent sui ministerii quadam humanitate, fecerunt. Neque enim in phantasmate angelos edisse credendum est, quando eos homines hospitio susceperunt, quamuis utrum angeli essent ignorantibus simili nobis indigentia uesci uiderentur. Unde est quod ait angelus in libro Tobiae: Videbatis me manducare, sed uisu uestro uidebatis; id est necessitate reficiendi corporis, sicut uos facitis, me cibum sumere putabatis. Sed si forte de angelis aliud credibilius disputari potest, certe fides Christiana de ipso Saluatore non dubitat, quod etiam post resurrectionem, iam quidem in spiritali carne, sed tamen uera, cibum ac potum cum discipulis sumsit. Non enim potestas, sed egestas edendi ac bibendi talibus corporibus auferetur. Unde et spiritalia erunt, non quia corpora esse desistent, sed quia spiritu uiuificante subsistent.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. Of the bodies of the saints after the resurrection, which will be spiritual in such a way that the flesh is not turned into spirit.

The bodies of the righteous, then, which will be in the resurrection, will need neither any tree to keep them from dying by disease or worn-out old age, nor any other bodily foods by which any distress of hunger and thirst may be avoided; since they will be clothed with the sure and in every way inviolable gift of immortality, so that they will eat, if they wish, by ability, not by necessity. The angels too did this when they appeared visibly and tangibly, not because they needed to, but because they wished and were able, in order to suit themselves to men by a certain humanity of their ministry. For it is not to be believed that the angels ate in appearance only when men received them as guests, although to those who did not know whether they were angels they seemed to eat from a need like ours. Hence what the angel says in the book of Tobit: “You saw me eating, but you saw it with your own sight”; that is, you thought I took food out of the need to refresh the body, as you do. But even if something more credible can perhaps be argued about the angels, the Christian faith certainly does not doubt about the Savior himself that, even after the resurrection, in flesh now spiritual but still true, he took food and drink with his disciples. For it is not the power but the need of eating and drinking that will be taken from such bodies. Hence they will also be spiritual, not because they will cease to be bodies, but because they will subsist by the life-giving spirit.

### Scripture references

- Gen 18:8: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 19:3: allusion, medium confidence
- Luke 24:43: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 10:41: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:45: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Tob 12:19 (Tobit): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 18:8 and 19:3 (angels as guests); Tob 12:19 quoted in its Latin form; Luke 24:42–43; Acts 10:41; 1 Cor 15:45.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.22 (CSEL 40:646–647; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-19/#p-13-22).

## City of God 13.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-19/#p-13-23
- Source: CSEL 40:647–653
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Adam was created with an animal body, mortal only through sin, not a spiritual one; the spiritual body is Christ's risen body, which believers receive now in sacrament and hope and fully at the resurrection.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. Quid intellegendum sit de corpore animali et de corpore spiritali, et qui moriantur in Adam, qui uero uiuificentur in Christo. Nam sicut ista, quae habent animam uiuentem, nondum spiritum uiuificantem, animalia dicuntur corpora, nec tamen animae sunt, sed corpora: ita illa spiritalia uocantur corpora; absit tamen ut spiritus ea credamus futura, sed corpora carnis habitura substantiam, sed nullam tarditatem corruptionemque carnalem spiritu uiuificante passura. Tunc iam non terrenus, sed caelestis homo erit; non quia corpus, quod de terra factum est, non ipsum erit; sed quia dono caelesti iam tale erit, ut etiam caelo incolendo non amissa natura, sed mutata qualitate conueniat. Primus autem homo de terra terrenus in animam uiuentem factus est, non in spiritum uiuificantem, quod ei post oboedientiae meritum seruabatur. Ideo corpus eius, quod cibo ac potu egebat, ne fame adficeretur ac siti, et non inmortalitate illa absoluta adque indissolubili, sed ligno uitae a mortis necessitate prohibebatur adque in iuuentutis flore tenebatur, non spiritale, sed animale fuisse non dubium est, nequaquam tamen moriturum, nisi in Dei praedicentis minantisque sententiam delinquendo conruisset et alimentis quidem etiam extra paradisum non negatis, a ligno tamen uitae prohibitus traditus esset tempori uetustatique finiendus, in ea dumtaxat uita, quam in corpore licet animali, donec spiritale oboedientiae merito fieret, posset in paradiso nisi peccasset habere perpetuam. Quapropter etiamsi mortem istam manifestam, qua fit animae a corpore separatio, intellegamus simul significatam in eo quod Deus dixerat: Qua die ederitis ex illo, morte moriemini: non ideo debet absurdum uideri, quia non eo prorsus die a corpore sunt soluti, quo cibum interdictum mortiferumque sumserunt. Eo quippe die mutata in deterius uitiataque natura adque a ligno uitae separatione iustissima mortis in eis etiam corporalis necessitas facta est, cum qua nos necessitate nati sumus. Propter quod apostolus non ait: Corpus quidem moriturum est propter peccatum, sed ait: Corpus quidem mortuum est propter peccatum, spiritus autem uita est propter iustitiam. Deinde subiunxit: Si autem spiritus eius, qui suscitauit Christum a mortuis, habitat in uobis: qui suscitauit Christum a mortuis uiuificabit et mortalia corpora uestra per inhabitantem spiritum eius in uobis. Tunc ergo erit corpus in spiritum uiuificantem, quod nunc est in animam uiuentem; et tamen mortuum dicit apostolus, quia iam moriendi necessitate constrictum est. Tunc autem ita erat in animam uiuentem, quamuis non in spiritum uiuificantem, ut tamen mortuum dici non recte posset, quia nisi perpetratione peccati necessitatem moriendi habere non posset. Cum uero Deus et dicendo: Adam, ubi es? mortem significauerit animae, quae facta est illo deserente, et dicendo: Terra es et in terram ibis mortem significauerit corporis, quae illi fit anima discedente: propterea de morte secunda nihil dixisse credendus est, quia occultam esse uoluit propter dispensationem testamenti noui, ubi secunda mors apertissime declaratur; ut prius ista mors prima, quae communis est omnibus, proderetur ex illo uenisse peccato, quod in uno commune factum est omnibus; mors uero secunda non utique communis est omnibus propter eos, qui secundum propositum uocati sunt, quos ante praesciuit et praedestinauit, sicut ait apostolus, conformes imaginis filii sui, ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus, quos a secunda morte per Mediatorem Dei gratia liberauit. In corpore ergo animali primum hominem factum sic apostolus loquitur. Volens enim ab spiritali, quod in resurrectione futurum est, hoc quod nunc est animale discernere: Seminatur, inquit, in corruptione, surget in incorruptione; seminatur in contumelia, surget in gloria; seminatur in infirmitate, surget in uirtute; seminatur corpus animale, surget corpus spiritale. Deinde ut hoc probaret: Si est, inquit, corpus animale, est et spiritale. Et ut quid esset animale corpus ostenderet: Sic, inquit, scriptum est: Factus est primus homo in animam uiuentem. Isto igitur modo uoluit ostendere quid sit corpus animale, quamuis scriptura non dixerit de homine primo, qui est appellatus Adam, quando illi anima flatu Dei creata est: Et factus est homo in corpore animali; sed: Factus est homo in animam uiuentem. In eo ergo quod scriptum est: Factus est primus homo in animam uiuentem, uoluit apostolus intellegi corpus hominis animale. Spiritale autem quem ad modum intellegendum esset, ostendit addendo: Nouissimus Adam in spiritum uiuificantem, procul dubio Christum significans, qui iam ex mortuis ita resurrexit, ut mori deinceps omnino non possit. Denique sequitur et dicit: Sed non primum quod spiritale est, sed quod animale, postea spiritale. Ubi multo apertius declarauit se animale corpus insinuasse in eo quod scriptum est factum esse primum hominem in animam uiuentem, spiritale autem in eo quod ait: Nouissimus Adam in spiritum uiuificantem. Prius est enim animale corpus, quale habuit primus Adam, quamuis non moriturum, nisi peccasset; quale nunc habemus et nos, hactenus eius mutata uitiataque natura, quatenus in illo, postea quam peccauit, effectum est, unde haberet iam moriendi necessitatem; tale pro nobis etiam Christus primitus habere dignatus est, non quidem necessitate, sed potestate; postea uero spiritale, quale iam praecessit in Christo tamquam in capite nostro, secuturum est autem in membris eius ultima resurrectione mortuorum. Adiungit deinde apostolus duorum istorum hominum euidentissimam differentiam dicens: Primus homo de terra terrenus, secundus homo de caelo caelestis. Qualis terrenus, tales et terreni; qualis caelestis, tales et caelestes. Et quo modo induimus imaginem terreni, induamus et imaginem eius, qui de caelo est. Hoc apostolus ita posuit, ut nunc quidem in nobis secundum sacramentum regenerationis fiat, sicut alibi dicit: Quotquot in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis; re autem ipsa tunc perficietur, cum et in nobis, quod est animale nascendo, spiritale factum fuerit resurgendo. Ut enim eius itidem uerbis utar: Spe salui facti sumus. Induimus autem imaginem terreni hominis propagatione praeuaricationis et mortis, quam nobis intulit generatio; sed induimus imaginem caelestis hominis gratia indulgentiae uitaeque perpetuae, quod nobis praestat regeneratio, non nisi per mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem Christum Iesum; quem caelestem hominem uult intellegi, quia de caelo uenit, ut terrenae mortalitatis corpore uestiretur, quod caelesti inmortalitate uestiret. Caelestes uero ideo appellat et alios, quia fiunt per gratiam membra eius, ut cum illis sit unus Christus, uelut caput et corpus. Hoc in eadem epistula euidentius ita ponit: Per hominem mors, et per hominem resurrectio mortuorum. Sicut enim in Adam omnes moriuntur, sic et in Christo omnes uiuificabuntur; iam utique in corpore spiritali quod erit in spiritum uiuificantem; non quia omnes, qui in Adam moriuntur, membra erunt Christi (ex illis enim multo plures secunda in aeternum morte plectentur); sed ideo dictum est omnes adque omnes, quia, sicut nemo corpore animali nisi in Adam moritur, ita nemo corpore spiritali nisi in Christo uiuificatur. Proinde nequaquam putandum est nos in resurrectione tale corpus habituros, quale habuit homo primus ante peccatum; nec illud, quod dictum est: Qualis terrenus, tales et terreni, secundum id intellegendum, quod factum est admissione peccati. Non enim existimandum est eum prius, quam peccasset, spiritale corpus habuisse et peccati merito in animale mutatum. Ut enim hoc putetur, parum adtenduntur tanti uerba doctoris, qui ait: Si est corpus animale, est et spiritale; sic et scriptum est: Factus est primus homo Adam in animam uiuentem. Numquid hoc post peccatum factum est, cum sit ista hominis prima conditio, de qua beatissimus Paulus ad corpus animale monstrandum hoc testimonium legis adsumsit?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. What is to be understood by the animal body and the spiritual body, and who die in Adam and who are made alive in Christ.

For as those bodies which have a living soul, not yet a life-giving spirit, are called animal bodies, and yet are not souls but bodies, so those are called spiritual bodies; yet far be it from us to believe that they will be spirits, but bodies having the substance of flesh, yet suffering no fleshly sluggishness or corruption, the spirit giving them life. Then man will be no longer earthly but heavenly; not because the body which was made from earth will not be itself, but because by a heavenly gift it will be such that it befits even dwelling in heaven, its nature not lost but its quality changed. But the first man, earthly from the earth, was made a living soul, not a life-giving spirit, which was reserved for him after the merit of obedience. Therefore his body, which needed food and drink so as not to suffer hunger and thirst, and was kept from the necessity of death not by that absolute and indissoluble immortality but by the tree of life, and was held in the flower of youth, was undoubtedly not spiritual but animal; yet it would by no means have died, had he not fallen, by sinning, under the sentence of God, who foretold and threatened it. And though food was not denied him even outside paradise, yet, being barred from the tree of life, he was handed over to time and old age to be ended, at least as regards that life which, though in an animal body until it became spiritual by the merit of obedience, he could have had forever in paradise had he not sinned. Therefore, even if we understand that this manifest death, by which the soul is separated from the body, was signified together with the others when God had said, “On the day you eat of it, you will die the death,” it ought not therefore to seem absurd that they were not loosed from the body on the very day they took the forbidden and deadly food. For on that day their nature was changed for the worse and vitiated, and by their most just separation from the tree of life the necessity of bodily death too was produced in them, with which necessity we are born. For this reason the apostle does not say, “The body is going to die because of sin,” but says, “The body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness.” Then he adds: “But if the Spirit of him who raised Christ from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life also to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.” Then, therefore, the body will be a life-giving spirit which is now a living soul; and yet the apostle calls it dead, because it is already bound by the necessity of dying. But then it was a living soul, though not a life-giving spirit, in such a way that it could not rightly be called dead, because it could not have the necessity of dying except by committing sin.

But since God, by saying, “Adam, where are you?”, signified the death of the soul, which came about when he forsook it, and by saying, “You are earth, and to earth you will go,” signified the death of the body, which comes to it when the soul departs, it must be believed that he said nothing of the second death because he willed it to be hidden for the sake of the dispensation of the New Testament, where the second death is most plainly declared; so that first this first death, which is common to all, might be shown to have come from that sin which was made common to all in one; but the second death is certainly not common to all, because of those who are called according to his purpose, whom he foreknew and predestined, as the apostle says, to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers, whom the grace of God has freed from the second death through the Mediator.

In this way, then, the apostle says the first man was made in an animal body. For, wishing to distinguish this which is now animal from the spiritual body which will be in the resurrection, he says: “It is sown in corruption, it will rise in incorruption; it is sown in dishonor, it will rise in glory; it is sown in weakness, it will rise in power; it is sown an animal body, it will rise a spiritual body.” Then, to prove this: “If there is an animal body,” he says, “there is also a spiritual one.” And to show what an animal body is: “Thus it is written,” he says, “The first man was made a living soul.” In this way, then, he meant to show what an animal body is, although Scripture did not say of the first man, who was called Adam, when his soul was created by the breath of God, “And man was made in an animal body,” but, “Man was made a living soul.” By what is written, then, “The first man was made a living soul,” the apostle meant the animal body of man to be understood. And how the spiritual body is to be understood he showed by adding: “The last Adam a life-giving spirit,” beyond doubt signifying Christ, who has now so risen from the dead that he cannot die any more at all. Then he goes on to say: “But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the animal, and afterward the spiritual.” Here he declared much more plainly that he had intimated the animal body in what is written, that the first man was made a living soul, and the spiritual in what he says, “The last Adam a life-giving spirit.” For first comes the animal body, such as the first Adam had, though it would not have died had he not sinned; such as we too now have, his nature being changed and vitiated to the extent that was brought about in him after he sinned, so that he now had the necessity of dying; such as Christ too deigned at first to have for our sake, not indeed by necessity but by power; but afterward the spiritual, such as has already gone before in Christ as in our head, and is to follow in his members at the last resurrection of the dead.

Then the apostle adds the most evident difference between these two men, saying: “The first man was from the earth, earthly; the second man is from heaven, heavenly. As was the earthly, so are those who are earthly; and as is the heavenly, so are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of him who is from heaven.” The apostle put this in such a way that it takes place in us now according to the sacrament of regeneration, as he says elsewhere, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ”; but in reality it will be completed then, when in us too what is animal by being born has become spiritual by rising again. For, to use his words likewise, “In hope we have been saved.” We bear the image of the earthly man by the propagation of transgression and death, which generation has brought upon us; but we bear the image of the heavenly man by the grace of pardon and everlasting life, which regeneration grants us, only through the Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus. He wants him to be understood as the heavenly man because he came from heaven to be clothed with the body of earthly mortality, which he would clothe with heavenly immortality. And he calls others heavenly too because they become his members by grace, so that with them there is one Christ, as head and body. He puts this more plainly in the same letter: “By a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive”; now, that is, in the spiritual body which will be a life-giving spirit; not because all who die in Adam will be members of Christ (for many more of them will be punished with the second death forever), but it is said “all” and “all” because, as no one dies in an animal body except in Adam, so no one is made alive in a spiritual body except in Christ. Therefore it must by no means be thought that we shall have in the resurrection such a body as the first man had before sin; nor is the saying, “As was the earthly, so are those who are earthly,” to be understood according to what came about by the committing of sin. For it is not to be thought that before he sinned he had a spiritual body and by the desert of sin it was changed into an animal one. For if this is thought, too little attention is paid to the words of so great a teacher, who says: “If there is an animal body, there is also a spiritual one; thus it is also written, The first man Adam was made a living soul.” Did this happen after sin, when it is the first creation of man, from which the most blessed Paul took this testimony of the law to show the animal body?

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 15:45: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:42: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:43: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:44: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:46: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:47: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:48: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:49: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:21: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:22: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:7: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:17: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 3:9: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 3:19: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 3:22: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 8:10: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:11: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:28: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 8:29: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 8:24: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 3:27: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Tim 2:5: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 6:9: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Sources: 1 Cor 15:21–22, 42–49 (quoted at length); Gen 2:7, 17; 3:9, 19; Rom 8:10–11, 24, 28–29; Gal 3:27; 1 Tim 2:5.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.23 (CSEL 40:647–653; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-19/#p-13-23).

## City of God 13.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-24/#p-13-24
- Source: CSEL 40:653–660
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God's breath at Adam's creation gave him his soul, not the Holy Spirit, as the Greek pnoē shows; Christ's breathing on the disciples signified the Spirit of both Father and Son; the question how the unfallen would have procreated is deferred to Book 14.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIIII. Qualiter accipienda sit uel illa insufflatio Dei, qua primus homo factus est in animam uiuentem, uel illa, quam Dominus fecit dicens discipulis suis: Accipite Spiritum sanctum. Unde et illud parum considerate quibusdam uisum est, in eo quod legitur: Inspirauit Deus in faciem eius spiritum uitae, et factus est homo in animam uiuentem, non tunc animam primo homini datam, sed eam, quae iam inerat, Spiritu sancto uiuificatam. Mouet enim eos, quod Dominus Iesus, postea quam resurrexit a mortuis, insufflauit dicens discipulis suis: Accipite Spiritum sanctum. Unde tale aliquid factum existimant, quale tunc factum est, quasi et hic secutus euangelista dixerit: Et facti sunt in animam uiuentem. Quod quidem si dictum esset, hoc intellegeremus, quod animarum quaedam uita sit Spiritus Dei, sine quo animae rationales mortuae deputandae sunt, quamuis earum praesentia uiuere corpora uideantur. Sed non ita factum, quando est conditus homo, satis ipsa libri uerba testantur, quae ita se habent: Et formauit Deus hominem puluerem de terra. Quod quidam planius interpretandum putantes dixerunt: Et finxit Deus hominem de limo terrae, quoniam superius dictum fuerat: Fons autem ascendebat de terra et inrigabat omnem faciem terrae; ut ex hoc limus intellegendus uideretur, umore scilicet terraque concretus. Ubi enim hoc dictum est, continuo sequitur: Et formauit Deus hominem puluerem de terra, sicut Graeci codices habent, unde in Latinam linguam scriptura ipsa conuersa est. Siue autem formauit siue finxit quis dicere uoluerit, quod Graece dicitur ἔπλασεν, ad rem nihil interest; magis tamen proprie dicitur finxit. Sed ambiguitas uisa est deuitanda eis, qui formauit dicere maluerunt, eo quod in Latina lingua illud magis obtinuit consuetudo, ut hi dicantur fingere, qui aliquid mendacio simulante conponunt. Hunc igitur formatum hominem de terrae puluere siue limo (erat enim puluis umectus) — hunc, inquam, ut expressius dicam, sicut scriptura locuta est, puluerem de terra animale corpus factum esse docet apostolus, cum animam accepit: Et factus est iste homo in animam uiuentem, id est, formatus iste puluis factus est in animam uiuentem. Iam, inquiunt, habebat animam, alioquin non appellaretur homo, quoniam homo non est corpus solum uel anima sola, sed qui et anima constat et corpore. Hoc quidem uerum est, quod non totus homo, sed pars melior hominis anima est; nec totus homo corpus, sed inferior hominis pars est; sed cum est utrumque coniunctum simul, habet hominis nomen; quod tamen et singula non amittunt, etiam cum de singulis loquimur. Quis enim dicere prohibetur cottidiani quadam lege sermonis: Homo ille defunctus est et nunc in requie est uel in poenis, cum de anima sola possit hoc dici, et: Illo aut illo loco homo ille sepultus est, cum hoc nisi de solo corpore non possit intellegi? An dicturi sunt sic loqui scripturam non solere diuinam? Immo uero illa ita nobis in hoc adtestatur, ut etiam cum duo ista coniuncta sunt et uiuit homo, tamen etiam singula hominis uocabulo appellet, animam scilicet interiorem hominem, corpus autem exteriorem hominem uocans, tamquam duo sint homines, cum simul utrumque sit homo unus. Sed intellegendum est, secundum quid dicatur homo ad imaginem Dei et homo terra adque iturus in terram. Illud enim secundum animam rationalem dicitur, qualem Deus insufflando uel, si commodius dicitur, inspirando indidit homini, id est hominis corpori; hoc autem secundum corpus, qualem hominem Deus finxit ex puluere, cui data est anima, ut fieret corpus animale, id est homo in animam uiuentem. Quapropter in eo, quod Dominus fecit, quando insufflauit dicens: Accipite Spiritum sanctum, nimirum hoc intellegi uoluit, quod Spiritus sanctus non tantum sit Patris, uerum etiam ipsius Unigeniti Spiritus. Idem ipse est quippe Spiritus et Patris et Filii, cum quo est trinitas Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus, non creatura, sed Creator. Neque enim flatus ille corporeus de carnis ore procedens substantia erat Spiritus sancti adque natura, sed potius significatio, qua intellegeremus, ut dixi, Spiritum sanctum Patri esse Filioque communem, quia non sunt eis singulis singuli, sed unus amborum est. Semper autem iste Spiritus in scripturis sanctis Graeco uocabulo πνεῦμα dicitur, sicut eum et hoc loco Iesus appellauit, quando eum corporalis sui oris flatu significans discipulis dedit; et locis omnibus diuinorum eloquiorum non mihi aliter umquam nuncupatus occurrit. Hic uero, ubi legitur: Et finxit Deus hominem puluerem de terra et insufflauit siue inspirauit in faciem eius spiritum uitae, non ait Graecus πνεῦμα, quod solet dici Spiritus sanctus, sed πνοήν, quod nomen in creatura quam in Creatore frequentius legitur; unde nonnulli etiam Latini propter differentiam hoc uocabulum non spiritum, sed flatum appellare maluerunt. Hoc enim est in Graeco etiam illo loco aput Esaiam, ubi Deus dicit: Omnem flatum ego feci, omnem animam sine dubitatione significans. Quod itaque Graece πνοή dicitur, nostri aliquando flatum, aliquando spiritum, aliquando inspirationem uel aspirationem, quando etiam Dei dicitur, interpretati sunt; πνεῦμα uero numquam nisi spiritum, siue hominis (de quo ait apostolus: Quis enim scit hominum quae sunt hominis, nisi spiritus hominis qui in ipso est?) siue pecoris (sicut in Salomonis libro scriptum est: Quis scit si spiritus hominis ascendat sursum in caelum et spiritus pecoris descendat deorsum in terram?) siue istum corporeum, qui etiam uentus dicitur, (nam eius hoc nomen est, ubi in psalmo canitur: Ignis, grando, nix, glacies spiritus tempestatis) siue iam non creatum, sed Creatorem, sicut est de quo dicit Dominus in euangelio: Accipite Spiritum sanctum, eum corporei sui oris flatu significans, et ubi ait: Ite, baptizate[omnes] gentes in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, ubi ipsa trinitas excellentissime et euidentissime commendata est, et ubi legitur: Deus spiritus est, et aliis plurimis sacrarum litterarum locis. In his quippe omnibus testimoniis scripturarum, quantum ad Graecos adtinet, non πνοήν uidemus scriptum esse, sed πνεῡμα; quantum autem ad Latinos, non flatum, sed spiritum. Quapropter in eo, quod scriptum est: Inspirauit, uel si magis proprie dicendum est: Insufflauit in faciem eius spiritum uitae, si Graecus non πνοήν, sicut ibi legitur, sed πνεῡμα; posuisset, nec sic esset consequens, ut Creatorem Spiritum, qui proprie dicitur in trinitate Spiritus sanctus, intellegere cogeremur; quando quidem πνεῡμα, ut dictum est, non solum de Creatore, sed etiam de creatura dici solere manifestum est. Sed cum dixisset, inquiunt, spiritum, non adderet uitae, nisi illum sanctum Spiritum uellet intellegi; et cum dixisset: Factus est homo in animam, non adderet uiuentem, nisi animae uitam significaret, quae illi diuinitus inpertitur dono Spiritus Dei. Cum enim uiuat anima, inquiunt, proprio suae uitae modo, quid opus erat addere uiuentem, nisi ut ea uita intellegeretur, quae illi per sanctum Spiritum datur? Hoc quid est aliud nisi diligenter pro humana suspicione contendere et scripturas sanctas neglegenter adtendere? Quid enim magnum erat non ire longius, sed in eodem ipso libro paulo superius legere: Producat terra animam uiuentem, quando animalia terrestria cuncta creata sunt? Deinde aliquantis interpositis, in eodem tamen ipso libro quid magnum erat aduertere quod scriptum est: Et omnia, quae habent spiritum uitae, et omnis, qui erat super aridam, mortuus est, cum insinuaret omnia quae uiuebant in terra perisse diluuio? Si ergo et animam uiuentem et spiritum uitae etiam in pecoribus inuenimus, sicut loqui diuina scriptura consueuit, et cum hoc quoque loco, ubi legitur: Omnia quae habent spiritum uitae, non Graecus πνεῡμα, sed πνοην dixerit: quur non dicimus: Quid opus erat ut adderet uiuentem, cum anima nisi uiuat esse non possit? aut quid opus erat ut adderet uitae, cum dixisset spiritum? Sed intellegimus animam uiuentem et spiritum uitae scripturam suo more dixisse, cum animalia, id est animata corpora, uellet intellegi, quibus inesset per animam perspicuus iste etiam corporis sensus. In hominis autem conditione obliuiscimur, quem ad modum loqui scriptura consueuerit, cum suo prorsus more locuta sit, quo insinuaret hominem etiam rationali anima accepta, quam non sicut aliarum carnium aquis et terra producentibus, sed Deo flante creatam uoluit intellegi, sic tamen factum, ut in corpore animali, quod fit anima in eo uiuente, sicut illa animalia uiueret, de quibus dixit: Producat terra animam uiuentem, et quae itidem dixit habuisse in se spiritum uitae; ubi etiam in Graeco non dixit πνεῡμα, sed πνοήν; non utique Spiritum sanctum, sed eorum animam tali exprimens nomine. Sed enim Dei flatus, inquiunt, Dei ore exisse intellegitur, quem si animam crediderimus, consequens erit, ut eiusdem fateamur esse substantiae paremque illius sapientiae, quae dicit: Ego ex ore Altissimi prodii. Non quidem dixit sapientia ore Dei efflatam se fuisse, sed ex eius ore prodisse. Sicut autem nos possumus non de nostra natura, qua homines sumus, sed de isto aere circumfuso, quem spirando ac respirando ducimus ac reddimus, flatum facere cum sufflamus: ita omnipotens Deus non de sua natura neque subiacenti creatura, sed etiam de nihilo potuit facere flatum, quem corpori hominis inserendo inspirasse uel insufflasse conuenientissime dictus est, incorporeus incorporeum, sed inmutabilis mutabilem, quia non creatus creatum. Verum tamen ut sciant isti, qui de scripturis loqui uolunt et scripturarum locutiones non aduertunt, non hoc solum dici exire ex ore Dei, quod est aequalis eiusdemque naturae, audiant uel legant quod Deo dicente scriptum est: Quoniam tepidus es et neque calidus neque frigidus, incipiam te reicere ex ore meo. Nulla itaque causa est, quur apertissime loquenti resistamus apostolo, ubi ab spiritali corpore corpus animale discernens, id est ab illo in quo futuri sumus hoc in quo nunc sumus, ait: Seminatur corpus animale, surget corpus spiritale; si est corpus animale, est et spiritale; sic et scriptum est: Factus est primus homo Adam in animam uiuentem, nouissimus Adam in spiritum uiuificantem. Sed non primum quod spiritale est, sed quod animale, postea spiritale. Primus homo de terra terrenus, secundus homo de caelo caelestis. Qualis terrenus, tales et terreni, et qualis caelestis, tales et caelestes. Et quo modo induimus imaginem terreni, induamus et imaginem eius qui de caelo est. De quibus omnibus apostolicis uerbis superius locuti sumus. Corpus igitur animale, in quo primum hominem Adam factum esse dicit apostolus, sic erat factum, non ut mori omnino non posset, sed ut non moreretur, nisi homo peccasset. Nam illud, quod spiritu uiuificante spiritale erit et inmortale, mori omnino non poterit, sicut anima creata est inmortalis, quae licet peccato mortua perhibeatur carens quadam uita sua, hoc est dei Spiritu, quo etiam sapienter et beate uiuere poterat, tamen propria quadam, licet misera, uita sua non desinit uiuere, quia inmortalis est creata; sicut etiam desertores angeli, licet secundum quendam modum mortui sint peccando, quia fontem uitae deseruerunt, qui Deus est, quem potando sapienter et beate poterant uiuere, tamen non sic mori potuerunt, ut omni modo desisterent uiuere adque sentire, quoniam inmortales creati sunt; adque ita in secundam mortem post ultimum praecipitabuntur iudicium, ut nec illic uita careant, quando quidem etiam sensu, cum in doloribus futuri sunt, non carebunt. Sed homines ad Dei gratiam pertinentes, ciues sanctorum angelorum in beata uita manentium, ita spiritalibus corporibus induentur, ut neque peccent amplius neque moriantur; ea tamen inmortalitate uestiti, quae, sicut angelorum, nec peccato possit auferri; natura quidem manente carnis, sed nulla omnino carnali corruptibilitate uel tarditate remanente. Sequitur autem quaestio necessario pertractanda et Domino Deo ueritatis adiuuante soluenda: Si libido membrorum inoboedientium ex peccato inoboedientiae in illis primis hominibus, cum illos diuina gratia deseruisset, exorta est; unde in suam nuditatem oculos aperuerunt, id est eam curiosius aduerterunt, et quia inpudens motus uoluntatis arbitrio resistebat, pudenda texerunt: quo modo essent filios propagaturi, si, ut creati fuerant, sine praeuaricatione mansissent. Sed quia et liber iste claudendus est nec tanta quaestio in sermonis angustias coartanda, in eum qui sequitur commodiore dispositione differtur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 24. How we are to take both that breathing of God by which the first man was made a living soul, and that which the Lord did when he said to his disciples, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

Hence it has also seemed to some, not considering carefully enough, that in what we read, “God breathed into his face the breath of life, and man was made a living soul,” it was not then that a soul was given to the first man, but that the one already in him was given life by the Holy Spirit. For they are moved by the fact that the Lord Jesus, after he rose from the dead, breathed on his disciples, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” From this they think something of the same kind was done as was done then, as though here too the evangelist had gone on to say, “And they became living souls.” If this had indeed been said, we would understand that the Spirit of God is a kind of life of souls, without which rational souls must be counted dead, although bodies seem to live by their presence. But that it was not so done when man was created the very words of the book sufficiently testify, which run thus: “And God formed man dust from the earth.” Some, thinking it should be translated more plainly, have said: “And God fashioned man from the slime of the earth,” since it had been said above, “But a spring came up from the earth and watered the whole face of the earth,” so that from this slime seemed to be meant, that is, earth mixed with moisture. For where this is said, there follows at once, “And God formed man dust from the earth,” as the Greek manuscripts have it, from which the Scripture itself was translated into Latin. But whether one chooses to say “formed” or “fashioned,” for what in Greek is eplasen, makes no difference to the matter; yet “fashioned” is the more proper word. But those who preferred to say “formed” thought an ambiguity should be avoided, because in the Latin language usage has rather established that those are said to “fashion” who put something together by lying pretense. This man, then, formed from the dust or slime of the earth (for it was moist dust), this, I say, to speak more expressly as Scripture has spoken, this dust from the earth, the apostle teaches, was made an animal body when it received a soul: “And this man was made a living soul,” that is, this formed dust was made a living soul.

He already had a soul, they say, otherwise he would not be called man, since man is not the body alone or the soul alone, but one who consists of both soul and body. This is indeed true, that the soul is not the whole man but the better part of man, nor is the body the whole man but the lower part of man; but when both are joined together, it has the name of man; which, however, each does not lose even when we speak of them singly. For who is forbidden by a kind of rule of daily speech to say, “That man has died and is now at rest,” or “in torments,” when this can be said of the soul alone; and, “That man was buried in this or that place,” when this can be understood only of the body alone? Or will they say that divine Scripture is not accustomed to speak so? On the contrary, it testifies to us in this matter in such a way that even when these two are joined and a man lives, it still calls each by the name of man, calling the soul the inner man and the body the outer man, as though they were two men, when both together are one man. But we must understand in what respect man is said to be in the image of God, and in what respect man is earth and will go to earth. The former is said according to the rational soul, such as God put into man, that is, into man's body, by breathing, or, if it is more fittingly said, by inspiring; the latter according to the body, such as the man whom God fashioned from dust, to whom a soul was given so that he might become an animal body, that is, man a living soul.

Therefore, in what the Lord did when he breathed, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” he certainly meant it to be understood that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit not only of the Father but also of the only-begotten himself. For the same Spirit is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son, with whom the Trinity is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not creature but Creator. For that bodily breath proceeding from the mouth of flesh was not the substance and nature of the Holy Spirit, but rather a sign by which we might understand, as I said, that the Holy Spirit is common to the Father and the Son, since they do not each have one, but there is one Spirit of both. Now this Spirit is always called in the holy Scriptures by the Greek word pneuma, as Jesus called him in this place too, when he gave him to the disciples, signifying him by the breath of his bodily mouth; and in all the places of the divine oracles I have never found him named otherwise. But here, where we read, “And God fashioned man dust from the earth, and breathed,” or “inspired, into his face the breath of life,” the Greek does not say pneuma, the usual word for the Holy Spirit, but pnoē, a word read more often of the creature than of the Creator; hence some Latin writers too, for the sake of the difference, have preferred to render this word not “spirit” but “breath.” For this is also the word in the Greek in that place in Isaiah where God says, “I have made every breath,” beyond doubt meaning every soul. So what in Greek is called pnoē our translators have rendered sometimes “breath,” sometimes “spirit,” sometimes “inspiration” or “aspiration,” even when it is said of God; but pneuma never otherwise than “spirit,” whether of man (of which the apostle says, “For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?”), or of a beast (as it is written in Solomon's book, “Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward into heaven and the spirit of the beast goes downward into the earth?”), or this bodily one which is also called wind (for this is its name where it is sung in the psalm, “Fire, hail, snow, ice, spirit of the storm”), or no longer the created but the Creator, as is he of whom the Lord says in the Gospel, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” signifying him by the breath of his bodily mouth, and where he says, “Go, baptize the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” where the Trinity itself is most excellently and plainly commended, and where we read, “God is spirit,” and in very many other places of the sacred writings. For in all these testimonies of the Scriptures, as far as the Greeks are concerned, we see written not pnoē but pneuma; as far as the Latins are concerned, not “breath” but “spirit.” Therefore, in what is written, “He inspired,” or, if it is to be said more properly, “He breathed into his face the breath of life,” even if the Greek had put not pnoē, as is read there, but pneuma, it would not follow even so that we would be forced to understand the Creator Spirit, who in the Trinity is properly called the Holy Spirit; since it is plain, as has been said, that pneuma is commonly said not only of the Creator but also of the creature.

But, they say, when he had said “spirit,” he would not add “of life” unless he wanted that Holy Spirit to be understood; and when he had said, “Man was made a soul,” he would not add “living” unless he meant the life of the soul which is imparted to it by God through the gift of the Spirit of God. For since the soul lives by its own manner of life, they say, what need was there to add “living,” except that that life should be understood which is given it through the Holy Spirit? What is this but to contend diligently for human conjecture and to attend carelessly to the holy Scriptures? For what great thing was it, without going further, to read a little earlier in the very same book, “Let the earth bring forth the living soul,” when all the land animals were created? Then, some things coming between, still in the very same book, what great thing was it to notice what is written, “And all that have the spirit of life, and everyone who was on the dry land, died,” when it intimated that all that lived on the earth had perished in the flood? If, then, we find both “living soul” and “spirit of life” even in cattle, as divine Scripture is accustomed to speak; and since in this place too, where we read, “All that have the spirit of life,” the Greek has said not pneuma but pnoē: why do we not say, “What need was there to add 'living,' when a soul cannot exist unless it lives?” or, “What need was there to add 'of life,' when it had said 'spirit'?” But we understand that Scripture said “living soul” and “spirit of life” in its own manner when it wanted animals, that is, animated bodies, to be understood, in which there was, through the soul, this evident sensation of the body too. But in the creation of man we forget how Scripture is accustomed to speak, though it spoke entirely in its own manner, intimating that man, even having received a rational soul, which it willed to be understood as created not, like that of other flesh, by the waters and the earth bringing it forth, but by God breathing, was yet so made that he lived in an animal body, which comes about by a soul living in it, like those animals of which it said, “Let the earth bring forth the living soul,” and which it likewise said had in themselves the spirit of life; where too in the Greek it did not say pneuma but pnoē, certainly expressing by such a name not the Holy Spirit but their soul.

But, they say, the breath of God is understood to have come out of God's mouth; and if we believe it to be the soul, it will follow that we must confess it to be of the same substance and equal to that wisdom which says, “I came out of the mouth of the Most High.” Wisdom did not say that she was breathed out of God's mouth, but that she came out of his mouth. But just as we can make a breath when we blow, not from our own nature by which we are men, but from this surrounding air which we draw in and give back by breathing in and out, so almighty God could make a breath not from his own nature nor from an underlying creature, but even from nothing; and he is most fittingly said to have inspired or breathed it by putting it into the body of man: the incorporeal making the incorporeal, but the unchangeable the changeable, because the uncreated the created. But that those who want to talk about the Scriptures and do not notice the idioms of the Scriptures may know that not only what is equal and of the same nature is said to come out of the mouth of God, let them hear or read what is written with God speaking: “Because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I will begin to spit you out of my mouth.”

There is no reason, then, for us to resist the apostle when he speaks most plainly, where, distinguishing the animal body from the spiritual, that is, this in which we now are from that in which we shall be, he says: “It is sown an animal body, it will rise a spiritual body; if there is an animal body, there is also a spiritual one; thus it is also written, The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the animal, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, earthly; the second man is from heaven, heavenly. As was the earthly, so are those who are earthly; and as is the heavenly, so are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of him who is from heaven.” Of all these words of the apostle we have spoken above. The animal body, then, in which the apostle says the first man Adam was made, was made not such that it could not die at all, but such that it would not die unless man sinned. For that which will be spiritual and immortal by the life-giving spirit will be quite unable to die, just as the soul was created immortal; which, though it is said to be dead by sin, lacking a certain life of its own, that is, the Spirit of God, by which it could also live wisely and happily, yet does not cease to live by a certain life of its own, though a wretched one, because it was created immortal; as also the deserting angels, though in a certain manner they died by sinning, since they forsook the fountain of life, which is God, by drinking of whom they could live wisely and happily, yet could not so die as to cease altogether to live and feel, since they were created immortal; and so they will be cast headlong into the second death after the last judgment in such a way that they will not lack life even there, since they will not lack feeling either, when they are in pains. But men who belong to the grace of God, fellow citizens of the holy angels who remain in the blessed life, will be clothed with spiritual bodies in such a way that they will neither sin any more nor die; yet clothed with such an immortality as, like that of the angels, cannot be taken away even by sin; the nature of the flesh remaining, but no fleshly corruptibility or sluggishness whatever remaining.

There follows, however, a question which must necessarily be treated and, with the help of the Lord God of truth, resolved: if the lust of the disobedient members arose in those first human beings from the sin of disobedience, when divine grace had forsaken them, whence they opened their eyes to their nakedness, that is, noticed it more curiously, and covered their shameful parts because the shameless motion resisted the choice of the will, how would they have propagated children if they had remained without transgression as they had been created? But since this book must be closed, and so great a question should not be squeezed into the narrow limits of a discourse, it is put off to the next book, where it can be arranged more conveniently.

### Scripture references

- Gen 2:7: quotation, high confidence
- John 20:22: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:6: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 4:16: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 1:27: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 3:19: allusion, high confidence
- Isa 57:16: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 2:11: quotation, high confidence
- Eccl 3:21: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 148:8: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 28:19: quotation, high confidence
- John 4:24: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:24: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 7:22: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 3:16: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:44: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:45: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:46: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:47: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:48: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:49: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 3:7: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sir 24:3 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sources: Gen 2:6–7; John 20:22; Isa 57:16 (LXX “I have made every breath”); 1 Cor 2:11; Eccl 3:21; Ps 148:8; Matt 28:19; John 4:24; Gen 1:24; Gen 7:22; Sir 24:3 (“I came out of the mouth of the Most High”); Rev 3:16; 2 Cor 4:16 (inner and outer man); 1 Cor 15:44–49; Gen 3:7. The Greek words (ἔπλασεν, πνεῦμα, πνοή), badly garbled in the digital text, are corrected and given in transliteration. The edition's square brackets around “omnes” in Matt 28:19 mean the editor deletes “all”; it is left out. The words of the Greek Gen 2:7 are rendered literally (“formed man dust from the earth”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 13.24 (CSEL 40:653–660; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-24/#p-13-24).

## City of God 14.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-24/#p-14-1
- Source: CSEL 40:660–2
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Because of Adam's sin all would perish in the second death but for grace; beneath all human diversity there are only two societies, those living according to the flesh and according to the spirit.

### Latin text

Per inoboedientiam primi hominis omnes in secundae mortis perpetuitatem ruituros fuisse, nisi multos Dei gratia liberaret. Diximus iam superioribus libris ad humanum genus non solum naturae similitudine sociandum, uerum etiam quadam cognationis necessitudine in unitatem concordem pacis uinculo conligandum ex homine uno Deum uoluisse homines instituere, neque hoc genus fuisse in singulis quibusque moriturum, nisi duo primi, quorum creatus est unus ex nullo, altera ex illo, id inoboedientia meruissent, a quibus admissum est tam grande peccatum, ut in deterius eo natura mutaretur humana, etiam in posteros obligatione peccati et mortis necessitate transmissa. Mortis autem regnum in homines usque adeo dominatum est, ut omnes in secundam quoque mortem, cuius nullus est finis, poena debita praecipites ageret, nisi inde quosdam indebita Dei gratia liberaret. Ac per hoc factum est, ut, cum tot tantaeque gentes per terrarum orbem diuersis ritibus moribusque uiuentes multiplici linguarum armorum uestium sint uarietate distinctae, non tamen amplius quam duo quaedam genera humanae societatis existerent, quas ciuitates duas secundum scripturas nostras merito appellare possemus. Una quippe est hominum secundum carnem, altera secundum spiritum uiuere in sui cuiusque generis pace uolentium et, cum id quod expetunt adsequuntur, in sui cuiusque generis pace uiuentium.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. That through the disobedience of the first man all would have fallen headlong into the endlessness of the second death, had not the grace of God set many free.

We have already said in the preceding books that God willed to establish men from one man, so that the human race might be joined not only by likeness of nature but also bound, by a kind of necessity of kinship, into a harmonious unity by the bond of peace; and that this race would not have died in each of its members had not the first two, of whom one was created from nothing and the other from him, deserved this by disobedience. By them so great a sin was committed that human nature was changed for the worse by it, and the obligation of sin and the necessity of death were transmitted even to their descendants. And the reign of death over men has so prevailed that it would drive all headlong, by a deserved penalty, into the second death too, which has no end, had not the undeserved grace of God set some free from it. And so it has come about that, though there are so many and such great nations throughout the world, living with different rites and customs and distinguished by manifold variety of languages, arms, and dress, yet there have come to be no more than two kinds of human society, which, following our Scriptures, we may rightly call two cities. One consists of men who wish to live according to the flesh, the other of those who wish to live according to the spirit, each in the peace of its own kind; and when they obtain what they seek, each lives in the peace of its own kind.

### Scripture references

- Rom 5:14: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 5:17: allusion, medium confidence
- Eph 4:3: echo, medium confidence
- Rom 8:4: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 8:5: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Rom 5:14, 17 (death reigned); Eph 4:3 (bond of peace); Rom 8:4–5 (according to the flesh / the spirit).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.1 (CSEL 40:660–2; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-24/#p-14-1).

## City of God 14.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-24/#p-14-2
- Source: CSEL 40:2–4
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: In Scripture “flesh” often means the whole man, so living according to the flesh includes vices of the mind, such as idolatry, enmity, and heresy, as well as bodily pleasures; Stoics as well as Epicureans live according to the flesh.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. De uita carnali, quae non ex corporis tantum, sed etiam ex animi intellegenda sit uitiis: Prius ergo uidendum est, quid sit secundum carnem, quid secundum spiritum uiuere. Quisquis enim hoc quod diximus prima fronte inspicit, uel non recolens uel minus aduertens quem ad modum scripturae sanctae loquantur, potest putare philosophos quidem Epicureos secundum carnem uiuere, quia summum bonum hominis in corporis uoluptate posuerunt, et si qui alii sunt, qui quoquo modo corporis bonum summum bonum esse hominis opinati sunt, et eorum omne uulgus, qui non aliquo dogmate uel eo modo philosophantur, sed procliues ad libidinem nisi ex uoluptatibus, quas corporeis sensibus capiunt, gaudere nesciunt; Stoicos autem, qui summum bonum hominis in animo ponunt, secundum spiritum uiuere, quia et hominis animus quid est nisi spiritus? Sed sicut loquitur scriptura diuina, secundum carnem uiuere utrique monstrantur. Carnem quippe appellat non solum corpus terreni adque mortalis animantis (ueluti cum dicit: Non omnis caro eadem caro; alia quidem hominis, alia autem caro pecoris, alia uolucrum, alia piscium), sed et aliis multis modis significatione huius nominis utitur, inter quos uarios locutionis modos saepe etiam ipsum hominem, id est naturam hominis, carnem nuncupat, modo locutionis a parte totum, quale est: Ex operibus legis non iustificabitur omnis caro. Quid enim uoluit intellegi nisi omnis homo? Quod apertius paulo post ait: In lege nemo iustificatur, et ad Galatas: Scientes autem quia non iustificatur homo ex operibus legis. Secundum hoc intellegitur: Et Verbum caro factum est, id est homo; quod non recte accipientes quidam putauerunt Christo humanam animam defuisse. Sicut enim a toto pars accipitur, ubi Mariae Magdalenae uerba in euangelio leguntur dicentis: Tulerant Dominum meum et nescio ubi posuerunt eum, cum de sola Christi carne loqueretur, quam sepultam de monumento putabat ablatam: ita et a parte totum carne nominata intellegitur homo, sicuti ea sunt quae supra commemorauimus. Cum igitur multis modis, quos perscrutari et colligere longum est, diuina scriptura nuncupet carnem: quid sit secundum carnem uiuere (quod profecto malum est, cum ipsa carnis natura non sit malum) ut indagare possimus, inspiciamus diligenter illum locum epistulae Pauli apostoli quam scripsit ad Galatas, ubi ait: Manifesta autem sunt opera carnis, quae sunt fornicationes, inmunditiae, luxuria, idolorum seruitus, ueneficia, inimicitiae, contentiones, aemulationes, animositates, dissensiones, haereses, inuidiae, ebrietates, comisationes et his similia; quae praedico uobis, sicut praedixi, quoniam qui talia agunt regnum Dei non possidebunt. Iste totus epistulae apostolicae locus, quantum ad rem praesentem satis esse uidebitur, consideratus poterit hanc dissoluere quaestionem, quid sit secundum carnem uiuere. In operibus namque carnis, quae manifesta esse dixit eaque commemorata damnauit, non illa tantum inuenimus, quae ad uoluptatem pertinent carnis, sicuti sunt fornicationes, inmunditiae, luxuria, ebrietates, comisationes; uerum etiam illa, quibus animi uitia demonstrantur a uoluptate carnis aliena. Quis enim seruitutem, quae idolis exhibetur, ueneficia, inimicitias, contentiones, aemulationes, animositates, dissensiones, haereses, inuidias non potius intellegat animi uitia esse quam carnis? Quando quidem fieri potest, ut propter idololatriam uel haeresis alicuius errorem a uoluptatibus corporis temperetur; et tamen etiam tunc homo, quamuis carnis libidines continere adque cohibere uideatur, secundum carnem uiuere hac apostolica auctoritate conuincitur, et in eo, quod abstinet a uoluptatibus carnis, damnabilia opera carnis agere demonstratur. Quis inimicitias non in animo habeat? aut quis ita loquatur, ut inimico suo uel quem putat inimicum dicat: Malam carnem, ac non potius: Malum animum habes aduersus me? Postremo sicut carnalitates, ut ita dicam, si quis audisset, non dubitaret carni tribuere, ita nemo dubitat animositates ad animum pertinere. Quur ergo haec omnia et his similia doctor gentium in fide et ueritate opera carnis appellat, nisi quia eo locutionis modo, quo totum significatur a parte, ipsum hominem uult nomine carnis intellegi?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. Of the carnal life, which is to be understood as arising not only from faults of the body but also from those of the mind.

First, then, we must see what it is to live according to the flesh and what according to the spirit. For anyone who looks at what we have said at first sight, either not recalling or not noticing how the holy Scriptures speak, may think that the Epicurean philosophers live according to the flesh, because they placed man's highest good in the pleasure of the body, and any others who have held in some way that the good of the body is man's highest good, and the whole common crowd of those who do not philosophize by any doctrine or in that way, but, inclined to lust, know no joy except from the pleasures they receive through the bodily senses; while the Stoics, who place man's highest good in the mind, live according to the spirit, since what is the mind of man but spirit? But as divine Scripture speaks, both are shown to live according to the flesh. For it calls flesh not only the body of an earthly and mortal living being (as when it says, “Not all flesh is the same flesh; there is one flesh of men, another flesh of cattle, another of birds, another of fish”), but it uses the meaning of this word in many other ways; and among these various manners of speaking it often calls man himself, that is, the nature of man, flesh, by the figure of speech that names the whole from the part, as in: “By the works of the law no flesh will be justified.” For what did he mean to be understood but every man? This he says more plainly a little later: “By the law no one is justified,” and to the Galatians: “Knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law.” In this sense is understood: “And the Word became flesh,” that is, man; which some, not taking it rightly, supposed to mean that Christ lacked a human soul. For just as the part is taken from the whole where the words of Mary Magdalene are read in the Gospel, saying, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him,” though she was speaking only of Christ's flesh, which she thought had been taken from the tomb where it was buried, so also, flesh being named, the whole man is understood from the part, as in those passages we have mentioned above.

Since, then, divine Scripture uses the word flesh in many ways, which it would take long to search out and collect, in order that we may be able to trace what it is to live according to the flesh (which is certainly evil, although the nature of the flesh itself is not evil), let us look carefully at that passage of the letter which the apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians, where he says: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, idolatry, sorceries, enmities, strife, jealousies, fits of anger, dissensions, heresies, envyings, drunkenness, revelings, and things like these; of which I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not possess the kingdom of God.” This whole passage of the apostolic letter, considered as far as seems sufficient for the present matter, will be able to resolve this question, what it is to live according to the flesh. For among the works of the flesh, which he said were manifest and which he named and condemned, we find not only those that belong to the pleasure of the flesh, such as sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, drunkenness, revelings, but also those by which faults of the mind, foreign to the pleasure of the flesh, are shown. For who would not rather understand the service paid to idols, sorceries, enmities, strife, jealousies, fits of anger, dissensions, heresies, and envyings to be faults of the mind rather than of the flesh? Since it can happen that someone abstains from the pleasures of the body for the sake of idolatry or the error of some heresy; and yet even then, though he seems to restrain and hold back the lusts of the flesh, the man is convicted by this apostolic authority of living according to the flesh, and in the very fact that he abstains from the pleasures of the flesh, he is shown to do damnable works of the flesh. Who does not have enmities in his mind? Or who would speak so as to say to his enemy, or one he thinks his enemy, “You have a bad flesh against me,” and not rather, “You have a bad mind against me”? Finally, just as anyone who heard of “carnalities,” so to speak, would not hesitate to ascribe them to the flesh, so no one doubts that “animosities” belong to the mind [animus]. Why then does the teacher of the nations in faith and truth call all these and things like them works of the flesh, unless because, by that manner of speaking by which the whole is signified by the part, he wants man himself to be understood by the name of flesh?

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 15:39: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 3:20: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 3:11: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 2:16: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:14: quotation, high confidence
- John 20:13: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 5:19: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 5:20: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 5:21: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Tim 2:7: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Epicurus (Epicurus (sayings and fragments)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Sources: 1 Cor 15:39; Rom 3:20; Gal 3:11; Gal 2:16; John 1:14; John 20:13; Gal 5:19–21; 1 Tim 2:7 (“teacher of the nations in faith and truth”). Those who denied Christ a human soul were the Apollinarians. “Sexual immorality” renders fornicationes, per the site's rendering; luxuria is “debauchery.” Augustine plays on animositates and animus.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.2 (CSEL 40:2–4; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-24/#p-14-2).

## City of God 14.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-24/#p-14-3
- Source: CSEL 40:4–7
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The corruptible body burdens the soul, but it is the punishment of sin, not its cause; the devil, who has no flesh, commits “works of the flesh” like pride and envy, so living according to the flesh means living according to oneself.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. Peccati causam ex anima, non ex carne prodisse, et corruptionem ex peccato contractam non peccatum esse, sed poenam. Quod si quisquam dicit carnem causam esse in malis moribus quorumcumque uitiorum, eo quod anima carne adfecta sic uiuit, profecto non uniuersam hominis naturam diligenter aduertit. Nam Corpus quidem corruptibile adgrauat animam. Unde etiam idem apostolus agens de hoc corruptibili corpore, de quo paulo ante dixerat: Etsi exterior homo noster corrumpitur: Scimus, inquit, quia, terrena nostra domus habitationis resoluatur, aedificationem habemus ex Deo, domum non manu factam aeternam in caelis. Etenim in hoc ingemescimus, habitaculum nostrum quod de caelo est superindui cupientes; si tamen et induti, non nudi inueniamur. Etenim qui sumus in hac habitatione, ingemescimus grauati, in quo nolumus exspoliari, sed superuestiri, ut absorbeatur mortale a uita. Et adgrauamur ergo corruptibili corpore, et ipsius adgrauationis causam non naturam substantiamque corporis, sed eius corruptionem scientes nolumus corpore spoliari, sed eius inmortalitate uestiri. Et tunc enim erit, sed quia corruptibile non erit, non grauabit. Adgrauat ergo nunc animam corpus corruptibile, et deprimit terrena inhabitatio sensum multa cogitantem. Verum tamen qui omnia mala animae ex corpore putant accidisse, in errore sunt. Quamuis enim Vergilius Platonicam uideatur luculentis uersibus explicare sententiam dicens: Igneus est illis uigor et caelestis origo Seminibus, quantum non noxia corpora tardant Terrenique hebetant artus moribundaque membra, omnesque illas notissimas quattuor animi perturbationes, cupiditatem timorem, laetitiam tristitiam, quasi origines omnium peccatorum adque uitiorum uolens intellegi ex corpore accidere subiungat et dicat: Hinc metuunt cupiuntque, dolent gaudentque, nec auras Suspiciunt, clausae tenebris et carcere caeco: tamen aliter se habet fides nostra. Nam corruptio corporis, quae adgrauat animam, non peccati primi est causa, sed poena; nec caro corruptibilis animam peccatricem, sed anima peccatrix fecit esse corruptibilem carnem. Ex qua corruptione carnis licet existant quaedam incitamenta uitiorum et ipsa desideria uitiosa, non tamen omnia uitae iniquae uitia tribuenda sunt carni, ne ab his omnibus purgemus diabolum, qui non habet carnem. Etsi enim diabolus fornicator uel ebriosus uel si quid huius modi mali est, quod ad carnis pertinet uoluptates, non potest dici, cum sit etiam talium peccatorum suasor et instigator occultus: est tamen maxime superbus adque inuidus. Quae illum uitiositas sic obtinuit, ut propter hanc esset in carceribus caliginosi huius aeris aeterno supplicio destinatus. Haec autem uitia, quae tenent in diabolo principatum, carni tribuit apostolus, quam certum est diabolum non habere. Dicit enim inimicitias, contentiones, aemulationes, animositates, inuidias opera esse carnis; quorum omnium malorum caput adque origo superbia est, quae sine carne regnat in diabolo. Quis autem illo est inimicior sanctis? Quis aduersus eos contentiosior, animosior et magis aemulus adque inuidus inuenitur? At haec omnia cum habeat sine carne, quo modo sunt ista opera carnis, nisi quia opera sunt hominis, quem, sicut dixi, nomine carnis appellat? Non enim habendo carnem, quam non habet diabolus, sed uiuendo secundum se ipsum, hoc est secundum hominem, factus est homo similis diabolo; quia et ille secundum se ipsum uiuere uoluit, quando in ueritate non stetit, ut non de Dei, sed de suo mendacium loqueretur, qui non solum mendax, uerum etiam mendacii pater est. Primus est quippe mentitus, et a quo peccatum, ab illo coepit esse mendacium.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. That the cause of sin came from the soul, not from the flesh, and that the corruption contracted from sin is not sin but punishment.

But if anyone says that the flesh is the cause of all faults whatever in evil conduct, because the soul lives thus as it is affected by the flesh, he has certainly not considered carefully the whole nature of man. For “the corruptible body weighs down the soul.” Hence the same apostle too, speaking of this corruptible body, of which he had said a little before, “Though our outer man is being corrupted,” says: “We know that if our earthly house of habitation is dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, longing to put on over it our dwelling that is from heaven; if indeed, having put it on, we shall not be found naked. For we who are in this dwelling groan, being weighed down, because we do not wish to be stripped but to be clothed over, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.” We are weighed down, then, by the corruptible body; and, knowing that the cause of this weighing down is not the nature and substance of the body but its corruption, we do not wish to be stripped of the body but to be clothed with its immortality. For then too it will exist, but because it will not be corruptible it will not weigh us down. Now, then, “the corruptible body weighs down the soul, and the earthly dwelling presses down the mind that thinks many things.” Yet those who think that all the evils of the soul have come from the body are in error.

For although Virgil seems to set forth the Platonic view in splendid verses, saying:

Fiery is their vigor and heavenly their origin,
these seeds, so far as harmful bodies do not slow them,
and earthly limbs and dying members dull them;

and, wishing all those well-known four disturbances of the mind, desire, fear, joy, and sadness, to be understood as the origins, as it were, of all sins and faults, and as arising from the body, adds:

Hence they fear and desire, grieve and rejoice, nor do they see
the open air, shut up in darkness and a blind prison;

yet our faith holds otherwise. For the corruption of the body, which weighs down the soul, is not the cause of the first sin but its punishment; nor did corruptible flesh make the soul sinful, but the sinful soul made the flesh corruptible. And though from this corruption of the flesh certain incitements to faults and vicious desires themselves arise, yet not all the faults of a wicked life are to be ascribed to the flesh, lest we clear the devil, who has no flesh, of them all. For even if the devil cannot be called a fornicator or a drunkard, or anything of that evil kind which belongs to the pleasures of the flesh, although he is the secret persuader and instigator even of such sins, he is nevertheless supremely proud and envious. This viciousness so possessed him that because of it he was destined to eternal punishment in the prisons of this murky air. And these faults, which hold the chief place in the devil, the apostle attributes to the flesh, which it is certain the devil does not have. For he says that enmities, strife, jealousies, fits of anger, and envyings are works of the flesh; and the head and origin of all these evils is pride, which reigns in the devil without flesh. And who is more hostile than he to the saints? Who is found more quarrelsome against them, more angry, more jealous and envious? Yet since he has all these without flesh, how are they works of the flesh, unless because they are works of man, whom, as I have said, he calls by the name of flesh? For it is not by having flesh, which the devil does not have, but by living according to himself, that is, according to man, that man has become like the devil; for he too willed to live according to himself when he did not stand in the truth, so that he spoke a lie not from God's store but from his own, being not only a liar but also the father of lies. For he was the first to lie, and falsehood began from him from whom sin began.

### Scripture references

- 2 Cor 4:16: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:1: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:2: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:3: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:4: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 5:20: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Pet 2:4: allusion, medium confidence
- John 8:44: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 9:15 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 6.730 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sources: Wis 9:15; 2 Cor 4:16; 2 Cor 5:1–4 (the Latin as printed lacks “if” before “our earthly house”; rendered by sense); Virgil, Aeneid 6.730–734 (verse in lines); Gal 5:20–21; 2 Pet 2:4; John 8:44. The digital text's garbled “(cs o rpu s … animam)” is corrected to the quotation of Wis 9:15. The four disturbances are desire, fear, joy (laetitia), and sadness.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.3 (CSEL 40:4–7; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-24/#p-14-3).

## City of God 14.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-24/#p-14-4
- Source: CSEL 40:7–9
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: To live according to the flesh is to live according to man rather than God, which is a lie, since man was made to live by God's will; Paul's “carnal,” “animal,” and “men” all mean this.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. Quid sit secundum hominem, quid autem secundum Deum uiuere. Cum ergo uiuit homo secundum hominem, non secundum Deum, similis est diabolo; quia nec angelo secundum angelum, sed secundum Deum uiuendum fuit, ut staret in ueritate et ueritatem de illius, non de suo mendacium loqueretur. Nam et de homine alio loco idem apostolus ait: Si autem ueritas Dei in meo mendacio abundauit. Nostrum dixit mendacium, ueritatem Dei. Cum itaque uiuit homo secundum ueritatem, non uiuit secundum se ipsum, sed secundum Deum. Deus est enim qui dixit: Ego sum ueritas. Cum uero uiuit secundum se ipsum, hoc est secundum hominem, non secundum Deum, profecto secundum mendacium uiuit; non quia homo ipse mendacium est, cum sit eius auctor et creator Deus, qui non est utique auctor creatorque mendacii, sed quia homo ita factus est rectus, ut non secundum se ipsum, sed secundum eum, a quo factus est, uiueret, id est illius potius quam suam faceret uoluntatem: non ita uiuere, quem ad modum est factus ut uiueret, hoc est mendacium. Beatus quippe uult esse etiam non sic uiuendo ut possit esse. Quid est ista uoluntate mendacius? Unde non frustra dici potest omne peccatum esse mendacium. Non enim fit peccatum nisi ea uoluntate, qua uolumus ut bene sit nobis uel nolumus ut male sit nobis. Ergo mendacium est, quod, cum fiat ut bene sit nobis, hinc potius male est nobis, uel cum fiat ut melius sit nobis, hinc potius peius est nobis. Unde hoc, nisi quia de Deo potest bene esse homini, quem delinquendo deserit, non de se ipso, secundum quem uiuendo delinquit? Quod itaque diximus, hinc extitisse duas ciuitates diuersas inter se adque contrarias, quod alii secundum carnem, alii secundum spiritum uiuerent: potest etiam isto modo dici quod alii secundum hominem, alii secundum Deum uiuant. Apertissime quippe Paulus ad Corinthios dicit: Cum enim sint inter uos aemulatio et contentio, nonne carnales estis et secundum hominem ambulatis? Quod ergo est ambulare secundum hominem, hoc est esse carnalem, quod a carne, id est a parte hominis, intellegitur homo. Eosdem ipsos quippe dixit superius animales, quos postea carnales, ita loquens: Quis enim scit, inquit, hominum, quae sunt hominis, nisi spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est? Sic et quae Dei sunt, nemo scit nisi spiritus Dei. Nos autem, inquit, non spiritum huius mundi accepimus, sed spiritum qui ex Deo est, ut sciamus quae a Deo donata sunt nobis; quae et loquimur, non in sapientiae humanae doctis uerbis, sed doctis spiritu, spiritalibus spiritalia conparantes. Animalis autem homo non percipit quae sunt spiritus Dei; stultitia est enim illi. Talibus igitur, id est animalibus, paulo post dicit: Et ego, fratres, non potui loqui uobis quasi spiritalibus, sed quasi carnalibus; et illud et hoc eodem loquendi modo, id est a parte totum. Et ab anima namque et a carne, quae sunt partes hominis, potest totum significari, quod est homo; adque ita non est aliud animalis homo, aliud carnalis, sed idem ipsum est utrumque, id est secundum hominem uiuens homo; sicut non aliud quam homines significantur, siue ubi legitur: Ex operibus legis non iustificabitur omnis caro, siue quod scriptum est: Septuaginta quinque animae descenderunt cum Iacob in Aegyptum. Et ibi enim per omnem carnem omnis homo, et ibi per septuaginta quinque animas septuaginta quinque homines intelleguntur. Et quod dictum est: Non in sapientiae humanae doctis uerbis, potuit dici: (Non in sapientiae carnalis; sicut quod dictum est: Secundum hominem ambulatis, potuit dici: Secundum carnem em). Magis autem hoc apparuit in his quae subiunxit: Cum enim quis dicat: Ego quidem sum Pauli, alius autem: Ego Apollo, nonne homines estis? Quod dicebat: Animales estis, et: Carnales estis, expressius dixit: Homines estis, quod est: Secundum hominem uiuitis, non secundum Deum, secundum quem si uiueretis, di essetis.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. What it is to live according to man, and what according to God.

When, then, man lives according to man, not according to God, he is like the devil; because not even an angel should have lived according to an angel, but according to God, so as to stand in the truth and speak truth from God's store, not a lie from his own. For of man too the same apostle says in another place: “But if the truth of God has abounded through my lie.” He called the lie ours, the truth God's. When, therefore, man lives according to truth, he does not live according to himself but according to God. For it is God who said, “I am the truth.” But when he lives according to himself, that is, according to man, not according to God, he certainly lives according to a lie; not because man himself is a lie, since his author and creator is God, who is certainly not the author and creator of a lie, but because man was made upright so that he should live not according to himself but according to him by whom he was made, that is, do his will rather than his own: not to live in the way he was made to live, this is a lie. For he wills to be happy even while not living so that he can be. What is more of a lie than such a will? Hence it can be said not in vain that every sin is a lie. For sin happens only by that will by which we will that it be well with us or will that it not be ill with us. It is a lie, then, that when something is done so that it may be well with us, it is rather ill with us because of it; or when something is done so that it may be better with us, it is rather worse with us because of it. Whence this, except that it can be well with man from God, whom he forsakes by sinning, not from himself, living according to whom he sins?

What we said, then, that two cities different from and contrary to each other arose because some lived according to the flesh, others according to the spirit, can also be said in this way: that some live according to man, others according to God. For Paul says most plainly to the Corinthians: “For when there are jealousy and strife among you, are you not carnal and walking according to man?” What it is to walk according to man, then, is to be carnal, since from the flesh, that is, from a part of man, man is understood. For he had called the same people earlier “animal” whom he afterward called carnal, speaking thus: “For who among men,” he says, “knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. But we,” he says, “have received not the spirit of this world but the Spirit which is from God, that we may know the things freely given to us by God; which we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but taught by the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the animal man does not perceive the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him.” To such people, then, that is, the animal, he says a little later: “And I, brothers, could not speak to you as to spiritual people, but as to carnal”; and both this and that by the same manner of speaking, that is, the whole from the part. For the whole, which is man, can be signified both by the soul and by the flesh, which are parts of man; and so the animal man is not one thing and the carnal another, but both are the same, that is, man living according to man; just as nothing but men are signified either where we read, “By the works of the law no flesh will be justified,” or where it is written, “Seventy-five souls went down with Jacob into Egypt.” For there by “all flesh” every man, and here by “seventy-five souls” seventy-five men are understood. And what was said, “Not in words taught by human wisdom,” could have been said, “Not in words of carnal wisdom”; just as what was said, “You walk according to man,” could have been said, “according to the flesh.” This appeared still more in what he added: “For when one says, I am of Paul, and another, I of Apollos, are you not men?” What he was saying, “You are animal,” and “You are carnal,” he said more expressly, “You are men,” that is, “You live according to man, not according to God; if you lived according to him, you would be gods.”

### Scripture references

- John 8:44: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 3:7: quotation, high confidence
- John 14:6: quotation, high confidence
- Eccl 7:29: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Cor 3:3: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 2:11: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 2:12: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 2:13: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 2:14: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 3:1: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 3:20: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 46:27: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 7:14: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Cor 3:4: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 82:6 (81:6 LXX): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Sources: John 8:44; Rom 3:7; John 14:6; Eccl 7:29; 1 Cor 3:3–4; 1 Cor 2:11–14; 1 Cor 3:1; Rom 3:20; Gen 46:27 (LXX; cf. Acts 7:14, “seventy-five souls”); Ps 82:6 (LXX 81:6, “you are gods”). “Animal” (animalis) is Paul's “natural” man, living by the soul (anima). The Latin near the end of the chapter is disordered in the digital text (“Non in sapientiae carnalis … Secundum carnem em”); it is rendered by the evident sense.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.4 (CSEL 40:7–9; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/13-24/#p-14-4).

## City of God 14.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-5/#p-14-5
- Source: CSEL 40:9–11
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The Platonists, less wrongly than the Manichees, still blame the body for the passions; yet their own teaching, as in Virgil, has purified souls desiring bodies, so the passions arise from the soul itself.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. Quod de corporis animaeque natura tolerabilior quidem Platonicorum quam Manichaeorum sit opinio, sed et ipsa reprobanda, quoniam uitiorum omnium causas naturae carnis adscribunt. Non igitur opus est in peccatis uitiisque nostris ad Creatoris iniuriam carnis accusare naturam, quae in genere adque ordine suo bona est; sed deserto Creatore bono uiuere secundum creatum bonum non est bonum, siue quisque secundum carnem siue secundum animam siue secundum totum hominem, qui ex anima constat et carne (unde et nomine solius animae et nomine solius carnis significari potest) eligat uiuere. Nam qui uelut summum bonum laudat animae naturam et tamquam malum naturam carnis accusat, profecto et animam carnaliter adpetit et carnem carnaliter fugit, quoniam id uanitate sentit humana, non ueritate diuina. Non quidem Platonici sicut Manichaei desipiunt, ut tamquam mali naturam terrena corpora detestentur, cum omnia elementa, quibus iste mundus uisibilis contrectabilisque conpactus est, qualitatesque eorum Deo artifici tribuant; uerum tamen ex terrenis artubus moribundisque membris sic adfici animas opinantur, ut hinc eis sint morbi cupiditatum et timorum et laetitiae siue tristitiae; quibus quattuor uel perturbationibus, ut Cicero appellat, uel passionibus, ut plerique uerbum e uerbo Graeco exprimunt, omnis humanorum morum uitiositas continetur. Quod si ita est, quid est quod Aeneas aput Vergilium, cum audisset a patre aput inferos animas rursus ad corpora redituras, hanc opinionem miratur exclamans: O pater, anne aliquas ad caelum hinc ire putandum est Sublimes animas iterumque ad tarda reuerti Corpora? Quae lucis miseris tam dira cupido? Numquidnam haec tam dira cupido ex terrenis artubus moribundisque membris adhuc inest animarum illi praedicatissimae puritati? Nonne ab huius modi corporeis, ut dicit, pestibus omnibus eas adserit esse purgatas, cum rursus incipiunt in corpora uelle reuerti? Unde colligitur, etiamsi ita se haberet, quod est omnino uanissimum, uicissim alternans incessabiliter euntium adque redeuntium animarum mundatio et inquinatio, non potuisse ueraciter dici omnes culpabiles adque uitiosos motus animarum eis ex terrenis corporibus inolescere, si quidem secundum ipsos illa, ut locutor nobilis ait, dira cupido usque adeo non est ex corpore, ut ab omni corporea peste purgatam et extra omne corpus animam constitutam ipsam esse conpellat in corpore. Unde etiam illis fatentibus non ex carne tantum adficitur anima, ut cupiat metuat, laetetur aegrescat, uerum etiam ex se ipsa his potest motibus agitari.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. That the opinion of the Platonists about the nature of body and soul is indeed more tolerable than that of the Manichees, but is also to be rejected, since they ascribe the causes of all faults to the nature of the flesh.

There is no need, then, in our sins and faults, to accuse the nature of the flesh, to the Creator's injury, since it is good in its own kind and order; but to forsake the good Creator and live according to a created good is not good, whether one chooses to live according to the flesh, or according to the soul, or according to the whole man, who consists of soul and flesh (and can therefore be signified by the name of the soul alone or of the flesh alone). For he who praises the nature of the soul as the highest good and accuses the nature of the flesh as evil certainly both seeks the soul carnally and flees the flesh carnally, since he thinks this by human vanity, not by divine truth. The Platonists indeed are not as foolish as the Manichees, so as to detest earthly bodies as a nature of evil, since they ascribe all the elements of which this visible and tangible world is composed, and their qualities, to God as maker; yet they think that souls are so affected by earthly limbs and dying members that from these come their diseases of desires and fears and of joy or sadness; and in these four, whether disturbances, as Cicero calls them, or passions, as most render the Greek word word for word, all the viciousness of human conduct is contained. If this is so, why is it that Aeneas in Virgil, when he had heard from his father in the underworld that souls would return again to bodies, wonders at this opinion, exclaiming:

O father, must we think that some souls go from here to the sky,
lofty, and return again to sluggish bodies?
What is this so dread desire of the light in the wretched?

Is this so dread desire, then, still present from earthly limbs and dying members in that much-proclaimed purity of souls? Does he not assert that they have been cleansed of all such bodily plagues, as he says, when they begin again to wish to return into bodies? From this it is gathered that, even if it were so (which is utterly vain) that the cleansing and defiling of souls going and returning alternated unceasingly by turns, it could not truly be said that all the culpable and vicious motions of souls grow in them from earthly bodies; since, according to them, that “dread desire,” as the noble speaker says, is so far from coming from the body that it compels the soul to be in a body when it has been purged of every bodily plague and placed outside every body. Hence, by their own admission, the soul is affected not only from the flesh, so as to desire, fear, rejoice, or grieve, but can also be stirred by these motions from itself.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Tusc. 4.11 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 6.719 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Plato (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 3.7 and 4.11 (perturbationes); Virgil, Aeneid 6.719–721 (verse in lines). The Greek word is pathē.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.5 (CSEL 40:9–11; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-5/#p-14-5).

## City of God 14.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-5/#p-14-6
- Source: CSEL 40:11–12
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The emotions are acts of the will, good or bad according to the will; one who lives according to God hates the fault but loves the person.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. De qualitate uoluntatis humanae, sub cuius iudicio adfectiones animi aut prauae habentur aut rectae. Interest autem qualis sit uoluntas hominis; quia si peruersa est, peruersos habebit hos motus; si autem recta est, non solum inculpabiles, uerum etiam laudabiles erunt. Voluntas est quippe in omnibus; immo omnes nihil aliud quam uoluntates sunt. Nam quid est cupiditas et laetitia nisi uoluntas in eorum consensione quae uolumus? Et quid est metus adque tristitia nisi uoluntas in dissensione ab his quae nolumus? Sed cum consentimus adpetendo ea quae uolumus, cupiditas; cum autem consentimus fruendo his quae uolumus, laetitia uocatur. Itemque cum dissentimus ab eo quod accidere nolumus, talis uoluntas metus est; cum autem dissentimus ab eo quod nolentibus accidit, talis uoluntas tristitia est. Et omnino pro uarietate rerum, quae adpetuntur adque fugiuntur, sicut adlicitur uel offenditur uoluntas hominis, ita in hos uel illos adfectus mutatur et uertitur. Quapropter homo, qui secundum Deum, non secundum hominem uiuit, oportet ut sit amator boni; unde fit consequens ut malum oderit. Et quoniam nemo natura, sed quisquis malus est, uitio malus est: perfectum odium debet malis, qui secundum Deum uiuit, ut nec propter uitium oderit hominem nec amet uitium propter hominem, sed oderit uitium, amet hominem. Sanato enim uitio totum quod amare, nihil autem quod debeat odisse remanebit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. Of the character of the human will, by whose judgment the affections of the mind are held to be either wrong or right.

What matters, however, is what the will of man is like; for if it is perverse, it will have these motions perverse; but if it is right, they will be not only blameless but even praiseworthy. For the will is in them all; indeed they are all nothing else than wills. For what is desire and joy but will in consent to the things we will? And what is fear and sadness but will in dissent from the things we do not will? But when we consent by seeking the things we will, it is called desire; when we consent by enjoying the things we will, it is called joy. Likewise, when we dissent from what we do not will to happen, such a will is fear; but when we dissent from what happens to us against our will, such a will is sadness. And in general, according to the variety of things that are sought or shunned, as the will of man is attracted or offended, so it is changed and turned into these affections or those. Therefore the man who lives according to God, not according to man, must be a lover of the good; from which it follows that he hates evil. And since no one is evil by nature, but whoever is evil is evil by fault, he who lives according to God owes a perfect hatred to the evil, so that he neither hates the man because of the fault nor loves the fault because of the man, but hates the fault and loves the man. For when the fault is healed, all that remains will be what he ought to love, and nothing that he ought to hate.

### Scripture references

- Ps 139:22 (138:22 LXX): allusion, high confidence
- Titus 1:8: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Ps 139:22 (LXX 138:22, “perfect hatred”); Titus 1:8 (lover of good) echoed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.6 (CSEL 40:11–12; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-5/#p-14-6).

## City of God 14.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-5/#p-14-7
- Source: CSEL 40:12–14
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Scripture uses amor and dilectio alike for good and bad love, as Christ's questions to Peter show; love is the root of desire, joy, fear, and sadness, which are good or bad as the love is.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. Amorem et dilectionem indifferenter et in bono et in malo aput sacras litteras inueniri. Nam cuius propositum est amare Deum et non secundum hominem, sed secundum Deum amare proximum, sicut etiam se ipsum: procul dubio propter hunc amorem dicitur uoluntatis bonae, quae usitatius in scripturis sanctis caritas appellatur; sed amor quoque secundum easdem sacras litteras dicitur. Nam et amatorem boni apostolus dicit esse debere, quem regendo populo praecipit eligendum, et ipse Dominus Petrum apostolum interrogans cum dixisset: Diligis me plus his? ille respondit: Domine, tu scis quia amo te; et iterum Dominus quaesiuit, non utrum amaret, sed utrum diligeret eum Petrus; at ille respondit iterum: Domine, tu scis quia amo te; tertia uero interrogatione et ipse Iesus non ait: Diligis me? sed: Amas me? ubi secutus ait euangelista: Contristatus est Petrus, quia dixit ei tertio: Amas me? cum Dominus non tertio, sed semel dixerit: Amas me? bis autem dixerit: Diligis me? Unde intellegimus, quod etiam cum dicebat Dominus: Diligis me? nihil aliud dicebat quam: Amas me? Petrus autem non mutauit huius unius rei uerbum, sed etiam tertio: Domine, inquit, tu omnia scis, tu scis quia amo te. Hoc propterea commemorandum putaui, quia nonnulli arbitrantur aliud esse dilectionem siue caritatem, aliud amorem. Dicunt enim dilectionem accipiendam esse in bono, amorem in malo. Sic autem nec ipsos auctores saecularium litterarum locutos esse certissimum est. Sed uiderint philosophi utrum uel qua ratione ista discernant; amorem tamen eos in bonis rebus et erga ipsum Deum magni pendere, libri eorum satis loquuntur. Sed scripturas religionis nostrae, quarum auctoritatem ceteris omnibus litteris anteponimus, non aliud dicere amorem, aliud dilectionem uel caritatem, insinuandum fuit. Nam et amorem in bono dici iam ostendimus. Sed ne quis existimet amorem quidem et in malo et in bono, dilectionem autem non nisi in bono esse dicendam, illud adtendat quod in psalmo scriptum est: Qui autem diligit iniquitatem, odit animam suam, et illud apostoli Iohannis: Si quis dilexerit mundum, non est dilectio Patris in illo. Ecce uno loco dilectio et in bono et in malo. Amorem autem in malo (quia in bono iam ostendimus) ne quisquam flagitet, legat quod scriptum est: Erunt enim homines se ipsos amantes, amatores pecuniae. Recta itaque uoluntas est bonus amor, et uoluntas peruersa malus amor. Amor ergo inhians habere quod amatur, cupiditas est, id autem habens eoque fruens laetitia; fugiens quod ei aduersatur, timor est, idque si acciderit sentiens tristitia est. Proinde mala sunt ista, si malus amor est; bona, si bonus. Quod dicimus, de scripturis probemus. Concupiscit apostolus dissolui et esse cum Christo; et: Concupiuit anima mea desiderare iudicia tua, uel si adcommodatius dicitur: Desiderauit anima mea concupiscere iudicia tua; et: Concupiscentia sapientiae perducit ad regnum. Hoc tamen loquendi obtinuit consuetudo, ut, si cupiditas uel concupiscentia dicatur nec addatur cuius rei sit, non nisi in malo possit intellegi. Laetitia in bono est: Laetamini in Domino et exultate iusti; et: Dedisti laetitiam in cor meum; et: Adinplebis me laetitia cum uultu tuo. Timor in bono est aput apostolum, ubi ait: Cum timore et tremore uestram ipsorum salutem operamini; et: Noli altum sapere, sed time; et: Timeo autem, ne, sicut serpens Euam seduxit astutia sua, sic et uestrae mentes corrumpantur a castitate, quae est in Christo. De tristitia uero, quam Cicero magis aegritudinem appellat, dolorem autem Vergilius, ubi ait: (dolent gaudentque, (sed ideo malui tristitiam dicere, quia aegritudo uel dolor usitatius in corporibus dicitur) scrupulosior quaestio est, utrum inueniri possit in bono.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. That love (amor) and affection (dilectio) are found in the sacred writings used without distinction both of good and of evil.

For whoever has the purpose to love God and to love his neighbor as himself, not according to man but according to God, is beyond doubt called a man of good will because of this love; which in the holy Scriptures is more usually called charity, but is also called love according to the same sacred writings. For the apostle says that he whom he commands to be chosen to rule the people must be a lover of the good; and the Lord himself, when he had asked the apostle Peter, “Do you hold me dear [diligis] more than these?”, he answered, “Lord, you know that I love [amo] you”; and again the Lord asked not whether he loved him but whether Peter held him dear; and he answered again, “Lord, you know that I love you”; but at the third question Jesus himself does not say, “Do you hold me dear?” but, “Do you love me?”; whereupon the evangelist goes on to say, “Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, Do you love me?” though the Lord said “Do you love me?” not three times but once, and “Do you hold me dear?” twice. From this we understand that even when the Lord said, “Do you hold me dear?”, he was saying nothing other than, “Do you love me?” But Peter did not change the word for this one thing, but the third time too said, “Lord, you know all things, you know that I love you.”

I thought this worth mentioning because some think that dilectio or charity is one thing, amor another. For they say that dilectio is to be taken in a good sense, amor in a bad. But it is quite certain that not even the authors of secular literature spoke so. Let the philosophers see whether, or on what principle, they distinguish them; yet their books sufficiently tell how highly they esteem amor in good things and toward God himself. But it had to be shown that the Scriptures of our religion, whose authority we set above all other writings, do not call amor one thing and dilectio or charity another. For we have already shown that amor is said in a good sense. But lest anyone think that amor is indeed said both in a bad and a good sense, but dilectio only in a good, let him attend to what is written in the psalm: “But he who holds iniquity dear hates his own soul,” and to that saying of the apostle John: “If anyone holds the world dear, the dilectio of the Father is not in him.” See, dilectio in one place both in a good and in a bad sense. And lest anyone demand amor in a bad sense (for we have already shown it in a good), let him read what is written: “For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money.” A right will, then, is good love, and a perverse will is bad love. Love, then, longing to have what is loved, is desire; having it and enjoying it, is joy; fleeing what opposes it, is fear; and feeling it if it has happened, is sadness. Accordingly these are bad if the love is bad, good if it is good.

Let us prove what we say from the Scriptures. The apostle desires to depart and be with Christ; and, “My soul has desired to long for your judgments,” or, if it is more fittingly put, “My soul has longed to desire your judgments”; and, “The desire of wisdom leads to a kingdom.” Yet usage has established this manner of speaking, that if cupiditas or concupiscentia is spoken of without adding of what, it can be understood only in a bad sense. Joy is in a good sense: “Rejoice in the Lord and exult, you righteous”; and, “You have put joy in my heart”; and, “You will fill me with joy with your countenance.” Fear is in a good sense in the apostle, where he says: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”; and, “Do not be high-minded, but fear”; and, “But I fear lest, as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, so your minds too may be corrupted from the chastity which is in Christ.” But concerning sadness, which Cicero rather calls aegritudo (sickness), and Virgil dolor (grief), where he says, “they grieve and rejoice” (but I have preferred to say sadness, because sickness or grief are more usually said of bodies), it is a more delicate question whether it can be found in a good sense.

### Scripture references

- Matt 22:37: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 22:39: allusion, high confidence
- Titus 1:8: allusion, high confidence
- John 21:15: quotation, high confidence
- John 21:16: quotation, high confidence
- John 21:17: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 11:5 (10:6 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 2:15: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Tim 3:2: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 1:23: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 119:20 (118:20 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 32:11 (31:11 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 4:7 (4:8 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 16:11 (15:11 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:12: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 11:20: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 11:3: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 6:20 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 6.733 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Cicero, Tusc. 4.14 (Cicero): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Sources: Matt 22:37–39; Titus 1:8; John 21:15–17; Ps 11:5 (LXX 10:6); 1 John 2:15; 2 Tim 3:2; Phil 1:23; Ps 119:20 (LXX 118:20); Wis 6:20; Ps 32:11 (LXX 31:11); Ps 4:7 (LXX 4:8); Ps 16:11 (LXX 15:11); Phil 2:12; Rom 11:20; 2 Cor 11:3; Virgil, Aeneid 6.733; Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 3.10, 4.14. The Latin verbs diligere and amare are marked in brackets because the argument turns on them. On the terms desire (cupiditas), concupiscence (concupiscentia), and lust (libido), see the note at 14.15.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.7 (CSEL 40:12–14; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-5/#p-14-7).

## City of God 14.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-5/#p-14-8
- Source: CSEL 40:14–18
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine examines the Stoic doctrine of three good feelings in the sage and no sadness, showing that Scripture and classical authors use will, gladness, and even sadness in both good and bad senses, as with godly sorrow.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. De tribus perturbationibus, quas in animo sapientis Stoici esse uoluerunt, excluso dolore siue tristitia, quam uirtus animi sentire non debeat. Quas enim Graeci appellant εὐπαθείας, Latine autem Cicero constantias nominauit, Stoici tres esse uoluerunt pro tribus perturbationibus in animo sapientis, pro cupiditate uoluntatem, pro laetitia gaudium, pro metu cautionem; pro aegritudine uero uel dolore, quam nos uitandae ambiguitatis gratia tristitiam maluimus dicere, negauerunt esse posse aliquid in animo sapientis. Voluntas quippe, inquiunt, adpetit bonum, quod facit sapiens: gaudium de bono adepto est, quod ubique adipiscitur sapiens; cautio deuitat malum, quod debet sapiens deuitare; tristitia porro quia de malo est, quod iam accidit, nullum autem malum existimant posse accidere sapienti, nihil in eius animo pro illa esse posse dixerunt. Sic ergo illi loquuntur, ut uelle gaudere cauere negent nisi sapientem; stultum autem non nisi cupere laetari, metuere contristari; et illas tres esse constantias, has autem quattuor perturbationes secundum Ciceronem, secundum autem plurimos passiones. Graece autem illae tres, sicut dixi, appellantur εὐπάθειαι; istae autem quattuor πάθη. Haec locutio utrum scripturis sanctis congruat, cum quaererem quantum potui diligenter, illud inueni quod ait propheta: Non est gaudere inpiis, dicit Dominus; tamquam inpii laetari possint potius quam gaudere de malis, quia gaudium proprie bonorum et piorum est. Item illud in euangelio: Quaecumque uultis ut faciant uobis homines, haec et uos facite illis, ita dictum uidetur, tamquam nemo possit aliquid male uel turpiter uelle, sed cupere. Denique propter consuetudinem locutionis nonnulli interpretes addiderunt bona et ita interpretati sunt: Quaecumque uultis ut faciant uobis homines bona. Cauendum enim putauerunt, ne quisquam inhonesta uelit sibi fieri ab hominibus, ut de turpioribus taceam, certe luxuriosa conuiuia, in quibus se, si et ipse illis faciat, hoc praeceptum existimet inpleturum. Sed in Graeco euangelio, unde in Latinum translatum est, non legitur bona, sed: Quaecumque uultis ut faciant uobis homines, haec et uos facite illis; credo propterea, quia in eo quod dixit uultis, iam uoluit intellegi bona. Non enim ait cupitis). Non tamen semper his proprietatibus locutio nostra frenanda est, sed interdum his utendum est; et cum legimus eos, quorum auctoritati resultare fas non est, ibi sunt intellegendae, ubi rectus sensus alium exitum non potest inuenire; sicut ista sunt, quae exempli gratia partim ex propheta, partim ex euangelio commemorauimus. Quis enim nescit inpios exultare laetitia? et tamen: Non est gaudere inpiis, dicit Dominus. Unde, nisi quia gaudere aliud est, quando proprie signateque hoc uerbum ponitur? Item quis negauerit non recte praecipi hominibus, ut quaecumque ab aliis sibi fieri cupiunt, haec eis et ipsi faciant; ne se inuicem turpitudine inlicitae uoluptatis oblectent? et tamen saluberrimum uerissimumque praeceptum est: Quaecumque uultis ut faciant uobis homines, eadem et uos facite illis. Et hoc unde, nisi quia hoc loco modo quodam proprio uoluntas posita est, quae in malo accipi non potest? Locutione uero usitatiore, quam frequentat maxime consuetudo sermonis, non utique diceretur: Noli uelle mentiri omne mendacium, nisi esset et uoluntas mala, a cuius prauitate illa distinguitur, quam praedicauerunt angeli dicentes: Pax in terra hominibus bonae uoluntatis. Nam ex abundanti additum est (bon.ae\\ si esse non potest nisi bona. Quid autem magnum in caritatis laudibus dixisset apostolus, quod non gaudeat super iniquitate, nisi quia ita malignitas gaudet? Et aput auctores saecularium litterarum talis istorum uerborum indifferentia reperitur. Ait enim Cicero orator amplissimus: (Cupio, patres conscripti, me esse clementem.) Quia id uerbum in bono posuit, quis tam peruerse doctus existat, qui non eum Cupio, sed Volo potius dicere debuisse contendat? Porro aput Terentium flagitiosus adulescens insana flagrans cupidine: Nihil nolo aliud, inquit, nisi Philumenam. Quam uoluntatem fuisse libidinem responsio, quae ibi serui eius sanioris inducitur, satis indicat. Ait namque domino suo: Quanto satius est, Te id dare operam, qui istum amorem ex animo amoueas tuo, Quam id loqui, quo magis libido frustra accendatur tua? Gaudium uero eos et in malo posuisse ille ipse Vergilianus testis est uersus, ubi has quattuor perturbationes summa breuitate conplexus est: Hinc metuunt cupiuntque, dolent gaudentque. Dixit etiam idem auctor: Mala mentis gaudia. Proinde uolunt cauent gaudent et boni et mali; adque ut eadem aliis uerbis enuntiemus, cupiunt timent laetantur et boni et mali; sed illi bene, isti male, sicut hominibus seu recta seu peruersa uoluntas est. Ipsa quoque tristitia, pro qua Stoici nihil in animo sapientis inueniri posse putauerunt, reperitur in bono et maxime aput nostros. Nam laudat apostolus Corinthios, quod contristati fuerint secundum Deum. Sed fortasse quis dixerit illis apostolum fuisse congratulatum, quod contristati fuerint paenitendo, qualis tristitia, nisi eorum qui peccauerint, esse non potest. Ita enim dicit: Video quod epistula illa, etsi ad horam, contristauit uos; nunc gaudeo, non quia contristati estis, sed quia contristati estis in paenitentiam. Contristati enim estis secundum Deum, ut in nullo detrimentum patiamini ex nobis. Quae enim secundum Deum est tristitia, paenitentiam in salutem inpaenitendam operatur; mundi autem tristitia mortem operatur. Ecce enim id ipsum secundum Deum contristari quantam perfecit in uobis industriam. Ac per hoc possunt Stoici pro suis partibus respondere, ad hoc uideri utilem esse tristitiam, ut peccasse paeniteat; in animo autem sapientis ideo esse non posse, quia nec peccatum in eum cadit, cuius paenitentia contristetur, nec ullum aliud malum, quod perpetiendo et sentiendo sit tristis. Nam et Alcibiadem ferunt (si me de nomine hominis memoria non fallit), cum sibi beatus uideretur, Socrate disputante et ei quam miser esset, quoniam stultus esset, demonstrante fleuisse. Huic ergo stultitia fuit causa etiam huius utilis optandaeque tristitiae, qua homo esse se dolet, quod esse non debet. Stoici autem non stultum, sed sapientem aiunt tristem esse non posse.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. Of the three disturbances which the Stoics held to be in the mind of the wise man, excluding grief or sadness, which the virtue of the mind ought not to feel.

The Stoics held that what the Greeks call eupatheiai, and Cicero in Latin named constantiae (steady states), are three, in place of three disturbances, in the mind of the wise man: will in place of desire, gladness in place of joy, caution in place of fear; but in place of sickness or grief, which we have preferred to call sadness to avoid ambiguity, they denied that anything could be in the mind of the wise man. For will, they say, seeks the good, which the wise man does; gladness is about a good obtained, which the wise man obtains everywhere; caution avoids evil, which the wise man ought to avoid; but since sadness is about an evil that has already happened, and they think that no evil can happen to the wise man, they said that nothing could be in his mind in its place. So they speak in such a way that they deny that anyone but the wise man wills, is glad, and is cautious; and that the fool does nothing but desire, rejoice, fear, and be sad; and that the former three are steady states, the latter four disturbances according to Cicero, but passions according to most. In Greek the three, as I said, are called eupatheiai, and these four pathē.

When I inquired as carefully as I could whether this way of speaking agrees with the holy Scriptures, I found what the prophet says: “There is no gladness for the wicked, says the Lord”; as if the wicked could rejoice rather than be glad about evils, because gladness belongs properly to the good and godly. Likewise that saying in the Gospel, “Whatever you will that men should do to you, do so to them also,” seems to have been said as though no one could will anything badly or shamefully, but only desire it. Indeed, because of the usage of speech, some translators added “good” and translated thus: “Whatever good things you will that men should do to you.” For they thought it must be guarded against that anyone should will dishonorable things to be done to him by men, to say nothing of more shameful things, luxurious banquets at least, in which he might think he would fulfill this precept if he did the same for them. But in the Greek Gospel, from which it was translated into Latin, “good” is not read, but, “Whatever you will that men should do to you, do so to them also”; I believe because in saying “you will” he already meant good things to be understood. For he did not say “you desire.” Yet our speech is not always to be bridled by these precise meanings, but they are to be used at times; and when we read those whose authority it is not lawful to resist, the meanings are to be understood there where a right sense can find no other way out, as with these examples we have recalled, partly from the prophet, partly from the Gospel. For who does not know that the wicked exult with joy? And yet, “There is no gladness for the wicked, says the Lord.” Why, unless because to be glad is something else when this word is used properly and precisely? Likewise, who would deny that it would not be right to command men that whatever they desire others to do to them they should do to them too, lest they delight one another with the shamefulness of unlawful pleasure? And yet it is a most wholesome and most true precept: “Whatever you will that men should do to you, do the same to them also.” And why this, unless because in this place the will is set down in a certain proper sense, which cannot be taken in a bad sense? But in the more usual manner of speaking, which the custom of speech most frequently uses, it certainly would not be said, “Do not will to tell any lie,” were there not also an evil will, from whose depravity that will is distinguished which the angels proclaimed, saying, “Peace on earth to men of good will.” For “good” would have been added superfluously if there could be no will but a good one. And what great thing would the apostle have said in the praises of charity, that it “does not rejoice over iniquity,” unless because malice does so rejoice?

And among the authors of secular literature such indifference of these words is found. For Cicero, the most eminent orator, says: “I desire, conscript fathers, to be merciful.” Since he used this word in a good sense, who is so perversely learned as to contend that he ought to have said not “I desire” but rather “I will”? Further, in Terence a disgraceful young man, burning with insane desire, says: “I will nothing else but Philumena.” That this will was lust the answer of his more sensible slave, which is introduced there, sufficiently shows. For he says to his master:

How much better that you should take pains
to remove this love from your mind,
than to say what makes your lust burn in vain!

That they used gladness in a bad sense too, that Virgilian verse itself is witness, where he embraced these four disturbances with the greatest brevity: “Hence they fear and desire, grieve and are glad.” The same author also said, “the evil gladnesses of the mind.” Accordingly both good and bad men will, are cautious, and are glad; and, to state the same in other words, both good and bad men desire, fear, and rejoice; but the former well, the latter badly, as men's will is either right or perverse.

Sadness itself too, in place of which the Stoics thought nothing could be found in the mind of the wise man, is found in a good sense, and especially among our writers. For the apostle praises the Corinthians because they were made sad according to God. But perhaps someone will say that the apostle congratulated them because they were made sad by repenting, a sadness which can belong only to those who have sinned. For he says thus: “I see that that letter made you sad, though only for a while; now I rejoice, not because you were made sad, but because you were made sad to repentance. For you were made sad according to God, so that you suffered loss from us in nothing. For sadness according to God works repentance to salvation, not to be repented of; but the sadness of the world works death. For see what earnestness this very thing, being made sad according to God, has produced in you.” And so the Stoics can answer for their side that sadness seems useful for this, that one repents of having sinned, but that it cannot be in the mind of the wise man because neither does sin befall him, for repentance of which he might be made sad, nor any other evil, by suffering and feeling which he might be sad. For they say that Alcibiades too (if my memory does not deceive me about the man's name), when he seemed to himself happy, wept when Socrates argued with him and showed him how wretched he was, since he was a fool. For him, then, folly was the cause even of this useful and desirable sadness, by which a man grieves that he is what he ought not to be. But the Stoics say that not the fool but the wise man cannot be sad.

### Scripture references

- Isa 48:22: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 57:21: allusion, medium confidence
- Matt 7:12: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 2:14: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 13:6: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 7:8: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 7:9: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 7:10: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 7:11: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sir 7:13 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence
- Cicero, Tusc. 4.12 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence
- Cicero, Cat. 1.4 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence
- Terence, Andr. 306 (Terence): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 6.733 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 6.278 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sources: Isa 48:22 and 57:21 in the LXX/Old Latin form (“there is no gladness for the wicked”); Matt 7:12; Sir 7:13 (“do not will to tell any lie”); Luke 2:14; 1 Cor 13:6; 2 Cor 7:8–11; Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 4.12–14; Cicero, Against Catiline 1.4 (“I desire, conscript fathers, to be merciful”); Terence, The Woman of Andros 306–308; Virgil, Aeneid 6.733 and 6.278–279. The story of Alcibiades and Socrates is told in Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 3.77. Garbled Greek (eupatheiai) corrected. In the Latin, “uolo” (will), “cupio” (desire), “gaudium” (gladness) and “laetitia” (joy) are kept distinct in English to follow the argument.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.8 (CSEL 40:14–18; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-5/#p-14-8).

## City of God 14.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-5/#p-14-9
- Source: CSEL 40:18–25
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Citizens of God's city rightly fear, desire, grieve, and rejoice out of charity, as Paul and Christ himself did; Stoic apatheia belongs not to this life but, as freedom from fear and grief, to the life to come, where love and joy remain.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. De perturbationibus animi, quarum adfectus rectos habet uita iustorum. Verum his philosophis, quod ad istam quaestionem de animi perturbationibus adtinet, iam respondimus in nono huius operis libro, ostendentes eos non tam de rebus, quam de uerbis cupidiores esse contentionis quam ueritatis. Aput nos autem iuxta scripturas sanctas sanamque doctrinam ciues sanctae ciuitatis Dei in huius uitae peregrinatione secundum Deum uiuentes metuunt cupiuntque, dolent gaudentque, et quia rectus est amor eorum, istas omnes adfectiones rectas habent. Metuunt poenam aeternam, cupiunt uitam aeternam; dolent in re, quia ipsi in semet ipsis adhuc ingemescunt adoptionem, expectantes redemtionem corporis sui; gaudent in spe, quia fiet sermo, qui scriptus est: Absorpta est mors in uictoriam. Item metuunt peccare, cupiunt perseuerare; dolent in peccatis, gaudent in operibus bonis. Ut enim metuant peccare, audiunt: Quoniam abundabit iniquitas, refrigescet caritas multorum; ut cupiant perseuerare, audiunt quod scriptum est: Qui perseuerauerit usque in finem, hic saluus erit; ut doleant in peccatis, audiunt: Si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus, et ueritas in nobis non est; ut gaudeant in operibus bonis, audiunt: Hilarem datorem diligit Deus. Item sicuti se infirmitas eorum firmitasque habuerit, metuunt tentari, cupiunt tentari; dolent in tentationibus, gaudent in tentationibus. Ut enim metuant tentari, audiunt: Si quis praeoccupatus fuerit in aliquo delicto, uos, qui spiritales estis, instruite huius modi in spiritu mansuetudinis, intendens te ipsum, ne et tu tenteris; ut autem cupiant tentari, audiunt quendam uirum fortem ciuitatis Dei dicentem: Proba me, Domine, et tenta me; ure renes meos et cor meum; ut doleant in tentationibus, uident Petrum flentem; ut gaudeant in tentationibus, audiunt Iacobum dicentem: Omne gaudium existimate, fratres mei, cum in tentationes uarias incideritis. Non solum autem propter se ipsos his mouentur adfectibus, uerum etiam propter eos, quos liberari cupiunt et ne pereant metuunt, et dolent si pereunt et gaudent si liberantur. Illum quippe optimum et fortissimum uirum, qui in suis infirmitatibus gloriatur, ut eum potissimum commemoremus, qui in ecclesiam Christi ex gentibus uenimus, doctorem gentium in fide et ueritate, qui et plus omnibus suis coapostolis laborauit et pluribus epistulis populos Dei, non eos tantum, qui praesentes ab illo uidebantur, uerum etiam illos, qui futuri praeuidebantur, instruxit; illum, inquam, uirum, athletam Christi, doctum ab illo, unctum de illo, crucifixum cum illo, gloriosum in illo, in theatro huius mundi, cui spectaculum factus est et angelis et hominibus, legitime magnum agonem certantem et palmam supernae uocationis in anteriora sectantem, oculis fidei libentissime spectant gaudere cum gaudentibus, flere cum flentibus, foris habentem pugnas, intus timores, cupientem dissolui et esse cum Christo, desiderantem uidere Romanos, ut aliquem fructum habeat et in illis sicut et in ceteris gentibus, aemulantem Corinthios et ipsa aemulatione metuentem, ne seducantur eorum mentes a castitate, quae in Christo est, magnam tristitiam et continuum dolorem cordis de Israelitis habentem, quod ignorantes Dei iustitiam et suam uolentes constituere iustitiae Dei non essent subiecti; nec solum dolorem, uerum etiam luctum suum denuntiantem quibusdam, qui ante peccauerunt et non egerunt paenitentiam super inmunditia et fornicationibus suis. Hi motus, hi adfectus de amore boni et de sancta caritate uenientes si uitia uocanda sunt, sinamus, ut ea, quae uere uitia sunt, uirtutes uocentur. Sed cum rectam rationem sequantur istae adfectiones, quando ubi oportet adhibentur, quis eas tunc morbos seu uitiosas passiones audeat dicere? Quam ob rem etiam ipse Dominus in forma serui agere uitam dignatus humanam, sed nullum habens omnino peccatum adhibuit eas, ubi adhibendas esse iudicauit. Neque enim, in quo uerum erat hominis corpus et uerus hominis animus, falsus erat humanus adfectus. Cum ergo eius in euangelio ista referuntur, quod super duritia cordis Iudaeorum cum ira contristatus sit, quod dixerit: Gaudeo propter uos, ut credatis, quod Lazarum suscitaturus etiam lacrimas fuderit, quod concupiuerit cum discipulis suis manducare pascha, quod propinquante passione tristis fuerit anima eius: non falso utique referuntur. Verum ille hos motus certae dispensationis gratia ita cum uoluit suscepit animo humano, ut cum uoluit factus est homo. Proinde, quod fatendum est, etiam cum rectas et secundum Deum habemus has adfectiones, huius uitae sunt, non illius, quam futuram speramus, et saepe illis etiam inuiti cedimus. Itaque aliquando, quamuis non culpabili cupiditate, sed laudabili caritate moueamur, etiam dum nolumus flemus. Habemus ergo eas ex humanae condicionis infirmitate; non autem ita Dominus Iesus, cuius et infirmitas fuit ex potestate. Sed dum uitae huius infirmitatem gerimus, si eas omnino nullas habeamus, tunc potius non recte uiuimus. Vituperabat enim et detestabatur apostolus quosdam, quos etiam esse dixit sine adfectione. Culpauit etiam illos sacer psalmus, de quibus ait: Sustinui qui simul contristaretur, et non fuit. Nam omnino non dolere, dum sumus in hoc loco miseriae, profecto, sicut quidam etiam aput saeculi huius litteratos sensit et dixit, non sine magna mercede contingit inmanitatis in animo, stuporis in corpore. Quocirca illa, quae ἀπάθεια Graece dicitur (quae si Latine posset inpassibilitas diceretur), si ita intellegenda est (in animo quippe, non in corpore accipitur), ut sine his adfectionibus uiuatur, quae contra rationem accidunt mentemque perturbant, bona plane et maxime optanda est, sed nec ipsa huius est uitae. Non enim qualiumcumque hominum uox est, sed maxime piorum multumque iustorum adque sanctorum: Si dixerimus, quoniam peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus et ueritas in nobis non est. Tunc itaque ἀπάθεια ista erit, quando peccatum in homine nullum erit. Nunc uero satis bene uiuitur, si sine crimine; sine peccato autem qui se uiuere existimat, non id agit, ut peccatum non habeat, sed ut ueniam non accipiat. Porro, si ἀπάθεια illa dicenda est, cum animum contingere omnino non potest ullus adfectus, quis hunc stuporem non omnibus uitiis iudicet esse peiorem? Potest ergo non absurde dici perfectam beatitudinem sine stimulo timoris et sine ulla tristitia futuram; non ibi autem futurum amorem gaudiumque quis dixerit, nisi omni modo a ueritate seclusus? Si autem ἀπάθεια illa est, ubi nec metus ullus exterret nec angit dolor, auersanda est in hac uita, si recte, hoc est secundum Deum, uiuere uolumus; in illa uero beata, quae sempiterna promittitur, plane speranda est. Timor namque ille, de quo dicit apostolus Iohannes: Timor non est in caritate, sed perfecta caritas foras mittit timorem, quia timor poenam habet; qui autem timet, non est perfectus in caritate, non est eius generis timor, cuius ille, quo timebat apostolus Paulus, ne Corinthii serpentina seducerentur astutia; hunc enim timorem habet caritas, immo non habet nisi caritas; sed illius generis est timor, qui non est in caritate, de quo ipse apostolus Paulus ait: Non enim accepistis spiritum seruitutis iterum in timore. Timor uero ille castus permanens in saeculum saeculi, si erit et in futuro saeculo, (nam quo alio modo potest intellegi permanere in saeculum saeculi?) non est timor exterrens a malo quod accidere potest, sed tenens in bono quod amitti non potest. Ubi enim boni adepti amor inmutabilis est, profecto, si dici potest, mali cauendi timor securus est. Timoris quippe casti nomine ea uoluntas significata est, qua nos necesse erit nolle peccare, et non sollicitudine infirmitatis, ne forte peccemus, sed tranquillitate caritatis cauere peccatum. Aut si nullius omnino generis timor esse poterit in illa certissima securitate perpetuorum feliciumque gaudiorum, sic est dictum: Timor Domini castus permanens in saeculum saeculi, quem ad modum dictum est: Patientia pauperum non peribit in aeternum. Neque enim aeterna erit ipsa patientia, quae necessaria non est, nisi ubi toleranda sunt mala; sed aeternum erit, quo per patientiam peruenitur. Ita fortasse timor castus in saeculum saeculi dictus est permanere, quia id permanebit, quo timor ipse perducit. Quae cum ita sint, quoniam recta uita ducenda est, qua perueniendum sit ad beatam, omnes adfectus istos uita recta rectos habet, peruersa peruersos. Beata uero eademque aeterna amorem habebit et gaudium non solum rectum, uerum etiam certum; timorem autem ac dolorem nullum. Unde iam apparet utcumque, quales esse debeant in hac peregrinatione ciues ciuitatis Dei, uiuentes secundum spiritum, non secundum carnem, hoc est secundum Deum, non secundum hominem, et quales in illa, quo tendunt, inmortalitate futuri sint. Ciuitas porro, id est societas, inpiorum non secundum Deum, sed secundum hominem uiuentium et in ipso cultu falsae contemtuque uerae diuinitatis doctrinas hominum daemonumue sectantium his adfectibus prauis tamquam morbis et perturbationibus quatitur. Et si quos ciues habet, qui moderari talibus motibus et eos quasi temperare uideantur, sic inpietate superbi et elati sunt, ut hoc ipso sint in eis maiores tumores, quo minores dolores. Et si nonnulli tanto inmaniore, quanto rariore uanitate hoc in se ipsis adamauerint, ut nullo prorsus erigantur et excitentur, nullo flectantur adque inclinentur adfectu: humanitatem totam potius amittunt, quam ueram adsequuntur tranquillitatem. Non enim quia durum aliquid, ideo rectum, aut quia stupidum est, ideo sanum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. Of the disturbances of the mind, whose affections the life of the righteous has rightly ordered.

But to these philosophers, as far as this question of the disturbances of the mind is concerned, we have already replied in the ninth book of this work, showing that they are eager for contention about words rather than about things, and not for truth. Among us, however, according to the holy Scriptures and sound doctrine, the citizens of the holy city of God, living according to God in the pilgrimage of this life, fear and desire, grieve and rejoice; and because their love is right, they have all these affections right. They fear eternal punishment, they desire eternal life; they grieve in reality, because they themselves still groan within themselves, awaiting the adoption, the redemption of their body; they rejoice in hope, because the saying that is written will come to pass: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” Likewise they fear to sin, they desire to persevere; they grieve over sins, they rejoice in good works. For that they may fear to sin, they hear: “Because iniquity will abound, the love of many will grow cold”; that they may desire to persevere, they hear what is written: “He who perseveres to the end will be saved”; that they may grieve over sins, they hear: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us”; that they may rejoice in good works, they hear: “God loves a cheerful giver.” Likewise, according as their weakness or strength may be, they fear to be tempted and desire to be tempted, they grieve in temptations and rejoice in temptations. For that they may fear to be tempted, they hear: “If anyone is overtaken in any fault, you who are spiritual instruct such a one in a spirit of gentleness, looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted”; but that they may desire to be tempted, they hear a certain brave man of the city of God saying: “Prove me, O Lord, and try me; burn my reins and my heart”; that they may grieve in temptations, they see Peter weeping; that they may rejoice in temptations, they hear James saying: “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you fall into various temptations.”

And they are moved by these affections not only on their own account but also on account of those whom they desire to be set free and fear may perish, and they grieve if they perish and rejoice if they are set free. For that best and bravest man, who glories in his weaknesses, to recall him above all, since we have come into the church of Christ from the nations, the teacher of the nations in faith and truth, who both labored more than all his fellow apostles and instructed the peoples of God by more letters, not only those who were seen by him as present but also those who were foreseen as future; that man, I say, the athlete of Christ, taught by him, anointed from him, crucified with him, glorious in him, in the theater of this world, to which he was made a spectacle, both to angels and to men, contending lawfully in a great contest and pressing toward what lies ahead for the prize of the upward call: they most gladly watch him with the eyes of faith rejoicing with those who rejoice, weeping with those who weep, having fightings without and fears within, desiring to depart and be with Christ, longing to see the Romans that he might have some fruit among them as among the other nations, jealous for the Corinthians and in that very jealousy fearing lest their minds be led astray from the chastity that is in Christ, having great sadness and continual grief of heart for the Israelites, because, being ignorant of God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they were not subject to the righteousness of God; and declaring not only his grief but also his mourning for some who had sinned before and had not repented of the impurity and sexual immorality they had practiced. If these motions, these affections, coming from love of the good and holy charity, are to be called faults, let us allow what are truly faults to be called virtues. But since these affections follow right reason when they are applied where they ought to be, who would dare then to call them diseases or vicious passions?

For this reason the Lord himself too, deigning to lead a human life in the form of a servant, but having no sin at all, applied them where he judged they should be applied. For in him, in whom there was a true human body and a true human mind, human affection was not false. When, then, these things are reported of him in the Gospel, that he was grieved with anger at the hardness of heart of the Jews, that he said, “I rejoice for your sakes, that you may believe,” that when about to raise Lazarus he even shed tears, that he earnestly desired to eat the Passover with his disciples, that as his passion drew near his soul was sorrowful, they are certainly not reported falsely. But he took on these motions in his human mind, by a certain dispensation, when he willed, just as he became man when he willed.

Accordingly, as must be admitted, even when we have these affections rightly and according to God, they belong to this life, not to that which we hope is to come, and we often yield to them even against our will. So sometimes, although we are moved not by culpable desire but by praiseworthy charity, we weep even when we do not want to. We have them, then, from the weakness of the human condition; but not so the Lord Jesus, whose very weakness came from power. But while we bear the weakness of this life, if we had none of them at all, then rather we would not be living rightly. For the apostle found fault with and detested certain people whom he also said were without affection. The sacred psalm too blamed those of whom it says: “I looked for one to grieve with me, and there was none.” For not to grieve at all while we are in this place of misery, as someone even among the literary men of this world thought and said, does not come about without a great price: savagery in the mind, numbness in the body.

Therefore, that which in Greek is called apatheia (which in Latin, if it could be said, would be called impassibility), if it is to be understood (for it is taken of the mind, not of the body) as living without those affections which occur against reason and disturb the mind, is plainly good and greatly to be desired, but it too does not belong to this life. For it is the voice not of just any men, but especially of the godly and very righteous and holy: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” This apatheia, then, will exist when there is no sin in man. But now one lives well enough if without crime; but whoever thinks he lives without sin does not bring it about that he has no sin, but that he receives no pardon. Further, if that is to be called apatheia when no affection at all can touch the mind, who would not judge this numbness worse than all faults? It can, then, not absurdly be said that perfect happiness will be without the sting of fear and without any sadness; but who would say that there will be no love and joy there, unless wholly shut off from the truth? But if apatheia is that state in which no fear terrifies and no grief torments, it is to be shunned in this life if we wish to live rightly, that is, according to God; but in that happy life which is promised as everlasting, it is plainly to be hoped for.

For that fear of which the apostle John says, “There is no fear in charity, but perfect charity casts out fear, because fear has punishment; and he who fears is not perfect in charity,” is not of the kind of that fear with which the apostle Paul feared lest the Corinthians be led astray by the serpent's cunning; for charity has this fear, indeed only charity has it; but it is of the kind of fear that is not in charity, of which the apostle Paul himself says: “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery again in fear.” But that chaste fear, “enduring for ever and ever,” if it will exist in the age to come too (for how else can “enduring for ever and ever” be understood?), is not a fear that frightens us away from an evil that can happen, but one that holds us in a good that cannot be lost. For where the love of the good attained is unchangeable, surely, if it can be said, the fear of avoiding evil is untroubled. For by the name of chaste fear is signified that will by which we shall necessarily not will to sin, and shall avoid sin not with the anxiety of weakness lest perhaps we sin, but with the tranquillity of charity. Or if there can be no fear of any kind at all in that most sure security of perpetual and happy joys, then “the chaste fear of the Lord enduring for ever and ever” is said in the same way as “the patience of the poor will not perish forever.” For patience itself will not be eternal, since it is needed only where evils must be borne; but that will be eternal to which one comes through patience. So perhaps chaste fear is said to endure for ever and ever because that will endure to which fear itself leads.

This being so, since a right life is to be led by which one may come to the happy life, a right life has all these affections right, a perverse one perverse. But the happy and eternal life will have love and joy not only right but also sure; fear and grief none. Hence it already appears in some measure what the citizens of the city of God, living according to the spirit, not according to the flesh, that is, according to God, not according to man, ought to be in this pilgrimage, and what they will be in that immortality to which they are going. But the city, that is, the society, of the ungodly, who live not according to God but according to man, and who follow the doctrines of men or demons in the very worship of a false divinity and contempt of the true, is shaken by these depraved affections as by diseases and disturbances. And if it has some citizens who seem to govern such motions and as it were temper them, they are so proud and puffed up with impiety that in them the swellings are greater precisely as the pains are less. And if some, with a vanity the more monstrous the rarer it is, have become enamored of this in themselves, that they are raised and stirred by no affection at all, and bent and inclined by none, they rather lose all humanity than attain true tranquillity. For a thing is not right because it is hard, nor sound because it is numb.

### Scripture references

- Rom 8:23: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:54: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 24:12: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 10:22: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 1:8: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 9:7: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 6:1: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 26:2 (25:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Matt 26:75: allusion, high confidence
- Jas 1:2: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 12:9: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Tim 2:7: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:10: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 4:9: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Tim 2:5: allusion, medium confidence
- Phil 3:14: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 12:15: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 7:5: allusion, high confidence
- Phil 1:23: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 1:13: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 11:2: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 11:3: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 9:2: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 10:3: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 12:21: allusion, high confidence
- Phil 2:7: allusion, high confidence
- Mark 3:5: allusion, high confidence
- John 11:15: quotation, high confidence
- John 11:35: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 22:15: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 26:38: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 1:31: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 69:20 (68:21 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 4:18: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:15: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 19:9 (18:10 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 9:18 (9:19 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Tusc. 3.12 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sources: Rom 8:23; 1 Cor 15:54; Matt 24:12; Matt 10:22; 1 John 1:8; 2 Cor 9:7; Gal 6:1; Ps 26:2 (LXX 25:2); Matt 26:75; Jas 1:2; 2 Cor 12:9; 1 Tim 2:7; 1 Cor 15:10; 1 Cor 4:9; 2 Tim 2:5; Phil 3:13–14; Rom 12:15; 2 Cor 7:5; Phil 1:23; Rom 1:11, 13; 2 Cor 11:2–3; Rom 9:2; Rom 10:3; 2 Cor 12:21; Phil 2:7; Mark 3:5; John 11:15, 35; Luke 22:15; Matt 26:38; Rom 1:31 (“without affection”); Ps 69:20 (LXX 68:21); 1 John 4:18; Rom 8:15; Ps 19:9 (LXX 18:10); Ps 9:18 (LXX 9:19). The saying about savagery and numbness is Crantor's, cited by Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 3.12. The Greek apatheia, garbled four times in the digital text, is corrected. Book 9 (chs. 4–5) dealt with the Stoic passions.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.9 (CSEL 40:18–25; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-5/#p-14-9).

## City of God 14.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-5/#p-14-10
- Source: CSEL 40:25–26
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Before sin, Adam and Eve had no disturbing passions but untroubled love and joy; had none sinned, the race would have multiplied to the full number of the saints and passed without death into the angels' secure happiness.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. An primos homines in paradiso constitutos ullis perturbationibus, priusquam delinquerent, adfectos fuisse credendum sit. Sed utrum primus homo uel primi homines (duorum erat quippe coniugium) habebant istos adfectus in corpore animali ante peccatum, quales in corpore spiritali non habebimus omni purgato finitoque peccato, non inmerito quaeritur. Si enim habebant, quo modo erant beati in illo memorabili beatitudinis loco, id est paradiso? Quis tandem absolute dici beatus potest, qui timore adficitur uel dolore? Quid autem timere aut dolere poterant illi homines in tantorum tanta afluentia bonorum, ubi nec mors metuebatur nec ulla corporis mala ualetudo, nec aberat quicquam, quod bona uoluntas adipisceretur, nec inerat quod carnem animumue hominis feliciter uiuentis offenderet? Amor erat inperturbatus in Deum adque inter se coniugum fida et sincera societate uiuentium, et ex hoc amore grande gaudium, non desistente quod amabatur ad fruendum. Erat deuitatio tranquilla peccati, qua manente nullum omnino alicunde malum, quod contristaret, inruebat. An forte cupiebant prohibitum lignum ad uescendum contingere, sed mori metuebant, ac per hoc et cupiditas et metus iam tunc illos homines etiam in illo perturbabat loco? Absit ut hoc existimemus fuisse, ubi nullum erat omnino peccatum. Neque enim nullum peccatum est ea quae lex Dei prohibet concupiscere adque ab his abstinere timore poenae, non amore iustitiae. Absit, inquam, ut ante omne peccatum iam ibi fuerit tale peccatum, ut hoc de ligno admitterent, quod de muliere Dominus ait: Si quis uiderit mulierem ad concupiscendum eam, iam moechatus est eam in corde suo. Quam igitur felices erant et nullis agitabantur perturbationibus animorum, nullis corporum laedebantur incommodis: tam felix uniuersa societas esset humana, si nec illi malum, quod etiam in posteros traicerent, nec quisquam ex eorum stirpe iniquitate committeret, quod damnationem reciperet; adque ista permanente felicitate, donec per illam benedictionem, qua dictum est: Crescite et multiplicamini, praedestinatorum sanctorum numerus conpleretur, alia maior daretur, quae beatissimis angelis data est, ubi iam esset certa securitas peccaturum neminem neminemque moriturum, et talis esset uita sanctorum post nullum laboris doloris mortis experimentum, qualis erit post haec omnia in incorruptione corporum reddita resurrectione mortuorum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. Whether we should believe that the first human beings, placed in paradise, were affected by any disturbances before they sinned.

But it is not without reason asked whether the first man, or rather the first human beings (for it was a married couple), had these affections in the animal body before sin, such as we shall not have in the spiritual body when all sin has been cleansed and ended. For if they had them, how were they happy in that memorable place of happiness, that is, paradise? Who, in the end, can be called absolutely happy who is affected by fear or grief? And what could those human beings fear or grieve over amid so great an abundance of so many goods, where neither death was feared nor any ill health of the body, nor was anything lacking which a good will might obtain, nor was anything present which might offend the flesh or mind of a man living happily? There was love undisturbed toward God and between the spouses, living in a faithful and sincere partnership, and from this love a great joy, since what was loved did not cease to be at hand for enjoyment. There was a tranquil avoidance of sin, and while it remained, no evil at all broke in from anywhere to make them sad. Or did they perhaps desire to touch the forbidden tree to eat, but fear to die, so that both desire and fear were already disturbing those human beings even in that place? Far be it from us to think that this was so where there was no sin at all. For it is itself a sin to desire the things the law of God forbids and to abstain from them from fear of punishment, not love of righteousness. Far be it, I say, that before all sin there was already such a sin there, that they committed with regard to the tree what the Lord says with regard to a woman: “Whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” As happy, then, as they were, agitated by no disturbances of mind and harmed by no discomforts of body, so happy would the whole human society have been, had neither they committed the evil which they would transmit even to their descendants, nor anyone of their stock committed iniquity that would receive condemnation; and, this happiness continuing until, through that blessing by which it was said, “Increase and multiply,” the number of the predestined saints was completed, another and greater one would have been given, that which has been given to the most blessed angels, where there would be a sure security that no one would sin and no one would die; and such would the life of the saints have been, after no experience of toil, pain, or death, as it will be after all these things, in the incorruption of bodies restored by the resurrection of the dead.

### Scripture references

- Matt 5:28: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:28: quotation, high confidence
- Exod 20:17: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Matt 5:28 (the Latin concupiscere is here “desire”); Gen 1:28. Exod 20:17 is in view (“the law forbids to desire”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.10 (CSEL 40:25–26; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-5/#p-14-10).

## City of God 14.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-11/#p-14-11
- Source: CSEL 40:26–30
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God foreknew the fall and his good use of it; man was made upright with a good will, lost true freedom by sin and can regain it only through the Son; the devil through the serpent deceived Eve, while Adam sinned knowingly out of attachment to her.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. De lapsu primi hominis, in quo bene condita natura uitiata est, nec potest nisi a suo auctore reparari. Sed quia Deus cuncta praesciuit et ideo quoque hominem peccaturum ignorare non potuit: secundum id, quod praesciuit adque disposuit, ciuitatem sanctam debemus adserere, non secundum illud, quod in nostram cognitionem peruenire non potuit, quia in Dei dispositione non fuit. Neque enim homo peccato suo diuinum potuit perturbare consilium, quasi Deum quod statuerat mutare conpulerit; cum Deus praesciendo utrumque praeuenerit, id est, et homo, quem bonum ipse creauit, quam malus esset futurus, et quid boni etiam sic de illo esset ipse facturus. Deus enim etsi dicitur statuta mutare (unde tropica locutione in scripturis etiam paenituisse legitur Deum), iuxta id dicitur, quod homo sperauerat uel naturalium causarum ordo gestabat, non iuxta id, quod se Omnipotens facturum esse praesciuerat. Fecit itaque Deus, sicut scriptum est, hominem rectum ac per hoc uoluntatis bonae. Non enim rectus esset bonam non habens uoluntatem. Bona igitur uoluntas opus est Dei; cum ea quippe ab illo factus est homo. Mala uero uoluntas prima, quoniam omnia opera mala praecessit in homine, defectus potius fuit quidam ab opere Dei ad sua opera quam opus ullum, et ideo mala opera, quia secundum se, non secundum Deum; ut eorum operum tamquam fructuum malorum uoluntas ipsa esset uelut arbor mala aut ipse homo in quantum malae uoluntatis. Porro mala uoluntas quamuis non sit secundum naturam, sed contra naturam, quia uitium est, tamen eius naturae est, cuius est uitium, quod nisi in natura non potest esse; sed in ea, quam creauit ex nihilo, non quam genuit Creator de semet ipso, sicut genuit Verbum, per quod facta sunt omnia; quia, etsi de terrae puluere Deus finxit hominem, eadem terra omnisque terrena materies omnino de nihilo est, animamque de nihilo factam dedit corpori, cum factus est homo. Usque adeo autem mala uincuntur a bonis, ut, quamuis sinantur esse ad demonstrandum quam possit et ipsis bene uti iustitia prouidentissima Creatoris, bona tamen sine malis esse possint, sicut Deus ipse uerus et summus, sicut omnis super istum caliginosum aerem caelestis inuisibilis uisibilisque creatura; mala uero sine bonis esse non possint, quoniam naturae, in quibus sunt, in quantum naturae sunt, utique bonae sunt. Detrahitur porro malum non aliqua natura, quae accesserat, uel ulla eius parte sublata, sed ea, quae uitiata ac deprauata fuerat, sanata adque correcta. Arbitrium igitur uoluntatis tunc est uere liberum, cum uitiis peccatisque non seruit. Tale datum est a Deo; quod amissum proprio uitio, nisi a quo dari potuit, reddi non potest. Unde Veritas dicit: Si uos Filius liberauerit, tunc uere liberi eritis. Id ipsum est autem, ac si diceret: Si uos Filius saluos fecerit, tunc uere salui eritis. Inde quippe liberator, unde saluator. Viuebat itaque homo secundum Deum in paradiso et corporali et spiritali. Neque enim erat paradisus corporalis propter corporis bona et propter mentis non erat spiritalis; aut uero erat spiritalis quo per interiores, et non erat corporalis quo per exteriores sensus homo frueretur. Erat plane utrumque propter utrumque. Postea uero quam superbus ille angelus ac per hoc inuidus per eandem superbiam a Deo ad semet ipsum conuersus et quodam quasi tyrannico fastu gaudere subditis quam esse subditus eligens de spiritali paradiso cecidit (de cuius lapsu sociorumque eius, qui ex angelis Dei angeli eius effecti sunt, in libris undecimo et duodecimo huius operis satis, quantum potui, disputaui), malesuada uersutia in hominis sensum serpere adfectans, cui utique stanti, quoniam ipse ceciderat, inuidebat, colubrum in paradiso corporali, ubi cum duobus illis hominibus, masculo et femina, animalia etiam terrestria cetera subdita et innoxia uersabantur, animal scilicet lubricum et tortuosis anfractibus mobile, operi suo congruum, per quem loqueretur, elegit; eoque per angelicam praesentiam praestantioremque naturam spiritali nequitia sibi subiecto et tamquam instrumento abutens fallacia sermocinatus est feminae, a parte scilicet inferiore illius humanae copulae incipiens, ut gradatim perueniret ad totum, non existimans uirum facile credulum nec errando posse decipi, sed dum alieno cedit errori. Sicut enim Aaron erranti populo ad idolum fabricandum non consensit inductus, sed cessit obstrictus, nec Salomonem credibile est errore putasse idolis esse seruiendum, sed blanditiis femineis ad illa sacrilegia fuisse conpulsum: ita credendum est illum uirum suae feminae, uni unum, hominem homini, coniugem coniugi, ad Dei legem transgrediendam non tamquam uerum loquenti credidisse seductum, sed sociali necessitudine paruisse. Non enim frustra dixit apostolus: Adam non est seductus, mulier autem seducta est, nisi quia illa quod ei serpens locutus est, tamquam uerum esset, accepit, ille autem ab unico noluit consortio dirimi nec in communione peccati; nec ideo minus reus, si sciens prudensque peccauit. Unde et apostolus non ait: Non peccauit\\ sed: Non est seductus; nam utique ipsum ostendit, ubi dicit: Per unum hominem peccatum intrauit in mundum, et paulo post apertius: In similitudine, inquit, praeuaricationis Adae. Hos autem seductos intellegi uoluit, qui id, quod faciunt, non putant esse peccatum; ille autem sciuit. Alioquin quo modo uerum erit: Adam non est seductus? Sed inexpertus diuinae seueritatis in eo falli potuit, ut ueniale crederet esse commissum. Ac per hoc in eo quidem, quo mulier seducta est, non est ille seductus, sed eum fefellit, quo modo fuerat iudicandum quod erat dicturus: Mulier, quam dedisti mecum, ipsa mihi dedit, et manducaui. Quid ergo pluribus? Etsi credendo non sunt ambo decepti, peccando tamen ambo sunt capti et diaboli laqueis inplicati.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. Of the fall of the first man, in which a nature well founded was vitiated and cannot be restored except by its author.

But since God foreknew all things and therefore could not be ignorant that man would sin, we must assert the holy city according to what he foreknew and ordained, not according to what could not come to our knowledge because it was not in God's ordaining. For man could not by his sin disturb the divine counsel, as if he forced God to change what he had decreed; since God by foreknowing anticipated both, that is, both how evil man, whom he himself created good, would become, and what good he himself would even so make from him. For even if God is said to change his decrees (whence, by a figurative expression, God is even read in the Scriptures to have repented), it is said in relation to what man had expected or the order of natural causes carried, not in relation to what the Almighty had foreknown he would do.

God made man, then, as it is written, upright, and therefore of good will. For he would not be upright if he did not have a good will. The good will, then, is the work of God; for man was made by him with it. But the first evil will, since it preceded all evil works in man, was rather a kind of falling away from the work of God to its own works than any work; and therefore the works were evil because they were according to itself, not according to God; so that the will itself, or man himself in so far as he was of evil will, was like an evil tree of those works as of evil fruits. Further, the evil will, though it is not according to nature but contrary to nature, because it is a fault, yet belongs to that nature whose fault it is, since it cannot exist except in a nature; but in that nature which the Creator created from nothing, not that which he begot from himself, as he begot the Word, through whom all things were made; because, though God fashioned man from the dust of the earth, that earth and all earthly matter are altogether from nothing, and he gave the body a soul made from nothing when man was made. So far are evils overcome by goods that, although they are allowed to exist to show how the most provident justice of the Creator can make good use even of them, yet goods can exist without evils, as God himself, true and supreme, and every heavenly creature, invisible and visible, above this murky air; but evils cannot exist without goods, since the natures in which they are, in so far as they are natures, are certainly good. Further, evil is removed not by taking away some nature that had been added, or any part of it, but by healing and correcting the nature that had been vitiated and depraved. The choice of the will, then, is truly free when it is not the slave of faults and sins. Such it was given by God; and, lost by its own fault, it cannot be restored except by him by whom it could be given. Hence the Truth says: “If the Son sets you free, then you will be truly free.” This is the same as if he said, “If the Son saves you, then you will be truly saved.” For he is liberator for the same reason that he is savior.

Man, then, lived according to God in a paradise both bodily and spiritual. For there was not a bodily paradise for the goods of the body and not a spiritual one for those of the mind; nor was there a spiritual one for man to enjoy through the inner senses and not a bodily one for him to enjoy through the outer. There was plainly both, for both purposes. But after that proud angel, and therefore envious, turned by that same pride from God to himself, and, choosing with a kind of tyrannical arrogance to rejoice in subjects rather than to be a subject, fell from the spiritual paradise (of his fall and that of his companions, who from angels of God became his angels, I have argued sufficiently, as far as I could, in the eleventh and twelfth books of this work), seeking with evil-counseling cunning to creep into man's mind, whom he certainly envied for standing, since he himself had fallen, he chose in the bodily paradise, where with those two human beings, male and female, the other land animals too dwelt, subject and harmless, the serpent, an animal slippery and moving in winding coils, suited to his work, through which to speak. And having subjected it to himself by spiritual wickedness through his angelic presence and more excellent nature, and misusing it as an instrument, he spoke deceitfully with the woman, beginning, that is, with the lower part of that human couple, so as to come by degrees to the whole; not thinking that the man was easily credulous or could be deceived by erring himself, but only by yielding to another's error. For just as Aaron did not consent to the erring people's making of an idol by being persuaded, but yielded under constraint; and as it is not credible that Solomon thought by error that idols should be served, but that he was driven to those sacrileges by the blandishments of women: so it is to be believed that that man, one with one, human with human, spouse with spouse, did not transgress God's law because he believed his woman as though she spoke the truth, being deceived, but that he obeyed her out of the bond of fellowship. For the apostle said not in vain, “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived,” except because she accepted what the serpent said to her as though it were true, while he was unwilling to be separated from his only companion, even in a fellowship of sin; nor is he less guilty on that account, if he sinned knowingly and wittingly. Hence the apostle does not say, “He did not sin,” but, “He was not deceived”; for he certainly shows that he sinned where he says, “Through one man sin entered into the world,” and a little later more plainly, “In the likeness,” he says, “of the transgression of Adam.” He wanted those to be understood as deceived who do not think that what they do is sin; but he knew. Otherwise how will it be true that “Adam was not deceived”? But, inexperienced in divine severity, he could be mistaken in thinking what he had committed was pardonable. And so he was not deceived in the way the woman was deceived; but he was mistaken as to how that would be judged which he was going to say: “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me, and I ate.” Why say more? Though they were not both deceived by believing, yet both were caught by sinning and entangled in the snares of the devil.

### Scripture references

- Gen 6:6: allusion, high confidence
- Eccl 7:29: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 7:17: allusion, medium confidence
- John 1:3: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:7: allusion, high confidence
- John 8:36: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 3:1: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 32:2: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Kgs 11:4: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Tim 2:14: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 5:12: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 5:14: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 3:12: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sources: Gen 6:6 (God “repented,” a figure of speech); Eccl 7:29; Matt 7:17–18; John 1:3; Gen 2:7; John 8:36; Gen 3:1; Exod 32 (Aaron); 1 Kgs 11:4 (Solomon); 1 Tim 2:14; Rom 5:12, 14; Gen 3:12. Augustine's account of Adam's motive (not deceived but unwilling to be parted from Eve) is given as he states it. A stray mark in the Latin (“Non peccauit\”) does not affect the sense.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.11 (CSEL 40:26–30; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-11/#p-14-11).

## City of God 14.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-11/#p-14-12
- Source: CSEL 40:30–31
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The first sin, though about food, was grave because it violated obedience, the mother of virtues, in a command that was supremely easy to keep before desire resisted the will.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. De qualitate peccati a primis hominibus admissi. Si quem uero mouet, quur aliis peccatis sic natura non mutetur humana, quem ad modum illa duorum primorum hominum praeuaricatione mutata est, ut tantae corruptioni, quantam uidemus adque sentimus, et per hanc subiaceret et morti ac tot et tantis tamque inter se contrariis perturbaretur et fluctuaret adfectibus, qualis in paradiso ante peccatum, licet in corpore animali esset, utique non fuit — si quis hoc mouetur, ut dixi, non ideo debet existimare leue ac paruum illud fuisse commissum, quia in esca factum est, non quidem mala nec noxia, nisi quia prohibita; neque enim quidquam mali Deus in illo tantae felicitatis loco crearet adque plantaret. Sed oboedientia commendata est in praecepto, quae uirtus in creatura rationali mater quodam modo est omnium custosque uirtutum; quando quidem ita facta est, ut ei subditam esse sit utile; perniciosum autem suam, non eius a quo creata est facere uoluntatem. Hoc itaque de uno cibi genere non edendo, ubi aliorum tanta copia subiacebat, tam leue praeceptum ad obseruandum, tam breue ad memoria retinendum, ubi praesertim nondum uoluntati cupiditas resistebat, quod de poena transgressionis postea subsecutum est, tanto maiore iniustitia uiolatum est, quanto faciliore posset obseruantia custodiri.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. Of the nature of the sin committed by the first human beings.

But if anyone is troubled why human nature is not changed by other sins as it was changed by that transgression of the first two human beings, so that it became subject to so great a corruption as we see and feel, and through it to death, and was disturbed and tossed about by so many and so great and so mutually contrary affections, such as it certainly was not in paradise before sin, even though it was in an animal body; if anyone is troubled by this, as I said, he must not think that what was committed was light and small because it was done concerning food, food not evil or harmful except because it was forbidden; for God would not create and plant anything evil in that place of so great happiness. But obedience was commended in the command, which virtue in a rational creature is in a way the mother and guardian of all virtues; since it was so made that it is profitable to it to be subject, but ruinous to do its own will and not the will of him by whom it was created. This command, then, not to eat of one kind of food, where so great an abundance of others lay at hand, so light to observe, so brief to keep in memory, especially when desire did not yet resist the will, which came afterward from the punishment of the transgression, was violated with an injustice the greater as it could have been kept with an easier observance.

### Scripture references

- Gen 2:17: allusion, high confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.12 (CSEL 40:30–31; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-11/#p-14-12).

## City of God 14.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-11/#p-14-13
- Source: CSEL 40:31–34
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The evil deed was preceded by an evil will, whose beginning was pride, a self-pleasing turning from God; humility lifts up and pride casts down, and love of God and love of self distinguish the two cities.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. Quod in praeuaricatione Adae opus malum uoluntas praecesserit mala. In occulto autem mali esse coeperunt, ut in apertam inoboedientiam laberentur. Non enim ad malum opus perueniretur, nisi praecessisset uoluntas mala. Porro malae uoluntatis initium quae potuit esse nisi superbia? Initium enim omnis peccati superbia est. Quid est autem superbia nisi peruersae celsitudinis adpetitus? Peruersa enim est celsitudo deserto eo, cui debet animus inhaerere, principio sibi quodam modo fieri adque esse principium. Hoc fit, cum sibi nimis placet. Sibi uero ita placet, cum ab illo bono inmutabili deficit, quod ei magis placere debuit quam ipse sibi. Spontaneus est autem iste defectus, quoniam, si uoluntas in amore superioris inmutabilis boni, a quo inlustrabatur ut uideret et accendebatur ut amaret, stabilis permaneret, non inde ad sibi placendum auerteretur et ex hoc tenebresceret et frigesceret, ut uel illa crederet uerum dixisse serpentem, uel ille Dei mandato uxoris praeponeret uoluntatem putaretque se uenialiter transgressorem esse praecepti, si uitae suae sociam non desereret etiam in societate peccati. Non ergo malum opus factum est, id est illa transgressio ut cibo prohibito uescerentur, nisi ab eis qui iam mali erant. Neque enim fieret ille fructus malus nisi ab arbore mala. Ut autem esset arbor mala, contra naturam factum est, quia nisi uitio uoluntatis, quod contra naturam est, non utique fieret. Sed uitio deprauari nisi ex nihilo facta natura non posset. Ac per hoc ut natura sit, ex eo habet quod a Deo facta est; ut autem ab eo quod est deficiat, ex hoc quod de nihilo facta est. Nec sic defecit homo, ut omnino nihil esset, sed ut inclinatus ad se ipsum minus esset, quam erat, cum ei qui summe est inhaerebat. Relicto itaque Deo esse in semet ipso, hoc est sibi placere, non iam nihil esse est, sed nihilo propinquare. Unde superbi secundum scripturas sanctas alio nomine appellantur sibi placentes. Bonum est enim sursum habere cor; non tamen ad se ipsum, quod est superbiae, sed ad Dominum, quod est oboedientiae, quae nisi humilium non potest esse. Est igitur aliquid humilitatis miro modo quod sursum faciat cor, et est aliquid elationis quod deorsum faciat cor. Hoc quidem quasi contrarium uidetur, ut elatio sit deorsum et humilitas sursum. Sed pia humilitas facit subditum superiori; nihil est autem superius Deo; et ideo exaltat humilitas, quae facit subditum Deo. Elatio autem, quae in uitio est, eo ipso respuit subiectionem et cadit ab illo, quo non est quidquam superius, et ex hoc erit inferius et fit quod scriptum est: Deiecisti eos, cum extollerentur. Non enim ait: Cum elati fuissent\\ ut prius extollerentur et postea deicerentur; sed cum extollerentur, tunc deiecti sunt. Ipsum quippe extolli iam deici est. Quapropter quod nunc in ciuitate Dei et ciuitati Dei in hoc peregrinanti saeculo maxime commendatur humilitas et in eius rege, qui est Christus, maxime praedicatur contrariumque huic uirtuti elationis uitium in eius aduersario, qui est diabolus, maxime dominari sacris litteris edocetur: profecto ista est magna differentia, qua ciuitas, unde loquimur, utraque discernitur, una scilicet societas piorum hominum, altera inpiorum, singula quaeque cum angelis ad se pertinentibus, in quibus praecessit hac amor Dei, hac amor sui. Manifesto ergo apertoque peccato, ubi factum est quod Deus fieri prohibuerat, diabolus hominem non cepisset, nisi iam ille sibi ipsi placere coepisset. Hinc enim et delectauit quod dictum est: Eritis sicut di. Quod melius esse possent summo ueroque principio cohaerendo per oboedientiam, non suum sibi existendo principium per superbiam. Di enim creati non sua ueritate, sed Dei ueri participatione sunt di. Plus autem adpetendo minus est, qui, dum sibi sufficere deligit, ab illo, qui ei uere sufficit, deficit. Illud itaque malum, quo, cum sibi homo placet, tamquam sit et ipse lumen, auertitur ab eo lumine, quod ei si placeat et ipse fit lumen — illud, inquam, malum praecessit in abdito, ut sequeretur hoc malum quod perpetratum est in aperto. Verum est enim quod scriptum est: Ante ruinam exaltatur cor et ante gloriam humiliatur. Illa prorsus ruina, quae fit in occulto, praecedit ruinam, quae fit in manifesto, dum illa ruina esse non putatur. Quis enim exaltationem ruinam putat, cum iam ibi sit defectus, quo est relictus Excelsus? Quis autem ruinam esse non uideat, quando fit mandati euidens adque indubitata transgressio? Propter hoc Deus illud prohibuit, quod cum esset admissum, nulla defendi posset imaginatione iustitiae. Et audeo dicere superbis esse utile cadere in aliquod apertum manifestumque peccatum, unde sibi displiceant, qui iam sibi placendo ceciderant. Salubrius enim Petrus sibi displicuit, quando fleuit, quam sibi placuit, quando praesumsit. Hoc dicit et sacer psalmus: Inple facies eorum ignominia, et quaerent nomen tuum, Domine, id est, ut tu eis placeas quaerentibus nomen tuum, qui sibi placuerant quaerendo suum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. That in Adam's transgression an evil will preceded the evil work.

They began to be evil in secret, so as to slip into open disobedience. For no one would come to an evil work unless an evil will had gone before. And what could be the beginning of an evil will but pride? For “pride is the beginning of all sin.” And what is pride but the craving for a perverse exaltation? For it is a perverse exaltation to forsake the principle to which the mind ought to cleave and to become and be, in a way, a principle to oneself. This happens when it is too pleased with itself. And it is so pleased with itself when it falls away from that unchangeable good which ought to have pleased it more than it pleased itself. This falling away is voluntary; for if the will had remained steadfast in the love of the higher, unchangeable good, by which it was enlightened to see and kindled to love, it would not have turned away from it to please itself, and from this grown dark and cold, so that either she would believe the serpent had spoken the truth, or he would set his wife's will above God's command and think he was a pardonable transgressor of the precept if he did not forsake the companion of his life even in the fellowship of sin. The evil work, then, that is, that transgression of eating the forbidden food, was done only by those who were already evil. For that evil fruit would not have come except from an evil tree. But that the tree was evil came about contrary to nature, because it would certainly not have happened except by a fault of the will, which is contrary to nature. But only a nature made from nothing could be depraved by a fault. And so, that it is a nature, it has from being made by God; but that it falls away from what it is, from being made from nothing. Nor did man fall away so as to be nothing at all, but so as, turned toward himself, to be less than he was when he cleaved to him who supremely is. To forsake God, then, and be in oneself, that is, to please oneself, is not yet to be nothing, but to draw near to nothing. Hence the proud, according to the holy Scriptures, are called by another name, self-pleasers.

For it is good to have the heart lifted up, yet not to oneself, which belongs to pride, but to the Lord, which belongs to obedience, which can only be of the humble. There is, then, something in humility which in a wonderful way lifts the heart up, and something in exaltation which casts the heart down. This indeed seems a kind of contradiction, that exaltation should be downward and humility upward. But godly humility makes one subject to what is higher; and nothing is higher than God; and therefore humility, which makes one subject to God, exalts. But exaltation, which is in fault, by that very fact spurns subjection and falls from him than whom nothing is higher, and thereby will be lower; and there comes to pass what is written: “You cast them down when they were being lifted up.” For it does not say, “when they had been lifted up,” as if they were first lifted up and afterward cast down; but when they were being lifted up, then they were cast down. For to be lifted up is itself already to be cast down. Therefore, since now in the city of God, and to the city of God on pilgrimage in this age, humility is most highly commended, and is most highly proclaimed in its king, who is Christ, and the contrary fault of exaltation is taught by the sacred writings to rule most in his adversary, who is the devil: this is surely the great difference by which the two cities of which we speak are distinguished, the one a society of godly men, the other of the ungodly, each with the angels that belong to it, in whom there went before, on the one side, the love of God, on the other, the love of self.

The devil, then, would not have caught man in the manifest and open sin, where what God had forbidden to be done was done, unless man had already begun to please himself. For this is why he was also delighted by what was said: “You will be like gods.” They could have been this better by cleaving to the supreme and true principle through obedience, not by being their own principle through pride. For created gods are gods not by their own truth but by participation in the true God. But by seeking more one becomes less, when, choosing to be sufficient to oneself, one falls away from him who is truly sufficient. That evil, then, by which man, pleasing himself as if he were himself light, is turned away from that light which, if it pleased him, would make him light too, that evil, I say, went before in secret, so that this evil which was committed in the open might follow. For what is written is true: “Before a fall the heart is exalted, and before glory it is humbled.” That fall which happens in secret precedes the fall which happens openly, while the former is not thought to be a fall. For who thinks exaltation a fall, though there is already there the falling away by which the Most High has been forsaken? But who does not see that it is a fall when there is an evident and undoubted transgression of the command? For this reason God forbade that which, once it was committed, could be defended by no pretense of righteousness. And I dare to say that it is useful for the proud to fall into some open and manifest sin, so that they may be displeased with themselves, who had already fallen by pleasing themselves. For Peter was more healthily displeased with himself when he wept than pleased with himself when he presumed. The sacred psalm too says this: “Fill their faces with shame, and they will seek your name, O Lord”; that is, that you may please them as they seek your name, who had pleased themselves by seeking their own.

### Scripture references

- 2 Pet 2:10: allusion, medium confidence
- Matt 7:18: allusion, medium confidence
- Ps 73:18 (72:18 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Gen 3:5: quotation, high confidence
- Prov 18:12: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 26:75: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 83:16 (82:17 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sir 10:13 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sources: Sir 10:13 (“pride is the beginning of all sin”); 2 Pet 2:10 (Vulgate “sibi placentes,” self-pleasers); Matt 7:18; Ps 73:18 (LXX 72:18); Gen 3:5; Prov 18:12; Matt 26:75; Ps 83:16 (LXX 82:17). “Lift up your hearts” (sursum cor) alludes to the eucharistic liturgy's Sursum corda.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.13 (CSEL 40:31–34; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-11/#p-14-13).

## City of God 14.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-11/#p-14-14
- Source: CSEL 40:34
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Worse than the sin was Adam's and Eve's proud excuse-making, blaming the serpent and the woman instead of seeking pardon.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. De superbia transgressoris, quae ipsa fuit transgressione deterior. Sed est peior damnabiliorque superbia, qua etiam in peccatis manifestis suffugium excusationis inquiritur; sicut illi primi homines, quorum et illa dixit: Serpens seduxit me, et manducaui, et ille dixit: Mulier, quam dedisti mecum, haec mihi dedit a ligno, et edi. Nusquam hic sonat petitio ueniae, nusquam inploratio medicinae. Nam licet isti non sicut Cain quod commiserunt negent, adhuc tamen superbia in aliud quaerit referre quod perperam fecit: superbia mulieris in serpentem, superbia uiri in mulierem. Sed accusatio potius quam excusatio uera est, ubi mandati diuini est aperta transgressio. Neque enim hoc propterea non fecerunt, quia id mulier serpente suadente, uir muliere inpertiente commisit, quasi quidquam Deo, cui uel crederetur uel cederetur, anteponendam fuit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. Of the pride of the transgressor, which was worse than the transgression itself.

But worse and more damnable is the pride by which a refuge of excuse is sought even in manifest sins; as with those first human beings, of whom she said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate,” and he said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.” Nowhere here is there the sound of a plea for pardon, nowhere an entreaty for healing. For although these do not deny what they committed, as Cain did, yet pride still seeks to refer to another what it did wrongly: the woman's pride to the serpent, the man's pride to the woman. But where there is an open transgression of a divine command, this is an accusation rather than a true excuse. For they did not fail to do it because the woman committed it at the serpent's persuasion and the man at the woman's offering, as if anything were to be preferred to God, whether to be believed or to be yielded to.

### Scripture references

- Gen 3:13: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 3:12: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 4:9: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 3:12–13; Gen 4:9 (Cain's denial).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.14 (CSEL 40:34; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-11/#p-14-14).

## City of God 14.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-11/#p-14-15
- Source: CSEL 40:34–37
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The just penalty of disobedience was disobedience: man, given over to himself, cannot command his own mind and flesh; pains and pleasures of the flesh belong to the soul, and “lust” (libido) is the general name for every craving, though used chiefly of sexual desire.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. De iustitia retributionis, quam primi homines pro sua inoboedientia receperunt. Quia ergo contemtus est Deus iubens, qui creauerat, qui ad suam imaginem fecerat, qui ceteris animalibus praeposuerat, qui in paradiso constituerat, qui rerum omnium copiam salutisque praestiterat, qui praeceptis nec pluribus nec grandibus nec difficilibus onerauerat, sed uno breuissimo adque leuissimo ad oboedientiae salubritatem adminiculauerat, quo eam creaturam, cui libera seruitus expediret, se esse Dominum commonebat: iusta damnatio subsecuta est, talisque damnatio, ut homo, qui custodiendo mandatum futurus fuerat etiam carne spiritalis, fieret etiam mente carnalis et, qui sua superbia sibi placuerat, Dei iustitia sibi donaretur; nec sic, ut in sua esset omnimodis potestate, sed a se ipse quoque dissentiens sub illo, cui peccando consensit, pro libertate, quam concupiuit, duram miseramque ageret seruitutem, mortuus spiritu uolens et corpore moriturus inuitus, desertor aeternae uitae etiam aeterna, nisi gratia liberaret, morte damnatus. Quisquis huius modi damnationem uel nimiam uel iniustam putat, metiri profecto nescit, quanta fuerit iniquitas in peccando, ubi tanta erat non peccandi facilitas. Sicut enim Abrahae non inmerito magna oboedientia praedicatur, quia, ut occideret filium, res difficillima est imperata: ita in paradiso tanto maior inoboedientia fuit, quanto id, quod praeceptum est, nullius difficultatis fuit. Et sicut oboedientia secundi hominis eo praedicabilior, quo factus est oboediens usque ad mortem: ita inoboedientia primi hominis eo detestabilior, quo factus est inoboediens usque ad mortem. Ubi enim magna est inoboedientiae poena proposita et res a Creatore facilis imperata, quisnam satis explicet, quantum malum sit non oboedire in re facili et tantae potestatis imperio et tanto terrente supplicio? Denique, ut breuiter dicatur, in illius peccati poena quid inoboedientiae nisi inoboedientia retributa est? Nam quae hominis est alia miseria nisi aduersus eum ipsum inoboedientia eius ipsius, ut, quoniam noluit quod potuit, quod non potest uelit? In paradiso enim etiamsi non omnia poterat ante peccatum, quidquid tamen non poterat, non nolebat, et ideo poterat omnia quae uolebat; nunc uero sicut in eius stirpe cognoscimus et diuina scriptura testatur: Homo uanitati similis factus est. Quis enim enumerat, quam multa quae non potest uelit, dum sibi ipse, id est uoluntati eius ipse animus eius eoque inferior caro eius, non obtemperat? Ipso namque inuito et animus plerumque turbatur et caro dolet et ueterescit et moritur, et quidquid aliud patimur, quod non pateremur inuiti, si uoluntati nostrae nostra natura omni modo adque ex omnibus partibus oboediret. At enim aliquid caro patitur, quo seruire non sinitur. Quid interest unde, dum tamen per iustitiam dominantis Dei, cui subditi seruire noluimus, caro nostra nobis, quae subdita fuerat, non seruiendo molesta sit, quamuis nos Deo non seruiendo molesti nobis potuerimus esse, non illi? Neque enim sic ille nostro, ut nos seruitio corporis indigemus, et ideo nostra est quod recipimus, non illius poena quod fecimus. Dolores porro, qui dicuntur carnis, animae sunt in carne et ex carne. Quid enim caro per se ipsam sine anima uel dolet uel concupiscit? Sed quod concupiscere caro dicitur uel dolere, aut ipse homo est, sicut disseruimus, aut aliquid animae, quod carnis adficit passio, uel aspera, ut faciat dolorem, uel lenis, ut uoluptatem. Sed dolor carnis tantum modo offensio est animae ex carne et quaedam ab eius passione dissensio, sicut animi dolor, quae tristitia nuncupatur, dissensio est ab his rebus, quae nobis nolentibus acciderunt. Sed tristitiam plerumque praecedit metus, qui et ipse in anima est, non in carne. Dolorem autem carnis non praecedit ullus quasi metus carnis, qui ante dolorem in carne sentiatur. Voluptatem uero praecedit adpetitus quidam, qui sentitur in carne quasi cupiditas eius, sicut fames et sitis et ea, quae in genitalibus usitatius libido nominatur, cum hoc sit generale uocabulum omnis cupiditatis. Nam et ipsam iram nihil aliud esse quam ulciscendi libidinem ueteres definierunt; quamuis nonnumquam homo, ubi uindictae nullus est sensus, etiam rebus inanimis irascatur, et male scribentem stilum conlidat uel calamum frangat iratus. Verum et ista licet inrationabilior, tamen quaedam ulciscendi libido est, ut nescio qua, ut ita dixerim, quasi umbra retributionis, ut qui male faciunt, mala patiantur. Est igitur libido ulciscendi, quae ira dicitur; est libido habendi pecuniam, quae auaritia; est libido quomodocumque uincendi, quae peruicacia; est libido gloriandi, quae iactantia nuncupatur. Sunt multae uariaeque libidines, quarum nonnullae habent etiam uocabula propria, quaedam uero non habent. Quis enim facile dixerit, quid uocetur libido dominandi, quam tamen plurimum ualere in tyrannorum animis etiam ciuilia bella testantur?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. Of the justice of the retribution which the first human beings received for their disobedience.

Since, then, God was despised when he commanded, he who had created them, who had made them in his own image, who had set them over the other animals, who had placed them in paradise, who had supplied them with abundance of all things and of well-being, who had burdened them with commands neither many nor great nor difficult, but had supported them in the wholesomeness of obedience with a single one, very brief and very light, by which he reminded that creature, for whom free service was profitable, that he was Lord: a just condemnation followed, and such a condemnation that man, who by keeping the command would have been spiritual even in the flesh, became carnal even in mind; and he who in his pride had pleased himself was, by God's justice, given over to himself; yet not so as to be in every way in his own power, but, at odds with himself too, he led, under him to whom he consented by sinning, instead of the freedom he desired, a hard and wretched slavery; dead in spirit by his own will, and destined to die in body against his will; a deserter of eternal life, condemned also to eternal death, unless grace should set him free. Whoever thinks such a condemnation either excessive or unjust certainly does not know how to measure how great was the iniquity in sinning where there was so great an ease of not sinning. For as Abraham's great obedience is not undeservedly proclaimed, because a most difficult thing was commanded, to kill his son, so in paradise the disobedience was the greater as what was commanded was of no difficulty. And as the obedience of the second man is the more to be proclaimed in that he became obedient to death, so the disobedience of the first man is the more detestable in that he became disobedient to death. For where a great punishment of disobedience has been set forth and an easy thing commanded by the Creator, who can sufficiently explain how great an evil it is not to obey in an easy matter, both the command of so great a power and so great a terrifying punishment?

In short, to say it briefly, in the punishment of that sin what was the retribution for disobedience but disobedience? For what other misery of man is there but his own disobedience against himself, so that, because he would not what he could, he wills what he cannot? For in paradise, even if he could not do all things before sin, yet whatever he could not do he did not will, and therefore he could do all that he willed; but now, as we recognize in his stock and as divine Scripture testifies, “Man has become like vanity.” For who can count how many things he wills that he cannot do, while he himself does not obey himself, that is, while his very mind, and his flesh which is lower, do not obey his will? For against his will the mind is very often disturbed and the flesh feels pain, grows old, and dies, and whatever else we suffer which we would not suffer against our will if our nature obeyed our will in every way and in all its parts. But, it is said, the flesh suffers something by which it is not allowed to serve. What does it matter from where, so long as, by the justice of God our ruler, whom we would not serve as subjects, our flesh, which had been subject, is troublesome to us by not serving, although we, by not serving God, could be troublesome to ourselves, not to him? For he does not need our service as we need the service of the body; and therefore what we receive is our punishment, not his that we did.

Further, the pains which are called pains of the flesh are pains of the soul in the flesh and from the flesh. For what does the flesh by itself, without the soul, feel pain at or desire? But when the flesh is said to desire or to feel pain, it is either man himself, as we have argued, or some part of the soul which the passion of the flesh affects, either harsh, so as to cause pain, or gentle, so as to cause pleasure. But pain of the flesh is only an offense to the soul from the flesh and a kind of dissent from its passion, just as the pain of the mind, which is called sadness, is a dissent from things that have happened to us against our will. But sadness is usually preceded by fear, which too is in the soul, not in the flesh. But no fear of the flesh, as it were, precedes the pain of the flesh, to be felt in the flesh before the pain. Pleasure, however, is preceded by a certain craving, which is felt in the flesh as its desire, such as hunger and thirst and that which in the genitals is more usually called lust, though this is the general word for every desire. For the ancients defined even anger as nothing else than the lust for revenge; although sometimes a man, where there is no sense of vengeance, is angry even with inanimate things, and in anger dashes down a pen that writes badly or breaks a reed. But even this, though more irrational, is still a kind of lust for revenge, and I know not what, so to speak, shadow of retribution, that those who do evil should suffer evil. There is, then, a lust for revenge, which is called anger; there is a lust for having money, which is called avarice; there is a lust for winning at any cost, which is called obstinacy; there is a lust for glorying, which is called boasting. There are many and various lusts, some of which have their own names, while some do not. For who could easily say what the lust for ruling is called, which nevertheless is very powerful in the minds of tyrants, as civil wars too bear witness?

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:26: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 1:28: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:8: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:17: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 22:2: allusion, high confidence
- Phil 2:8: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 144:4 (143:4 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 7:15: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Tusc. 4.21 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Terms: in Books 12–14 libido is rendered “lust” throughout, both in the general sense Augustine defines here (any craving, e.g. lust for revenge, for ruling) and in its narrower sense of sexual desire; concupiscentia is “concupiscence” and cupiditas “desire.” Sources: Gen 1:26–28; Gen 2:8, 16–17; Gen 22 (Abraham); Phil 2:8; Ps 144:4 (LXX 143:4); Rom 7:15–23 in view. The definition of anger as lust for revenge is in Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 3.11 and 4.21.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.15 (CSEL 40:34–37; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-11/#p-14-15).

## City of God 14.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-11/#p-14-16
- Source: CSEL 40:37–38
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Lust, in its narrow sense of sexual arousal, overwhelms the mind and does not obey the will, so that a wise married person would prefer to beget children without it if he could.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. De libidinis malo, cuius nomen cum multis uitiis congruat, proprie tamen motibus obsceni caloris adscribitur. Cum igitur sint multarum libidines rerum, tamen, cum libido dicitur neque cuius rei libido sit additur, non fere adsolet animo occurrere nisi illa, qua obscenae partes corporis excitantur. Haec autem sibi non solum totum corpus nec solum extrinsecus, uerum etiam intrinsecus uindicat totumque commouet hominem animi simul adfectu cum carnis adpetitu coniuncto adque permixto, ut ea uoluptas sequatur, qua maior in corporis uoluptatibus nulla est; ita ut momento ipso temporis, quo ad eius peruenitur extremum, paene omnis acies et quasi uigilia cogitationis obruatur. Quis autem amicus sapientiae sanctorumque gaudiorum coniugalem agens uitam, sed, sicut apostolus monuit, sciens suum uas possidere in sanctificatione et honore, non in morbo desiderii, sicut et gentes, quae ignorant Deum, non mallet, si posset, sine hac libidine filios procreare, ut etiam in hoc serendae prolis officio sic eius menti ea, quae ad hoc opus creata sunt, quem ad modum cetera suis quaeque operibus distributa membra seruirent, nutu uoluntatis acta, non aestu libidinis incitata? Sed neque ipsi amatores huius uoluptatis siue ad concubitus coniugales siue ad inmunditias flagitiorum cum uoluerint commouentur; sed aliquando inportunus est ille motus poscente nullo, aliquando autem destituit inhiantem, et cum in animo concupiscentia ferueat, friget in corpore; adque ita mirum in modum non solum generandi uoluntati, uerum etiam lasciuiendi libidini libido non seruit, et cum tota plerumque menti cohibenti aduersetur, nonnumquam et aduersus se ipsam diuiditur commotoque animo in commouendo corpore se ipsa non sequitur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. Of the evil of lust, whose name fits many faults, but is properly assigned to the motions of obscene heat.

Although, then, there are lusts for many things, yet when lust is spoken of without adding what it is lust for, there usually occurs to the mind hardly anything but that by which the shameful parts of the body are aroused. And this lust claims for itself not only the whole body, nor only from without, but also from within, and moves the whole man, the affection of the mind being joined and mingled with the craving of the flesh, so that there follows that pleasure than which none is greater among the pleasures of the body; so much so that at the very moment of time when its climax is reached, almost all the sharpness and, as it were, the watchfulness of thought is overwhelmed. But what friend of wisdom and of holy joys, living a married life, yet, as the apostle warned, knowing how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor, not in the disease of desire, like the gentiles who do not know God, would not prefer, if he could, to beget children without this lust, so that even in this duty of sowing offspring the members created for this work might serve his mind, as the other members serve, each allotted to its own works, set in motion by the bidding of the will, not stirred by the heat of lust? But not even the lovers of this pleasure themselves are aroused when they will, whether for conjugal intercourse or for the impurities of shameful acts; but sometimes that motion is importunate when no one asks for it, and sometimes it deserts one who longs for it, and while concupiscence burns in the mind, it is cold in the body; and so, in a wonderful way, lust does not serve not only the will to beget but even the lust to wanton; and though for the most part it wholly opposes the mind that restrains it, sometimes it is divided even against itself, and, having stirred the mind, does not follow itself in stirring the body.

### Scripture references

- 1 Thess 4:4: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Thess 4:5: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- 1 Thess 4:4–5 quoted. Augustine's claim that a wise spouse would prefer procreation without lust is his own view, stated here without comment. On the terms lust and concupiscence see 14.15.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.16 (CSEL 40:37–38; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-11/#p-14-16).

## City of God 14.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-11/#p-14-17
- Source: CSEL 40:38–40
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Adam and Eve were not blind before the fall; their eyes were opened to the shame of the flesh's new disobedience, a penalty in kind, so they covered their genitals, as all nations still do.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. De nuditate primorum hominum, quam post peccatum turpem pudendamque uiderunt. Merito huius libidinis maxime pudet, merito et ipsa membra, quae suo quodam, ut ita dixerim, iure, non omni modo ad arbitrium nostrum mouet aut non mouet, pudenda dicuntur, quod ante peccatum hominis non fuerunt. Nam sicut scriptum est: Nudi erant, et non confundebantur, non quod eis sua nuditas esset incognita, sed turpis nuditas nondum erat, quia nondum libido membra illa praeter arbitrium commouebat, nondum ad hominis inoboedientiam redarguendam sua inoboedientia caro quodam modo testimonium perhibebat. Neque enim caeci creati erant, ut inperitum uulgus opinatur; quando quidem et ille uidit animalia, quibus nomina inposuit, et de illa legitur: Vidit mulier quia bonum lignum in escam et quia placet oculis ad uidendum. Patebant ergo oculi eorum, sed ad hoc non erant aperti, hoc est non adtenti, ut cognoscerent quid eis indumento gratiae praestaretur, quando membra eorum uoluntati repugnare nesciebant. Qua gratia remota, ut poena reciproca inoboedientia plecteretur, extitit in motu corporis quaedam inpudens nouitas, unde esset indecens nuditas, et fecit adtentos reddiditque confusos. Hinc est quod, postea quam mandatum Dei aperta transgressione uiolarunt, scriptum est de illis: Et aperti sunt oculi amborum et agnouerunt quia nudi erant, et consuerunt folia fici et fecerunt sibi campestria. Aperti sunt, inquit, oculi amborum, non ad uidendum, nam et antea uidebant, sed ad discernendum inter bonum quod amiserant et malum quo ceciderant. Unde et ipsum lignum, eo quod istam faceret dignoscentiam, si ad uescendum contra uetitum tangeretur, ex ea re nomen accepit, ut appellaretur lignum sciendi boni et mali. Experta enim morbi molestia euidentior fit etiam iucunditas sanitatis. Cognouerunt ergo quia nudi erant, nudati scilicet ea gratia, qua fiebat ut nuditas corporis nulla eos lege peccati menti eorum repugnante confunderet. Hoc itaque cognouerunt, quod felicius ignorarent, si Deo credentes et oboedientes non committerent, quod eos cogeret experiri infidelitas et inoboedientia quid noceret. Proinde confusi inoboedientia carnis suae, tamquam teste poena inoboedientiae suae, consuerunt folia fici et fecerunt sibi campestria, id est succinctoria genitalium. Nam quidam interpretes succinctoria posuerunt. Porro autem campestria latinum quidem uerbum est, sed ex eo dictum, quod iuuenes, qui nudi exercebantur in campo, pudenda operiebant; unde qui ita succincti sunt, campestratos uulgus appellat. Quod itaque aduersus damnatam culpa inoboedientiae uoluntatem libido inoboedienter mouebat, uerecundia pudenter tegebat. Ex hoc omnes gentes, quoniam ab illa stirpe procreatae sunt, usque adeo tenent insitum pudenda uelare, ut quidam barbari illas corporis partes nec in balneis nudas habeant, sed cum earum tegimentis lauent. Per opacas quoque Indiae solitudines, cum quidam nudi philosophentur, unde gymnosophistae nominantur, adhibent tamen genitalibus tegmina, quibus per cetera membrorum carent.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. Of the nakedness of the first human beings, which after sin they saw to be shameful and to be ashamed of.

Rightly is there shame above all at this lust, and rightly are those members too, which it moves or does not move by its own, so to speak, right, not in every way at our choice, called shameful, which they were not before man's sin. For, as it is written, “They were naked and were not confounded,” not that their nakedness was unknown to them, but nakedness was not yet shameful, because lust did not yet move those members beyond the choice of the will, and the flesh did not yet, by its own disobedience, in some way bear witness to convict the disobedience of man. For they had not been created blind, as the ignorant crowd thinks; since he saw the animals to which he gave names, and of her we read, “The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes to look at.” Their eyes, then, were open, but they were not opened to this, that is, not attentive, so as to know what was provided them by the garment of grace, when their members did not know how to resist the will. When this grace was withdrawn, so that disobedience might be punished by a penalty in kind, there arose in the motion of the body a certain shameless novelty, from which nakedness became indecent; and it made them attentive and left them confounded. Hence it is that, after they had violated God's command by open transgression, it is written of them: “And the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.” The eyes of both, it says, were opened, not to see, for they saw before too, but to discern between the good they had lost and the evil into which they had fallen. Hence the tree itself too, because it would produce this discernment if it were touched for eating against the prohibition, took its name from this, so as to be called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For when the trouble of disease has been experienced, the pleasantness of health too becomes more evident. They knew, then, that they were naked, stripped, that is, of that grace by which it came about that the nakedness of the body did not confound them, since no law of sin opposed their mind. So they came to know what they would more happily have been ignorant of, if, believing and obeying God, they had not committed what forced them to experience what harm unbelief and disobedience do. Accordingly, confounded by the disobedience of their flesh, as by a penalty bearing witness to their own disobedience, they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves campestria, that is, coverings for the genitals. For some translators have put succinctoria (girdles). Campestria is indeed a Latin word, but it comes from this, that the young men who exercised naked on the campus (field) covered their shameful parts; hence those who are so girded the common people call campestrati. So what lust was disobediently moving against the will condemned for the guilt of disobedience, modesty modestly covered. From this all nations, since they have been begotten from that stock, hold it so ingrained to veil the shameful parts that some barbarians do not have those parts of the body naked even in the baths, but bathe with their coverings on. In the shady solitudes of India too, although certain men philosophize naked, whence they are called gymnosophists, they nevertheless put coverings on their genitals, which they lack on their other members.

### Scripture references

- Gen 2:25: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:20: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 3:6: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 3:7: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:9: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 7:23: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sources: Gen 2:25; Gen 2:19–20; Gen 3:6–7; Gen 2:9; Rom 7:23 (the law of sin). Campestria were loincloths worn for exercise on the Campus Martius.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.17 (CSEL 40:38–40; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-11/#p-14-17).

## City of God 14.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-11/#p-14-18
- Source: CSEL 40:40–42
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Even lawful marital intercourse, though honorable and publicly known, is hidden from every eye, a sign that shame accompanies it as a punishment while the act itself is natural and fitting.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. De pudore concubitus non solum uulgaris, sed etiam coniugalis. Opus uero ipsum, quod libidine tali peragitur, non solum in quibusque stupris, ubi latebrae ad subterfugienda humana iudicia requiruntur, uerum etiam in usu scortorum, quam terrena ciuitas licitam turpitudinem fecit, quamuis id agatur, quod eius ciuitatis nulla lex uindicat, deuitat tamen publicum etiam permissa adque inpunita libido conspectum, et uerecundia naturali habent prouisum lupanaria ipsa secretum faciliusque potuit inpudicitia non habere uincla prohibitionis, quam inpudentia remouere latibula illius foeditatis. Sed hanc etiam ipsi turpes turpitudinem uocant, cuius licet sint amatores, ostentatores esse non audent. Quid? concubitus coniugalis, qui secundum matrimonialium praescripta tabularum procreandorum fit causa liberorum, nonne et ipse quamquam sit licitus et honestus, remotum ab arbitris cubile conquirit? Nonne omnes famulos adque ipsos etiam paranymphos et quoscumque ingredi quaelibet necessitudo permiserat, ante mittit foras, quam uel blandiri coniux coniugi incipiat? Et quoniam, sicut ait etiam quidam Romani maximus auctor eloquii, omnia recte facta in luce se conlocari uolunt, id est adpetunt sciri: hoc recte factum sic adpetit sciri, ut tamen erubescat uideri. Quis enim nescit, ut filii procreentur, quid inter se coniuges agant? quando quidem ut id agatur, tanta celebritate ducuntur uxores; et tamen cum agitur, unde filii nascantur, nec ipsi filii, si qui inde iam nati sunt, testes fieri permittuntur. Sic enim hoc recte factum ad sui notitiam lucem adpetit animorum, ut tamen refugiat oculorum. Unde hoc, nisi quia sic geritur quod deceat ex natura, ut etiam quod pudeat comitetur ex poena?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. Of the shame of sexual intercourse, not only illicit but also conjugal.

As for the act itself which is performed by such lust, not only in all acts of sexual immorality, where hiding places are sought to escape human judgment, but also in the use of harlots, which the earthly city has made a lawful shamefulness, although what is done there is punished by no law of that city, yet even a permitted and unpunished lust avoids the public gaze; and by a natural modesty the brothels themselves have provided privacy, and unchastity found it easier to do without the chains of prohibition than shamelessness to remove the hiding places of that foulness. But even the shameful themselves call this shameful, of which, though they are lovers of it, they do not dare to be displayers. What of conjugal intercourse, which takes place, according to the prescriptions of the marriage contract, for the sake of begetting children? Does it not too, though it is lawful and honorable, seek a bedroom removed from witnesses? Does it not send outside all the servants, and even the groomsmen themselves and whoever any relationship had allowed to enter, before the husband even begins to caress his wife? And since, as even a certain very great author of Roman eloquence says, all right actions wish to be placed in the light, that is, seek to be known, this right action so seeks to be known that it nevertheless blushes to be seen. For who does not know what spouses do with each other so that children may be begotten? Since, indeed, wives are married with such great ceremony in order that it may be done; and yet when that is done from which children are born, not even the children themselves, if any have already been born of it, are allowed to become witnesses. For thus this right action seeks the light of minds for knowledge of itself, yet flees that of eyes. Whence is this, unless because what is fitting by nature is so carried out that what is shameful accompanies it by way of punishment?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Tusc. 2.64 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The “very great author of Roman eloquence” is Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 2.64. “Sexual immorality” renders stupra; the matrimonial tablets (tabulae matrimoniales) were the marriage contract, which named the begetting of children as its purpose.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.18 (CSEL 40:40–42; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-11/#p-14-18).

## City of God 14.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-11/#p-14-19
- Source: CSEL 40:42–43
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The philosophers rightly saw anger and lust as vicious parts of the soul needing reason's rule, but this disorder is the sickness of sin; lust alone moves the genitals apart from the will, which is why its acts are hidden.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. Quod partes irae adque libidinis, quae in homine tam uitiose mouentur, ut eas necesse sit frenis sapientiae cohiberi, in illa ante peccatum naturae sanitate non fuerint. Hinc est quod et illi philosophi, qui ueritati propius accesserunt, iram adque libidinem uitiosas animi partes esse confessi sunt, eo quod turbide adque inordinate mouerentur ad ea etiam, quae sapientia perpetrari uetat, ac per hoc opus habere moderatrice mente adque ratione. Quam partem animi tertiam uelut in arce quadam ad istas regendas perhibent conlocatam, ut illa imperante, istis seruientibus possit in homine iustitia ex omni animi parte seruari. Hae igitur partes, quas et in homine sapiente ac temperante fatentur esse uitiosas, ut eas ab his rebus, ad quas iniuste mouentur, mens conpescendo et cohibendo refrenet ac reuocet adque ad ea permittat, quae sapientiae lege concessa sunt (sicut iram ad exercendam iustam cohercitionem, sicut libidinem ad propagandae prolis officium) — hae, inquam, partes in paradiso ante peccatum uitiosae non erant. Non enim contra rectam uoluntatem ad aliquid mouebantur, unde necesse esset eas rationis tamquam frenis regentibus abstinere. Nam quod nunc ita mouentur et ab eis, qui temperanter et iuste et pie uiuunt, alias facilius, alias difficilius, tamen cohibendo et repugnando modificantur, non est utique sanitas ex natura, sed languor ex culpa. Quod autem irae opera aliarumque adfectionum in quibusque dictis adque factis non sic abscondit uerecundia, ut opera libidinis, quae fiunt genitalibus membris, quid causae est, nisi quia in ceteris membra corporis non ipsae adfectiones, sed, cum eis consenserit, uoluntas mouet, quae in usu eorum omnino dominatur? Nam quisquis uerbum emittit iratus uel etiam quemquam percutit, non posset hoc facere, nisi lingua et manus iubente quodam modo uoluntate mouerentur; quae membra, etiam cum ira nulla est, mouentur eadem uoluntate. At uero genitales corporis partes ita libido suo iuri quodam modo mancipauit, ut moueri non ualeant, si ipsa defuerit et nisi ipsa uel ultro uel excitata surrexerit. Hoc est quod pudet, hoc est quod intuentium oculos erubescendo deuitat; magisque fert homo spectantium multitudinem, quando iniuste irascitur homini, quam uel unius aspectum et quando iuste miscetur uxori.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. That the parts of anger and lust, which are moved so viciously in man that they must be restrained by the reins of wisdom, did not exist in that health of nature before sin.

Hence it is that even those philosophers who came nearer to the truth confessed that anger and lust are vicious parts of the soul, because they are moved in a disturbed and disordered way even toward things which wisdom forbids to be done, and therefore need a governing mind and reason. This third part of the soul they say is placed as in a kind of citadel to rule these, so that, with it commanding and these serving, justice may be preserved in man from every part of the soul. These parts, then, which they admit are vicious even in a wise and temperate man, so that the mind must rein them in and call them back by checking and restraining them from those things to which they are unjustly moved, and allow them toward those that are granted by the law of wisdom (as anger for exercising just correction, as lust for the duty of propagating offspring): these parts, I say, were not vicious in paradise before sin. For they were not moved toward anything contrary to a right will, so that it would be necessary to hold them back as with the governing reins of reason. For that they are now so moved, and are moderated by those who live temperately, justly, and piously, sometimes more easily, sometimes with more difficulty, yet by restraining and resisting, is certainly not health from nature but sickness from guilt. And why is it that modesty does not hide the works of anger and of other affections in any words and deeds as it hides the works of lust, which are done by the genital members, unless because in the others it is not the affections themselves that move the members of the body, but the will, when it has consented to them, which altogether rules in their use? For whoever utters a word in anger or even strikes someone could not do this unless tongue and hand were moved, as it were, at the command of the will; and these members are moved by the same will even when there is no anger. But lust has so enslaved the genital parts of the body to its own jurisdiction, as it were, that they cannot be moved if it is absent, and unless it has risen of its own accord or when aroused. This is what shames; this is what, blushing, avoids the eyes of onlookers; and a man will more readily bear a crowd of spectators when he is unjustly angry with a man than the gaze of a single one even when he justly unites with his wife.

### Scripture references

- Titus 2:12: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Resp. 4.439d (Plato (works)): allusion, high confidence
- Cicero, Tusc. 1.20 (Cicero): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The tripartite soul (reason ruling from a “citadel” over anger and desire) is Plato's, Republic 4.439d–441e and Timaeus 70a, as reported also by Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 1.20. Titus 2:12 (“temperately, justly, piously”) echoed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.19 (CSEL 40:42–43; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-11/#p-14-19).

## City of God 14.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-20/#p-14-20
- Source: CSEL 40:43–44
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The Cynics' teaching that marital intercourse may be done in public was defeated by natural shame; the shame of lust shows the penalty of the first disobedience, borne in the very organs of generation and removed only by grace.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. De uanissima turpitudine Cynicorum. Hoc illi canini philosophi, hoc est Cynici, non uiderunt, proferentes contra humanam uerecundiam quid aliud quam caninam, hoc est inmundam inpudentemque sententiam? ut scilicet, quoniam iustum est quod fit in uxore, palam non pudeat id agere nec in uico aut platea qualibet coniugalem concubitum deuitare. Vicit tamen pudor naturalis opinionem huius erroris. Nam etsi perhibent, hoc aliquando gloriabundum fecisse Diogenem, ita putantem sectam suam nobiliorem futuram, si in hominum memoria insignior eius inpudentia figeretur, postea tamen a Cynicis fieri cessatum est, plusque ualuit pudor, ut erubescerent homines hominibus, quam error, ut homines canibus esse similes adfectarent. Unde et illum uel illos, qui hoc fecisse referuntur, potius arbitror concumbentium motus dedisse oculis hominum nescientium quid sub pallio gereretur, quam humano premente conspectu potuisse illam peragi uoluptatem. Ibi enim philosophi non erubescebant uideri se uelle concumbere, ubi libido ipsa erubesceret surgere. Et nunc uidemus adhuc esse philosophos Cynicos; hi enim sunt, qui non solum amiciuntur pallio, uerum etiam clauam ferunt; nemo tamen eorum audet hoc facere, quod si aliqui ausi essent, ut non dicam ictibus lapidantium, certe conspuentium saliuis obruerentur. Pudet igitur huius libidinis humanam sine ulla dubitatione naturam, et merito pudet. In eius quippe inoboedientia, quae genitalia corporis membra solis suis motibus subdidit et potestati uoluntatis eripuit, satis ostenditur, quid sit hominis illi primae inoboedientiae retributum; quod in ea parte maxime oportuit apparere, qua generatur ipsa natura, quae illo primo et magno in deterius est mutata peccato; a cuius nexu nullus eruitur, nisi id quod, cum omnes in uno essent, in communem perniciem perpetratum est et Dei iustitia uindicatum, Dei gratia in singulis expietur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. Of the utterly vain shamelessness of the Cynics.

This the canine philosophers, that is, the Cynics, did not see, putting forward against human modesty what else but a canine, that is, an unclean and shameless, opinion: namely, that since what is done with one's wife is just, one should not be ashamed to do it openly, nor avoid conjugal intercourse in any street or square. Yet natural shame has overcome the opinion of this error. For although they report that Diogenes once did this, glorying in it, thinking that his sect would be the more famous if his shamelessness were fixed more notably in men's memory, yet afterward the Cynics ceased to do it; and shame, so that men blushed before men, prevailed more than error, so that men affected to be like dogs. Hence I think that he, or those who are reported to have done this, rather presented the motions of people lying together to the eyes of men who did not know what was being done under the cloak, than that that pleasure could have been accomplished under the pressure of human gaze. For there the philosophers did not blush to be seen wishing to lie together, where lust itself would have blushed to rise. And we see that there are still Cynic philosophers now; for these are the ones who not only wrap themselves in the cloak but also carry a club; yet none of them dares to do this; and if any dared, they would be overwhelmed, I will not say by the blows of those stoning them, but certainly by the spittle of those spitting on them. Human nature, then, is without any doubt ashamed of this lust, and rightly ashamed. For in its disobedience, which has subjected the genital members of the body to its motions alone and snatched them from the power of the will, it is sufficiently shown what was repaid to man for that first disobedience; and it was fitting that this should appear above all in that part by which nature itself is begotten, which was changed for the worse by that first and great sin; from whose bond no one is rescued unless what was committed, when all were in one, to the common ruin and punished by the justice of God, is expiated in each by the grace of God.

### Translation notes

- Diogenes of Sinope, founder of Cynicism (cf. Diogenes Laertius 6.69); there is no extrabiblical entry for Diogenes. “Canine” plays on Greek kyōn (dog), the source of “Cynic.”

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.20 (CSEL 40:43–44; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-20/#p-14-20).

## City of God 14.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-20/#p-14-21
- Source: CSEL 40:44–45
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The blessing “Increase and multiply” was given before sin, so procreation belongs to the glory of marriage, not to sin's punishment; it would not have needed lust, whatever some interpreters hold.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. De benedictione multiplicandae fecunditatis humanae ante peccatum data, quam praeuaricatio non ademerit et cui libidinis morbus accesserit. Absit itaque, ut credamus illos coniuges in paradiso constitutos per hanc libidinem, de qua erubescendo eadem membra texerunt, inpleturos fuisse quod in sua benedictione Deus dixit: Crescite et multiplicamini et replete terram. Post peccatum quippe orta est haec libido; post peccatum eam natura non inpudens amissa potestate, cui corpus ex omni parte seruiebat, sensit adtendit, erubuit, operuit. Illa uero benedictio nuptiarum, ut coniugati crescerent et multiplicarentur et inplerent terram, quamuis et in delinquentibus manserit, tamen antequam delinquerent data est, ut cognosceretur procreationem filiorum ad gloriam conubii, non ad poenam pertinere peccati. Sed nunc homines, profecto illius quae in paradiso fuit felicitatis ignari, nisi per hoc, quod experti sunt, id est per libidinem, de qua uidemus etiam ipsam honestatem erubescere nuptiarum, non potuisse gigni filios opinantur, alii scripturas diuinas, ubi legitur post peccatum puduisse nuditatis et pudenda esse contecta, prorsus non accipientes, sed infideliter inridentes; alii uero quamuis eas accipiant et honorent, illud tamen quod dictum est: Crescite et multiplicamini, non secundum carnalem fecunditatem uolunt intellegi, quia et secundum animam legitur tale aliquid dictum: Multiplicabis me in anima mea in uirtute, ut id, quod in genesi sequitur: Et inplete terram et dominamini eius, terram intellegant carnem, quam praesentia sua inplet anima eiusque maxime dominatur, cum in uirtute multiplicatur; carnales autem fetus sine libidine, quae post peccatum exorta inspecta, confusa uelata est, nec tunc nasci potuisse, sicut neque nunc possunt, nec in paradiso futuros fuisse, sed foris, sicut et factum est. Nam postea quam inde dimissi sunt, ad gignendos filios coierunt eosque genuerunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. Of the blessing of multiplying human fruitfulness given before sin, which transgression did not take away, and to which the disease of lust was added.

Far be it from us, then, to believe that that married couple placed in paradise would have fulfilled through this lust, at which they blushed and covered those members, what God said in his blessing: “Increase and multiply and fill the earth.” For this lust arose after sin; after sin nature, not shameless, having lost the power which the body obeyed in every part, felt it, noticed it, blushed, and covered it. But that blessing of marriage, that the married should increase and multiply and fill the earth, although it remained even in those who sinned, was nevertheless given before they sinned, so that it might be known that the procreation of children belongs to the glory of marriage, not to the punishment of sin. But now men, certainly ignorant of that happiness which was in paradise, think that children could not have been begotten except through what they have experienced, that is, through lust, at which we see even the honorableness of marriage blush. Some of them do not accept the divine Scriptures at all, where we read that after sin they were ashamed of their nakedness and covered their shameful parts, but mock them in unbelief; while others, though they accept and honor them, yet want the saying “Increase and multiply” to be understood not of fleshly fruitfulness, because something similar is read said of the soul, “You will multiply me in my soul in strength”; so that in what follows in Genesis, “And fill the earth and have dominion over it,” they understand the earth as the flesh, which the soul fills with its presence and over which it has most dominion when it is multiplied in strength; but they hold that fleshly offspring could not have been born without lust, which arose after sin, was noticed, was a source of confusion, and was veiled, either then or now, and would not have been in paradise but outside it, as in fact happened. For after they had been sent out from there, they came together to beget children and begot them.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:28: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 3:7: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 138:3 (137:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Gen 4:1: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 1:28; Ps 138:3 (LXX 137:3) in the Old Latin form; Gen 4:1. Augustine rejects both pagans who mock Genesis and Christian interpreters who read the blessing only spiritually.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.21 (CSEL 40:44–45; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-20/#p-14-21).

## City of God 14.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-20/#p-14-22
- Source: CSEL 40:45–47
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Marriage and procreation, blessed by God before sin, belong to the real, bodily difference of male and female, as Christ taught when asked about divorce: “What God has joined, let man not separate.”

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. De copula coniugali a Deo primitus instituta adque benedicta. Nos autem nullo modo dubitamus secundum benedictionem Dei crescere et multiplicari et inplere terram donum esse nuptiarum, quas Deus ante peccatum hominis ab initio constituit, creando masculum et feminam, qui sexus euidens utique in carne est. Huic quippe operi Dei etiam benedictio ipsa subiuncta est. Nam cum scriptura dixisset: Masculum et feminam fecit eos, continuo subdidit: Et benedixit eos Deus dicens: Crescite et multiplicamini et inplete terram et dominamini eius, et cetera. Quae omnia quamquam non inconuenienter possint etiam ad intellectum spiritalem referri, masculum tamen et feminam non sicut simile aliquid etiam in homine uno intellegi potest, quia uidelicet in eo aliud est quod regit, aliud quod regitur; sed sicut euidentissime apparet in diuersi sexus corporibus, masculum et feminam ita creatos, ut prolem generando crescerent et multiplicarentur et inplerent terram, magnae absurditatis est reluctari. Neque enim de spiritu qui imperat et carne quae obtemperat, aut de animo rationali qui regit et inrationali cupiditate quae regitur, aut de uirtute contemplatiua quae excellit et de actiua quae subditur, aut de intellectu mentis et sensu corporis, sed aperte de uinculo coniugali, quo inuicem sibi uterque sexus obstringitur, Dominus interrogatus utrum liceret quacumque causa dimittere uxorem, quoniam propter duritiam cordis Israelitarum Moyses dari permisit libellum repudii, respondit adque ait: Non legistis, quia, qui fecit ab initio, masculum et feminam fecit eos et dixit: Propter hoc dimittet homo patrem et matrem et adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una? Itaque iam non sunt duo, sed una caro. Quod ergo Deus coniunxit, homo non separet. Certum est igitur masculum et feminam ita primitus institutos, ut nunc homines duos diuersi sexus uidemus et nouimus, unum autem dici uel propter coniunctionem uel propter originem feminae, quae de masculi latere creata est. Nam et apostolus per hoc primum, quod Deo instituente praecessit, exemplum singulos quosque admonet, ut uiri uxores suas diligant.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. Of the conjugal union, instituted and blessed by God from the beginning.

We, however, in no way doubt that to increase and multiply and fill the earth according to God's blessing is the gift of marriage, which God established from the beginning, before man's sin, by creating male and female, a difference of sex which is certainly evident in the flesh. For to this work of God the blessing itself was also joined. For when Scripture had said, “Male and female he made them,” it at once added, “And God blessed them, saying, Increase and multiply and fill the earth and have dominion over it,” and so on. Although all these things can also, not unfittingly, be referred to a spiritual understanding, yet male and female cannot be understood as something similar within one man, namely, that in him one thing rules and another is ruled; but it is a great absurdity to resist the plainest evidence, in the bodies of different sex, that male and female were so created that by begetting offspring they might increase and multiply and fill the earth. For it was not about the spirit that commands and the flesh that obeys, or about the rational mind that rules and the irrational desire that is ruled, or about the contemplative virtue that excels and the active that is subordinate, or about the understanding of the mind and the sense of the body, but plainly about the conjugal bond, by which each sex is bound to the other, that the Lord, when asked whether it was lawful to put away one's wife for any cause, since Moses, because of the hardness of heart of the Israelites, permitted a bill of divorce to be given, answered and said: “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man will leave father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two will be in one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined, let man not separate.” It is certain, then, that male and female were established at the first just as we now see and know two human beings of different sex, and that they are called one either because of their union or because of the origin of the woman, who was created from the male's side. For the apostle too, by this first example, which went before by God's institution, admonishes each and every one that husbands should love their wives.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:27: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:28: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 19:3: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 19:4: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 19:5: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 19:6: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 19:8: allusion, high confidence
- Deut 24:1: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:24: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:22: allusion, high confidence
- Eph 5:25: allusion, high confidence
- Eph 5:28: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Sources: Gen 1:27–28; Matt 19:3–6 (with Deut 24:1 and Gen 2:24); Gen 2:21–22; Eph 5:25, 28. The passage on divorce is quoted by Augustine to establish the bodily reality of marriage; the translation follows his Latin exactly.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.22 (CSEL 40:45–47; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-20/#p-14-22).

## City of God 14.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-20/#p-14-23
- Source: CSEL 40:47–50
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Had there been no sin, the full number of the saints would have been begotten in paradise without shameful lust, the genital members obeying the will as hands and feet do; Augustine asks pardon for treating the subject.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. an etiam in paradiso generandum fuisset, si nemo peccasset, uel utrum contra aestum libidinis pugnatura illic fuisset ratio castitatis. Quisquis autem dicit non fuisse coituros nec generaturos, nisi peccassent, quid dicit, nisi propter numerositatem sanctorum necessarium hominis fuisse peccatum? Si enim non peccando soli remanerent, quia, sicut putant, nisi peccassent, generare non possent: profecto ut non soli duo iusti homines possent esse, sed multi, necessarium peccatum fuit. Quod si credere absurdum est, illud potius est credendum, quod sanctorum numerus quantus conplendae illi sufficit beatissimae ciuitati, tantus existeret, etsi nemo peccasset, quantus nunc per Dei gratiam de multitudine colligitur peccatorum, quo usque filii saeculi huius generant et generantur. Et ideo illae nuptiae dignae felicitate paradisi, si peccatum non fuisset, et diligendam prolem gignerent et pudendam libidinem non haberent. Sed quo modo id fieri posset, nunc non est quo demonstretur exemplo. Nec ideo tamen incredibile debet uideri etiam illud unum sine ista libidine uoluntati potuisse seruire, cui tot membra nunc seruiunt. An uero manus et pedes mouemus, cum uolumus, ad ea quae his membris agenda sunt, sine ullo renisu, tanta facilitate, quanta et in nobis et in aliis uidemus, maxime in artificibus quorumque operum corporalium, ubi ad exercendam infirmiorem tardioremque naturam agilior accessit industria; et non credimus ad opus generationis filiorum, si libido non fuisset, quae peccato inoboedientiae retributa est, oboedienter hominibus ad uoluntatis nutum similiter ut cetera potuisse illa membra seruire? Nonne Cicero in libris de re publica, cum de imperiorum differentia disputaret et huius rei similitudinem ex natura hominis adsumeret, ut filiis dixit imperari corporis membris propter oboediendi facilitatem; uitiosas uero animi partes ut seruos asperiore imperio coherceri? Et utique ordine naturali animus anteponitur corpori, et tamen ipse animus imperat corpori facilius quam sibi. Verum tamen haec libido, de qua nunc disserimus, eo magis erubescenda extitit, quod animus in ea nec sibi efficaciter imperat, ut omnino non libeat, nec omni modo corpori, ut pudenda membra uoluntas potius quam libido commoueat; quod si ita esset, pudenda non essent. Nunc uero pudet animum resisti sibi a corpore, quod ei natura inferiore subiectum est. In aliis quippe adfectionibus cum sibi resistit, ideo minus pudet, quia, cum a se ipso uincitur, ipse se uincit; etsi inordinate adque uitiose, quia ex his partibus, quae rationi subici debent, tamen a partibus suis ac per hoc, ut dictum est, a se ipso uincitur. Nam cum ordinate se animus uincit, ut inrationabiles motus eius menti rationique subdantur, si tamen et illa Deo subdita est, laudis adque uirtutis est. Minus tamen pudet, cum sibi animus ex uitiosis suis partibus non obtemperat, quam cum ei corpus, quod alterum ab illo est adque infra illum est et cuius sine illo natura non uiuit, uolenti iubentique non cedit. Sed cum alia membra retinentur uoluntatis imperio, sine quibus illa, quae contra uoluntatem libidine concitantur, id quod adpetunt inplere non possunt, pudicitia custoditur, non amissa, sed non permissa delectatione peccati. Hunc renisum, hanc repugnantiam, hanc uoluntatis et libidinis rixam uel certe ad uoluntatis sufficientiam libidinis indigentiam procul dubio, nisi culpabilis inoboedientia poenali inoboedientia plecteretur, in paradiso nuptiae non haberent, sed uoluntati membra, ut cetera, ita cuncta seruirent. Ita genitale aruum uas in hoc opus creatum seminaret, ut nunc terram manus, et quod modo de hac re nobis uolentibus diligentius disputare uerecundia resistit et conpellit ueniam honore praefato a pudicis auribus poscere, quur id fieret nulla causa esset, sed in omnia, quae de huius modi membris sensum cogitantis adtingerent, sine ullo timore obscenitatis liber sermo ferretur, nec ipsa uerba essent, quae uocarentur obscena, sed quidquid inde diceretur, tam honestum esset, quam de aliis cum loquimur corporis partibus. Quisquis ergo ad has litteras inpudicus accedit, culpam refugiat, non naturam; facta denotet suae turpitudinis, non uerba nostrae necessitatis; in quibus mihi facillime pudicus et religiosus lector uel auditor ignoscit, donec infidelitatem refellam, non de fide rerum inexpertarum, sed de sensu expertarum argumentantem. Legit enim haec sine offensione, qui non exhorret apostolum horrenda feminarum flagitia reprehendentem, quae inmutauerunt naturalem usum in eum usum, qui est contra naturam, praecipue quia nos non damnabilem obscenitatem nunc, sicut ille, commemoramus adque reprehendimus, sed in explicandis, quantum possumus, humanae generationis effectibus uerba tamen, sicut ille, obscena uitamus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. Whether there would have been begetting even in paradise if no one had sinned, and whether the principle of chastity would have had to fight there against the heat of lust.

But whoever says that they would not have come together or begotten unless they had sinned, what does he say but that man's sin was necessary for the number of the saints? For if by not sinning they would have remained alone, because, as they think, they could not have begotten unless they had sinned, then surely sin was necessary in order that there might be not only two righteous human beings but many. But if it is absurd to believe this, we must rather believe that the number of saints needed to complete that most blessed city would have come to be, even if no one had sinned, as great as is now gathered by the grace of God from the multitude of sinners, as long as “the children of this age beget and are begotten.” And therefore that marriage, worthy of the happiness of paradise, if there had been no sin, would both have begotten offspring to be loved and would not have had shameful lust. But how this could be done there is now no example to show. Yet it ought not on that account to seem incredible that that one member too could have served the will without this lust, when so many members serve it now. Do we move our hands and feet, when we will, to the things that are to be done by these members, without any resistance, with such ease as we see both in ourselves and in others, especially in craftsmen of all kinds of bodily work, where a nimbler skill has been added to train a weaker and slower nature; and do we not believe that, for the work of begetting children, had there been no lust, which was repaid for the sin of disobedience, those members could have served men obediently at the bidding of the will like the rest? Did not Cicero, in his books On the Republic, when discussing the difference of governments and drawing a likeness of this from the nature of man, say that the members of the body are commanded like children because of their readiness to obey, but that the vicious parts of the soul are restrained like slaves by a harsher rule? And certainly by the order of nature the soul is set above the body, and yet the soul commands the body more easily than itself. But this lust of which we are now speaking has become the more shameful because in it the soul neither commands itself effectively, so as not to desire at all, nor commands the body in every way, so that the will rather than lust would move the shameful members; if this were so, they would not be shameful. But as it is, the soul is ashamed that the body, which by its lower nature is subject to it, resists it. For in the other affections, when it resists itself, there is less shame, because, when it is overcome by itself, it overcomes itself; even if in a disordered and vicious way, since it is overcome by those parts which ought to be subject to reason, yet it is overcome by its own parts and so, as has been said, by itself. For when the soul overcomes itself in an ordered way, so that its irrational motions are subject to mind and reason, provided that too is subject to God, it is a matter of praise and virtue. Yet there is less shame when the soul does not obey itself in its vicious parts than when the body, which is other than it and below it and whose nature does not live without it, does not yield to it when it wills and commands. But when the other members are held back by the command of the will, without which those that are stirred by lust against the will cannot fulfill what they seek, chastity is preserved, not because the delight of sin has been lost but because it is not permitted.

This resistance, this opposition, this quarrel of will and lust, or at least this need of lust for the sufficiency of the will, marriage in paradise would beyond doubt not have had, unless culpable disobedience had been punished by penal disobedience; but all the members, like the rest, would have served the will. So the vessel created for this work would have sown the field of generation, as the hand now sows the earth; and whereas now, when we wish to discuss this matter more carefully, modesty resists us and compels us, prefacing our words with an apology, to ask pardon of chaste ears, there would be no reason why this should happen, but speech would move freely, without any fear of obscenity, to everything that might touch the mind of one thinking about such members; nor would there be words themselves which would be called obscene, but whatever was said of them would be as honorable as when we speak of other parts of the body. Whoever, then, comes to these writings unchaste, let him blame guilt, not nature; let him censure the deeds of his own shamefulness, not the words of our necessity; in which the chaste and devout reader or hearer very easily pardons me, while I refute unbelief, which argues not from faith in things unexperienced but from the sense of things experienced. For he reads this without offense who does not shudder at the apostle rebuking the horrible shameful deeds of women who “exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature”; especially since we are not now, as he was, recalling and rebuking a damnable obscenity, but, in explaining as far as we can the workings of human generation, we nevertheless avoid obscene words, as he did.

### Scripture references

- Luke 20:34: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 1:28: allusion, medium confidence
- Rom 1:26: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Rep. 3 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Luke 20:34 quoted; Rom 1:26. Cicero, On the Republic 3 (a fragment preserved here). Augustine's discussion of sexual function is translated as written; his own apology for the subject is part of the text.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.23 (CSEL 40:47–50; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-20/#p-14-23).

## City of God 14.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-20/#p-14-24
- Source: CSEL 40:50–52
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Unfallen humans would have moved the genital members by will, as some people now control unusual bodily functions, like the presbyter Restitutus of Calama who could make himself insensible; man, forsaking God, cannot even obey himself.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIIII. Quod insontes homines et merito oboedientiae in paradiso permanentes ita genitalibus membris usuri fuissent ad generationem prolis, sicut ceteris ad arbitrium uoluntatis. Seminaret igitur prolem uir, susciperet femina genitalibus membris, quando id opus esset et quantum opus esset, uoluntate motis, non libidine concitatis. Neque enim ea sola membra mouemus ad nutum, quae conpactis articulata sunt ossibus, sicut manus et pedes et digitos, uerum etiam illa, quae mollibus remissa sunt neruis, cum uolumus, mouemus agitando et porrigendo producimus et torquendo flectimus et constringendo duramus, sicut ea sunt, quae in ore ac facie, quantum potest, uoluntas mouet. Pulmones denique ipsi omnium, nisi medullarum, mollissimi uiscerum et ob hoc antro pectoris communiti, ad spiritum ducendum ac remittendum uocemque emittendam seu modificandam, sicut folles fabrorum uel organorum, flantis, respirantis, loquentis, clamantis, cantantis seruiunt uoluntati. Omitto quod animalibus quibusdam naturaliter inditum est, ut tegmen, quo corpus omne uestitur, si quid in quocumque loco eius senserint abigendum, ibi tantum moueant, ubi sentiunt, nec solum insidentes muscas, uerum etiam haerentes hastas cutis tremore discutiant. Numquid quia id non potest homo, ideo Creator quibus uoluit animantibus donare non potuit? Sic ergo et ipse homo potuit oboedientiam etiam inferiorum habere membrorum, quam sua inoboedientia perdidit. Neque enim Deo difficile fuit sic illum condere, ut in eius carne etiam illud non nisi eius uoluntate moueretur, quod nunc nisi libidine non mouetur. Nam et hominum quorundam naturas nouimus multum ceteris dispares et ipsa raritate mirabiles nonnulla ut uolunt de corpore facientium, quae alii nullo modo possunt et audita uix credunt. Sunt enim, qui et aures moueant uel singulas uel ambas simul. Sunt qui totam caesariem capite inmoto, quantum capilli occupant, deponunt ad frontem reuocantque cum uolunt. Sunt qui eorum quae uorauerint incredibiliter plurima et uaria paululum praecordiis contrectatis tamquam de sacculo quod placuerit integerimum proferunt. Quidam uoces auium pecorumque et aliorum quorumlibet hominum sic imitantur adque exprimunt, ut, nisi uideantur, discerni omnino non possint. Nonnulli ab imo sine putore ullo ita numerosos pro arbitrio sonitus edunt, ut ex illa etiam parte cantare uideantur. Ipse sum expertus sudare hominem solere, cum uellet. Notum est quosdam flere, cum uolunt, adque ubertim lacrimas fundere. Iam illud multo est incredibilius, quod plerique fratres memoria recentissima experti sunt. Presbyter fuit quidam Restitutus nomine in paroecia Calamensis ecclesiae. Quando ei placebat (rogabatur autem ut hoc faceret ab eis, qui rem mirabilem coram scire cupiebant), ad imitatas quasi lamentantis cuiuslibet hominis uoces ita se auferebat a sensibus et iacebat simillimus mortuo, ut non solum uellicantes adque pungentes minime sentiret, sed aliquando etiam igne ureretur admoto sine ullo doloris sensu nisi postmodum ex uulnere; non autem obnitendo, sed non sentiendo non mouere corpus eo probabatur, quod tamquam in defuncto nullus inueniebatur anhelitus; hominum tamen uoces, si clarius loquerentur, tamquam de longinquo se audire postea referebat. Cum itaque corpus etiam nunc quibusdam, licet in carne corruptibili hanc aerumnosam ducentibus uitam, ita in plerisque motionibus et adfectionibus extra usitatum naturae modum mirabiliter seruiat: quid causae est, ut non credamus ante inoboedientiae peccatum corruptionisque supplicium ad propagandam prolem sine ulla libidine seruire uoluntati humanae humana membra potuisse? Donatus est itaque homo sibi, quia deseruit Deum placendo sibi, et non oboediens Deo non potuit oboedire nec sibi. Hinc euidentior miseria, qua homo non uiuit ut uult. Nam si ut uellet uiueret, beatum se putaret; sed nec sic tamen esset, si turpiter uiueret.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 24. That human beings without guilt, remaining in paradise by the merit of obedience, would have used the genital members for begetting offspring as they use the others, at the choice of the will.

The man, then, would have sown offspring and the woman received it by the genital members, when and as much as was needed, moved by the will, not stirred by lust. For we move at our bidding not only those members which are jointed with firm bones, like hands, feet, and fingers, but also those which are loosely composed of soft sinews, we move when we will, by shaking them, extend them by stretching, bend them by twisting, and harden them by contracting, as are those which the will moves, as far as it can, in the mouth and face. The lungs, finally, the softest of all the organs except the marrow, and therefore protected in the cavity of the chest, serve the will of one who breathes, inhales, speaks, shouts, or sings, for drawing in and letting out breath and for uttering or modulating the voice, like the bellows of smiths or of organs. I pass over the fact that it is naturally given to certain animals to move the covering which clothes their whole body only at the place where they feel something to be driven off, and to shake off by a trembling of the skin not only flies that settle on them but even spears sticking in them. Because man cannot do this, could the Creator therefore not give it to whatever living beings he willed? So, then, man himself too could have had the obedience even of his lower members, which he lost by his own disobedience. For it was not difficult for God so to make him that in his flesh even that which now is moved only by lust would be moved only by his will.

For we know the natures of certain men as well, very unlike the rest and wonderful for their very rarity, who do some things with the body as they will which others can in no way do and scarcely believe when they hear of them. For there are some who move their ears, either one at a time or both together. There are some who, without moving the head, bring the whole scalp, as far as the hair covers it, down to the forehead and draw it back when they will. There are some who, when they have swallowed an incredible number of various things, by a slight pressure of the diaphragm bring out whatever they please, quite whole, as from a bag. Some imitate and reproduce the voices of birds and beasts and of any other men so that, unless they are seen, they cannot be distinguished at all. Some produce from below, without any stench, such rhythmical sounds at will that they seem to be singing even from that part. I myself have known a man who used to sweat when he wished. It is well known that some weep when they will and shed tears abundantly. Now that is much more incredible which very many of the brothers experienced quite recently. There was a presbyter named Restitutus in the parish of the church of Calama. When he pleased (and he was asked to do this by those who wished to witness the marvel in person), at the imitated voices, as it were, of some person lamenting, he would so withdraw himself from his senses and lie so like a dead man that not only did he not feel people pinching and pricking him, but sometimes he was even burned by fire brought near without any sense of pain, except afterward from the wound; and that he did not move his body not by resisting but by not feeling was proved by this, that, as in a dead man, no breathing was found; yet he reported afterward that he heard men's voices, if they spoke rather loudly, as though from far away. Since, then, even now the body serves some people wonderfully, beyond the usual measure of nature, in many motions and affections, though they are leading this wretched life in corruptible flesh, what reason is there that we should not believe that, before the sin of disobedience and the punishment of corruption, human members could have served the human will without any lust for propagating offspring? Man, then, was given over to himself because he forsook God by pleasing himself; and not obeying God he could not obey even himself. Hence the more evident misery by which man does not live as he wills. For if he lived as he willed, he would think himself happy; but even so he would not be, if he lived shamefully.

### Translation notes

- Restitutus, a presbyter of the diocese of Calama in Numidia (whose bishop was Augustine's friend Possidius), is otherwise unknown. The list of bodily feats is given as Augustine reports it.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.24 (CSEL 40:50–52; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-20/#p-14-24).

## City of God 14.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-20/#p-14-25
- Source: CSEL 40:52–53
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: No one lives as he wills unless he is happy and righteous and secure from death, deception, and harm; resignation to what one can have is not happiness, which must be loved above all and willed to be eternal.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXV. De uera beatitudine, quam temporalis uita non obtinet. Quamquam si diligentius adtendamus, nisi beatus non uiuit ut uult, et nullus beatus nisi iustus. Sed etiam ipse iustus non uiuet ut uult, nisi eo peruenerit, ubi mori falli offendi omnino non possit eique sit certum ita semper futurum. Hoc enim natura expetit, nec plene adque perfecte beata erit nisi adepta quod expetit. Nunc uero quis hominum potest ut uult uiuere, quando ipsum uiuere non est in potestate? Viuere enim uult, mori cogitur. Quo modo ergo uiuit ut uult, qui non uiuit quamdiu uult? Quod si mori uoluerit, quo modo potest ut uult uiuere, qui non uult uiuere? Et si ideo mori uelit, non quo nolit uiuere, sed ut post mortem melius uiuat: nondum ergo ut uult uiuit, sed cum ad id quod uult moriendo peruenerit. Verum ecce uiuat ut uult, quoniam sibi extorsit sibique imperauit non uelle quod non potest, adque hoc uelle quod potest, sicut ait Terentius: Quoniam non potest id fieri quod uis, Id uelis quod possis: num ideo beatus est, quia patienter miser est? Beata quippe uita si non amatur, non habetur. Porro si amatur et habetur, ceteris omnibus rebus excellentius necesse est ametur, quoniam propter hanc amandum est quidquid aliud amatur. Porro si tantum amatur, quantum amari digna est (non enim beatus est, a quo ipsa beata uita non amatur ut digna est): fieri non potest, ut eam, qui sic amat, non aeternam uelit. Tunc igitur beata erit, quando aeterna erit. -

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 25. Of the true happiness which temporal life does not attain.

Though, if we consider more carefully, no one lives as he wills unless he is happy, and no one is happy unless he is righteous. But even the righteous man himself will not live as he wills unless he arrives where he can in no way die, be deceived, or be harmed, and is certain that it will always be so. For this is what nature seeks, and it will not be fully and perfectly happy unless it has obtained what it seeks. But now what man can live as he wills, when living itself is not in his power? For he wills to live and is forced to die. How then does he live as he wills who does not live as long as he wills? But if he wills to die, how can he who does not will to live live as he wills? And if he wills to die not because he does not will to live but in order to live better after death, then he does not yet live as he wills, but will when by dying he has arrived at what he wills. But suppose he does live as he wills, because he has forced and commanded himself not to will what he cannot, and to will what he can, as Terence says:

Since what you wish cannot be done,
wish for what you can:

is he therefore happy because he is patiently wretched? For the happy life, if it is not loved, is not possessed. Further, if it is loved and possessed, it must be loved more excellently than all other things, since whatever else is loved must be loved for its sake. Further, if it is loved as much as it deserves to be loved (for he is not happy by whom the happy life itself is not loved as it deserves), it cannot be that one who so loves it does not will it to be eternal. It will, then, be happy when it is eternal.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Terence, Andr. 305 (Terence): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Terence, The Woman of Andros 305–306, quoted (verse in lines).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.25 (CSEL 40:52–53; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-20/#p-14-25).

## City of God 14.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-20/#p-14-26
- Source: CSEL 40:53–55
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: In paradise Adam and Eve would have begotten children by a calm act of will without lust or loss of the woman's integrity; God, foreseeing sin, still created them, to fill his city's predestined number by grace from the condemned mass.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVI. Quod felicitas in paradiso uiuentium sine erubescendo adpetitu generandi officium credenda sit inplere potuisse. Viuebat itaque homo in paradiso sicut uolebat, quamdiu hoc uolebat quod Deus iusserat; uiuebat fruens Deo, ex quo bono erat bonus; uiuebat sine ulla egestate, ita semper uiuere habens in potestate. Cibus aderat ne esuriret, potus ne sitiret, lignum uitae ne illum senecta dissolueret. Nihil corruptionis in corpore uel ex corpore ullas molestias ullis eius sensibus ingerebat. Nullus intrinsecus morbus, nullus ictus metuebatur extrinsecus. Summa in carne sanitas, in animo tota tranquillitas. Sicut in paradiso nullus aestus aut frigus, sic in eius habitatore nulla ex cupiditate uel timore accidebat bonae uoluntatis offensio. Nihil omnino triste, nihil erat inaniter laetum. Gaudium uerum perpetuabatur ex Deo, in quem flagrabat caritas de corde puro et conscientia bona et fide non ficta, adque inter se coniugum fida ex honesto amore societas, concors mentis corporisque uigilia et mandati sine labore custodia. Non lassitudo fatigabat otiosum, non somnus premebat inuitum. In tanta facilitate rerum et felicitate hominum absit ut suspicemur non potuisse prolem seri sine libidinis morbo, sed eo uoluntatis nutu mouerentur membra illa quo cetera, et sine ardoris inlecebroso stimulo cum tranquillitate animi et corporis nulla corruptione integritatis infunderetur gremio maritus uxoris. Neque enim quia experientia probari non potest, ideo credendum non est, quando illas corporis partes non ageret turbidus calor, sed spontanea potestas, sicut opus esset, adhiberet, ita tunc potuisse utero coniugis salua integritate feminei genitalis uirile semen inmitti, sicut nunc potest eadem integritate salua ex utero uirginis fluxus menstrui cruoris emitti. Eadem quippe uia posset illud inici, qua hoc potest eici. Ut enim ad pariendum non doloris gemitus, sed maturitatis inpulsus feminea uiscera relaxaret, sic ad fetandum et concipiendum non libidinis adpetitus, sed uoluntarius usus naturam utramque coniungeret. De rebus loquimur nunc pudendis et ideo, quamuis, antequam earum puderet, quales esse potuissent coniciamus ut possumus, tamen necesse est, ut nostra disputatio magis frenetur ea, quae nos reuocat, uerecundia, quam eloquentia, quae nobis parum subpetit, adiuuetur. Nam cum id quod dico nec ipsi experti fuerint, qui experiri potuerunt (quoniam praeoccupante peccato exilium de paradiso ante meruerunt, quam sibi in opere serendae propaginis tranquillo arbitrio conuenirent), quo modo nunc, cum ista commemorantur, sensibus occurrit humanis nisi experientia libidinis turbidae, non coniectura placidae uoluntatis? Hinc est quod inpedit loquentem pudor, etsi non deficiat ratio cogitantem. Verum tamen omnipotenti Deo, summo ac summe bono creatori omnium naturarum, uoluntatum autem bonarum adiutori et remuneratori, malarum autem relictori et damnatori, utrarumque ordinatori, non defuit utique consilium, quo certum numerum ciuium in sua sapientia praedestinatum etiam ex damnato genere humano suae ciuitatis inpleret, non eos iam meritis, quando quidem uniuersa massa tamquam in uitiata radice damnata est, sed gratia discernens et liberatis non solum de ipsis, uerum etiam de non liberatis, quid eis largiatur, ostendens. Non enim debita, sed gratuita bonitate tunc se quisque agnoscit erutum malis, cum ab eorum hominum consortio fit inmunis, cum quibus illi iusta esset poena communis. Quur ergo non crearet Deus, quos peccaturos esse praesciuit, quando quidem in eis et ex eis, et quid eorum culpa mereretur, et quid sua gratia donaretur, posset ostendere, nec sub illo creatore ac dispositore peruersa inordinatio delinquentium rectum peruerteret ordinem rerum?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 26. That the happiness of those living in paradise must be believed to have been able to fulfill the duty of begetting without shameful craving.

Man, then, lived in paradise as he willed, as long as he willed what God had commanded; he lived enjoying God, from whose goodness he was good; he lived without any want, having it in his power to live so forever. Food was at hand so that he should not hunger, drink so that he should not thirst, the tree of life so that old age should not dissolve him. There was nothing of corruption in the body, or from the body, to inflict any troubles on any of his senses. No disease within, no blow from without was feared. There was perfect health in the flesh and entire tranquillity in the soul. As in paradise there was no heat or cold, so in its inhabitant there was no offense to the good will from desire or fear. There was nothing sad at all, nothing vainly glad. True joy continued unbroken from God, toward whom charity burned “from a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned”; and between the spouses there was a faithful partnership from honorable love, a harmonious watchfulness of mind and body, and a keeping of the command without toil. Weariness did not tire the one at leisure, sleep did not overpower him against his will.

In so great an ease of things and happiness of human beings, far be it from us to suspect that offspring could not be sown without the disease of lust; but those members would be moved by the same bidding of the will as the rest, and without the seductive goad of burning desire, with tranquillity of mind and body, the husband would pour himself into his wife's lap without any corruption of her integrity. For it is not to be disbelieved because it cannot be proved by experience; since, when no turbid heat drove those parts of the body, but a spontaneous power applied them as there was need, the male seed could then have been introduced into the wife's womb with the integrity of the female genital preserved, just as now, with that same integrity preserved, the flow of menstrual blood can be emitted from the womb of a virgin. For the seed could be introduced by the same way by which that can be discharged. For as in giving birth it would not be the groans of pain but the impulse of maturity that would relax the woman's organs, so in conceiving and bearing it would not be the craving of lust but a voluntary use that would join the two natures. We are speaking now of things that are shameful, and therefore, although we conjecture as best we can what they could have been like before they were shameful, it is necessary that our discussion be bridled by the modesty that calls us back rather than helped by an eloquence which we lack. For since those who could have experienced what I describe did not experience it themselves (because sin came first and they deserved exile from paradise before they came together in the work of propagation by a tranquil decision), how, when these things are mentioned now, does anything come to human minds but the experience of turbid lust, not the conjecture of a placid will? Hence it is that shame hinders the speaker, even though reason does not fail the thinker.

Yet the almighty God, the supreme and supremely good creator of all natures, but the helper and rewarder of good wills, and the abandoner and condemner of evil ones, and the orderer of both, certainly did not lack a plan by which to fill up the fixed number of citizens predestined in his wisdom for his city, even from the condemned human race; distinguishing them no longer by merits, since the whole mass has been condemned as in a vitiated root, but by grace, and showing to those who are freed not only in their own case but also in the case of those not freed what he bestows on them. For each one then recognizes that he has been rescued from evils not by owed but by gratuitous goodness, when he is exempted from the fellowship of those men with whom a just punishment would have been common to him. Why, then, should God not create those whom he foreknew would sin, since both in them and from them he could show both what their guilt deserved and what his grace bestowed, and since under that creator and disposer the perverse disorder of sinners could not pervert the right order of things?

### Scripture references

- 1 Tim 1:5: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:9: allusion, medium confidence
- Rom 9:21: allusion, medium confidence
- Rom 9:23: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- 1 Tim 1:5 quoted. Rom 9:21–23 is in view (“mass,” mercy and judgment shown). Augustine's account of procreation in paradise is his own speculative reconstruction, translated as written. His doctrine of predestination and of the condemned “mass” (massa damnata) is stated as he gives it.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.26 (CSEL 40:53–55; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-20/#p-14-26).

## City of God 14.27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-20/#p-14-27
- Source: CSEL 40:55–58
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God, foreknowing the fall, allowed the devil to tempt man, compelling no one, to show the power of pride and of grace; two loves, of self and of God, have made the two cities.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVII. De peccatoribus, et angelis et hominibus, quorum peruersitas non perturbat prouidentiam. Proinde peccatores, et angeli et homines, nihil agunt, quo inpediantur magna opera Domini, exquisita in omnes uoluntates eius, quoniam qui prouidenter adque omnipotenter sua cuique distribuit, non solum bonis, uerum etiam malis bene uti nouit. Ac per hoc propter meritum primae malae uoluntatis ita damnato adque obdurato angelo malo, ut iam bonam uoluntatem ulterius non haberet, bene utens Deus quur non permitteret, ut ab illo primus homo, qui rectus, hoc est bonae uoluntatis, creatus fuerat, tentaretur? Quando quidem sic erat institutus, ut, si de adiutorio Dei fideret bonus homo, malum angelum uinceret; si autem creatorem adque adiutorem Deum superbe sibi placendo desereret, uinceretur; meritum bonum habens in adiuta diuinitus uoluntate recta, malum uero in deserente Deum uoluntate peruersa. Quia et ipsum fidere de adiutorio Dei non quidem posset sine adiutorio Dei, nec tamen ideo ab his diuinae gratiae beneficiis sibi placendo recedere non habebat in potestate. Nam sicut in hac carne uiuere sine adiumentis alimentorum in potestate non est, non autem in ea uiuere in potestate est, quod faciunt qui se ipsos necant: ita bene uiuere sine adiutorio Dei etiam in paradiso non erat in potestate; erat autem in potestate male uiuere, sed beatitudine non permansura et poena iustissima secutura. Cum igitur huius futuri casus humani Deus non esset ignarus, quur eum non sineret inuidi angeli malignitate tentari? nullo modo quidem quod uinceretur incertus, sed nihilo minus praescius quod ab eius semine adiuto sua gratia idem ipse diabolus fuerat sanctorum gloria maiore uincendus. Ita factum est, ut nec Deum aliquid futurorum lateret, nec praesciendo quemquam peccare conpelleret et, quid interesset inter propriam cuiusque praesumtionem et suam tuitionem, angelicae et humanae rationali creaturae consequenti experientia demonstraret. Quis enim audeat credere aut dicere, ut neque angelus neque homo caderet, in Dei potestate non fuisse? Sed hoc eorum potestati maluit non auferre adque ita, et quantum mali eorum superbia et quantum boni sua gratia ualeret, ostendere. CAPUT XXVIII. De qualitate duarum ciuitatum, terrenae adque caelestis. Fecerunt itaque ciuitates duas amores duo, terrenam scilicet amor sui usque ad contemtum Dei, caelestem uero amor Dei usque ad contemtum sui. Denique illa in se ipsa, haec in Domino gloriatur. Illa enim quaerit ab hominibus gloriam; huic autem Deus conscientiae testis maxima est gloria. Illa in gloria sua exaltat caput suum; haec dicit Deo suo: Gloria mea et exaltans caput meum. Illi in principibus eius uel in eis quas subiugat nationibus dominandi libido dominatur; in hac seruiunt inuicem in caritate et praepositi consulendo et subditi obtemperando. Illa in suis potentibus diligit uirtutem suam; haec dicit Deo suo: Diligam te, Domine, uirtus mea. Ideoque in illa sapientes eius secundum hominem uiuentes aut corporis aut animi sui bona aut utriusque sectati sunt, aut qui potuerunt cognoscere Deum, non ut Deum honorauerunt aut gratias egerunt, sed euanuerunt in cogitationibus suis, et obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum; dicentes se esse sapientes (id est dominante sibi superbia in sua sapientia sese extollentes) stulti facti sunt et inmutauerunt gloriam incorruptibilis Dei in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis et uolucrum et quadrupedum et serpentium (ad huiusce modi enim simulacra adoranda uel duces populorum uel sectatores fuerunt), et coluerunt adque seruierunt creaturae potius quam Creatori, qui est benedictus in saecula; in hac autem nulla est hominis sapientia nisi pietas, qua recte colitur uerus Deus, id expectans praemium in societate sanctorum non solum hominum, uerum etiam angelorum, ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 27. Of sinners, both angels and men, whose perversity does not disturb providence.

Sinners, therefore, both angels and men, do nothing by which “the great works of the Lord, sought out according to all his wills,” are hindered; since he who providently and omnipotently distributes to each his own knows how to make good use not only of the good but also of the evil. And so, when the evil angel had been so condemned and hardened for the desert of his first evil will that he would never again have a good will, why should God, making good use of him, not permit the first man, who had been created upright, that is, with a good will, to be tempted by him? For he had been so established that, if the good man trusted in the help of God, he would overcome the evil angel; but if he forsook God, his creator and helper, by proudly pleasing himself, he would be overcome; having good merit in a right will helped by God, but bad merit in a perverse will forsaking God. For even trusting in God's help he could not do without God's help; and yet it was in his power to withdraw from these benefits of divine grace by pleasing himself. For just as it is not in our power to live in this flesh without the support of food, but it is in our power not to live in it, as those do who kill themselves, so it was not in man's power even in paradise to live well without the help of God; but it was in his power to live badly, yet with a happiness that would not last and a most just punishment to follow. Since, then, God was not ignorant of this future fall of man, why should he not allow him to be tempted by the malice of the envious angel? He was in no way uncertain that he would be overcome, but no less did he foreknow that the devil himself was to be overcome by his seed, helped by his grace, to the greater glory of the saints. So it came about that nothing of the future was hidden from God, and yet by foreknowing he compelled no one to sin, and he showed by subsequent experience to the rational creature, angelic and human, what difference there was between each one's own presumption and his protection. For who would dare to believe or say that it was not in God's power that neither angel nor man should fall? But he preferred not to take this out of their power, and so to show both how much evil their pride could do and how much good his grace.

Chapter 28. Of the character of the two cities, the earthly and the heavenly.

Two loves, then, have made two cities: the earthly, love of self even to contempt of God; the heavenly, love of God even to contempt of self. In short, the one glories in itself, the other in the Lord. For the one seeks glory from men; but to the other God, the witness of conscience, is the greatest glory. The one lifts up its head in its own glory; the other says to its God, “My glory and the one who lifts up my head.” In the one the lust for ruling rules over its princes or the nations it subdues; in the other they serve one another in charity, the leaders by taking counsel and the subjects by obeying. The one loves its own strength in its powerful men; the other says to its God, “I will love you, O Lord, my strength.” And therefore in the one its wise men, living according to man, have pursued the goods either of the body or of their own mind or of both; or those who could know God “did not honor him as God or give thanks, but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened; claiming to be wise” (that is, exalting themselves in their own wisdom, with pride ruling them), “they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed beasts and serpents” (for in adoring images of this kind they were either leaders of the peoples or followers), “and they worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.” But in the other there is no human wisdom but godliness, by which the true God is rightly worshipped, awaiting this reward in the fellowship of the saints, not only of men but also of angels, “that God may be all in all.”

### Scripture references

- Ps 111:2 (110:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Gen 3:15: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 10:17: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Thess 2:6: allusion, medium confidence
- 2 Cor 1:12: allusion, medium confidence
- Ps 3:3 (3:4 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Gal 5:13: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 18:1 (17:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:21: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:22: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:23: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:25: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:28: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The digital text runs chapter 28 into this section; it is kept here under its own heading. Sources: Ps 111:2 (LXX 110:2); Gen 3:15 (the seed); 2 Cor 10:17 (glorying in the Lord); 1 Thess 2:6; 2 Cor 1:12; Ps 3:3 (LXX 3:4); Gal 5:13; Ps 18:1 (LXX 17:2); Rom 1:21–25; 1 Cor 15:28. Augustine's remark on suicide is incidental to his argument about grace. “Lust for ruling” renders libido dominandi (cf. 14.15).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 14.27 (CSEL 40:55–58; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-20/#p-14-27).

## City of God 15.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-20/#p-15-1
- Source: CSEL 40:58–60
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine begins the history of the two cities, noting that Cain, citizen of the earthly city, was born before Abel, the pilgrim citizen of the city of God.

### Latin text

De duobus ordinibus generationis humanae in diuersos fines ab initio procurrentis. De felicitate paradisi uel de ipso paradiso et de uita ibi primorum hominum eorumque peccato adque supplicio multi multa senserunt, multa dixerunt, multa litteris mandauerunt. Nos quoque secundum scripturas sanctas uel quod in eis legimus uel quod ex eis intellegere potuimus earum congruentes auctoritati de his rebus in superioribus libris diximus. Enucleatius autem si ista quaerantur, multiplices adque multimodas pariunt disputationes, quae pluribus intexendae sint uoluminibus, quam hoc opus tempusque deposcit, quod non ita largum habemus, ut in omnibus, quae possunt requirere otiosi et scrupulosi, paratiores ad interrogandum quam capaciores ad intellegendum, nos oporteat inmorari. Arbitror tamen satis nos iam fecisse magnis et difficillimis quaestionibus de initio uel mundi uel animae uel ipsius generis humani, quod in duo genera distribuimus, unum eorum, qui secundum hominem, alterum eorum, qui secundum Deum uiuunt; quas etiam mystice appellamus ciuitates duas, hoc est duas societates hominum, quarum est una quae praedestinata est in aeternum regnare cum Deo, altera aeternum supplicium subire cum diabolo. Sed iste finis est earum, de quo post loquendum est. Nunc autem quoniam de exortu earum siue in angelis, quorum numerus ignoratur a nobis, siue in duobus primis hominibus satis dictum est, iam mihi uidetur earum adgrediendus excursus, ex quo illi duo generare coeperunt, donec homines generare cessabunt. Hoc enim uniuerso tempus siue saeculum, in quo cedunt morientes succeduntque nascentes, istarum duarum ciuitatum, de quibus disputamus, excursus est. Natus est igitur prior Cain ex illis duobus generis humani parentibus, pertinens ad hominum ciuitatem, posterior Abel, ad ciuitatem Dei. Sicut enim in uno homine, quod dixit apostolus, experimur, quia non primum quod spiritale est, sed quod animale, postea spiritale (unde unusquisque, quoniam ex damnata propagine exoritur, primo sit necesse est ex Adam malus adque carnalis; quod si in Christum renascendo profecerit, post erit bonus et spiritalis): sic in uniuerso genere humano, cum primum duae istae coeperunt nascendo adque moriendo procurrere ciuitates, prior est natus ciuis huius saeculi, posterius autem isto peregrinus in saeculo et pertinens ad ciuitatem Dei, gratia praedestinatus gratia electus, gratia peregrinus deorsum gratia ciuis sursum. Nam quantum ad ipsum adtinet, ex eadem massa oritur, quae originaliter est tota damnata; sed tamquam figulus Deus (hanc enim similitudinem non inpudenter, sed prudenter introducit apostolus) ex eadem massa fecit aliud uas in honorem, aliud in contumeliam. Prius autem factum est uas in contumeliam, post uero alterum in honorem, quia et in ipso uno, sicut iam dixi, homine prius est reprobum, unde necesse est incipiamus et ubi non est necesse ut remaneamus, posterius uero probum, quo proficientes ueniamus et quo peruenientes maneamus. Proinde non quidem omnis homo malus erit bonus, nemo tamen erit bonus qui non erat malus; sed quanto quisque citius mutatur in melius, hoc in se facit nominari quod adprehendit celerius, et posteriore cooperit uocabulum prius. Scriptum est itaque de Cain, quod condiderit ciuitatem; Abel autem tamquam peregrinus non condidit. Superna est enim sanctorum ciuitas, quamuis hic pariat ciues, in quibus peregrinatur, donec regni eius tempus adueniat, cum congregatura est omnes in suis corporibus resurgentes, quando eis promissum dabitur regnum, ubi cum suo principe rege saeculorum sine ullo temporis fine regnabunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. On the two lines of the human race, running from the beginning toward different ends.

Concerning the happiness of paradise, or paradise itself, and the life of the first human beings there, and their sin and punishment, many people have thought many things, said many things, and committed many things to writing. We too, following the holy Scriptures, have spoken of these matters in the preceding books, setting down either what we read in them or what we could understand from them in agreement with their authority. But if these things are investigated more minutely, they give rise to many and various disputes, which would need to be woven into more volumes than this work and our time require; and we do not have so much time that we ought to linger over everything that idle and scrupulous people can ask, who are readier to question than able to understand. I think, however, that we have now done enough on the great and very difficult questions about the beginning of the world, of the soul, and of the human race itself. That race we have divided into two kinds: one of those who live according to man, the other of those who live according to God. These we also call, figuratively, two cities, that is, two societies of human beings, of which one is predestined to reign for ever with God, the other to undergo eternal punishment with the devil. But that is their end, of which we must speak later. Now, since enough has been said about their origin, whether among the angels, whose number is unknown to us, or in the first two human beings, it seems to me that I must take up their course, from the time when those two began to beget until human beings cease to beget. For this whole time or age, in which the dying depart and the newborn succeed them, is the course of these two cities of which we are treating.

First, then, of those two parents of the human race was born Cain, who belongs to the city of men; afterwards Abel, who belongs to the city of God. For just as we find in a single man what the apostle said, that “it is not the spiritual that is first, but the natural, and afterwards the spiritual” (and so each one, since he springs from a condemned stock, must first be evil and carnal from Adam, and if he advances by being reborn in Christ, will afterwards be good and spiritual), so in the whole human race: when these two cities first began to run their course by birth and death, the citizen of this world was born first, and after him the pilgrim in this world who belongs to the city of God, predestined by grace, chosen by grace, by grace a pilgrim below, by grace a citizen above. For as far as he himself is concerned, he arises from the same lump that is wholly condemned in its origin; but God, like a potter (the apostle introduces this comparison not impudently but prudently), “made from the same lump one vessel for honor, another for dishonor.” The vessel for dishonor was made first, and afterwards the other for honor; because in each single man too, as I have said, what is reprobate comes first, from which we must begin but in which we need not remain, and what is approved comes afterwards, toward which we advance and in which, once we arrive, we remain. Not every evil man, then, will be good; yet no one will be good who was not evil. But the sooner anyone is changed for the better, the sooner he brings upon himself the name of what he has laid hold of, and covers the earlier name with the later one. So it is written of Cain that he founded a city; but Abel, as a pilgrim, did not found one. For the city of the saints is above, although it gives birth to citizens here, in whom it is on pilgrimage until the time of its kingdom comes, when it will gather them all, rising again in their bodies, and the promised kingdom will be given them, where with their prince, the King of the ages, they will reign without any end of time.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 15:46: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 9:21: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 4:17: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Tim 1:17: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: 1 Cor 15:46; Rom 9:21 (the potter and the lump); Gen 4:17 (Cain founds a city); “King of the ages” echoes 1 Tim 1:17.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.1 (CSEL 40:58–60; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/14-20/#p-15-1).

## City of God 15.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-2/#p-15-2
- Source: CSEL 40:60–62
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Using Paul's allegory of Hagar and Sarah, Augustine explains that part of the earthly city served as an image of the heavenly city.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. De filiis carnis et filiis promissionis. Umbra sane quaedam ciuitatis huius et imago prophetica ei significandae potius quam praesentandae seruiuit in terris, quo eam tempore demonstrari oportebat, et dicta est etiam ipsa ciuitas sancta merito significantis imaginis, non expressae, sicut futura est, ueritatis. De hac imagine seruiente et de illa, quam significat, libera ciuitate sic apostolus ad Galatas loquitur: Dicite mihi, inquit, sub lege uolentes esse legem non audistis? Scriptum est enim, quod Abraham duos filios habuit, unum de ancilla et unum de libera. Sed ille quidem, qui de ancilla, secundum carnem natus est; qui autem de libera, per repromissionem; quae sunt in allegoria. Haec enim sunt duo testamenta, unum quidem a monte Sina in seruitutem generans, quod est Agar; Sina enim mons est in Arabia, quae coniuncta est huic quae nunc est Hierusalem; seruit enim cum filiis suis. Quae autem sursum est Hierusalem libera est, quae est mater nostra. Scriptum est enim: Laetare sterilis, quae non paris, erumpe et exclama, quae non parturis; quoniam multi filii desertae, magis quam eius quae habet uirum. Nos autem, fratres, secundum Isaac promissionis filii sumus. Sed sicut tunc, qui secundum carnem natus fuerat, persequebatur eum, qui secundum spiritum: ita et nunc. Sed quid dicit scriptura? Eice ancillam et filium eius; non enim heres erit filius ancillae cum filio liberae. Nos autem, fratres, non sumus ancillae filii, sed liberae, qua libertate Christus nos liberauit. Haec forma intellegendi de apostolica auctoritate descendens locum nobis aperit, quem ad modum scripturas duorum testamentorum, ueteris et noui, accipere debeamus. Pars enim quaedam terrenae ciuitatis imago caelestis ciuitatis effecta est, non se significando, sed alteram, et ideo seruiens. Non enim propter se ipsam, sed propter aliam significandam est instituta, et praecedente alia significatione et ipsa praefigurans praefigurata est. Namque Agar ancilla Sarrae eiusque filius imago quaedam huius imaginis fuit; et quoniam transiturae erant umbrae luce ueniente, ideo dixit libera Sarra, quae significabat liberam ciuitatem, cui rursus alio modo significandae etiam illa umbra seruiebat: Eice ancillam et filium eius; non enim heres erit filius ancillae cum filio meo Isaac, quod ait apostolus: Cum filio liberae. Inuenimus ergo in terrena ciuitate duas formas, unam suam praesentiam demonstrantem, alteram caelesti ciuitati significandae sua praesentia seruientem. Parit autem ciues terrenae ciuitatis peccato uitiata natura, caelestis uero ciuitatis ciues parit a peccato naturam liberans gratia unde illa uocantur uasa irae, ista uasa misericordiae. Significatum est hoc etiam in duobus filiis Abrahae, quod unus de ancilla, quae dicebatur Agar, secundum carnem natus est Ismael, alter est autem de Sarra libera secundum repromissionem natus Isaac. Uterque quidem de semine Abrahae; sed illum genuit demonstrans consuetudo naturam, illum uero dedit promissio significans gratiam; ibi humanus usus ostenditur, hic diuinum beneficium commendatur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. On the sons of the flesh and the sons of the promise.

A certain shadow of this city, indeed, and a prophetic image of it served on earth, to signify it rather than to make it present, at the time when it had to be shown; and it too was called the holy city, by virtue of the image that signified, not of the truth expressed as it will be. Of this serving image, and of the free city which it signifies, the apostle speaks thus to the Galatians: “Tell me,” he says, “you who want to be under the law, have you not heard the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and one by the free woman. But the one by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, the one by the free woman through the promise. These things are an allegory. For these are the two covenants: one from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery, which is Hagar. For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, which corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written: ‘Rejoice, you barren one who do not bear; break forth and cry out, you who are not in labor; for many are the children of the desolate one, more than of her who has a husband.’ Now we, brothers, like Isaac, are children of the promise. But just as then the one born according to the flesh persecuted the one born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. But what does the Scripture say? ‘Cast out the slave woman and her son; for the son of the slave woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.’ So we, brothers, are not children of the slave woman but of the free woman, with the freedom with which Christ has set us free.” This way of understanding, coming down to us from apostolic authority, opens to us how we ought to receive the Scriptures of the two covenants, the Old and the New. For a certain part of the earthly city was made an image of the heavenly city, signifying not itself but the other, and therefore serving. For it was established not for its own sake but to signify another; and, being preceded by another signification, it was itself prefigured even as it prefigured. For Hagar, Sarah's slave woman, and her son were a kind of image of this image; and since the shadows were to pass away when the light came, the free woman Sarah, who signified the free city (which that shadow in its turn served to signify in another way), said: “Cast out the slave woman and her son; for the son of the slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac”, which the apostle renders “with the son of the free woman.” We find, then, two forms in the earthly city: one showing its own presence, the other serving by its presence to signify the heavenly city. Nature vitiated by sin gives birth to the citizens of the earthly city; but grace, freeing nature from sin, gives birth to the citizens of the heavenly city. Hence the former are called “vessels of wrath,” the latter “vessels of mercy.” This was signified also in the two sons of Abraham: Ishmael, the one by the slave woman called Hagar, was born according to the flesh; the other, Isaac, was born of the free woman Sarah according to the promise. Both were of Abraham's seed; but the one was begotten through the ordinary course, which shows nature, while the other was given by the promise, which signifies grace. In the one human practice is displayed; in the other a divine benefit is commended.

### Scripture references

- Gal 4:21–31: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 54:1: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 21:10: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 9:22–23: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Gal 4:21–31 is quoted in full (with Isa 54:1 and Gen 21:10 inside it). Gen 21:10 is then cited in its own wording (“with my son Isaac”). “Vessels of wrath … of mercy”: Rom 9:22–23.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.2 (CSEL 40:60–62; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-2/#p-15-2).

## City of God 15.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-2/#p-15-3
- Source: CSEL 40:62–63
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Isaac, born of barren Sarah through God's promise, signifies the children of grace, who are given what nature could not provide.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. De sterilitate Sarrae, quam Dei gratia fecundauit. Sarra quippe sterilis erat et desperatione prolis saltem de ancilla sua concupiscens habere, quod de se ipsa non se posse cernebat, dedit eam fetandam uiro, de quo parere uoluerat nec potuerat. Exegit itaque etiam sic debitum de marito utens iure suo in utero alieno. Natus est ergo Ismael, sicut nascuntur homines, permixtione sexus utriusque, usitata lege naturae. Ideo dictum est: Secundum carnem; non quod ista beneficia Dei non sint aut non illa operetur Deus, cuius opifex sapientia adtingit, sicut scriptum est, a fine usque in finem fortiter et disponit omnia suauiter; sed ubi significandum fuerat Dei donum, quod indebitum hominibus gratia largiretur, sic oportuit dari filium, quem ad modum naturae non debebatur excursibus. Negat enim natura iam filios tali commixtioni maris et feminae, qualis esse poterat Abrahae et Sarrae in illa iam aetate, etiam mulieris accedente sterilitate, quae nec tunc parere potuit, quando non aetas fecunditati, sed aetati fecunditas defuit. Quod ergo naturae sic adfectae fructus posteritatis non debebatur, significat quod natura generis humani peccato uitiata ac per hoc iure damnata nihil uerae felicitatis in posterum merebatur. Recte igitur significat Isaac, per repromissionem natus, filios gratiae, ciues ciuitatis liberae, socios pacis aeternae, ubi sit non amor propriae ac priuatae quodam modo uoluntatis, sed communi eodemque inimitabili bono gaudens adque ex multis unum cor faciens, id est perfecte concors oboedientia caritatis.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. On the barrenness of Sarah, which the grace of God made fruitful.

Sarah, indeed, was barren; and in despair of offspring, wanting at least to have through her slave woman what she saw she could not have through herself, she gave her to be made fruitful by the husband by whom she had wished to bear and could not. So she exacted even in this way what was due to her from her husband, using her right in another's womb. Ishmael, then, was born as human beings are born, by the union of both sexes, under the usual law of nature. That is why it is said, “according to the flesh”; not that such things are not benefits of God, or that God does not work them, whose craftsman Wisdom, as it is written, “reaches mightily from end to end and orders all things sweetly”; but where a gift of God was to be signified, which grace would bestow on human beings though it was not owed, a son had to be given in a way not owed to the course of nature. For nature by now denies children to such a union of man and woman as that of Abraham and Sarah could be at that age, with the woman's barrenness added besides: she could not bear even at the time when it was not her age that failed her fruitfulness but her fruitfulness that failed her age. That the fruit of offspring was not owed to a nature so affected signifies that the nature of the human race, vitiated by sin and therefore justly condemned, deserved nothing of true happiness in the future. Rightly, then, does Isaac, born through the promise, signify the children of grace, the citizens of the free city, the partners of eternal peace, where there is no love of one's own and, so to speak, private will, but an obedience of love perfectly at one, rejoicing in the common and unchanging good and making one heart out of many.

### Scripture references

- Gen 16:1–4: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 4:32: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 8:1 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Wis 8:1 is quoted (“reaches mightily from end to end”). “One heart out of many” echoes Acts 4:32. The digital text reads inimitabili (“inimitable”); it is here treated as incommutabili (“unchanging”), which the sense requires and which is probably the true reading, and the translation follows that.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.3 (CSEL 40:62–63; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-2/#p-15-3).

## City of God 15.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-2/#p-15-4
- Source: CSEL 40:63–64
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The earthly city seeks earthly peace through war; its goods are real gifts of God, but loving them above heavenly goods brings misery.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. De terrenae ciuitatis uel concertatione uel pace. Terrena porro ciuitas, quae sempiterna non erit (neque enim, cum extremo supplicio damnata fuerit, iam ciuitas erit), hic habet bonum suum, cuius societate laetatur, qualis esse de talibus laetitia rebus potest. Et quoniam non est tale bonum, ut nullas angustias faciat amatoribus suis, ideo ciuitas ista aduersus se ipsam plerumque diuiditur litigando, bellando adque pugnando et aut mortiferas aut certe mortales uictorias requirendo. Nam ex quacumque sui parte aduersus alteram sui partem bellando surrexerit, quaerit esse uictrix gentium, cum sit captiua uitiorum; et si quidem, cum uicerit, superbius extollitur, etiam mortifera; si uero condicionem cogitans casusque communes magis quae accidere possunt aduersis angitur, quam eis quae prouenerunt secundis rebus inflatur, tantummodo mortalis est ista uictoria. Neque enim semper dominari poterit permanendo eis, quos potuerit subiugare uincendo. Non autem recte dicitur ea bona non esse, quae concupiscit haec ciuitas, quando est et ipsa in suo humano genere melior. Concupiscit enim terrenam quandam pro rebus infimis pacem; ad eam namque desiderat peruenire bellando; quoniam si uicerit et qui resistat non fuerit, pax erit, quam non habebant partes in uicem aduersantes et pro his rebus, quas simul habere non poterant, infelici egestate certantes. Hanc pacem requirunt laboriosa bella, hanc adipiscitur quae putatur gloriosa uictoria. Quando autem uincunt qui causa iustiore pugnabant, quis dubitet gratulandam esse uictoriam et prouenisse optabilem pacem? Haec bona sunt et sine dubio Dei dona sunt. Sed si neglectis melioribus, quae ad supernam pertinent ciuitatem, ubi erit uictoria in aeterna et summa pace secura, bona ista sic concupiscuntur, ut uel sola esse credantur uel his, quae meliora creduntur, amplius diligantur: necesse est miseria consequatur et quae inerat augeatur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. On the strife and the peace of the earthly city.

The earthly city, moreover, which will not be everlasting (for once it has been condemned to the final punishment it will no longer be a city), has its good here, and rejoices in sharing it, with such joy as can be had from such things. And since this good is not of a kind that causes no distress to those who love it, this city is for the most part divided against itself by lawsuits, wars, and battles, and by seeking victories that are either deadly or at any rate short-lived. For whatever part of it rises up in war against another part seeks to be the conqueror of nations while it is itself the captive of vices. If, when it has conquered, it is lifted up more proudly, the victory is deadly as well; but if, considering its condition and the common chances, it is more troubled by the adversities that may befall than puffed up by the successes that have come, then this victory is merely short-lived. For it will not be able to rule for ever over those it has been able to subdue by conquering. It is not right, however, to say that the things this city desires are not goods, since the city itself, in its own human kind, is something better. For it desires a certain earthly peace for the sake of the lowest things, and it wishes to reach that peace by waging war; since if it conquers and there is no one left to resist, there will be peace, which the parties did not have while they were opposed to one another and contending in unhappy want over things they could not both possess. This is the peace that toilsome wars seek, this the peace that a victory reputed glorious obtains. And when those who fought in the juster cause conquer, who would doubt that the victory is to be welcomed and that a desirable peace has come? These are goods, and without doubt gifts of God. But if the better things that belong to the heavenly city, where victory will be secure in eternal and supreme peace, are neglected, and these goods are desired in such a way that they are believed to be the only goods, or are loved more than the things believed to be better, then misery must follow, and what misery was there already must increase.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.4 (CSEL 40:63–64; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-2/#p-15-4).

## City of God 15.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-2/#p-15-5
- Source: CSEL 40:64–66
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Cain the fratricide founded the earthly city, as Romulus, killing Remus, founded Rome; the good, if perfect, cannot fight each other.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. De primo terrenae ciuitatis auctore fratricida, cuius inpietati Romanae urbis conditor germani caede responderit. Primus itaque fuit terrenae ciuitatis conditor fratricida; nam suum fratrem ciuem ciuitatis aeternae in hac terra peregrinantem inuidentia uictus occidit. Unde mirandum non est, quod tanto post in ea ciuitate condenda, quae fuerat huius terrenae ciuitatis, de qua loquimur, caput futura et tam multis gentibus regnatura, huic primo exemplo et, ut Graeci appellant, ἀρχετύπῳ quaedam sui generis imago respondit. Nam et illic, sicut ipsum facinus quidam poeta commemorauit illorum, Fraterno primi maduerunt sanguine muri. Sic enim condita est Roma, quando occisum Remum a fratre Romulo Romana testatur historia; nisi quod isti terrenae ciuitatis ambo ciues erant. Ambo gloriam de Romanae rei publicae institutione quaerebant, sed ambo eam tantam, quantam, ni unus esset, habere non poterant. Qui enim uolebat dominando gloriari, minus utique dominaretur, si eius potestas uiuo consorte minueretur. Ut ergo totam dominationem haberet unus, ablatus est socius, et scelere creuit in peius, quod innocentia minus esset et melius. Hi autem fratres Cain et Abel non habebant ambo inter se similem rerum terrenarum cupiditatem, nec in hoc alter alteri inuidit, quod eius dominatus fieret angustior, qui alterum occidit, si ambo dominarentur (Abel quippe non quaerebat dominationem in ea ciuitate, quae condebatur a fratre), sed inuidentia illa diabolica, qua inuident bonis mali, nulla alia causa, nisi quia illi boni sunt, illi mali. Nullo enim modo fit minor accedente seu permanente consorte possessio bonitatis, immo possessio bonitas, quam tanto latius, quanto concordius indiuidua sociorum possidet caritas. Non habebit denique istam possessionem, qui eam noluerit habere communem, et tanto eam reperiet ampliorem, quanto amplius ibi potuerit amare consortem. Illud igitur, quod inter Remum et Romulum exortum est, quem ad modum aduersus se ipsam terrena ciuitas diuidatur, ostendit; quod autem inter Cain et Abel, inter duas ipsas ciuitates, Dei et hominum, inimicitias demonstrauit. Pugnant ergo inter se mali et mali; item pugnant inter se mali et boni: boni uero et boni, si perfecti sunt, inter se pugnare non possunt. Proficientes autem nondumque perfecti ita possunt, ut bonus quisque ex ea parte pugnet contra alterum, qua etiam contra semet ipsum; et in uno quippe homine caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum et spiritus aduersus carnem. Concupiscentia ergo spiritalis contra alterius potest pugnare carnalem uel concupiscentia carnalis contra alterius spiritalem, sicut inter se pugnant boni et mali; uel certe ipsae concupiscentiae carnales inter se duorum bonorum, nondum utique perfectorum, sicut inter se pugnant mali et mali, donec eorum, qui curantur, ad ultimam uictoriam sanitas perducatur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. On the first founder of the earthly city, a fratricide, whose impiety the founder of the city of Rome matched by killing his brother.

The first founder of the earthly city, then, was a fratricide; for, overcome by envy, he killed his brother, a citizen of the eternal city on pilgrimage in this land. So it is no wonder that so long afterwards, in the founding of that city which was to be the head of this earthly city we are speaking of and to rule over so many nations, a kind of image of its own sort answered to this first example, to what the Greeks call the archetype. For there too, as one of their poets recorded the crime itself, “The first walls were wet with a brother's blood.” For so Rome was founded, when, as Roman history testifies, Remus was killed by his brother Romulus; except that these two were both citizens of the earthly city. Both sought glory from establishing the Roman state, but both could not have as much glory as one would have if he were alone. For he who wished to glory in ruling would certainly rule less if his power were diminished by a living partner. So, that one man might have the whole rule, the partner was removed; and by crime there grew into something worse what by innocence would have been smaller and better. But these brothers, Cain and Abel, did not both have a like desire for earthly things, nor did the one who killed the other envy him because his own rule would become narrower if both ruled (for Abel did not seek rule in the city his brother was founding). It was that devilish envy with which the evil envy the good for no other reason than that the one are good and the other evil. For the possession of goodness is in no way made smaller when a partner joins in it or continues in it; rather, goodness is a possession which the undivided love of partners possesses the more widely the more harmoniously they possess it. In short, whoever will not have this possession in common will not have it at all, and he will find it the larger the more he is able to love his partner in it. What arose between Remus and Romulus, then, shows how the earthly city is divided against itself; what arose between Cain and Abel showed the enmity between the two cities themselves, the city of God and the city of men. So the wicked fight among themselves, the wicked and the wicked; again, the wicked and the good fight each other; but the good and the good, if they are perfect, cannot fight each other. Those who are advancing but not yet perfect can, however, in such a way that each good man fights against another with that part of himself with which he also fights against himself; for even within a single man “the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh.” So the spiritual desire of one can fight against the carnal desire of another, or the carnal desire of one against the spiritual desire of another, as the good and the wicked fight each other; or indeed the carnal desires of two good men, not yet perfect, can fight each other, as the wicked fight the wicked, until the health of those being healed is brought to final victory.

### Scripture references

- Gen 4:8: allusion, high confidence
- Gal 5:17: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Lucan, 1.95 (Lucan, Civil War): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The poet is Lucan, Pharsalia 1.95. Gal 5:17 is quoted. The Greek word (ἀρχετύπῳ, “archetype”) is garbled in the digital text; the correction restores it.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.5 (CSEL 40:64–66; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-2/#p-15-5).

## City of God 15.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-2/#p-15-6
- Source: CSEL 40:66–67
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The citizens of God's city, still weak from sin, are healed by mutual correction and forgiveness, but only as the Holy Spirit works within.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. De languoribus, quos ex poena peccati etiam ciues ciuitatis Dei in huius uitae peregrinatione patiuntur et a quibus Deo medente sanantur. Languor est quippe iste, id est illa inoboedientia, de qua in libro quarto decimo disseruimus, primae inoboedientiae supplicium, et ideo non natura, sed uitium; propter quod dicitur proficientibus bonis et ex fide in hac peregrinatione uiuentibus: In uicem onera uestra portate, et sic adinplebitis legem Christi; item alibi dicitur: Corripite inquietos, consolamini pusillanimes, suscipite infirmos, patientes estote ad omnes; uidete ne quis malum pro malo alicui reddat; item alio loco: Si praeoccupatus fuerit homo in aliquo delicto, nos, qui spiritales estis, instruite huius modi in spiritu mansuetudinis, intendens te ipsum, ne et tu tenteris; et alibi: Sol non occidat super iracundiam uestram; et in euangelio: Si peccauerit in te frater tuus, corripe eum inter te et ipsum; item de peccatis, in quibus multorum cauetur offensio, apostolus dicit: Peccantes coram omnibus argue, ut ceteri timorem habeant. Propter hoc et de uenia in uicem danda multa praecipiuntur et magna cura propter tenendam pacem, sine qua nemo poterit uidere Deum; ubi ille terror, quando iubetur seruus decem milium talentorum reddere debita, quae illi fuerant relaxata, quoniam debitum denariorum centum conseruo suo non relaxauit; qua similitudine proposita Dominus Iesus adiecit adque ait: Sic et uobis faciet Pater uester caelestis, si non dimiseritis unusquisque fratri suo de cordibus uestris. Hoc modo curantur ciues ciuitatis Dei in hac terra peregrinantes et paci supernae patriae suspirantes. Spiritus autem sanctus operatur intrinsecus, ut ualeat aliquid medicina, quae adhibetur extrinsecus. Alioquin etiamsi Deus ipse utens creatura sibi subdita in aliqua specie humana sensus adloquatur humanos, siue istos corporis siue illos, quos istis simillimos habemus in somnis, nec interiore gratia mentem regat adque agat, nihil prodest homini omnis praedicatio ueritatis. Facit autem hoc Deus a uasis misericordiae irae uasa discernens, dispensatione qua ipse nouit multum occulta, sed tamen iusta. Ipso quippe adiuuante mirabilibus et latentibus modis, cum peccatum quod habitat in membris nostris, quae potius iam poena peccati est, sicut apostolus praecipit, non regnat in nostro mortali corpore ad oboediendum desideriis eius nec ei membra nostra uelut iniquitatis arma exhibemus, conuertitur ad mentem non sibi ad mala, Deo regente, consentientem et eam regentem tranquillius nunc habebit, postea sanitate perfecta adque inmortalitate percepta homo sine ullo peccato in aeterna pace regnabit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. On the weaknesses which even the citizens of the city of God suffer during the pilgrimage of this life as the penalty of sin, and from which they are healed by God's care.

This weakness, namely the disobedience we discussed in the fourteenth book, is the punishment of the first disobedience, and so it is not nature but a fault. That is why it is said to the good who are advancing and living by faith on this pilgrimage: “Bear one another's burdens, and so you will fulfil the law of Christ”; and elsewhere: “Reprove the restless, comfort the faint-hearted, support the weak, be patient toward all. See that no one repays anyone evil for evil”; and in another place: “If a man is overtaken in any fault, you who are spiritual, instruct such a one in a spirit of gentleness, looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted”; and elsewhere: “Do not let the sun go down on your anger”; and in the Gospel: “If your brother sins against you, reprove him between you and him alone.” Again, about sins by which many may be offended, the apostle says: “Rebuke those who sin before all, so that the rest may be afraid.” For this reason, too, much is commanded about forgiving one another, and with great care for keeping peace, without which no one will be able to see God. There is that terror, when the servant is ordered to pay back the ten thousand talents that had been remitted to him, because he did not remit to his fellow servant a debt of a hundred denarii; and having set out this parable, the Lord Jesus added: “So also your heavenly Father will do to you, if you do not forgive, each of you, his brother from your hearts.” In this way the citizens of the city of God are healed while they are on pilgrimage on this earth and sigh for the peace of the country above. But it is the Holy Spirit who works within, so that the medicine applied from without may have some effect. Otherwise, even if God himself, using a creature subject to him, were to speak to human senses in some human form, whether to the bodily senses or to those very like them which we have in sleep, and did not rule and move the mind by inward grace, all preaching of the truth would profit a man nothing. This God does, distinguishing the vessels of wrath from the vessels of mercy by a dispensation very hidden, which he knows, yet just. For by his help, in wonderful and hidden ways, when the sin that dwells in our members (which is rather now the penalty of sin) does not, as the apostle commands, reign in our mortal body so that we obey its desires, and we do not present our members to it as weapons of iniquity, it is turned toward the mind that, under God's rule, does not consent to it for evil; and the man will now have it more quietly under his rule, and afterwards, when health is made perfect and immortality received, he will reign without any sin in eternal peace.

### Scripture references

- Gal 6:2: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Thess 5:14–15: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 6:1: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:26: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 18:15: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Tim 5:20: quotation, high confidence
- Heb 12:14: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 18:23–35: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 18:35: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 6:12–13: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 7:17: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gal 6:2; 1 Thess 5:14–15; Gal 6:1; Eph 4:26; Matt 18:15; 1 Tim 5:20; Heb 12:14 (allusion); the parable of Matt 18:23–35 and its conclusion 18:35; Rom 9:22–23; Rom 6:12–13; Rom 7:17.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.6 (CSEL 40:66–67; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-2/#p-15-6).

## City of God 15.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-2/#p-15-7
- Source: CSEL 40:67–72
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine interprets God's warning to Cain (Gen 4:6–7, in its Old Latin form), arguing that Cain's sin was envy and that man must rule over sin as the mind rules the flesh.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. De causa et pertinacia sceleris Cain, quem a facinore concepto nec Dei sermo reuocauit. Sed hoc ipsum, quod sicut potuimus exposuimus, cum Deus locutus esset ad Cain eo more, quo cum primis hominibus per creaturam subiectam uelut eorum socius forma congrua loquebatur, quid ei profuit? Nonne conceptum scelus in necando fratre etiam post uerbum diuinae admonitionis inpleuit? Nam cum sacrificia discreuisset amborum, in illius respiciens, huius despiciens, quod non dubitandum est potuisse cognosci signo aliquo adtestante uisibili, et hoc ideo fecisset Deus, quia mala erant opera huius, fratris uero eius bona: contristatus est Cain ualde et concidit facies eius. Sic enim scriptum est: Et dixit Dominus ad Cain: Quare tristis factus es et quare concidit facies tua? Nonne si recte offeras, recte autem non diuidas, peccasti? Quiesce; ad te enim conuersio eius, et tu dominaberis illius. In hac admonitione uel monitu, quem Deus protulit ad Cain, illud quidem quod dictum est: Nonne si recte offeras, recte autem non diuidas, peccasti? quia non elucet quur uel unde sit dictum, multos sensus peperit eius obscuritas, cum diuinarum scripturarum quisque tractator secundum fidei regulam id conatur exponere. Recte quippe offertur sacrificium, cum offertur Deo uero, cui uni tantummodo sacrificandum est. Non autem recte diuiditur, dum non discernuntur recte uel loca uel tempora uel res ipsae quae offeruntur uel qui offert et cui offertur uel hi, quibus ad uescendum distribuitur quod oblatum est, ut diuisionem hic discretionem intellegamus; siue cum offertur ubi non oportet, aut quod non ibi sed alibi oportet, siue cum offertur quando non oportet, aut quod non tunc sed alias oportet, siue cum id offertur, quod nusquam et numquam penitus debuit, siue cum electiora sibi eiusdem generis rerum tenet homo, quam sunt ea, quae offert Deo, siue eius rei quae oblata est, fit particeps profanus aut quilibet quem fas non est fieri. In quo autem horum Deo displicuerit Cain, facile non potest inueniri. Sed quoniam Iohannes apostolus, cum de his fratribus loqueretur: Non sicut Cain, inquit, ex maligno erat et occidit fratrem suum; et cuius rei gratia occidit? Quia opera illius maligna fuerunt, fratris autem eius iusta: datur intellegi propterea Deum non respexisse in munus eius, quia hoc ipso male diuidebat, dans Deo aliquid suum, sibi autem se ipsum. Quod omnes faciunt, qui non Dei, sed suam sectantes uoluntatem, id est non recto, sed peruerso corde uiuentes, offerunt tamen Deo munus, quo putant eum redimi, ut eorum non opituletur sanandis prauis cupiditatibus, sed explendis. Et hoc est terrenae proprium ciuitatis, Deum uel deos colere, quibus adiuuantibus regnet in uictoriis et pace terrena, non caritate consulendi, sed dominandi cupiditate. Boni quippe ad hoc utuntur mundo, ut fruantur Deo; mali autem contra, ut fruantur mundo, uti uolunt Deo; qui tamen eum uel esse uel res humanas curare iam credunt. Sunt enim multo deteriores, qui ne hoc quidem credunt. Cognito itaque Cain quod super eius germani sacrificium, nec super suum respexerat Deus, utique fratrem bonum mutatus imitari, non elatus debuit aemulari. Sed contristatus est et concidit facies eius. Hoc peccatum maxime arguit Deus, tristitiam de alterius bonitate, et hoc fratris. Hoc quippe arguendo interrogauit dicens: Quare contristatus es, et quare concidit facies tua? Quia enim fratri inuidebat, Deus uidebat et hoc arguebat. Nam hominibus, quibus absconditum est cor alterius, esse posset ambiguum et prorsus incertum, utrum illa tristitia malignitatem suam, in qua se Deo displicuisse didicerat, an fratris doluerit bonitatem, quae Deo placuit, cum in sacrificium eius adspexit. Sed rationem reddens Deus, quur eius oblationem accipere noluerit, ut sibi ipse potius merito quam ei frater inmerito displiceret, cum esset iniustus non recte diuidendo, hoc est non recte uiuendo, et indignus cuius adprobaretur oblatio, quam esset iniustior, quod fratrem iustum gratis odisset, ostendit. Non tamen eum dimittens sine mandato sancto, iusto et bono: Quiesce, inquit; ad te enim conuersio eius, et tu dominaberis illius. Numquid fratris? Absit. Cuius igitur, nisi peccati? Dixerat enim: Peccasti, tum deinde addidit: Quiesce; ad te enim conuersio eius, et tu dominaberis illius. Potest quidem ita intellegi ad ipsum hominem conuersionem esse debere peccati, ut nulli alii quam sibi sciat tribuere debere quod peccat. Haec est enim salubris paenitentiae medicina et ueniae petitio non incongrua, ut, ubi ait: Ad te enim conuersio eius, non subaudiatur erit, sed (sit); praecipientis uidelicet, non praedicentis modo. Tunc enim dominabitur quisque peccato, si id sibi non defendendo praeposuerit, sed paenitendo subiecerit; alioquin et illi seruiet dominanti, si patrocinium adhibuerit accidenti. Sed ut peccatum intellegatur concupiscentia ipsa carnalis, de qua dicit apostolus: Caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum, in cuius carnis fructibus et inuidiam commemorat, qua utique Cain stimulabatur et accendebatur in fratris exitium: bene subauditur erit, id est: Ad te enim conuersio eius erit, et tu dominaberis illius. Cum enim commota fuerit pars ipsa carnalis, quam peccatum appellat apostolus, ubi dicit: Non ego operor illud, sed quod habitat in me peccatum (quam partem animi etiam philosophi dicunt esse uitiosam, non quae mentem debeat trahere, sed cui mens debeat imperare eamque ab inlicitis operibus ratione cohibere); — cum ergo commota fuerit ad aliquid perperam committendum, si quiescatur et obtemperetur dicenti apostolo: Nec exhibueritis membra uestra arma iniquitatis peccato, ad mentem domita et uicta conuertitur, ut subditae ratio dominetur. Hoc praecepit Deus huic, qui facibus inuidiae inflammabatur in fratrem et, quem debuerat imitari, cupiebat auferri. Quiesce, inquit; manus ab scelere contine, non regnet peccatum in tuo mortali corpore ad oboediendum desideriis eius, nec exhibeas membra tua iniquitatis arma peccato. Ad te enim conuersio eius, dum non adiuuatur relaxando, sed quiescendo frenatur; et tu dominaberis illius, ut, cum forinsecus non permittitur operari, sub potestate mentis regentis et beneuolentis adsuescat etiam intrinsecus non moueri. Dictum est tale aliquid in eodem diuino libro et de muliere, quando post peccatum Deo interrogante adque iudicante damnationis sententias acceperunt, in serpente diabolus et in se ipsis illa et maritus. Cum enim dixisset ei: Multiplicans multiplicabo tristitias tuas et gemitum tuum, et in tristitiis paries filios, deinde addidit: Et ad uirum tuum conuersio tua, et ipse tui dominabitur. Quod dictum est ad Cain de peccato uel de uitiosa carnis concupiscentia, hoc isto loco de peccatrice femina; ubi intellegendum est uirum ad regendam uxorem animo carnem regenti similem esse oportere. Propter quod dicit apostolus: Qui diligit uxorem suam, se ipsum diligit; nemo enim umquam carnem suam odio habuit. Sananda sunt enim haec sicut nostra, non sicut aliena damnanda. Sed illud Dei praeceptum Cain sicut praeuaricator accepit. Inualescente quippe inuidentiae uitio fratrem insidiatus occidit. Talis erat terrenae conditor ciuitatis. Quo modo autem significauerit etiam Iudaeos, a quibus Christus occisus est pastor ouium hominum, quem pastor ouium pecorum praefigurabat Abel, quia in allegoria prophetica res est, parco nunc dicere, et quaedam hinc aduersus Faustum Manichaeum dixisse me recolo.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. On the cause of Cain's crime and his obstinacy in it, since not even God's word called him back from the deed he had conceived.

But what did this very thing, which we have explained as best we could, profit Cain, when God had spoken to him in the way in which he used to speak with the first human beings through a subject creature, in a fitting form, as though he were their companion? Did he not carry out the crime he had conceived, the killing of his brother, even after the word of divine warning? For when God had distinguished between their sacrifices, looking upon the one, disregarding the other (and there is no doubt this could have been known by some visible sign bearing witness to it), and had done so because Cain's works were evil and his brother's good, Cain was greatly grieved and his face fell. For so it is written: “And the Lord said to Cain: Why have you become sad, and why has your face fallen? If you offer rightly but do not divide rightly, have you not sinned? Be still; for its turning is toward you, and you shall rule over it.” In this admonition or warning which God gave Cain, the words “If you offer rightly but do not divide rightly, have you not sinned?” have, because it is not clear why or from what they were said, produced many interpretations through their obscurity, as each interpreter of the divine Scriptures tries to explain them according to the rule of faith. A sacrifice is rightly offered when it is offered to the true God, to whom alone sacrifice must be made. But it is not rightly divided when there is no right distinction of places or times or of the things offered, or of the one who offers and the one to whom it is offered, or of those to whom what has been offered is distributed as food (so that we take “division” here to mean discernment): whether when it is offered where it should not be, or when what should be offered elsewhere is offered there; or when it is offered when it should not be, or when what should be offered at another time is offered then; or when what ought never and nowhere to have been offered at all is offered; or when a man keeps for himself choicer things of the same kind than those he offers to God; or when a profane person, or anyone for whom it is not lawful, shares in the thing offered. But in which of these Cain displeased God cannot easily be found. But since the apostle John, speaking of these brothers, says, “Not like Cain, who was of the evil one and killed his brother. And why did he kill him? Because his works were evil, but his brother's righteous”, we are given to understand that God did not look upon his gift because he divided wrongly in this very thing: giving God something of his own, but himself to himself. So do all who follow not God's will but their own, that is, who live not with an upright but with a perverse heart, and yet offer God a gift by which they think he is bought, so that he may help them not to heal their depraved desires but to satisfy them. And this is characteristic of the earthly city: to worship God or gods by whose help it may reign in victories and earthly peace, not out of love of serving others but out of lust for ruling them. For the good use the world in order to enjoy God; but the wicked, on the contrary, want to use God in order to enjoy the world; that is, those of them who still believe that he exists or cares for human affairs; for those who do not believe even this are much worse. So when Cain knew that God had looked upon his brother's sacrifice and not upon his own, he certainly ought to have been changed and imitated his good brother, not been puffed up and become his rival. But he was grieved and his face fell. This is the sin God especially rebukes: grief at another's goodness, and that a brother's. For in rebuking this he asked: “Why are you grieved, and why has your face fallen?” Because he envied his brother, God saw it and rebuked it. For to human beings, from whom another's heart is hidden, it might be doubtful and altogether uncertain whether that grief was sorrow for his own wickedness, by which he had learned he displeased God, or for his brother's goodness, which pleased God when he looked upon his sacrifice. But God, in giving the reason why he refused to accept his offering, so that Cain might rather be displeased with himself, with good reason, than with his brother, without reason, showed that while he was unrighteous in not dividing rightly, that is, in not living rightly, and unworthy to have his offering approved, he was still more unrighteous in hating his righteous brother without cause.

Yet he did not dismiss him without a holy, just, and good command: “Be still,” he said, “for its turning is toward you, and you shall rule over it.” Over his brother? Far from it. Over what, then, but sin? For he had said, “You have sinned,” and then he added: “Be still; for its turning is toward you, and you shall rule over it.” This can indeed be understood to mean that the turning of the sin ought to be toward the man himself, so that he knows he must attribute his sinning to no one but himself. For this is the healing medicine of repentance and a not unfitting petition for pardon: that where it says, “for its turning is toward you”, we understand not “will be” but “let it be”, as a command, that is, not a prediction. For each person will rule over sin if he does not set it over himself by defending it but subjects it to himself by repenting; otherwise he will serve it as his master if he takes up the defense of what has befallen him. But if sin is understood to be the carnal desire itself, of which the apostle says, “the flesh lusts against the spirit”, among whose fruits he also names envy, by which Cain was indeed goaded and inflamed to his brother's destruction, then “will be” is rightly understood: that is, “for its turning will be toward you, and you shall rule over it.” For when that carnal part itself is stirred, which the apostle calls sin when he says, “It is not I who do it, but sin that dwells in me” (the part of the soul which even the philosophers say is faulty, which ought not to drag the mind along but which the mind ought to command and restrain by reason from unlawful deeds), when, then, it is stirred to commit some wrong, if one is still and obeys the apostle who says, “Do not present your members to sin as weapons of iniquity”, it turns back to the mind, tamed and conquered, so that reason rules it as its subject. This is what God commanded this man, who was inflamed with the torches of envy against his brother and wished him removed whom he ought to have imitated. “Be still,” he says; keep your hands from crime; do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its desires, and do not present your members to sin as weapons of iniquity. “For its turning is toward you”, while it is not helped by being given rein but is bridled by being still; “and you shall rule over it”, so that, when it is not permitted to act outwardly, it may grow used, under the power of a ruling and well-disposed mind, not to be stirred even inwardly.

Something of the same kind was said in the same divine book about the woman too, when after the sin, God questioning and judging, they received their sentences of condemnation: the devil in the serpent, and she and her husband in their own persons. For when he had said to her, “I will greatly multiply your sorrows and your groaning, and in sorrows you shall bear children”, he then added: “And your turning shall be toward your husband, and he shall rule over you.” What was said to Cain about sin, or the faulty desire of the flesh, is said here about the sinful woman; and it is to be understood that the husband, in ruling his wife, ought to be like the mind ruling the flesh. That is why the apostle says: “He who loves his wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh.” For these are to be healed as our own, not condemned as foreign. But Cain received that command of God as a transgressor. For as the vice of envy grew strong, he lay in wait for his brother and killed him. Such was the founder of the earthly city. How he also signified the Jews, by whom Christ was killed, the shepherd of the sheep that are human beings, whom Abel, the shepherd of the sheep that are cattle, prefigured, I refrain from saying now, since it belongs to prophetic allegory; and I recall that I said something on this point against Faustus the Manichaean.

### Scripture references

- Gen 4:4–5: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 4:6–7: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 3:12: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 5:17: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 5:21: allusion, medium confidence
- Rom 7:17: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 6:12–13: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 3:16: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 5:28–29: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 4:8: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 4:6–7 is quoted in the Old Latin form based on the Greek (“If you offer rightly but do not divide rightly…”), which differs from the Hebrew. Other quotations: 1 John 3:12; Gal 5:17 and 5:21 (envy among the works of the flesh); Rom 7:17; Rom 6:12–13; Gen 3:16; Eph 5:28–29. The passage on the Jews prefiguring Cain is translated as written; Augustine refers to his Against Faustus 12.9–13. Two stray characters in the digital text (a capital M before “Sed” and “ao”) are removed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.7 (CSEL 40:67–72; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-2/#p-15-7).

## City of God 15.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-2/#p-15-8
- Source: CSEL 40:72–75
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine defends the credibility of Cain's founding a city: Scripture names only the persons its purpose requires, and long lives allowed great populations.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. Quae ratio fuerit, ut Cain inter principia generis humani conderet ciuitatem. Nunc autem defendenda mihi uidetur historia, ne sit scriptura incredibilis, quae dicit aedificatam ab uno homine ciuitatem eo tempore, quo non plus quam uiri quattuor uel potius tres, postea quam fratrem frater occidit, fuisse uidentur in terra, id est primus homo pater omnium et ipse Cain et eius filius Enoch, ex cuius nomine ipsa ciuitas nuncupata est. Sed hoc quos mouet, parum considerant non omnes homines, qui tunc esse potuerunt, scriptorem sacrae huius historiae necesse habuisse nominare, sed eos solos, quos operis suscepti ratio postulabat. Propositum quippe scriptoris illius fuit, per quem sanctus Spiritus id agebat, per successiones certarum generationum ex uno homine propagatarum peruenire ad Abraham ac deinde ex eius semine ad populum Dei, in quo distincto a ceteris gentibus praefigurarentur et praenuntiarentur omnia, quae de ciuitate, cuius aeternum erit regnum, et de rege eius eodemque conditore Christo in Spiritu praeuidebantur esse uentura; ita ut nec de altera societate hominum taceretur, quam terrenam dicimus ciuitatem, quantum ei commemorandae satis esset, ut ciuitas Dei etiam suae aduersariae conparatione clarescat. Cum igitur scriptura diuina, ubi et numerum annorum, quos illi homines uixerunt, commemorat, ita concludat, ut dicat de illo, de quo loquebatur: Et genuit filios et filias, et fuerunt omnes dies illius uel illius quos uixit anni tot, et mortuus est: numquid quia eosdem filios et filias non nominat, ideo intellegere non debemus per tam multos annos, quibus tunc in saeculi huius prima aetate uiuebant, nasci potuisse plurimos homines, quorum coetibus condi possent etiam plurimae ciuitates? Sed pertinuit ad Deum, quo ista inspirante conscripta sunt, has duas societates suis diuersis generationibus primitus digerere adque distinguere, ut seorsum hominum, hoc est secundum hominem uiuentium, seorsum autem filiorum Dei, id est hominum secundum Deum uiuentium, generationes contexerentur usque diluuium, ubi ambarum societatum discretio concretioque narratur; discretio quidem, quod ambarum separatim generationes commemorantur, unius fratricidae Cain, alterius autem qui uocabatur Seth; natus quippe fuerat et ipse de Adam pro illo, quem frater occidit; concretio autem, quia bonis in deterius declinantibus tales uniuersi facti fuerant, ut diluuio delerentur, excepto uno iusto, cui nomen erat Noe, et eius coniuge et tribus filiis totidemque nuribus, qui homines octo ex illa omnium uastatione mortalium per arcam euadere meruerunt. Quod igitur scriptum est: Et cognouit Cain uxorem suam, et concipiens peperit Enoch; et erat aedificans ciuitatem in nomine filii sui Enoch: non est quidem consequens, ut istum primum filium genuisse credatur. Neque enim hoc ex eo putandum est, quia dictus est cognouisse uxorem suam, quasi tunc se illi primitus concumbendo miscuisset. Nam et de ipso patre omnium Adam non tunc solum hoc dictum est, quando conceptus est Cain, quem primogenitum uidetur habuisse: uerum etiam posterius eadem scriptura: Cognouit, inquit, Adam Euam uxorem suam, et concepit et peperit filium, et nominauit nomen illius Seth. Unde intellegitur ita solere illam scripturam loqui, quamuis non semper cum in ea legitur factos hominum fuisse conceptus, non tamen solum cum primum sibi sexus uterque miscetur. Nec illud necessario est argumento, ut primogenitum patri existimemus Enoch, quod eius nomine illa ciuitas nuncupata est. Non enim ab re est, ut propter aliquam causam, cum et alios haberet, diligeret eum pater ceteris amplius. Neque enim et Iudas primogenitus fuit, a quo Iudaea cognominata est et Iudaei. Sed etiamsi conditori ciuitatis illius iste filius primus est natus, non ideo putandum est tunc a patre conditae ciuitati nomen eius inpositum, quando natus est, quia nec constitui tunc ab uno poterat ciuitas, quae nihil est aliud quam hominum multitudo aliquo societatis uinculo conligata; sed cum illius hominis familia tanta numerositate cresceret, ut haberet iam populi quantitatem, tunc potuit utique fieri, ut et constitueret et nomen primogeniti sui constitutae inponeret ciuitati. Tam longa quippe uita illorum hominum fuit, ut illic memoratorum, quorum et anni taciti non sunt, qui uixit minimum ante diluuium, ad septingentos quinquaginta tres perueniret. Nam plures nongentos annos etiam transierunt, quamuis nemo ad mille peruenerit. Quis itaque dubitauerit per unius hominis aetatem tantum multiplicari potuisse genus humanum, ut esset unde constituerentur non una, sed plurimae ciuitates? Quod ex hoc conici facillime potest, quia ex uno Abraham non multo amplius quadringentis annis numerositas Hebraeae gentis tanta procreata est, ut in exitu eiusdem populi ex Aegypto sescenta hominum milia fuisse referantur bellicae iuuentutis: ut omittamus gentem Idumaeorum non pertinentem ad populum Israel, quam genuit frater eius Esau, nepos Abrahae, et alias natas ex semine ipsius Abrahae non per Sarram coniugem procreato.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. What reason there was for Cain to found a city at the very beginning of the human race.

But now, it seems to me, the history must be defended, so that Scripture may not be thought incredible when it says that a city was built by one man at a time when there appear to have been no more than four men on earth, or rather three, after brother killed brother: namely the first man, the father of all, Cain himself, and his son Enoch, after whose name the city itself was called. But those who are troubled by this give too little thought to the fact that the writer of this sacred history did not need to name all the people who could have existed then, but only those whom the plan of the work he had undertaken required. For the purpose of that writer, through whom the Holy Spirit was acting, was to come through the successions of certain generations descended from one man to Abraham, and then from his seed to the people of God, in which, set apart from the other nations, all the things would be prefigured and foretold which were foreseen in the Spirit as coming concerning the city whose kingdom will be eternal, and concerning its king and founder, Christ; yet in such a way that the other society of human beings, which we call the earthly city, would not be passed over in silence, so far as was enough to mention it, so that the city of God might shine out the more clearly by comparison with its adversary.

When, then, divine Scripture, where it records the number of years those men lived, concludes by saying of the one it was speaking of, “And he begot sons and daughters, and all the days of this or that one which he lived were so many years, and he died”, ought we, simply because it does not name those sons and daughters, to fail to understand that over so many years, in which people then lived in the first age of this world, very many human beings could have been born, by whose communities even very many cities could have been founded? But it pertained to God, by whose inspiration these things were written, first to arrange and distinguish these two societies in their different generations, so that the generations of men, that is, of those living according to man, should be traced separately, and separately those of the sons of God, that is, of men living according to God, down to the flood, where the separation and the mingling of both societies is related: the separation, because the generations of both are recorded separately, of the one from Cain the fratricide, of the other from the one called Seth (for he too had been born of Adam in place of the one his brother killed); the mingling, because as the good declined into worse, all had become such that they were destroyed by the flood, except one righteous man named Noah, with his wife, his three sons, and as many daughters-in-law, eight people who deserved to escape by the ark from that destruction of all mortals.

As for what is written, “And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he was building a city in the name of his son Enoch”, it does not follow that this was the first son he begot. Nor should this be supposed from his being said to have known his wife, as though he had then first united with her in intercourse. For of Adam himself, the father of all, this is said not only when Cain, who seems to have been his firstborn, was conceived; later the same Scripture says: “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore a son, and called his name Seth.” From this it is understood that this Scripture is accustomed to speak so, though not always when it is read that human conceptions took place, yet not only when the two sexes first unite. Nor is it a necessary argument for thinking Enoch his father's firstborn that the city was called by his name. For it is not unreasonable that for some reason the father, though he had others, loved him more than the rest. Judah was not the firstborn either, and yet Judea and the Jews are named from him. But even if this son was born first to the founder of that city, we need not think that his name was given to the city founded by his father at the time he was born; for a city, which is nothing but a multitude of people bound together by some bond of society, could not then have been established by one man. But when that man's family grew to such numbers that it had the size of a people, then it could certainly have happened that he both established a city and gave the name of his firstborn to the city he established. For the life of those men was so long that among those recorded there whose years are not passed over, the one who lived the shortest time before the flood reached seven hundred and fifty-three years. Many even passed nine hundred years, though no one reached a thousand. Who, then, would doubt that within the lifetime of one man the human race could have multiplied so much that there were enough people to establish not one but very many cities? This can very easily be inferred from the fact that from the one man Abraham, in not much more than four hundred years, so great a number of the Hebrew nation was produced that at the exodus of that people from Egypt there are said to have been six hundred thousand men of military age; not to mention the nation of the Idumaeans, which does not belong to the people of Israel, begotten by his brother Esau, Abraham's grandson, and other nations born from the seed of Abraham himself, though not through his wife Sarah.

### Scripture references

- Gen 5:4–5: quotation, medium confidence
- Gen 4:17: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 4:25: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 5:31: allusion, medium confidence
- Exod 12:37: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 7:13: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: the formula of Gen 5 (e.g. 5:4–5); Gen 4:17; Gen 4:25. The shortest life before the flood (753 years) is Lamech's in the Greek text of Gen 5:31 (777 in the Hebrew). Exodus figure: Exod 12:37.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.8 (CSEL 40:72–75; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-2/#p-15-8).

## City of God 15.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-2/#p-15-9
- Source: CSEL 40:75–76
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine defends the long lives and great size of the people before the flood, citing Virgil, Pliny, and a giant tooth he saw at Utica.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. De longa uita hominum, quae fuit ante diluuium et de ampliore humanorum corporum forma. Quam ob rem nullus prudens rerum existimator dubitauerit Cain non solum aliquam, uerum etiam magnam potuisse condere ciuitatem, quando in tam longum tempus protendebatur uita mortalium; nisi forte infidelium quispiam ex ipsa numerositate annorum nobis ingerat quaestionem, qua uixisse tunc homines scriptum est in auctoritatibus nostris, et hoc neget esse credendum. Ita quippe non credunt etiam magnitudines corporum longe ampliores tunc fuisse quam nunc sunt. Unde et nobilissimus eorum poeta Vergilius de ingenti lapide, quem in agrorum limite infixum uir fortis illorum temporum pugnans et rapuit et cucurrit et intorsit et misit: Vix illum — inquit — lecti bis sex ceruice subirent, Qualia nunc hominum producit corpora tellus, significans maiora tunc corpora producere solere tellurem. Quanto magis igitur temporibus recentioribus mundi ante illud nobile diffamatumque diluuium! Sed de corporum magnitudine plerumque incredulos nudata per uetustatem siue per uim fluminum uariosque casus sepulcra conuincunt, ubi apparuerunt uel unde ceciderunt incredibilis magnitudinis ossa mortuorum. Vidi ipse non solus, sed aliquot mecum in Uticensi litore, molarem hominis dentem tam ingentem, ut, si in nostrorum dentium modulos minutatim concideretur, centum nobis uideretur facere potuisse. Sed illum gigantis alicuius fuisse crediderim. Nam praeter quod erant omnium multo quam nostra maiora tunc corpora, gigantes longe ceteris anteibant; sicut aliis deinde nostrisque temporibus rara quidem, sed numquam ferme defuerunt; quae modum aliorum plurimum excederent. Plinius Secundus, doctissimus homo, quanto magis magisque praeterit saeculi excursus, minora corpora naturam ferre testatur; quod etiam Homerum commemorat saepe carmine fuisse conquestum, non haec uelut poetica figmenta deridens, sed in historicam fidem tamquam miraculorum naturalium scriptor adsumens. Verum, ut dixi, antiquorum magnitudines corporum inuenta plerumque ossa, quoniam diuturna sunt, etiam multo posterioribus saeculis produnt. Annorum autem numerositas cuiusque hominis, quae temporibus illis fuit, nullis nunc talibus documentis uenire in experimentum potest. Nec tamen ideo fides sacrae huic historiae deroganda est, cuius tanto inpudentius narrata non credimus, quanto inpleri certius praenuntiata conspicimus. Dicit tamen etiam idem Plinius esse adhuc gentem, ubi ducentos annos uiuitur. Si ergo humanarum uitarum diuturnitates, quas experti non sumus, hodie habere creduntur incognita nobis loca, quur non habuisse credantur et tempora? An uero credibile est alicubi esse quod hic non est, et incredibile est aliquando fuisse quod nunc non est?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. On the long life of human beings before the flood, and on the greater size of human bodies.

For this reason no sensible judge of things will doubt that Cain could have founded not merely some city but even a large one, when the life of mortals extended over so long a time; unless perhaps some unbeliever raises a question against us from the very number of years which our authorities record that men lived then, and denies that it is to be believed. For in the same way they do not believe that the size of bodies was then far greater than it is now. Hence even their most famous poet, Virgil, speaking of a huge stone, a boundary stone fixed in the fields, which a brave man of those times seized in battle, ran with, whirled, and hurled, says: “Scarcely could twice six chosen men lift it on their necks, such bodies of men as the earth now brings forth”, meaning that the earth used to bring forth larger bodies then. How much more, then, in the earlier times of the world, before that famous and far-reported flood! But as to the size of bodies, the unbelieving are generally convinced by tombs laid bare by age, or by the force of rivers and various accidents, in which bones of the dead of incredible size have appeared or from which they have fallen. I myself, and not alone but with several others, saw on the shore at Utica a human molar tooth so huge that, if it were cut up into pieces the size of our teeth, it seemed to us that it could have made a hundred. But I would believe that it belonged to some giant. For besides the fact that the bodies of all were then much larger than ours, the giants far surpassed the rest; just as in other times, and in our own, there have been, rarely indeed, but almost never lacking, bodies that far exceeded the measure of others. Pliny the Elder, a most learned man, testifies that the further the course of the age goes on, the smaller the bodies nature produces; and he records that Homer too often lamented this in his poetry, not mocking these things as poetic fictions but taking them as historical fact, as a writer on natural wonders. But, as I said, the bones that are found, since they last a long time, reveal even to much later ages the size of the bodies of the ancients. The number of each man's years in those times, however, cannot now be put to the test by any such evidence. Yet that is no reason to withdraw our faith from this sacred history; the more certainly we see its predictions fulfilled, the more shameless it would be for us not to believe its narratives. Yet the same Pliny says that there is still a nation where people live two hundred years. If, then, places unknown to us are believed to have today long spans of human life of which we have no experience, why should times not be believed to have had them? Or is it credible that what is not here exists somewhere, and incredible that what is not now existed at some time?

### Scripture references

- Gen 6:4: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 12.899–900 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Pliny the Elder, Pliny, Nat. 7.73–74 (Pliny the Elder, Natural History): allusion, high confidence
- Pliny the Elder, Pliny, Nat. 7.154 (Pliny the Elder, Natural History): allusion, medium confidence
- Homer, Il. 5.302–304 (Homer, Iliad): echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Virgil, Aeneid 12.899–900 (Turnus's stone). Pliny, Natural History 7.73–74 (bodies growing smaller; the reference to Homer is to Iliad 5.302–304) and 7.154–155 (peoples living two hundred years); the exact Pliny passages are cited approximately. “Giants” alludes to Gen 6:4.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.9 (CSEL 40:75–76; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-2/#p-15-9).

## City of God 15.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-10/#p-15-10
- Source: CSEL 40:76–78
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine sets out how the figures of Genesis 5 differ between the Hebrew and the Greek-based Latin manuscripts, while the lifespans largely agree.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. De differentia, qua inter Hebraeos et nostros codices uidentur annorum numeri dissonare. Quocirca etsi inter Hebraeos et nostros codices de ipso numero annorum nonnulla uidetur esse distantia, quod ignoro qua ratione sit factum: non tamen tanta est, ut illos homines tam longaeuos fuisse dissentiant. Nam ipse homo primus Adam, antequam gigneret filium, qui est appellatus Seth, ducentos triginta uixisse annos reperitur in codicibus nostris, in Hebraeis autem centum triginta perhibetur; sed postea quam eum genuit, septingentos uixisse legitur in nostris, octingentos uero in illis; adque ita in utrisque uniuersitatis summa concordat. Ac deinde per consequentes generationes antequam gignatur, qui gigni commemoratur, minus uixisse aput Hebraeos pater eius inuenitur centum annos; sed postea quam est genitus idem ipse, centum minus quam in Hebraeis inueniuntur in nostris; adque ita et hinc et inde numeri uniuersitas consonat. In sexta autem generatione nusquam utrique codices discrepant. In septima uero, ubi ille qui natus est Enoch non mortuus, sed quod Deo placuerit translatus esse narratur, eadem dissonantia est, quae in superioribus quinque de centum annis antequam gigneret eum, qui ibi commemoratus est, filium, adque in summa similis consonantia. Vixit enim annos, antequam transferretur, secundum utrosque codices trecentos sexaginta quinque. Octaua generatio habet quidem nonnullam diuersitatem, sed minorem ac dissimilem ceteris. Mathusalam quippe, quem genuit Enoch, antequam gigneret eum, qui in ipso ordine sequitur, secundum Hebraeos non centum minus, sed uiginti amplius uixit annos; qui rursus in nostris, postea quam eum genuit, reperiuntur additi, et in utrisque sibi summa uniuersi numeri occurrit. In sola nona generatione, id est in annis Lamech, filii Mathusalae, patris autem Noe, summa uniuersitatis discrepat, sed non plurimum. Viginti enim et quattuor annos plus uixisse in Hebraeis quam in nostris codicibus inuenitur. Namque antequam gigneret filium, qui uocatus est Noe, sex minus habet in Hebraeis quam in nostris; postea uero quam eum genuit, triginta amplius in eisdem quam in nostris. Unde sex illis detractis restant uiginti quattuor, ut dictum est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. On the difference by which the numbers of years seem to disagree between the Hebrew manuscripts and ours.

Therefore, although there appears to be some discrepancy about the number of years between the Hebrew manuscripts and ours, how it came about I do not know, it is not so great that they disagree about those men having been so long-lived. For the first man himself, Adam, is found in our manuscripts to have lived two hundred and thirty years before he begot the son who was called Seth, but in the Hebrew one hundred and thirty; but after he begot him, he is read to have lived seven hundred years in ours, but eight hundred in theirs; and so in both the grand total agrees. Then, through the following generations, before the son whose begetting is recorded was begotten, his father is found in the Hebrew to have lived a hundred years less; but after that son was begotten, a hundred years fewer are found in ours than in the Hebrew; and so on either side the total number agrees. In the sixth generation the two sets of manuscripts nowhere disagree. In the seventh, where Enoch, who was born, is said not to have died but to have been translated because he pleased God, there is the same discrepancy of a hundred years, as in the five preceding ones, before he begot the son there named, and the same agreement in the total. For according to both sets of manuscripts he lived three hundred and sixty-five years before he was translated. The eighth generation has some difference indeed, but smaller than and unlike the others. For Methuselah, whom Enoch begot, lived before he begot the one who follows in the line, according to the Hebrew, not a hundred years less but twenty more; and these are found added again in ours after he begot him, and in both the sum of the whole number comes out the same. Only in the ninth generation, that is, in the years of Lamech, son of Methuselah and father of Noah, does the grand total differ, but not by much. For he is found to have lived twenty-four years more in the Hebrew than in our manuscripts. For before he begot the son who was called Noah, he has six fewer years in the Hebrew than in ours; but after he begot him, thirty more in the same than in ours. So when those six are subtracted, twenty-four remain, as has been said.

### Scripture references

- Gen 5:1–32: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 5:24: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- “Our manuscripts” are the Latin translated from the Septuagint. Augustine is comparing the figures of Gen 5 in the Septuagint and the Hebrew text; Enoch's translation, Gen 5:24.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.10 (CSEL 40:76–78; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-10/#p-15-10).

## City of God 15.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-10/#p-15-11
- Source: CSEL 40:78–80
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine discusses the famous problem that the Septuagint figures make Methuselah outlive the flood by fourteen years, which the Hebrew figures do not.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. De annis Mathusalae, cuius aetas quattuordecim annis diluuium uidetur excedere. Per hanc autem discrepantiam Hebraeorum codicum adque nostrorum exoritur illa famosissima quaestio, ubi Mathusalam quattuordecim annos uixisse post diluuium conputatur, cum scriptura ex omnibus, qui in terra tunc fuerant, solos octo homines in arca exitium commemoret euasisse diluuii, in quibus Mathusalam non fuit. Secundum codices enim nostros Mathusalam priusquam gigneret illum, quem uocauit Lamech, uixit annos centum sexaginta septem; deinde ipse Lamech, antequam ex illo natus esset Noe, uixit annos centum octoginta octo, qui fiunt simul trecenti quinquaginta quinque; his adduntur sescenti Noe, quoto eius anno diluuium factum est: qui fiunt nongenti quinquaginta quinque, ex quo Mathusalam natus est usque ad annum diluuii. Omnes enim anni uitae Mathusalam nongenti sexaginta nouem conputantur, quia, cum uixisset annos centum sexaginta septem et genuisset filium, qui est appellatus Lamech, post eum genitum uixit annos octingentos duo; qui omnes, ut diximus, nongenti sexaginta nouem fiunt. Unde detractis nongentis quinquaginta quinque ab ortu Mathusalae usque ad diluuium remanent quattuordecim, quibus uixisse creditur post diluuium. Propter quod eum nonnulli, etsi non in terra, ubi omnem carnem, quam uiuere in aquis natura non sinit, constat fuisse deletam, cum patre suo qui translatus fuerat aliquantum fuisse adque ibi, donec diluuium praeteriret, uixisse arbitrantur, nolentes derogare fidem codicibus, quos in auctoritatem celebriorem suscepit ecclesia, et credentes Iudaeorum potius quam istos non habere quod uerum est. Non enim admittunt, quod magis hic esse potuerit error interpretum, quam in ea lingua esse falsum, unde in nostram per Graecam scriptura ipsa translata est, sed inquiunt non esse credibile septuaginta interpretes, qui uno simul tempore unoque sensu interpretati sunt, errare potuisse aut ubi nihil eorum intererat uoluisse mentiri; Iudaeos uero, dum nobis inuident, quod lex et prophetae ad nos interpretando transierint, mutasse quaedam in codicibus suis, ut nostris minueretur auctoritas. Hanc opinionem uel suspicionem accipiat quisque ut putauerit; certum est tamen non uixisse Mathusalam post diluuium, sed eodem anno fuisse defunctum, si uerum est quod de numero annorum in Hebraeis codicibus inuenitur. De illis autem septuaginta interpretibus quid mihi uideatur, suo loco diligentius inserendum est, cum ad ipsa tempora, quantum necessitas huius operis postulat, commemoranda adiuuante Domino uenerimus. Praesenti enim sufficit quaestioni secundum utrosque codices tam longas habuisse uitas illius aeui homines, ut posset aetate unius, qui de duobus, quos solos terra tunc habuit, parentibus primus est natus, ad constituendam etiam ciuitatem multiplicari genus humanum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. On the years of Methuselah, whose age seems to extend fourteen years beyond the flood.

From this discrepancy between the Hebrew manuscripts and ours arises that most famous question, in which Methuselah is reckoned to have lived fourteen years after the flood, although Scripture records that of all who were then on earth only eight people escaped the destruction of the flood in the ark, and Methuselah was not among them. For according to our manuscripts Methuselah lived one hundred and sixty-seven years before he begot the one he called Lamech; then Lamech himself lived one hundred and eighty-eight years before Noah was born of him, which together make three hundred and fifty-five; to these are added the six hundred of Noah, in the six hundredth year of whose life the flood came; which makes nine hundred and fifty-five from the birth of Methuselah to the year of the flood. But all the years of Methuselah's life are reckoned as nine hundred and sixty-nine, because, having lived one hundred and sixty-seven years and begotten the son called Lamech, he lived after begetting him eight hundred and two years; and all of them, as we have said, make nine hundred and sixty-nine. Hence, when the nine hundred and fifty-five from Methuselah's birth to the flood are subtracted, fourteen remain, which he is believed to have lived after the flood. For this reason some think that he was for a time with his father, who had been translated, though not on the earth, where it is agreed that all flesh which nature does not allow to live in water was destroyed, and that he lived there until the flood was past. They do not wish to withdraw faith from the manuscripts which the Church has received into the more widely recognized authority, and they believe that it is rather those of the Jews that do not have the truth than these. For they do not admit that the error here could more likely be the translators' than a falsehood in the language from which Scripture itself was translated, through the Greek, into ours; but they say it is not credible that the seventy translators, who translated at one time and with one sense, could have erred, or would have wished to lie where it did not matter to them; whereas the Jews, envying us because the law and the prophets have passed over to us by translation, changed some things in their manuscripts to lessen the authority of ours. Let each take this opinion or suspicion as he thinks fit; it is certain, however, that Methuselah did not live after the flood but died in the same year, if what is found in the Hebrew manuscripts about the number of years is true. What I think of those seventy translators must be set out more carefully in its proper place, when, with the Lord's help, we come to those times themselves, as far as the needs of this work require. For the present question it is enough that according to both sets of manuscripts the men of that age had lives so long that within the lifetime of one man, the first born of the only two parents the earth then had, the human race could have multiplied enough even to establish a city.

### Scripture references

- Gen 5:25–28: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 7:6: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Pet 3:20: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The figures are those of the Septuagint at Gen 5:25–27 and 5:28; flood in Noah's 600th year (Gen 7:6); eight saved (Gen 7:13; 1 Pet 3:20). The theory that the Jews altered their manuscripts is reported as others' opinion; Augustine does not adopt it. He treats the Septuagint later, in 18.42–44.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.11 (CSEL 40:78–80; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-10/#p-15-11).

## City of God 15.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-10/#p-15-12
- Source: CSEL 40:80–83
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine rejects the theory that antediluvian 'years' were a tenth of ours, pointing out that the Hebrew figures would make fathers of children seven to eleven years old.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII De opinione eorum. qui primorum temporum homines tam longaeuos, quam scribitur, fuisse non credunt. Neque enim ullo modo audiendi sunt, qui putant aliter annos illis temporibus conputatos, id est tantae breuitatis, ut unus annus noster decem illos habuisse credatur. Quapropter, inquiunt, cum audierit quisque uel legerit nongentos annos quemque uixisse, debet intellegere nonaginta; decem quippe illi anni unus est noster et decem nostri centum illi fuerunt. Ac per hoc, ut putant, uiginti trium annorum fuit Adam, quando genuit Seth, et ipse Seth uiginti agebat et sex menses, quando ex illo natus est Enos, quos appellat scriptura ducentos et quinque annos; quoniam sicut isti suspicantur, quorum exponimus opinionem, unum annum, qualem nunc habemus, in decem partes illi diuidebant et easdem partes annos uocabant; quarum partium habet una quadratum senarium, eo quod sex diebus Deus perfecerit opera sua, ut in septimo requiesceret (de qua re in libro undecimo, sicut potui, disputaui); sexiens autem seni, qui numerus quadratum senarium facit, triginta sex dies sunt; qui multiplicati deciens ad trecentos sexaginta perueniunt, id est duodecim menses lunares. Propter quinque dies enim reliquos, quibus solaris annus inpletur, et diei quadrantem, propter quem quater ductum eo anno, quo bissextum uocant, unus dies adicitur, addebantur a ueteribus postea dies, ut occurreret numerus annorum, quos dies Romani intercalares uocabant. Proinde etiam Enos, quem genuit Seth, decem et nouem agebat annos, quando ex illo natus est filius eius Cainan, quos annos dicit scriptura centum nonaginta. Et deinceps per omnes generationes, in quibus hominum anni commemorantur ante diluuium, nullus fere in nostris codicibus inuenitur, qui, cum esset centum annorum uel infra uel etiam centum uiginti aut non multo amplius, genuerit filium; sed qui minima aetate genuerunt, centum sexaginta, et quod excurrit, fuisse referuntur; quia nemo, inquiunt, decem annorum homo potest gignere filios, qui numerus centum appellabantur anni ab illis hominibus; sed in annis sedecim est matura pubertas et proli iam idonea procreandae, quos centum et sexaginta annos illa tempora nuncupabant. Ut autem aliter annum tunc fuisse conputatum non sit incredibile, adiciunt quod aput plerosque scriptores historiae reperitur, Aegyptios habuisse annum quattuor mensum, Acarnanas sex mensum, Lauinios tredecim mensum. Plinius Secundus cum commemorasset relatum fuisse in litteras quendam uixisse centum quinquaginta duos <annos>, aliam decem amplius, alios ducentorum annorum habuisse uitam, alios trecentorum, quosdam ad quingentos, alios ad sescentos, nonnullos ad octingentos etiam peruenisse, haec omnia inscitia temporum accidisse arbitratus est. Alii quippe, inquit, aestate <unum> determinabant annum et alterum hieme, alii quadripertitis temporibus, sicut Arcades, inquit, quorum anni trimenstres fuerunt. Adiecit etiam aliquando Aegyptios, quorum paruos annos quaternorum mensum fuisse supra diximus, lunae fine limitasse annum. Itaque aput eos, inquit, et singula milia annorum uixisse produntur. His uelut probabilibus argumentis quidam non destruentes fidem sacrae huius historiae, sed adstruere nitentes, ne sit incredibile quod tam multos annos uixisse referuntur antiqui, persuaserunt sibi, nec se suadere inpudenter existimant, tam exiguum spatium temporis tunc annum uocatum, ut illi decem sint unus noster et decem nostri centum illorum. Hoc autem esse falsissimum documento euidentissimo ostenditur. Quod antequam faciam, non mihi tacendum uidetur, quae credibilior possit esse suspicio. Poteramus certe hanc adseuerationem ex Hebraeis codicibus redarguere adque conuincere, ubi Adam non ducentorum triginta, sed centum triginta annorum fuisse reperitur, quando tertium genuit filium; qui anni si tredecim nostri sunt, procul dubio, primum quando genuit, undecim uel non multo amplius annorum fuit. Quis potest hac aetate generare usitata ista nobisque notissima lege naturae? Sed hunc omittamus, qui fortasse etiam quando creatus est potuit; non enim eum tam paruum, quam infantes nostri sunt, factum fuisse credibile est. Seth filius eius non ducentorum quinque, sicut nos legimus, sed centum quinque fuit, quando genuit Enos; ac per hoc secundum istos nondum habebat undecim annos aetatis. Quid dicam de Cainan eius filio, qui cum aput nos centum septuaginta reperiatur, aput Hebraeos septuaginta legitur fuisse, quando genuit Maleleel? Quis generat homo septennis, si tunc anni septuaginta nuncupabantur qui septem fuerunt?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. On the opinion of those who do not believe that the men of the earliest times were as long-lived as is written.

For those are by no means to be listened to who think that years were reckoned differently in those times, that is, were so short that one year of ours is believed to have contained ten of theirs. Therefore, they say, when anyone hears or reads that someone lived nine hundred years, he ought to understand ninety; for ten of those years are one of ours, and ten of ours were a hundred of theirs. And so, as they think, Adam was twenty-three years old when he begot Seth, and Seth himself was twenty years and six months old when Enosh was born of him, which Scripture calls two hundred and five years. For, as those whose opinion we are setting out suppose, the men of that time divided one year such as we have now into ten parts and called these parts years. Each of these parts contains the square of six, because God completed his works in six days in order to rest on the seventh (on which I have argued, as best I could, in the eleventh book); and six times six, which makes the square of six, is thirty-six days, which multiplied by ten reach three hundred and sixty, that is, twelve lunar months. For because of the five remaining days by which the solar year is completed, and the quarter of a day, because of which, taken four times, one day is added in the year they call bissextile, the ancients afterwards added days to make the number of the years come out, which days the Romans called intercalary. So also Enosh, whom Seth begot, was nineteen years old when his son Kenan was born of him, which years Scripture calls one hundred and ninety. And so through all the generations in which the years of men are recorded before the flood, hardly anyone is found in our manuscripts who begot a son when he was a hundred years old or less, or even one hundred and twenty or not much more; but those who begot at the youngest age are reported to have been one hundred and sixty and somewhat over. For no man ten years old, they say, can beget sons, and that number was called a hundred years by those men; but at sixteen puberty is mature and already fit to beget offspring, and those times called that one hundred and sixty years.

And to make it not incredible that the year was then reckoned differently, they add what is found in many writers of history: that the Egyptians had a year of four months, the Acarnanians of six months, the Lavinians of thirteen months. Pliny the Elder, having mentioned that it was recorded in writing that a certain man lived one hundred and fifty-two ⟨years⟩, another ten more, that others had a life of two hundred years, others of three hundred, some reached five hundred, others six hundred, and some even eight hundred, judged that all this happened through ignorance of the reckoning of time. “For some,” he says, “marked off ⟨one⟩ year by summer and another by winter; others by the four seasons, like the Arcadians,” he says, “whose years were of three months.” He added that the Egyptians, whose short years we said above were of four months, at one time bounded the year by the end of the moon. “So among them,” he says, “people are reported to have lived even a thousand years each.” By these seemingly probable arguments certain people, not overturning the credibility of this sacred history but trying to support it, so that it may not be incredible that the ancients are reported to have lived so many years, have persuaded themselves, and do not think the persuasion shameless, that so small a span of time was then called a year that ten of them are one of ours, and ten of ours a hundred of theirs.

But that this is utterly false is shown by the clearest evidence. Before I do that, however, it seems to me I should not keep silent about a suspicion that could be more credible. We could certainly refute and disprove this assertion from the Hebrew manuscripts, where Adam is found to have been not two hundred and thirty but one hundred and thirty years old when he begot his third son. If these years are thirteen of ours, then without doubt, when he begot his first son, he was eleven years old or not much more. Who can beget at this age by that ordinary law of nature so well known to us? But let us leave him aside, since perhaps he could do so even when he was created; for it is not credible that he was made as small as our infants are. His son Seth was not two hundred and five years old, as we read, but one hundred and five, when he begot Enosh; and so, according to these people, he was not yet eleven years old. What shall I say of his son Kenan, who, while in our manuscripts he is found to have been one hundred and seventy years old when he begot Mahalalel, is read in the Hebrew to have been seventy? What man begets at seven, if the years then called seventy were seven?

### Scripture references

- Gen 5:3: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 5:6: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 5:9: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 5:12: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:2: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Pliny the Elder, Pliny, Nat. 7.154–155 (Pliny the Elder, Natural History): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Pliny, Natural History 7.154–155 (the long lives and the short years of the Arcadians and Egyptians), cited approximately. The figures are from Gen 5 (Septuagint and Hebrew). Words in angle brackets are the editor's additions. A stray “Ii” at the end of the digital text is removed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.12 (CSEL 40:80–83; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-10/#p-15-12).

## City of God 15.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-10/#p-15-13
- Source: CSEL 40:83–86
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine attributes the systematic hundred-year differences in Genesis 5 to an early copyist of the Septuagint and concludes that, on historical figures, the original Hebrew should be preferred.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. An in dinumeratione annorum Hebraeorum magis quam septuaginta interpretum sit sequenda auctoritas. Sed cum hoc dixero, continuo referetur illud Iudaeorum esse mendacium, de quo superius satis actum est; nam septuaginta interpretes laudabiliter celebratos uiros non potuisse mentiri. Ubi si quaeram, quid sit credibilius, Iudaeorum gentem tam longe lateque diffusam in hoc conscribendum mendacium uno consilio conspirare potuisse et, dum aliis inuident auctoritatem, sibi abstulisse ueritatem, an septuaginta homines, qui etiam ipsi Iudaei erant, uno in loco positos, quoniam rex Aegyptius Ptolomaeus eos ad hoc opus asciuerat, ipsam ueritatem gentibus alienigenis inuidisse et communicato istuc fecisse consilio: quis non uideat quid procliuius faciliusque credatur? Sed absit ut prudens quispiam uel Iudaeos cuiuslibet peruersitatis adque malitiae tantum potuisse credat in codicibus tam multis et tam longe lateque dispersis, uel septuaginta illos memorabiles uiros hoc de inuidenda gentibus ueritate unum communicasse consilium. Credibilius ergo quis dixerit, cum primum de bibliotheca Ptolomaei describi ista coeperunt, tunc aliquid tale fieri potuisse in codice uno, sed primitus inde descripto, unde iam latius emanaret; ubi potuit quidem accidere etiam scriptoris error. Sed hoc in illa quaestione de uita Mathusalae non absurdum est suspicari, et in illo alio, ubi superantibus uiginti quattuor annis summa non conuenit. In his autem, in quibus continuatur ipsius mendositatis similitudo, ita ut ante genitum filium, qui ordini inseritur, alibi supersint centum anni, alibi desint; post genitum autem ubi deerant supersint, ubi supererant desint, ut summa conueniat; et hoc in prima, secunda, tertia, quarta, quinta, septima generatione inuenitur: uidetur habere quandam, si dici potest, error ipse constantiam nec casum redolet, sed industriam. Itaque illa diuersitas numerorum aliter se habentium in codicibus Graecis et Latinis, aliter in Hebraeis, ubi non est ista de centum annis prius additis et postea detractis per tot generationes continuata parilitas, nec malitiae Iudaeorum nec diligentiae uel prudentiae septuaginta interpretum, sed scriptoris tribuatur errori, qui de bibliotheca supradicti regis codicem describendum primus accepit. Nam etiam nunc, ubi numeri non faciunt intentum ad aliquid, quod facile possit intellegi uel quod appareat utiliter disci, et neglegenter describuntur et neglegentius emendantur. Quis enim sibi existimet esse discendum, quot milia hominum tribus Israel singillatim habere potuerunt? quoniam prodesse aliquid non putatur; et quotus quisque hominum est, cui profunditas utilitatis huius appareat? Hic uero, ubi per tot contextas generationes centum anni alibi adsunt, alibi desunt, et post natum, qui commemorandus fuerat, filium desunt ubi adfuerunt, adsunt ubi defuerunt, ut summa concordet: nimirum cum uellet persuadere, qui hoc fecit, ideo numerosissimos annos uixisse antiquos, quod eos breuissimos nuncupabant, et hoc de maturitate pubertatis, qua idonea filii gignerentur, conaretur ostendere, adque ideo in illis centum annis decem nostros insinuandos putaret incredulis, ne homines tamdiu uixisse recipere in fidem nollent, addidit centum, ubi gignendis filiis habilem non inuenit aetatem, eosdemque post genitos filios, ut congrueret summa, detraxit. Sic quippe uoluit credibiles facere idonearum generandae proli conuenientias aetatum, ut tamen numero non fraudaret uniuersas aetates uiuentium singulorum. Quod autem id in sexta generatione non fecit, hoc ipsum est quod magis mouet ideo illum fecisse, cum res, quam dicimus, postulauit, quia non fecit, ubi non postulauit. Inuenit namque in eadem generatione aput Hebraeos uixisse Iared, antequam genuisset Enoch, centum sexaginta duos (annos), qui secundum illam rationem breuium annorum fiunt anni sedecim et aliquid minus quam menses duo; quae iam aetas apta est ad gignendum, et ideo addere centum annos breues, ut nostri uiginti sex fierent, necesse non fuit, nec post natum Enoch eos detrahere, quos non addiderat ante natum. Sic factum est ut hic nulla esset inter codices utrosque uarietas. Sed rursus mouet, quur in octaua generatione, antequam de Mathusalam nasceretur Lamech, cum aput Hebraeos legantur centum octoginta duo anni, uiginti minus inueniuntur in codicibus nostris, ubi potius addi centum solent, et post genitum Lamech conplendam restituuntur ad summam, quae in codicibus utrisque non discrepat. Si enim centum septuaginta annos propter pubertatis maturitatem decem et septem uolebat intellegi, sicut nihil addere, ita nihil detrahere iam debebat, quia inuenerat aetatem idoneam generationi filiorum, propter quam in aliis centum illos annos, ubi eam non inueniebat, addebat. Hoc autem de uiginti annis merito putaremus casu mendositatis accidere potuisse, nisi eos, sicut prius detraxerat, restituere postea curaret, ut summae conueniret integritas. An forte astutius factum existimandum est, ut illa, qua centum anni prius solent adici et postea detrahi, occultaretur industria, cum et illic, ubi necesse non fuerat, non quidem de centum annis, uerum tamen de quantulocumque numero prius detracto, post reddito, tale aliquid fieret? Sed quomodolibet istuc accipiatur, siue credatur ita esse factum siue non credatur, siue postremo ita siue non ita sit: recte fieri nullo modo dubitauerim, ut, cum diuersum aliquid in utrisque codicibus inuenitur, quando quidem ad fidem rerum gestarum utrumque esse non potest uerum, ei linguae potius credatur, unde est in aliam per interpretes facta translatio. Nam in quibusdam etiam codicibus Graecis tribus et uno Latino et uno etiam Syro inter se consentientibus inuentus est Mathusalam sex annis ante diluuium fuisse defunctus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. Whether, in counting years, the authority of the Hebrews rather than that of the seventy translators should be followed.

But when I have said this, it will at once be answered that this is that lie of the Jews which has been sufficiently dealt with above; for the seventy translators, men justly praised and renowned, could not have lied. If I ask here which is more credible, that the nation of the Jews, spread so far and wide, could have conspired with one purpose in writing down this lie, and, while grudging others authority, deprived themselves of the truth; or that seventy men, who were themselves Jews, gathered in one place (since Ptolemy, king of Egypt, had summoned them for this work), grudged the truth itself to foreign nations and did so by common counsel: who does not see which is more readily and easily believed? But far be it from any sensible person to believe either that the Jews, however perverse and malicious, could have done so much in so many manuscripts scattered so far and wide, or that those seventy memorable men agreed on one plan to grudge the nations the truth. One would more credibly say, then, that when these books first began to be copied from Ptolemy's library, something of the kind could have happened in one manuscript, but the one first copied from there, from which it spread more widely; where even a copyist's error could have occurred. This it is not absurd to suspect in the question about Methuselah's life, and in that other case where the total does not agree by an excess of twenty-four years. But in those cases where the same pattern of error continues, so that before the begetting of the son who is placed in the line a hundred years are in excess in one text and lacking in the other, while after his begetting they are in excess where they were lacking and lacking where they were in excess, so that the total agrees, and this is found in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh generations, the error itself seems to have, if one may say so, a certain consistency, and smacks not of chance but of design.

Therefore let that difference of numbers, which stand one way in the Greek and Latin manuscripts and another way in the Hebrew, where this uniformity of a hundred years first added and afterwards subtracted is not continued through so many generations, be attributed neither to the malice of the Jews nor to the diligence or prudence of the seventy translators, but to the error of the copyist who first received the manuscript to be copied from the library of the king mentioned above. For even now, where numbers do not draw attention to something that can easily be understood or that clearly seems useful to learn, they are both carelessly copied and still more carelessly corrected. For who thinks he must learn how many thousands of men each of the tribes of Israel could have had? since it is not thought to be of any use; and how few people there are to whom the depth of its usefulness is apparent! But here, where through so many successive generations a hundred years are present in one place and absent in another, and after the birth of the son who was to be recorded they are absent where they had been present and present where they had been absent, so that the total agrees: clearly, the one who did this wanted to persuade people that the ancients lived very many years because they called very short periods years, and he tried to show this from the maturity of puberty at which they would be fit to beget sons; and so he thought that ten of our years should be suggested to the unbelieving in those hundred years, lest they refuse to believe that men lived so long; he added a hundred where he did not find an age fit for begetting sons, and after the sons were begotten he took away the same years so that the total would agree. In this way he wished to make credible the suitability of the ages fit for begetting offspring, without cheating the whole ages of the individual lives of their number.

That he did not do this in the sixth generation is the very thing that makes it more persuasive that he did it when the circumstance we describe required it, because he did not do it where it did not require it. For he found in that generation in the Hebrew that Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two ⟨years⟩ before he begot Enoch, which on that reckoning of short years become sixteen years and a little less than two months; and that age is already fit for begetting. So it was not necessary to add a hundred short years to make twenty-six of ours, nor to take away after Enoch's birth what he had not added before it. So it came about that here there was no difference between the two sets of manuscripts. But again it is puzzling why in the eighth generation, before Lamech was born of Methuselah, when one hundred and eighty-two years are read in the Hebrew, twenty fewer are found in our manuscripts, where a hundred are usually added instead, and after Lamech's birth they are restored to complete the total, which does not differ in the two sets of manuscripts. For if he wanted one hundred and seventy years to be understood as seventeen because of the maturity of puberty, just as he needed to add nothing, so he ought now to take away nothing, since he had found an age fit for begetting sons, for the sake of which he added those hundred years in the other cases where he did not find it. We might rightly think that these twenty years could have happened by an accidental error, if he had not taken care to restore them afterwards, as he had taken them away before, so that the total would be kept intact. Or should we perhaps think it was done more cunningly, to conceal the device by which a hundred years are usually first added and afterwards subtracted, by doing something of the same sort even where it was not necessary, not indeed with a hundred years, but with some small number first subtracted and afterwards given back? But however this is taken, whether it is believed to have been done so or not, and finally whether it is so or not, I would by no means doubt that it is right, when something different is found in the two sets of manuscripts, since both cannot be true as to the facts of history, to believe rather the language from which the translation into another was made by translators. For in some manuscripts, three Greek, one Latin, and even one Syriac, agreeing with one another, Methuselah was found to have died six years before the flood.

### Scripture references

- Gen 5:18: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 5:25–26: allusion, high confidence
- Num 1:20–46: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- On the translation of the Seventy under Ptolemy, compare 18.42–43. The census of the tribes: Num 1 and 26. Words in angle brackets are the editor's additions. The digital text carries many printed line numbers and stray marks, removed by logged corrections. Augustine's figures for Methuselah before Lamech (182 in the Hebrew, twenty fewer in the Latin) differ from the standard figures at Gen 5:25 (Hebrew 187, Septuagint 167); they are translated as printed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.13 (CSEL 40:83–86; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-10/#p-15-13).

## City of God 15.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-10/#p-15-14
- Source: CSEL 40:86–89
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine proves from the dated months of the flood narrative that the years of the patriarchs were as long as ours, and holds that the Septuagint's differences may be prophetic rather than errors.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. De parilitate annorum, qui eisdem quibus nunc spatiis et in prioribus saeculis cucurrerunt. Nunc iam uideamus quonam modo euidenter possit ostendi, non tam breues, ut illi decem unus esset noster, sed tantae prolixitatis annos, quantae nunc habemus (quos utique circuitus conficit solis), in illorum hominum uita prolixissima conputatos. Sescentensimo nempe anno uitae Noe scriptum est factum esse diluuium. Quur ergo ibi legitur: Et aqua diluuii facta est super terram sescentensimo anno in uita Noe, secundi mensis, septima et uicensima mensis, si annus ille minimus, quales decem faciunt unum nostrum, triginta sex habebat dies? Tantillus quippe annus, si antiquo more hoc nomen accepit, aut non habet menses, aut mensis eius est triduum, ut habeat duodecim menses. Quo modo igitur hic dictum est: Sescentensimo anno, secundi mensis, septima et uicensima mensis, nisi quia tales, quales nunc sunt, etiam tunc erant menses? Nam quo pacto aliter uicensimo et septimo die secundi mensis diceretur coeptum esse diluuium? Deinde postea in fine diluuii ita legitur: Et sedit arca in mense septimo, septima et uicensima mensis, super montes Ararat. Aqua autem minuebatur usque ad undecimum mensem; in undecimo autem mense prima die mensis paruerunt capita montium. Si igitur tales menses erant, tales profecto et anni erant, quales nunc habemus. Menses quippe illi triduani uiginti et septem dies habere non poterant. Aut si pars tricensima tridui tunc appellabatur dies, ut omnia proportione minuantur: ergo nec toto quadriduo nostro factum est illud tam grande diluuium, quod memoratur factum quadraginta diebus et noctibus. Quis hanc absurditatem et uanitatem ferat? Proinde remoueatur hic error, qui coniectura falsa ita uult adstruere scripturarum nostrarum fidem, ut alibi destruat. Prorsus tantus etiam tunc dies fuit, quantus et nunc est, quem uiginti quattuor horae diurno curriculo nocturnoque determinant; tantus mensis, quantus et nunc est, quem luna coepta et finita concludit; tantus annus, quantus et nunc est, quem duodecim menses lunares additis propter cursum solarem quinque diebus et quadrante consummant, quanti anni sescentensimi uitae Noe secundus erat mensis eiusque mensis uicensimus et septimus dies, quando coepit esse diluuium, in quo dies quadraginta continuatae ingentes pluuiae memorantur, qui dies non binas ac paulo amplius horas habebant, sed uicenas et quaternas die noctuque transactas. Ac per hoc tam magnos annos uixerunt illi antiqui usque amplius quam nongentos, quantos postea uixit Abraham centum septuaginta et post eum filius eius Isaac centum octoginta et filius eius Iacob prope centum quinquaginta, et quantos interposita aliquanta aetate Moyses centum uiginti, et quantos etiam nunc uiuunt homines septuaginta uel octoginta uel non multo amplius, de quibus dictum est: Et amplius eis labor et dolor. Illa uero numerorum uarietas, quae inter codices Hebraeos inuenitur et nostros, neque de hac antiquorum longaeuitate dissentit, et si quid habet ita diuersum, ut uerum esse utrumque non possit, rerum gestarum fides ab ea lingua repetenda est, ex qua interpretatum est quod habemus. Quae facultas cum uolentibus ubique gentium praesto sit, non tamen uacat, quod septuaginta interpretes in plurimis, quae diuersa dicere uidentur, ex Hebraeis codicibus emendare ausus est nemo. Non enim est illa diuersitas putata mendositas; nec ego ullo modo putandam existimo: sed ubi non est scriptoris error, aliquid eos diuino spiritu, ubi sensus esset consentaneus ueritati et praedicans ueritatem, non interpretantium munere, sed prophetantium libertate aliter dicere uoluisse credendum est. Unde merito non solum Hebraeis, uerum etiam ipsis, cum adhibet testimonia de scripturis, uti apostolica inuenitur auctoritas. Sed hinc me opportuniore loco, si Deus adiuuerit, promisi diligentius locuturum; nunc quod instat expediam. Non enim ambigendum est ab homine, qui ex primo homine primus est natus, quando tamdiu uiuebant, potuisse constitui ciuitatem, sane terrenam, non illam, quae dicitur ciuitas Dei, de qua ut scriberemus, laborem tanti huius operis in manus sumsimus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. On the equality of years, which ran in earlier ages by the same spans as now.

Now let us see how it can be clearly shown that the years reckoned in the very long life of those men were not so short that ten of them made one of ours, but of the same length as those we have now, which are determined by the circuit of the sun. It is written, namely, that the flood took place in the six hundredth year of Noah's life. Why, then, do we read there: “And the water of the flood came upon the earth in the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month”, if that tiny year, ten of which make one of ours, had thirty-six days? For so small a year, if it received this name by ancient custom, either has no months or its month is three days long, so that it may have twelve months. How, then, is it said here, “in the six hundredth year, in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month”, unless the months then were such as they are now? For how else could the flood be said to have begun on the twenty-seventh day of the second month? Then afterwards, at the end of the flood, we read: “And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat. And the water was decreasing until the eleventh month; and in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared.” If, then, the months were like ours, the years too were certainly such as we have now. For those three-day months could not have had twenty-seven days. Or if a thirtieth part of three days was then called a day, so that everything is reduced in proportion, then that very great flood, which is recorded to have lasted forty days and nights, did not last even four whole days of ours. Who would put up with such absurdity and emptiness? So let this error be removed, which by a false conjecture tries to build up the credibility of our Scriptures in one place in such a way as to destroy it in another. Plainly, the day was then as long as it is now, determined by twenty-four hours in the course of day and night; the month as long as it is now, bounded by the beginning and end of the moon; the year as long as it is now, completed by twelve lunar months with five days and a quarter added for the course of the sun. Of a year of this length was the second month of Noah's six hundredth year, and its twenty-seventh day, when the flood began; in which enormous rains are recorded to have continued for forty days, days which had not two hours apiece and a little more, but twenty-four, passing through day and night. And so those ancients lived years as long, even to more than nine hundred, as the years in which Abraham later lived a hundred and seventy, and after him his son Isaac a hundred and eighty, and his son Jacob nearly a hundred and fifty; and, after some interval of time, Moses a hundred and twenty; and in which men live even now seventy or eighty or not much more, of whom it is said: “And beyond that is their toil and sorrow.”

But that variety of numbers found between the Hebrew manuscripts and ours neither disagrees about this longevity of the ancients, nor, if it contains some difference such that both cannot be true, should the truth of the facts be sought anywhere but from the language from which our text was translated. Although this means is available to anyone who wishes, among all nations, yet it is not without significance that no one has dared to correct the seventy translators from the Hebrew manuscripts in the many places where they seem to say something different. For that difference has not been thought to be an error, nor do I think it should be thought one in any way. Rather, where there is no copyist's error, it is to be believed that they wished, by the divine Spirit, to say something differently where the sense would agree with the truth and proclaim the truth, not by the task of translators but by the freedom of prophets. That is why the authority of the apostles is found rightly using not only the Hebrew but also their version when it adduces testimonies from the Scriptures. But I have promised to speak of this more carefully, if God helps me, in a more suitable place; now I will deal with what is pressing. For it is not to be doubted that a city could have been founded by the man who was born first of the first man, since they lived so long: an earthly city, of course, not the one called the city of God, which is what we have taken in hand the labor of this great work in order to write about.

### Scripture references

- Gen 7:11: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 8:4–5: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 7:12: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 25:7: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 35:28: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 47:28: allusion, high confidence
- Deut 34:7: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 90:10 (89:10 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 7:11 (the Latin reads the twenty-seventh day, following the Greek; the Hebrew has the seventeenth); Gen 8:4–5 (in the Old Latin form); Ps 90:10 (89:10 LXX/Vulgate). Lifespans: Gen 25:7; 35:28; 47:28; Deut 34:7. On the Septuagint, compare 18.43.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.14 (CSEL 40:86–89; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-10/#p-15-14).

## City of God 15.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-10/#p-15-15
- Source: CSEL 40:89–92
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that the sons named in Genesis 5 need not have been firstborn, just as Matthew's genealogy names only those in the line to David.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. An credibile sit primi saeculi uiros usque ad eam aetatem, qua filios generasse referuntur, a concubitu continuisse. Dicet ergo aliquis: Itane credendum est hominem filios generaturum nec habentem propositum continentiae centum et amplius, uel secundum Hebraeos non multo minus, id est octoginta, septuaginta, sexaginta annos a concumbendi opere uacuisse, aut si non uacaret, nihil prolis gignere potuisse? Haec quaestio duobus modis soluitur. Aut enim tanto serior fuit proportione pubertas, quanto uitae totius maior annositas; aut, quod magis uideo esse credibile, non hic primogeniti filii commemorati sunt, sed quos successionis ordo poscebat, ut perueniretur ad Noe, a quo rursus ad Abraham uidemus esse peruentum, ac deinde usque ad certum articulum temporis, quantum oportebat signari etiam generationibus commemoratis cursum gloriosissimae ciuitatis in hoc mundo peregrinantis et supernam patriam requirentis. Quod enim negari non potest, prior omnibus Cain ex coniunctione maris et feminae natus est. Neque enim illo nato dixisset Adam, quod dixisse legitur: Adquisiui hominem per Deum, nisi illis duobus ipse fuisset homo nascendo additus primus. Hunc secutus Abel, quem maior frater occidit, praefigurationem quandam peregrinantis ciuitatis Dei, quod ab inpiis et quodam modo terrigenis, id est terrenam originem diligentibus et terrenae ciuitatis terrena felicitate gaudentibus, persecutiones iniquas passura fuerat, primus ostendit. Sed quot annorum erat Adam, cum eos genuit, non apparet. Exinde digeruntur generationes aliae de Cain, aliae de illo, quem genuit Adam in eius successionem, quem frater occidit, et appellauit nomen illius Seth dicens, ut scriptum est: Suscitauit enim mihi Deus semen aliud pro Abel, quem occidit Cain. Cum itaque istae duae series generationum, una de Seth, altera de Cain, has duas, de quibus agimus, distinctis ordinibus insinuent ciuitates, unam caelestem in terris peregrinantem, alteram terrenam terrenis tamquam sola sint gaudiis inhiantem uel inhaerentem: nullus de progenie Cain, cum dinumerata sit connumerato Adam usque ad octauam generationem, quot annorum fuisset expressus est, quando genuit eum, qui commemoratur post eum. Noluit enim Spiritus Dei in terrenae ciuitatis generationibus tempora notare ante diluuium, sed in caelestis maluit, tamquam essent memoria digniores. Porro autem Seth quando natus est, non quidem taciti sunt anni patris eius, sed iam genuerat alios; et utrum solos Cain et Abel, adfirmare quis audeat? Non enim quia soli nominati sunt propter ordines generationum quas commemorare oportebat, ideo consequens uideri debet solos fuisse tunc generatos ex Adam. Cum enim silentio coopertis omnium nominibus ceterorum legatur eum genuisse filios et filias: quota fuerit ista proles eius, quis praesumat adserere, si culpam temeritatis euitat? Potuit quippe Adam diuinitus admonitus dicere, postea quam Seth natus est: Suscitauit enim mihi Deus semen aliud pro Abel, quoniam talis erat futurus, qui inpleret illius sanctitatem, non quod ipse prior post eum temporis ordine nasceretur. Deinde quod scriptum est: Vixit autem Seth quinque et ducentos annos (uel secundum Hebraeos quinque et centum annos), et genuit Enos: quis possit nisi inconsideratus adseuerare hunc eius primogenitum fuisse? ut admirantes merito requiramus, quo modo per tot annos inmunis fuerit a conubio sine ullo proposito continentiae uel non genuerit coniugatus; quando quidem etiam de ipso legitur: Et genuit filios et filias, et fuerunt omnes dies Seth duodecim et nongenti anni, et mortuus est. Adque ita deinceps, quorum anni commemorantur, nec filios filiasque genuisse reticentur. Ac per hoc non apparet omnino, utrum, qui nominatur genitus, ipse fuerit primogenitus; immo uero, quoniam credibile non est patres illos aetate tam longa aut inpuberes fuisse aut coniugibus caruisse uel fetibus, nec illos eorum filios primos eis natos fuisse credibile est. Sed cum sacrae scriptor historiae ad ortum uitamque Noe, cuius tempore diluuium factum est, per successiones generationum notatis temporibus intenderet peruenire, eas utique commemorauit, non quae primae suis parentibus fuerint, sed quae in propagationis ordinem uenerint. Exempli gratia, quo id fiat apertius, aliquid interponam, unde nullus ambigat fieri potuisse quod dico. Euangelista Matthaeus generationem dominicae carnis per seriem parentum uolens commendare memoriae, ordiens a patre Abraham adque ad Dauid primitus ut perueniret intendens: Abraham, inquit, genuit Isaac; quur non dixit Ismael, quem primitus genuit? Isaac autem, inquit, genuit Iacob; quur non dixit Esau, qui eius primogenitus fuit? Quia scilicet per illos ad Dauid peruenire non posset. Deinde sequitur: Iacob autem genuit Iudam et fratres eius; numquid Iudas primogenitus fuit? Iudas, inquit, genuit Phares et Zarat; nec istorum geminorum aliquis fuit primogenitus Iudae, sed ante illos iam tres genuerat. Eos itaque tenuit in ordine generationum, per quos ad Dauid adque inde quo intenderat perueniret. Ex quo intellegi potest, ueteres quoque homines ante diluuium non primogenitos, sed eos fuisse commemoratos, per quos ordo succedentium generationum ad Noe patriarcham duceretur, ne serae pubertatis illorum obscura et non necessaria quaestio nos fatiget.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. Whether it is credible that the men of the first age abstained from intercourse until the age at which they are reported to have begotten sons.

Someone will say, then: Are we really to believe that a man who was to beget sons, and who had no intention of continence, refrained from the act of intercourse for a hundred years and more, or, according to the Hebrew, for not much less, that is, eighty, seventy, sixty years; or, if he did not refrain, that he could beget no offspring? This question is solved in two ways. Either puberty came later in proportion as the length of the whole life was greater; or, what I see to be more credible, it is not the firstborn sons who are recorded here, but those whom the order of succession required in order to reach Noah, from whom again we see the line reaching Abraham, and then on to a certain point of time, as far as was needed to mark, even by recording generations, the course of the most glorious city on pilgrimage in this world and seeking the country above.

For what cannot be denied is that Cain was born first of all from the union of male and female. For at his birth Adam would not have said what we read he said, “I have gained a man through God”, unless he had been the first man added to those two by birth. Abel followed him, whom his elder brother killed; he first showed a kind of prefiguring of the pilgrim city of God, in that it was to suffer unjust persecutions from the ungodly and, so to speak, earth-born, that is, those who love their earthly origin and rejoice in the earthly happiness of the earthly city. But how old Adam was when he begot them is not stated. From there the generations are set out, some from Cain, others from the one whom Adam begot to succeed the one his brother killed, and whom he named Seth, saying, as it is written: “For God has raised up for me another seed in place of Abel, whom Cain killed.” Since, then, these two series of generations, one from Seth, the other from Cain, indicate in distinct lines these two cities we are dealing with, the one heavenly, on pilgrimage on earth, the other earthly, gaping after or clinging to earthly joys as though they were the only ones, no one of Cain's progeny, though it is counted to the eighth generation including Adam, has his age stated at the time he begot the one recorded after him. For the Spirit of God did not wish to mark the times before the flood in the generations of the earthly city, but preferred to do so in those of the heavenly, as though they were more worthy of remembrance.

Moreover, when Seth was born, his father's years are indeed not passed over; but he had already begotten others, and who would dare to affirm that it was only Cain and Abel? For just because only they were named, for the sake of the lines of generations that had to be recorded, it should not seem to follow that only they had been born of Adam by then. For since, with the names of all the rest covered in silence, we read that he begot sons and daughters, who would presume to assert how large that offspring of his was, if he avoids the fault of rashness? Adam could have said, divinely prompted, after Seth was born, “For God has raised up for me another seed in place of Abel”, because he was to be such a one as would fulfil Abel's holiness, not because he was the next born after him in order of time. Then, where it is written, “And Seth lived two hundred and five years” (or according to the Hebrew one hundred and five years) “and begot Enosh”, who but a thoughtless person could assert that this was his firstborn? so that we would rightly wonder and ask how for so many years he stayed free of marriage without any intention of continence, or, being married, did not beget; since of him too we read: “And he begot sons and daughters, and all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years, and he died.” And so on, of those whose years are recorded, it is not passed over that they begot sons and daughters. And therefore it is not at all clear whether the one named as begotten was himself the firstborn; indeed, since it is not credible that those fathers, in so long a life, were either not of age or lacked wives or offspring, neither is it credible that those sons of theirs were the first born to them. But since the writer of the sacred history intended to reach, through the successions of generations with their times noted, the birth and life of Noah, in whose time the flood took place, he certainly recorded those generations, not which were the first for their parents, but which came into the line of descent.

By way of example, to make this clearer, I will insert something from which no one can doubt that what I say could have happened. The evangelist Matthew, wishing to commit to memory the descent of the Lord's flesh through a series of ancestors, beginning with father Abraham and intending first to reach David, says: “Abraham begot Isaac.” Why did he not say Ishmael, whom he begot first? “And Isaac,” he says, “begot Jacob.” Why did he not say Esau, who was his firstborn? Because, of course, he could not reach David through them. Then follows: “And Jacob begot Judah and his brothers.” Was Judah the firstborn? “Judah,” he says, “begot Perez and Zerah”; and neither of these twins was Judah's firstborn; he had already begotten three before them. So he kept in the line of generations those through whom he would reach David, and from there the goal he was aiming at. From this it can be understood that of the men of old before the flood too, not the firstborn were recorded, but those through whom the order of the succeeding generations was led to the patriarch Noah, so that the obscure and unnecessary question of their late puberty may not weary us.

### Scripture references

- Gen 4:1: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 4:25: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 5:6–8: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 1:2–3: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 38:1–5: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 4:8: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 4:1 (in the Latin, “through God”); Gen 4:25; Gen 5:6–8 (Seth's years: 205 in the Septuagint, 105 in the Hebrew); Matt 1:2–3. Judah's three elder sons: Gen 38:1–5. Ishmael and Esau: Gen 16:15; 25:25.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.15 (CSEL 40:89–92; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-10/#p-15-15).

## City of God 15.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-16/#p-15-16
- Source: CSEL 40:92–95
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that brother–sister marriage was necessary at first but became wicked, since spreading kinship ties widely strengthens social love; he approves the prohibition of cousin marriage.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. De iure coniugiorum, quod dissimile a subsequentibus matrimoniis habuerint prima conubia. Cum igitur genus humanum post primam copulam uiri facti ex puluere et coniugis eius ex uiri latere marium feminarumque coniunctione opus haberet, ut gignendo multiplicaretur, nec essent ulli homines, nisi qui ex illis duobus nati fuissent: uiri sorores suas coniuges acceperunt; quod profecto quanto est antiquius conpellente necessitate, tanto postea factum est damnabilius religione prohibente. Habita est enim ratio rectissima caritatis, ut homines, quibus esset utilis adque honesta concordia, diuersarum necessitudinum uinculis necterentur, nec unus in uno multas haberet, sed singulae spargerentur in singulos ac sic ad socialem uitam diligentius conligandam plurimae plurimos obtinerent. Pater quippe et socer duarum sunt necessitudinum nomina. Ut ergo alium quisque habeat patrem, alium socerum, numerosius se caritas porrigit. Utrumque autem unus Adam esse cogebatur et filiis et filiabus suis, quando fratres sororesque conubio iungebantur. Sic et Eua uxor eius utrique sexui filiorum fuit et socrus et mater; quae si duae feminae fuissent, mater altera et socrus altera, copiosius se socialis dilectio conligaret. Ipsa denique iam soror, quod etiam uxor fiebat, duas tenebat una necessitudines; quibus per singulas distributis, ut altera esset soror, altera uxor, hominum numero socialis propinquitas augeretur. Sed hoc unde fieret tunc non erat, quando nisi fratres et sorores ex illis duobus primis nulli homines erant. Fieri ergo debuit quando potuit, ut existente copia inde ducerentur uxores, quae non erant iam sorores, et non solum illud ut fieret nulla necessitas esset, uerum etiam si fieret nefas esset. Nam si et nepotes primorum hominum, qui iam consobrinas poterant accipere coniuges, sororibus matrimonio iungerentur, non iam duae, sed tres in homine uno necessitudines fierent, quae propter caritatem numerosiore propinquitate nectendam disseminari per singulos singulae debuerunt. Esset enim unus homo filiis suis, fratri scilicet sororique coniugibus, et pater et socer et auunculus; ita et uxor eius eisdem communibus filiis et mater et amita et socrus; idemque inter se filii eorum non solum essent fratres adque coniuges, uerum etiam consobrini, quia et fratrum filii. Omnes autem istae necessitudines, quae uni homini tres homines conectebant, nouem conecterent, si essent in singulis singulae, ut unus homo haberet alteram sororem, alteram uxorem, alteram consobrinam, alterum patrem, alterum auunculum, alterum socerum, alteram matrem, alteram amitam, alteram socrum; adque ita se non in paucitate coartatum, sed latius adque numerosius propinquitatibus crebris uinculum sociale diffunderet. Quod humano genere crescente et multiplicato etiam inter inpios deorum multorum falsorumque cultores sic obseruari cernimus, ut, etiamsi peruersis legibus permittantur fraterna coniugia, melior tamen consuetudo ipsam malit exhorrere licentiam, et cum sorores accipere in matrimonium primis humani generis temporibus omnino licuerit, sic auersetur, quasi numquam licere potuerit. Ad humanum enim sensum uel adliciendum uel offendendum mos ualet plurimum; qui cum in hac causa inmoderationem concupiscentiae coherceat, eum dissignari adque corrumpi merito esse nefarium iudicatur. Si enim est iniquum auiditate possidendi transgredi limitem agrorum, quanto est iniquius libidine concumbendi subuertere limitem morum! Experti autem sumus in conubiis consobrinarum etiam nostris temporibus propter gradum propinquitatis fraterno gradui proximum quam raro per mores fiebat, quod fieri per leges licebat, quia id nec diuina prohibuit et nondum prohibuerat lex humana. Verum tamen factum etiam licitum propter uicinitatem horrebatur inliciti et, quod fiebat cum consobrina, paene cum sorore fieri uidebatur; quia et ipsi inter se propter tam propinquam consanguinitatem fratres uocantur et paene germani sunt. Fuit autem antiquis patribus religiosae curae, ne ipsa propinquitas se paulatim propaginum ordinibus dirimens longius abiret et propinquitas esse desisteret, eam nondum longe positam rursus matrimonii uinculo conligare et quodam modo reuocare fugientem. Unde iam pleno hominibus orbe terrarum, non quidem sorores ex patre uel matre uel ex ambobus suis parentibus natas, sed tamen amabant de suo genere ducere uxores. Verum quis dubitet honestius hoc tempore etiam consobrinorum prohibita esse coniugia? non solum secundum ea, quae disputauimus, propter multiplicandas adfinitates, ne habeat duas necessitudines una persona, cum duae possint eas habere et numerus propinquitatis augeri; sed etiam quia nescio quo modo inest humanae uerecundiae quiddam naturale adque laudabile, ut, cui debet causa propinquitatis reuerendum honorem, ab ea contineat, quamuis generatricem, tamen libidinem, de qua erubescere uidemus et ipsam pudicitiam coniugalem. Copulatio igitur maris et feminae, quantum adtinet ad genus mortalium, quoddam seminarium est ciuitatis; sed terrena ciuitas generatione tantummodo, caelestis autem etiam regeneratione opus habet, ut noxam generationis euadat. Utrum autem aliquod fuerit, uel si fuit, quale fuerit corporale adque uisibile regenerationis signum ante diluuium, sicut Abrahae circumcisio postea est imperata, sacra historia tacet. Sacrificasse tamen Deo etiam illos antiquissimos homines non tacet; quod et in duobus primis fratribus claruit, et Noe post diluuium, cum de arca fuisset egressus, hostias Deo legitur immolasse. De qua re in praecedentibus libris iam diximus, non ob aliud daemones adrogantes sibi diuinitatem deosque se credi cupientes sibi expetere sacrificium et gaudere huius modi honoribus, nisi quia uerum sacrificium uero Deo deberi sciunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. On the law of marriages, in which the first unions differed from later marriages.

Since, then, after the first union of the man made from dust and his wife made from the man's side, the human race needed the joining of males and females in order to multiply by begetting, and there were no human beings except those born of those two, men took their sisters as wives. This was certainly the more ancient practice under the compulsion of necessity, and afterwards became the more worthy of condemnation when religion forbade it. For a most right account was taken of love, so that human beings, for whom concord was useful and honorable, might be bound by the ties of different relationships, and that one person should not have many relationships in one other, but that each should be distributed to different persons, and so, to bind social life more closely, very many relationships should take in very many people. For father and father-in-law are the names of two relationships. So that each may have one person as father and another as father-in-law, love extends more widely. But the one Adam was compelled to be both to his sons and his daughters, when brothers and sisters were joined in marriage. So too Eve his wife was both mother-in-law and mother to her children of both sexes; whereas if there had been two women, one the mother and the other the mother-in-law, social affection would have bound itself more abundantly. Finally, a sister herself, by becoming also a wife, held two relationships in one person; if these were distributed to separate persons, so that one was a sister and another a wife, social kinship would be increased in the number of persons. But there was then no means for this to happen, when there were no human beings except brothers and sisters born of the first two. So it ought to have been done when it could be done: that when there was a plentiful supply, wives should be taken from among those who were no longer sisters; and not only was there then no necessity for the former practice, but it would even be wicked if it were done. For if the grandchildren of the first human beings, who could by then take their cousins as wives, were joined in marriage to their sisters, there would now be not two but three relationships in one person, which, for the sake of binding love by more numerous kinship, ought to have been spread out one to each person. For one man would be to his own children, that is, to the brother and sister who were married, father and father-in-law and uncle; and so his wife would be to the same common children mother, aunt, and mother-in-law; and their children would be to one another not only brothers and spouses but also cousins, being the children of brother and sister. But all these relationships, which connected three people to one person, would connect nine, if each were in a separate person: so that one person would have one woman as sister, another as wife, another as cousin, one man as father, another as uncle, another as father-in-law, one woman as mother, another as aunt, another as mother-in-law; and so the social bond, not confined to a few, would spread more widely and numerously by many kinships.

We see that as the human race has grown and multiplied, this is observed even among the ungodly worshippers of many false gods, so that, even if marriages of brothers and sisters are permitted by perverse laws, a better custom nevertheless prefers to shudder at that license; and although it was entirely lawful to take sisters in marriage in the first times of the human race, custom so turns away from it as if it could never have been lawful. For custom has very great power either to attract or to offend human feeling; and since in this matter it restrains the excess of desire, it is rightly judged wicked to disregard and corrupt it. For if it is wrong, through greed for possessions, to overstep the boundary of fields, how much more wrong is it, through lust for intercourse, to overturn the boundary of morals! We have found by experience, even in our own times, in marriages of cousins, because of the degree of kinship next to that of brother and sister, how rarely custom allowed what the laws allowed; for neither did the divine law forbid it, nor had human law yet forbidden it. Yet an act that was lawful was shuddered at because of its nearness to the unlawful, and what was done with a cousin seemed almost to be done with a sister; for cousins too are called brothers and sisters among themselves because of so close a blood relationship, and are almost full siblings. It was, however, a matter of religious care to the ancient fathers that kinship itself, gradually separating itself through the lines of offspring, should not go too far off and cease to be kinship, and so to bind it again by the tie of marriage while it was not yet far removed, and in a way to call it back as it fled. Hence, even when the world was already full of people, they liked to take wives, not indeed sisters born of their father or mother or both parents, but still from their own family. Yet who would doubt that in our time even the marriage of cousins is more honorably forbidden? not only for the reason we have discussed, to multiply relationships by marriage, so that one person should not have two relationships when two persons could have them and the number of kinsfolk be increased; but also because there is, I do not know how, something natural and praiseworthy in human modesty, that from one to whom it owes, by reason of kinship, the honor of reverence, it restrains the lust, though it is generative, at which we see even conjugal chastity blush.

The union of male and female, then, as far as the mortal race is concerned, is a kind of seedbed of the city; but the earthly city needs only generation, the heavenly also regeneration, to escape the harm of generation. Whether there was before the flood any bodily and visible sign of regeneration, as circumcision was later commanded to Abraham, or if there was, what it was like, the sacred history is silent. That even those most ancient men sacrificed to God, however, it does not pass over in silence; this was plain in the first two brothers, and Noah is read to have offered victims to God after the flood, when he had come out of the ark. On this we have already said in the preceding books that the demons, claiming divinity for themselves and wishing to be believed gods, demand sacrifice for themselves and delight in such honors for no other reason than that they know true sacrifice is owed to the true God.

### Scripture references

- Gen 2:7: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 2:21–22: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 17:10–14: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 4:3–4: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 8:20: allusion, high confidence
- Lev 18:6–18: allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Gen 2:7, 21–22; circumcision, Gen 17:10–14; sacrifices, Gen 4:3–4 and 8:20. The divine law not forbidding cousin marriage refers to the Levitical degrees (Lev 18); the human law is the imperial prohibition of cousin marriage under Theodosius (ca. 384–385), not named in the text. The passage on marriage is translated as written. The digital text's manum (for marium, “males”) is corrected.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.16 (CSEL 40:92–95; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-16/#p-15-16).

## City of God 15.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-16/#p-15-17
- Source: CSEL 40:95–97
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine interprets the names Cain (possession), Enoch (dedication), Seth (resurrection), and Enosh (man) as signs of the two cities, and notes that only Cain's line names women.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. De duobus ex uno genitore procreatis patribus adque principibus. Cum ergo esset Adam utriusque generis pater, id est et cuius series ad terrenam, et cuius series ad caelestem pertinet ciuitatem, occiso Abel adque in eius interfectione commendato mirabili sacramento facti sunt duo patres singulorum generum, Cain et Seth, in quorum filiis, quos commemorari oportebat, duarum istarum ciuitatum in genere mortalium euidentius indicia clarere coeperunt. Cain quippe genuit Enoch, in cuius nomine condidit ciuitatem, terrenam scilicet, non peregrinantem in hoc mundo, sed in eius temporali pace ac felicitate quiescentem. Cain autem interpretatur possessio; unde dictum est, quando natus est, siue a patre siue a matre eius: Adquisiui hominem per Deum. Enoch uero dedicatio; hic enim dedicatur terrena ciuitas, ubi conditur, quoniam hic habet eum, quem intendit et adpetit, finem. Porro ille Seth interpretatur resurrectio et Enos filius eius interpretatur homo; non sicut Adam. Et ipsum enim nomen homo interpretatur; sed commune perhibetur esse in illa lingua, id est Hebraea, masculo et feminae. Nam sic de illo scriptum est: Masculum et feminam fecit illos et benedixit illos et cognominauit nomen eorum Adam. Unde non ambigitur sic appellatam fuisse feminam Euam proprio nomine, ut tamen Adam, quod interpretatur homo, nomen esset amborum. Enos autem sic interpretatur homo, ut hoc non posse feminam nuncupari periti linguae illius adseuerent, tamquam filius resurrectionis, ubi non nubent neque uxores ducent. Non enim erit ibi generatio, cum illuc perduxerit regeneratio. Quare et hoc non incassum notandum arbitror, quod in eis generationibus, quae propagantur ex illo qui est appellatus Seth, cum genuisse filios filiasque dicantur, nulla ibi genita nominatim femina expressa est; in his autem, quae propagantur ex Cain, in ipso fine, quo usque pertendunt, nouissima femina genita nominatur. Sic enim legitur: Mathusael genuit Lamech; et sumsit sibi Lamech duas uxores, nomen uni Ada et nomen secundae Sella, et peperit Ada Iobel; hic erat pater habitantium in tabernaculis pecuariorum. Et nomen fratris eius Iobal; hic fuit qui ostendit psalterium et citharam. Sella autem peperit et ipsa Tobel; et erat malleator aerarius aeramenti et ferri. Soror autem Tobel Noemma. Huc usque porrectae sunt generationes ex Cain, quae sunt omnes ab Adam octo adnumerato ipso Adam, septem scilicet usque ad Lamech, qui duarum maritus uxorum fuit, et octaua est generatio in filiis eius, in quibus commemoratur et femina. Ubi eleganter significatum est terrenam ciuitatem usque in sui finem carnales habituram generationes, quae marium feminarumque coniunctione proueniunt. Unde et ipsae, quod praeter Euam nusquam reperitur ante diluuium, nominibus propriis exprimuntur uxores illius hominis, qui nominatur hic nouissimus pater. Sicut autem Cain, quod interpretatur possessio, terrenae conditor ciuitatis, et filius eius, in cuius nomine condita est, Enoch, quod interpretatur dedicatio, indicat istam ciuitatem et initium et finem habere terrenum, ubi nihil speratur amplius, quam in hoc saeculo cerni potest: ita Seth, quod interpretatur resurrectio, cum sit generationum seorsus commemoratarum pater, quid de filio eius sacra haec historia dicat, intuendum est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. On the two fathers and heads begotten of one parent.

Since, then, Adam was the father of both kinds, that is, both of the line that belongs to the earthly city and of the line that belongs to the heavenly, when Abel was killed and a wonderful mystery was commended in his slaying, there came to be two fathers of the two kinds, Cain and Seth; and in their sons, as many as needed to be recorded, the signs of these two cities began to shine more clearly in the mortal race. For Cain begot Enoch, in whose name he founded a city: an earthly one, that is, not on pilgrimage in this world but resting in its temporal peace and happiness. Cain means “possession”; hence it was said when he was born, whether by his father or his mother: “I have gained a man through God.” Enoch means “dedication”; for the earthly city is dedicated here, where it is founded, since here it has the end it aims at and seeks. Seth, again, means “resurrection”, and Enosh his son means “man”, but not in the way Adam does. For that name too means “man”, but it is said to be common, in that language, Hebrew, to male and female. For so it is written of him: “Male and female he made them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam.” Hence there is no doubt that the woman was called Eve as her own name, but that Adam, which means “man”, was the name of both. But Enosh means “man” in such a way, as experts in that language assert, that a woman cannot be called by it; as a son of the resurrection, where they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. For there will be no generation there, when regeneration has brought us there.

For this reason I think it worth noting, not idly, that in the generations descended from the one called Seth, although they are said to have begotten sons and daughters, no woman born there is expressly named; but in those descended from Cain, at the very end to which they extend, the last one born named is a woman. For so we read: “Methushael begot Lamech; and Lamech took for himself two wives, the name of one Adah and the name of the second Zillah; and Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents of herdsmen. And his brother's name was Jubal; he was the one who introduced the psaltery and the lyre. Zillah too bore Tubal; and he was a hammerer, a smith of bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal was Naamah.” The generations from Cain extend thus far, eight in all from Adam counting Adam himself, that is, seven down to Lamech, who was the husband of two wives, and the eighth generation is in his children, among whom a woman too is mentioned. Here it is elegantly signified that the earthly city will have, right to its end, carnal generations, which come from the union of males and females. Hence also the wives themselves of the man who is here named as the last father are designated by their own names, which is found nowhere before the flood except for Eve. Just as Cain, which means “possession”, the founder of the earthly city, and his son in whose name it was founded, Enoch, which means “dedication”, indicate that this city has both an earthly beginning and an earthly end, where nothing more is hoped for than can be seen in this age; so, since Seth, which means “resurrection”, is the father of the generations recorded separately, we must look at what this sacred history says of his son.

### Scripture references

- Gen 4:1: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 4:17: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 5:2: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 22:30: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 20:35–36: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 4:18–22: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The Hebrew etymologies are those current in Augustine's time (from Jerome's Hebrew Names), not all accepted today. Quotations: Gen 4:1; Gen 5:2; Gen 4:18–22 in the Old Latin form (“Tubal” for Tubal-cain). Allusion: Matt 22:30 (Luke 20:35–36).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.17 (CSEL 40:95–97; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-16/#p-15-17).

## City of God 15.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-16/#p-15-18
- Source: CSEL 40:97–99
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Seth's son Enosh, who 'hoped to call on the name of the Lord', prefigures the city of God, which lives by hope in the resurrection of Christ.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. Quid significatum sit in Abel et Seth et Enos, quod appareat ad Christum et corpus eius, id est ecclesiam, pertinere. Et Seth, inquit, natus est filius, et nominauit nomen eius Enos; hic sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei. Nempe clamat adtestatio ueritatis. In spe igitur uiuit homo filius resurrectionis; in spe uiuit, quamdiu peregrinatur hic, ciuitas Dei, quae gignitur ex fide resurrectionis Christi. Ex duobus namque illis hominibus, Abel, quod interpretatur luctus, et eius fratre Seth, quod interpretatur resurrectio, mors Christi et uita eius ex mortuis figuratur. Ex qua fide gignitur hic ciuitas Dei, id est homo, qui sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei. Spe enim salui facti sumus, ait apostolus. Spes autem quae uidetur, non est spes. Quod enim uidet quis, quid sperat? Si autem quod non uidemus speramus, per patientiam exspectamus. Nam quis uacare hoc existimet ab altitudine sacramenti? Numquid enim Abel non sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei, cuius sacrificium scriptura tam acceptum Deo fuisse commemorat? Numquid ipse Seth non sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei, de quo dictum est: Suscitauit enim mihi Deus semen aliud pro Abel? Quur ergo huic proprie tribuitur, quod piorum omnium intellegitur esse commune, nisi quia oportebat in eo, qui de patre generationum in meliorem partem, hoc est supernae ciuitatis, separatarum, primus commemoratur exortus, praefigurari hominem, id est hominum societatem, quae non secundum hominem in re felicitatis terrenae, sed secundum Deum uiuit in spe felicitatis aeternae? Nec dictum est: Hic sperauit in Dominum Deum, aut: Hic inuocauit nomen Domini Dei, sed: sperauit, inquit, inuocare nomen Domini Dei. Quid sibi hoc uult: Sperauit inuocare, nisi quia prophetia est exorturum populum, qui secundum electionem gratiae inuocaret nomen Domini Dei? Hoc est, quod per alium prophetam dictum apostolus de hoc populo intellegit ad Dei gratiam pertinente: Et erit, omnis qui inuocauerit nomen Domini saluus erit. Hoc ipsum enim quod dicitur: Et nominauit nomen eius Enos, quod interpretatur homo, ac deinde additur: Hic sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei, satis ostenditur, quod non in se ipso spem ponere debeat homo; maledictus enim omnis (sicut alibi legitur), qui spem suam ponit in homine, ac per hoc nec in se, ut sit ciuis alterius ciuitatis, quae non secundum filium Cain dedicatur hoc tempore, id est mortalis huius saeculi labente transcursu, sed in illa inmortalitate beatitudinis sempiternae.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. What was signified in Abel, Seth, and Enosh that is seen to relate to Christ and his body, that is, the Church.

“And to Seth,” it says, “a son was born, and he called his name Enosh; he hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God.” The testimony of truth plainly cries out. Man, the son of the resurrection, lives in hope; the city of God, which is begotten of faith in the resurrection of Christ, lives in hope as long as it is on pilgrimage here. For in those two men, Abel, which means “grief”, and his brother Seth, which means “resurrection”, the death of Christ and his life from the dead are figured. From this faith the city of God is begotten here, that is, the man who hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God. “For we are saved by hope,” says the apostle. “But hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.” For who would think this empty of the depth of a mystery? Did not Abel hope to call upon the name of the Lord God, whose sacrifice Scripture records to have been so acceptable to God? Did not Seth himself hope to call upon the name of the Lord God, of whom it was said, “For God has raised up for me another seed in place of Abel”? Why, then, is something attributed especially to this man which is understood to be common to all the godly, unless because in the one who is recorded as the first born of the father of the generations set apart for the better part, that is, the city above, there had to be prefigured the man, that is, the society of men, which lives not according to man in the reality of earthly happiness, but according to God in the hope of eternal happiness? And it is not said, “He hoped in the Lord God”, or “He called upon the name of the Lord God”, but “He hoped,” it says, “to call upon the name of the Lord God.” What does this mean, “He hoped to call upon”, unless it is a prophecy that a people would arise which, according to the election of grace, would call upon the name of the Lord God? This is what was said through another prophet and what the apostle understands of this people belonging to the grace of God: “And it shall be that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” For by this very saying, “And he called his name Enosh”, which means “man”, and then the addition, “He hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God”, it is sufficiently shown that man ought not to place his hope in himself: for “cursed is everyone”, as we read elsewhere, “who places his hope in man”; and so not in himself either, if he is to be a citizen of the other city, which is not dedicated in this time, in the manner of Cain's son, that is, in the passing course of this mortal age, but in the immortality of eternal happiness.

### Scripture references

- Gen 4:26: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:24–25: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 4:4: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 4:25: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 11:5: allusion, medium confidence
- Joel 2:32: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 10:13: quotation, high confidence
- Jer 17:5: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 4:26 is quoted in its Greek-based form (“he hoped to call upon”). Other quotations: Rom 8:24–25; Gen 4:25; Joel 2:32 (3:5 in the Hebrew numbering) as used in Rom 10:13; Jer 17:5. “Election of grace”: Rom 11:5. Abel's sacrifice: Gen 4:4; Heb 11:4.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.18 (CSEL 40:97–99; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-16/#p-15-18).

## City of God 15.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-16/#p-15-19
- Source: CSEL 40:99–100
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Enoch, seventh from Adam and translated to God, prefigures the future 'dedication' of the whole house of God at the resurrection, already accomplished in Christ the head.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. De significatione, quae in Enoch translatione monstratur. Nam et ista propago, cuius est pater Seth, in ea generatione habet dedicationis nomen, quae septima est ex Adam adnumerato Adam. Septimus enim ab illo natus est Enoch, quod interpretatur dedicatio. Sed ipse est ille translatus, quoniam placuit Deo, et insigni numero in ordine generationum, quo sabbatum consecratum est, septimo scilicet ab Adam. Ab ipso autem patre istarum generationum, quae discernuntur a progenie Cain, id est a Seth, sextus est; quoto die factus est homo et consummauit Deus omnia opera sua. Sed huius Enoch translatio nostrae dedicationis est praefigurata dilatio. Quae quidem iam facta est in Christo capite nostro, qui sic resurrexit, ut non moriatur ulterius, sed etiam ipse translatus est; restat autem altera dedicatio uniuersae domus, cuius ipse Christus est fundamentum, quae differtur in finem, quando erit omnium resurrectio non moriturorum amplius. Siue autem domus Dei dicatur siue templum Dei siue ciuitas Dei, id ipsum est nec abhorret a Latini eloquii consuetudine. Nam et Vergilius imperiosissimam ciuitatem domum appellat Assaraci, Romanos uolens intellegi, qui de Assaraco per Troianos originem ducunt; et domum Aeneae eosdem ipsos, quia eo duce Troiani cum Italiam uenissent ab eis condita est Roma. Imitatus namque est poeta ille litteras sacras, in quibus dicitur domus Iacob iam ingens populus Hebraeorum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. On what is signified by the translation of Enoch.

For this line too, of which Seth is the father, has the name “dedication” in the generation that is seventh from Adam, counting Adam. For the seventh born from him is Enoch, which means “dedication.” But he is the one who was translated because he pleased God, and in a remarkable number in the order of generations, the number by which the sabbath was consecrated, namely the seventh from Adam. From the father himself of these generations, which are distinguished from the progeny of Cain, that is, from Seth, he is the sixth, the day on which man was made and God completed all his works. But the translation of this Enoch is a prefiguring of the postponement of our dedication. That dedication has already taken place in Christ our head, who so rose again that he dies no more, and he himself too was translated; but there remains another dedication, of the whole house of which Christ himself is the foundation, and it is postponed to the end, when there will be the resurrection of all, who will die no more. Whether it is called the house of God or the temple of God or the city of God, it is the same thing, and not foreign to the usage of the Latin tongue. For Virgil too calls the most imperial city “the house of Assaracus”, meaning the Romans, who trace their origin through the Trojans to Assaracus; and he calls the same people “the house of Aeneas”, because Rome was founded by the Trojans who had come to Italy under his leadership. For that poet imitated the sacred writings, in which the Hebrew people, already vast, is called “the house of Jacob.”

### Scripture references

- Gen 5:24: allusion, high confidence
- Heb 11:5: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:2–3: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 6:9: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 3:11: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 1.284 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 3.97 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Gen 5:24; Heb 11:5; Gen 2:2–3; Gen 1:26–31 (man made on the sixth day); Rom 6:9; 1 Cor 3:11. Virgil, Aeneid 1.284 (“house of Assaracus”) and 3.97 (“house of Aeneas”). The claim that Virgil imitated the Scriptures is Augustine's.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.19 (CSEL 40:99–100; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-16/#p-15-19).

## City of God 15.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-16/#p-15-20
- Source: CSEL 40:100–105
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains why Cain's line is shorter than Seth's, perhaps as a line of kings, and finds in its eleven members a sign of sin and in Seth's ten a sign of the law.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. De eo, quod Cain successio in octo ab Adam generationes clauditur, et in posteris ab eodem patre Adam Noe decimus inuenitur. Dicet aliquis: Si hoc intendebat scriptor huius historiae in commemorandis generationibus ex Adam per filium eius Seth, ut per illas perueniret ad Noe, sub quo factum est diluuium, a quo rursus contexeretur ordo nascentium, quo perueniret ad Abraham, a quo Matthaeus euangelista incipit generationes, quibus ad Christum peruenit aeternum regem ciuitatis Dei: quid intendebat in generationibus ex Cain et quo eas perducere uolebat? Respondetur: Usque ad diluuium, quo totum illud genus terrenae ciuitatis absumtum est, sed reparatum est ex filiis Noe. Neque enim deesse poterit haec terrena ciuitas societasque hominum secundum hominem uiuentium usque ad huius saeculi finem, de quo Dominus ait: Filii saeculi huius generant et generantur. Ciuitatem uero Dei peregrinantem in hoc saeculo regeneratio perducit ad alterum saeculum, cuius filii nec generant nec generantur. Hic ergo generari et generare ciuitati utrique commune est; quamuis Dei ciuitas habeat etiam hic multa ciuium milia, quae ab opere generandi se abstineant; sed habet etiam illa ex imitatione quadam, licet errantium. Ad eam namque pertinent etiam, qui deuiantes ab huius fide diuersas haereses condiderunt; secundum hominem quippe uiuunt, non secundum Deum. Et Indorum gymnosophistae, qui nudi perhibentur philosophari in solitudinibus Indiae, cibi esu et a generando se cohibent. Non est enim hoc bonum, nisi cum fit secundum fidem summi boni, qui Deus est. Hoc tamen nemo fecisse ante diluuium reperitur; quando quidem etiam ipse Enoch septimus ab Adam, qui translatus refertur esse non mortuus, genuit filios et filias antequam transferretur; in quibus fuit Mathusalam, per quem generationum memorandarum ordo transcurrit. Quur ergo tanta paucitas successionum commemoratur in generationibus ex Cain, si eas usque ad diluuium perduci oportebat, nec erat diuturna aetas praeueniens pubertatem, quae centum uel amplius annos uacaret a fetibus? Nam si non intendebat auctor libri huius aliquem, ad quem necessario perduceret seriem generationum, sicut in illis, quae ueniunt de semine Seth, intendebat peruenire ad Noe, a quo rursus ordo necessarius sequeretur: quid opus erat praetermittere primogenitos filios, ut perueniretur ad Lamech, in cuius filiis finitur illa contextio, octaua generatione scilicet ex Adam, septima ex Cain, quasi esset inde aliquid deinceps conectendum, unde perueniretur uel ad Israeliticum populum, in quo caelesti ciuitati etiam terrena Hierusalem figuram propheticam praebuit, uel ad Christum secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula, supernae Hierusalem fabricator adque regnator, cum tota progenies Cain diluuio sit deleta? Unde uideri potest in eodem ordine generationum primogenitos fuisse commemoratos. Quur ergo tam pauci sunt? Non enim usque ad diluuium tot esse potuerunt, non uacantibus usque ad centenariam pubertatem patribus ab officio generandi, si non erat tunc proportione longaeuitatis illius etiam sera pubertas. Ut enim peraeque triginta annorum fuerint, cum filios generare coeperunt, octiens triceni (quoniam octo sunt generationes cum Adam et cum eis quos genuit Lamech) ducenti et quadraginta sunt anni: num itaque toto deinde tempore usque ad diluuium non generauerunt? Qua tandem causa, qui haec scripsit, generationes commemorare noluit quae sequuntur? Nam ex Adam usque ad diluuium conputantur anni secundum codices nostros duo milia ducenti sexaginta duo; secundum Hebraeos autem mille sescenti quinquaginta sex. Ut ergo istum numerum minorem credamus esse ueriorem, de mille sescentis quinquaginta sex annis ducenti quadraginta detrahantur: numquid credibile est per mille quadringentos, et quod excurrit, annos, qui restant usque diluuium, progeniem Cain a generationibus uacare potuisse? Sed qui ex hoc mouetur, meminerit, cum quaererem, quo modo credendum sit antiquos illos homines per tam multos annos a gignendis filiis cessare potuisse, duobus modis istam solutam esse quaestionem: aut de sera pubertate, proportione tam longae uitae, aut de filiis qui commemorantur in generationibus, quod non fuerint primogeniti, sed hi, per quos ad eum, quem intendebat auctor libri, poterat perueniri, sicut ad Noe in generationibus Seth. Proinde in generationibus Cain, si non occurrit qui deberet intendi, ad quem praetermissis primogenitis per eos, qui commemorati sunt, perueniri oportebat, sera pubertas intellegenda restabit, ut aliquanto post centum annos puberes habilesque ad gignendum facti fuerint, ut ordo generationum per primogenitos curreret et usque diluuium ad numerum annorum tantae quantitatis occurreret. Quamuis fieri possit, ut propter aliquam secretiorem causam, quae me latet, usque ad Lamech et eius filios generationum perueniente contextu commendaretur haec ciuitas, quam dicimus esse terrenam, ac deinde cessaret scriptor libri commemorare ceteras, quae usque ad diluuium esse potuerunt. Potest et illa esse causa, quur non ordo generationum per primogenitos duceretur, ut necesse non sit in illis hominibus tam seram credere pubertatem, quod scilicet eadem ciuitas, quam Cain in nomine Enoch filii sui condidit, longe lateque regnare potuerit et reges habere non simul plures, sed suis aetatibus singulos, quos genuissent sibi successuros quicumque regnassent. Horum regum primus esse potuit ipse Cain, secundus filius eius Enoch, in cuius nomine, ubi regnaretur, condita est ciuitas; tertius Gaidad, quem genuit Enoch; quartus Meuia, quem genuit Gaidad; quintus Mathusael, quem genuit Meuia; sextus Lamech, quem genuit Mathusael, qui est septimus ab Adam per Cain. Non autem erat consequens, ut primogeniti regum regnantibus succederent patribus, sed quos regnandi meritum propter uirtutem terrenae utilem ciuitati uel sors aliqua reperiret, uel ille potissimum succederet patri hereditario quodam iure regnandi, quem prae ceteris filiis dilexisset. Potuit autem uiuente adhuc Lamech adque regnante fieri diluuium, ut ipsum cum aliis omnibus hominibus, exceptis qui in arca fuerunt, quem perderet inueniret. Neque enim mirandum est, si uaria quantitate numerositatis annorum interposita per tam longam aetatem ab Adam usque diluuium non aequalis numeri generationes habuit utraque progenies, sed per Cain septem, per Seth autem decem; septimus est enim, ut iam dixi, ab Adam Lamech, decimus Noe; et ideo non unus filius Lamech, sicut in ceteris superius, sed plures commemorati sunt, quia incertum erat quis ei fuisset mortuo successurus, si regnandi tempus inter ipsum et diluuium remansisset. Sed quoquo modo se habeat siue per primogenitos siue per reges ex Cain generationum ordo decurrens, illud mihi nullo pacto praetereundum silentio uidetur, quod, cum Lamech septimus ab Adam fuisset inuentus, tot eius adnumerati sunt filii, donec undenarius numerus inpleretur, quo significatur peccatum. Adduntur enim tres filii et una filia. Uxores autem aliud possunt significare, non hoc quod nunc commendandum uidetur. Nunc enim de generationibus loquimur; illae uero unde sint genitae, tacitum est. Quoniam ergo lex denario numero praedicatur, unde est memorabilis ille decalogus, profecto numerus undenarius, quoniam transgreditur denarium, transgressionem legis ac per hoc peccatum significat. Hinc est quod in tabernaculo testimonii, quod erat in itinere populi Dei uelut templum ambulatorium, undecim uela cilicina fieri praecepta sunt. In cilicio quippe recordatio est peccatorum propter haedos ad sinistram futuros; quod confitentes in cilicio prosternimur tamquam dicentes quod in psalmo scriptum est: Et peccatum meum ante me est semper. Progenies ergo ex Adam per Cain sceleratum undenario numero finitur, quo peccatum significatur; et ipse numerus femina clauditur, a quo sexu initium factum est peccati, per quod omnes morimur. Commissum est autem, ut et uoluptas carnis, quae spiritui resisteret, sequeretur. Nam et ipsa filia Lamech Noemma uoluptas interpretatur. Per Seth autem ab Adam usque ad Noe denarius insinuatur legitimus numerus. Cui Noe tres adiciuntur filii, unde uno lapso duo benedicuntur a patre, ut remoto reprobo et probatis filiis ad numerum additis etiam duodenarius numerus intimetur, qui et in patriarcharum et in apostolorum numero insignis est, propter septenarii partes alteram per alteram multiplicatas. Nam ter quaterni uel quater terni ipsum faciunt. His ita se habentibus uideo considerandum et commemorandum, ista utraque progenies, quae distinctis generationibus duas insinuat ciuitates, unam terrigenarum, alteram regeneratorum, quo modo postea sic commixta fuerit adque confusa, ut uniuersum genus humanum exceptis octo hominibus diluuio perire mereretur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. On the fact that the succession of Cain ends in the eighth generation from Adam, while among the descendants of the same father Adam, Noah is found to be tenth.

Someone will say: If the writer of this history, in recording the generations from Adam through his son Seth, intended to reach through them Noah, under whom the flood took place, and from whom again the order of births would be woven on so as to reach Abraham, with whom Matthew the evangelist begins the generations by which he reaches Christ, the eternal king of the city of God, what did he intend in the generations from Cain, and where did he wish to bring them? The answer is: to the flood, in which that whole race of the earthly city was consumed, but restored from the sons of Noah. For this earthly city, the society of men living according to man, cannot be lacking until the end of this age, of which the Lord says: “The sons of this age beget and are begotten.” But regeneration brings the city of God, on pilgrimage in this age, to the other age, whose sons neither beget nor are begotten. Here, then, to be begotten and to beget is common to both cities; although the city of God has even here many thousands of citizens who abstain from the work of begetting; but the other city too has such people, by a kind of imitation, though of those who go astray. For to it belong even those who, straying from the faith of this city, have founded various heresies; for they live according to man, not according to God. And the gymnosophists of the Indians, who are said to philosophize naked in the solitudes of India, restrain themselves from eating food and from begetting. For this is not a good unless it is done according to faith in the highest good, which is God. Yet no one is found to have done this before the flood; since even Enoch himself, seventh from Adam, who is reported to have been translated and not to have died, begot sons and daughters before he was translated, among whom was Methuselah, through whom the order of the generations to be recorded runs on.

Why, then, is so small a number of successions recorded in the generations from Cain, if they had to be carried down to the flood, and there was no long age before puberty which remained free of offspring for a hundred years or more? For if the author of this book did not have in view anyone to whom he must necessarily bring the series of generations, as in those that come from the seed of Seth he intended to reach Noah, from whom again the necessary order would follow, what need was there to pass over the firstborn sons so as to reach Lamech, in whose sons that sequence ends, in the eighth generation from Adam, that is, the seventh from Cain, as though something were to be connected on from there by which one would reach either the people of Israel, in which the earthly Jerusalem too provided a prophetic figure of the heavenly city, or Christ according to the flesh, “who is God over all, blessed for ever”, the builder and ruler of the Jerusalem above, when the whole progeny of Cain was destroyed by the flood? From this it may seem that in that line of generations the firstborn were recorded. Why, then, are there so few? For there could not have been so few up to the flood, if the fathers did not refrain from the duty of begetting until a puberty at a hundred, unless puberty was then late in proportion to that longevity. For suppose they were all thirty years old when they began to beget sons: eight times thirty (since there are eight generations, including Adam and those whom Lamech begot) is two hundred and forty years. Did they, then, not beget during the whole time after that until the flood? For what reason, then, did the writer not wish to record the generations that followed? For from Adam to the flood are reckoned, according to our manuscripts, two thousand two hundred and sixty-two years, but according to the Hebrew one thousand six hundred and fifty-six. Even if we believe the smaller number to be the truer, and take two hundred and forty from one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years, is it credible that through the one thousand four hundred years and more that remain until the flood the progeny of Cain could have been without generations?

But let whoever is troubled by this remember that when I asked how it is to be believed that those ancient men could have refrained from begetting sons for so many years, this question was solved in two ways: either by late puberty, in proportion to so long a life, or by the fact that the sons recorded in the generations were not the firstborn, but those through whom one could reach the person the author of the book had in view, as Noah in the generations of Seth. So in the generations of Cain, if no one presents himself who ought to be aimed at, to whom one had to come by passing over the firstborn through those who are recorded, it will remain to understand a late puberty, so that they became mature and fit for begetting some time after a hundred years, and the order of generations ran through the firstborn and reached the flood with a number of years of such great size. It is possible, however, that for some more secret reason, which escapes me, this city which we call earthly is commended by the sequence of generations reaching Lamech and his sons, and that the writer of the book then ceased to record the rest that could have existed until the flood. There could also be this reason why the order of generations was not carried through the firstborn, so that there is no need to believe in so late a puberty in those men: namely, that the same city which Cain founded in the name of his son Enoch may have reigned far and wide and had kings, not several at once, but one in each period, whom whoever reigned begot to succeed him. The first of these kings could have been Cain himself; the second his son Enoch, in whose name the city was founded where the reign was; the third Irad, whom Enoch begot; the fourth Mehujael, whom Irad begot; the fifth Methushael, whom Mehujael begot; the sixth Lamech, whom Methushael begot, who is seventh from Adam through Cain. And it did not follow that the firstborn of the kings succeeded their reigning fathers, but those whom merit for ruling, because of a virtue useful to the earthly city, or some lot singled out, or rather the son whom the father had loved above the others succeeded by a kind of hereditary right to reign. The flood could have come while Lamech was still living and reigning, so as to find him to destroy along with all other human beings except those who were in the ark. Nor is it surprising if, with a varying number of years intervening through so long an age from Adam to the flood, the two lines did not have an equal number of generations, but seven through Cain and ten through Seth; for Lamech, as I have said, is seventh from Adam, Noah tenth; and so not one son of Lamech, as in the others above, but several are recorded, because it was uncertain which would have succeeded him at his death, if time for reigning had remained between him and the flood.

But however it may be with the order of generations running down from Cain, whether through firstborn or through kings, it seems to me that I must in no way pass over in silence that when Lamech was found to be seventh from Adam, so many of his children were added that the number eleven was completed, by which sin is signified. For three sons and one daughter are added. The wives can signify something else, not what now seems to need commending; for we are now speaking of the generations, and it is not said from whom those wives were born. Since, then, the law is proclaimed by the number ten, whence comes that memorable Decalogue, the number eleven, because it goes beyond ten, certainly signifies transgression of the law and so sin. Hence it is that for the tabernacle of the testimony, which was like a walking temple on the journey of God's people, eleven curtains of goats' hair were commanded to be made. For in haircloth there is a remembrance of sins, because of the goats that will be on the left hand; which is why, confessing, we prostrate ourselves in haircloth, as if saying what is written in the psalm: “And my sin is ever before me.” The progeny from Adam through the wicked Cain, then, ends in the number eleven, by which sin is signified; and that number itself is closed by a woman, the sex from which the beginning of sin was made, through which we all die. And it was committed so that the pleasure of the flesh, resisting the spirit, followed. For the daughter of Lamech herself, Naamah, means “pleasure.” But through Seth, from Adam to Noah, the lawful number ten is suggested. To this Noah three sons are added; of whom one fell and two were blessed by their father, so that when the reprobate is removed and the approved sons are added to the number, the number twelve too is indicated, which is notable in the number both of the patriarchs and of the apostles, because of the parts of the number seven multiplied one by the other. For three times four or four times three make it. This being so, I see that I must consider and relate how these two lines, which by distinct generations suggest two cities, one of the earth-born, the other of the reborn, were afterwards so mingled and confused that the whole human race, except eight persons, deserved to perish in the flood.

### Scripture references

- Matt 1:1–16: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 20:34–35: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 5:21–24: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 9:5: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 4:17–22: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 26:7: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 25:33: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 51:3 (50:5 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Gen 9:25–27: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Luke 20:34 (in the Latin form “beget and are begotten”); Rom 9:5; Ps 51:3 (50:5 Vulgate). Allusions: Matt 1:1–16; Gen 4:17–22; Gen 5:21–24; Exod 26:7 (eleven curtains of goats' hair); Matt 25:33; Gen 9:25–27. The totals from Adam to the flood are those of the Septuagint (2262) and the Hebrew (1656). The digital text reads ot for et (“and”) in the sentence on the gymnosophists, corrected; the phrase on food is brief and its exact scope is uncertain. A stray “*” and “Ie.” before the question are removed. The etymology of Naamah follows Jerome's Hebrew Names.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.20 (CSEL 40:100–105; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-16/#p-15-20).

## City of God 15.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-16/#p-15-21
- Source: CSEL 40:105–108
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The genealogy of Seth restarts from Adam (Gen 5:1) because only the heavenly city's times are reckoned; the city of God must learn to hope in God, not in its own free choice.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. Qua ratione commemorato Enoch, qui fuit filius Cain, totius generationis eius usque ad diluuium sit continuata narratio; commemorato autem Enos, qui fuit filius Seth, ad conditionis humanae principium sit reditum. Primo autem intuendum est, quem ad modum, cum ex Cain generationes enumerarentur, commemorato ante ceteros posteros eius illo, in cuius nomine condita est ciuitas, id est Enoch, contexti sunt ceteri usque ad illum finem, de qua locutus sum, donec illud genus adque uniuersa propago diluuio deleretur; cum uero filius Seth unus commemoratus fuisset Enos, nondum usque ad diluuium additis ceteris articulus quidam interponitur et dicitur: Hic liber natiuitatis hominum, qua die fecit Deus Adam, ad imaginem Dei fecit illum. Masculum et feminam fecit illos, et benedixit illos, et cognominauit nomen eorum Adam, qua die fecit illos. Quod mihi uidetur ad hoc interpositum, ut hinc rursus inciperet ab ipso Adam dinumeratio temporum, quam noluit facere, qui haec scripsit, in ciuitate terrena; tamquam eum Deus sic commoneret, ut non conputaret. Sed quare hinc reditur ad istam recapitulationem, postea quam commemoratus est filius Seth, homo qui sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei, nisi quia sic oportebat istas duas proponere ciuitates, unam per homicidam usque ad homicidam (nam et Lamech duabus uxoribus suis se perpetrasse homicidium confitetur), alteram per eum, qui sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei? Hoc est quippe in hoc mundo peregrinantis ciuitatis Dei totum adque summum in hac mortalitate negotium, quod per unum hominem, quem sane occisi resurrectio genuit, commendandum fuit. Homo quippe ille unus totius supernae ciuitatis est unitas, nondum quidem conpleta, sed praemissa ista prophetica praefiguratione conplenda. Filius ergo Cain, hoc est filius possessionis, (cuius nisi terrenae?) habeat nomen in ciuitate terrena, quia in eius nomine condita est. De his est enim, de quibus cantatur in psalmo: Inuocabunt nomina eorum in terris ipsorum; propter quod sequitur eos quod in alio psalmo scriptum est: Domine, in ciuitate tua imaginem eorum ad nihilum redige. Filius autem Seth, hoc est filius resurrectionis, speret inuocare nomen Domini Dei; eam quippe societatem hominum praefigurat quae dicit: Ego autem sicut oliua fructifera in domo Dei speraui in misericordia Dei; uanas autem glorias famosi in terra nominis non requirat; beatus est enim uir, cuius est nomen Domini spes eius, et non respexit in uanitates et insanias mendaces. Propositis itaque duabus ciuitatibus, una in re huius saeculi, altera in spe Dei, tamquam ex communi, quae aperta est in Adam, ianua mortalitatis egressis, ut procurrant et excurrant ad discretos proprios ac debitos fines, incipit dinumeratio temporum; in qua et aliae generationes adiciuntur, facta recapitulatione ex Adam, ex cuius origine damnata, ueluti massa una meritae damnationi tradita, facit Deus alia in contumeliam uasa irae, alia in honorem uasa misericordiae, illis reddens quod debetur in poena, istis donans quod non debetur in gratia; ut ex ipsa etiam conparatione uasorum irae superna ciuitas discat, quae peregrinatur in terris, non fidere libertate arbitrii sui, sed speret inuocare nomen Domini Dei. Quoniam uoluntas in natura, quae facta est bona a Deo bono, sed mutabilis ab inmutabili, quia ex nihilo, et a bono potest declinare, ut faciat malum, quod fit libero arbitrio, et a malo, ut faciat bonum, quod non fit sine diuino adiutorio.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. Why, after Enoch the son of Cain is mentioned, the account of his whole line is continued up to the flood, but after Enosh the son of Seth is mentioned, the narrative returns to the beginning of the creation of man.

First, we must observe how, when the generations from Cain were being listed, and the one in whose name the city was founded, that is, Enoch, had been mentioned before his other descendants, the rest were woven on to that end of which I have spoken, until that race and its whole progeny was destroyed by the flood; but when one son of Seth, Enosh, had been mentioned, and before the rest up to the flood are added, a kind of break is inserted and it is said: “This is the book of the generation of men, on the day when God made Adam; in the image of God he made him. Male and female he made them, and blessed them, and named their name Adam, on the day when he made them.” This seems to me to have been inserted so that the reckoning of times might begin again from Adam himself, a reckoning which the writer did not wish to make in the earthly city, as if God so reminded him that he should not count it. But why is there a return to this recapitulation after the son of Seth has been mentioned, the man who hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God, unless because these two cities had to be set forth in this way: one from a murderer to a murderer (for Lamech too confesses to his two wives that he has committed murder), the other through him who hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God? For this is the whole and highest business, in this mortality, of the city of God on pilgrimage in this world, and it had to be commended through one man, whom the resurrection of the slain one begot. For that one man is the unity of the whole city above, not yet complete, but to be completed, this prophetic prefiguration having gone before. Let the son of Cain, then, that is, the son of possession (and of what possession but earthly?), have a name in the earthly city, since it was founded in his name. For he is one of those of whom it is sung in the psalm: “They will call their names upon their lands”; wherefore what is written in another psalm follows them: “Lord, in your city you will bring their image to nothing.” But let the son of Seth, that is, the son of the resurrection, hope to call upon the name of the Lord God; for he prefigures that society of men which says: “But I, like a fruitful olive tree in the house of God, have hoped in the mercy of God”; and let him not seek the empty glories of a famous name on earth; for “blessed is the man whose hope is the name of the Lord, and who has not looked to vanities and lying follies.”

The two cities, then, being set forth, the one in the reality of this age, the other in the hope of God, as though they had gone out by the common door of mortality opened in Adam, to run forward and run out to their separate, proper, and due ends, the reckoning of times begins; in which other generations too are added, a recapitulation having been made from Adam, out of whose condemned origin, as out of one lump handed over to deserved condemnation, God makes some vessels for dishonor, vessels of wrath, and others for honor, vessels of mercy, rendering to the one what is owed in punishment, giving to the other what is not owed in grace; so that from the very comparison with the vessels of wrath the city above, which is on pilgrimage on earth, may learn not to trust in the freedom of its own choice, but to hope to call upon the name of the Lord God. For the will in a nature which was made good by the good God, but changeable by the unchangeable, because made from nothing, can both turn away from the good to do evil, which happens by free choice, and turn away from evil to do good, which does not happen without divine help.

### Scripture references

- Gen 5:1–2: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 4:23: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 4:26: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 49:11 (48:12 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 73:20 (72:20 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 52:8 (51:10 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 40:4 (39:5 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 9:21–23: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 5:1–2; Ps 49:11 (48:12 Vulgate, in the Greek-based sense “they will call their names upon their lands”); Ps 73:20 (72:20 Vulgate); Ps 52:8 (51:10 Vulgate); Ps 40:4 (39:5 Vulgate). Allusions: Gen 4:23 (Lamech's confession); Gen 4:26; Rom 9:21–23. The statement on free choice and grace is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.21 (CSEL 40:105–108; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-16/#p-15-21).

## City of God 15.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-22/#p-15-22
- Source: CSEL 40:108–109
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The sons of God (Seth's line) fell by loving the beautiful daughters of men, a disorder of love; Augustine defines virtue as 'the order of love'.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. De lapsu filiorum Dei alienigenarum mulierum amore captorum, unde et omnes exceptis octo hominibus diluuio perire meruerunt. Hoc itaque libero uoluntatis arbitrio genere humano progrediente adque crescente facta est permixtio et iniquitate participata quaedam utriusque confusio ciuitatis. Quod malum a sexu femineo causam rursus inuenit; non quidem illo modo quo ab initio (non enim cuiusquam etiam tunc fallacia seductae illae feminae persuaserunt peccatum uiris); sed ab initio quae prauis moribus fuerant in terrena ciuitate, id est in terrigenarum societate, amatae sunt a filiis Dei, ciuibus scilicet peregrinantis in hoc saeculo alterius ciuitatis, propter pulchritudinem corporis. Quod bonum Dei quidem donum est; sed propterea id largitur etiam malis, ne magnum bonum uideatur bonis. Deserto itaque bono magno et bonorum proprio lapsus est factus ad bonum minimum, non bonis proprium, sed bonis malisque commune; ac sic filii Dei filiarum hominum amore sunt capti, adque ut eis coniugibus fruerentur, in mores societatis terrigenae defluxerunt, deserta pietate, quam in sancta societate seruabant. Sic enim corporis pulchritudo, a Deo quidem factum, sed temporale carnale infimum bonum, male amatur postposito Deo, aeterno interno sempiterno bono, quem ad modum iustitia deserta et aurum amatur ab auaris, nullo peccato auri, sed hominis. Ita se habet omnis creatura. Cum enim bona sit, et bene amari potest et male: bene scilicet ordine custodito, male ordine perturbato. Quod in laude quadam Cerei breuiter uersibus dixi: Haec tua sunt, bona sunt, quia tu bonus ista creasti. Nil nostrum est in eis, nisi quod peccamus amantes Ordine neglecto pro te, quod conditur abs te. Creator autem si ueraciter ametur, hoc est si ipse, non aliud pro illo quod non est ipse, ametur, male amari non potest. Nam et amor ipse ordinate amandus est, quo bene amatur quod amandum est, ut sit in nobis metus qua uiuitur bene. Unde mihi uidetur, quod definitio breuis et uera uirtutis ordo est amoris; propter quod in sancto cantico canticorum cantat sponsa Christi, ciuitas Dei: Ordinate in me caritatem. Huius igitur caritatis, hoc est dilectionis et amoris, ordine perturbato Deum filii Dei neglexerunt et filias hominum dilexerunt. Quibus duobus nominibus satis ciuitas utraque discernitur. Neque enim et illi non erant filii hominum per naturam; sed aliud nomen coeperant habere per gratiam. Nam in eadem scriptura, ubi dicti sunt dilexisse filias hominum filii Dei, idem dicti sunt etiam angeli Dei. Unde illos multi putant non homines fuisse, sed angelos.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. On the fall of the sons of God, captivated by love of foreign women, for which all, except eight persons, deserved to perish in the flood.

As the human race advanced and grew by this free choice of the will, there came about a mingling and, through shared iniquity, a kind of confusion of the two cities. This evil again found its cause in the female sex; not indeed in the way it did at the beginning (for those women were not then seduced by anyone's deceit and did not persuade the men to sin); but women who from the beginning had been of depraved morals in the earthly city, that is, in the society of the earth-born, were loved by the sons of God, the citizens, that is, of the other city on pilgrimage in this age, for the beauty of their bodies. This good is indeed a gift of God; but he bestows it even on the wicked for this reason, that it may not seem a great good to the good. So, the great good proper to the good being abandoned, there was a fall to the least good, not proper to the good but common to good and wicked; and so the sons of God were captivated by love of the daughters of men, and in order to enjoy them as wives they slid into the ways of the earth-born society, abandoning the godliness they kept in the holy society. For so bodily beauty, a good made by God indeed, but temporal, carnal, and lowest, is wrongly loved when God, the eternal, inward, everlasting good, is put after it; just as, when justice is abandoned, gold too is loved by the greedy, through no sin of the gold, but of the man. So it is with every creature. For since it is good, it can be loved both well and badly: well, that is, when order is kept; badly, when order is disturbed. This I expressed briefly in verse in a certain praise of the Easter candle: “These are yours, they are good, because you, the good one, created them. Nothing of ours is in them, except that we sin in loving, with order neglected, what is created by you instead of you.” But if the Creator is truly loved, that is, if he himself is loved and not something else in his place which is not he, he cannot be loved badly. For love itself must be loved in an ordered way, the love by which what ought to be loved is loved well, so that there may be in us the virtue by which one lives well. Hence it seems to me that a brief and true definition of virtue is “the order of love”; which is why in the holy Song of Songs the bride of Christ, the city of God, sings: “Order love in me.” So, the order of this charity, that is, of affection and love, being disturbed, the sons of God neglected God and loved the daughters of men. By these two names the two cities are sufficiently distinguished. For those men too were sons of men by nature; but they had begun to have another name by grace. For in the same Scripture, where the sons of God are said to have loved the daughters of men, they are also called angels of God. Hence many think they were not men but angels.

### Scripture references

- Gen 6:1–4: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 3:6: allusion, medium confidence
- Song 2:4: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 6:1–4 underlies the chapter; Gen 3:6 (the first woman). The verses are from Augustine's own lost poem in praise of the Easter candle (De laude cerei); no entry exists for it in the site's list. Song 2:4 is quoted in the Greek-based form (“Order love in me”). The digital text reads metus (“fear”) where the sense requires uirtus (“virtue”), as the definition that follows shows; left unchanged, translated by sense.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.22 (CSEL 40:108–109; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-22/#p-15-22).

## City of God 15.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-22/#p-15-23
- Source: CSEL 40:109–114
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that the 'angels of God' who married the daughters of men (Gen 6) were men of Seth's line, not spirits, and rejects the Enoch literature's account of giants as apocryphal.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. An credendum sit angelos substantiae spiritalis amore speciosarum mulierum captos earundem inisse coniugia, ex quibus gigantes sint creati. Quam quaestionem nos transeunter commemoratam in tertio huius operis libro reliquimus insolutam, utrum possint angeli, cum spiritus sint, corporaliter coire cum feminis. Scriptum est enim: Qui facit angelos suos spiritus, id est eos, qui natura spiritus sunt, facit esse angelos suos, iniungendo eis officium nuntiandi. Qui enim Graece dicitur ἄγγελος, quod nomen Latina declinatione angelus perhibetur, Latina lingua nuntius interpretatur. Sed utrum eorum corpora consequenter adiunxerit dicendo: Et ministros suos ignem ardentem, an quod caritate tamquam igne spiritali feruere debeant ministri eius, ambiguum est. Apparuisse tamen hominibus angelos in talibus corporibus, ut non solum uideri, uerum etiam tangi possent, eadem ueracissima scriptura testatur. Et quoniam creberrima fama est multique se expertos uel ab eis, qui experti essent, de quorum fide dubitandum non esset, audisse confirmant, Siluanos et Panes, quos uulgo incubos uocant, inprobos saepe extitisse mulieribus et earum adpetisse ac peregisse concubitum; et quosdam daemones, quos Dusios Galli nuncupant, adsidue hanc inmunditiam et tentare et efficere, plures talesque adseuerant, ut hoc negare inpudentiae uideatur: non hinc aliquid audeo definire, utrum aliqui spiritus elemento aerio corporati (nam hoc elementum etiam cum agitatur flabello sensu corporis tactuque sentitur) possint hanc etiam pati libidinem, ut, quo modo possunt, sentientibus feminis misceantur. Dei tamen angelos sanctos nullo modo illo tempore sic labi potuisse crediderim; nec de his dixisse apostolum Petrum: Si enim Deus angelis peccantibus non pepercit, sed carceribus caliginis inferi retrudens tradidit in iudicio puniendos reseruari; sed potius de illis, qui primum apostatantes a Deo cum diabolo suo principe ceciderunt, qui primum hominem per inuidiam serpentina fraude deiecit. Angelos autem fuisse etiam Dei homines nuncupatos eadem scriptura sancta locupletissima testis est. Nam et de Iohanne scriptum est: Ecce mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui praeparabit uiam tuam, et Malachiel propheta propria quadam, id est proprie sibi inpertita gratia dictus est angelus. Verum hoc mouet quosdam, quod ex illis, qui dicti sunt angeli Dei, et ex mulieribus, quas amauerunt, non quasi homines generis nostri, sed gigantes legimus esse natos. Quasi uero corpora hominum modum nostrum longe excedentia, quod etiam supra commemoraui, non etiam nostris temporibus nata sunt. Nonne ante paucos annos, cum Romanae urbis quod a Gothis factum est adpropinquaret excidium, Romae fuit femina cum suo patre et sua matre, quae corpore quodam modo giganteo longe ceteris praemineret? Ad quam uisendam mirabilis fiebat usquequaque concursus. Et hoc erat maxime admirationi, quod ambo parentes eius nec saltem tam longi homines erant, quam longissimos uidere consueuimus. Potuerunt igitur gigantes nasci, et prius quam filii Dei, qui et angeli Dei dicti sunt, filiabus hominum, hoc est secundum hominem uiuentium, miscerentur; filii scilicet Seth filiis Cain. Nam et canonica scriptura sic loquitur, in quo libro haec legimus, cuius uerba ista sunt: Et factum est, postquam coeperunt homines multi fieri super terram, et filiae natae sunt illis; uidentes autem angeli Dei filias hominum, quia bonae sunt, sumserunt sibi uxores ex omnibus quas elegerunt. Et dixit Dominus Deus: Non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus his in aeternum, propter quod caro sunt. Erunt autem dies eorum centum uiginti anni. Gigantes autem erant super terram in diebus illis et post illud, cum intrarent filii Dei ad filias hominum, et generabant sibi; illi erant gigantes a saeculo homines nominati. Haec libri uerba diuini satis indicant iam illis diebus fuisse gigantes super terram, quando filii Dei acceperunt uxores filias hominum, cum eas amarent bonas, id est pulchras. Consuetudo quippe scripturae huius est, etiam speciosos corpore bonos uocare. Sed et postquam hoc factum est, nati sunt gigantes. Sic enim ait: Gigantes autem erant super terram in diebus illis et post illud, cum intrarent filii Dei ad filias hominum. Ergo et ante in illis diebus et post illud. Quod autem ait: Et generabant sibi, satis ostendit, quod prius, antequam sic caderent filii Dei, Deo generabant, non sibi, id est non dominante libidine coeundi, sed seruiente officio propagandi; non familiam fastus sui, sed ciues ciuitatis Dei, quibus adnuntiarent tamquam angeli Dei, ut ponerent in Deo spem suam, similes illius, qui natus est de Seth, filius resurrectionis, et sperauit inuocare nomen Domini Dei; in qua spe essent cum suis posteris coheredes aeternorum bonorum et sub Deo patre fratres filiorum. Non autem illos ita fuisse angelos Dei, ut homines non essent, sicut quidam putant, sed homines procul dubio fuisse, scriptura ipsa sine ulla ambiguitate declarat. Cum enim praemissum esset, quod uidentes angeli Dei filias hominum, quia bonae sunt, sumserunt sibi uxores ex omnibus quas elegerunt, mox adiunctum est: Et dixit Dominus Deus: Non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus his in aeternum, propter quod caro sunt. Spiritu Dei quippe fuerant facti angeli Dei et filii Dei, sed declinando ad inferiora dicuntur homines nomine naturae, non gratiae; dicuntur et caro, desertores spiritus et deserendo deserti. Et septuaginta quidem interpretes et angelos Dei dixerunt istos et filios Dei; quod quidem non omnes codices habent, nam quidam nisi filios Dei non habent. Aquila autem, quem interpretem Iudaei ceteris anteponunt, non angelos Dei, nec filios Dei, sed filios deorum interpretatus est. Utrumque autem uerum est. Nam et filii Dei erant, sub quo patre suorum patrum etiam fratres erant; et filii deorum, quoniam dis geniti erant, cum quibus et ipsi di erant iuxta illud psalmi: Ego dixi: Di estis et filii Excelsi omnes. Merito enim creduntur septuaginta interpretes accepisse propheticum spiritum, ut, si quid eius auctoritate mutarent adque aliter quam erat quod interpretabantur dicerent, neque hoc diuinitus dictum esse dubitaretur. Quamuis hoc in Hebraeo esse perhibeatur ambiguum, ut et filii Dei et filii deorum posset interpretari. Omittamus igitur earum scripturarum fabulas, quae apocryphae nuncupantur, eo quod earum occulta origo non claruit patribus, a quibus usque ad nos auctoritas ueracium scripturarum certissima et notissima successione peruenit. In his autem apocryphis etsi inuenitur aliqua ueritas, tamen propter multa falsa nulla est canonica auctoritas. Scripsisse quidem nonnulla diuine illum Enoch, septimum ab Adam, negare non possumus, cum hoc in epistula canonica Iudas apostolus dicat. Sed non frustra non sunt in eo canone scripturarum, qui seruabatur in templo Hebraei populi succedentium diligentia sacerdotum, nisi quia ob antiquitatem suspectae fidei iudicata sunt, nec utrum haec essent, quae ille scripsisset, poterat inueniri, non talibus proferentibus, qui ea per seriem successionis reperirentur rite seruasse. Unde illa, quae sub eius nomine proferuntur et continent istas de gigantibus fabulas, quod non habuerint homines patres, recte a prudentibus iudicantur non ipsius esse credenda; sicut multa sub nominibus et aliorum prophetarum et recentiora sub nominibus apostolorum ab haereticis proferuntur, quae omnia nomine apocryphorum ab auctoritate canonica diligenti examinatione remota sunt. Igitur secundum scripturas canonicas Hebraeas adque Christianas multos gigantes ante diluuium fuisse non dubium est, et hos fuisse ciues terrigenae societatis hominum; Dei autem filios, qui secundum carnem de Seth propagati sunt, in hanc societatem deserta iustitia declinasse. Nec mirandum est, quod etiam de ipsis gigantes nasci potuerunt. Neque enim omnes gigantes, sed magis multi utique tunc fuerunt, quam post diluuium temporibus ceteris. Quos propterea creare placuit Creatori, ut etiam hinc ostenderetur non solum pulchritudines, uerum etiam magnitudines et fortitudines corporum non magni pendendas esse sapienti, qui spiritalibus adque inmortalibus longe melioribus adque firmioribus et bonorum propriis, non bonorum malorumque communibus beatificatur bonis. Quam rem alius propheta commendans ait: Ibi fuerunt gigantes illi nominati, qui ab initio fuerunt staturosi, scientes proelium. Non hos elegit Dominus, nec uiam scientiae dedit illis; sed interierunt, quia non habuerunt sapientiam, perierunt propter inconsiderantiam.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. Whether it is to be believed that angels, being of spiritual substance, were captivated by love of beautiful women and entered into marriage with them, from whom giants were born.

In the third book of this work we mentioned in passing and left unsolved the question whether angels, since they are spirits, can have bodily intercourse with women. For it is written: “Who makes his angels spirits”; that is, those who are spirits by nature he makes his angels, by laying on them the office of bearing messages. For the one called in Greek ἄγγελος, a name which in Latin inflection becomes angelus, is rendered in the Latin tongue nuntius, “messenger.” But whether he went on to add their bodies when he said, “and his ministers a burning fire”, or meant that his ministers ought to burn with love as with a spiritual fire, is uncertain. That angels have appeared to men in such bodies that they could be not only seen but also touched, the same most truthful Scripture testifies. And there is a very widespread report, and many confirm that they have experienced it or heard it from those who had experienced it, whose good faith was not to be doubted, that Silvani and Pans, whom people commonly call incubi, have often behaved shamelessly toward women and sought and achieved intercourse with them; and that certain demons, whom the Gauls call Dusii, constantly attempt and accomplish this impurity: so many and such people assert it that it would seem impudent to deny it. From this I do not dare to decide whether some spirits embodied in the element of air (for this element, when stirred by a fan, is perceived by the bodily sense of touch) can also undergo this lust, so as to unite, in whatever way they can, with women who feel it. Yet I would by no means believe that God's holy angels could have fallen in this way at that time; nor that it was of them that the apostle Peter said: “For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but thrust them down into the prisons of the darkness of hell and handed them over to be kept for punishment in the judgment”; but rather of those who first fell away from God along with the devil, their prince, who out of envy cast down the first man by the serpent's deceit.

That men of God too have been called angels, the same holy Scripture is a very rich witness. For of John it is written: “Behold, I send my angel before your face, who will prepare your way”; and the prophet Malachi was called an angel by a certain special grace, that is, one bestowed specially on him. But some are troubled by the fact that from those who were called angels of God and from the women they loved we read that not men of our kind, as it were, but giants were born. As though bodies of men far exceeding our measure, as I also mentioned above, have not been born even in our own times! Was there not at Rome a few years ago, when the destruction of the city of Rome by the Goths was approaching, a woman with her father and mother who in a kind of gigantic body far surpassed everyone else? A wonderful crowd flocked from everywhere to see her. And what caused the greatest amazement was that neither of her parents was even as tall as the tallest people we usually see. Giants, then, could have been born even before the sons of God, who were also called angels of God, united with the daughters of men, that is, of those living according to man; that is, the sons of Seth with the daughters of Cain. For the canonical Scripture too speaks thus, in the book in which we read these things, whose words are these: “And it came to pass, after men began to become many on the earth and daughters were born to them, that the angels of God, seeing that the daughters of men were good, took for themselves wives of all whom they chose. And the Lord God said: My spirit shall not remain in these men for ever, because they are flesh. But their days shall be a hundred and twenty years. Now there were giants on the earth in those days and after that, when the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they begot for themselves; those were the giants, men renowned from of old.” These words of the divine book show sufficiently that there were already giants on the earth in those days when the sons of God took as wives the daughters of men, since they loved them as good, that is, beautiful. For it is the custom of this Scripture to call those who are beautiful in body “good.” But giants were born also after this happened. For so it says: “Now there were giants on the earth in those days and after that, when the sons of God went in to the daughters of men.” So both before, in those days, and after that. And the words “and they begot for themselves” show sufficiently that before the sons of God fell in this way they begot for God, not for themselves, that is, not under the domination of the lust for intercourse but in service to the duty of propagation; not a household for their own pride, but citizens of the city of God, whom they, as angels of God, might instruct to place their hope in God, like the one born of Seth, the son of the resurrection, who hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God; so that in this hope they might be, with their descendants, co-heirs of eternal goods and, under God the Father, brothers of their sons.

But that they were not angels of God in such a way as not to be men, as some think, but were beyond doubt men, the Scripture itself declares without any ambiguity. For when it had first said that the angels of God, seeing that the daughters of men were good, took for themselves wives of all whom they chose, it immediately added: “And the Lord God said: My spirit shall not remain in these men for ever, because they are flesh.” For by the Spirit of God they had been made angels of God and sons of God; but by turning aside to lower things they are called men, a name of nature, not of grace; and they are called flesh, deserters of the spirit, and, by deserting, deserted. The Seventy translators, indeed, called them both angels of God and sons of God; though not all manuscripts have this, for some have only “sons of God.” But Aquila, the translator whom the Jews prefer to the others, rendered it neither “angels of God” nor “sons of God” but “sons of gods.” Both are true. For they were sons of God, under whom as father they were also brothers of their fathers; and they were sons of gods, since they were begotten of gods, together with whom they themselves too were gods, according to that saying of the psalm: “I said, You are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High.” For the Seventy translators are rightly believed to have received the prophetic Spirit, so that if they changed anything by its authority and said otherwise than was in what they were translating, it should not be doubted that this too was divinely spoken. Although this is said to be ambiguous in the Hebrew, so that it could be translated both “sons of God” and “sons of gods.”

Let us leave aside, then, the fables of those writings which are called apocryphal, because their hidden origin was not clear to the fathers, from whom the authority of the true Scriptures has come down to us by a most certain and well-known succession. In these apocrypha, although some truth is found, yet because of many falsehoods they have no canonical authority. We cannot deny that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, wrote some things by divine inspiration, since the apostle Jude says so in a canonical epistle. But it is not without reason that they are not in that canon of the Scriptures which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew people by the diligence of successive priests: they were judged to be of doubtful credit because of their antiquity, and it could not be ascertained whether these were what he had written, since they were not brought forward by such people as were found to have kept them properly through a line of succession. Hence the writings that are put forward under his name, and contain these fables about giants, that they did not have human fathers, are rightly judged by the prudent not to be believed to be his; just as many writings are put forward by heretics under the names of other prophets, and more recent ones under the names of apostles, all of which, under the name of apocrypha, have been excluded from canonical authority after careful examination. According to the canonical Scriptures, Hebrew and Christian, then, there is no doubt that there were many giants before the flood, and that they were citizens of the earth-born society of men; and that the sons of God, who were descended according to the flesh from Seth, abandoned righteousness and sank into this society. Nor is it surprising that giants too could be born of them. For not all were giants, but there were certainly many more then than in the other times after the flood. It pleased the Creator to create them so that it might be shown by this too that not only beauty but also size and strength of body are not to be highly valued by the wise man, who is made happy by spiritual and immortal goods, far better and firmer, and proper to the good, not common to good and wicked. Another prophet, commending this, says: “There were those famous giants, who were from the beginning, of great stature, skilled in war. The Lord did not choose these, nor did he give them the way of knowledge; but they perished because they had no wisdom; they perished through their thoughtlessness.”

### Scripture references

- Ps 104:4 (103:4 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Heb 1:7: quotation, medium confidence
- 2 Pet 2:4: quotation, high confidence
- Mal 3:1: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 11:10: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 6:1–4: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 6:3: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 82:6 (81:6 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Jude 14: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 18:1–8: allusion, low confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- 1 En. 6–7 (1 Enoch): allusion, high confidence
- Bar 3:26–28 (Baruch): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Ps 104:4 (103:4 Vulgate; also Heb 1:7); 2 Pet 2:4; Mal 3:1 as applied to John in Matt 11:10; Gen 6:1–4 in the Old Latin form (“angels of God”); Ps 82:6 (81:6 Vulgate); Bar 3:26–28. Allusions: Jude 14 (Enoch's prophecy) and the Enochic Book of the Watchers (1 En. 6–7), whose account of giants born of angels Augustine rejects as apocryphal. Book 3 reference: 3.5. The digital text names the prophet Malachiel (a manuscript form); translated “Malachi.” Aquila's rendering “sons of gods” is reported by Augustine. The reports of incubi and Dusii are translated as Augustine gives them.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.23 (CSEL 40:109–114; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-22/#p-15-23).

## City of God 15.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-22/#p-15-24
- Source: CSEL 40:114–115
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The 'hundred and twenty years' of Gen 6:3 are the time remaining before the flood, not a new limit on human life.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIIII. Quo modo intellegendum sit, quod de eis, qui diluuio perdendi erant, Dominus dixerit: Erunt dies eorum centum uiginti anni. Quod autem dixit Deus: Erunt dies eorum centum uiginti anni, non sic accipiendum est, quasi praenuntiatum sit post haec homines centum uiginti annos uiuendo non transgredi, cum et post diluuium etiam quingentos excessisse inueniamus; sed intellegendum est hoc Deum dixisse, cum circa finem quingentorum annorum esset Noe, id est quadringentos octoginta uitae annos ageret, quos more suo scriptura quingentos uocat, nomine totius maximam partem plerumque significans; sescentensimo quippe anno uitae Noe, secundo mense factum est diluuium; ac sic centum uiginti anni praedicti sunt futuri uitae hominum periturorum, quibus transactis diluuio delerentur. Nec frustra creditur sic factum esse diluuium, iam non inuentis in terra qui non erant digni tali morte defungi, qua in inpios uindicatum est; non quo quicquam bonis quandoque morituris tale genus mortis faciat aliquid, quod eis possit obesse post mortem; uerum tamen nullus eorum diluuio mortuus est, quos de semine Seth propagatos sancta scriptura commemorat. Sic autem diuinitus diluuii causa narratur: Videns, inquit, Dominus Deus, quia multiplicatae sunt malitiae hominum super terram, et omnis quisque cogitat in corde suo diligenter super maligna omnes dies, et cogitauit Deus, quia fecit hominem super terram, et recogitauit, et dixit Deus: Deleam hominem, quem feci, a facie terrae, ab homine usque ad pecus et a repentibus usque ad uolatilia caeli, quia iratus sum, quoniam feci eos.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 24. How the Lord's words about those who were to perish in the flood, “Their days shall be a hundred and twenty years”, are to be understood.

The saying of God, “Their days shall be a hundred and twenty years”, is not to be taken as though it foretold that men after this would not live beyond a hundred and twenty years, since we find that even after the flood some exceeded five hundred. Rather, it is to be understood that God said this when Noah was near the end of five hundred years, that is, was in the four hundred and eightieth year of his life, which Scripture in its usual way calls five hundred, often signifying the greater part by the name of the whole. For the flood came in the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month; and so a hundred and twenty years were foretold as the remaining life of the men who were to perish, at the end of which they would be destroyed by the flood. And it is not without reason believed that the flood came when there were no longer found on earth any who did not deserve to die such a death as was inflicted in punishment on the ungodly; not that such a kind of death does anything to the good, who must die at some time, that could harm them after death; but in fact none of those whom holy Scripture records as descended from the seed of Seth died in the flood. The cause of the flood is related as divinely given in these words: “The Lord God, seeing,” it says, “that the wickedness of men was multiplied upon the earth, and that everyone was diligently thinking in his heart on evil things all his days, God thought that he had made man upon the earth, and he thought again, and God said: I will blot out man whom I have made from the face of the earth, from man to beast, and from the creeping things to the birds of heaven, for I am angry that I made them.”

### Scripture references

- Gen 6:3: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 5:32: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 7:11: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 11:10–17: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 6:5–7: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 6:3; Gen 6:5–7 in the Old Latin form (“God thought … and thought again”, where the Hebrew says God regretted). Allusions: Gen 5:32; Gen 7:11; long lives after the flood, Gen 11:10–17.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.24 (CSEL 40:114–115; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-22/#p-15-24).

## City of God 15.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-22/#p-15-25
- Source: CSEL 40:115–116
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God's 'anger' and 'repentance' in Scripture are figures of speech for his unchanging judgment, used to reach all kinds of readers.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXV. De ira Dei, quae incommutabilem tranquillitatem nulla inflammatione perturbat. Ira Dei non perturbatio animi eius est, sed iudicium quo inrogatur poena peccato. Cogitatio uero eius et recogitatio mutandarum rerum est inmutabilis ratio. Neque enim sicut hominem, ita Deum cuiusquam facti sui paenitet, cuius est de omnibus omnino rebus tam fixa sententia quam certa praescientia. Sed si non utatur scriptura talibus uerbis, non se quodam modo familiarius insinuabit omni generi hominum, quibus uult esse consultum, ut et perterreat superbientes et excitet neglegentes, et exerceat quaerentes et alat intellegentes; quod non faceret, si non se prius inclinaret et quodam modo descenderet ad iacentes. Quod autem etiam interitum omnium animalium terrenorum uolatiliumque denuntiat: magnitudinem futurae cladis effatur, non animantibus rationis expertibus, tamquam et ipsa peccauerint, minatur exitium.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 25. On the anger of God, which disturbs his unchangeable tranquillity by no heat of passion.

The anger of God is not a disturbance of his mind, but the judgment by which punishment is inflicted on sin. His thinking and thinking again is the unchangeable plan concerning things that are to be changed. For God does not repent of any deed of his as a man does; his decision about all things whatever is as fixed as his foreknowledge is certain. But if Scripture did not use such words, it would not, so to speak, make itself more familiar to every kind of human being, for whom it wishes to provide: to terrify the proud, arouse the careless, exercise those who seek, and nourish those who understand; which it would not do if it did not first bend down and, as it were, come down to those who lie low. And its announcing the destruction of all land animals and birds as well declares the greatness of the coming disaster; it does not threaten death to animals without reason as though they too had sinned.

### Scripture references

- Gen 6:6–7: allusion, high confidence
- Num 23:19: echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Refers to Gen 6:6–7 (quoted in 15.24); compare Num 23:19 and 1 Sam 15:29.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.25 (CSEL 40:115–116; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-22/#p-15-25).

## City of God 15.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-22/#p-15-26
- Source: CSEL 40:116–118
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The ark, with its human proportions, its side door, and its three stories, is a figure of Christ and of the Church saved through the wood of the cross.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVI. Quod arca, quam Noe iussus est facere, in omnibus Christum ecclesiamque significet. Iam uero quod Noe homini iusto et, sicut de illo scriptura ueridica loquitur, in sua generatione perfecto (non utique sicut perficiendi sunt ciues ciuitatis Dei in illa inmortalitate, qua aequabuntur angelis Dei, sed sicut esse possunt in hac peregrinatione perfecti) imperat Deus, ut arcam faciat, in qua cum suis, id est uxore, filiis et nuribus, et cum animalibus, quae ad illum ex Dei praecepto in arcam ingressa sunt, liberaretur a diluuii uastitate: procul dubio figura est peregrinantis in hoc saeculo ciuitatis Dei, hoc est ecclesiae, quae fit salua per lignum, in quo pependit mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus. Nam et mensurae ipsae longitudinis et altitudinis et latitudinis eius significant corpus humanum, in cuius ueritate ad homines praenuntiatus est uenturus et uenit. Humani quippe corporis longitudo a uertice usque ad uestigia sexiens tantum habet quam latitudo, quae est ab uno latere ad alterum latus, et deciens tantum quam altitudo, cuius altitudinis mensura est in latere a dorso ad uentrem; uelut si iacentem hominem metiaris supinum seu pronum, sexiens tantum longus est a capite ad pedes, quam latus a dextra in sinistram uel a sinistra in dextram, et deciens quam altus a terra. Unde facta est arca trecentorum in longitudine cubitorum et quinquaginta in latitudine et triginta in altitudine. Et quod ostium in latere accepit, profecto illud est uulnus, quando latus crucifixi lancea perforatum est; hac quippe ad illum uenientes ingrediuntur, quia inde sacramenta manarunt, quibus credentes initiantur. Et quod de lignis quadratis fieri iubetur, undique stabilem uitam sanctorum significat: quacumque enim uerteris quadratum, stabit; et cetera, quae in eiusdem arcae constructione dicuntur, ecclesiasticarum signa sunt rerum. Sed ea nunc persequi longum est; et hoc iam fecimus in opere, quod aduersus Faustum Manichaeum scripsimus, negantem in Hebraeorum libris aliquid de Christo esse prophetatum. Et fieri quidem potest, ut et nobis quispiam et alius alio exponat haec aptius, dum tamen ea, quae dicuntur, ad hanc de qua loquimur Dei ciuitatem in hoc saeculo maligno tamquam in diluuio peregrinantem omnia referantur, si ab eius sensu, qui ista conscripsit, non uult longe aberrare, qui exponit. Exempli gratia, uelut si quispiam, quod hic scriptum est: Inferiora bicamerata et tricamerata facies eam, non quod ego in illo opere dixi uelit intellegi, quia ex omnibus gentibus ecclesia congregatur, bicameratam dictam propter duo genera hominum, circumcisionem scilicet et praeputium, quos apostolus et alio modo dicit Iudaeos et Graecos; tricameratam uero eo, quod omnes gentes de tribus filiis Noe post diluuium reparatae sunt; sed aliud dicat aliquid, quod a fidei regula non sit alienum. Nam quoniam non solas in inferioribus mansiones habere arcam uoluit, uerum etiam in superioribus (et haec dixit bicamerata) et in superioribus superiorum (et haec appellauit tricamerata), ut ab imo sursum uersus tertia consurgeret habitatio: possunt hic intellegi et tria illa, quae commendat apostolus, fides, spes, caritas; possunt etiam multo conuenientius tres illae ubertates euangelicae, tricena, sexagena, centena, ut in infimo habitet pudicitia coniugalis, supra uidualis adque hac superior uirginalis, et si quid melius secundum fidem ciuitatis huius intellegi et dici potest. Hoc etiam de ceteris, quae hic exponenda sunt, dixerim, quia, etsi non uno disseruntur modo, ad unam tamen catholicae fidei concordiam reuocanda sunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 26. That the ark which Noah was commanded to make signifies Christ and the Church in every respect.

Now as to God's commanding Noah, a righteous man and, as truthful Scripture says of him, perfect in his generation (not indeed as the citizens of the city of God are to be made perfect in that immortality in which they will be equal to the angels of God, but as they can be perfect in this pilgrimage), to make an ark in which he might be saved from the devastation of the flood with his family, that is, his wife, sons, and daughters-in-law, and with the animals that went into the ark to him at God's command: this is beyond doubt a figure of the city of God on pilgrimage in this age, that is, of the Church, which is saved through the wood on which hung the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. For the very measurements of its length, height, and breadth signify the human body, in the reality of which he was foretold to men as coming, and came. For the length of the human body, from the top of the head to the soles of the feet, is six times its breadth, from one side to the other, and ten times its height, the measure of which is taken at the side, from the back to the belly; as if you measured a man lying on his back or face down, he is six times as long from head to feet as he is broad from right to left or left to right, and ten times as long as he is high from the ground. So the ark was made three hundred cubits in length, fifty in breadth, and thirty in height. And its having a door in the side is certainly that wound when the side of the crucified one was pierced by the spear; for by this those who come to him enter, because from there flowed the sacraments by which believers are initiated. And its being commanded to be made of squared timbers signifies the life of the saints, stable on every side; for whichever way you turn a square, it will stand. And the other things said in the construction of this ark are signs of things in the Church.

But it would take long to pursue them now; and we have already done so in the work we wrote against Faustus the Manichaean, who denied that anything was prophesied about Christ in the books of the Hebrews. It may well be that someone explains these things more fittingly than we do, and another more fittingly than he, provided that everything said is referred to this city of God of which we are speaking, on pilgrimage in this evil age as in a flood, if the interpreter does not wish to stray far from the meaning of the one who wrote them. For example, if someone does not want the words written here, “You shall make it with lower rooms, with two stories and three stories”, to be understood as I said in that work, that because the Church is gathered from all nations it is said to have two stories on account of the two kinds of men, namely the circumcision and the uncircumcision, whom the apostle also calls in another way Jews and Greeks, and three stories because all nations were restored after the flood from the three sons of Noah, but says something else that is not foreign to the rule of faith: for since God wished the ark to have dwellings not only on the lower level but also on the upper (and these he called two-storied), and on the upper of the upper (and these he called three-storied), so that a third dwelling rose from the bottom upward, then those three things which the apostle commends, faith, hope, and love, can be understood here; or, much more fittingly, those three harvests of the Gospel, thirtyfold, sixtyfold, and a hundredfold, so that conjugal chastity dwells on the lowest level, widowed chastity above it, and virginal chastity higher still; or anything better that can be understood and said according to the faith of this city. This I would say also of the other things that are to be explained here: though they are not discussed in one way only, they must all be brought back to the one harmony of the catholic faith.

### Scripture references

- Gen 6:9: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 6:14–16: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 6:18–20: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 20:36: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Tim 2:5: quotation, high confidence
- John 19:34: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 13:13: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 13:8: allusion, high confidence
- Gal 2:7–8: allusion, medium confidence
- Rom 1:16: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Gen 6:9, 14–16, 18–20; Luke 20:36; 1 Tim 2:5; John 19:34; 1 Cor 13:13; Matt 13:8 (the thirty-, sixty-, and hundredfold harvest applied to married, widowed, and virginal chastity); Gal 2:7–8 and Rom 1:16 (circumcision and uncircumcision, Jews and Greeks). The lower rooms are quoted in the Old Latin form of Gen 6:16. Augustine refers to his Against Faustus 12.14–39.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.26 (CSEL 40:116–118; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-22/#p-15-26).

## City of God 15.27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-22/#p-15-27
- Source: CSEL 40:118–123
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine insists that the flood narrative is both true history and a figure of the Church, answering objections about Mount Olympus, the ark's capacity, and the animals' food.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVII. De arca adque diluuio nec illis esse consentiendum, qui solam historiam recipiunt sine allegorica significatione, nec illis, qui solas figuras defendunt repudiata historica ueritate. Non tamen quisquam putare debet aut frustra haec esse conscripta, aut tantummodo rerum gestarum ueritatem sine ullis allegoricis significationibus hic esse quaerendam, aut e contrario haec omnino gesta non esse, sed solas esse uerborum figuras, aut quidquid illud est nequaquam ad prophetiam ecclesiae pertinere. Quis enim nisi mente peruersus inaniter scriptos esse contendat libros per annorum milia tanta religione et tam ordinatae successionis obseruantia custoditos, aut solas res gestas illic intuendas, ubi certe, ut alia omittam, si numerositas animalium cogebat arcae tantam fieri magnitudinem, inmunda bina et munda septena intromitti animalia quid cogebat, cum aequalis numeri possent utraque seruari? Aut uero Deus, qui propter genus reparandum seruanda praecepit, eo modo illa, quo instituerat, restituere non ualebat? Qui uero non esse gesta, sed solas rerum significandarum figuras esse contendunt, primum opinantur tam magnum fieri non potuisse diluuium, ut altissimos montes quindecim cubitis aqua crescendo transcenderet, propter Olympi uerticem montis, supra quem perhibentur nubes non posse concrescere, quod tam sublime iam caelum sit, ut non ibi sit aer iste crassior, ubi uenti nebulae imbresque gignuntur; nec adtendunt omnium elementorum crassissimam terram ibi esse potuisse. An forte negant esse terram uerticem montis? Quur igitur usque ad illa caeli spatia terris exaltari licuisse, et aquis exaltari non licuisse contendunt, cum isti mensores et pensores elementorum aquas terris perhibeant superiores adque leuiores? Quid itaque rationis adferunt, quare terra grauior et inferior locum caeli tranquillioris inuaserit per uolumina tot annorum, et aqua leuior ac superior permissa non sit hoc facere saltem ad tempus exiguum? Dicunt etiam non potuisse capere arcae illius quantitatem animalium genera tam multa in utroque sexu, bina de inmundis, septena de mundis. Qui mihi uidentur non conputare nisi trecenta cubita longitudinis et latitudinis quinquaginta, nec cogitare aliud tantum esse in superioribus itemque aliud tantum in superioribus superiorum, ac per hoc ter ducta illa cubita fieri nongenta super centum quinquaginta. Si autem cogitemus quod Origenes non ineleganter adstruxit, Moysen scilicet hominem Dei eruditum, sicut scriptum est, omni sapientia Aegyptiorum, qui geometricam dilexerunt, geometrica cubita significare potuisse, ubi unum quantum sex nostra ualere adseuerant, quis non uideat quantum rerum capere illa potuit magnitudo? Nam illud quod disputant tantae magnitudinis arcam non potuisse conpingi, ineptissime calumniantur, cum sciant inmensas urbes fuisse constructas, nec adtendunt centum annos, quibus arca illa est fabricata; nisi forte lapis lapidi adhaerere potest sola calce coniunctus, ut murus per tot milia circumagatur, et lignum ligno per suscudines, epiros, clauos, gluten bituminis non potest adhaerere, ut fabricetur arca non curuis, sed rectis lineis longe lateque porrecta, quam nullus in mare mittat conatus hominum, sed leuet unda, cum uenerit, naturali ordine ponderum, magisque diuina prouidentia quam humana prudentia natantem gubernet, ne incurrat ubicumque naufragium. Quod autem scrupulosissime quaeri solet de minutissimis bestiolis, non solum quales sunt mures et stelliones, uerum etiam quales lucustae, scarabei, muscae denique et pulices, utrum non amplioris numeri in arca illa fuerint, quam qui est definitus, cum hoc imperaret Deus, prius admonendi sunt, quos haec mouent, sic accipiendum esse quod dictum est: Quae repunt super terram, ut necesse non fuerit conseruari in arca, quae possunt in aquis uiuere, non solum mersa, sicut pisces, uerum etiam supernatantia, sicut multae alites. Deinde cum dicitur: Masculus et femina erunt, profecto intellegitur ad reparandum genus dici; ac per hoc nec illa necesse fuerat ibi esse, quae possunt sine concubitu de quibusque rebus uel rerum corruptionibus nasci; uel si fuerunt, sicut in domibus esse consuerunt, sine ullo numero definito esse potuisse; aut si mysterium sacratissimum, quod agebatur, et tantae rei figura etiam ueritate facti aliter non posset inpleri, nisi ut omnia ibi certo illo numero essent, quae uiuere in aquis natura prohibente non possent, non fuit ista cura illius hominis uel illorum hominum, sed diuina. Non enim ea Noe capta intromittebat, sed uenientia et intrantia permittebat. Ad hoc enim ualet quod dictum est: Intrabunt ad te; non scilicet hominis actu, sed Dei nutu; ita sane, ut non illic fuisse credenda sint, quae sexu carent. Praescriptum enim adque definitum est: Masculus et femina erunt. Alia sunt quippe quae de quibusque rebus sine concubitu ita nascuntur, ut postea concumbant et generent, sicut muscae; alia uero in quibus nihil sit maris et feminae, sicut apes. Ea porro quae sic habent sexum, ut non habeant fetum, sicut muli et mutae, mirum si fuerunt ibi, ac non potius parentes eorum ibi fuisse suffecerit, equinum uidelicet adque asininum genus; et si qua alia sunt, quae commixtione diuersi generis genus aliquod gignunt. Sed si et hoc ad mysterium pertinebat, ibi erant. Habet enim et hoc genus masculum et feminam. Solet etiam mouere nonnullos, genera escarum, quae illic habere poterant animalia, quae non nisi carne uesci putantur, utrum praeter numerum ibi fuerint sine transgressione mandati, quae aliorum alendorum necessitas illic coegisset includi; an uero, quod potius est credendum, praeter carnes aliqua alimenta esse potuerint, quae omnibus conuenirent. Nouimus enim quam multa animalia, quibus caro cibus est, frugibus pomisque uescantur et maxime fico adque castaneis. Quid ergo mirum, si uir ille sapiens et iustus, etiam diuinitus admonitus quid cuique congrueret, sine carnibus aptam cuique generi alimoniam praeparauit et condidit? Quid est autem, quo uesci non cogeret fames? aut quid non suaue ac salubre facere posset Deus, qui etiam, ut sine cibo uiuerent, diuina facilitate donaret, nisi ut pascerentur etiam hoc inplendae figurae tanti mysterii conueniret? Non autem ad praefigurandam ecclesiam pertinere tam multiplicia rerum signa gestarum, nisi fuerit contentiosus, nemo permittitur opinari. Iam enim gentes ita ecclesiam repleuerunt, mundique et inmundi, donec certum ueniatur ad finem, ita eius unitatis quadam conpagine continentur, ut ex hoc uno manifestissimo etiam de ceteris, quae obscurius aliquanto dicta sunt et difficilius agnosci queunt, dubitare fas non sit. Quae cum ita sint, sic nec inaniter ista esse conscripta putare quisquam uel durus audebit, nec nihil significare cum gesta sint, nec sola dicta esse significatiua non facta, nec aliena esse ab ecclesia significanda probabiliter dici potest; sed magis credendum est et sapienter esse memoriae litterisque mandata, et gesta esse, et significare aliquid, et ipsum aliquid ad praefigurandam ecclesiam pertinere. Iam usque ad hunc articulum perductus liber iste claudendus est, ut ambarum ciuitatum cursus, terrenae scilicet secundum hominem uiuentis et caelestis secundum Deum, post diluuium et deinceps in rebus consequentibus requiratur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 27. On the ark and the flood: that we should agree neither with those who accept only the history without allegorical meaning, nor with those who defend only figures and reject the historical truth.

No one ought to think, however, either that these things were written for nothing, or that only the historical truth of events is to be sought here without any allegorical meanings, or, on the contrary, that these things did not happen at all but are only figures of speech, or that whatever they are they have nothing to do with prophecy of the Church. For who but a perverse mind would contend that books kept through thousands of years with such reverence and such careful observance of an ordered succession were written to no purpose, or that only the events are to be considered in them? In them, to omit other things, if the number of animals required the ark to be made so large, what required unclean animals to be brought in by twos and clean animals by sevens, when both could have been preserved in equal numbers? Or was God, who commanded that they be preserved to restore the race, unable to restore them in the way he had first established them?

Those who contend that these things did not happen, but are only figures of things to be signified, think in the first place that so great a flood could not have happened, that the water by rising should overtop the highest mountains by fifteen cubits, because of the summit of Mount Olympus, above which, they say, clouds cannot gather, because the sky there is already so high that there is none of this thicker air in which winds, mists, and rains are produced; and they do not notice that earth, the densest of all the elements, could be there. Or do they perhaps deny that the summit of a mountain is earth? Why, then, do they contend that earth was allowed to be raised up to those regions of the sky but water was not, when these measurers and weighers of the elements declare that waters are higher and lighter than earth? What reason, then, do they bring why the heavier and lower earth should have occupied the place of the calmer sky through the revolutions of so many years, and the lighter and higher water should not have been permitted to do so even for a short time?

They also say that the size of that ark could not have held so many kinds of animals of both sexes, two of the unclean and seven of the clean. These seem to me to count only the three hundred cubits of length and fifty of breadth, and not to consider that there was as much again on the upper level and as much again on the upper of the upper, and that therefore those cubits multiplied by three make nine hundred by one hundred and fifty. But if we consider what Origen argued not inelegantly, that Moses, the man of God, “learned,” as it is written, “in all the wisdom of the Egyptians”, who loved geometry, could have meant geometrical cubits, one of which, they assert, is equal to six of ours, who does not see how much that size could have held? As for their argument that an ark so large could not have been built, their slander is most foolish, since they know that immense cities have been constructed, and they do not consider the hundred years in which that ark was built; unless perhaps stone can cling to stone joined only by lime, so that a wall may run round for so many miles, and timber cannot cling to timber by dovetails, bolts, nails, and the glue of pitch, so that an ark may be built stretching far and wide, not in curved but in straight lines, which no human effort was to launch into the sea, but which the wave would lift when it came, by the natural order of weights, and which divine providence rather than human skill would steer as it floated, so that it should not run anywhere into shipwreck.

As for the very scrupulous question commonly raised about the tiniest creatures, not only such as mice and lizards, but also such as locusts, beetles, even flies and fleas, whether there were not more of them in that ark than the number fixed when God gave this command: those who are troubled by these things must first be reminded that the words “which creep upon the earth” are to be understood so that there was no need to preserve in the ark those that can live in the waters, not only those submerged, like fish, but also those that float on the surface, like many birds. Then, when it is said, “They shall be male and female”, it is surely understood as said with a view to restoring the race; and therefore there was no need for those to be there which can be born without intercourse from various things or from the decay of things; or if they were there, as they usually are in houses, they could have been there without any fixed number. Or if the most sacred mystery that was being enacted, and the figure of so great a matter, could not be fulfilled even in the reality of the event otherwise than by all those creatures being there in that fixed number which could not live in the water because nature forbade it, this was not the concern of that man or those men, but of God. For Noah did not catch them and bring them in, but allowed them in as they came and entered. That is the force of the words, “They shall come in to you”: not, that is, by man's action but by God's will; yet in such a way that those which lack sex are not to be believed to have been there. For it was prescribed and defined: “They shall be male and female.” For there are some creatures which are born from various things without intercourse, but afterwards mate and beget, like flies; and others in which there is nothing of male and female, like bees. As for those which have sex but not offspring, like mules and she-mules, it would be surprising if they were there, and not rather sufficient that their parents were there, namely the horse and the ass; and any others that produce some kind by the mixing of different kinds. But if this too pertained to the mystery, they were there; for this kind too has male and female.

Some are also troubled about the kinds of food which the animals could have there that are thought to eat nothing but flesh: whether, beyond the number, there were animals there, without transgression of the command, which the need to feed the others had compelled to be shut in; or whether, as is rather to be believed, there could have been some foods besides flesh suitable for all. For we know how many animals whose food is flesh eat grain and fruits, and especially figs and chestnuts. What wonder is it, then, if that wise and righteous man, divinely instructed besides as to what suited each, prepared and stored food fit for each kind without flesh? What is there that hunger would not compel them to eat? Or what could God not make pleasant and wholesome, who could have granted by divine ease that they live even without food, were it not that their being fed also suited the fulfilment of the figure of so great a mystery?

That so many manifold signs of events do not pertain to prefiguring the Church, no one is permitted to think, unless he is contentious. For the nations have now so filled the Church, and clean and unclean are so held together in the framework of its unity until a fixed end is reached, that from this one most evident point it is not right to doubt about the others either, which are said somewhat more obscurely and can be recognized with more difficulty. This being so, no one, however hard, will dare to think that these things were written to no purpose; nor can it plausibly be said that, though they happened, they signify nothing, or that only the words are significant and the things did not happen, or that what they signify has nothing to do with the Church. Rather it is to be believed that they were wisely committed to memory and writing, that they happened, that they signify something, and that this something pertains to prefiguring the Church. This book, brought to this point, must now be closed, so that the course of both cities, the earthly, living according to man, and the heavenly, living according to God, may be traced after the flood and in the events that followed.

### Scripture references

- Gen 7:2–3: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 7:20: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 6:15–16: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 7:22: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 6:19–20: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 6:21: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Gen 7:2–3 (clean by sevens, unclean by twos); Gen 7:20; Gen 6:15–16, 19–20; Acts 7:22 (quoted); Gen 5:32 and 7:6 (the hundred years). Origen's suggestion of geometrical cubits is in his Homilies on Genesis 2.2 (no entry in the site's list). The words “squared timbers” and the building terms in the Latin (suscudines, epiros) are rare technical words for dovetails and bolts.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 15.27 (CSEL 40:118–123; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-22/#p-15-27).

## City of God 16.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-22/#p-16-1
- Source: CSEL 40:123–124
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Scripture records no one's godliness between Noah and Abraham except Noah's prophetic blessing of Shem and Japheth and curse on Canaan.

### Latin text

An post diluuium a Noe usque ad Abraham aliquae familiae secundum Deum uiuentium reperiantur. Post diluuium procurrentis sanctae uestigia ciuitatis utrum continuata sint an intercurrentibus inpietatis interrupta temporibus, ita ut nullus hominum ueri unius Dei cultor existeret, ad liquidum scripturis loquentibus inuenire difficile est, propterea quia in canonicis libris post Noe, qui cum coniuge ac tribus filiis totidemque nuribus suis meruit per arcam uastatione diluuii liberari, non inuenimus usque Abraham cuiusquam pietatem euidenti diuino eloquio praedicatam, nisi quod Noe duos filios suos Sem et Iapheth prophetica benedictione commendat, intuens et praeuidens quod longe fuerat post futurum. Unde factum est etiam illud, ut filium suum medium, hoc est primogenito iuniorem ultimoque maiorem, qui peccauerat in patrem, non in ipso, sed in filio eius suo nepote malediceret his uerbis: Maledictus Chanaan puer, famulus erit fratribus suis. Chanaan porro natus fuerat ex Cham, qui patris dormientis nec texerat, sed potius prodiderat nuditatem. Unde etiam quod secutus adiunxit benedictionem duorum maximi et minimi filiorum dicens: Benedictus Dominus Deus Sem, et erit Chanaan puer illius; latificet Deus Iapheth, et habitet in domibus Sem, sicut ipsa eiusdem Noe et uineae plantatio et ex eius fructu inebriatio et dormientis enudatio, et quae ibi cetera facta adque conscripta sunt, propheticis sunt grauidata sensibus et uelata tegminibus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. Whether after the flood, from Noah to Abraham, any families of those living according to God are to be found.

Whether, after the flood, the footsteps of the holy city running on its course were continuous, or were broken by intervening times of ungodliness, so that there was no human being who worshipped the one true God, is difficult to find out clearly from the words of Scripture. For in the canonical books, after Noah, who with his wife, his three sons, and as many daughters-in-law was found worthy to be saved from the devastation of the flood by the ark, we do not find, down to Abraham, anyone's godliness proclaimed by a clear divine word; except that Noah commends his two sons Shem and Japheth with a prophetic blessing, beholding and foreseeing what was to come long afterwards. That is also why he cursed his middle son, that is, the one younger than the firstborn and older than the last, who had sinned against his father, not in himself but in his son, Noah's grandson, in these words: “Cursed be the boy Canaan; he shall be a servant to his brothers.” Canaan had been born of Ham, who had not covered but rather exposed his sleeping father's nakedness. That is also why he then added the blessing of his two sons, the eldest and the youngest, saying: “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant; may God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the houses of Shem.” Just as Noah's planting of the vineyard, his drunkenness from its fruit, his being uncovered as he slept, and the other things that were done and recorded there, are pregnant with prophetic meanings and covered with veils.

### Scripture references

- Gen 9:20–24: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 9:25–27: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 9:25–27 in the Old Latin form (“may God enlarge Japheth”, a play on the name). Allusions: Gen 9:20–24.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.1 (CSEL 40:123–124; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/15-22/#p-16-1).

## City of God 16.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-2/#p-16-2
- Source: CSEL 40:124–128
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reads Noah's drunkenness and nakedness as a figure of Christ's passion: Shem and Japheth (Jews and Gentiles in the Church) honor it, while Ham figures heretics and bad Christians.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. Quid in filiis Noe prophetice fuerit praefiguratum. Sed nunc rerum effectu iam in posteris consecuto, quae operta fuerant, satis aperta sunt. Quis enim haec diligenter et intellegenter aduertens non agnoscat in Christo? Sem quippe, de cuius semine in carne natus est Christus, interpretatur nominatus. Quid autem nominatius Christo, cuius nomen ubique iam fragrat, ita ut in cantico canticorum etiam ipsa praecedente prophetia unguento conparetur effuso; in cuius domibus, id est ecclesiis, habitat gentium latitudo? Nam Iapheth latitudo interpretatur. Cham porro, quod interpretatur calidus, medius Noe filius, tamquam se ab utroque discernens et inter utrumque remanens, nec in primitiis Israelitarum nec in plenitudine gentium, quid significat nisi haereticorum genus calidum, non spiritu sapientiae, sed inpatientiae, quo solent haereticorum feruere praecordia et pacem perturbare sanctorum? Sed haec in usum cedunt proficientium, iuxta illud apostoli: Oportet et haereses esse, ut probati manifesti fiant in uobis. Unde etiam scriptum est: Filius eruditus sapiens erit, inprudente autem ministro utetur. Multa quippe ad fidem catholicam pertinentia, dum haereticorum calida inquietudine exagitantur, ut aduersus eos defendi possint, et considerantur diligentius et intelleguntur clarius et instantius praedicantur, et ab aduersario mota quaestio discendi existit occasio. Quamuis non solum qui sunt apertissime separati, uerum omnes, qui Christiano uocabulo gloriantur et perdite uiuunt, non absurde possunt uideri medio Noe filio figurati; passionem quippe Christi, quae illius hominis nuditate significata est, et adnuntiant profitendo, et male agendo exhonorant. De talibus ergo dictum est: Ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos. Ideo Cham in filio suo maledictus est, tamquam in fructu suo, id est in opere suo. Unde conuenienter et ipse filius eius Chanaan interpretatur motus eorum; quod aliud quid est quam opus eorum? Sem uero et Iapheth tamquam circumcisio et praeputium, uel sicut alio modo eos appellat apostolus, Iudaei et Graeci, sed uocati et iustificati, cognita quoquo modo nuditate patris, qua significabatur passio Saluatoris, sumentes uestimentum posuerunt supra dorsa sua et intrauerunt auersi et operuerunt nuditatem patris sui, nec uiderunt quod reuerendo texerunt. Quodam enim modo in passione Christi et quod pro nobis factum est honoramus et Iudaeorum facinus auersamur. Vestimentum significat sacramentum, dorsa memoriam praeteritorum, quia passionem Christi eo scilicet iam tempore, quo habitat Iapheth in domibus Sem et malus frater in medio eorum, transactam celebrat ecclesia, non adhuc prospectat futuram. Sed malus frater in filio suo, hoc est in opere suo, puer, id est seruus est fratrum bonorum, cum ad exercitationem patientiae uel ad prouectum sapientiae scienter utuntur malis boni. Sunt enim teste apostolo, qui Christum adnuntiant non caste; sed siue occasione, inquit, siue ueritate Christus adnuntietur [in hoc gaudeo, sed et gaudebo]. Ipse quippe plantauit uineam, de qua dicit propheta: Vinea Domini Sabaoth domus Israel est, et bibit de uino eius (siue ille calix hic intellegatur, de quo dicit: Potestis bibere calicem, quem ego bibiturus sum? et: Pater, si fieri potest, transeat calix iste, quo suam sine dubio significat passionem; siue, quia uinum fructus est uineae, hoc potius illo significatum est, quod ex ipsa uinea, hoc est ex genere Israelitarum, carnem pro nobis et sanguinem, ut pati posset, adsumsit), et inebriatus est, idest passus est, et nudatus est; ibi namque nudata est, id est apparuit, eius infirmitas, de qua dicit apostolus: Etsi crucifixus est ex infirmitate. Unde idem dicit: Infirmum Dei fortius est hominibus, et stultum Dei sapientius est hominibus. Quod uero cum dictum esset: Et nudatus est, addidit scriptura: In domo sua, eleganter ostendit, quod a suae carnis gente et domesticis sanguinis sui, utique Iudaeis, fuerat crucem mortemque passurus. Hanc passionem Christi foris in sono tantum uocis reprobi adnuntiant; non enim quod adnuntiant intellegunt. Probi autem in interiore homine habent tam grande mysterium adque honorant intus in corde infirmum et stultum Dei, quia fortius et sapientius est hominibus. Huius rei figura est, quod Cham exiens hoc nuntiauit foris; Sem uero et Iapheth, ut hoc uelarent, id est honorarent, ingressi sunt, hoc est interius id egerunt. Haec scripturae secreta diuinae indagamus, ut possumus, alius alio magis minusue congruenter, uerum tamen fideliter certum tenentes non ea sine aliqua praefiguratione futurorum gesta adque conscripta neque nisi ad Christum et eius ecclesiam, quae ciuitas Dei est, esse referenda; cuius ab initio generis humani non defuit praedicatio, quam per omnia uidemus inpleri. Benedictis igitur duobus filiis Noe adque uno in medio eorum maledicto deinceps usque ad Abraham de iustorum aliquorum, qui pie Deum colerent, commemoratione silentium est per annos amplius quam mille. Nec eos defuisse crediderim, sed si omnes commemorarentur, nimis longum fieret, et esset haec historica magis diligentia quam prophetica prouidentia. Illa itaque exsequitur litterarum sacrarum scriptor istarum uel potius per eum Dei Spiritus, quibus non solum narrentur praeterita, uerum etiam praenuntientur futura, quae tamen pertinent ad ciuitatem Dei; quia et de hominibus, qui non sunt ciues eius, quidquid hic dicitur, ad hoc dicitur, ut illa ex conparatione contraria uel proficiat uel emineat. Non sane omnia, quae gesta narrantur, aliquid etiam significare putanda sunt; sed propter illa, quae aliquid significant, etiam ea, quae nihil significant, adtexuntur. Solo enim uomere terra proscinditur; sed ut hoc fieri possit, etiam cetera aratri membra sunt necessaria; et soli nerui in citharis adque huius modi uasis musicis aptantur ad cantum; sed ut aptari possint, insunt et cetera in conpagibus organorum, quae non percutiuntur a canentibus, sed ea, quae percussa resonant, his conectuntur. Ita in prophetica historia dicuntur et aliqua, quae nihil significant, sed quibus adhaereant quae significant et quodam modo religentur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. What was prophetically prefigured in the sons of Noah.

But now that the events have followed in the descendants, what was covered has been sufficiently uncovered. For who, attending to these things carefully and intelligently, does not recognize them fulfilled in Christ? For Shem, of whose seed Christ was born in the flesh, means “named.” And what is more renowned by name than Christ, whose name is now fragrant everywhere, so that in the Song of Songs, by a prophecy going before, it is even compared to ointment poured out; and in whose houses, that is, churches, the breadth of the nations dwells? For Japheth means “breadth.” Ham, again, which means “hot,” Noah's middle son, as if separating himself from both and remaining between both, neither among the firstfruits of the Israelites nor in the fullness of the nations, what does he signify but the hot race of heretics, hot not with the spirit of wisdom but of impatience, with which the hearts of heretics are accustomed to seethe and disturb the peace of the saints? But these things turn to the advantage of those who are advancing, according to the apostle's saying: “There must also be heresies, so that those who are approved may be made manifest among you.” Hence it is also written: “A well-taught son will be wise, and he will use the foolish man as a servant.” For many things belonging to the catholic faith, while they are stirred up by the hot restlessness of heretics, are, so that they may be defended against them, considered more carefully, understood more clearly, and preached more earnestly; and a question raised by an adversary becomes an occasion for learning. Yet not only those who are most openly separated, but all who glory in the name of Christian and live abandoned lives, can without absurdity be seen as figured by Noah's middle son; for they both proclaim Christ's passion, which was signified by that man's nakedness, by professing it, and dishonor it by acting wickedly. Of such it was said: “By their fruits you will know them.” That is why Ham was cursed in his son, as in his fruit, that is, in his work. Hence, fittingly, his son Canaan himself means “their movement”; and what is that but their work?

But Shem and Japheth, like the circumcision and the uncircumcision, or, as the apostle calls them in another way, Jews and Greeks, but called and justified, having somehow learned of their father's nakedness, by which the Savior's passion was signified, took a garment and laid it on their backs, went in backwards, and covered their father's nakedness, and did not see what they covered out of reverence. For in a certain way, in the passion of Christ, we both honor what was done for us and turn away from the crime of the Jews. The garment signifies the sacrament; the backs, the memory of things past; because the Church celebrates the passion of Christ as already accomplished, at the very time when Japheth dwells in the houses of Shem and the evil brother in their midst, and no longer looks forward to it as future. But the evil brother, in his son, that is, in his work, is the boy, that is, the servant, of the good brothers, when the good knowingly use the wicked for the exercise of patience or for the advance of wisdom. For, as the apostle testifies, there are those who proclaim Christ not purely; “but whether in pretense,” he says, “or in truth, let Christ be proclaimed.” For it was Christ himself who planted the vineyard of which the prophet says, “The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel”; and he drank of its wine (whether that cup is understood here of which he says, “Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” and “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass”, by which he certainly signifies his passion; or rather, since wine is the fruit of the vineyard, what is signified by it is that from that vineyard, that is, from the race of the Israelites, he took flesh and blood for us so that he could suffer); and he was drunk, that is, he suffered; and he was stripped naked; for there his weakness was laid bare, that is, appeared, of which the apostle says, “Though he was crucified out of weakness.” Hence the same apostle says: “The weakness of God is stronger than men, and the foolishness of God is wiser than men.” And when Scripture, after saying “and he was uncovered”, added, “in his house”, it elegantly showed that he was to suffer the cross and death from the people of his own flesh and the members of his own blood, namely the Jews. This passion of Christ the reprobate proclaim outwardly, only in the sound of the voice; for they do not understand what they proclaim. But the upright hold so great a mystery in the inner man and honor inwardly in the heart the weakness and foolishness of God, because it is stronger and wiser than men. The figure of this is that Ham went out and reported it outside, whereas Shem and Japheth went in to veil it, that is, to honor it; that is, they did it inwardly.

These secrets of divine Scripture we search out as best we can, one more fittingly than another, yet holding faithfully as certain that these things were not done and recorded without some prefiguring of things to come, and are to be referred only to Christ and his Church, which is the city of God; the proclamation of which has not been lacking since the beginning of the human race, and we see it fulfilled in all respects. After the blessing of Noah's two sons, then, and the curse of one between them, there is silence, down to Abraham, for more than a thousand years, about any righteous people who worshipped God with godliness. I would not believe that they were lacking; but if all were recorded, it would become too long, and this would be the diligence of history rather than the foresight of prophecy. So the writer of these sacred books, or rather the Spirit of God through him, pursues those things by which not only are past things narrated but future things foretold, those, however, that belong to the city of God; since whatever is said here even about men who are not its citizens is said so that the city may either advance or stand out by contrast. Not everything that is narrated as having happened, of course, is to be thought to signify something as well; but for the sake of the things that signify something, even those that signify nothing are woven in. For the earth is broken only by the ploughshare; but for this to be possible the other parts of the plough are also needed. And only the strings in lyres and such musical instruments are fitted for song; but so that they can be fitted, there are also the other parts in the framework of the instruments, which are not struck by the players, but to which those that sound when struck are attached. So in prophetic history some things are also said which signify nothing, but to which the things that do signify are attached and in a sense bound.

### Scripture references

- Song 1:3: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 11:19: quotation, high confidence
- Prov 10:4: quotation, medium confidence
- Matt 7:16: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 9:20–23: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 1:16: allusion, medium confidence
- Phil 1:18: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 5:7: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 20:22: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 26:39: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 13:4: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:25: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Etymologies of Shem, Japheth, Ham, and Canaan follow Jerome's Hebrew Names. Quotations: Song 1:3; 1 Cor 11:19; Prov 10:4 in the Greek addition (10:4a LXX: “a well-taught son will be wise …”); Matt 7:16; Phil 1:18; Isa 5:7; Matt 20:22; Matt 26:39; 2 Cor 13:4; 1 Cor 1:25; Gen 9:21, 23. The editor deletes “in this I rejoice, yes, and I will rejoice” after Phil 1:18. The phrase on the crime of the Jews is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.2 (CSEL 40:124–128; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-2/#p-16-2).

## City of God 16.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-2/#p-16-3
- Source: CSEL 40:128–132
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine surveys the Table of Nations (Gen 10), counting seventy-three (or seventy-two) nations, discussing Nimrod and Nineveh, and deriving the name 'Hebrews' from Eber.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. De generationibus trium filiorum Noe. Generationes ergo filiorum Noe deinceps intuendae, et quod de his dicendum uidetur, adtexendum est huic operi, quo ciuitatis utriusque, terrenae scilicet et caelestis, per tempora procursus ostenditur. Coeptae sunt enim commemorari a minimo filio, qui uocatus est Iapheth, cuius filii octo nominati sunt, nepotes autem septem de duobus filiis eius, tres ex uno, quattuor ex altero; fiunt itaque omnes quindecim. Filii autem Cham, hoc est medii filii Noe, quattuor et nepotes quinque ex uno eius filio, pronepotes duo ex nepote uno; fit eorum summa undecim. Quibus enumeratis reditur tamquam ad caput et dicitur: Chus autem genuit Nebroth; hic coepit esse gigans super terram. Hic erat gigans uenator contra Dominum Deum. Propter hoc dicunt: Sicut Nebroth gigans uenator contra Dominum. Et factum est initium regni eius Babylon, Oreg, Archad et Chalemne in terra Sennaar. De terra illa exiuit Assur et aedificauit Nineuen et Roboth ciuitatem et Chalach et Dasem inter medium Nineuae et Chalach: haec ciuitas magna. Iste porro Chus, pater gigantis Nebroth, primus nominatus est in filiis Cham, cuius quinque filii iam fuerant conputati et nepotes duo. Sed istum gigantem aut post nepotes suos natos genuit, aut, quod est credibilius, seorsum de illo propter eius eminentiam scriptura locuta est; quando quidem et regnum eius commemoratum est, cuius initium erat illa nobilissima Babylon ciuitas, et quae iuxta commemoratae sunt siue ciuitates siue regiones. Quod uero dictum est de terra illa, id est de terra Sennaar, quae pertinebat ad regnum Nebroth, exisse Assur et aedificasse Nineuen et alias quas contexuit ciuitates, longe postea factum est, quod ex hac occasione perstrinxit propter nobilitatem regni Assyriorum, quod mirabiliter dilatauit Ninus, Beli filius, conditor Nineuae ciuitatis magnae; cuius ciuitatis nomen ex illius nomine deriuatum est, ut a Nino Nineue uocaretur. Assur autem, unde Assyrii, non fuit in filiis Cham, medii filii Noe, sed in filiis Sem reperitur, qui fuit Noe maximus filius. Unde apparet de progenie Sem exortos fuisse, qui postea regnum gigantis illius obtinerent et inde procederent adque alias conderent ciuitates, quarum prima est a Nino, appellata Nineue. Hinc reditur ad alium filium Cham, qui uocabatur Mesraim, et commemorantur quos genuit, non tamquam singuli homines, sed nationes septem. Et de sexta, uelut de sexto filio, gens commemoratur exisse, quae appellatur Philistiim; unde fiunt octo. Inde iterum ad Chanaan reditur, in quo filio maledictus est Cham, et quos genuit undecim nominantur. Deinde usque ad quos fines peruenerint commemoratis quibusdam ciuitatibus dicitur. Ac per hoc filiis nepotibusque conputatis de progenie Cham triginta unus geniti referuntur. Restat commemorare filios Sem, maximi filii Noe; ad eum quippe gradatim generationum istarum peruenit a minimo exorta narratio. Sed unde incipiunt commemorari filii Sem, habet quiddam obscuritatis, quod expositione inlustrandum est, quia et multum ad rem pertinet, quam requirimus. Sic enim legitur: Et Sem natus est, et ipsi patri omnium filiorum, Heber, fratri Iapheth maiori. Ordo uerborum est: Et Sem natus est Heber, etiam ipsi, id est ipsi Sem, natus est Heber, qui Sem pater est omnium filiorum. Sem ergo patriarcham intellegi uoluit omnium, qui de stirpe eius exorti sunt, quos commemoraturus est, siue sint filii, siue nepotes et pronepotes et deinceps indidem exorti. Non sane istum Heber genuit Sem, sed ab illo quintus in progenitorum serie reperitur. Sem quippe inter alios filios genuit Arphaxat, Arphaxat genuit Cainan, Cainan genuit Sala, Sala genuit Heber. Non itaque frustra ipse primus est nominatus in progenie ueniente de Sem et praelatus etiam filiis, cum sit quintus nepos, nisi quia uerum est, quod traditur, ex illo Hebraeos esse cognominatos, tamquam Heberaeos; cum et alia possit esse opinio, ut ex Abraham tamquam Abrahaei dicti esse uideantur; sed nimirum hoc uerum est, quod ex Heber Heberaei appellati sunt, ac deinde una detrita littera Hebraei, quam linguam solus Israel populus potuit obtinere, in quo Dei ciuitas et in sanctis peregrinata est et in omnibus sacramento adumbrata. Igitur filii Sem prius sex nominantur, deinde ex uno eorum nati sunt quattuor nepotes eius, itemque alter filiorum Sem genuit eius nepotem, adque ex illo itidem pronepos natus est adque inde abnepos, qui est Heber. Genuit autem Heber duos filios, quorum unum appellauit Phalech, quod interpretatur diuidens. Deinde scriptura subiungens rationemque huius nominis reddens: Quia diebus, inquit, eius diuisa est terra. Hoc autem quid sit, postea apparebit. Alius uero, qui natus est ex Heber, genuit duodecim filios; ac per hoc fiunt omnes progeniti de Sem uiginti septem. In summa igitur omnes progeniti de tribus filiis Noe, id est quindecim de Iapheth, triginta unus de Cham, uiginti septem de Sem fiunt septuaginta tres. Deinde sequitur scriptura dicens: Hi filii Sem in tribubus suis secundum linguas suas in regionibus suis et in gentibus suis; itemque de omnibus: Haec, inquit, tribus filiorum Noe secundum generationes eorum, secundum gentes eorum. Ab his dispersae sunt insulae gentium super terram post diluuium. Unde colligitur septuaginta tres uel potius (quod postea demonstrabitur) septuaginta duas gentes tunc fuisse, non homines. Nam et prius, cum fuissent commemorati filii Iapheth, ita conclusum est: Ex his segregatae sunt insulae gentium in terra sua, unus quisque secundum linguam in tribubus suis et in gentibus suis. Iam uero in filiis Cham quodam loco apertius gentes commemoratae sunt, sicut superius ostendi. Mesraim genuit eos, qui dicuntur Ludiim; et eodem modo ceterae usque ad septem gentes. Et enumeratis omnibus postea concludens: Hi filii Cham, inquit, in tribubus suis secundum linguas suas in regionibus suis et in gentibus suis. Propterea ergo multorum filii non sunt commemorati, quia gentibus aliis nascendo accesserunt, ipsi autem gentes facere nequiuerunt. Nam qua alia causa, cum filii Iapheth octo enumerentur, ex duobus eorum tantum filii nati commemorantur, et cum filii Cham quattuor nominentur, ex tribus tantum qui nati sunt adiciuntur, et cum filii Sem nominentur sex, duorum tantum posteritas adtexitur? Numquid ceteri sine filiis remanserunt? Absit hoc credere; sed gentes, propter quas commemorari digni essent, non utique fecerunt, quia, sicut nascebantur, aliis gentibus addebantur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. On the generations of the three sons of Noah.

Next, then, the generations of the sons of Noah must be examined, and what seems worth saying about them must be woven into this work, in which the course through time of both cities, the earthly and the heavenly, is shown. For their recording begins with the youngest son, who was called Japheth, whose eight sons are named, and seven grandsons from two of his sons, three from one and four from the other; so there are fifteen in all. The sons of Ham, Noah's middle son, are four, and there are five grandsons from one of his sons, and two great-grandsons from one grandson; their total is eleven. When these have been listed, the narrative returns as it were to the head and says: “Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a giant on the earth. He was a giant hunter against the Lord God. Therefore they say: Like Nimrod, a giant hunter against the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land went out Asshur, and built Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; this is a great city.” This Cush, the father of the giant Nimrod, was named first among the sons of Ham, and his five sons and two grandsons had already been counted. But he either begot this giant after his grandsons were born, or, what is more credible, Scripture spoke of him separately because of his eminence; since his kingdom too is mentioned, whose beginning was that most famous city Babylon, and the cities or regions mentioned beside it. As for the statement that from that land, that is, the land of Shinar, which belonged to Nimrod's kingdom, Asshur went out and built Nineveh and the other cities listed with it, this happened long afterwards; the writer touched on it on this occasion because of the fame of the kingdom of the Assyrians, which Ninus son of Belus, the founder of the great city of Nineveh, extended wonderfully; the name of the city was derived from his name, so that from Ninus it was called Nineveh. But Asshur, from whom the Assyrians come, was not among the sons of Ham, Noah's middle son, but is found among the sons of Shem, Noah's eldest son. Hence it appears that it was men sprung from the progeny of Shem who afterwards obtained the kingdom of that giant, and went out from there and founded other cities, the first of which was called Nineveh after Ninus. From here the narrative returns to another son of Ham, called Mizraim, and those he begot are recorded, not as single men but as seven nations. And from the sixth, as from a sixth son, a nation is recorded to have gone out, which is called the Philistines; so there are eight. Then it returns again to Canaan, in whom as his son Ham was cursed, and the eleven he begot are named. Then it is said how far they reached, some cities being mentioned. And so, counting sons and grandsons, thirty-one are reported to have been begotten of the progeny of Ham.

It remains to record the sons of Shem, Noah's eldest son; for the narrative of these generations, beginning from the youngest, reaches him by degrees. But the point at which the sons of Shem begin to be recorded has some obscurity, which must be cleared up by explanation, since it is very relevant to the matter we are investigating. For so we read: “And to Shem too was born, to the father of all the sons of Heber, the elder brother of Japheth.” The order of the words is: “And to Shem was born Heber, even to him”, that is, to Shem himself was born Heber, Shem being the father of all the sons. Scripture wished Shem, then, to be understood as the patriarch of all who sprang from his stock, whom it is going to record, whether sons or grandsons and great-grandsons and those descended from the same source thereafter. Shem did not, of course, beget this Heber, but he is found to be fifth from him in the series of ancestors. For Shem, among other sons, begot Arpachshad; Arpachshad begot Cainan; Cainan begot Shelah; Shelah begot Eber. Not without reason, then, is he named first in the progeny coming from Shem, and preferred even to the sons, though he is a descendant in the fifth generation, unless because what is handed down is true, that the Hebrews were named after him, as Heberaeans; though there could also be another opinion, that they seem to be called Abrahaeans after Abraham. But certainly this is true, that from Heber they were called Heberaeans, and then, with one letter worn away, Hebraeans; and this language the people of Israel alone could keep, in which the city of God was both on pilgrimage in the saints and foreshadowed by a sacrament in all.

So first six sons of Shem are named; then from one of them were born four grandsons of his; again another of Shem's sons begot a grandson of his, and from him in turn a great-grandson was born, and from him a great-great-grandson, who is Heber. Heber begot two sons, one of whom he called Peleg, which means “dividing.” Then Scripture adds, giving the reason for this name: “Because in his days the earth was divided.” What this means will appear later. The other son born of Heber begot twelve sons; and so all the descendants of Shem come to twenty-seven. In sum, then, all the descendants of the three sons of Noah, that is, fifteen of Japheth, thirty-one of Ham, twenty-seven of Shem, make seventy-three. Then Scripture goes on to say: “These are the sons of Shem, in their tribes, according to their languages, in their lands and in their nations”; and likewise of all: “These,” it says, “are the tribes of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, according to their nations. From these the islands of the nations were scattered over the earth after the flood.” From this it is gathered that there were then seventy-three, or rather (as will be shown later) seventy-two nations, not individual men. For earlier too, when the sons of Japheth had been recorded, the conclusion was: “From these were separated the islands of the nations in their land, each according to his language, in their tribes and in their nations.” Among the sons of Ham, indeed, nations are mentioned more openly in one place, as I showed above: “Mizraim begot those who are called Ludim”, and likewise the others, up to seven nations. And after listing all, it concludes: “These are the sons of Ham, in their tribes, according to their languages, in their lands and in their nations.” The sons of many, then, are not recorded because by birth they joined other nations, but could not themselves form nations. For for what other reason, when eight sons of Japheth are listed, are sons recorded as born only from two of them; and when four sons of Ham are named, those born only from three are added; and when six sons of Shem are named, the posterity of only two is woven in? Did the rest remain without sons? Far be it from us to believe that; but they did not form nations for which they would have deserved to be recorded, because, as they were born, they were added to other nations.

### Scripture references

- Gen 10:1–32: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 10:8–12: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 10:21: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 10:22–24: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 3:36: allusion, low confidence
- Gen 10:25: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 10:31–32: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 10:5: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 10:13–14: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 10:20: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 10 is followed throughout, in the Old Latin form based on the Greek (which includes Cainan between Arpachshad and Shelah, as in Luke 3:36). Quotations: Gen 10:8–12 (Nimrod “against the Lord”); 10:21; 10:25; 10:31–32; 10:5; 10:13; 10:20. Ninus son of Belus as founder of Nineveh is from Greek and Latin historians; Augustine returns to him in Book 16.17 and 18.2.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.3 (CSEL 40:128–132; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-2/#p-16-3).

## City of God 16.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-2/#p-16-4
- Source: CSEL 40:132–135
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The tower of Babel, built by Nimrod's proud city Babylon ('confusion'), was punished by the confusion of tongues; humility, not pride, builds the way to heaven.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. De diuersitate linguarum principioque Babylonis. Cum ergo in suis linguis istae gentes fuisse referantur, redit tamen narrator ad illud tempus, quando una lingua omnium fuit, et inde iam exponit, quid acciderit, ut linguarum diuersitas nasceretur. Et erat, inquit, omnis terra labium unum et uox una omnibus. Et factum est, cum mouerent ipsi ab Oriente, inuenerunt campum in terra Sennaar, et habitauerunt ibi. Et dixit homo proximo: Venite, faciamus lateres et coquamus illos igni. Et facti sunt illis lateres in lapidem, et bitumen erat illis lutum, et dixerunt: Venite, aedificemus nobismet ipsis ciuitatem et turrem, cuius caput erit usque ad caelum, et faciamus nostrum nomen antequam dispergamur in faciem omnis terrae. Et descendit Dominus uidere ciuitatem et turrem, quam aedificauerunt filii hominum. Et dixit Dominus Deus: Ecce genus unum et labium unum omnium; et hoc inchoauerunt facere, et nunc non deficient ex illis omnia quae conati fuerint facere; uenite, et descendentes, confundamus ibi linguam eorum, ut non audiant unusquisque uocem proximi. Et dispersit eos Dominus inde super faciem omnis terrae, et cessauerunt aedificantes ciuitatem et turrem. Propter hoc appellatum est nomen illius confusio, quia ibi confudit Dominus labia omnis terrae; et inde dispersit illos Dominus Deus super faciem omnis terrae. Ista ciuitas, quae appellata est confusio, ipsa est Babylon, cuius mirabilem constructionem etiam gentium commendat historia. Babylon quippe interpretatur confusio. Unde colligitur, gigantem illum Nebroth fuisse illius conditorem, quod superius breuiter fuerat intimatum, ubi, cum de illo scriptura loqueretur, ait initium regni eius fuisse Babylonem, id est quae ciuitatum ceterarum gereret principatum, ubi esset tamquam in metropoli habitaculum regni; quamuis perfecta non fuerit usque in tantum modum, quantum superba cogitabat inpietas. Nam nimia disponebatur altitudo, quae dicta est usque in caelum, siue unius turris eius, quam praecipuam moliebantur inter alias, siue omnium turrium, quae per numerum singularem ita significatae sunt, ut dicitur miles et intelleguntur milia militum; ut rana, ut lucusta; sic enim appellata est multitudo ranarum ac lucustarum in plagis, quibus Aegyptii percussi sunt per Moysen. Quid autem factura fuerat humana et uana praesumtio, si cuiuslibet et quantumlibet in caelum aduersus Deum altitudinem molis extolleret? quando montes transcenderet uniuersos, quando spatium nebulosi aeris huius euaderet? Quid denique noceret Deo quantacumque uel spiritalis uel corporalis elatio? Tutam ueramque in caelum uiam molitur humilitas, sursum leuans cor ad Dominum, non contra Dominum, sicut dictus est gigans iste uenator contra Dominum. Quod non intellegentes nonnulli ambiguo Graeco falsi sunt, ut non interpretarentur contra Dominum, sed ante Dominum; ἐναντίον quippe et contra et ante significat. Hoc enim uerbum est in psalmo: Et ploremus ante Dominum qui nos fecit; et hoc uerbum est etiam in libro Iob, ubi scriptum est: In furorem erupisti contra Dominum. Sic ergo intellegendus est gigans iste uenator contra Dominum. Quid autem hic significatur hoc nomine, quod est uenator, nisi animalium terrigenarum deceptor obpressor extinctor? Erigebat ergo cum suis populis turrem contra Deum, qua est inpia significata superbia. Merito autem malus punitur adfectus, etiam cui non succedit effectus. Genus uero ipsum poenae quale fuit? Quoniam dominatio imperantis in lingua est, ibi est damnata superbia, ut non intellegeretur iubens homini, qui noluit intellegere ut oboediret Deo iubenti. Sic illa conspiratio dissoluta est, cum quisque ab eo, quem non intellegebat, abscederet nec se nisi ei, cum quo loqui poterat, adgregaret; et per linguas diuisae sunt gentes dispersaeque per terras, sicut Deo placuit, qui hoc modis occultis nobisque inconprehensibilibus fecit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. On the diversity of languages and the beginning of Babylon.

Though these nations are reported to have existed each in its own language, the narrator nevertheless goes back to the time when all had one language, and from there explains what happened to give rise to the diversity of languages. “And the whole earth,” it says, “was one lip, and there was one speech for all. And it came to pass, when they moved from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt there. And man said to his neighbor: Come, let us make bricks and bake them with fire. And they had bricks for stone, and bitumen was their mortar. And they said: Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower whose top will reach to heaven, and let us make a name for ourselves before we are scattered over the face of the whole earth. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the Lord God said: Behold, one race and one lip for all; and they have begun to do this, and now nothing will fail them of all that they have attempted to do. Come, and going down let us confound their language there, so that they may not understand each one his neighbor's voice. And the Lord scattered them from there over the face of the whole earth, and they ceased building the city and the tower. For this reason its name was called Confusion, because there the Lord confounded the lips of the whole earth; and from there the Lord God scattered them over the face of the whole earth.” This city which was called Confusion is Babylon itself, whose marvelous construction even the history of the nations commends. For Babylon means “confusion.” From this it is gathered that the giant Nimrod was its founder, as had been briefly suggested above, where Scripture, speaking of him, said that the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, that is, the city that held the leadership over the other cities, where the seat of the kingdom was, as in a metropolis; though it was not completed to the size that proud ungodliness had in mind. For a very great height was planned, which was said to reach to heaven, whether of one tower of it, which they were building as chief among others, or of all the towers, which are signified by the singular number, as one says “the soldier” and thousands of soldiers are understood; as “the frog,” “the locust”; for so the multitude of frogs and locusts is called in the plagues with which the Egyptians were struck through Moses.

But what would human and empty presumption have accomplished, however far and however high it raised the height of its structure into heaven against God? even if it overtopped all the mountains, even if it rose above the region of this cloudy air? What harm, in short, would any exaltation, spiritual or bodily, however great, do to God? It is humility that builds a safe and true way to heaven, lifting up the heart to the Lord, not against the Lord, as this giant is called a hunter against the Lord. Not understanding this, some have been misled by an ambiguous Greek word, so as to translate not “against the Lord” but “before the Lord”; for ἐναντίον means both “against” and “before.” For this is the word in the psalm, “And let us weep before the Lord who made us”; and it is also the word in the book of Job, where it is written, “You have burst out in fury against the Lord.” So this giant is to be understood as a hunter against the Lord. And what is signified here by the name “hunter” but a deceiver, oppressor, and destroyer of earth-born creatures? He was raising, then, with his peoples, a tower against God, by which ungodly pride is signified. And rightly is an evil intention punished, even when it does not succeed in its effect. But what kind of punishment was it? Since the dominion of one who commands lies in the tongue, it was there that pride was condemned, so that the man who would not understand God's command in order to obey him would not be understood when he gave commands to men. So that conspiracy was dissolved, as each withdrew from the one he did not understand and joined himself only to one with whom he could speak; and the nations were divided by languages and scattered over the earth, as it pleased God, who did this in ways hidden and incomprehensible to us.

### Scripture references

- Gen 11:1–9: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 10:10: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 8:2–6: allusion, medium confidence
- Exod 10:12–15: allusion, medium confidence
- Ps 95:6 (94:6 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Job 15:13: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 10:9: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 11:1–9 is quoted in the Old Latin form. Nimrod: Gen 10:8–10. Frogs and locusts: Exod 8:2–6; 10:12–15. The Greek ἐναντίον is discussed with Ps 95:6 (94:6 Vulgate) and Job 15:13. The Greek word is garbled in the digital text and restored. The digital text reads sine (“without”) for siue (“whether”) and ei for ex; both corrected as OCR slips.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.4 (CSEL 40:132–135; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-2/#p-16-4).

## City of God 16.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-2/#p-16-5
- Source: CSEL 40:135–136
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God's 'coming down' to Babel means a visible act of his presence, perhaps through angels, who work as his fellow workers.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. De descensione Domini ad confundendam linguam aedificantium turrem. Quod enim scriptum est: Et descendit Dominus uidere ciuitatem et turrem, quam aedificauerunt filii hominum, hoc est non filii Dei, sed illa societas secundum hominem uiuens, quam terrenam dicimus ciuitatem: non loco mouetur Deus, qui semper est ubique totus, sed descendere dicitur, cum aliquid facit in terra, quod praeter usitatum naturae cursum mirabiliter factum praesentiam quodam modo eius ostendat; nec uidendo discit ad tempus, qui numquam potest aliquid ignorare, sed ad tempus uidere et cognoscere dicitur, quod uideri et cognosci facit. Non sic ergo uidebatur illa ciuitas, quo modo eam Deus uideri fecit, quando sibi quantum displiceret ostendit. Quamuis possit intellegi Deus ad illam ciuitatem descendisse, quia descenderunt angeli eius in quibus habitat: ut, quod adiunctum est: Et dixit Dominus Deus: Ecce genus unum et labium unum omnium, et cetera, ac deinde additum: Venite et descendentes confundamus ibi linguam eorum, recapitulatio sit, demonstrans quem ad modum factum sit, quod dictum fuerat: Descendit Dominus. Si enim iam descenderat, quid sibi uult: Venite et descendentes confundamus (quod intellegitur angelis dictum), nisi quia per angelos descendebat, qui in angelis descendentibus erat? Et bene non ait: Venite et descendentes confundite, sed: Confundamus ibi linguam eorum; ostendens ita se operari per ministros suos, ut sint etiam ipsi cooperatores Dei, sicut apostolus dicit: Dei enim sumus cooperarii.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. On the Lord's coming down to confound the language of those building the tower.

As for what is written, “And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built”, that is, not the sons of God but that society living according to man which we call the earthly city: God does not move from place to place, since he is always wholly everywhere; but he is said to come down when he does something on earth which, being done wonderfully beyond the usual course of nature, shows in a certain way his presence. Nor does he learn by seeing at a particular time, since he can never be ignorant of anything; but he is said to see and know at a particular time what he causes to be seen and known. That city, then, was not seen in the way in which God caused it to be seen, when he showed how much it displeased him. It could also be understood that God came down to that city because his angels, in whom he dwells, came down; so that what is added, “And the Lord God said: Behold, one race and one lip for all”, and so on, and then, “Come, and going down let us confound their language there”, is a recapitulation, showing how what had been said was done: “The Lord came down.” For if he had already come down, what is the meaning of “Come, and going down let us confound” (which is understood as said to the angels), unless that he was coming down through the angels, since he was in the angels who came down? And he rightly does not say, “Come, and going down, confound”, but “Let us confound their language there”, showing that he works through his ministers in such a way that they too are fellow workers with God, as the apostle says: “For we are God's fellow workers.”

### Scripture references

- Gen 11:5–7: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 3:9: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 11:5–7; 1 Cor 3:9.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.5 (CSEL 40:135–136; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-2/#p-16-5).

## City of God 16.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-2/#p-16-6
- Source: CSEL 40:136–138
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God speaks to angels not with sound but by his unchangeable reason; 'Let us make man' refers to the Trinity, and Gen 11:6 is a threatening question.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. Qualis intellegenda sit esse locutio, qua Deus angelis loquitur. Poterat et illud, quando factus est homo, de angelis intellegi quod dictum est: Faciamus hominem, quia non dixit: Faciam; sed quia sequitur ad imaginem nostram, nec fas est credere ad imaginem angelorum hominem factum, aut eandem esse imaginem angelorum et Dei: recte illic intellegitur pluralitas trinitatis. Quae tamen trinitas quia unus Deus est, etiam cum dixisset: Faciamus: Et fecit, inquit, Deus hominem ad imaginem Dei, non dixit fecerunt di aut ad imaginem deorum. Poterat et hic eadem intellegi trinitas, tamquam Pater dixerit ad Filium et Spiritum sanctum: Venite, et descendentes confundamus ibi linguam eorum, si aliquid esset, quod angelos prohiberet intellegi, quibus potius conuenit uenire ad Deum motibus sanctis, hoc est cogitationibus piis, quibus ab eis consulitur incommutabilis Veritas, tamquam lex aeterna in illa eorum curia superna. Neque enim sibi ipsi sunt ueritas, sed creatricis participes Veritatis ad illam mouentur, tamquam ad fontem uitae, ut, quod non habent ex se ipsis, capiant ex ipsa. Et eorum stabilis est iste motus, quo ueniunt, qui non recedunt. Nec sic loquitur angelis Deus, quo modo nos in uicem nobis uel Deo uel angelis uel ipsi angeli nobis siue per illos Deus nobis, sed ineffabili suo modo; nobis autem hoc indicatur nostro modo. Dei quippe sublimior ante suum factum locutio ipsius sui facti est inmutabilis ratio, quae non habet sonum strepentem adque transeuntem, sed uim sempiterne manentem et temporaliter operantem. Hac loquitur angelis sanctis, nobis autem aliter longe positis. Quando autem etiam nos aliquid talis locutionis interioribus auribus capimus, angelis propinquamus. Non itaque mihi adsidue reddenda ratio est in hoc opere de locutionibus Dei. Aut enim Veritas incommutabilis per se ipsam ineffabiliter loquitur rationalis creaturae mentibus, aut per mutabilem creaturam loquitur, siue spiritalibus imaginibus nostro spiritui siue corporalibus uocibus corporis sensui. Illud sane quod dictum est: Et nunc non deficient ex illis omnia, quae conati fuerint facere, non dictum est confirmando, sed tamquam interrogando, sicut solet a comminantibus dici, quem ad modum ait quidam: Non arma expedient totaque ex urbe sequentur? Sic ergo accipiendum est, tamquam dixerit: Nonne omnia deficient ex illis, quae conati fuerint facere? Sed si ita dicatur, non exprimit comminantem. Verum propter tardiusculos addidimus particulam, id est ne, ut diceremus nonne, quoniam uocem pronuntiantis non possumus scribere. Ex illis igitur tribus hominibus, Noe filiis, septuaginta tres, uel potius, ut ratio declaratura est, septuaginta duae gentes totidemque linguae per terras esse coeperunt, quae crescendo et insulas inpleuerunt. Auctus est autem numerus gentium multo amplius quam linguarum. Nam et in Africa barbaras gentes in una lingua plurimas nouimus, et homines quidem multiplicato genere humano ad insulas inhabitandas nauigio transire potuisse, quis ambigat?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. What kind of speech is to be understood by which God speaks to the angels.

The words spoken when man was made, “Let us make man”, could also have been understood of the angels, since he did not say, “I will make.” But since there follows “in our image”, and it is not right to believe that man was made in the image of the angels, or that the image of angels and of God is the same, the plurality of the Trinity is rightly understood there. Yet because that Trinity is one God, even after he had said “Let us make”, Scripture says, “And God made man in the image of God”; it did not say “the gods made”, or “in the image of the gods.” Here too the same Trinity could be understood, as though the Father had said to the Son and the Holy Spirit, “Come, and going down let us confound their language there”, if there were anything that prevented the angels from being understood; to whom it rather belongs to come to God by holy movements, that is, by godly thoughts, by which they consult the unchangeable Truth as the eternal law in that heavenly council of theirs. For they are not the truth to themselves, but, sharing in the creating Truth, they are moved toward it as toward the fountain of life, so that what they do not have from themselves they may receive from it. And this movement by which they come is stable, for they do not go away. Nor does God speak to the angels in the way in which we speak to one another, or to God, or to angels, or angels themselves to us, or God to us through them, but in his own ineffable way; to us, however, this is conveyed in our way. For God's higher speech, before his act, is the unchangeable reason of his act itself, which has no noisy and passing sound but a power that abides eternally and works in time. By this he speaks to the holy angels, but to us, who are placed far off, otherwise. When we too, however, catch something of such speech with our inner ears, we draw near to the angels. So in this work I do not have to give an account again and again of God's speakings. For either the unchangeable Truth speaks through itself ineffably to the minds of the rational creature, or it speaks through a changeable creature, whether by spiritual images to our spirit or by bodily voices to the bodily sense.

As for the words, “And now nothing will fail them of all that they have attempted to do”, they were not spoken as an assertion but as a question, as is usually said by those who threaten, as someone says: “Will they not bring out their arms, and follow from the whole city?” So it is to be taken as if he had said: “Will not everything they have attempted to do fail them?” But if it is said so, it does not express the threat. But for the sake of the somewhat slow we added the particle ne, so as to say nonne, “will not,” since we cannot write the tone of the speaker's voice. From those three men, then, the sons of Noah, seventy-three, or rather, as the reckoning will make clear, seventy-two nations and as many languages began to exist throughout the earth, and by growing they filled even the islands. The number of nations, however, increased much more than that of languages. For in Africa too we know of very many barbarian nations speaking one language; and who would doubt that, as the human race multiplied, men could have crossed over by ship to inhabit the islands?

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:26–27: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 11:6–7: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 4.592 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 1:26–27; Gen 11:6–7; Virgil, Aeneid 4.592. The Latin sentence quoting Gen 1:26–27 is badly garbled in the digital text and is restored by a logged correction, as is the Latin particle ne. On the 72 nations, see 16.3 and 16.11. The statement on the Trinity is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.6 (CSEL 40:136–138; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-2/#p-16-6).

## City of God 16.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-2/#p-16-7
- Source: CSEL 40:138
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Animals may have reached distant islands by swimming, by human transport, by angels, or by arising from the earth; the ark's animals then signified the nations in the Church.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. An omne bestiarum genus etiam remotissimae a terris insulae ex eo numero acceperint, qui in arca a diluuii inundatione seruatus est. Sed quaestio est de omni genere bestiarum, quae sub cura hominum non sunt neque sicuti ranae nascuntur ex terra, sed sola commixtione maris et feminae propagantur, sicut lupi adque huius modi cetera, quo modo post diluuium, quo ea, quae in arca non erant, cuncta deleta sunt, etiam in insulis esse potuerint, si reparata non sunt nisi ex his, quorum genera in utroque sexu arca seruauit. Possunt quidem credi ad insulas natando transisse, sed proximas. Sunt autem quaedam tam longe positae a continentibus terris, ut ad eas nulla uideatur natare potuisse bestiarum. Quod si homines eas captas secum aduexerunt et eo modo ubi habitabant earum genera instituerunt uenandi studio, fieri potuisse incredibile non est; quamuis iussu Dei siue permissu etiam opere angelorum negandum non sit potuisse transferri. Si uero terra exortae sunt secundum originem primam, quando dixit Deus: Producat terra animam uiuam, multo clarius apparet non tam reparandorum animalium causa quam figurandarum uariarum gentium propter ecclesiae sacramentum in arca fuisse omnia genera, si in insulis, quo transire non possent, multa animalia terra produxit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. Whether even islands very far from the mainland received every kind of beast from the number preserved in the ark from the flood.

But there is a question about all the kinds of beasts which are not under the care of human beings, and are not born from the earth like frogs, but are propagated only by the union of male and female, like wolves and others of this kind: how, after the flood, in which everything not in the ark was destroyed, they could be even on islands, if they were restored only from those whose kinds the ark preserved in both sexes. They can indeed be believed to have crossed to islands by swimming, but only to those nearest. But some are so far from the mainland that it seems no beast could have swum to them. If men caught them and brought them with them, and in that way established their kinds where they lived, for the love of hunting, it is not incredible that this could have happened; though it must not be denied that they could also have been carried over by the work of angels, at God's command or with his permission. But if they sprang from the earth according to their first origin, when God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living soul”, it appears much more clearly that all kinds were in the ark not so much for the sake of restoring the animals as for figuring the various nations, for the sake of the sacrament of the Church, if the earth produced many animals on islands to which they could not cross.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:24: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 7:2–3: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotation: Gen 1:24.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.7 (CSEL 40:138; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-2/#p-16-7).

## City of God 16.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-2/#p-16-8
- Source: CSEL 40:138–142
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Whatever strange races may exist, if they are rational mortal animals they descend from Adam; God knows how each part fits the beauty of the whole.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. An ex propagine Adam uel filiorum Noe quaedam genera hominum monstrosa prodierint. Quaeritur etiam, utrum ex filiis Noe uel potius ex illo uno homine, unde etiam ipsi extiterunt, propagata esse credendum sit quaedam monstrosa hominum genera, quae gentium narrat historia, sicut perhibentur quidam unum habere oculum in fronte media, quibusdam plantas uersas esse post crura, quibusdam utriusque sexus esse naturam et dextram mammam uirilem, sinistram muliebrem, uicibusque inter se coeundo et gignere et parere; aliis ora non esse eosque per nares tantummodo halitu uiuere, alios statura esse cubitales, quos Pygmaeos a cubito Graeci uocant, alibi quinquennes concipere feminas et octauum uitae annum non excedere. Item ferunt esse gentem, ubi singula crura in pedibus habent nec poplitem flectunt, et sunt mirabilis celeritatis; quos Sciopodas uocant, quod per aestum in terra iacentes resupini umbra se pedum protegant; quosdam sine ceruice oculos habentes in umeris, et cetera hominum uel quasi hominum genera, quae in maritima platea Carthaginis musiuo picta sunt, ex libris depromta uelut curiosioris historiae. Quid dicam de Cynocephalis, quorum canina capita adque ipse latratus magis bestias quam homines confitetur? Sed omnia genera hominum, quae dicuntur esse, credere non est necesse. Verum quisquis uspiam nascitur homo, id est animal rationale mortale, quamlibet nostris inusitatam sensibus gerat corporis formam seu colorem siue motum siue sonum siue qualibet ui, qualibet parte, qualibet qualitate naturam: ex illo uno protoplasto originem ducere nullus fidelium dubitauerit. Apparet tamen quid in pluribus natura obtinuerit et quid sit ipsa raritate mirabile. Qualis autem ratio redditur de monstrosis aput nos hominum partubus, talis de monstrosis quibusdam gentibus reddi potest. Deus enim creator est omnium, qui ubi et quando creari quid oporteat uel oportuerit, ipse nouit, sciens uniuersitatis pulchritudinem quarum partium uel similitudine uel diuersitate contexat. Sed qui totum inspicere non potest, tamquam deformitate partis offenditur, quoniam cui congruat et quo referatur ignorat. Pluribus quam quinis digitis in manibus et pedibus nasci homines nouimus; et haec leuior est quam ulla distantia; sed tamen absit, ut quis ita desipiat, ut existimet in numero humanorum digitorum errasse Creatorem, quamuis nesciens quur hoc fecerit. Ita etsi maior diuersitas oriatur, scit ille quid egerit, cuius opera iuste nemo reprehendit. Aput Hipponem Zaritum est homo quasi lunatas habens plantas et in eis binos tantummodo digitos, similes et manus. Si aliqua gens talis esset, illi curiosae adque mirabili adderetur historiae. Num igitur istum propter hoc negabimus ex illo uno, qui primus creatus est, esse propagatum? Androgyni, quos etiam Hermaphroditos nuncupant, quamuis admodum rari sint, difficile est tamen ut temporibus desint, in quibus sic uterque sexus apparet, ut, ex quo potius debeant accipere nomen, incertum sit; a meliore tamen, hoc est a masculino, ut appellarentur, loquendi consuetudo praeualuit. Nam nemo umquam Androgynaecas aut Hermaphroditas nuncupauit. Ante annos aliquot, nostra certe memoria, in Oriente duplex homo natus est superioribus membris, inferioribus simplex. Nam duo erant capita, duo pectora, quattuor manus, uenter autem unus, et pedes duo, sicut uni homini; et tam diu uixit, ut multos ad eum uidendum fama contraheret. Quis autem omnes commemorare possit humanos fetus longe dissimiles his, ex quibus eos natos esse certissimum est? Sicut ergo haec ex illo uno negari non possunt originem ducere, ita quaecumque gentes in diuersitatibus corporum ab usitato naturae cursu, quem plures et prope omnes tenent, uelut exorbitasse traduntur, si definitione illa includuntur, ut rationalia animalia sint adque mortalia, ab eodem ipso uno primo patre omnium stirpem trahere confitendum est, si tamen uera sunt quae de illarum nationum uarietate et tanta inter se adque nobiscum diuersitate traduntur. Nam et simias et cercopithecos et sphingas si nesciremus non homines esse, sed bestias, possent illi historici de sua curiositate gloriantes uelut gentes aliquas hominum nobis inpunita uanitate mentiri. Sed si homines sunt, de quibus illa mira conscripta sunt: quid, si propterea Deus uoluit etiam nonnullas gentes ita creare, ne in his monstris, quae aput nos oportet ex hominibus nasci, eius sapientiam, qua naturam fingit humanam, uelut artem cuiuspiam minus perfecti opificis, putaremus errasse? Non itaque nobis uideri debet absurdum, ut, quem ad modum in singulis quibusque gentibus quaedam monstra sunt hominum, ita in uniuerso genere humano quaedam monstra sint gentium. Quapropter ut istam quaestionem pedetemtim cauteque concludam: aut illa, quae talia de quibusdam gentibus scripta sunt, omnino nulla sunt; aut si sunt, homines non sunt; aut ex Adam sunt, si homines sunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. Whether certain monstrous races of men have sprung from the offspring of Adam or of the sons of Noah.

It is also asked whether we must believe that certain monstrous races of men, which the history of the nations relates, have been propagated from the sons of Noah, or rather from that one man from whom they themselves came: as some are reported to have one eye in the middle of the forehead; others to have the soles of their feet turned backward behind their legs; others to have the nature of both sexes, the right breast male and the left female, and by uniting with one another in turn both to beget and to bear; others to have no mouths and to live only by breathing through the nostrils; others to be a cubit tall, whom the Greeks call Pygmies from their word for cubit; elsewhere women to conceive at five years old and not to live beyond their eighth year. They also say there is a nation where people have a single leg on their feet and do not bend the knee, and are of wonderful speed; they call them Sciopodes, because in hot weather they lie on their backs on the ground and shade themselves with their feet; some without necks, with their eyes in their shoulders; and the other races of men, or as it were men, which are depicted in mosaic on the seafront promenade at Carthage, taken from books of what might be called more curious history. What shall I say of the Cynocephali, whose dogs' heads and very barking proclaim them beasts rather than men?

But it is not necessary to believe in all the races of men that are said to exist. But whoever is born anywhere as a man, that is, a rational mortal animal, however unusual to our senses the shape of body he bears, or the color, or the motion, or the sound, or however strange in any power, any part, any quality of his nature, no believer will doubt that he derives his origin from that one first-formed man. It is plain, however, what nature has maintained in most cases and what is wonderful by its very rarity. The kind of explanation given for monstrous human births among us can also be given for certain monstrous races. For God is the creator of all, and he himself knows where and when anything ought to be, or ought to have been, created, knowing from the likeness or the diversity of which parts he weaves the beauty of the whole. But one who cannot survey the whole is offended as by the deformity of a part, because he does not know with what it fits and to what it relates. We know of human beings born with more than five fingers or toes on their hands and feet; and this is a lesser divergence than any other; but far be it from anyone to be so foolish as to think that the Creator erred in the number of human fingers, even though he does not know why he did this. So even if a greater diversity arises, he knows what he has done, whose works no one rightly finds fault with. At Hippo Diarrhytus there is a man who has soles shaped like a crescent, with only two toes on each, and his hands are similar. If there were a whole nation like this, it would be added to that curious and wonderful history. Shall we then deny for this reason that this man was propagated from that one who was first created? Androgynes, whom they also call hermaphrodites, though they are very rare, are yet hardly ever lacking in any period; in them both sexes appear in such a way that it is uncertain from which they ought rather to take their name; yet the usage of speech has prevailed of naming them from the better, that is, the masculine. For no one has ever called them androgynaecae or hermaphroditae. Some years ago, certainly within our memory, a man was born in the East double in his upper parts and single in his lower. For there were two heads, two chests, four hands, but one belly and two feet, as for one man; and he lived so long that his fame drew many to see him. Who could list all the human births very unlike those from whom they were most certainly born? Just as these, then, cannot be denied to derive their origin from that one man, so whatever nations are reported to have departed, as it were, in the variety of their bodies from the usual course of nature which most, and almost all, keep to, if they are included in that definition, so as to be rational and mortal animals, it must be confessed that they draw their stock from that same one first father of all; if, indeed, what is reported of the variety of those nations and their great difference from one another and from us is true. For if we did not know that apes, long-tailed monkeys, and sphinx apes are not men but beasts, those historians who boast of their curiosity could lie to us with impunity and pass them off as nations of men. But if those of whom those marvels are written are men, what if God wished to create even some nations in this way, so that we should not think that in these monsters, which must be born of human beings among us, his wisdom, by which he fashions human nature, had erred like the art of some less accomplished craftsman? It ought not, then, to seem absurd to us that, just as in each single nation there are certain human monsters, so in the whole human race there are certain monstrous nations. Therefore, to conclude this question cautiously and step by step: either what is written about such nations is altogether nothing; or, if they exist, they are not men; or, if they are men, they are from Adam.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Pliny the Elder, Pliny, Nat. 7.9–32 (Pliny the Elder, Natural History): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The catalogue of monstrous races comes from the tradition preserved in Pliny, Natural History 7.9–32 (Augustine cites no source by name). Hippo Diarrhytus (Hippo Zarytus) is modern Bizerte. The Latin sine (“without”) in the list of qualities is corrected to siue (“or”), an OCR slip; cercopithecoB is corrected to cercopithecos.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.8 (CSEL 40:138–142; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-2/#p-16-8).

## City of God 16.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-9/#p-16-9
- Source: CSEL 40:142–143
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine rejects belief in inhabited antipodes as unsupported and contrary to Scripture's account of one human race, and turns to seek the city of God among the 72 nations.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. An inferiorem partem terrae; quae nostrae habitationi contraria est, antipodas habere credendum sit. Quod uero et antipodas esse fabulantur, id est homines a contraria parte terrae, ubi sol oritur, quando occidit nobis, aduersa pedibus nostris calcare uestigia, nulla ratione credendum est. Neque hoc ulla historica cognitione didicisse se adfirmant, sed quasi ratiocinando coniectant, eo quod intra conuexa caeli terra suspensa sit, eundemque locum mundus habeat et infimum et medium; et ex hoc opinantur alteram terrae partem, quae infra est, habitatione hominum carere non posse. Nec adtendunt, etiamsi figura conglobata et rutunda mundus esse credatur siue aliqua ratione monstretur, non tamen esse consequens, ut etiam ex illa parte ab aquarum congerie nuda sit terra; deinde etiamsi nuda sit, neque hoc statim necesse esse, ut homines habeat. Quoniam nullo modo scriptura ista mentitur, quae narratis praeteritis facit fidem eo, quod eius praedicta conplentur, nimisque absurdum est, ut dicatur aliquos homines ex hac in illam partem, Oceani inmensitate traiecta, nauigare ac peruenire potuisse, ut etiam illic ex uno illo primo homine genus institueretur humanum. Quapropter inter illos tunc hominum populos, qui per septuaginta duas gentes et totidem linguas colliguntur fuisse diuisi, quaeramus, si possumus inuenire, illam in terris peregrinantem ciuitatem Dei, quae usque ad diluuium arcamque perducta est adque in filiis Noe per eorum benedictiones perseuerasse monstratur, maxime in maximo, qui est appellatus Sem, quando quidem Iapheth ita benedictus est, ut in eius, fratris sui, domibus habitaret.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. Whether it is to be believed that the lower part of the earth, opposite to our habitation, has antipodes.

As for the fable that there are antipodes, that is, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets for us, who tread with their footsteps opposite to our feet, it is in no way to be believed. Nor do they claim to have learned this from any historical knowledge; they conjecture it by a kind of reasoning, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the vault of the sky, and the lowest and the middle place in the universe is the same; and from this they think that the other part of the earth, which is below, cannot be without human inhabitants. They do not notice that, even if the universe is believed, or shown by some reasoning, to be round and spherical in shape, it still does not follow that the earth is bare of the mass of waters on that side too; and then, even if it is bare, it is not immediately necessary that it should have men. For that Scripture in no way lies, which gains credit for the past events it narrates by the fact that its predictions are fulfilled; and it is too absurd to say that some men could have sailed and reached that side from this, crossing the immensity of the Ocean, so that there too the human race might be established from that one first man. Therefore, among those peoples of men of that time, who are gathered to have been divided into seventy-two nations and as many languages, let us seek, if we can find it, that city of God on pilgrimage on earth, which was carried on until the flood and the ark and is shown to have continued in the sons of Noah through their blessings, above all in the eldest, called Shem; since Japheth was so blessed that he should dwell in the houses of his brother.

### Scripture references

- Gen 9:26–27: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Augustine does not deny that the earth may be spherical; he denies that its far side is known to be dry land or inhabited by descendants of Adam. Allusion: Gen 9:26–27.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.9 (CSEL 40:142–143; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-9/#p-16-9).

## City of God 16.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-9/#p-16-10
- Source: CSEL 40:143–146
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine traces Shem's line to Abraham (1,072 years in the Septuagint) and argues that both godly and ungodly people always existed after the flood.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. De generatione Sem, in cuius progenie tendens ad Abraham ciuitatis Dei ordo dirigitur. Tenenda est igitur series generationum ab ipso Sem, ut ipsa ostendat post diluuium ciuitatem Dei, sicut eam series generationum ab illo, qui est appellatus Seth, ostendebat ante diluuium. Propter hoc ergo scriptura diuina cum terrenam ciuitatem in Babylone, hoc est in confusione, monstrasset, ad patriarcham Sem recapitulando reuertitur et orditur inde generationes usque ad Abraham, commemorato etiam numero annorum, quanto quisque ad hanc seriem pertinentem filium genuisset quantoque uixisset. Ubi certe agnoscendum est, quod ante promiseram, ut appareat quare sit dictum de filiis Heber: Nomen unius Phalech, quia in diebus eius diuisa est terra. Quid enim aliud intellegendum est terram esse diuisam nisi diuersitate linguarum? Omissis igitur ceteris filiis Sem ad hanc rem non pertinentibus illi conectuntur in ordine generationum, per quos possit ad Abraham perueniri; sicut illi conectebantur ante diluuium, per quos ueniretur ad Noe generationibus, quae propagatae sunt ex illo Adam filio, qui est appellatus Seth. Sic ergo incipit generationum ista contextio: Et hae generationes Sem. Sem filius centum annorum, cum genuit Arphaxat, secundo anno post diluuium. Et uixit Sem, postquam genuit Arphaxat, quingentos annos et genuit filios et filias et mortuus est. Sic exsequitur ceteros dicens, quoto quisque anno uitae suae filium genuerit ad istum generationum ordinem pertinentem, qui pertendit ad Abraham, et quot annos postmodum uixerit, intimans eum filios filiasque genuisse; ut intellegamus unde potuerint populi adcrescere, ne in paucis qui commemorantur hominibus occupati pueriliter haesitemus, unde tanta spatia terrarum adque regnorum repleri potuerint de genere Sem, maxime propter Assyriorum regnum; unde Ninus ille Orientalium domitor usquequaque populorum ingenti prosperitate regnauit et latissimum ac fundatissimum regnum, quod diuturno tempore duceretur, suis posteris propagauit. Sed nos, ne diutius quam opus est inmoremur, non quot annos quisque in ista generationum serie uixerit, sed quoto anno uitae suae genuerit filium, hoc ordine memorandum tantummodo ponimus, ut et numerum annorum a transacto diluuio usque ad Abraham colligamus et propter illa, in quibus nos cogit necessitas inmorari, breuiter alia cursimque tangamus. Secundo igitur anno post diluuium Sem genuit Arphaxat; Arphaxat autem, cum esset centum triginta quinque <annorum>, genuit Cainan; qui cum esset centum triginta, genuit Sala; porro etiam ipse Sala totidem annorum erat, quando genuit Heber; centum uero et triginta et quattuor agebat annos Heber, cum genuit Phalech, in cuius diebus diuisa est terra; ipse autem Phalech uixit centum triginta, et genuit Ragau; et Ragau centum triginta duo, et genuit Seruch; et Seruch centum triginta, et genuit Nachor; et Nachor septuaginta nouem, et genuit Thara; Thara autem septuaginta, et genuit Abram; quem postea Deus mutato uocabulo nominauit Abraham. Fiunt itaque anni a diluuio usque ad Abraham mille septuaginta et duo secundum uulgatam editionem, hoc est interpretum septuaginta. In Hebraeis autem codicibus longe pauciores annos perhibent inueniri, de quibus rationem aut nullam aut difficillimam reddunt. Cum ergo quaerimus in illis septuaginta duabus gentibus ciuitatem Dei, non possumus adfirmare illo tempore, quo erat eis labium unum, id est loquella una, tunc iam genus humanum alienatum fuisse a cultu ueri Dei, ita ut in solis istis generationibus pietas uera remaneret, quae descendunt de semine Sem per Arphaxat et tendunt ad Abraham; sed ab illa superbia aedificandae turris usque in caelum, qua inpia significatur elatio, apparuit ciuitas, hoc est societas, inpiorum. Utrum itaque ante non fuerit an latuerit, an potius utraque permanserit, pia scilicet in duobus filiis Noe, qui benedicti sunt, eorumque posteris; inpia uero in eo, qui maledictus est, adque eius progenie, ubi etiam exortus est gigans uenator contra Dominum, non est diiudicatio facilis. Fortassis enim, quod profecto est credibilius, et in filiis duorum illorum iam tunc, antequam Babylonia coepisset institui, fuerunt contemtores Dei, et in filiis Cham cultores Dei; utrumque tamen hominum genus terris numquam defuisse credendum est. Si quidem et quando dictum est: Omnes declinauerunt, simul inutiles facti sunt; non est qui faciat bonum, non est usque ad unum, in utroque psalmo, ubi haec uerba sunt, et hoc legitur: Nonne cognoscent omnes, qui operantur iniquitatem, qui deuorant populum meum in cibo panis? Erat ergo etiam tunc populus Dei. Unde illud, quod dictum est: Non est qui faciat bonum, non est usque ad unum, de filiis hominum dictum est, non de filiis Dei. Nam praemissum est: Deus de caelo prospexit super filios hominum, ut uideret si est intellegens aut requirens Deum, ac deinde illa subiuncta, quae omnes filios hominum, id est, ad ciuitatem pertinentes, quae uiuit secundum hominem, non secundum Deum, reprobos esse demonstrant.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. On the generation of Shem, in whose progeny the line of the city of God is directed toward Abraham.

We must therefore hold to the series of generations from Shem himself, so that it may show the city of God after the flood, as the series of generations from the one called Seth showed it before the flood. For this reason divine Scripture, having shown the earthly city in Babylon, that is, in confusion, returns by recapitulation to the patriarch Shem and traces from there the generations down to Abraham, recording also the number of years at which each begot the son belonging to this series and how long he lived. Here certainly we must recognize what I promised earlier, so that it may be clear why it was said of the sons of Eber: “The name of one was Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided.” For what else is to be understood by the earth being divided but the diversity of languages? So, omitting the other sons of Shem who do not relate to this matter, those are joined in the order of generations through whom one can reach Abraham; just as those were joined before the flood through whom one came to Noah, in the generations descended from Adam's son called Seth. So this chain of generations begins thus: “And these are the generations of Shem. Shem was a hundred years old when he begot Arpachshad, in the second year after the flood. And Shem lived, after he begot Arpachshad, five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.” So it goes through the rest, saying in which year of his life each begot the son belonging to this order of generations that stretches to Abraham, and how many years he lived afterwards, indicating that he begot sons and daughters; so that we may understand from where the peoples could grow, lest, occupied with the few men who are recorded, we should hesitate childishly as to how such great expanses of lands and kingdoms could be filled from the race of Shem, especially because of the kingdom of the Assyrians, in which that Ninus, the conqueror of the eastern peoples everywhere, reigned with great prosperity and handed on to his descendants a very broad and firmly founded kingdom, which lasted a long time.

But, so as not to linger longer than necessary, we set down in this list not how many years each in this series of generations lived, but only at what year of his life he begot the son to be recorded in this order, so that we may gather the number of years from the end of the flood to Abraham, and, because of the things over which necessity compels us to linger, touch on others briefly and in passing. In the second year after the flood, then, Shem begot Arpachshad; Arpachshad, when he was one hundred and thirty-five ⟨years old⟩, begot Cainan; Cainan, at one hundred and thirty, begot Shelah; Shelah too was the same age when he begot Eber; Eber was in his one hundred and thirty-fourth year when he begot Peleg, in whose days the earth was divided; Peleg himself lived one hundred and thirty years and begot Reu; Reu one hundred and thirty-two, and begot Serug; Serug one hundred and thirty, and begot Nahor; Nahor seventy-nine, and begot Terah; Terah seventy, and begot Abram, whom God afterwards named Abraham, changing his name. So there are one thousand and seventy-two years from the flood to Abraham, according to the common edition, that is, that of the Seventy translators. In the Hebrew manuscripts, however, far fewer years are said to be found, for which they give either no reason or a very difficult one.

When, then, we look for the city of God among those seventy-two nations, we cannot affirm that at the time when they had one lip, that is, one speech, the human race had already been estranged from the worship of the true God, so that true godliness remained only in these generations which descend from the seed of Shem through Arpachshad and stretch to Abraham. But from that pride of building a tower up to heaven, by which ungodly exaltation is signified, the city, that is, the society, of the ungodly appeared. Whether, then, it did not exist before or was hidden, or rather both continued, the godly in the two sons of Noah who were blessed and in their descendants, the ungodly in the one who was cursed and his progeny, in which also arose the giant hunter against the Lord, is not easy to decide. For perhaps, what is surely more credible, there were already then, before Babylon began to be founded, despisers of God among the sons of those two, and worshippers of God among the sons of Ham; but we must believe that neither kind of men was ever lacking on earth. For even when it was said, “All have turned aside, together they have become worthless; there is none who does good, no, not one”, in both the psalms in which these words occur this is also read: “Will not all who work iniquity know, who devour my people as they eat bread?” There was, then, even then a people of God. Hence the saying, “There is none who does good, no, not one”, was said of the sons of men, not of the sons of God. For it is preceded by, “God looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there is any who understands or seeks God”; and then follow the words which show that all the sons of men, that is, those belonging to the city that lives according to man, not according to God, are reprobate.

### Scripture references

- Gen 10:25: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 11:10–11: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 11:12–26: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 17:5: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 11:1: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 10:9: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 14:2–4 (13:2-Ps Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 53:2–4 (52:3-Ps Vulg.): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Figures from Gen 11:10–26 in the Septuagint (which includes Cainan). Quotations: Gen 10:25; Gen 11:10–11; Ps 14:2–4 (13:2–4 Vulgate) and Ps 53:2–4 (52:3–5 Vulgate). Name change: Gen 17:5. Words in angle brackets are the editor's additions.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.10 (CSEL 40:143–146; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-9/#p-16-10).

## City of God 16.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-9/#p-16-11
- Source: CSEL 40:146–150
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Hebrew was the original common language, kept in the family of Eber, which escaped the punishment of Babel; the list of nations is not in birth order.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. Quod ea primitus lingua in usu hominum fuerit, quae postea Hebraea ab Heber nomine nuncupata est, et in cuius familia remansit, cum diuersitas esset facta linguarum. Quam ob rem sicut lingua una cum esset omnium, non ideo filii pestilentiae defuerunt (nam et ante diluuium una erat lingua, et tamen omnes praeter unam Noe iusti domum deleri diluuio meruerunt): ita, quando merito elatioris inpietatis gentes linguarum diuersitate punitae adque diuisae sunt et ciuitas inpiorum confusionis nomen accepit, hoc est, appellata est Babylon, non defuit domus Heber, ubi ea quae antea fuit omnium lingua remaneret. Unde, sicut supra memoraui, cum coepissent enumerari filii Sem, qui singuli gentes singulas procrearunt, primus est commendatus Heber, cum sit abnepos ipsius, hoc est ab illo quintus inueniatur exortus. Quia ergo in eius familia remansit haec lingua, diuisis per alias linguas ceteris gentibus, quae lingua prius humano generi non inmerito creditur fuisse communis, ideo deinceps Hebraea est nuncupata. Tunc enim opus erat eam distingui ab aliis linguis nomine proprio, sicut aliae quoque uocatae sunt nominibus propriis. Quando autem erat una, nihil aliud quam humana lingua uel humana locutio uocabatur, qua sola uniuersum genus humanum loquebatur. Dixerit aliquis: Si in diebus Phalech filii Heber diuisa est terra per linguas, id est homines, qui tunc erant in terra, ex eius nomine potius debuit appellari lingua illa, quae fuit omnibus ante communis. Sed intellegendum est ipsum Heber propterea tale nomen inposuisse filio suo, ut uocaretur Phalech, quod interpretatur diuisio, quia tunc ei natus est, quando per linguas terra diuisa est, id est ipso tempore, ut hoc sit quod dictum est: In diebus eius diuisa est terra. Nam nisi adhuc Heber uiueret quando linguarum facta est multitudo, non ex eius nomine nomen acciperet lingua, quae aput illum potuit permanere. Et ideo credenda est ipsa fuisse prima illa communis, quoniam de poena uenit illa multiplicatio mutatioque linguarum et utique praeter hanc poenam esse debuit populus Dei. Nec frustra lingua haec est, quam tenuit Abraham, nec in omnes suos filios transmittere potuit, sed in eos tantum, qui propagati per Iacob et insignius adque eminentius in Dei populum coalescentes Dei testamenta et stirpem Christi habere potuerunt. Nec Heber ipse eandem linguam in uniuersam progeniem suam refudit, sed in eam tantum, cuius generationes perducuntur ad Abraham. Quapropter etiamsi non euidenter expressum est fuisse aliquod pium genus hominum, quando ab inpiis Babylonia condebatur, non ad hoc ualuit haec obscuritas, ut quaerentis fraudaretur, sed potius ut exerceretur intentio. Cum enim legitur unam fuisse linguam primitus omnium et ante omnes filios Sem commendatur Heber, quamuis ex illo quintus oriatur, et Hebraea uocatur lingua, quam patriarcharum et prophetarum non solum in sermonibus suis, uerum etiam in litteris sacris custodiuit auctoritas: profecto, cum quaeritur in diuisione linguarum, ubi lingua illa remanere potuerit, quae fuit ante communis (quae sine ulla dubitatione ubi remansit, non ibi fuit illa poena, quae facta est mutatione linguarum), quid aliud occurrit, nisi quod in huius gente remanserit, a cuius nomine nomen accepit, et hoc iustitiae gentis huius non paruum apparuisse uestigium, quod, cum aliae gentes plecterentur mutatione linguarum, ad istam non peruenit tale supplicium? Sed adhuc illud mouet, quo modo potuerunt singulas gentes facere Heber et filius eius Phalech, si una lingua permansit ambobus. Et certe una est Hebraea gens ex Heber propagata usque ad Abraham et per eum deinceps, donec magnus fieret populus Israel. Quo modo igitur omnes filii, qui commemorati sunt, trium filiorum Noe fecerunt singulas gentes, si Heber et Phalech singulas non fecerunt? Nimirum illud est probabilius, quod gigans ille Nebroth fecerit etiam ipse gentem suam, sed propter excellentiam dominationis et corporis seorsum eminentius nominatus est, ut maneat numerus septuaginta duarum gentium adque linguarum. Phalech autem propterea commemoratus est, non quod gentem fecerit (nam eadem ipsa est eius gens Hebraea eademque lingua), sed propter tempus insigne, quod in diebus eius terra diuisa sit. Nec mouere nos debet, quo modo potuerit gigans Nebroth ad illud aetatis occurrere, quo Babylon condita est et confusio facta linguarum adque ex hoc diuisio gentium. Non enim quia Heber sextus est a Noe, ille autem quartus, ideo non potuerunt ad idem tempus conuenire uiuendo. Hoc enim contigit, cum plus uiuerent ubi pauciores sunt generationes, minus ubi plures; aut serius nati essent ubi pauciores, maturius ubi plures. Sane intellegendum est, quando terra diuisa est, non solum iam natos ceteros filios filiorum Noe, qui commemorantur patres gentium, sed etiam eius aetatis fuisse, ut numerosas familias haberent, quae dignae fuissent nominibus gentium. Unde nequaquam putandum, quod eo fuerint ordine geniti, quo commemorati leguntur. Alioquin duodecim filii Iectan, qui erat alius filius Heber, frater Phalech, quo modo potuerunt iam gentes facere, si post Phalech fratrem suum Iectan natus est, sicut post eum commemoratus est; quando quidem tempore, quo natus est Phalech, diuisa est terra. Proinde intellegendum est priorem quidem nominatum, sed longe post fratrem suum Iectan fuisse natum, cuius Iectan duodecim filii tam grandes iam familias haberent, ut in linguas proprias diuidi possent. Sic enim potuit prior commemorari, qui erat aetate posterior, quem ad modum prius commemorati sunt ex tribus filiis Noe procreati filii Iapheth, qui erat minimus eorum; deinde filii Cham, qui erat medius; postremo filii Sem, qui erat primus et maximus. Illarum autem gentium uocabula partim manserunt, ita ut hodieque appareat unde fuerint deriuata, sicut ex Assur Assyrii et ex Heber Hebraei; partim temporis uetustate mutata sunt, ita ut uix homines doctissimi antiquissimas historias perscrutantes, nec omnium, sed aliquarum ex istis origines gentium potuerint reperire. Nam quod ex filio Cham, qui uocabatur Mesraim, Aegyptii perhibentur exorti, nulla hic resonat origo uocabuli; sicut nec Aethiopum, qui dicuntur ad eum filium Cham pertinere, qui Chus appellatus est. Et si omnia considerentur, plura mutata quam manentia nomina apparent.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. That the language which was first in human use was the one afterwards called Hebrew from the name of Eber, and that it remained in his family when the diversity of languages came about.

Therefore, just as, when there was one language for all, the sons of pestilence were not lacking on that account (for before the flood too there was one language, and yet all except the one household of righteous Noah deserved to be destroyed by the flood), so, when the nations were punished and divided by the diversity of languages for the desert of their haughtier ungodliness, and the city of the ungodly received the name of confusion, that is, was called Babylon, the house of Eber was not lacking, in which the language that had before been everyone's might remain. Hence, as I mentioned above, when the sons of Shem, each of whom produced a nation, began to be enumerated, Eber was the first to be commended, though he is Shem's great-great-grandson, that is, is found to be fifth from him. Because, then, this language remained in his family while the other nations were divided by other languages, the language which is not without reason believed to have been common to the human race before was thereafter called Hebrew. For then it needed to be distinguished from other languages by a proper name, as the others too were called by proper names. But when there was only one, it was called nothing but human language or human speech, the only one in which the whole human race spoke. Someone may say: If in the days of Peleg son of Eber the earth, that is, the people then on earth, was divided by languages, the language common to all before ought rather to have been called after Peleg's name. But it is to be understood that Eber himself gave his son this name, Peleg, which means “division,” because he was born to him at the time when the earth was divided by languages, that is, at that very time; so that this is the meaning of “In his days the earth was divided.” For unless Eber were still living when the multitude of languages came about, the language which could remain with him would not take its name from his name. And so it is to be believed that this was that first common language, since that multiplication and change of languages came as a punishment, and the people of God ought certainly to have been outside this punishment. Nor is it without reason that this is the language which Abraham kept, and could not pass on to all his sons but only to those who, propagated through Jacob and uniting more notably and eminently into the people of God, could have the covenants of God and the stock of Christ. Nor did Eber himself pour out this language into all his progeny, but only into that whose generations are carried down to Abraham. Therefore, even if it is not clearly stated that there was some godly race of men when Babylon was being founded by the ungodly, this obscurity served not to cheat the seeker's attention but rather to exercise it. For when we read that there was at first one language for all, and Eber is commended before all the sons of Shem, though he arises fifth from him, and the language is called Hebrew which the authority of the patriarchs and prophets preserved not only in their speech but also in the sacred writings, then surely, when it is asked where, in the division of languages, the language which had been common before could have remained (and without any doubt, where it remained, there that punishment was not, which was inflicted by the changing of languages), what else suggests itself but that it remained in the nation of the man from whose name it took its name; and that this was no small trace of the righteousness of this nation, that when other nations were punished by the change of languages, no such punishment reached it?

But this still troubles us: how Eber and his son Peleg could each have formed a nation, if one language remained for both. And certainly the Hebrew nation, propagated from Eber down to Abraham and through him thereafter until Israel became a great people, is one. How, then, did all the sons of the three sons of Noah who are recorded each form a nation, if Eber and Peleg did not each form one? No doubt it is more probable that the giant Nimrod too formed his own nation, but was named separately and more prominently because of the excellence of his dominion and his body, so that the number of seventy-two nations and languages remains. Peleg, on the other hand, was mentioned not because he formed a nation (for his nation is the same Hebrew one, and the same language), but because of the notable time, since in his days the earth was divided. Nor should it trouble us how the giant Nimrod could have lived to the time when Babylon was founded and the confusion of languages took place and from it the division of nations. For it is not because Eber is sixth from Noah and Nimrod fourth that they could not meet in the same period while living. For this happened because they lived longer where there are fewer generations and less long where there are more; or those in the line with fewer were born later, those in the line with more earlier. It is certainly to be understood that when the earth was divided, the other sons of the sons of Noah, who are recorded as fathers of nations, were not only already born but also of such an age that they had numerous households worthy of the names of nations. Hence it is by no means to be thought that they were born in the order in which we read them recorded. Otherwise, how could the twelve sons of Joktan, who was another son of Eber, brother of Peleg, already form nations, if Joktan was born after his brother Peleg, as he is recorded after him, since the earth was divided at the time when Peleg was born? So it is to be understood that Peleg was named first but was born long after his brother Joktan, whose twelve sons already had such large households that they could be divided into their own languages. For so one could be mentioned first who was later in age, just as among the offspring of the three sons of Noah the sons of Japheth, who was the youngest, were mentioned first, then the sons of Ham, who was the middle one, and last the sons of Shem, who was the first and eldest. The names of those nations have partly remained, so that even today it is clear from what they were derived, as the Assyrians from Asshur and the Hebrews from Eber; and partly they have changed through the lapse of time, so that even the most learned men, searching the most ancient histories, have been able to find the origins, not of all these nations, but of some. For although the Egyptians are said to have sprung from the son of Ham called Mizraim, no origin of the word echoes here; nor does it for the Ethiopians, who are said to belong to the son of Ham called Cush. And if everything is considered, more names appear to have changed than to have remained.

### Scripture references

- Gen 10:25–29: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 11:1–9: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 9:4–5: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 10:8–10: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 10:6: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 10:22: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Gen 10:25–29 (Peleg and Joktan); Gen 11:1–9; Gen 10:6, 22; Rom 9:4–5 (the covenants and Christ's descent). Augustine's view that Hebrew was the primeval language is his own argument.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.11 (CSEL 40:146–150; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-9/#p-16-11).

## City of God 16.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-9/#p-16-12
- Source: CSEL 40:150–151
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: With Abraham, born among the idolatrous Chaldeans, the city of God enters a clearer period; the house of Terah alone preserved true worship.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. De articulo temporis in Abraham, a quo sanctae successionis nouus ordo contexitur. Nunc iam uideamus procursum ciuitatis Dei etiam ab illo articulo temporis, qui factus est in patre Abraham, unde incipit esse notitia eius euidentior, et ubi clariora leguntur promissa diuina, quae nunc in Christo uidemus inpleri. Sicut ergo scriptura sancta indicante didicimus, in regione Chaldaeorum natus est Abraham, quae terra ad regnum Assyrium pertinebat. Aput Chaldaeos autem iam etiam tunc superstitiones inpiae praeualebant, quem ad modum per ceteras gentes. Una igitur Tharae domus erat, de quo natus est Abraham, in qua unius ueri Dei cultus et, quantum credibile est, in qua iam sola etiam Hebraea lingua remanserat (quamuis et ipse, sicut iam manifestior Dei populus in Aegypto, ita in Mesopotamia seruisse dis alienis Iesu Naue narrante referatur) ceteris ex progenie illius Heber in linguas paulatim alias et in nationes alias defluentibus. Proinde sicut per aquarum diluuium una domus Noe remanserat ad reparandum genus humanum, sic in diluuio multarum superstitionum per uniuersum mundum una remanserat domus Tharae, in qua custodita est plantatio ciuitatis Dei. Denique sicut illic enumeratis supra generationibus usque ad Noe simul cum annorum numeris et exposita diluuii causa, priusquam Deus inciperet de arca fabricanda loqui ad Noe, dicitur: Hae autem generationes Noe: ita et hic enumeratis generationibus ab illo, qui est appellatus Sem, filio Noe, usque ad Abraham, deinde insignis articulus similiter ponitur ut dicatur: Hae sunt generationes Tharae. Thara genuit Abram et Nachor et Arran, et Arran genuit Loth. Et mortuus est Arran coram Thara patre suo in terra in qua natus est, in regione Chaldaeorum. Et sumsit Abram et Nachor sibi uxores; nomen mulieris Abram Sara et nomen mulieris Nachor Melcha, filia Arran. Iste Arran pater Melchae fuit et pater Iescae, quae Iesca creditur ipsa esse etiam Sarra uxor Abrahae.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. On the turning point in time at Abraham, from whom a new order of holy succession is woven.

Now let us look at the course of the city of God from that turning point of time which came about in father Abraham, from whom knowledge of it begins to be clearer, and where we read clearer divine promises, which we now see fulfilled in Christ. As we have learned from holy Scripture, then, Abraham was born in the region of the Chaldeans, a land that belonged to the Assyrian kingdom. Among the Chaldeans ungodly superstitions were already prevalent even then, as among the other nations. There was, then, only the house of Terah, of whom Abraham was born, in which the worship of the one true God, and, as far as is credible, in which alone the Hebrew language too, had now remained (although Terah himself, as Joshua son of Nun relates, is reported to have served foreign gods in Mesopotamia, just as the people of God, by then more manifest, did in Egypt), while the rest of the progeny of Eber gradually flowed away into other languages and other nations. So, just as through the flood of waters the one house of Noah had remained to restore the human race, so in the flood of many superstitions throughout the whole world the one house of Terah had remained, in which the planting of the city of God was preserved. Finally, just as there, after the generations down to Noah had been enumerated above together with the numbers of years, and the cause of the flood set out, before God began to speak to Noah about building the ark, it is said, “Now these are the generations of Noah”, so here too, after the generations from Noah's son Shem down to Abraham had been enumerated, a notable turning point is set down in the same way, so that it is said: “These are the generations of Terah. Terah begot Abram and Nahor and Haran; and Haran begot Lot. And Haran died before his father Terah in the land in which he was born, in the region of the Chaldeans. And Abram and Nahor took wives for themselves; the name of Abram's wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor's wife Milcah, daughter of Haran.” This Haran was the father of Milcah and the father of Iscah, and this Iscah is believed to be the same as Sarah, Abraham's wife.

### Scripture references

- Josh 24:2: allusion, high confidence
- Josh 24:14: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 6:9: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 11:27–29: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 6:9; Gen 11:27–29. Allusions: Josh 24:2, 14 (Terah served other gods); Gen 11:31. The identification of Iscah with Sarah is a Jewish tradition that Augustine reports as a belief.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.12 (CSEL 40:150–151; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-9/#p-16-12).

## City of God 16.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-9/#p-16-13
- Source: CSEL 40:151–153
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Nahor is omitted from Terah's migration perhaps because he had lapsed into Chaldean idolatry; Judith shows that Terah's house was persecuted for worshipping the true God.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. Quae ratio fecisse uideatur, ut in transmigratione Tharae, qua Chaldaeos deserens in Mesopotamiam transiit, nulla filii eius Nachor facta sit mentio. Deinde narratur quem ad modum Thara cum suis regionem reliquerit Chaldaeorum et uenerit in Mesopotamiam et habitauerit in Charra. Tacetur autem de uno eius filio, qui uocabatur Nachor, tamquam eum non duxerit secum. Nam ita narratur: Et sumsit Thara Abram filium suum et Loth filium Arran, filium filii sui, et Saram nurum suam uxorem Abram filii sui, et eduxit illos de regione Chaldaeorum ire in terram Chanaan; et uenit in Charran et habitauit ibi. Nusquam hic nominatus est Nachor et uxor eius Melcha. Sed inuenimus postea, cum seruum suum mitteret Abraham ad accipiendam uxorem filio suo Isaac, ita scriptum: Et accepit puer decem camelos de camelis domini sui et de omnibus bonis domini sui secum, et exsurgens profectus est in Mesopotamiam in ciuitatem Nachor. Isto et aliis sacrae huius historiae testimoniis ostenditur etiam Nachor frater Abrahae exisse de regione Chaldaeorum sedesque constituisse in Mesopotamia, ubi cum patre suo habitauerat Abraham. Quur ergo eum scriptura non commemorauit, quando ex gente Chaldaea cum suis profectus est Thara et habitauit in Mesopotamia; ubi non solum Abraham filius eius, uerum etiam Sarra nurus et Loth nepos eius commemorantur, quod eos duxerit secum? Quur, putamus, nisi forte quod a paterna et fraterna pietate desciuerat et superstitioni adhaeserat Chaldaeorum et postea inde siue paenitendo siue persecutionem passus, quod suspectus haberetur, et ipse emigrauit? In libro enim qui inscribitur Iudith, cum quaereret Holofernes, hostis Israelitarum, quaenam illa gens esset, utrum aduersus eam bellandum fuisset, sic ei respondit Achior dux Ammanitarum: Audiat dominus noster uerbum de ore pueri sui, et referam tibi ueritatem de populo, qui habitat iuxta te montanam hanc, et non exibit mendacium de ore serui tui. Haec enim progenies populi est Chaldaeorum, et antea habitauerunt Mesopotamiam, quia noluerunt sequi deos patrum suorum, qui fuerunt in terra Chaldaeorum gloriosi, sed declinauerunt de uia parentum suorum et adorauerunt Deum caeli, quem cognouerunt, et proiecerunt eos a facie deorum suorum et fugerunt Mesopotamiam et habitauerunt ibi dies multos. Dixitque illis Deus eorum, ut exirent de habitatione sua et irent in terram Chanaan, et illic habitauerunt, et cetera, quae narrat Achior Ammanites. Unde manifestum est domum Tharae persecutionem passam fuisse a Chaldaeis pro uera pietate, qua unus et uerus ab eis colebatur Deus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. What reason seems to explain why, in the migration of Terah, when he left the Chaldeans and crossed into Mesopotamia, no mention is made of his son Nahor.

Next it is related how Terah with his family left the region of the Chaldeans, came into Mesopotamia, and dwelt in Haran. But nothing is said of one of his sons, who was called Nahor, as though he did not take him with him. For it is related thus: “And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran, his son's son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, the wife of his son Abram, and led them out of the region of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan; and he came to Haran and dwelt there.” Nowhere here are Nahor and his wife Milcah named. But we find later, when Abraham sent his servant to take a wife for his son Isaac, that it is written thus: “And the servant took ten camels of his master's camels, and of all his master's goods with him, and rising up he set out for Mesopotamia, to the city of Nahor.” By this and other testimonies of this sacred history it is shown that Nahor, Abraham's brother, also left the region of the Chaldeans and settled in Mesopotamia, where Abraham had lived with his father. Why, then, did Scripture not mention him when Terah set out with his family from the Chaldean nation and dwelt in Mesopotamia, where not only his son Abraham but also his daughter-in-law Sarah and his grandson Lot are mentioned as those he took with him? Why, do we suppose, unless perhaps because Nahor had fallen away from the godliness of his father and brother and clung to the superstition of the Chaldeans, and afterwards, either repenting or suffering persecution because he was held suspect, he too emigrated? For in the book entitled Judith, when Holofernes, the enemy of the Israelites, asked what nation this was and whether war should be waged against it, Achior, the leader of the Ammonites, answered him thus: “Let our lord hear a word from the mouth of his servant, and I will tell you the truth about the people that dwells near you in this hill country, and no lie shall come out of your servant's mouth. For this people is descended from the Chaldeans, and they formerly dwelt in Mesopotamia, because they would not follow the gods of their fathers, who were glorious in the land of the Chaldeans; but they turned aside from the way of their parents and worshipped the God of heaven, whom they knew; and they cast them out from the presence of their gods, and they fled to Mesopotamia and dwelt there many days. And their God told them to go out of their dwelling and go into the land of Canaan, and they dwelt there”, and the rest that Achior the Ammonite relates. From this it is clear that the house of Terah suffered persecution from the Chaldeans for the true godliness with which they worshipped the one true God.

### Scripture references

- Gen 11:31: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 24:10: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Jdt 5:5–9 (Judith): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 11:31; Gen 24:10; Jdt 5:5–9 (in the Old Latin form). The explanation of Nahor's absence is offered by Augustine as a conjecture.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.13 (CSEL 40:151–153; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-9/#p-16-13).

## City of God 16.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-9/#p-16-14
- Source: CSEL 40:153–154
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Terah's 205 years (Gen 11:32) are his whole lifespan, completed in Haran, since every member of this line has his years recorded.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. De annis Tharae, qui in Charra uitae suae tempus inpleuit. Defuncto autem Thara in Mesopotamia, ubi uixisse perhibetur ducentos et quinque annos, iam incipiunt indicari factae ad Abraham promissiones Dei, quod ita scriptum est: Et fuerunt dies Tharae in Charra quinque et ducenti anni, et mortuus est Thara in Charra. Non sic autem accipiendum est, quasi omnes hos dies ibi egerit, sed quia omnes dies uitae suae, qui fuerunt anni ducenti quinque, ibi conpleuerit; alioquin nescietur quot annos uixerit Thara, quoniam non legitur quoto anno uitae suae in Charran uenerit; et absurdum est existimare in ista serie generationum, ubi diligenter commemoratur quot annos quisque uixerit, huius solius numerum annorum uitae non commendatum esse memoriae. Quod enim quorundam, quos eadem scriptura commemorat, tacentur anni, non sunt in hoc ordine, in quo temporum dinumeratio decessione gignentium et genitorum successione contexitur. iste autem ordo, qui dirigitur ab Adam usque ad Noe et inde usque ad Abraham, sine numero annorum uitae suae neminem continet.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. On the years of Terah, who completed the span of his life in Haran.

When Terah had died in Mesopotamia, where he is said to have lived two hundred and five years, the promises made by God to Abraham now begin to be shown. It is written thus: “And the days of Terah in Haran were two hundred and five years, and Terah died in Haran.” This is not to be taken as though he spent all these days there, but that he completed there all the days of his life, which were two hundred and five years; otherwise it will not be known how many years Terah lived, since we do not read in what year of his life he came to Haran; and it is absurd to think that in this series of generations, where it is carefully recorded how many years each lived, only his number of years of life was not committed to memory. For if the years of some whom the same Scripture mentions are passed over in silence, they are not in this line, in which the reckoning of times is woven by the passing of the begetters and the succession of the begotten. But this line, which runs from Adam to Noah and from there to Abraham, contains no one without the number of the years of his life.

### Scripture references

- Gen 11:32: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotation: Gen 11:32.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.14 (CSEL 40:153–154; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-9/#p-16-14).

## City of God 16.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-9/#p-16-15
- Source: CSEL 40:154–157
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reconciles Abraham's departure from Haran at 75 with Terah's death at 205, taking the narrative as a recapitulation and following Stephen's speech in Acts 7.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. De tempore profectionis Abrahae, qua secundum praeceptum Dei exiit de Charra. Quod uero commemorata morte Tharae, patris Abraham, deinde legitur: Et dixit Dominus ad Abram: Exi de terra tua et de cognatione tua et de domo patris tui et cetera, non, quia hoc sequitur in sermone libri, hoc etiam in rerum gestarum tempore sequi existimandum est. Erit quippe, si ita est, insolubilis quaestio. Post haec enim uerba Dei, quae ad Abraham facta sunt, scriptura sic loquitur: Et exiit Abram, quem ad modum locutus est ei Dominus, et abiit cum eo Loth. Abram autem erat quinque et septuaginta annorum, cum exiit ex Charra. Quo modo potest hoc esse uerum, si post mortem patris sui exiit de Charra? Cum enim esset Thara septuaginta annorum, sicut supra intimatum est, genuit Abraham; cui numero additis septuaginta quinque annis, quos agebat Abraham, quando egressus est de Charra, fiunt anni centum quadraginta quinque. Tot igitur annorum erat Thara, quando exiit Abraham de illa Mesopotamiae ciuitate; agebat enim annum aetatis suae septuagensimum quintum, ac per hoc pater eius, qui eum septuagensimo anno suo genuerat, agebat, ut dictum est, centensimum quadragensimum et quintum. Non ergo inde post mortem patris, id est post ducentos quinque annos, quibus pater eius uixit, egressus est; sed annus de illo loco profectionis eius, quoniam ipsius septuagensimus quintus erat, procul dubio patris eius, qui eum septuagensimo suo anno genuerat, centensimus quadragensimus quintus fuisse colligitur. Ac per hoc intellegendum est more suo scripturam redisse ad tempus, quod iam narratio illa transierat; sicut superius, cum filios filiorum Noe commemorasset, dixit illos fuisse in linguis et gentibus suis, et tamen postea, quasi hoc etiam in ordine temporum sequeretur: Et erat, inquit, omnis terra labium unum et uox una omnibus. Quo modo ergo secundum suas gentes et secundum suas linguas erant, si una erat omnibus, nisi quia ad illud quod iam transierat recapitulando est reuersa narratio? Sic ergo et hic cum dictum esset: Et fuerunt dies Tharae in Charra quinque et ducenti anni, et mortuus est Thara in Charra, deinde scriptura redeundo ad id, quod ideo praetermiserat, ut prius de Thara id quod incohatum fuerat conpleretur: Et dixit, inquit, Dominus ad Abram: Exi de terra tua et cetera. Post quae Dei uerba subiungitur: Et exiit Abram, quem ad modum locutus est illi Dominus, et abiit cum eo Loth. Abram autem erat quinque et septuaginta annorum, cum exiit ex Charra. Tunc itaque factum est, quando pater eius centensimum quadragensimum et quintum annum agebat aetatis; tunc enim fuit huius septuagensimus quintus. Soluta est autem ista quaestio et aliter, ut septuaginta quinque anni Abrahae, quando egressus est de Charra, ex illo conputarentur, ex quo de igne Chaldaeorum liberatus, non ex quo natus est, tamquam tunc potius natus habendus sit. Sed beatus Stephanus in actibus apostolorum cum ista narraret: Deus, inquit, gloriae apparuit Abrahae patri nostro, cum esset in Mesopotamia, priusquam habitaret in Charra, et ait ad illum: Exi de terra tua et de cognatione tua et de domo patris tui, et ueni in terram, quam tibi demonstrabo. Secundum haec uerba Stephani non post mortem patris eius locutus est Deus Abrahae, qui utique in Charra mortuus est, ubi cum illo et ipse filius habitauit, sed priusquam habitaret in eadem ciuitate, iam tamen cum esset in Mesopotamia. Iam ergo exierat a Chaldaeis. Quod itaque adiungit Stephanus: Tunc Abraham egressus est de terra Chaldaeorum et habitauit in Charra, non quid sit factum, postea quam locutus est illi Deus (neque enim post illa Dei uerba egressus est de terra Chaldaeorum, cum dicat ei locutum Deum cum esset in Mesopotamia), sed ad totum illud tempus pertinet quod ait: Tunc, id est, ex quo egressus est a Chaldaeis et habitauit in Charra. Item quod sequitur: Et inde postquam mortuus est pater eius, conlocauit illum in terra hac, in qua uos nunc habitatis et patres uestri, non ait: Postquam mortuus est pater eius, exiit de Charra; sed: Inde hic eum conlocauit, postquam mortuus est pater eius. Intellegendum est igitur locutum Deum fuisse ad Abraham, cum esset in Mesopotamia, priusquam habitaret in Charra; sed eum in Charram peruenisse cum patre, retento aput se praecepto Dei, et inde exisse septuagensimo et quinto suo, patris autem sui centensimo quadragensimo et quinto anno. Conlocationem uero eius in terra Chanaan, non profectionem de Charra post mortem patris eius factam esse dicit, quia iam mortuus erat pater eius, quando emit terram, cuius ibi iam suae rei coepit esse possessor. Quod autem iam in Mesopotamia constituto, hoc est iam egresso de terra Chaldaeorum, dicit Deus: Exi de terra tua et de cognatione tua et de domo patris tui, non ut corpus inde eiceret, quod iam fecerat, sed ut animum auelleret, dicitur. Non enim exierat inde animo, si spe redeundi et desiderio tenebatur, quae spes et desiderium Deo iubente ac iuuante et illo oboediente fuerat amputandum. Non sane incredibiliter existimatur, cum postea secutus esset Nachor patrem suum, tunc Abraham praeceptum Domini inplesse, ut cum Sarra coniuge sua et Loth filio fratris sui exiret de Charra.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. On the time of Abraham's departure, when he left Haran according to God's command.

After the death of Terah, Abraham's father, has been recorded, we then read: “And the Lord said to Abram: Go out from your land and from your kindred and from your father's house”, and so on. It must not be thought that, because this follows in the text of the book, it also follows in the time of the events. For if it were so, there would be an insoluble question. For after these words of God addressed to Abraham, Scripture speaks thus: “And Abram went out, as the Lord had spoken to him, and Lot went with him. And Abram was seventy-five years old when he went out of Haran.” How can this be true if he left Haran after his father's death? For Terah was seventy when, as was indicated above, he begot Abraham; add to this number the seventy-five years of Abraham's age when he went out of Haran, and the total is one hundred and forty-five years. That was Terah's age, then, when Abraham left that city of Mesopotamia; for Abraham was in his seventy-fifth year, and so his father, who had begotten him in his own seventieth year, was, as has been said, in his hundred and forty-fifth. So he did not leave there after his father's death, that is, after the two hundred and five years his father lived; but the year of his departure from that place, since it was his own seventy-fifth, is certainly gathered to have been the hundred and forty-fifth of his father, who begot him in his seventieth year. And so it is to be understood that Scripture, in its usual way, went back to a time which the narrative had already passed; just as above, when it had recorded the sons of the sons of Noah, it said that they were in their languages and nations, and yet afterwards, as though this followed in the order of time too, it says: “And the whole earth was one lip, and there was one speech for all.” How, then, were they according to their nations and according to their languages, if there was one for all, unless the narrative went back by recapitulation to what had already passed? So here too, when it had been said, “And the days of Terah in Haran were two hundred and five years, and Terah died in Haran”, Scripture then goes back to what it had passed over so that what had been begun about Terah might first be completed: “And the Lord said to Abram: Go out from your land”, and so on. After these words of God it is added: “And Abram went out, as the Lord had spoken to him, and Lot went with him. And Abram was seventy-five years old when he went out of Haran.” It happened, then, when his father was in the hundred and forty-fifth year of his age; for it was then Abraham's seventy-fifth.

This question has also been solved in another way: that Abraham's seventy-five years when he left Haran were counted from the time when he was delivered from the fire of the Chaldeans, not from his birth, as though he should rather be regarded as born then. But blessed Stephen, relating these things in the Acts of the Apostles, says: “The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, and said to him: Go out from your land and from your kindred and from your father's house, and come into the land that I will show you.” According to these words of Stephen, God spoke to Abraham not after the death of his father, who certainly died in Haran, where his son lived with him, but before he lived in that city, yet when he was already in Mesopotamia. He had already, then, left the Chaldeans. So what Stephen adds, “Then Abraham went out of the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran”, does not indicate what happened after God spoke to him (for he did not leave the land of the Chaldeans after those words of God, since Stephen says God spoke to him when he was in Mesopotamia); but the word “then” refers to that whole period, that is, from the time he left the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. Again, in what follows, “And from there, after his father died, he settled him in this land in which you and your fathers now live”, he does not say, “After his father died he went out of Haran”, but “From there he settled him here after his father died.” It is to be understood, then, that God spoke to Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran; but that he came to Haran with his father, keeping God's command with him, and left there in his own seventy-fifth year and his father's hundred and forty-fifth. And Stephen says that his settling in the land of Canaan, not his departure from Haran, took place after his father's death, because his father was already dead when he bought the land, of which he then began to be the owner as of his own property. As for God's saying to him when he was already established in Mesopotamia, that is, when he had already left the land of the Chaldeans, “Go out from your land and from your kindred and from your father's house”, it is said not so that he should remove his body from there, which he had already done, but so that he should tear away his mind. For he had not gone out from there in mind if he was held by the hope and desire of returning; and this hope and desire had to be cut off by God's command and help and by his obedience. It is not incredible to suppose that when Nahor afterwards followed his father, Abraham then fulfilled the Lord's command to leave Haran with Sarah his wife and Lot his brother's son.

### Scripture references

- Gen 12:1: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 12:4: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 11:26: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 11:32: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 10:31: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 11:1: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 7:2–4: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 23:1–20: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 12:1; Gen 12:4; Gen 11:1; Gen 11:32; Acts 7:2–4. Purchase of land: Gen 23. The solution counting Abraham's years from his rescue “from the fire of the Chaldeans” reflects a Jewish tradition (a play on Ur, “fire”); Augustine reports it without adopting it. The editor's text has a stray “<” before “Tunc”, removed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.15 (CSEL 40:154–157; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-9/#p-16-15).

## City of God 16.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-9/#p-16-16
- Source: CSEL 40:157–158
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God's promise to Abraham (Gen 12:1–3) has two parts: the land for his carnal seed, and the blessing of all nations through his spiritual seed.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. De ordine et qualitate promissionum Dei, quae ad Abraham factae sunt. Iam considerandae sunt promissiones Dei factae ad Abraham. In his enim apertiora Dei nostri, hoc est Dei ueri, oracula apparere coeperunt de populo piorum, quem prophetica praenuntiauit auctoritas. Harum prima ita legitur: Et dixit Dominus ad Abram: Exi de terra tua et de cognatione tua et de domo patris tui [et uade] in terram, quam tibi demonstrauero; et faciam te in gentem magnam et benedicam te et magnificabo nomen tuum, et eris benedictus, et benedicam benedicentes te et maledicentes te maledicam, et benedicentur in te omnes tribus terrae. Aduertendum est igitur duas res promissas Abrahae; unam scilicet, quod terram Chanaan possessurum fuerat semen eius, quod significatur, ubi dictum est: Vade in terram, quam tibi demonstrauero, et faciam te in gentem magnam; aliam uero longe praestantiorem non de carnali, sed de spiritali semine, per quod pater est non unius gentis Israeliticae, sed omnium gentium, quae fidei eius uestigia consequuntur, quod promitti coepit his uerbis: Et benedicentur in te omnes tribus terrae. Hanc promissionem factam arbitratur Eusebius septuagensimo quinto anno aetatis Abrahae, tamquam mox ut facta est de Charra exierit Abraham; quoniam scripturae contradici non potest, ubi legitur: Abraham erat quinque et septuaginta annorum, cum exiit ex Charra. Sed si eo anno facta est ista promissio, iam utique in Charra cum patre suo demorabatur Abraham. Neque enim exire inde posset, nisi prius ibi habitasset. Numquidnam ergo contradicitur Stephano dicenti: Deus gloriae apparuit Abrahae patri nostro, cum esset in Mesopotamia, priusquam habitaret in Charra? Sed intellegendum est, quod eodem anno facta sint omnia, et Dei promissio, antequam in Charra habitaret Abraham, et in Charra habitatio eius et inde profectio; non solum quia Eusebius in chronicis ab anno huius promissionis conputat et ostendit post quadringentos et triginta annos exitum esse de Aegypto, quando lex data est, uerum etiam quia id commemorat apostolus Paulus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. On the order and nature of God's promises made to Abraham.

Now we must consider the promises of God made to Abraham. For in them clearer oracles of our God, that is, the true God, began to appear about the people of the godly which the authority of prophecy foretold. The first of them reads thus: “And the Lord said to Abram: Go out from your land and from your kindred and from your father's house into the land that I will show you; and I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you and magnify your name, and you shall be blessed; and I will bless those who bless you, and those who curse you I will curse; and in you all the tribes of the earth shall be blessed.” It is to be noted, then, that two things were promised to Abraham: one, that his seed was to possess the land of Canaan, which is signified where it is said, “Go into the land that I will show you, and I will make you into a great nation”; the other, far more excellent, concerns not the carnal but the spiritual seed, through which he is the father not of the one nation of Israel but of all the nations that follow in the footsteps of his faith; this began to be promised in these words: “And in you all the tribes of the earth shall be blessed.” Eusebius thinks this promise was made in the seventy-fifth year of Abraham's age, as though Abraham left Haran as soon as it was made; since Scripture cannot be contradicted where it reads: “Abraham was seventy-five years old when he went out of Haran.” But if this promise was made in that year, Abraham was certainly already staying in Haran with his father; for he could not go out from there unless he had first lived there. Is Stephen, then, contradicted when he says, “The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran”? But it is to be understood that all these things happened in the same year: God's promise before Abraham lived in Haran, his living in Haran, and his departure from there; not only because Eusebius in his Chronicle reckons from the year of this promise and shows that the exodus from Egypt, when the law was given, came four hundred and thirty years later, but also because the apostle Paul records this.

### Scripture references

- Gen 12:1–3: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 12:4: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 4:12: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 4:16–17: allusion, medium confidence
- Acts 7:2: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 3:17: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Chron. (Eusebius and Jerome, Chronicle): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 12:1–3; Gen 12:4; Acts 7:2. Allusions: Rom 4:12, 16–17 (Abraham father of all nations who follow his faith); Gal 3:17 (430 years). Eusebius's Chronicle (in Jerome's Latin) dates the promise to Abraham's 75th year; the Chronicle has no entry in the site's list. The editor deletes “and go” (et uade) in Gen 12:1; Augustine then paraphrases it with “go.”

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.16 (CSEL 40:157–158; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-9/#p-16-16).

## City of God 16.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-17
- Source: CSEL 40:158–160
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: In Abraham's time the Sicyonian, Egyptian, and Assyrian kingdoms flourished, the Assyrian under Ninus being the greatest seat of the earthly city.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. De tribus excellentioribus gentium regnis, quorum unum, id est Assyriorum, iam Abraham genito sublimius eminebat. Per idem tempus eminentia regna erant gentium, in quibus terrigenarum ciuitas, hoc est societas hominum secundum hominem uiuentium, sub dominatu angelorum desertorum insignius excellebat, regna uidelicet tria, Sicyoniorum, Aegyptiorum, Assyriorum. Sed Assyriorum multo erat potentius adque sublimius. Nam rex ille Ninus Beli filius excepta India uniuersae Asiae populos subiugauerat. Asiam nunc dico non illam partem quae huius maioris Asiae una prouincia est, sed eam quae uniuersa Asia nuncupatur, quam quidam in altera duarum, plerique autem in tertia totius orbis parte posuerunt, ut sint omnes Asia, Europa et Africa; quod non aequali diuisione fecerunt. Namque ista, quae Asia nuncupatur, a meridie per orientem usque ad septentrionem peruenit; Europa uero a septentrione usque ad occidentem, adque inde Africa ab occidente usque ad meridiem. Unde uidentur orbem dimidium duae tenere, Europa et Africa, alium uero dimidium sola Asia. Sed ideo illae duae partes factae sunt, quia inter utramque ab Oceano ingreditur, quidquid aquarum terras interluit; et hoc mare magnum nobis facit. Quapropter si in duas partes orbem diuidas, Orientis et Occidentis, Asia erit in una, in altera uero Europa et Africa. Quam ob rem trium regnorum, quae tunc praecellebant, Sicyoniorum non erat sub Assyriis, quia in Europa sunt; Aegyptiorum autem quo modo eis non subiacebat, a quibus tota Asia tenebatur, solis Indis, ut perhibetur, exceptis? In Assyria igitur praeualuerat dominatus inpiae ciuitatis; huius caput erat illa Babylon, cuius terrigenae ciuitatis nomen aptissimum est, id est confusio. Ibi iam Ninus regnabat post mortem patris sui Beli, qui primus illic regnauerat sexaginta quinque annos. Filius uero eius Ninus, qui defuncto patri successit in regnum, quinquaginta duos regnauit annos, et habebat in regno quadraginta tres, quando natus est Abraham, qui erat annus circiter millensimus ducentensimus ante conditam Romam, ueluti alteram in occidente Babyloniam.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. On the three most eminent kingdoms of the nations, of which one, that of the Assyrians, was already outstanding when Abraham was born.

At the same time there were eminent kingdoms of the nations, in which the city of the earth-born, that is, the society of men living according to man, stood out more notably under the dominion of the fallen angels: namely three kingdoms, of the Sicyonians, the Egyptians, and the Assyrians. But that of the Assyrians was much more powerful and exalted. For that king Ninus, son of Belus, had subdued the peoples of all Asia except India. By Asia I now mean not that part which is one province of this greater Asia, but what is called Asia as a whole, which some have placed as one of two parts of the whole world, but most as the third, so that all together are Asia, Europe, and Africa; though they did not make the division equal. For this which is called Asia reaches from the south through the east to the north; Europe from the north to the west; and then Africa from the west to the south. Hence two, Europe and Africa, seem to hold half the world, and Asia alone the other half. But those two were made into parts because between them there enters from the Ocean whatever water flows between the lands; and this makes our Great Sea. So if you divide the world into two parts, East and West, Asia will be in one, and Europe and Africa in the other. So of the three kingdoms that were then pre-eminent, that of the Sicyonians was not under the Assyrians, because they are in Europe; but how could that of the Egyptians not be subject to those who held all Asia, with only the Indians, as is said, excepted? In Assyria, then, the dominion of the ungodly city had prevailed; its capital was that Babylon, whose name is most fitting for the earth-born city, that is, Confusion. There Ninus was already reigning after the death of his father Belus, who had been the first to reign there, for sixty-five years. His son Ninus, who succeeded his dead father in the kingdom, reigned fifty-two years, and was in the forty-third year of his reign when Abraham was born, which was about the twelve-hundredth year before the founding of Rome, which was, as it were, another Babylon in the west.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Chron. (Eusebius and Jerome, Chronicle): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The regnal figures for Belus and Ninus and the synchronism with Abraham come from Eusebius's Chronicle in Jerome's Latin (no entry in the site's list), which Augustine follows in Books 16–18.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.17 (CSEL 40:158–160; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-17).

## City of God 16.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-18
- Source: CSEL 40:160
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: At Shechem God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham's carnal seed, the nation of Israel.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII De iterato adloquio Dei ad Abraham, quo ei et semini eius Chanaan terra promittitur. Egressus ergo Abraham de Charra septuagensimo quinto anno aetatis suae, centensimo autem quadragensimo et quinto patris sui, cum Loth filio fratris et Sarra coniuge perrexit in terram Chanaan et peruenit usque ad Sichem, ubi rursus diuinum accepit oraculum, de quo ita scriptum est: Et apparuit Dominus Abrahae, et dixit illi: Semini tuo dabo terram hanc. Nihil hic de illo semine dictum est, in quo pater factus est omnium gentium, sed de illo solo, de quo pater est unius Israeliticae gentis; ab hoc enim semine terra illa possessa est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. On God's second address to Abraham, in which the land of Canaan is promised to him and his seed.

Abraham, then, having left Haran in the seventy-fifth year of his age and the hundred and forty-fifth of his father's, went with Lot his brother's son and Sarah his wife into the land of Canaan, and came as far as Shechem, where he again received a divine oracle, of which it is written thus: “And the Lord appeared to Abraham and said to him: To your seed I will give this land.” Nothing is said here of that seed in which he was made the father of all nations, but only of that by which he is father of the one nation of Israel; for it was by this seed that that land was possessed.

### Scripture references

- Gen 12:5–6: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 12:7: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotation: Gen 12:7. Allusions: Gen 12:5–6.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.18 (CSEL 40:160; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-18).

## City of God 16.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-19
- Source: CSEL 40:160–161
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Abraham, calling Sarah his sister, did not lie, and trusted God to protect her chastity, which God did by afflicting Pharaoh.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. De Sarrae pudicitia in Aegypto per Deum custodita, quam Abraham non uxorem suam esse dixerat, sed sororem. Deinde aedificato ibi altari et inuocato Deo Abraham profectus est inde et habitauit in eremo adque inde ire in Aegyptum famis necessitate conpulsus est. Ubi uxorem suam dixit sororem, nihil mentitus; erat enim et hoc, quia propinqua erat sanguine; sicut etiam Loth eadem propinquitate, cum fratris eius esset filius, frater eius est dictus. Itaque uxorem tacuit, non negauit, coniugis tuendam pudicitiam committens Deo et humanas insidias cauens ut homo; quoniam, si periculum quantum caueri poterat non caueret, magis tentaret Deum, quam speraret in Deum. De qua re contra calumniantem Faustum Manichaeum satis diximus. Denique factum est, quod de Domino praesumsit Abraham. Nam Pharao rex Aegypti, qui eam sibi uxorem acceperat, grauiter adflictus marito reddidit. Ubi absit ut credamus alieno concubitu fuisse pollutam, quia multo est credibilius, hoc Pharaonem facere adflictionibus magnis non fuisse permissum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. On Sarah's chastity, protected by God in Egypt, when Abraham had said she was not his wife but his sister.

Then, having built an altar there and called upon God, Abraham set out from there and dwelt in the desert, and from there was compelled by the pressure of famine to go into Egypt. There he called his wife his sister, telling no lie; for she was this too, since she was related to him by blood; just as Lot too, by the same kinship, since he was his brother's son, was called his brother. So he kept silent that she was his wife, but did not deny it, entrusting the protection of his wife's chastity to God and guarding against human snares as a man; for if he had not guarded against the danger as far as it could be guarded against, he would have been tempting God rather than hoping in God. On this subject we have said enough against the slanders of Faustus the Manichaean. In the end, what Abraham had presumed of the Lord came about. For Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who had taken her as his wife, was severely afflicted and gave her back to her husband. Far be it from us to believe that she was defiled by another's intercourse; for it is much more credible that Pharaoh was not permitted to do this, by great afflictions.

### Scripture references

- Gen 12:7–20: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 13:8: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 20:12: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Gen 12:7–20; Gen 13:8 and 14:14 (Lot called his brother); Gen 20:12. Augustine refers to Against Faustus 22.33–36. The digital text reads Domitio for Domino (“the Lord”), corrected. The judgment on Abraham's conduct is Augustine's.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.19 (CSEL 40:160–161; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-19).

## City of God 16.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-20
- Source: CSEL 40:161
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Abraham and Lot parted peacefully, Abraham giving Lot the choice of land.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. De secessione Loth et Abrahae, quae illis salua caritate conplacuit. Reuerso igitur Abraham ex Aegypto in locum unde uenerat, nunc Loth fratris filius ab illo in terram Sodomorum salua caritate discessit. Diuites quippe facti erant pastoresque multos pecorum habere coeperant, quibus inter se rixantibus eo modo familiarum suarum pugnacem discordiam uitauerunt. Poterat quippe hinc, ut sunt humana, etiam inter ipsos aliqua rixa consurgere. Proinde hoc malum praecauentis Abrahae uerba ista sunt ad Loth: Non sit rixa inter me et te, et inter pastores meos et inter pastores tuos, quia homines fratres nos sumus. Nonne ecce tota terra ante te est? Discede a me; si tu in sinistram, ego in dextram; uel si tu in dextram, ego in sinistram. Hinc fortassis effecta est inter homines pacifica consuetudo, ut, quando terrenorum aliquid partiendum est, maior diuidat, minor eligat.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. On the parting of Lot and Abraham, which they agreed on with love unimpaired.

When Abraham had returned from Egypt to the place from which he had come, Lot, his brother's son, now parted from him to the land of Sodom, with love unimpaired. For they had become rich and had begun to have many herdsmen of cattle, and as these quarreled among themselves, they avoided in this way the contentious discord of their households. For from this, human affairs being what they are, some quarrel could have arisen even between the two of them. So these are the words of Abraham to Lot, guarding against this evil: “Let there be no quarrel between me and you, and between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are men and brothers. Behold, is not the whole land before you? Separate from me; if you go to the left, I will go to the right; or if you go to the right, I will go to the left.” From this perhaps arose the peaceable custom among men that when some earthly property is to be divided, the elder divides and the younger chooses.

### Scripture references

- Gen 13:1–12: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 13:8–9: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotation: Gen 13:8–9. Allusions: Gen 13:1–12.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.20 (CSEL 40:161; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-20).

## City of God 16.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-21
- Source: CSEL 40:161–163
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God's third promise gives Canaan to Abraham's seed 'for ever' and compares his offspring to the sand, a hyperbole that may include his spiritual seed.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. De tertia promissione Dei, qua terram Chanaan Abrahae et semini eius in perpetuum pollicetur. Cum ergo digressi essent separatimque habitarent Abraham et Loth necessitate sustentandae familiae, non foeditate discordiae, et Abraham in terra Chanaan, Loth autem esset in Sodomis, oraculo tertio dixit Dominus ad Abraham: Respiciens oculis tuis uide a loco, in quo nunc tu es, ad aquilonem et Africum et orientem et mare, quia omnem terram, quam tu uides, tibi dabo eam et semini tuo usque in saeculum, et faciam semen tuum tamquam harenam terrae. Si potest aliquis dinumerare harenam terrae, et semen tuum dinumerabitur. Surgens perambula terram in longitudinem eius et in latitudinem, quia tibi dabo eam. In hac promissione utrum sit etiam illa, qua pater factus est omnium gentium, non euidenter apparet. Potest enim uideri ad hoc pertinere: Et faciam semen tuum tamquam harenam terrae, quod ea locutione dictum est, quam Graeci uocant hyperbolen; quae utique tropica est, non propria. Quo tamen modo, ut ceteris tropis, uti solere scripturam, nullus qui eam didicit ambigit. Iste autem tropus, id est modus locutionis, fit, quando id quod dicitur longe est amplius, quam quod eo dicto significatur. Quis enim non uideat, quam sit incomparabiliter amplior harenae numerus, quam potest esse hominum omnium ab ipso Adam usque ad terminum saeculi? Quanto ergo magis quam semen Abrahae, non solum quod pertinet ad Israeliticam gentem, uerum etiam quod est et futurum est secundum imitationem fidei toto orbe terrarum in omnibus gentibus! Quod semen in conparatione multitudinis inpiorum profecto in paucis est; quamuis et ipsi pauci faciant innumerabilem multitudinem suam, quae significata est secundum hyperbolen per harenam terrae. Sane ista multitudo, quae promittitur Abrahae, non Deo est innumerabilis, sed hominibus; Deo autem nec harena terrae. Proinde quia non tantum gens Israelitica, sed uniuersum semen Abrahae, ubi est et promissio non secundum carnem, sed secundum spiritum plurium filiorum, congruentius harenae multitudini conparatur: potest hic intellegi utriusque rei facta promissio. Sed ideo diximus, quod non euidenter appareat, quia et illius gentis unius multitudo, quae secundum carnem nata est ex Abraham per eius nepotem Iacob, in tantum creuit, ut paene omnes partes orbis inpleuerit. Et ideo potuit et ipsa secundum hyperbolen harenae multitudini conparari, quia et haec sola innumera est homini. Terram certe illam solam significatam, quae appellata est Chanaan, ambigit nemo. Sed quod dictum est: Tibi dabo eam et semini tuo usque in saeculum, potest mouere nonnullos, si usque in saeculum intellegant in aeternum. Si autem in saeculum hoc loco sic accipiant, quem ad modum fideliter tenemus initium futuri saeculi a fine praesentis ordiri, nihil eos mouebit; quia, etsi expulsi sunt Israelitae de Hierosolymis, manent tamen in aliis ciuitatibus terrae Chanaan, et usque in finem manebunt; et uniuersa terra illa cum a Christianis inhabitatur, etiam ipsum semen est Abrahae.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. On God's third promise, in which he promises the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed for ever.

When, then, Abraham and Lot had parted and were living separately because of the need to support their households, not through the ugliness of discord, Abraham in the land of Canaan and Lot in Sodom, the Lord said to Abraham in a third oracle: “Look with your eyes and see from the place where you now are, to the north and the south-west and the east and the sea; for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your seed for ever; and I will make your seed like the sand of the earth. If anyone can number the sand of the earth, your seed too shall be numbered. Arise, walk through the land in its length and in its breadth, for I will give it to you.” Whether this promise also includes the one by which he was made the father of all nations does not clearly appear. For it may seem that this belongs to it: “And I will make your seed like the sand of the earth”, which is said by the figure of speech that the Greeks call hyperbole; and this is certainly figurative, not literal. That Scripture habitually uses this, as it does other figures, no one who has studied it doubts. This figure, that is, this manner of speaking, occurs when what is said is far greater than what is meant by saying it. For who does not see how incomparably greater the number of the sand is than that of all human beings can be, from Adam himself to the end of the world? How much greater, then, than the seed of Abraham, not only that which belongs to the nation of Israel, but also that which is and will be, by imitation of his faith, throughout the whole world in all nations! That seed, compared with the multitude of the ungodly, is certainly among the few; though these few too make up their own innumerable multitude, which is signified by hyperbole through the sand of the earth. Certainly this multitude promised to Abraham is innumerable not to God but to men; to God not even the sand of the earth is. So, since not only the nation of Israel but the whole seed of Abraham, in which there is also the promise of many sons, not according to the flesh but according to the spirit, is more fittingly compared to the multitude of the sand, a promise of both things can be understood here. But we said it does not clearly appear, because the multitude of that one nation, born according to the flesh from Abraham through his grandson Jacob, has also grown so much that it has filled almost all parts of the world. And so it too could be compared by hyperbole to the multitude of the sand, since it too is innumerable to man. That only the land called Canaan is signified, certainly no one doubts. But the words, “I will give it to you and to your seed for ever”, may trouble some, if they understand “for ever” as “to eternity.” But if they take “for ever” here in the sense in which we faithfully hold that the beginning of the age to come starts from the end of the present one, nothing will trouble them; because, though the Israelites have been expelled from Jerusalem, they still remain in other cities of the land of Canaan and will remain to the end; and when that whole land is inhabited by Christians, it is the seed of Abraham itself that inhabits it.

### Scripture references

- Gen 13:14–17: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 3:7: allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotation: Gen 13:14–17. The Latin saeculum (“age”) allows Augustine's reading of “for ever” as “to the end of this age.” The remark on the Jews expelled from Jerusalem refers to Hadrian's ban after 135; translated as written. A stray “(” and “*” around “in aeternum” are removed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.21 (CSEL 40:161–163; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-21).

## City of God 16.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-22
- Source: CSEL 40:163–164
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Abraham rescued Lot and was blessed by Melchizedek, whose offering first showed the sacrifice now offered by Christians, fulfilled in Christ, priest for ever after his order.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. De superatis ab Abraham hostibus Sodomorum, quando et Loth de captiuitate eripuit, et a Melchisedech sacerdote benedictus est. Hoc responso promissionis accepto migrauit Abraham et mansit in alio eiusdem terrae loco, iuxta quercum Mambre, quae erat Chebron. Deinde ab hostibus, qui Sodomis inruerant, cum quinque reges aduersus quattuor bellum gererent et uictis Sodomitis etiam Loth captus esset, liberauit eum Abraham adductis secum in proelium trecentis decem et octo uernaculis suis et uictoriam fecit regibus Sodomorum nihilque spoliorum auferre uoluit, cum rex cui uicerat obtulisset. Sed plane tunc benedictus est a Melchisedech, qui erat sacerdos Dei excelsi; de quo in epistula, quae inscribitur ad Hebraeos, quam plures Pauli apostoli esse dicunt, quidam uero negant, multa et magna conscripta sunt. Ibi quippe primum apparuit sacrificium, quod nunc a Christianis offertur Deo toto orbe terrarum, inpleturque illud, quod longe post hoc factum per prophetiam dicitur ad Christum, qui fuerat adhuc uenturus in carne: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech; non scilicet secundum ordinem Aaron, qui ordo fuerat auferendus inlucescentibus rebus, quae illis umbris praenotabantur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. On Abraham's defeat of the enemies of Sodom, when he also rescued Lot from captivity and was blessed by the priest Melchizedek.

Having received this answer of promise, Abraham moved and stayed in another place in the same land, by the oak of Mamre, which was Hebron. Then, when five kings were waging war against four, and the enemies had fallen upon Sodom, and when the Sodomites were defeated Lot too was taken captive, Abraham freed him from the enemy, leading into battle with him three hundred and eighteen of his home-born servants; he won the victory for the kings of Sodom and would take none of the spoils, though the king for whom he had conquered offered them. But he was then blessed by Melchizedek, who was priest of God Most High; about whom many great things are written in the letter entitled To the Hebrews, which many say is by the apostle Paul, though some deny it. For there first appeared the sacrifice which is now offered to God by Christians throughout the whole world, and that is fulfilled which long after this event is said by prophecy to Christ, who was still to come in the flesh: “You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek”; not, that is, according to the order of Aaron, which was to be removed when the things foreshadowed by those shadows came to light.

### Scripture references

- Gen 13:18: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 14:1–24: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 14:18–20: allusion, high confidence
- Heb 7:1–17: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 110:4 (109:4 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Gen 13:18; Gen 14:1–24 (Melchizedek brought bread and wine, 14:18); Heb 5–7. Quotation: Ps 110:4 (109:4 Vulgate). The sacrifice “now offered by Christians” is the Eucharist; translated as written. Augustine notes that the authorship of Hebrews was disputed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.22 (CSEL 40:163–164; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-22).

## City of God 16.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-23
- Source: CSEL 40:164–165
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God promised Abraham descendants like the stars; Abraham believed and was justified by faith before circumcision, as Paul argues.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. De uerbo Domini ad Abraham, quo ei promittitur secundum multitudinem stellarum multiplicanda posteritas; quod credens iustificatus est adhuc in praeputio constitutus. Etiam tunc factum est uerbum Domini ad Abraham in uisu. Qui cum ei protectionem mercedemque promitteret ualde multam, ille de posteritate sollicitus quendam Eliezer uernaculum suum futurum sibi dixit heredem, continuoque illi promissus est heres, non ille uernaculus, sed qui de ipso Abraham fuerat exiturus, rursusque semen innumerabile, non sicut harena terrae, sed sicut stellae caeli; ubi mihi magis uidetur promissa posteritas caelesti felicitate sublimis. Nam quantum ad multitudinem pertinet, quid sunt stellae caeli ad harenam terrae? nisi quis et istam conparationem in tantum esse similem dicat, in quantum etiam stellae dinumerari non ualent, quia nec omnes eas uideri posse credendum est. Nam quanto quisque acutius intuetur, tanto plures uidet. Unde et acerrime cernentibus aliquas occultas esse merito existimatur, exceptis eis sideribus, quae in alia parte orbis a nobis remotissima oriri et occidere perhibentur. Postremo quicumque uniuersum stellarum numerum conprehendisse et conscripsisse iactantur, sicut Aratus uel Eudoxus uel si qui alii sunt, eos libri huius contemnit auctoritas. Hic sane illa sententia ponitur, cuius apostolus meminit propter Dei gratiam commendandam: Credidit Abraham Deo, et deputatum est illi ad iustitiam; ne circumcisio gloriaretur gentesque incircumcisas ad fidem Christi nollet admitti. Hoc enim quando factum est, ut credenti Abrahae deputaretur fides ad iustitiam, nondum fuerat circumcisus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. On the word of the Lord to Abraham, in which it is promised that his posterity will be multiplied like the multitude of the stars; and that, believing this, he was justified while still uncircumcised.

At that time too the word of the Lord came to Abraham in a vision. When God promised him protection and a very great reward, Abraham, anxious about posterity, said that a certain Eliezer, a servant born in his house, would be his heir; and at once an heir was promised him, not that home-born servant, but one who was to come from Abraham himself; and again a seed beyond number, not like the sand of the earth but like the stars of heaven; where it seems to me rather that a posterity exalted in heavenly happiness was promised. For as far as number is concerned, what are the stars of heaven compared with the sand of the earth? Unless someone says that this comparison too is alike in so far as the stars also cannot be counted, since it is not to be believed that all of them can even be seen. For the more keenly anyone looks, the more he sees. Hence it is rightly thought that some are hidden even from those who see most keenly, besides those stars which are said to rise and set in another part of the world very far from us. Finally, all who boast of having comprehended and recorded the whole number of the stars, like Aratus or Eudoxus or any others, the authority of this book despises. Here indeed is set down that sentence which the apostle recalls in order to commend the grace of God: “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; so that the circumcision might not glory, and refuse to admit the uncircumcised nations to the faith of Christ. For when this happened, that faith was reckoned as righteousness to Abraham who believed, he had not yet been circumcised.

### Scripture references

- Gen 15:1–5: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 15:6: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 4:3: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 4:9–11: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Aratus, Phaen. (Aratus, Phaenomena): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Gen 15:1–5. Quotation: Gen 15:6 (Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6). Rom 4:9–11 (reckoned before circumcision). Aratus's Phaenomena and Eudoxus (whose astronomy Aratus versified; no entry in the site's list) catalogued the stars.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.23 (CSEL 40:164–165; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-23).

## City of God 16.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-24
- Source: CSEL 40:165–170
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine interprets Abraham's covenant sacrifice (Gen 15) as a figure of Israel, the undivided spiritual faithful, the end-time tribulation, and the fire of judgment.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIIII. De significatione sacrificii, quod Abraham offerre praeceptus est, cum poposcisset, ut de his quae crediderat doceretur. In eodem uisu cum loqueretur ei Deus, etiam hoc ait ad illum: Ego Deus, qui eduxi te de regione Chaldaeorum, ut dem tibi terram hanc, ut heres sis eius. Ubi cum interrogasset Abraham secundum quid sciret, quod heres eius erit, dixit illi Deus: Accipe mihi iuuencam trimam et capram trimam et arietem trimum et turturem et columbam. Accepit autem illi haec omnia et diuisit illa media et posuit ea contra faciem alterum alteri; aues autem non diuisit. Et descenderunt, sicut scriptum est, aues supra corpora quae diuisa erant, et consedit illis Abram. Circa solis autem occasum pauor inruit super Abram, et ecce timor tenebrosus magnus incidit ei; et dictum est ad Abram: Sciendo scies, quia peregrinum erit semen tuum in terra non propria, et in seruitutem redigent eos et adfligent eos quadringentis annis; gentem autem, cui seruierint, iudicabo ego. Post haec uero exibunt hoc cum supellectili multa. Tu autem ibis ad patres tuos cum pace nutritus in senecta bona. Quarta uero generatione conuertent se hoc. Nondum enim inpleta sunt peccata Amorrhaeorum usque adhuc. Cum autem iam sol erat ad occasum, flamma facta est, et ecce fornax fumabunda et lampades ignis, quae pertransierunt per media diuisa illa. In die illa disposuit Dominus Deus testamentum ad Abram, dicens: Semini tuo dabo terram hanc, a flumine Aegypti usque ad flumen magnum flumen Euphraten, Cenaeos et Cenezaeos et Cedmonaeos et Chettaeos et Pherezaeos et Raphaim et Amorrhaeos et Chananaeos et Euaeos et Gergesaeos et Iebusaeos. Haec omnia in uisu facta diuinitus adque dicta sunt, de quibus singulis enucleate disserere longum est et intentionem operis huius excedit. Quod ergo satis est nosse debemus. Postea quam dictum est credidisse Abraham Deo et deputatum illi ad iustitiam, non eum in fide defecisse, ut diceret: Dominator Domine, secundum quid sciam, quia heres eius ero? (terrae quippe illius promissa erat hereditas) — non enim ait: Unde sciam? quasi adhuc non crederet; sed ait: Secundum quid sciam? ut ei rei, quam crediderat, aliqua similitudo adhiberetur, qua eius modus agnosceretur; sicut non est uirginis Mariae diffidentia quod ait: Quo modo fiet istud, quoniam uirum non cognosco? quod enim futurum esset, certa erat; modum quo fieret inquirebat, et hoc cum quaesisset, audiuit —: denique et hic similitudo data est de animalibus, iuuenca et capra et ariete et duabus uolucribus, turture et columba, ut secundum haec futurum sciret, quod futurum esse iam non ambigeret. Siue ergo per iuuencam significata sit plebs posita sub iugo legis, per capram eadem plebs peccatrix futura, per arietem eadem plebs etiam regnatura (quae animalia propterea trima dicuntur, quia, cum sint insignes articuli temporum ab Adam usque ad Noe et inde usque ad Abraham et inde usque ad Dauid, qui reprobato Saule primus in regno gentis Israeliticae Domini est uoluntate fundatus, in hoc ordine tertio, qui tenditur ex Abraham usque ad Dauid, tamquam tertiam aetatem gerens ille populus adoleuit), siue aliquid aliud conuenientius ista significent: nullo modo tamen dubitauerim spiritales in ea praefiguratos additamento turturis et columbae. Et ideo dictum est: Aues autem non diuisit, quoniam carnales inter se diuiduntur, spiritales autem nullo modo, siue a negotiosis conuersationibus hominum se remoueant, sicut turtur, siue inter illas degant, sicut columba; utraque tamen auis est simplex et innoxia, significans et in ipso Israelitico populo, cui terra illa danda erat, futuros indiuiduos filios promissionis et heredes regni in aeterna felicitate mansuri. Aues autem descendentes supra corpora, quae diuisa erant, non boni aliquid, sed spiritus indicant aeris huius, pastum quendam suum de carnalium diuisione quaerentes. Quod autem illis consedit Abraham, significat etiam inter illas carnalium diuisiones ueros usque in finem perseueraturos fideles. Et circa solis occasum quod pauor inruit in Abraham et timor tenebrosus magnus significat circa huius saeculi finem magnam perturbationem ac tribulationem futuram fidelium, de qua Dominus dicit in euangelio: Erit enim tunc tribulatio magna, qualis non fuit ab initio. Quod uero dictum est ad Abraham: Sciendo scies, quia peregrinum erit semen tuum in terra non propria, et in seruitutem redigent eos et adfligent eos quadringentis annis, de populo Israel, qui fuerat in Aegypto seruiturus, apertissime prophetatum est; non quod in eadem seruitute sub Aegyptiis adfligentibus quadringentos annos ille populus fuerat peracturus, sed in ipsis quadringentis annis praenuntiatum est hoc futurum. Quem ad modum enim scriptum est de Thara patre Abrahae: Et fuerunt dies Tharae in Charra quinque et ducenti anni, non quia ibi omnes acti sunt, sed quia ibi conpleti sunt: ita et hic propterea interpositum est: Et in seruitutem redigent eos et adfligent eos quadringentis annis, quoniam iste numerus in eadem adflictione conpletus est, non quia ibi uniuersus peractus est. Quadringenti sane dicuntur anni propter numeri plenitudinem, quamuis aliquanto amplius sint, siue ex hoc tempore conputentur, quo ista promittebantur Abrahae, siue ex quo natus est Isaac, propter semen Abrahae, de quo ista praedicuntur. Conputantur enim, sicut superius iam diximus, ab anno septuagensimo et quinto Abrahae, quando ad eum facta est prima promissio, usque ad exitum Israel ex Aegypto quadringenti et triginta anni; quorum apostolus ita meminit: Hoc autem dico, inquit: testamentum confirmatum a Deo post quadringentos triginta annos facta lex non infirmat ad euacuandam promissionem. Iam ergo isti quadringenti et triginta anni quadringenti poterant nuncupari, quia non sunt multo amplius: quanto magis cum aliquot iam ex isto numero praeterissent, quando illa in uisu demonstrata et dicta sunt Abrahae, uel quando Isaac natus est centenario patri suo, a prima promissione post uiginti quinque annos, cum iam ex istis quadringentis triginta quadringenti et quinque remanerent, quos Deus quadringentos uoluit nominare. Et cetera, quae sequuntur in uerbis praenuntiantis Dei, nullus dubitauerit ad Israeliticum populum pertinere. Quod uero adiungitur: Cum autem iam sol erat ad occasum, flamma facta est, et ecce fornax fumabunda et lampades ignis, quae pertransierunt per media diuisa illa, significat iam in fine saeculi per ignem iudicandos esse carnales. Sicut enim adflictio ciuitatis Dei, qualis antea numquam fuit, quae sub Antichristo futura speratur, significatur tenebroso timore Abrahae circa solis occasum, id est propinquante iam fine saeculi: sic ad solis occasum, id est ad ipsum iam finem, significatur isto igne dies iudicii dirimens carnales per ignem saluandos et igne damnandos. Deinde testamentum factum ad Abraham terram Chanaan proprie manifestat et nominat in ea undecim gentes a flumine Aegypti usque ad flumen magnum Euphraten. Non ergo a flumine magno Aegypti, hoc est Nilo, sed a paruo, quod diuidit inter Aegyptum et Palaestinam, ubi est ciuitas Rhinocorura.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 24. On the meaning of the sacrifice which Abraham was commanded to offer when he had asked to be taught about the things he had believed.

In the same vision, when God was speaking to him, he also said this to him: “I am God, who brought you out of the region of the Chaldeans, to give you this land, that you may be its heir.” When Abraham then asked by what he should know that he would be its heir, God said to him: “Take for me a heifer three years old, and a she-goat three years old, and a ram three years old, and a turtledove and a pigeon.” And he took all these for him, and divided them in the middle, and laid them each opposite the other; but the birds he did not divide. And there came down, as it is written, birds upon the bodies that had been divided, and Abram sat down with them. And about sunset a dread fell upon Abram, and behold, a great dark fear fell upon him; and it was said to Abram: “Know for certain that your seed shall be a sojourner in a land not its own, and they will reduce them to slavery and afflict them four hundred years; but the nation which they will serve I will judge. And after this they shall come out hither with much goods. But you shall go to your fathers in peace, nourished in a good old age. And in the fourth generation they shall return hither; for the sins of the Amorites are not yet fulfilled until now.” And when the sun was now setting, there was a flame, and behold a smoking furnace and lamps of fire, which passed between those divided pieces. On that day the Lord God made a covenant with Abram, saying: “To your seed I will give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates: the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hivites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”

All these things were done and said divinely in a vision; to discuss each of them in detail would take long and go beyond the purpose of this work. We ought, then, to know what is sufficient. After it had been said that Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, he did not fail in faith when he said, “Lord and Master, by what shall I know that I shall be its heir?” (for the inheritance of that land had been promised). For he does not say, “How shall I know?”, as though he did not yet believe; but he says, “By what shall I know?”, so that some likeness might be applied to the thing he had believed, by which its manner might be recognized; just as it is not distrust on the part of the Virgin Mary when she says, “How shall this be, since I do not know a man?” For she was certain of what was to be; she was asking the manner in which it would come about, and when she had asked this she was told. So here too a likeness was given from animals, the heifer, the she-goat, the ram, and two birds, the turtledove and the pigeon, so that he might know according to these things that what he no longer doubted would come to pass. Whether, then, by the heifer is signified the people placed under the yoke of the law; by the she-goat the same people as one that would sin; by the ram the same people as one that would also reign (and these animals are said to be three years old because, since there are notable turning points of time from Adam to Noah, and from there to Abraham, and from there to David, who, when Saul was rejected, was the first established by the Lord's will in the kingship of the nation of Israel, in this third period, which stretches from Abraham to David, that people grew up as though in its third age); or whether these signify something else more fittingly: I would in no way doubt that the spiritual are prefigured in them by the addition of the turtledove and the pigeon. And that is why it is said, “But the birds he did not divide”, because the carnal are divided among themselves, but the spiritual in no way, whether they withdraw from the busy dealings of men like the turtledove, or live among them like the pigeon; yet both birds are simple and harmless, signifying that in the very people of Israel, to whom that land was to be given, there would be undivided sons of the promise and heirs of the kingdom who would remain in eternal happiness. The birds coming down upon the divided bodies indicate nothing good, but the spirits of this air, seeking a kind of food of their own from the division of the carnal. That Abraham sat down with them signifies that even among those divisions of the carnal the true faithful will persevere to the end. And that about sunset a dread and a great dark fear fell upon Abraham signifies that about the end of this age there will be great disturbance and tribulation of the faithful, of which the Lord says in the Gospel: “For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning.”

What was said to Abraham, “Know for certain that your seed shall be a sojourner in a land not its own, and they will reduce them to slavery and afflict them four hundred years”, was most plainly prophesied of the people of Israel, which was to be in servitude in Egypt; not that that people was to spend four hundred years in that servitude under afflicting Egyptians, but it was foretold that this would happen within those four hundred years. For just as it is written of Terah, Abraham's father, “And the days of Terah in Haran were two hundred and five years”, not because they were all spent there but because they were completed there, so here too it is inserted, “and they will reduce them to slavery and afflict them four hundred years”, because this number was completed in that affliction, not because the whole of it was spent there. Four hundred years are indeed spoken of because of the fullness of the number, though they are somewhat more, whether they are counted from the time when these things were promised to Abraham or from the birth of Isaac, because of the seed of Abraham of which these things are foretold. For, as we said above, four hundred and thirty years are counted from Abraham's seventy-fifth year, when the first promise was made to him, to the exodus of Israel from Egypt; which the apostle recalls thus: “This is what I say: the law, which came four hundred and thirty years afterwards, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.” These four hundred and thirty years, then, could already be called four hundred, since they are not much more; how much more when some of that number had already passed when these things were shown and said to Abraham in the vision, or when Isaac was born to his father at a hundred, twenty-five years after the first promise, when of those four hundred and thirty there remained four hundred and five, which God chose to call four hundred. And no one will doubt that the rest that follows in the words of God foretelling it belongs to the people of Israel.

What is added, “And when the sun was now setting, there was a flame, and behold a smoking furnace and lamps of fire, which passed between those divided pieces”, signifies that at the end of the world the carnal are to be judged by fire. For just as the affliction of the city of God, such as never was before, which is expected to come under Antichrist, is signified by Abraham's dark fear about sunset, that is, as the end of the world is now approaching, so at sunset, that is, at the very end, this fire signifies the day of judgment, dividing the carnal who are to be saved through fire from those to be condemned in fire. Then the covenant made with Abraham shows the land of Canaan specifically and names eleven nations in it, from the river of Egypt to the great river Euphrates; not, then, from the great river of Egypt, the Nile, but from the small one that divides Egypt from Palestine, where the city of Rhinocorura is.

### Scripture references

- Gen 15:7–21: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 1:34: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 24:21: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 11:32: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 3:17: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 21:5: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Sam 16:1–13: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Cor 3:13–15: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 15:7–21 (Old Latin form); Luke 1:34; Matt 24:21; Gal 3:17; Gen 11:32. Allusions: Gen 21:5; 1 Sam 16 (David); 1 Cor 3:13–15 (saved through fire). The “river of Egypt” is identified with the wadi at Rhinocorura (El-Arish). The interpretation of the animals is offered tentatively by Augustine.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.24 (CSEL 40:165–170; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-24).

## City of God 16.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-25
- Source: CSEL 40:170–171
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Abraham took Hagar only for offspring at Sarah's request, not from lust, and showed his fidelity to Sarah by returning Hagar to her authority.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXV. De Agar ancilla Sarrae, quam eadem Sarra Abrahae uoluit esse concubinam. Iam hinc tempora consequuntur filiorum Abrahae, unius de Agar ancilla, alterius de Sarra libera, de quibus in libro superiore iam diximus. Quod autem adtinet ad rem gestam, nullo modo est inurendum de hac concubina crimen Abrahae. Usus est ea quippe ad generandam prolem, non ad explendam libidinem, nec insultans, sed potius oboediens coniugi, quae suae sterilitatis credidit esse solacium, si fecundum ancillae uterum, quoniam natura non poterat, uoluntate faceret suum, et eo iure, quo dicit apostolus: Similiter et uir non habet potestatem corporis sui, sed mulier, uteretur mulier ad pariendum ex altera, quod non poterat ex se ipsa. Nulla est hic cupido lasciuiae, nulla nequitiae turpitudo. Ab uxore causa prolis ancilla marito traditur, a marito causa prolis accipitur; ab utroque non culpae luxus, sed naturae fructus exquiritur. Denique cum ancilla grauida dominae sterili superbiret et hoc Sarra suspicione muliebri uiro potius inputaret, etiam ibi demonstrauit Abraham non se amatorem seruum, sed liberum fuisse genitorem et in Agar Sarrae coniugii pudicitiam custodisse nec uoluptatem suam, sed uoluntatem illius inpleuisse; accepisse nec petisse, accessisse nec haesisse, seminasse nec amasse. Ait enim: Ecce ancilla tua in manibus tuis, utere ea quo modo tibi placuerit. O uirum uiriliter utentem feminis, coniuge temperanter, ancilla obtemperanter, nulla intemperanter!

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 25. On Hagar, Sarah's slave woman, whom Sarah herself wished to be Abraham's concubine.

From here follow the times of Abraham's sons, one by Hagar the slave woman, the other by Sarah the free woman, of whom we have already spoken in the preceding book. As regards what was done, no charge is by any means to be branded on Abraham in the matter of this concubine. For he used her to beget offspring, not to satisfy lust; not insulting his wife, but rather obeying her, who believed it would be a consolation for her barrenness if she made the fruitful womb of her slave woman her own by will, since she could not by nature; and by that right of which the apostle says, “Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does”, the wife would use another woman to bear what she could not bear herself. There is no wanton desire here, no base wickedness. The slave woman is handed over to the husband by the wife for the sake of offspring, and received by the husband for the sake of offspring; by both is sought not the indulgence of fault but the fruit of nature. Finally, when the pregnant slave woman grew proud toward her barren mistress, and Sarah, with a woman's suspicion, laid the blame rather on her husband, even there Abraham showed that he had been not a slavish lover but a free begetter, and that in Hagar he had guarded the chastity of his marriage to Sarah, and fulfilled not his own pleasure but her will; that he had received, not sought; approached, not clung; sown seed, not loved. For he says: “Behold, your slave woman is in your hands; use her as you please.” O man, using women like a man: his wife with temperance, his slave woman in compliance, neither with intemperance!

### Scripture references

- Gen 16:1–5: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 7:4: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 16:6: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Gen 16:1–5; the preceding book is 15.2–3. Quotations: 1 Cor 7:4; Gen 16:6. The judgment on Abraham's conduct and the practice of concubinage is Augustine's; translated as written. The digital text reads Sanae for Sarrae in the heading, corrected, and “placuerit.s o” for “placuerit. O”.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.25 (CSEL 40:170–171; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-25).

## City of God 16.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-26
- Source: CSEL 40:171–174
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: In Gen 17 God promises Isaac, renames Abraham and Sarah, and institutes circumcision, which signifies regeneration, and the eighth day Christ's resurrection.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVI. De testificatione Dei ad Abraham, qua eidem seni de sterili Sarra filium spondet patremque eum gentium statuit et promissi fidem sacramento circumcisionis obsignat. Post haec natus est Ismael ex Agar, in quo putare posset inpletum, quod ei promissum fuerat, cum sibi uernaculum suum adoptare uoluisset, Deo dicente: Non erit heres tuus hic; sed qui exiet de te, ille erit heres tuus. Hoc ergo promissum ne in ancillae filio putaret inpletum, iam cum esset annorum nonaginta et nouem, apparuit ei Dominus et dixit illi: Ego sum Deus, place in conspectu meo et esto sine querella, et ponam testamentum meum inter me et inter te et inplebo te ualde. Et procidit Abraham in faciem suam. Et locutus est illi Deus dicens: Et ego, ecce testamentum meum tecum, et eris pater multitudinis gentium; et non appellabitur adhuc nomen tuum Abram, sed erit nomen tuum Abraham, quia patrem multarum gentium posui te; et augeam te ualde ualde et ponam te in gentes, et reges ex te exibunt: et statuam testamentum meum inter me et [inter] te et inter semen tuum post te in generationes eorum in testamentum aeternum, ut sim tibi Deus et semini tuo post te. Et dabo tibi et semini tuo post te terram, in qua incola es, omnem terram Chanaan in possessionem aeternam, et ero illis Deus. Et dixit Deus ad Abraham: Tu autem testamentum meum conseruabis, tu et semen tuum post te in progenies suas. Et hoc est testamentum, quod conseruabis inter me et uos et inter semen tuum post te in generationes suas: Circumcidetur uestrum omne masculinum, et circumcidemini carnem praeputii uestri, et erit in signo testamenti inter me et uos. Et puer octo dierum circumcidetur, uestrum omne masculinum in progenies uestras. Vernaculus et emticius ab omni filio alieno, qui non est de semine tuo, circumcisione circumcidetur uernaculus domus tuae et emticius. Et erit testamentum meum in carne uestra in testamento aeterno. Et qui non fuerit circumcisus masculus, qui non circumcidetur carnem praeputii sui octauo die, interibit anima illa de genere eius, quia testamentum meum dissipauit. Et dixit Deus ad Abraham: Sara uxor tua, non appellabitur nomen eius Sara, sed Sarra erit nomen eius. Benedicam autem illam et dabo tibi ex ea filium, et benedicam illum, et erit in nationes, et reges gentium ex eo erunt. Et procidit Abraham super faciem suam et risit et dixit in animo suo dicens: Si mihi centum annos habenti nascetur [filius], et si Sarra annorum nonaginta pariet? Dixit autem Abraham ad Deum: Ismael hic uiuat in conspectu tuo. Dixit autem Deus ad Abraham: Ita, ecce Sarra uxor tua pariet tibi filium, et uocabis nomen eius Isaac; et statuam testamentum meum ad illum in testamentum aeternum, esse illi Deus et semini eius post illum. De Ismael autem ecce exaudiui te; ecce benedixi eum et ampliabo illum et multiplicabo eum ualde. Duodecim gentes generabit, et dabo illum in magnam gentem. Testamentum autem meum statuam ad Isaac, quem pariet tibi Sarra in tempore hoc ad annum sequentem. Hic apertiora promissa sunt de uocatione gentium in Isaac, id est in filio promissionis, quo significatur gratia, non natura, quia de sene et anu sterili promittitur filius. Quamuis enim et naturalem procreationis excursum Deus operetur: ubi tamen euidens opus Dei est uitiata et cessante natura, ibi euidentius intellegitur gratia. Et quia hoc non per generationem, sed per regenerationem futurum erat, ideo nunc imperata est circumcisio, quando de Sarra promissus est filius. Et quod omnes non solum filios, uerum etiam seruos uernaculos et emticios circumcidi iubet, ad omnes istam gratiam pertinere testatur. Quid enim aliud circumcisio significat quam naturam exuta uetustate renouatam? Et quid aliud quam Christum octauus dies, qui hebdomade conpleta, hoc est post sabbatum, resurrexit? Parentum mutantur et nomina: omnia resonant nouitatem, et in testamento uetere obumbratur nouum. Quid est enim quod dicitur testamentum uetus nisi noui occultatio? Et quid est aliud quod dicitur nouum nisi ueteris reuelatio? Risus Abrahae exultatio est gratulantis, non inrisio diffidentis. Verba quoque eius illa in animo suo: Si mihi centum annos habenti nascetur filius et si Sarra annorum nonaginta pariet, non sunt dubitantis, sed admirantis. Si quem uero monet quod dictum est: Et dabo tibi et semini tuo post te terram, in qua tu incola es, omnem terram Chanaan in possessionem aeternam, quo modo accipiatur inpletum siue adhuc expectetur inplendum, cum possessio quaecumque terrena aeterna cuilibet genti esse non possit: sciat aeternum a nostris interpretari, quod Graeci appellant αἰώνιον, quod a saeculo deriuatum est; αἰὼν quippe Graece saeculum nuncupatur. Sed non sunt ausi Latini hoc dicere saeculare, ne longe in aliud mitterent sensum. Saecularia quippe dicuntur multa, quae in hoc saeculo sic aguntur, ut breui etiam tempore transeant: αἰώνιον autem quod dicitur, aut non habet finem aut usque in huius saeculi tenditur finem.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 26. On God's testimony to Abraham, in which he promises the old man a son from barren Sarah, appoints him father of the nations, and seals the faith of the promise with the sacrament of circumcision.

After this Ishmael was born of Hagar, in whom Abraham might have thought fulfilled what had been promised him when he wanted to adopt his home-born servant, and God said: “This one shall not be your heir; but he who shall come out of you, he shall be your heir.” So that he might not think this promise fulfilled in the slave woman's son, when he was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to him and said: “I am God; be pleasing in my sight and be blameless, and I will set my covenant between me and you, and I will fill you exceedingly.” And Abraham fell on his face. And God spoke to him, saying: “And I, behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations; and your name shall no longer be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of many nations; and I will increase you exceedingly, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come out of you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your seed after you, in their generations, as an everlasting covenant, to be your God and the God of your seed after you. And I will give to you and to your seed after you the land in which you are a sojourner, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.” And God said to Abraham: “And you shall keep my covenant, you and your seed after you, in their generations. And this is the covenant which you shall keep between me and you and your seed after you, in their generations: every male among you shall be circumcised, and you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. And a boy of eight days shall be circumcised, every male among you, in your generations. The home-born and the one bought from any stranger, who is not of your seed, shall be circumcised with circumcision, the home-born of your house and the bought. And my covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant. And the male who is not circumcised, who will not be circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin on the eighth day, that soul shall perish from his race, because he has broken my covenant.” And God said to Abraham: “Sarai your wife, her name shall not be called Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. And I will bless her and give you a son by her, and I will bless him, and he shall become nations, and kings of peoples shall come from him.” And Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart: “Shall one be born to me who am a hundred years old, and shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear?” And Abraham said to God: “May this Ishmael live in your sight.” And God said to Abraham: “Yes; behold, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant, to be his God and the God of his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, behold, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will enlarge him and multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve nations, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year.”

Here clearer promises are given of the calling of the nations in Isaac, that is, in the son of the promise, by whom grace, not nature, is signified, since a son is promised from an old man and a barren old woman. For although God also works the natural course of procreation, yet where the work of God is evident with nature impaired and failing, there grace is more evidently understood. And because this was to come about not by generation but by regeneration, circumcision was commanded now, when a son was promised from Sarah. And his commanding that all, not only sons but also home-born and purchased slaves, be circumcised testifies that this grace belongs to all. For what else does circumcision signify but nature renewed by putting off the old? And what else does the eighth day signify but Christ, who rose again when the week was complete, that is, after the sabbath? Even the names of the parents are changed: everything sounds of newness, and in the old covenant the new is foreshadowed. For what is the thing called the Old Testament but the concealment of the New? And what else is the thing called the New but the revelation of the Old? Abraham's laughter is the exultation of one who rejoices, not the mockery of one who distrusts. His words too in his heart, “Shall one be born to me who am a hundred years old, and shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear?”, are not those of one who doubts but of one who marvels. And if anyone is troubled by the words, “And I will give to you and to your seed after you the land in which you are a sojourner, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession”, as to how it is to be taken as fulfilled or still awaited to be fulfilled, since no earthly possession of any kind can be eternal for any nation, let him know that our translators render as “everlasting” what the Greeks call αἰώνιον, which is derived from “age”; for in Greek the age is called αἰών. But the Latins did not dare to say “secular” for this, lest they send the sense far off into something else. For many things are called secular which are so done in this age that they pass away even in a short time; but what is called αἰώνιον either has no end or extends to the end of this age.

### Scripture references

- Gen 16:15: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 15:4: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 17:1–21: quotation, high confidence
- Col 2:11: allusion, medium confidence
- Rom 4:11: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 15:4; Gen 17:1–21 (Old Latin form). Allusions: Col 2:11 and Rom 4:11 (circumcision as sign); Gal 4:28. The editor deletes “between” (inter) in Gen 17:7 and “son” (filius) in Gen 17:17. Greek words garbled in the digital text (αἰώνιον, αἰών) are restored. The statement on the Old and New Testaments is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.26 (CSEL 40:171–174; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-17/#p-16-26).

## City of God 16.27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-27
- Source: CSEL 40:174–176
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: An uncircumcised infant 'perishes' not for his own fault but because all broke God's first covenant in Adam; circumcision signified the regeneration that frees from original sin.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVII. De masculo, qui si octauo die non fuerit circumcisus, perit anima eius, quia testamentum Dei dissipauit. Item potest mouere, quo modo intellegi oporteat quod hic dictum est: Masculus, qui non circumcidetur carnem praeputii sui octauo die, interibit anima illa de genere eius, quia testamentum meum dissipauit, cum haec nulla culpa sit paruuli, cuius dixit animam perituram, nec ipse dissipauerit testamentum Dei, sed maiores, qui eum circumcidere non curarunt; nisi quia etiam paruuli, non secundum suae uitae proprietatem, sed secundum communem generis humani originem omnes in illo uno testamentum Dei dissipauerunt, in quo omnes peccauerunt. Multa quippe appellantur testamenta Dei exceptis illis duobus magnis, uetere et nouo, quod licet cuique legendo cognoscere. Testamentum autem primum, quod factum est ad hominem primum, profecto illud est: Qua die ederitis, morte moriemini. Unde scriptum est in libro, qui ecclesiasticus appellatur: Omnis caro sicut uestis ueterescit. Testamentum enim a saeculo: Morte morieris. Cum enim lex euidentior postea data sit, et dicat apostolus: Ubi autem non est lex, nec praeuaricatio, quo pacto in psalmo quod legitur uerum est: Praeuaricatores aestimaui omnes peccatores terrae, nisi quia omnes legis alicuius praeuaricatae sunt rei, qui aliquo peccato tenentur obstricti? Quam ob rem, si etiam paruuli, quod uera fides habet, nascuntur non proprie, sed originaliter peccatores, unde illis gratiam remissionis peccatorum necessariam confitemur: profecto eo modo, quo sunt peccatores, etiam praeuaricatores legis illius, quae in paradiso data est, agnoscuntur; ut uerum sit utrumque, quod scriptum est, et: Praeuaricatores aestimaui omnes peccatores terrae, et: Ubi lex non est, nec praeuaricatio. Ac per hoc, quia circumcisio signum regenerationis fuit et non inmerito paruulum propter originale peccatum, quo primum Dei dissipatum est testamentum, generatio disperdet, nisi regeneratio liberet: sic intellegenda sunt haec uerba diuina, tamquam dictum sit: Qui non fuerit regeneratus, interibit anima illa de genere eius, quia testamentum Dei dissipauit, quando in Adam cum omnibus etiam ipse peccauit. Si enim dixisset: Quia hoc testamentum meum dissipauit, non nisi de ista circumcisione intellegi cogeret; nunc uero, quoniam non expressit cuius modi testamentum paruulus dissipauerit, liberum est intellegere de illo testamento dictum, cuius dissipatio pertinere posset ad paruulum. Si autem hoc quisquam non nisi de ista circumcisione dictum esse contendit, quod in ea testamentum Dei, quoniam non est circumcisus, dissipauerit paruulus: quaerat locutionis aliquem modum, quo non absurde possit intellegi, ideo dissipasse testamentum, quia licet non ab illo, tamen in illo est dissipatum. Verum sic quoque animaduertendum est nulla in se neglegentia sua iniuste interire incircumcisi animam paruuli nisi originalis obligatione peccati.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 27. On the male whose soul perishes if he is not circumcised on the eighth day, because he has broken God's covenant.

It may also be asked how we should understand what is said here: “The male who will not be circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin on the eighth day, that soul shall perish from his race, because he has broken my covenant”, since this is no fault of the little child, whose soul he said would perish, nor did the child himself break God's covenant, but his elders, who did not take care to circumcise him; unless it is because even little children, not according to anything proper to their own life but according to the common origin of the human race, have all broken God's covenant in that one man in whom all sinned. For many covenants of God are so called besides those two great ones, the Old and the New, as anyone may learn by reading. But the first covenant, made with the first man, is certainly this: “On the day you eat, you shall surely die.” Hence it is written in the book called Ecclesiasticus: “All flesh grows old like a garment. For the covenant from the beginning is: You shall surely die.” For since a clearer law was given afterwards, and the apostle says, “Where there is no law, there is no transgression”, how is what we read in the psalm true, “I have counted all the sinners of the earth as transgressors”, unless because all who are held bound by any sin are guilty of transgressing some law? Therefore, if even little children, as the true faith holds, are born sinners, not by their own act but by origin, which is why we confess that the grace of the remission of sins is necessary for them, then certainly, in the way in which they are sinners, they are also recognized as transgressors of that law which was given in paradise; so that both sayings of Scripture are true: “I have counted all the sinners of the earth as transgressors”, and “Where there is no law, there is no transgression.” And so, since circumcision was the sign of regeneration, and generation will not undeservedly destroy the little child because of original sin, by which God's first covenant was broken, unless regeneration sets him free, these divine words are to be understood as if it had been said: “Whoever has not been regenerated, that soul shall perish from his race, because he broke God's covenant when he too sinned in Adam along with all.” For if he had said, “Because he has broken this covenant of mine”, it would compel us to understand it only of this circumcision; but as it is, since he did not specify what kind of covenant the little child broke, we are free to understand it as said of that covenant whose breaking could pertain to the little child. But if anyone contends that this was said only of this circumcision, that in it the little child broke God's covenant because he was not circumcised, let him look for some manner of speaking by which it can without absurdity be understood that he broke the covenant because, though it was not broken by him, it was broken in him. But in that case too it must be noted that the soul of the uncircumcised little child perishes without injustice, through no neglect of his own, only by the bond of original sin.

### Scripture references

- Gen 17:14: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 5:12: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:17: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 4:15: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 119:119 (118:119 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sir 14:17 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 17:14; Gen 2:17; Sir 14:17; Rom 4:15; Ps 119:119 (118:119 Vulgate, in the Greek-based form “I have counted … as transgressors”). Allusion: Rom 5:12 (“in whom all sinned,” the Latin reading). The doctrine of original sin in infants is translated as written. A stray “(” is removed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.27 (CSEL 40:174–176; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-27).

## City of God 16.28

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-28
- Source: CSEL 40:176–178
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Abraham and Sarah received new names and, beyond nature, the power to have a son; Abraham's later children by Keturah are explained by the long lives of that time.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIII. De commutatione nominum Abrahae et Sarrae, qui cum ob unius sterilitatem, ob utriusque autem senectutem generare non possent, munus fecunditatis indepti sunt. Facta igitur promissione tam magna tamque dilucida ad Abraham, cui euidentissime dictum est: Patrem multarum gentium posui te; et augeam te ualde ualde et ponam te in gentes, et reges ex te exibunt. Et dabo tibi ex Sarra filium, et benedicam illum, et erit in nationes, et reges gentium ex eo erunt (quam promissionem nunc in Christo cernimus reddi), ex illo deinceps illi coniuges non uocantur in scripturis, sicut antea uocabantur, Abram et Sara, sed sicut eos nos ab initio uocauimus, quoniam sic iam uocantur ab omnibus, Abraham et Sarra. Quur autem mutatum sit nomen Abrahae, reddita est ratio: Quia patrem, inquit, multarum gentium posui te. Hoc ergo significare intellegendum est [Abraham]; Abram uero, quod ante uocabatur, interpretatur pater excelsus. De nomine autem mutato Sarrae non est reddita ratio; sed, sicut aiunt, qui scripserunt interpretationes nominum Hebraeorum, quae his sacris litteris continentur, Sara interpretatur princeps mea, Sarra autem uirtus. Unde scriptum est in epistula ad Hebraeos: Fide et ipsa Sarra uirtutem accepit ad emissionem seminis. Ambo enim seniores erant, sicut scriptura testatur; sed illa etiam sterilis et cruore menstruo iam destituta, propter quod iam parere non posset, etiam si sterilis non fuisset. Porro si femina ita sit prouectioris aetatis, ut ei solita mulierum adhuc fluant, de iuuene parere potest, de seniore non potest; quamuis adhuc possit ille senior, sed de adulescentula gignere, sicut Abraham post mortem Sarrae de Cettura potuit, quia uiuidam eius inuenit aetatem. Hoc ergo est, quod mirum commendat apostolus, et ad hoc dicit Abrahae iam fuisse corpus emortuum, quoniam non ex omni femina, cui adhuc esset aliquod pariendi tempus extremum, generare ipse in illa aetate adhuc posset. Ad aliquid enim emortuum corpus intellegere debemus, non ad omnia. Nam si ad omnia, non iam senectus uiui, sed cadauer est mortui. Quamuis etiam sic solui soleat ista quaestio, quod de Cettura postea genuit Abraham, quia donum gignendi, quod a Domino accepit, etiam post obitum mansit uxoris. Sed propterea mihi uidetur illa, quam secuti sumus, huius quaestionis solutio praeferenda, quia centenarius quidem senex, sed temporis nostri, de nulla potest femina gignere; non tunc, quando adhuc tamdiu uiuebant, ut centum anni nondum facerent hominem decrepitae senectutis.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 28. On the change of the names of Abraham and Sarah, who, though they could not beget, because of the barrenness of one and the old age of both, obtained the gift of fruitfulness.

When, then, so great and so clear a promise had been made to Abraham, to whom it was said most plainly, “I have made you the father of many nations; and I will increase you exceedingly, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come out of you. And I will give you a son by Sarah, and I will bless him, and he shall become nations, and kings of peoples shall come from him” (a promise we now see paid in Christ), from then on that couple are not called in the Scriptures, as they were called before, Abram and Sarai, but as we have called them from the beginning, since they are now so called by everyone, Abraham and Sarah. The reason why Abraham's name was changed is given: “Because,” it says, “I have made you the father of many nations.” This, then, is to be understood as its meaning; while Abram, as he was called before, means “exalted father.” No reason is given for the change of Sarah's name; but, as those say who have written interpretations of the Hebrew names contained in these sacred writings, Sarai means “my princess,” and Sarah “strength.” Hence it is written in the letter to the Hebrews: “By faith Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed.” For both were old, as Scripture testifies; but she was also barren and had now ceased to have her monthly flow, for which reason she could no longer bear even if she had not been barren. Moreover, if a woman is of such advanced age that the usual course of women still flows for her, she can bear by a young man but not by an old one; though that old man can still beget, but by a young woman, as Abraham could after Sarah's death by Keturah, because he found her age still vigorous. This, then, is the wonder the apostle commends, and it is to this that he refers when he says that Abraham's body was already as good as dead: because at that age he could no longer beget from every woman who still had some last time of bearing. For we must understand the body as dead in some respect, not in every respect. For if in every respect, it is no longer the old age of a living man but the corpse of a dead one. This question is also commonly solved by saying that Abraham begot afterwards by Keturah because the gift of begetting which he received from the Lord remained even after his wife's death. But the solution we have followed seems to me preferable, because an old man of a hundred, in our time indeed, can beget by no woman; not so then, when they still lived so long that a hundred years did not yet make a man decrepit with age.

### Scripture references

- Gen 17:5–6: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 17:16: quotation, high confidence
- Heb 11:11: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 18:11: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 25:1–2: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 4:19: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 17:5–6, 16; Heb 11:11 (in the Latin form “received strength to conceive seed”). Allusions: Gen 18:11; Gen 25:1–2; Rom 4:19. Etymologies follow Jerome's Hebrew Names. The editor deletes a repeated “Abraham” after “significare intellegendum est”. The digital text twice reads Sanae for Sarrae, corrected.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.28 (CSEL 40:176–178; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-28).

## City of God 16.29

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-29
- Source: CSEL 40:178–180
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The three visitors at Mamre were angels in whom Abraham recognized the Lord, as Lot did in the two at Sodom; they renewed the twofold promise.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIIII. De tribus uiris uel angelis, in quibus ad quercum Mambre apparuisse Abrahae Dominus indicatur. Item Deus apparuit Abrahae ad quercum Mambre in tribus uiris, quos dubitandum non est angelos fuisse; quamuis quidam existiment unum in eis fuisse Dominum Christum, adserentes eum etiam ante indumentum carnis fuisse uisibilem. Est quidem diuinae potestatis et inuisibilis, incorporalis inmutabilisque naturae, sine ulla sui mutatione etiam mortalibus adspectibus apparere, non per id quod est, sed per aliquid quod sibi subditum est; quid autem illi subditum non est? Verum tamen si propterea confirmant horum trium aliquem fuisse Christum, quia, cum tres uidisset, ad Dominum singulariter est locutus (sic enim scriptum est: Et ecce tres uiri stabant super eum, et uidens procucurrit in obuiam illis ab ostio tabernaculi sui, et adorauit super terram et dixit: Domine, si inueni gratiam ante te, et cetera): quur non et illud aduertunt, duos ex eis uenisse, ut Sodomitae delerentur, cum adhuc Abraham ad unum loqueretur, Dominum appellans et intercedens, ne simul iustum cum inpio in Sodomis perderet? Illos autem duos sic suscepit Loth, ut etiam ipse in conloquio cum illis suo singulariter Dominum appellet. Nam cum eis pluraliter dixisset: Ecce, domini, declinate in domum pueri uestri, et cetera quae ibi dicuntur, postea tamen ita legitur: Et tenuerunt angeli manum eius et manum uxoris eius et manus duarum filiarum eius, in eo quod parceret Dominus ipsi. Et factum est, mox ut eduxerunt illum foras, et dixerunt: Saluam fac animam tuam, ne respexeris retro, nec steteris in tota regione; in monte saluum te fac, ne quando conprehendaris. Dixit autem Loth ad illos: Oro, Domine, quia inuenit puer tuus misericordiam ante te, et quae sequuntur. Deinde post haec uerba singulariter illi respondet et Dominus, cum in duobus angelis esset, dicens: Ecce miratus sum faciem tuam, et cetera. Unde multo est credibilius, quod et Abraham in tribus et Loth in duobus uiris Dominum agnoscebant, cui per singularem numerum loquebantur, etiam cum eos homines esse arbitrarentur; neque enim aliam ob causam sic eos susceperunt, ut tamquam mortalibus et humana refectione indigentibus ministrarent; sed erat profecto aliquid, quo ita excellebant, licet tamquam homines, ut in eis esse Dominum, sicut esse adsolet in prophetis, hi, qui hospitalitatem illis exhibebant, dubitare non possent; adque ideo et ipsos aliquando pluraliter et in eis Dominum aliquando singulariter appellabant. Angelos autem fuisse scriptura testatur, non solum in hoc genesis libro, ubi haec gesta narrantur, uerum etiam in epistula ad Hebraeos, ubi, cum hospitalitas laudaretur: Per hanc, inquit, etiam quidam nescientes hospitio receperunt angelos. Per illos igitur tres uiros, cum rursus filius Isaac de Sarra promitteretur Abrahae, diuinum datum est etiam tale responsum, ut diceretur: Abraham erit in magnam gentem et multam, et benedicentur in eo omnes gentes terrae. Et hic duo illa breuissime plenissimeque promissa sunt, gens Israel secundum carnem et omnes gentes secundum fidem.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 29. On the three men, or angels, in whom the Lord is shown to have appeared to Abraham at the oak of Mamre.

God appeared again to Abraham at the oak of Mamre in three men, who there is no doubt were angels; though some think that one of them was the Lord Christ, asserting that he was visible even before he put on flesh. It belongs, indeed, to the divine power and to an invisible, incorporeal, and unchangeable nature to appear even to mortal sight without any change of itself, not through what it is but through something subject to it; and what is not subject to it? But if they maintain that one of these three was Christ because, when Abraham had seen three, he spoke to the Lord in the singular (for it is written thus: “And behold, three men stood over him; and seeing them he ran to meet them from the door of his tent, and bowed down to the ground and said: Lord, if I have found favor before you”, and so on), why do they not notice this too, that two of them came to destroy the Sodomites while Abraham was still speaking to one, calling him Lord and interceding that he should not destroy the righteous together with the ungodly in Sodom? And Lot received those two in such a way that he too, in his conversation with them, calls the Lord in the singular. For after he had said to them in the plural, “Behold, my lords, turn aside into your servant's house”, and the rest that is said there, afterwards we read: “And the angels took hold of his hand and his wife's hand and the hands of his two daughters, in that the Lord spared him. And it came to pass, as soon as they had brought him outside, that they said: Save your life; do not look back, nor stop anywhere in the whole region; save yourself in the mountain, lest you be overtaken. And Lot said to them: I pray, Lord, since your servant has found mercy before you”, and what follows. Then, after these words, the Lord too answers him in the singular, though he was in the two angels, saying: “Behold, I have respected your face”, and so on. Hence it is much more credible that both Abraham in the three men and Lot in the two recognized the Lord, to whom they spoke in the singular number, even while they thought they were men; for it was for no other reason that they received them in such a way as to serve them as mortals needing human refreshment. But there was certainly something in which they so excelled, though as men, that those who showed them hospitality could not doubt that the Lord was in them, as he is accustomed to be in the prophets; and so they addressed them sometimes in the plural and sometimes the Lord in them in the singular. But Scripture testifies that they were angels, not only in this book of Genesis, where these events are narrated, but also in the letter to the Hebrews, where, praising hospitality, it says: “Through this some have received angels as guests without knowing it.” Through those three men, then, when a son Isaac was again promised to Abraham from Sarah, such a divine answer was also given that it was said: “Abraham shall become a great and numerous nation, and in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.” And here those two things were promised most briefly and most fully: the nation of Israel according to the flesh, and all nations according to faith.

### Scripture references

- Gen 18:1–3: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 18:22–33: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 19:2: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 19:16–19: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 19:21: quotation, high confidence
- Heb 13:2: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 18:10: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 18:18: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 18:2–3; Gen 19:2; Gen 19:16–19, 21 (Old Latin form); Heb 13:2; Gen 18:18. Allusion: Gen 18:22–33. Augustine rejects the view that one of the three was Christ in a visible form before the incarnation.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.29 (CSEL 40:178–180; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-29).

## City of God 16.30

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-30
- Source: CSEL 40:180–181
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Sodom's destruction by fire prefigures the final judgment, and Lot's wife warns against looking back; at Gerar God again protected Sarah.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXX. De Loth a Sodomis liberato adque eisdem caelesti igne consumtis et de Abimelech, cuius concupiscentia castitati Sarrae nocere non potuit. Post hanc promissionem liberato de Sodomis Loth et ueniente igneo imbre de caelo tota illa regio inpiae ciuitatis in cinerem uersa est, ubi stupra in masculos in tantam consuetudinem conualuerant, quantam leges solent aliorum factorum praebere licentiam. Verum et hoc eorum supplicium specimen futuri iudicii diuini fuit. Nam quo pertinet quod prohibiti sunt qui liberabantur ab angelis retro respicere, nisi quia non est animo redeundum ad ueterem uitam, qua per gratiam regeneratus exuitur, si ultimum euadere iudicium cogitamus? Denique uxor Loth, ubi respexit, remansit et in salem conuersa hominibus fidelibus quoddam praestitit condimentum, quo sapiant aliquid, unde illud caueatur exemplum. Inde rursus Abraham fecit in Geraris aput regem ciuitatis illius Abimelech, quod in Aegypto de coniuge fecerat, eique intacta similiter reddita est. Ubi sane Abraham obiurganti regi, quur tacuisset uxorem sororemque dixisset, aperiens quid timuerit etiam hoc addidit: Etenim uere soror mea est de patre, sed non de matre, quia de patre suo soror erat Abrahae, de quo propinqua eius erat. Tantae autem pulchritudinis fuit, ut etiam in illa aetate posset adamari.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 30. On Lot's deliverance from Sodom and its destruction by fire from heaven; and on Abimelech, whose desire could not harm Sarah's chastity.

After this promise, when Lot had been delivered from Sodom and a rain of fire had come from heaven, that whole region of the ungodly city was turned to ashes, where sexual immorality with males had grown into such a custom as laws usually grant license to other acts. But this punishment of theirs too was a specimen of the divine judgment to come. For what is the point of forbidding those whom the angels were delivering to look back, unless that we must not return in mind to the old life, which one who is regenerated through grace puts off, if we intend to escape the final judgment? Lot's wife, indeed, when she looked back, stayed where she was, and, turned into salt, provided a kind of seasoning for faithful people, by which they might have the savor to beware of that example. Then Abraham did again at Gerar, with Abimelech the king of that city, what he had done in Egypt about his wife, and she was likewise given back to him untouched. There, indeed, when the king reproached him for keeping silent that she was his wife and saying she was his sister, Abraham, disclosing what he had feared, added this too: “And indeed she is truly my sister, on my father's side, but not on my mother's”; for she was Abraham's sister on her father's side, being his kinswoman. And she was of such beauty that even at that age she could be desired.

### Scripture references

- Gen 19:24–26: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 19:17: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 17:32: echo, medium confidence
- Gen 20:1–18: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 20:12: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Gen 19:24–26 (compare Luke 17:32); Gen 20:1–18. Quotation: Gen 20:12. The Latin stupra in masculos is rendered “sexual immorality with males”, following the project's rendering of stuprum. The digital text reads indicium for iudicium (“judgment”), corrected.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.30 (CSEL 40:180–181; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-30).

## City of God 16.31

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-31
- Source: CSEL 40:181
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Isaac, named 'laughter' from his parents' joyful laughter, was born; Hagar's expulsion signifies the two covenants.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXI. De Isaac secundum promissionem nato, cui nomen ex risu utriusque parentis est inditum. Post haec natus est Abrahae secundum promissionem Dei de Sarra filius, eumque nominauit Isaac, quod interpretatur risus. Riserat enim et pater, quando ei promissus est, admirans in gaudio; riserat et mater, quando per illos tres uiros iterum promissus est, dubitans in gaudio; quamuis exprobrante angelo, quod risus ille, etiamsi gaudii fuit, tamen plenae fidei non fuit, post ab eodem angelo in fide etiam confirmata est. Ex hoc ergo puer nomen accepit. Nam quod risus ille non ad inridendum obprobrium, sed ad celebrandum gaudium pertinebat, nato Isaac et eo nomine uocato Sarra monstrauit; ait quippe: Risum mihi fecit Dominus; quicumque enim audierit, congaudebit mihi. Sed post aliquantulum tempus ancilla de domo eicitur cum filio suo, et duo illa secundum apostolum testamenta significantur, uetus et nouum, ubi Sarra illa supernae Hierusalem, hoc est ciuitatis Dei, figuram gerit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 31. On Isaac, born according to the promise, who was given his name from the laughter of both parents.

After this a son was born to Abraham from Sarah according to God's promise, and he named him Isaac, which means “laughter.” For his father had laughed when he was promised to him, marveling in joy; and his mother had laughed when he was promised again through those three men, doubting in joy; though when the angel reproached her that that laughter, even if it was of joy, was not of full faith, she was afterwards confirmed in faith by the same angel. From this, then, the boy received his name. For that the laughter was not a matter of scornful mockery but of celebrating joy, Sarah showed when Isaac was born and called by that name; for she said: “The Lord has made laughter for me; for whoever hears will rejoice with me.” But after a little while the slave woman is cast out of the house with her son; and, according to the apostle, the two covenants, the old and the new, are signified, in which that Sarah bears the figure of the Jerusalem above, that is, of the city of God.

### Scripture references

- Gen 21:1–3: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 17:17: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 18:12–15: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 21:6: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 21:9–10: allusion, high confidence
- Gal 4:22–26: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Gen 21:1–3, 9–10; Gen 17:17; Gen 18:12–15; Gal 4:22–26. Quotation: Gen 21:6. The digital text reads nonum for nouum (“new”), corrected.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.31 (CSEL 40:181; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-31).

## City of God 16.32

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-32
- Source: CSEL 40:181–185
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, trusting in resurrection, prefigures God's giving of his Son; the ram caught in thorns figures Christ, and God confirms the promise by oath.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXII. De oboedientia et fide Abrahae, qua per oblationem immolandi probatus est filii, et de morte Sarrae. Inter haec, quae omnia commemorare nimis longum est, tentatur Abraham de immolando dilectissimo filio ipso Isaac, ut pia eius oboedientia probaretur, saeculis in notitiam proferenda, non Deo. Neque enim omnis est culpanda tentatio, quia et gratulanda est, qua fit probatio. Et plerumque aliter animus humanus sibi ipsi innotescere non potest, nisi uires suas sibi non uerbo, sed experimento tentatione quodam modo interrogante respondeat; ubi si Dei munus agnouerit, tunc pius est, tunc solidatur firmitate gratiae, non inflatur inanitate iactantiae. Numquam sane crederet Abraham, quod uictimis Deus delectaretur humanis; quamuis diuino intonante praecepto oboediendum sit, non disputandum; uerum tamen Abraham confestim filium, cum fuisset immolatus, resurrecturum credidisse laudandus est. Dixerat namque illi Deus, cum de ancilla et filio eius foras eiciendis uoluntatem coniugis nollet inplere: In Isaac uocabitur tibi semen. Et certe ibi sequitur ac dicitur: Et filium autem ancillae huius in magnam gentem faciam illum, quia semen tuum est. Quo modo ergo dictum est: In Isaac uocabitur tibi semen, cum et Ismaelem Deus semen eius uocauerit? Exponens autem apostolus quid sit: In Isaac uocabitur tibi semen: Id est, inquit, non qui filii carnis, hi filii Dei, sed filii promissionis deputantur in semine. Ac per hoc filii promissionis, ut sint semen Abrahae, in Isaac uocantur, hoc est in Christo uocante gratia congregantur. Hanc ergo promissionem pater pius fideliter tenens, quia per hunc oportebat inpleri, quem Deus iubebat occidi, non haesitauit, quod sibi reddi poterat immolatus, qui dari potuit non speratus. Sic intellectum est et in epistula ad Hebraeos, et sic expositum. Fide, inquit, praecessit Abraham Isaac tentatus et unicum obtulit, qui promissiones suscepit, ad quem dictum est: In Isaac uocabitur tibi semen, cogitans quia et ex mortuis suscitare potest Deus. Proinde addidit: Pro hoc etiam eum et in similitudinem adduxit; cuius similitudinem, nisi illius unde dicit apostolus: Qui proprio filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum? Propterea et Isaac, sicut Dominus crucem suam, ita sibi ligna ad uictimae locum, quibus fuerat inponendus, ipse portauit. Postremo quia Isaac occidi non oportebat, postea quam est pater ferire prohibitus, quis erat ille aries, quo immolato inpletum est significatiuo sanguine sacrificium? Nempe quando eum uidit Abraham, cornibus in frutice tenebatur. Quis ergo illo figurabatur, nisi Iesus, antequam immolaretur, spinis Iudaicis coronatus? Sed diuina per angelum uerba potius audiamus. Ait quippe scriptura: Et extendit Abraham manum suam sumere machaeram, ut occideret filium suum. Et uocauit illum angelus Domini de caelo et dixit: Abraham! Ille autem dixit: Ecce ego. Et dixit: Non inicias manum tuam super puerum, neque facias illi quicquam; nunc enim sciui quia times Deum tuum, et non pepercisti filio tuo dilecto propter me. Nunc sciui dictum est nunc sciri feci; neque enim hoc nondum sciebat Deus. Deinde ariete illo immolato pro Isaac filio suo uocauit, ut legitur, Abraham nomen loci illius: Dominus uidit; ut dicant hodie: In monte Dominus apparuit. Sicut dictum est: Nunc sciui, pro eo quod est nunc sciri feci: ita hic Dominus uidit, pro eo quod est Dominus apparuit, hoc est uideri se fecit. Et uocauit angelus Domini Abraham secundo de caelo dicens: Per me ipsum iuraui, dicit Dominus, propter quod fecisti uerbum hoc et non pepercisti filio tuo dilecto propter me, nisi benedicens benedicam te, et multiplicans multiplicabo semen tuum tamquam stellas caeli et tamquam harenam, quae iuxta labium maris. Et hereditate possidebit semen tuum ciuitates aduersariorum, et benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae, quia obaudisti uocem meam. Hoc modo est illa de uocatione gentium in semine Abrahae post holocaustum, quo significatus est Christus, etiam iuratione Dei firmata promissio. Saepe enim promiserat, sed numquam iurauerat. Quid est autem Dei ueri ueracisque iuratio nisi promissi confirmatio et infidelium quaedam increpatio? Post haec Sarra mortua est, centensimo uicensimo septimo anno uitae suae, centensimo autem et tricensimo septimo uiri sui. Decem quippe annis eam praecedebat aetate; sicut ipse, quando sibi ex illa promissus est filius, ait: Si mihi annorum centum nascetur [filius], et si Sarra annorum nonaginta pariet. Tunc emit agrum Abraham, in quo sepeliuit uxorem. Tunc ergo secundum narrationem Stephani in terra illa est conlocatus, quoniam coepit ibi esse possessor; post mortem scilicet patris sui, qui colligitur ante biennium fuisse defunctus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 32. On the obedience and faith of Abraham, by which he was tested in the offering of his son to be sacrificed; and on the death of Sarah.

Among these events, which it would take too long to record in full, Abraham is tested about sacrificing his most beloved son Isaac himself, so that his godly obedience might be proved, to be brought to the knowledge of the ages, not of God. For not every testing is to be blamed, since the testing by which proof is made is even to be welcomed. And for the most part the human mind cannot come to know itself otherwise than by answering to itself about its own strength, not by word but by experience, when testing, as it were, questions it; and there, if it acknowledges God's gift, then it is godly, then it is strengthened with the firmness of grace, not puffed up with the emptiness of boasting. Abraham would certainly never have believed that God delights in human victims; though when the divine command thunders, it must be obeyed, not disputed. But Abraham is to be praised for having believed that his son, once sacrificed, would immediately rise again. For God had said to him, when he was unwilling to carry out his wife's wish that the slave woman and her son be cast out: “In Isaac shall your seed be called.” And certainly there follows there: “And the son of this slave woman too I will make into a great nation, because he is your seed.” How, then, was it said, “In Isaac shall your seed be called”, when God called Ishmael too his seed? The apostle, explaining what “In Isaac shall your seed be called” means, says: “That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as seed.” And so the children of the promise, to be the seed of Abraham, are called in Isaac, that is, are gathered in Christ by grace calling them. The godly father, then, holding faithfully to this promise, since it had to be fulfilled through this son whom God was commanding to be killed, did not doubt that he who could be given when not hoped for could be given back to him when sacrificed. So it was understood and so expounded in the letter to the Hebrews too: “By faith Abraham, when tested, went ahead with Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only son, to whom it had been said, In Isaac shall your seed be called, reasoning that God is able to raise even from the dead.” Hence it added: “For this reason he also brought him back as a likeness.” A likeness of whom, but of him of whom the apostle says: “Who did not spare his own Son, but handed him over for us all”? For this reason Isaac too, as the Lord carried his cross, himself carried to the place of sacrifice the wood on which he was to be placed. Finally, since Isaac was not to be killed, after his father was forbidden to strike, who was that ram by whose sacrifice the offering was completed with significant blood? Indeed, when Abraham saw it, it was caught by its horns in a thicket. Who, then, was figured by it but Jesus, crowned with Jewish thorns before he was sacrificed?

But let us rather hear the divine words through the angel. For Scripture says: “And Abraham stretched out his hand to take the knife to kill his son. And the angel of the Lord called him from heaven and said: Abraham! And he said: Here I am. And he said: Do not lay your hand on the boy, nor do anything to him; for now I know that you fear your God, and you have not spared your beloved son for my sake.” “Now I know” was said for “now I have made it known”; for God was not ignorant of this until then. Then, when that ram had been sacrificed in place of his son Isaac, Abraham called the name of that place, as we read, “The Lord saw”; so that they say today: “On the mountain the Lord appeared.” Just as “Now I know” was said for “now I have made it known”, so here “The Lord saw” for “The Lord appeared,” that is, made himself seen. “And the angel of the Lord called Abraham a second time from heaven, saying: By myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this thing and have not spared your beloved son for my sake, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your seed like the stars of heaven and like the sand which is by the shore of the sea. And your seed shall possess by inheritance the cities of its adversaries, and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you obeyed my voice.” In this way that promise of the calling of the nations in the seed of Abraham was confirmed even by God's oath, after the burnt offering by which Christ was signified. For he had often promised, but never sworn. And what is the oath of the true and truthful God but the confirmation of the promise and a kind of rebuke to the unbelieving?

After this Sarah died, in the hundred and twenty-seventh year of her life and the hundred and thirty-seventh of her husband's. For he was ten years older than she; as he himself said when a son was promised him from her: “Shall one be born to me who am a hundred years old, and shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear?” Then Abraham bought a field in which he buried his wife. Then, therefore, according to Stephen's account, he was settled in that land, since he began to be an owner there; after the death, that is, of his father, who is gathered to have died two years before.

### Scripture references

- Gen 22:1–9: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 21:12–13: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 9:7–8: quotation, high confidence
- Heb 11:17–19: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:32: quotation, high confidence
- John 19:17: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 22:13: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 27:29: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 22:10–18: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 23:1: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 17:17: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 23:3–20: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 7:4: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 21:12–13; Rom 9:7–8; Heb 11:17–19 (Old Latin form “as a likeness”); Rom 8:32; Gen 22:10–12, 14, 15–18; Gen 17:17. Allusions: Gen 22:1–9, 13; John 19:17; Matt 27:29; Gen 23:1–20; Acts 7:4. The editor deletes “son” (filius) in the quotation of Gen 17:17. The phrase “Jewish thorns” is translated as written. Terah's death two years before follows Augustine's reckoning (Terah 70 + 135 = 205).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.32 (CSEL 40:181–185; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-32).

## City of God 16.33

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-33
- Source: CSEL 40:185
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Abraham's oath 'under the thigh' when seeking Rebecca for Isaac foreshadowed the Lord's coming in flesh descended from Abraham.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXIII. De Rebecca nepte Nachor, quam Isaac accepit uxorem. Deinde Rebeccam neptem Nachor patrui sui, cum annorum quadraginta esset Isaac, duxit uxorem, centensimo scilicet et quadragensimo anno uitae patris sui, triennio post mortem matris suae. Ut autem illam duceret, quando ab eius patre in Mesopotamiam seruus missus est, quid aliud demonstratum est, cum eidem seruo dixit Abraham: Pone manum tuam sub femore meo, et adiurabo te per Dominum Deum caeli et Dominum terrae, ut non sumas uxorem filio meo Isaac a filiabus Chananaeorum, nisi Dominum Deum caeli et Dominum terrae in carne, quae ex illo femore trahebatur, fuisse uenturum? Numquid haec parua sunt praenuntiatae indicia ueritatis, quam conpleri uidemus in Christo?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 33. On Rebecca, granddaughter of Nahor, whom Isaac took as his wife.

Then, when Isaac was forty years old, that is, in the hundred and fortieth year of his father's life, three years after his mother's death, he married Rebecca, the granddaughter of his uncle Nahor. And when, so that he might marry her, the servant was sent by his father into Mesopotamia, what else was shown, when Abraham said to that servant, “Put your hand under my thigh, and I will make you swear by the Lord God of heaven and the Lord of the earth that you will not take a wife for my son Isaac from the daughters of the Canaanites”, but that the Lord God of heaven and the Lord of the earth was to come in the flesh that was drawn from that thigh? Are these small signs of the foretold truth which we see fulfilled in Christ?

### Scripture references

- Gen 25:20: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 24:2–3: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 24:10: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Gen 25:20; Gen 24:10. Quotation: Gen 24:2–3. The digital text reads Chanallaeorum for Chananaeorum, corrected.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.33 (CSEL 40:185; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-33).

## City of God 16.34

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-34
- Source: CSEL 40:185–187
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Abraham's marriage to Keturah may signify carnal people who claim the new covenant, but it also shows that remarriage after a spouse's death is no sin.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXIIII. Quid intellegendum sit in eo, quod Abraham post mortem Sarrae Cetturam accepit uxorem. Quid autem sibi uult, quod Abraham post mortem Sarrae Cetturam duxit uxorem? Ubi absit ut incontinentiam suspicemur, praesertim in illa iam aetate et in illa fidei sanctitate. An adhuc procreandi filii quaerebantur, cum iam Deo promittente tanta multiplicatio filiorum ex Isaac per stellas caeli et harenam terrae fide probatissima teneretur? Sed profecto si Agar et Ismael, doctore apostolo, significauerunt carnales ueteris testamenti, quur non etiam Cettura et filii eius significent carnales, qui se ad testamentum nouum existimant pertinere? Ambae quippe et uxores Abrahae et concubinae sunt appellatae; Sarra uero numquam dicta est concubina. Nam et quando data est Agar Abrahae, ita scriptum est: Et adprehendit Sara uxor Abram Agar Aegyptiam ancillam suam post decem annos, quam habitauerat Abram in terra Chanaan, et dedit eam Abram uiro suo ipsi uxorem. De Cettura autem, quam post obitum Sarrae accepit, sic legitur: Adiciens autem Abraham sumsit uxorem, cui nomen Cettura. Ecce ambae dicuntur uxores; ambae porro concubinae fuisse reperiuntur, postea dicente scriptura: Dedit autem Abraham omnem censum suum Isaac filio suo, et filiis concubinarum suarum dedit Abraham dationes et dimisit eos ab Isaac filio suo adhuc se uiuo ad orientem, in terram orientis. Habent ergo nonnulla munera filii concubinarum, sed non perueniunt ad regnum promissum, nec haeretici, nec Iudaei carnales, quia praeter Isaac nullus est heres, et non qui filii carnis, hi filii Dei, sed filii promissionis deputantur in semine, de quo dictum est: In Isaac uocabitur tibi semen. Neque enim uideo, quur etiam Cettura post uxoris mortem ducta, nisi propter hoc mysterium, dicta sit concubina. Sed quisquis haec non uult in istis significationibus accipere, non calumnietur Abrahae. Quid si enim et hoc prouisum est contra haereticos futuros secundarum aduersarios nuptiarum, ut in ipso patre multarum gentium post obitum coniugis iterum coniugari demonstraretur non esse peccatum? Et mortuus est Abraham, cum esset annorum centum septuaginta <quinque>. Annorum ergo septuaginta < quinque > Isaac filium dereliquit, quem centenarius genuit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 34. What is to be understood in Abraham's taking Keturah as his wife after Sarah's death.

What is the meaning of Abraham's marrying Keturah after Sarah's death? Far be it from us to suspect incontinence here, especially at that age and in that holiness of faith. Or was he still seeking to beget sons, when, by God's promise, so great a multiplication of sons from Isaac, like the stars of heaven and the sand of the earth, was held by most approved faith? But surely, if Hagar and Ishmael, as the apostle teaches, signified the carnal people of the old covenant, why should not Keturah and her sons also signify the carnal who think they belong to the new covenant? For both were called both wives and concubines of Abraham; but Sarah was never called a concubine. For when Hagar was given to Abraham, it is written thus: “And Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave woman, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife.” And of Keturah, whom he took after Sarah's death, we read thus: “And Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah.” See, both are called wives; and both are found to have been concubines, as Scripture says afterwards: “And Abraham gave all his property to Isaac his son; and to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he was still living, eastward, to the land of the east.” The sons of the concubines, then, have some gifts, but they do not reach the promised kingdom, neither heretics nor carnal Jews; for apart from Isaac there is no heir, and “it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as seed”, of which it was said, “In Isaac shall your seed be called.” For I do not see why Keturah, who was married after his wife's death, should be called a concubine, except because of this mystery. But whoever does not wish to take these things in these meanings, let him not slander Abraham. For what if this too was provided against the heretics who would come, opponents of second marriages, so that in the very father of many nations it might be shown that to marry again after the death of one's wife is no sin? And Abraham died at the age of one hundred and seventy-⟨five⟩. He left his son Isaac, then, seventy-⟨five⟩ years old, having begotten him at a hundred.

### Scripture references

- Gal 4:22–25: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 16:3: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 25:1: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 25:5–6: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 9:8: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 21:12: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 25:7: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Gal 4:22–25; Gen 25:1–6; Rom 9:8; Gen 21:12; Gen 25:7. Quotations: Gen 16:3; Gen 25:1; Gen 25:5–6. The heretics opposed to second marriages are not named (Montanists and Novatianists are the usual examples). Words in angle brackets are the editor's additions. The phrase on heretics and carnal Jews is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.34 (CSEL 40:185–187; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-34).

## City of God 16.35

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-35
- Source: CSEL 40:187–188
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The oracle about Rebecca's twins, 'the elder shall serve the younger', shows grace choosing without merit and is fulfilled in Jews and Christians.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXV. De geminis adhuc in utero Rebeccae matris inclusis quid indicauerit diuina responsio. Iam ex hoc, quem ad modum per posteros Abrahae ciuitatis Dei procurrant tempora, uideamus. A primo igitur anno uitae Isaac usque ad sexagensimum, quo ei nati sunt filii, illud memorabile est, quod, cum illi Deum roganti ut pareret uxor eius, quae sterilis erat, concessisset Dominus quod petebat, adque haberet illa conceptum, gestiebant gemini adhuc in utero eius inclusi. Qua molestia cum angeretur, Dominum interrogauit accepitque responsum: Duae gentes in utero tuo sunt et duo populi de uentre tuo separabuntur et populus populum superabit et maior seruiet minori. Quod Paulus apostolus magnum uult intellegi gratiae documentum, quia nondum illis natis nec aliquid agentibus boni seu mali sine ullis bonis meritis eligitur minor maiore reprobato; quando procul dubio, quantum adtinet ad originale peccatum, ambo pares erant; quantum autem ad proprium, ullius eorum nullum erat. Sed nunc de hac re dicere aliquid latius instituti operis ratio non sinit, unde in aliis iam multa diximus. Quod autem dictum est: Maior seruiet minori, nemo fere nostrorum aliter intellexit, quam maiorem populum Iudaeorum minori Christiano populo seruiturum. Et re uera quamuis in gente Idumaeorum, quae nata est de maiore, cui duo nomina erant (nam et Esau uocabatur et Edom, unde Idumaei), hoc uideri possit inpletum, quia postea superanda fuerat a populo, qui ortus est ex minore, id est Israelitico, eique fuerat futura subiecta: tamen in aliquid maius intentam fuisse istam prophetiam, qua dictum est: Populus populum superabit et maior seruiet minori, conuenientius creditur. Et quid est hoc, nisi quod in Iudaeis et Christianis euidenter inpletur?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 35. What the divine answer indicated about the twins still enclosed in the womb of their mother Rebecca.

Now let us see how, from this point, the times of the city of God run on through Abraham's descendants. From the first year of Isaac's life, then, to the sixtieth, when his sons were born to him, this is memorable: that when he asked God that his wife, who was barren, might bear, and the Lord had granted what he asked, and she had conceived, the twins, still enclosed in her womb, struggled. When she was distressed by this trouble, she inquired of the Lord and received the answer: “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples shall be separated from your belly, and people shall overcome people, and the elder shall serve the younger.” The apostle Paul wishes this to be understood as a great proof of grace, because before they were born or had done anything good or bad, the younger is chosen without any good merits and the elder rejected; when without doubt, as regards original sin, both were equal, and as regards personal sin, neither had any. But the plan of the work undertaken does not permit me now to say anything more fully on this subject, on which I have already said much in other works. As for the words, “The elder shall serve the younger”, hardly anyone of our writers has understood them otherwise than that the elder people of the Jews was to serve the younger Christian people. And indeed, although this may seem to have been fulfilled in the nation of the Idumaeans, which was born of the elder son, who had two names (for he was called both Esau and Edom, whence the Idumaeans), since it was afterwards to be overcome by the people that sprang from the younger, that is, the Israelite people, and to be subject to it, it is more fittingly believed that this prophecy, in which it was said, “People shall overcome people, and the elder shall serve the younger”, was aimed at something greater. And what is this but what is evidently fulfilled in the Jews and the Christians?

### Scripture references

- Gen 25:21–22: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 25:26: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 25:23: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 9:10–13: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 25:30: allusion, medium confidence
- 2 Sam 8:14: allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Gen 25:21–22; Gen 25:26 (Isaac sixty); Rom 9:10–13; Gen 25:30; 2 Sam 8:14. Quotation: Gen 25:23. The application to Jews and Christians is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.35 (CSEL 40:187–188; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-35).

## City of God 16.36

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-36
- Source: CSEL 40:188–190
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Isaac received the promise for Abraham's sake; though monogamous, he was not greater than Abraham, and virtues must be weighed as a whole.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXVI. De oraculo et benedictione, quam Isaac non aliter quam pater ipsius, merito eiusdem dilectus, accepit. Accepit etiam Isaac tale oraculum, quale aliquotiens pater eius acceperat. De quo oraculo sic scriptum est: Facta est autem fames super terram praeter famem, quae prius facta est in tempore Abrahae. Abiit autem Isaac ad Abimelech regem Philistinorum in Gerara. Apparuit autem illi Dominus et dixit: Noli descendere in Aegyptum; habita autem in terra, quam tibi dixero, et incole in terra hac; et ero tecum et benedicam te. Tibi enim et semini tuo dabo omnem terram hanc, et statuam iuramentum meum, quod iuraui Abrahae patri tuo; et multiplicabo semen tuum tamquam stellas caeli, et dabo semini tuo omnem terram hanc, et benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae, pro eo quod obaudiuit Abraham pater tuus uocem meam et custodiuit praecepta mea et mandata mea et iustificationes meas et legitima mea. Iste patriarcha nec uxorem habuit aliam nec aliquam concubinam, sed posteritate duorum geminorum ex uno concubitu procreatorum contentus fuit. Timuit sane etiam ipse periculum de pulchritudine coniugis, cum habitaret inter alienos, fecitque quod pater, ut eam sororem diceret, taceret uxorem; erat enim ei propinqua et paterno et materno sanguine; sed etiam ipsa ab alienis, cognito quod uxor esset, mansit intacta. Nec ideo tamen istum patri eius praeferre debemus, quia iste nullam feminam praeter unam coniugem nouerat. Erant enim procul dubio paternae fidei et oboedientiae merita potiora, in tantum, ut propter illum dicat Deus huic se facere bona quae facit. Benedicentur, inquit, in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae, pro eo quod obaudiuit Abraham pater tuus uocem meam et custodiuit praecepta mea et mandata mea et iustificationes meas et legitima mea; et alio rursus oraculo: Ego sum, inquit, Deus Abraham patris tui, noli timere; tecum enim sum et benedixi te et multiplicabo semen tuum propter Abraham patrem tuum; ut intellegamus quam caste Abraham fecerit, quod hominibus inpudicis et nequitiae suae de scripturis sanctis patrocinia requirentibus uidetur fecisse libidine; deinde ut etiam hoc nouerimus, non ex bonis singulis inter se homines conparare, sed in uno quoque consideremus uniuersa. Fieri enim potest, ut habeat aliquid in uita et moribus quispiam, quo superat alium, idque sit longe praestabilius, quam est illud, unde ab alio superatur. Ac per hoc sano ueroque iudicio, cum continentia coniugio praeferatur, melior est tamen homo fidelis coniugatus quam continens infidelis. Sed infidelis homo non solum minus laudandus, uerum etiam maxime detestandus est. Constituamus ambos bonos; etiam sic profecto melior est coniugatus fidelissimus et oboedientissimus Deo quam continens minoris fidei minorisque oboedientiae. Si uero paria sint cetera, continentem coniugato praeferre quis ambigat?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 36. On the oracle and blessing which Isaac received, just as his father had, being loved for his father's merit.

Isaac too received an oracle like those his father had received several times. Of this oracle it is written thus: “And there was a famine over the land, besides the famine that had been before in the time of Abraham. And Isaac went to Abimelech, king of the Philistines, at Gerar. And the Lord appeared to him and said: Do not go down into Egypt; but dwell in the land of which I shall tell you, and sojourn in this land; and I will be with you and bless you. For to you and to your seed I will give all this land, and I will establish my oath which I swore to Abraham your father; and I will multiply your seed like the stars of heaven, and I will give to your seed all this land, and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because Abraham your father obeyed my voice and kept my precepts and my commandments and my ordinances and my statutes.” This patriarch had neither another wife nor any concubine, but was content with the posterity of the two twins begotten from one act of intercourse. He too, indeed, feared danger because of his wife's beauty when he lived among strangers, and did as his father had done, calling her his sister and keeping silent that she was his wife; for she was related to him by both father's and mother's blood; but she too remained untouched by the strangers once it was known that she was his wife. Yet we ought not on that account to prefer him to his father because he knew no woman besides his one wife. For without doubt the merits of his father's faith and obedience were greater, so much so that God says it is for his father's sake that he does for Isaac the good things he does: “In your seed,” he says, “all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because Abraham your father obeyed my voice and kept my precepts and my commandments and my ordinances and my statutes”; and again in another oracle: “I am the God of Abraham your father; do not fear; for I am with you and have blessed you and will multiply your seed for the sake of Abraham your father.” So we may understand how chastely Abraham did what seems to shameless men, who seek support for their wickedness in the holy Scriptures, to have been done from lust; and further, so that we may learn this too: not to compare men with one another by single good qualities, but to consider everything in each. For it can happen that someone has something in his life and conduct in which he surpasses another, and that it is far more excellent than that in which he is surpassed by the other. And so, by a sound and true judgment, although continence is preferred to marriage, a married believer is nevertheless better than a continent unbeliever. But the unbeliever is not only less to be praised; he is even most to be deplored. Let us suppose both are good: even so, a married man most faithful and most obedient to God is certainly better than a continent man of lesser faith and lesser obedience. But if all else is equal, who would hesitate to prefer the continent man to the married one?

### Scripture references

- Gen 26:1–5: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 26:6–11: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 26:24: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 26:1–5; Gen 26:24. Allusions: Gen 26:6–11; Gen 25:21–26. The comparison of continence and marriage is Augustine's (compare his On the Good of Marriage); translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.36 (CSEL 40:188–190; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-36).

## City of God 16.37

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-37
- Source: CSEL 40:190–192
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Jacob's obtaining Isaac's blessing was not fraud but a mystery: the blessing proclaims Christ among the nations, Isaac figuring the law and prophets.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXVII. De his, quae in Esau et Iacob mystice praefigurabantur. Duo igitur Isaac filii Esau et Iacob pariter crescunt. Primatus maioris transfunditur in minorem ex pacto et placito inter illos, eo quod lenticulam, quem cibum minor parauerat, maior inmoderatius concupiuit, eoque pretio primogenita sua fratri iuratione interposita uendidit. Ubi discimus in uescendo non cibi genere, sed auiditate inmodesta quemque culpandum. Senescit Isaac eiusque oculis per senectam uisus aufertur. Vult benedicere filium maiorem et pro illo nesciens benedicit minorem, pro fratre maiore, qui erat pilosus, se paternis manibus subponentem, haedinis sibi pelliculis coaptatis uelut aliena peccata portantem. Iste dolus Iacob ne putaretur fraudulentus dolus et non in eo magnae rei mysterium quaereretur, superius praedixit scriptura: Et erat Esau homo sciens uenari, agrestis; Iacob autem homo simplex, habitans domum. Hoc nostri quidam interpretati sunt sine dolo. Siue autem sine dolo siue simplex siue potius sine fictione dicatur, quod est Graece ἄπλαστος: quis est in ista percipienda benedictione dolus hominis sine dolo? Quis est dolus simplicis, quae fictio non mentientis, nisi profundum mysterium ueritatis? Ipsa autem benedictio qualis est? Ecce, inquit, odor filii mei tamquam odor agri pleni, quem benedixit Dominus. Et det tibi Deus de rore caeli et de ubertate terrae et multitudinem frumenti et uini, et seruiant tibi gentes et adorent te principes et fies dominus fratris tui et adorabunt te filii patris tui. Qui maledixerit te, maledictus; et qui benedixerit te, benedictus. Benedictio igitur Iacob praedicatio est Christi in omnibus gentibus. Hoc fit, hoc agitur. Lex et prophetia est Isaac; etiam per os Iudaeorum Christus ab illa benedicitur, uelut a nesciente, quia ipsa nescitur. Odore nominis Christi, sicut ager, mundus inpletur; eius est benedictio de rore caeli, hoc est de uerborum pluuia diurnorum, et de ubertate terrae, hoc est congregatione populorum; eius est multitudo frumenti et uini, hoc est multitudo quam colligit frumentum et uinum in sacramento corporis eius et sanguinis. Ei seruiunt gentes, ipsum adorant principes; ipse est dominus fratris sui, quia populus eius dominatur Iudaeis; ipsum adorant filii patris eius, hoc est filii Abrahae secundum fidem, quia et ipse filius est Abrahae secundum carnem; ipsum qui maledixerit, maledictus, et qui benedixerit, benedictus est. Christus, inquam, noster etiam ex ore Iudaeorum quamuis errantium, sed tamen legem prophetasque cantantium benedicitur, id est ueraciter dicitur; et alius benedici putatur, qui ab eis errantibus exspectatur. Ecce benedictionem promissam repetente maiore expauescit Isaac, et alium se pro alio benedixisse cognoscit; miratur et quisnam ille sit percontatur; nec tamen se deceptum esse conqueritur; immo confestim reuelato sibi intus in corde magno sacramento deuitat indignationem, confirmat benedictionem. Quis ergo, inquit, uenatus est mihi uenationem et intulit mihi, et manducaui ab omnibus, antequam tu uenires? et benedixi eum, et benedictus sit. Quis non hic maledictionem potius exspectaret irati, si haec non superna inspiratione, sed terreno more gererentur? O res gestas, sed prophetice gestas; in terra, sed caelitus; per homines, sed diuinitus! Si excutiantur singula tantis fecunda mysteriis, multa sunt inplenda uolumina; sed huic operi modus moderate inponendus nos in alia festinare conpellit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 37. On the things mystically prefigured in Esau and Jacob.

So Isaac's two sons, Esau and Jacob, grow up together. The primacy of the elder is transferred to the younger by agreement and consent between them, because the elder desired too immoderately the lentils which the younger had prepared as food, and for that price sold his birthright to his brother, with an oath. Here we learn that in eating one is to be blamed not for the kind of food but for immoderate greed. Isaac grows old, and his sight is taken from his eyes through age. He wishes to bless his elder son, and without knowing it blesses the younger in his place, who puts himself under his father's hands in place of his elder brother, who was hairy, having fitted kid skins on himself, as though bearing the sins of another. So that this deceit of Jacob might not be thought a fraudulent deceit, and the mystery of a great matter might not fail to be sought in it, Scripture said beforehand: “And Esau was a man skilled in hunting, a man of the field; but Jacob a simple man, dwelling at home.” Some of our translators have rendered this “without guile.” But whether it is rendered “without guile,” or “simple,” or rather “without pretense,” which in Greek is ἄπλαστος, what is the guile of a man without guile in receiving this blessing? What is the guile of the simple man, what the pretense of one who does not lie, but a deep mystery of truth? And what is the blessing itself like? “Behold,” he says, “the smell of my son is like the smell of a full field, which the Lord has blessed. And may God give you of the dew of heaven and of the fatness of the earth, and abundance of grain and wine; and let nations serve you and princes bow down to you; and you shall be lord of your brother, and the sons of your father shall bow down to you. Whoever curses you, cursed be he; and whoever blesses you, blessed be he.” The blessing of Jacob, then, is the proclamation of Christ among all nations. This is happening, this is being done. Isaac is the law and the prophecy; even through the mouth of the Jews Christ is blessed by it, as by one who does not know, because it is itself not known. The world, like a field, is filled with the fragrance of Christ's name; his is the blessing of the dew of heaven, that is, of the rain of divine words, and of the fatness of the earth, that is, of the gathering of the peoples; his is the abundance of grain and wine, that is, the multitude which grain and wine gather in the sacrament of his body and blood. Nations serve him, princes bow down to him; he is lord of his brother, because his people rules over the Jews; the sons of his father bow down to him, that is, the sons of Abraham according to faith, because he too is a son of Abraham according to the flesh; whoever curses him is cursed, and whoever blesses him is blessed. Our Christ, I say, is blessed, that is, truly spoken of, even from the mouth of the Jews, who, though they err, still chant the law and the prophets; and they think another is being blessed, whom they in their error await.

See, when the elder asks for the promised blessing, Isaac is struck with fear and realizes that he has blessed one in place of the other; he wonders and asks who it was; yet he does not complain that he has been deceived; rather, as the great sacrament is at once revealed to him within his heart, he avoids indignation and confirms the blessing. “Who then,” he says, “hunted game for me and brought it to me, and I ate of it all before you came? And I blessed him, and blessed he shall be.” Who would not have expected here rather the curse of an angry man, if these things were done not by inspiration from above but in an earthly way? O deeds done, but done prophetically; on earth, but from heaven; by men, but divinely! If each thing so fruitful in great mysteries were examined, many volumes would have to be filled; but the measure which must be set in moderation to this work compels us to hasten on to other things.

### Scripture references

- Gen 25:29–34: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 27:1–23: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 25:27: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 27:27–29: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 27:30–33: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 2:15: echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Gen 25:27–34; Gen 27:1–29. Quotations: Gen 25:27 (Old Latin “simple”, Greek ἄπλαστος, garbled in the digital text and restored); Gen 27:27–29; Gen 27:33. Stray marks around the translators' renderings are removed. The digital text's fiere (“you shall be”) is corrected to fies. The statements about the Jews are translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.37 (CSEL 40:190–192; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-27/#p-16-37).

## City of God 16.38

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-38/#p-16-38
- Source: CSEL 40:192–195
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Jacob, blessed as heir of Abraham's promise, saw the ladder to heaven, which Christ applied to himself; he took four women for offspring, not from lust.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXVIII.. De misso Iacob in Mesopotamiam ad accipiendam uxorem et de uisione, quam in itinere somniauit, et de quattuor ipsius feminis, cum unam petisset uxorem. Mittitur Iacob a parentibus in Mesopotamiam, ut ibi ducat uxorem. Patris mittentis uerba haec sunt: Non accipies uxorem ex filiabus Chananaeorum; surgens fuge in Mesopotamiam in domum Bathuel, patris matris tuae, et sume tibi inde uxorem de filiabus Laban, fratris matris tuae. Deus autem meus benedicat te et augeat te et multiplicet te; et eris in congregationes gentium; et det tibi benedictionem Abraham patris tui, tibi et semini tuo post te, ut heres fias terrae incolatus tui, quam dedit Deus Abraham. Hic iam intellegimus segregatum semen Iacob ab alio semine Isaac, quod factum est per Esau. Quando enim dictum est: In Isaac uocabitur tibi semen, pertinens utique semen ad ciuitatem Dei, separatum est inde aliud semen Abrahae, quod erat in ancillae filio, et quod futurum erat in filiis Cetturae. Sed adhuc erat ambiguum de duobus geminis filiis Isaac, ad utrumque an ad unum eorum illa benedictio pertineret: et si ad unum, quisnam esset illorum. Quod nunc declaratum est, cum prophetice a patre benedicitur Iacob et dicitur ei: Et eris in congregationes gentium, et det tibi benedictionem Abraham patris tui. Pergens itaque in Mesopotamiam Iacob in somnis accepit oraculum, de quo sic scriptum est: Et exiit Iacob a puteo iurationis et profectus est in Charran et deuenit in locum et dormiuit ibi; occiderat enim sol; et sumsit ex lapidibus loci et posuit ad caput suum et dormiuit in loco illo et somniauit. Et ecce scala stabilita super terram, cuius caput pertingebat ad caelum; et angeli Dei ascendebant et descendebant per illam, et Dominus incumbebat super illam et dixit: Ego sum Deus Abraham patris tui et Deus Isaac, noli timere; terram, in qua tu dormis super eam, tibi dabo illam et semini tuo; et erit semen tuum sicut harena terrae, et dilatabitur supra mare et in Africum et in aquilonem et ad orientem; et benedicentur in te omnes tribus terrae et in semine tuo. Et ecce ego sum tecum, custodiens te in omni uia quacumque ibis, et reducam te in terram hanc, quia non te derelinquam, donec faciam omnia, quae tecum locutus sum. Et surrexit Iacob de somno suo et dixit: Quia est Dominus in loco hoc, ego autem nesciebam. Et timuit et dixit: Quam terribilis locus hic! non est hoc nisi domus Dei et haec porta est caeli. Et surrexit Iacob et sumsit lapidem, quem subposuit ibi sub caput suum, et statuit illum titulum et superfudit oleum in cacumen eius; et uocauit Iacob nomen loci illius: domus Dei. Hoc ad prophetiam pertinet; nec more idolatriae lapidem perfudit oleo Iacob, uelut faciens illum Deum; neque enim adorauit eundem lapidem uel ei sacrificauit; sed quoniam Christi nomen a chrismate est, id est ab unctione, profecto figuratum est hic aliquid, quod ad magnum pertineat sacramentum. Scalam uero istam intellegitur ipse Saluator nobis in memoriam reuocare in euangelio, ubi, cum dixisset de Nathanael: Ecce uere Israelita, in quo dolus non est, quia Israel uiderat istam uisionem (ipse est enim Iacob), eodem loco ait: Amen, amen, dico uobis, uidebitis caelum apertum et angelos Dei ascendentes et descendentes super filium hominis. Perrexit ergo Iacob in Mesopotamiam, ut inde acciperet uxorem. Unde autem illi acciderit quattuor habere feminas, de quibus duodecim filios et unam filiam procreauit, cum earum nullam concupisset inlicite, indicat scriptura diuina. Ad unam quippe accipiendam uenerat; sed cum illi altera [pro altera] subposita fuisset, nec ipsam dimisit, qua nesciens usus fuerat in nocte, ne ludibrio eam uideretur habuisse, et eo tempore, quando multiplicandae posteritatis causa plures uxores lex nulla prohibebat, accepit etiam illam, cui uni iam futuri coniugii fidem fecerat. Quae cum esset sterilis, ancillam suam, de qua filios ipsa susciperet, marito dedit; quod etiam maior soror eius, quamuis peperisset, imitata, quoniam multiplicare prolem cupiebat, effecit. Nullam Iacob legitur petisse praeter unam, nec usus plurimis nisi gignendae prolis officio, coniugali iure seruato, ut neque hoc faceret, nisi uxores eius id fieri flagitassent, quae corporis uiri sui habebant legitimam potestatem. Genuit ergo duodecim filios et unam filiam ex quattuor mulieribus. Deinde ingressus est in Aegyptum per filium suum Ioseph, qui uenditus ab inuidentibus fratribus eo perductus fuit adque ibidem sublimatus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 38. On Jacob's being sent to Mesopotamia to take a wife, on the vision he saw in a dream on the journey, and on his four women, though he had sought one wife.

Jacob is sent by his parents into Mesopotamia to take a wife there. The words of his father sending him are these: “You shall not take a wife from the daughters of the Canaanites; arise, flee into Mesopotamia, to the house of Bethuel, your mother's father, and take a wife from there, from the daughters of Laban, your mother's brother. And may my God bless you and increase you and multiply you, and you shall become assemblies of nations; and may he give you the blessing of Abraham your father, to you and to your seed after you, that you may inherit the land of your sojourning, which God gave to Abraham.” Here we now understand that the seed of Jacob was separated from the other seed of Isaac, which came through Esau. For when it was said, “In Isaac shall your seed be called”, the seed that certainly belongs to the city of God, another seed of Abraham was separated from it, that which was in the slave woman's son and that which was to be in the sons of Keturah. But it was still uncertain about the two twin sons of Isaac whether that blessing belonged to both or to one of them, and, if to one, which of them it was. This has now been made clear, when Jacob is prophetically blessed by his father and it is said to him: “And you shall become assemblies of nations, and may he give you the blessing of Abraham your father.”

So, as Jacob was going into Mesopotamia, he received an oracle in a dream, of which it is written thus: “And Jacob went out from the well of the oath and set out for Haran, and came to a place and slept there, for the sun had set; and he took of the stones of the place and put it under his head and slept in that place and dreamed. And behold, a ladder set up on the earth, whose top reached to heaven; and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it, and the Lord leaned upon it and said: I am the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; do not fear; the land on which you are sleeping I will give to you and to your seed; and your seed shall be like the sand of the earth, and it shall spread abroad over the sea and to the south-west and to the north and to the east; and in you and in your seed all the tribes of the earth shall be blessed. And behold, I am with you, keeping you in every way you go, and I will bring you back into this land, for I will not forsake you until I have done all that I have spoken to you. And Jacob rose from his sleep and said: The Lord is in this place, and I did not know it. And he was afraid and said: How terrible is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven. And Jacob rose and took the stone which he had put under his head there, and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on the top of it; and Jacob called the name of that place House of God.” This belongs to prophecy; Jacob did not pour oil on the stone in the manner of idolatry, as though making it a god; for he neither worshipped that stone nor sacrificed to it; but since the name of Christ comes from chrism, that is, from anointing, something was surely figured here which pertains to a great sacrament. The Savior himself is understood to recall this ladder to our memory in the Gospel, where, after he had said of Nathanael, “Behold, truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile”, because Israel had seen this vision (for he is Jacob), he says in the same place: “Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”

Jacob, then, went on into Mesopotamia to take a wife from there. And how it happened that he had four women, from whom he begot twelve sons and one daughter, although he desired none of them unlawfully, divine Scripture shows. For he had come to take one; but when another had been substituted for her, he did not send away even her whom he had unknowingly used in the night, lest he seem to have made sport of her; and at a time when no law forbade several wives for the sake of multiplying posterity, he also took the one to whom alone he had already pledged the faith of future marriage. Since she was barren, she gave her slave woman to her husband, so that she herself might receive sons from her; and her elder sister did the same, imitating her, although she had borne children, because she wished to multiply offspring. Jacob is not read to have sought any but one, nor to have used several except for the duty of begetting offspring, keeping the right of marriage, so that he did not even do this unless his wives, who had lawful authority over their husband's body, had urged that it be done. So he begot twelve sons and one daughter from four women. Then he entered Egypt through his son Joseph, who, sold by his envious brothers, had been taken there and exalted in that place.

### Scripture references

- Gen 28:1–4: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 21:12: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 28:10–19: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:47: quotation, high confidence
- John 1:51: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 29:15–30: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 30:1–24: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 7:4: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 37:28: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 41:41: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 28:1–4; Gen 21:12; Gen 28:10–19 (Old Latin form); John 1:47, 51. Allusions: Gen 29:15–30:24; 1 Cor 7:4; Gen 37:28; Gen 41:41. The editor deletes “in place of the other” (pro altera). The judgment that no law then forbade several wives, and on Jacob's motives, is Augustine's; translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.38 (CSEL 40:192–195; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-38/#p-16-38).

## City of God 16.39

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-38/#p-16-39
- Source: CSEL 40:195–196
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Jacob's wrestling with the angel figures Christ's passion; blessed and lame, he represents Israel's believers and unbelievers.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXVIIII. Quae ratio fecerit, ut Iacob etiam Israel cognominaretur. Iacob autem etiam Israel, sicut paulo ante dixi, uocabatur, quod nomen magis populus ex illo procreatus obtinuit. Hoc autem nomen illi ab angelo inpositum est, qui cum illo fuerat in itinere de Mesopotamia redeunte luctatus, typum Christi euidentissime gerens. Nam quod ei praeualuit Iacob, utique uolenti, ut mysterium figuraret, significat passionem Christi, ubi uisi sunt ei praeualere Iudaei. Et tamen benedictionem ab eodem angelo, quem superauerat, inpetrauit; ac sic huius nominis inpositio benedictio fuit. Interpretatur autem Israel uidens Deum; quod erit in fine praemium sanctorum omnium. Tetigit porro illi idem angelus ueluti praeualenti latitudinem femoris eumque isto modo claudum reddidit. Erat itaque unus adque idem Iacob et benedictus et claudus: benedictus in eis, qui in Christum ex eodem populo crediderunt, adque in infidelibus claudus. Nam femoris latitudo generis multitudo est. Plures quippe sunt in ea stirpe, de quibus prophetice praedictum est: Et claudicauerunt a semitis suis.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 39. Why Jacob was also named Israel.

Jacob, as I said a little earlier, was also called Israel, a name which the people descended from him held more. This name was given him by the angel who wrestled with him on the way as he was returning from Mesopotamia, most evidently bearing the type of Christ. For Jacob's prevailing over him, who was certainly willing, so that he might figure a mystery, signifies the passion of Christ, in which the Jews appeared to prevail over him. And yet he obtained a blessing from the same angel whom he had overcome; and so the giving of this name was a blessing. Israel means “seeing God”, which will be the reward of all the saints at the end. And the same angel touched the breadth of his thigh, as he was prevailing, and in this way made him lame. So one and the same Jacob was both blessed and lame: blessed in those of that people who believed in Christ, and lame in the unbelieving. For the breadth of the thigh is the multitude of the race. For there are more in that stock of whom it was prophetically foretold: “And they limped away from their paths.”

### Scripture references

- Gen 32:24–32: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 18:45 (17:46 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Gen 32:24–32; Gen 35:10. Quotation: Ps 18:45 (17:46 Vulgate, in the Greek-based form “they limped away from their paths”). The etymology “seeing God” is the traditional one. The interpretation concerning the Jews is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.39 (CSEL 40:195–196; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-38/#p-16-39).

## City of God 16.40

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-38/#p-16-40
- Source: CSEL 40:196–198
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The seventy-five who 'entered Egypt' with Jacob include descendants born later, since his entry covers the whole of Joseph's lifetime.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXX. Quo modo Iacob cum septuaginta quinque animabus Aegyptum narretur ingressus, cum plerique ex his, qui commemorantur, tempore posteriore sint geniti. Ingressi itaque referuntur in Aegyptum simul cum ipso Iacob septuaginta quinque homines, adnumerato ipso filiis suis. In quo numero duae tantum feminae commemorantur, una filia, neptis altera. Sed res diligenter considerata non indicat, quod tantus numerus fuerit in progenie Iacob die uel anno quo ingressus est Aegyptum. Commemorati sunt quippe in eis etiam pronepotes Ioseph, qui nullo modo iam tunc esse potuerunt, quoniam tunc centum triginta annorum erat Iacob, filius uero eius Ioseph triginta nouem; quem cum accepisse tricensimo anno suo uel amplius constet uxorem, quo modo potuit per nouem annos habere pronepotes de filiis, quos ex eadem uxore suscepit? Cum igitur nec filios haberent Ephraem et Manasses, filii Ioseph, sed eos pueros infra quam nouennes Iacob Aegyptum ingressus inuenerit, quo pacto eorum non solum filii, sed etiam nepotes in illis septuaginta quinque numerantur, qui tunc Aegyptum ingressi sunt cum Iacob? Nam commemoratur ibi Machir, filius Manasse, nepos Ioseph, et eiusdem Machir filius, id est Galaad, nepos Manasse, pronepos Ioseph; ibi est et quem genuit Ephraem, alter filius Ioseph, id est Utalaam, nepos Ioseph, et filius ipsius Utalaae Edem, nepos Ephraem, pronepos Ioseph; qui nullo modo esse potuerunt, quando Iacob in Aegyptum uenit et filios Ioseph, nepotes suos, auos istorum, minores quam nouem annorum pueros inuenit. Sed nimirum introitus Iacob in Aegyptum, quando eum in septuaginta quinque hominibus scriptura commemorat, non unus dies uel unus annus, sed totum illud est tempus, quamdiu uixit Ioseph, per quem factum est ut intrarent. Nam de ipso Ioseph eadem scriptura sic loquitur: Et habitauit Ioseph in Aegypto, ipse et fratres eius et omnis cohabitatio patris eius, et uixit annos centum decem, et uidit Ioseph Ephraem filios usque in tertiam generationem. Ipse est ille pronepos eius ab Ephraem tertius. Generationem quippe tertiam dicit filium, nepotem, pronepotem. Deinde sequitur: Et filii Machir, filii Manasse, nati sunt supra femora Ioseph. Et hic ille ipse est nepos Manasse, pronepos Ioseph. Sed pluraliter appellati sunt, sicut scriptura consueuit, quae unam quoque filiam Iacob filias nuncupauit; sicut in Latinae linguae consuetudine liberi dicuntur pluraliter filii, etiamsi non sint uno amplius. Cum ergo ipsius Ioseph praedicetur felicitas, quia potuit uidere pronepotes, nullo modo putandi sunt iam fuisse tricensimo nono anno proaui sui Ioseph, quando ad eum in Aegyptum Iacob pater eius aduenit. Illud autem est, quod fallit minus ista diligenter intuentes, quoniam scriptum est: Haec autem nomina filiorum Israel, qui intrauerunt in Aegyptum simul cum Iacob patre suo. Hoc enim dictum est, quia simul cum illo conputantur septuaginta quinque, non quia simul iam erant omnes, quando Aegyptum ingressus est ipse; sed, ut dixi, totum tempus habetur eius ingressus, quo uixit Ioseph, per quem uidetur ingressus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 40. How Jacob is said to have entered Egypt with seventy-five persons, when many of those recorded were born at a later time.

Seventy-five persons, then, are reported to have entered Egypt together with Jacob himself, counting him with his sons. In that number only two women are mentioned, one a daughter, the other a granddaughter. But the matter, carefully considered, does not show that there was so large a number in Jacob's progeny on the day or in the year when he entered Egypt. For among them are mentioned even Joseph's great-grandsons, who could in no way have existed then, since Jacob was then a hundred and thirty years old and his son Joseph thirty-nine; and since it is certain that Joseph took a wife in his thirtieth year or later, how could he in nine years have great-grandsons from the sons he had by that wife? Since, then, Ephraim and Manasseh, Joseph's sons, did not even have sons, but Jacob, when he entered Egypt, found them boys under nine, how are not only their sons but even their grandsons counted among the seventy-five who then entered Egypt with Jacob? For there is mentioned Machir, son of Manasseh, Joseph's grandson, and the son of the same Machir, that is, Gilead, grandson of Manasseh and great-grandson of Joseph; there too is the one Ephraim, Joseph's other son, begot, that is, Shuthelah, Joseph's grandson, and the son of that Shuthelah, Eran, Ephraim's grandson and Joseph's great-grandson; who could in no way have existed when Jacob came into Egypt and found Joseph's sons, his own grandsons, the grandfathers of these, boys under nine years old. But evidently the entry of Jacob into Egypt, when Scripture records him with seventy-five persons, is not one day or one year, but the whole time as long as Joseph lived, through whom it came about that they entered. For of Joseph himself the same Scripture speaks thus: “And Joseph dwelt in Egypt, he and his brothers and all his father's household, and he lived a hundred and ten years; and Joseph saw Ephraim's children to the third generation.” That is the great-grandson, third from Ephraim; for by the third generation it means son, grandson, great-grandson. Then follows: “And the sons of Machir, son of Manasseh, were born upon Joseph's knees.” And this is that very grandson of Manasseh, Joseph's great-grandson. But they are named in the plural, as Scripture is accustomed to do, which called even Jacob's one daughter “daughters”; as in the usage of the Latin language children are called liberi in the plural even if there is no more than one. Since, then, Joseph's own happiness is proclaimed because he was able to see great-grandsons, they are by no means to be thought to have existed already in the thirty-ninth year of their great-grandfather Joseph, when his father Jacob came to him into Egypt. What misleads those who look at these things less carefully is that it is written: “Now these are the names of the sons of Israel who entered Egypt together with Jacob their father.” For this was said because seventy-five are counted together with him, not because all were already together when he himself entered Egypt; but, as I said, the whole time during which Joseph lived, through whom he is seen to have entered, is counted as his entry.

### Scripture references

- Gen 46:8–27: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 7:14: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 47:9: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 41:46: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 50:22–23: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 46:8: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The number seventy-five and the names of Joseph's descendants follow the Greek text of Gen 46:20, 27 (Hebrew seventy; compare Acts 7:14). Quotations: Gen 50:22–23 (Old Latin form); Gen 46:8. Allusions: Gen 47:9; Gen 41:46. Names: Machir, Gilead, Shuthelah (Utalaam), Eran (Edem), as in the Greek additions.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.40 (CSEL 40:196–198; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-38/#p-16-40).

## City of God 16.41

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-38/#p-16-41
- Source: CSEL 40:198–200
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Jacob's blessing of Judah (Gen 49:8–12) foretells Christ from the tribe of Judah: his death as a lion's sleep, his resurrection by his own power, and the Church washed in his blood.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXXI. De benedictione, quam Iacob in Iudam filium suum promisit. Igitur propter populum Christianum, in quo Dei ciuitas peregrinatur in terris, si carnem Christi in Abrahae semine requiramus, remotis concubinarum filiis occurrit Isaac; si in semine Isaac, remoto Esau, qui est etiam Edom, occurrit Iacob, qui est et Israel; si in semine ipsius Israel, remotis ceteris occurrit Iudas, quia de tribu Iuda exortus est Christus. Ac per hoc cum in Aegypto moriturus Israel suos filios benediceret, quem ad modum Iudam prophetice benedixerit, audiamus: Iuda, inquit, te laudabunt fratres tui. Manus tuae super dorsum inimicorum tuorum; adorabunt te filii patris tui. Catulus leonis Iuda; ex germinatione, fili mi, ascendisti; recumbens dormisti ut leo et ut catulus leonis; quis suscitabit eum? Non deficiet princeps ex Iuda et dux de femoribus eius, donec ueniant quae reposita sunt ei; et ipse exspectatio gentium; adligans ad uitem pullum suum et cilicio pullum asinae suae lauabit in uino stolam suam et in sanguine uuae amictum suum. Fului oculi eius a uino et dentes candidiores lacte. Exposui haec aduersus Manichaeum Faustum disputans et satis esse arbitror, quantum ueritas prophetiae huius elucet; ubi et mors Christi praedicta est uerbo dormitionis et non necessitas, sed potestas in morte nomine leonis. Quam potestatem in euangelio ipse praedicat dicens: Potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam. Nemo eam tollit a me; sed ego eam pono a me, et iterum sumo eam. Sic leo fremuit, sic quod dixit inpleuit. Ad eam namque pertinet potestatem, quod de resurrectione eius adiunctum est: Quis suscitabit eum? hoc est, quia nullus hominum, nisi se ipse, qui etiam de corpore suo dixit: Soluite templum hoc, et in triduo resuscitabo illud. Ipsum autem genus mortis, hoc est sublimitas crucis, in uno uerbo intellegitur, quod ait: Ascendisti. Quod uero addidit: Recumbens dormisti, euangelista exponit, ubi dicit: Et inclinato capite tradidit spiritum; aut certe sepultura eius agnoscitur, in qua recubuit dormiens, et unde illum nullus hominum, sicut prophetae aliquos uel sicut ipse alios, suscitauit, sed sicut a somno ipse surrexit. Stola porro eius, quam lauat in uino, id est mundat a peccatis in sanguine suo, cuius sanguinis sacramentum baptizati sciunt, unde et adiungit: Et in sanguine uuae amictum suum, quid est nisi ecclesia? Et fului oculi eius a uino spiritales eius inebriati poculo eius, de quo canit psalmus: Et calix tuus inebrians quam praeclarus est! Et dentes eius candidiores lacte, quod potant aput apostolum paruuli, uerba scilicet nutrientia, nondum idonei solido cibo. Ipse igitur est, in quo reposita erant promissa Iudae, quae donec uenirent numquam principes, hoc est reges Israel, ab illa stirpe defuerunt. Et ipse exspectatio gentium; quod clarius est uidendo quam fit exponendo.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 41. On the blessing which Jacob promised to his son Judah.

For the sake of the Christian people, then, in whom the city of God is on pilgrimage on earth, if we look for the flesh of Christ in the seed of Abraham, setting aside the sons of the concubines, Isaac presents himself; if in the seed of Isaac, setting aside Esau, who is also Edom, Jacob presents himself, who is also Israel; if in the seed of Israel himself, setting aside the others, Judah presents himself, because Christ sprang from the tribe of Judah. And so let us hear how Israel, when about to die in Egypt and blessing his sons, blessed Judah prophetically: “Judah,” he says, “your brothers shall praise you. Your hands shall be on the back of your enemies; the sons of your father shall bow down to you. Judah is a lion's whelp; from the sprouting, my son, you have gone up; lying down you slept like a lion and like a lion's whelp; who shall rouse him? A prince shall not fail from Judah, nor a leader from his thighs, until the things laid up for him come; and he is the expectation of the nations; binding his foal to the vine, and his ass's foal to the haircloth, he shall wash his robe in wine and his garment in the blood of the grape. His eyes are tawny from wine, and his teeth whiter than milk.” I have expounded these words in disputing against Faustus the Manichaean, and I think it is sufficient how clearly the truth of this prophecy shines out. In it the death of Christ is foretold by the word “sleep,” and not necessity but power in death by the name of “lion.” This power he himself proclaims in the Gospel, saying: “I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it up again. No one takes it from me; but I lay it down of myself, and I take it up again.” So the lion roared, so he fulfilled what he said. For to that power belongs what is added about his resurrection: “Who shall rouse him?” That is, no man, but only he himself, who also said of his body: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The very manner of his death, that is, the height of the cross, is understood in the one word, “You have gone up.” And what is added, “Lying down you slept”, the evangelist explains when he says, “And bowing his head he gave up his spirit”; or certainly his burial is recognized, in which he lay sleeping, and from which no man raised him, as the prophets raised some or as he himself raised others, but he rose himself as from sleep. And his robe, which he washes in wine, that is, cleanses from sins in his own blood, the sacrament of which blood the baptized know (hence he adds, “and his garment in the blood of the grape”), what is it but the Church? “And his eyes are tawny from wine”: his spiritual ones, made drunk with his cup, of which the psalm sings, “And your cup that inebriates, how glorious it is!” “And his teeth whiter than milk”, the milk which the little ones drink in the apostle, that is, nourishing words, for those not yet fit for solid food. He, then, is the one in whom the promises to Judah were laid up; and until they came, princes, that is, kings of Israel, were never lacking from that stock. “And he is the expectation of the nations”; this is clearer by seeing than it becomes by explaining.

### Scripture references

- Heb 7:14: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 49:8–12: quotation, high confidence
- John 10:18: quotation, high confidence
- John 2:19: quotation, high confidence
- John 19:30: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 23:5 (22:5 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 3:2: allusion, high confidence
- Heb 5:12: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotation: Gen 49:8–12 (Old Latin form). Other quotations: John 10:18; John 2:19; John 19:30; Ps 23:5 (22:5 Vulgate, “your cup that inebriates”). Allusions: Heb 7:14; 1 Cor 3:2; Heb 5:12. Augustine refers to Against Faustus 12.42. The blood known to the baptized refers to the Eucharist; translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.41 (CSEL 40:198–200; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-38/#p-16-41).

## City of God 16.42

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-38/#p-16-42
- Source: CSEL 40:200
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Jacob's crossing of his hands to bless Ephraim above Manasseh figures the younger Christian people preferred to the elder Jewish people.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXXII. De filiis Ioseph, quos Iacob prophetica manuum suarum transmutatione benedixit. Sicut autem duo Isaac filii, Esau et Iacob, figuram praebuerunt duorum populorum in Iudaeis et Christianis (quamuis, quod ad carnis propaginem pertinet, nec Iudaei uenerint de semine Esau, sed Idumaei; nec Christianae gentes de Iacob, sed potius Iudaei; ad hoc enim tantum figura ualuit, quod dictum est: Maior seruiet minori): ita factum est etiam in duobus filiis Ioseph; nam maior gessit typum Iudaeorum, Christianorum autem minor. Quos cum benediceret Iacob, manum dextram ponens super minorem quem habebat ad sinistram, sinistram super maiorem quem habebat ad dextram: graue uisum est patri eorum, et admonuit patrem uelut corrigens eius errorem et quisnam eorum esset maior ostendens. At ille mutare manus noluit, sed dixit: Scio, fili, scio. Et hic erit in populum, et hic exaltabitur; sed frater eius iunior maior illo erit, et semen eius erit in multitudinem gentium. Etiam hic duo illa promissa demonstrat. Nam ille in populum, iste in multitudinem gentium. Quid euidentius quam his duabus promissionibus contineri populum Israelitarum orbemque terrarum in semine Abrahae, illum secundum carnem, istum secundum fidem?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 42. On the sons of Joseph, whom Jacob blessed with a prophetic crossing of his hands.

Just as the two sons of Isaac, Esau and Jacob, provided a figure of two peoples, the Jews and the Christians (although, as regards descent in the flesh, neither did the Jews come from the seed of Esau, but the Idumaeans; nor the Christian nations from Jacob, but rather the Jews; for the figure was valid only for what was said: “The elder shall serve the younger”), so it happened also in the two sons of Joseph; for the elder bore the type of the Jews, the younger that of the Christians. When Jacob was blessing them, placing his right hand on the younger, whom he had on his left, and his left on the elder, whom he had on his right, it seemed a grave matter to their father, and he warned his father, as though correcting his error and showing which of them was the elder. But he would not change his hands, but said: “I know, my son, I know. This one too shall become a people, and this one shall be exalted; but his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.” Here too he shows those two promises. For the one shall become “a people,” the other “a multitude of nations.” What is more evident than that these two promises contain the people of Israel and the whole world in the seed of Abraham, the one according to the flesh, the other according to faith?

### Scripture references

- Gen 25:23: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 48:13–18: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 48:19: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Gen 25:23; Gen 48:13–18. Quotation: Gen 48:19.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.42 (CSEL 40:200; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-38/#p-16-42).

## City of God 16.43

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-38/#p-16-43
- Source: CSEL 40:200–204
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine surveys the exodus, the law, Joshua, the judges, and the kings to David, dividing the history into ages like the stages of a human life.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXXIII. De temporibus Moysi et Iesu Naue ac iudicum adque inde regum, quorum quidem Saul primus est, sed Dauid praecipuus et sacramento habetur et merito. Defuncto Iacob, defuncto etiam Ioseph per reliquos centum quadraginta quattuor annos, donec exiretur de terra Aegypti, in modum incredibilem illa gens creuit, etiam tantis adtrita persecutionibus, ut quodam tempore nati masculi necarentur, cum mirantes Aegyptios nimia populi illius incrementa terrerent. Tunc Moyses subtractus furto trucidatoribus paruulorum ad domum regiam, ingentia per eum Deo praeparante, peruenit nutritusque et adoptatus a filia Pharaonis (quod nomen in Aegypto omnium regum fuit) in tantum prouenit uirum, ut ipse illam gentem mirabiliter multiplicatam ex durissimo et grauissimo, quod ibi ferebat, iugo seruitutis extraheret, immo per eum Deus, qui hoc promiserat Abrahae. Prius quippe exinde fugiens, quod, cum Israelitam defenderet, Aegyptum occiderat et territus fuerat, postea diuinitus missus in potestate spiritus Dei superauit Pharaonis resistentes magos. Tunc per eum Aegyptiis inlatae sunt decem memorabiles plagae, cum dimittere populum Dei nollent, aqua in sanguinem uersa, rana et sciniphes, cynomyia, mors pecorum, ulcera, grando, lucusta, tenebrae, mors primogenitorum. Ad extremum Israelitas, quos plagis tot tantisque perfracti tandem aliquando dimiserant, Aegyptii in mari Rubro dum persequuntur extincti sunt. Illis quippe abeuntibus diuisum mare uiam fecit; hos autem insequentes in se rediens unda submersit. Deinde per annos quadraginta duce Moyse Dei populus in deserto actus est, quando tabernaculum testimonii nuncupatum est, ubi Deus sacrificiis futura praenuntiantibus colebatur, cum scilicet iam data lex fuisset in monte multum terribiliter; adtestabatur enim euidentissima mirabilibus signis uocibusque diuinitas. Quod factum est, mox ut exitum est de Aegypto et in deserto populus esse coepit, quinquagensimo die post celebratum Pascha per ouis immolationem; qui usque adeo typus Christi est praenuntians eum per uictimam passionis de hoc mundo transiturum ad Patrem (Pascha quippe Hebraea lingua transitus interpretatur), ut iam cum reuelaretur testamentum nouum, postea quam Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus, quinquagensimo die ueniret de caelo Spiritus sanctus, qui dictus est in euangelio digitus Dei, ut recordationem nostram in primi praefigurati facti memoriam reuocaret, quia et legis illae tabulae digito Dei scriptae referuntur. Defuncto Moyse populum rexit Iesus Naue et in terram promissionis introduxit eamque populo diuisit. Ab his duobus mirabilibus ducibus bella etiam prosperrime ac mirabiliter gesta sunt, Deo contestante non tam propter merita Hebraei populi quam propter peccata earum, quae debellabantur, gentium illas eis prouenisse uictorias. Post istos duces iudices fuerunt, iam in terra promissionis populo conlocato, ut inciperet interim reddi Abrahae prima promissio de gente una, id est Hebraea, et terra Chanaan, nondum de omnibus gentibus et toto orbe terrarum; quod Christi aduentus in carne et non ueteris legis obseruationes, sed euangelii fides fuerat inpletura. Cuius rei praefiguratio facta est, quod non Moyses, qui legem populo acceperat in monte Sina, sed Iesus, cui etiam nomen Deo praecipiente mutatum fuerat ut Iesus uocaretur, populum in terram promissionis induxit. Temporibus autem iudicum, sicut se habebant et peccata populi et misericordia Dei, alternauerunt prospera et aduersa bellorum. Inde uentum est ad regum tempora, quorum primus regnauit Saul; cui reprobato et bellica clade prostrato eiusque stirpe reiecta, ne inde reges orerentur, Dauid successit in regnum, cuius maxime Christus dictus est filius. In quo articulus quidam factus est et exordium quodam modo iuuentutis populi Dei; cuius generis quaedam uelut adulescentia ducebatur ab ipso Abraham usque ad hunc Dauid. Neque enim frustra Matthaeus euangelista sic generationes commemorauit, ut hoc primum interuallum quattuordecim generationibus commendaret, ab Abraham scilicet usque ad Dauid. Ab adulescentia quippe incipit homo posse generare; propterea generationum ex Abraham sumsit exordium; qui etiam pater gentium constitutus est, quando mutatum nomen accepit. Ante hunc ergo uelut pueritia fuit huius generis populi Dei a Noe usque ad ipsum Abraham; et ideo in lingua inuenta est, id est Hebraea. A pueritia namque homo incipit loqui post infantiam, quae hinc appellata est, quod fari non potest. Quam profecto aetatem primam demergit obliuio, sicut aetas prima generis humani est deleta diluuio. Quotus enim quisque est, qui suam recordetur infantiam? Quam ob rem in isto procursu ciuitatis Dei, sicut superior unam eandemque primam, ita duas aetates secundam et tertiam liber iste contineat, in qua tertia propter uaccam trimam, capram trimam, arietem trimum et inpositum est legis iugum et apparuit abundantia peccatorum et regni terreni surrexit exordium, ubi non defuerunt spiritales, quorum in turture et columba figuratum est sacramentum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 43. On the times of Moses, of Joshua son of Nun, and of the judges, and then of the kings, of whom Saul was the first, but David is held pre-eminent both in sacrament and in merit.

After Jacob died, and Joseph too, during the remaining hundred and forty-four years until they came out of the land of Egypt, that nation grew to an incredible degree, even though worn down by such persecutions that at one time male children were killed at birth, when the excessive increase of that people alarmed the astonished Egyptians. Then Moses, stolen away from the killers of little children, came to the royal house, God preparing great things through him; and, reared and adopted by Pharaoh's daughter (Pharaoh was the name of all the kings in Egypt), he became so great a man that he himself brought that nation, wonderfully multiplied, out of the very hard and very heavy yoke of slavery which it bore there; or rather God did so through him, who had promised this to Abraham. For first he fled from there because, in defending an Israelite, he had killed an Egyptian and was afraid; afterwards, sent by God, in the power of the Spirit of God he overcame Pharaoh's magicians who resisted him. Then through him the ten memorable plagues were brought on the Egyptians when they would not let God's people go: water turned into blood, frogs and gnats, dog-flies, the death of cattle, sores, hail, locusts, darkness, the death of the firstborn. Finally the Egyptians, while pursuing the Israelites, whom, broken by so many and such great plagues, they had at last let go, perished in the Red Sea. For as the Israelites went away, the sea divided and made a way; but as the Egyptians pursued, the returning wave overwhelmed them. Then for forty years God's people was led through the desert under Moses' leadership, when the tabernacle of the testimony was named, where God was worshipped with sacrifices foretelling things to come, the law having already been given on the mountain with great terror; for the divinity testified to it by most evident wonderful signs and voices. This took place soon after they came out of Egypt and the people began to be in the desert, on the fiftieth day after the Passover was celebrated by the sacrifice of a lamb; which is so much a type of Christ, foretelling that he would pass from this world to the Father through the sacrifice of his passion (for Pascha in the Hebrew language means “passing over”), that when the new covenant was revealed, after Christ our Passover was sacrificed, the Holy Spirit came from heaven on the fiftieth day; he is called in the Gospel the finger of God, so that he might recall our remembrance to the memory of the first prefigured event, since those tables of the law too are reported to have been written by the finger of God.

After Moses died, Joshua son of Nun ruled the people, brought them into the land of promise, and divided it among the people. By these two wonderful leaders wars were waged most successfully and wonderfully, God testifying that those victories came to them not so much because of the merits of the Hebrew people as because of the sins of the nations that were being conquered. After these leaders there were judges, the people now being settled in the land of promise, so that the first promise to Abraham began meanwhile to be paid, concerning one nation, the Hebrew, and the land of Canaan, not yet concerning all nations and the whole world; which the coming of Christ in the flesh, and not the observances of the old law but the faith of the Gospel, was to fulfil. A prefiguring of this was that it was not Moses, who had received the law for the people on Mount Sinai, but Joshua, whose name too had been changed at God's command so that he should be called Jesus, who brought the people into the land of promise. In the times of the judges, according as the sins of the people and the mercy of God stood, prosperity and adversity in war alternated. Then came the times of the kings, of whom Saul reigned first; when he was rejected and laid low by defeat in battle, and his stock cast off so that kings should not arise from it, David succeeded to the kingdom, whose son Christ is especially called. In him a certain turning point came about and, in a way, the beginning of the young manhood of God's people; the adolescence, as it were, of this race was reckoned from Abraham himself to this David. For it is not without reason that the evangelist Matthew recorded the generations in such a way as to mark this first interval with fourteen generations, namely from Abraham to David. For it is from adolescence that a man begins to be able to beget; that is why he took the beginning of the generations from Abraham, who was also made father of the nations when he received his changed name. Before him, then, there was as it were the childhood of this race of God's people, from Noah to Abraham himself; and that is why it was found in a language, namely Hebrew. For a man begins to speak in childhood, after infancy, which is so called because it cannot speak. That first age oblivion certainly submerges, as the first age of the human race was blotted out by the flood. For how many are there who remember their infancy? So in this course of the city of God, as the preceding book contained the one first age, so this book is to contain two ages, the second and the third; in the third, because of the three-year-old heifer, the three-year-old she-goat, and the three-year-old ram, the yoke of the law was imposed, the abundance of sins appeared, and the beginning of the earthly kingdom arose, where spiritual people were not lacking, whose sacrament was figured in the turtledove and the pigeon.

### Scripture references

- Exod 1:8–22: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 2:1–15: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 7:8–12:30: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 14:21–28: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 19:16–19: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 31:18: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 11:20: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 2:1–4: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 5:7: allusion, high confidence
- John 13:1: allusion, medium confidence
- Deut 9:4–5: allusion, high confidence
- Num 13:16: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Sam 31:1–6: allusion, medium confidence
- Matt 1:17: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 15:9: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Exod 1–14 (the ten plagues, Exod 7–12); Exod 19–20; Exod 31:18; Luke 11:20; Acts 2:1–4; 1 Cor 5:7; John 13:1; Deut 9:4–5; Num 13:16; Josh 1–24; Judges; 1 Sam 31; Matt 1:17; Gen 15:9. The 144 years from Joseph's death to the exodus follow the chronology Augustine uses (Eusebius–Jerome). The digital text splits “generationibus” across a line, corrected.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 16.43 (CSEL 40:200–204; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-38/#p-16-43).

## City of God 17.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-38/#p-17-1
- Source: CSEL 40:204–205
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Book 17 covers the age of the prophets from Samuel to the return from exile, whose writings foretell Christ and the city of God more than they record history.

### Latin text

De temporibus prophetarum. Promissiones Dei, quae factae sunt ad Abraham, cuius semini et gentem Israeliticam secundum carnem et omnes gentes deberi secundum fidem Deo pollicente didicimus, quem ad modum conpleantur, per ordinem temporum procurrens Dei ciuitas indicabit. Quoniam ergo superioris libri usque ad regnum Dauid factus est finis, nunc ab eodem regno, quantum suscepto operi sufficere uidetur, cetera quae sequuntur adtingimus. Hoc itaque tempus, ex quo sanctus Samuel prophetare coepit, et deinceps, donec populus Israel captiuus in Babyloniam duceretur adque inde secundum sancti Hieremiae prophetiam post septuaginta annos reuersis Israelitis Dei domus instauraretur, totum tempus est prophetarum. Quamuis enim et ipsum Noe patriarcham, in cuius diebus uniuersa diluuio terra diluta est, et alios supra et infra usque ad hoc tempus, quo reges in Dei populo esse coeperunt, propter quaedam per eos futura siue quoquo modo significata siue praedicta, quae pertinerent ad ciuitatem Dei regnumque caelorum, non inmerito possumus appellare prophetas, praesertim quia nonnullos eorum id expressius legimus nuncupatos, sicut Abraham, sicut Moysen: tamen dies prophetarum praecipue maximeque hi dicti sunt, ex quo coepit prophetare Samuel, qui et Saulem prius et eo reprobato ipsum Dauid Deo praecipiente unxit in regem, de cuius ceteri stirpe succederent, quousque illos succedere sic oporteret. Quae igitur a prophetis sint praedicta de Christo, cum moriendo decedentibus et nascendo succedentibus suis membris ciuitas Dei per ista curreret tempora, si omnia uelim commemorare, in inmensum pergitur, primum quia ipsa scriptura, quae per ordinem reges eorumque facta et euenta digerens uidetur tamquam historica diligentia rebus gestis occupata esse narrandis, si adiuuante Dei spiritu considerata tractetur, uel magis uel certe non minus praenuntiandis futuris quam praeteritis enuntiandis inuenietur intenta; (et hoc perscrutando indagare ac disserendo monstrare quam sit operosum adque prolixum et quam multis indiguum uoluminibus, quis ignorat, qui haec uel mediocriter cogitat?) deinde quia ea ipsa, quae ad prophetiam non ambigitur pertinere, ita sunt multa de Christo regnoque caelorum, quae ciuitas Dei est, ut ad hoc aperiendum maior sit disputatio necessaria, quam huius operis modus flagitat. Proinde ita, si potuero, stilo moderabor meo, ut huic operi in Dei uoluntate peragendo nec ea quae supersunt dicam nec ea quae satis sunt praetermittam.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. On the times of the prophets.

How the promises of God made to Abraham, to whose seed, as we have learned from God's pledge, both the nation of Israel according to the flesh and all nations according to faith were due, are fulfilled, the city of God, running its course through the order of times, will show. Since, then, the preceding book ended with the reign of David, we now touch on the rest that follows from that reign, as far as seems sufficient for the work undertaken. This period, then, from the time when holy Samuel began to prophesy, and onward until the people of Israel was led captive into Babylonia and then, according to the prophecy of holy Jeremiah, the house of God was restored after seventy years when the Israelites returned, is the whole time of the prophets. For although we may not undeservedly call the patriarch Noah himself, in whose days the whole earth was washed away by the flood, and others before and after him down to this time when there began to be kings among God's people, prophets, because of certain things to come which were either signified in some way or foretold through them and which pertained to the city of God and the kingdom of heaven, especially since we read that some of them were expressly so called, like Abraham and Moses, yet those days are called the days of the prophets principally and chiefly from the time when Samuel began to prophesy, who at God's command anointed first Saul as king and, when he was rejected, David himself, from whose stock the rest were to succeed, as long as it was fitting that they should so succeed. If, then, I wished to record all that was foretold by the prophets about Christ, while the city of God ran its course through these times with its members departing by death and succeeding by birth, it would go on without limit. First, because that very Scripture which, setting out in order the kings and their deeds and fortunes, seems to be occupied with narrating events with a historian's diligence, will be found, if it is examined and treated with the help of God's Spirit, to be intent more, or certainly not less, on foretelling the future than on relating the past (and who that gives this even moderate thought does not know how laborious and lengthy it is to investigate this by searching and show it by discussion, and how many volumes it would need?); then, because the things themselves which undoubtedly pertain to prophecy are so many, about Christ and the kingdom of heaven, which is the city of God, that a larger discussion is necessary to open them up than the measure of this work demands. So I will, if I can, so govern my pen that in completing this work according to God's will I neither say what is superfluous nor leave out what is sufficient.

### Scripture references

- Jer 25:11–12: allusion, high confidence
- Jer 29:10: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Sam 3:20: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Sam 10:1: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Sam 16:13: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 20:7: allusion, medium confidence
- Deut 34:10: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Jer 25:11–12; 29:10; 1 Sam 3:20; 1 Sam 10:1; 1 Sam 16:13; Gen 20:7 (Abraham called a prophet); Deut 34:10.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.1 (CSEL 40:204–205; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-38/#p-17-1).

## City of God 17.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-38/#p-17-2
- Source: CSEL 40:205–207
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The promise of the land was fulfilled under David and Solomon; Israel's later punishments served to train the faithful and warn the nations.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. Quo tempore sit inpleta promissio Dei de terra Chanaan, quam in possessionem etiam Israel carnalis accepit. In praecedente libro diximus ab initio ad Abraham promissionum Dei duas res fuisse promissas, unam scilicet, quod terram Chanaan possessurum fuerat semen eius (quod significatur, ubi dictum est: Vade in terram, quam tibi demonstrauero, et faciam te in gentem magnam), aliam uero longe praestantiorem non de carnali, sed de spiritali semine, per quod pater est non unius gentis Israeliticae, sed omnium gentium, quae fidei eius uestigia consequuntur; quod promitti coepit his uerbis: Et benedicentur in te omnes tribus terrae; et deinceps aliis multis admodum testimoniis haec duo promissa esse monstrauimus. Erat igitur iam in terra promissionis semen Abrahae, id est populus Israel, secundum carnem adque ibi non solum tenendo ac possidendo ciuitates aduersariorum, uerum etiam reges habendo regnare iam coeperat, inpletis de ipso populo promissionibus Dei magna iam ex parte, non solum quae tribus illis patribus Abraham Isaac et Iacob, et quaecumque aliae temporibus eorum, uerum etiam quae per ipsum Moysen, per quem populus idem de seruitute Aegyptia liberatus et per quem cuncta praeterita reuelata sunt, temporibus eius, cum populum per eremum duceret, factae fuerant. Neque autem per insignem ducem Iesum Naue, per quem populus ille in promissionis inductus est terram expugnatisque gentibus eam duodecim tribubus, quibus Deus iusserat, diuisit et mortuus est, neque post illum toto tempore iudicum inpleta fuerat promissio Dei de terra Chanaan a quodam flumine Aegypti usque ad flumen magnum Euphraten; nec tamen adhuc prophetabatur futurum, sed exspectabatur inplendum. Inpletum est autem per Dauid et eius filium Salomonem, cuius regnum tanto, quanto promissum fuerat, spatio dilatatum est; uniuersos quippe illos subdiderunt tributariosque fecerunt. Sic igitur in terra promissionis secundum carnem, hoc est in terra Chanaan, sub his regibus semen Abrahae fuerat constitutum, ut nihil deinde superesset, quo terrena illa Dei promissio conpleretur, nisi ut in eadem terra, quantum ad prosperitatem adtinet temporalem, per posteritatis successionem inconcusso statu usque ad mortalis huius saeculi terminum gens permaneret Hebraea, si Domini Dei sui legibus oboediret. Sed quoniam Deus nouerat hoc eam non esse facturam, usus est eius etiam temporalibus poenis ad exercendos in ea paucos fideles suos et admonendos qui postea futuri erant in omnibus gentibus, quod eos admoneri oportebat, in quibus alteram promissionem reuelato nouo testamento per incarnationem Christi fuerat inpleturus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. At what time God's promise about the land of Canaan was fulfilled, which carnal Israel too received in possession.

In the preceding book we said that from the beginning of God's promises to Abraham two things were promised: one, that his seed was to possess the land of Canaan (which is signified where it is said, “Go into the land that I will show you, and I will make you into a great nation”); the other, far more excellent, concerning not the carnal but the spiritual seed, through which he is the father not of the one nation of Israel but of all the nations that follow in the footsteps of his faith; which began to be promised in these words: “And in you all the tribes of the earth shall be blessed.” And thereafter we showed by very many other testimonies that these two things were promised. The seed of Abraham according to the flesh, that is, the people of Israel, was therefore already in the land of promise, and there had already begun to reign, not only holding and possessing the cities of its adversaries but also having kings; God's promises concerning that people had already been fulfilled in great part: not only those made to those three fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and any others in their times, but also those made through Moses himself, through whom that same people was freed from Egyptian slavery and through whom all past things were revealed, in his times, when he led the people through the desert. But neither through the famous leader Joshua son of Nun, through whom that people was brought into the land of promise and who, when the nations had been conquered, divided it among the twelve tribes as God had commanded, and died; nor after him in the whole time of the judges, had God's promise about the land of Canaan from a certain river of Egypt to the great river Euphrates been fulfilled; yet it was no longer being prophesied as future but awaited as to be fulfilled. It was fulfilled through David and his son Solomon, whose kingdom was extended over as great an area as had been promised; for they subdued all those peoples and made them tributary. So under these kings the seed of Abraham had been established in the land of promise according to the flesh, that is, in the land of Canaan, in such a way that nothing further remained for the fulfilment of that earthly promise of God except that in that same land, as regards temporal prosperity, the Hebrew nation should remain through the succession of its posterity in an unshaken state until the end of this mortal age, if it obeyed the laws of the Lord its God. But since God knew that it would not do this, he used even temporal punishments on it, to exercise his few faithful ones in it, and to warn those who were later to be in all nations, who needed to be warned, and in whom he was to fulfil the other promise by revealing the new covenant through the incarnation of Christ.

### Scripture references

- Gen 12:1–3: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 15:18: allusion, high confidence
- Josh 13:1–21:45: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Kgs 4:21: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Sam 8:1–14: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 12:1–3. Allusions: Gen 15:18; Josh 13–21; 1 Kgs 4:21; 2 Sam 8. The summary of Book 16 refers to 16.16.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.2 (CSEL 40:205–207; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/16-38/#p-17-2).

## City of God 17.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-3/#p-17-3
- Source: CSEL 40:207–210
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Prophecies refer to the earthly Jerusalem, the heavenly Jerusalem, or both; Augustine rejects both purely literal and wholly allegorical reading.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. De tripertitis significationibus prophetarum, quae nunc ad terrenam, nunc ad caelestem Hierusalem, nunc autem ad utramque referuntur. Quocirca sicut oracula illa diuina ad Abraham Isaac et Iacob et quaecumque alia signa uel dicta prophetica in sacris litteris praecedentibus facta sunt, ita etiam ceterae ab isto regum tempore prophetiae partim pertinent ad gentem carnis Abrahae, partim uero ad illud semen eius, in quo benedicuntur omnes gentes coheredes Christi per testamentum nouum ad possidendam uitam aeternam regnumque caelorum; partim ergo ad ancillam, quae in seruitutem generat, id est terrenam Hierusalem, quae seruit cum filiis suis, partim uero ad liberam ciuitatem Dei, id est ueram Hierusalem aeternam in caelis, cuius filii homines secundum Deum uiuentes peregrinantur in terris; sed sunt in eis quaedam, quae ad utramque pertinere intelleguntur, ad ancillam proprie, ad liberam figurate. Tripertita itaque reperiuntur eloquia prophetarum, si quidem aliqua sunt ad terrenam Hierusalem spectantia, aliqua ad caelestem, nonnulla ad utramque. Exemplis uideo probandum esse quod dico. Missus est Nathan propheta, qui regem Dauid argueret de peccato graui et ei, quae consecuta sunt mala, futura praediceret. Haec adque huius modi siue publice, id est pro salute uel utilitate populi, siue priuatim, cum pro suis quisque rebus diuina promereretur eloquia, quibus pro usu temporalis uitae futuri aliquid nosceretur, ad terrenam ciuitatem pertinuisse quis ambigat? Ubi autem legitur: Ecce dies ueniunt, dicit Dominus, et consummabo domui Israel et domui Iuda testamentum nouum, non secundum testamentum, quod disposui patribus eorum in die, qua adprehendi manum eorum, ut educerem eos de terra Aegypti, quoniam ipsi non permanserunt in testamento meo, et ego neglexi eos, dicit Dominus. Quia hoc est testamentum, quod constituam domui Israel post dies illos, dicit Dominus, dando leges meas in mentem eorum et super corda eorum scribam eas, et uidebo eos, et ero illis in Deum, et ipsi erunt mihi in plebem: Hierusalem sine dubio superna prophetatur, cuius Deus ipse praemium est, eumque habere adque ipsius esse summum ibi est adque totum bonum. Ad utramque uero pertinet hoc ipsum, quod Hierusalem dicitur Dei ciuitas, et in ea prophetatur futura domus Dei, eaque prophetia uidetur inpleri, cum Salomon rex aedificat illud nobilissimum templum. Haec enim et in terrena Hierusalem secundum historiam contigerunt, et caelestis Hierusalem figurae fuerunt. Quod genus prophetiae ex utroque ueluti conpactum adque commixtum in libris ueteribus canonicis, quibus rerum gestarum narrationes continentur, ualet plurimum multumque exercuit et exercet ingenia scrutantium litteras sacras, ut, quod historice praedictum conpletumque legitur in semine Abrahae secundum carnem, etiam in semine Abrahae secundum fidem quid inplendum allegorice significet inquiratur; in tantum ut quibusdam uisum sit nihil esse in eisdem libris uel praenuntiatum et effectum, uel effectum quamuis non praenuntiatum, quod non insinuet aliquid ad supernam ciuitatem Dei eiusque filios in hac uita peregrinos figurata significatione referendum. Sed si hoc ita est, iam bipertita, non tripertita erunt eloquia prophetarum, uel potius illarum scripturarum omnium, quae ueteris instrumenti appellatione censentur. Nihil enim erit illic, quod ad Hierusalem terrenam tantum pertineat, si, quidquid ibi de illa uel propter illam dicitur adque conpletur, significat aliquid, quod etiam ad Hierusalem caelestem allegorica praefiguratione referatur; sed erunt sola duo genera, unum quod ad Hierusalem liberam, alterum quod ad utramque pertineat. Mihi autem sicut multum uidentur errare, qui nullas res gestas in eo genere litterarum aliquid aliud praeter id, quod eo modo gestae sunt, significare arbitrantur, ita multum audere, qui prorsus ibi omnia significationibus allegoricis inuoluta esse contendunt. Ideo tripertita, non bipertita esse dixi. Hoc enim existimo, non tamen culpans eos, qui potuerint illic de quacumque re gesta sensum intellegentiae spiritalis exsculpere, seruata dumtaxat primitus historiae ueritate. Ceterum quae ita dicuntur, ut rebus humanitus seu diuinitus gestis siue gerendis conuenire non possint, quis fidelis dubitet non esse inaniter dicta? Quis ea non ad intellegentiam spiritalem reuocet, si possit, aut ab eo qui potest reuocanda esse fateatur?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. On the threefold meanings of the prophets, which refer now to the earthly, now to the heavenly Jerusalem, and now to both.

Therefore, just as those divine oracles to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and whatever other prophetic signs or sayings occur in the earlier sacred writings, so also the other prophecies from this time of the kings pertain partly to the nation of Abraham's flesh, and partly to that seed of his in which all nations are blessed, co-heirs of Christ through the new covenant, to possess eternal life and the kingdom of heaven: partly, then, to the slave woman who bears children for slavery, that is, the earthly Jerusalem, which is in slavery with her children, and partly to the free city of God, that is, the true Jerusalem eternal in heaven, whose children, men living according to God, are on pilgrimage on earth; but there are some things among them which are understood to pertain to both, to the slave woman properly, to the free woman figuratively. So the utterances of the prophets are found to be threefold: some look to the earthly Jerusalem, some to the heavenly, some to both.

I see that I must prove what I say by examples. The prophet Nathan was sent to rebuke King David for a grave sin and to foretell to him the evils that followed. Who would doubt that these and similar things, whether public, that is, for the safety or benefit of the people, or private, when each obtained divine words about his own affairs by which something future was known for the use of temporal life, pertained to the earthly city? But where we read: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah a new covenant, not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in my covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant which I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: putting my laws into their mind, and I will write them on their hearts; and I will look upon them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people”: there without doubt the Jerusalem above is prophesied, whose reward is God himself, and to have him and to be his is the highest and whole good there. But to both pertains this very thing, that Jerusalem is called the city of God and that the house of God is prophesied to be in it; and that prophecy seems to be fulfilled when King Solomon builds that most famous temple. For these things both happened historically in the earthly Jerusalem and were figures of the heavenly Jerusalem. This kind of prophecy, as it were compounded and mixed from both, is very powerful in the old canonical books which contain narratives of events, and it has greatly exercised and still exercises the minds of those who search the sacred writings, so that what is read as foretold and fulfilled historically in the seed of Abraham according to the flesh is also examined for what it signifies allegorically as to be fulfilled in the seed of Abraham according to faith; so much so that some have thought there is nothing in those books, either foretold and brought about, or brought about though not foretold, which does not suggest something to be referred by figurative meaning to the city of God above and its children, pilgrims in this life. But if this is so, the utterances of the prophets, or rather of all those Scriptures which are counted under the name of the Old Testament, will be not threefold but twofold. For there will be nothing there that pertains only to the earthly Jerusalem, if whatever is said and fulfilled there about it or because of it signifies something which is also to be referred by allegorical prefiguring to the heavenly Jerusalem; there will be only two kinds, one pertaining to the free Jerusalem, the other to both. But to me, just as those seem to err greatly who think that no events in that kind of writing signify anything other than that they happened as they did, so those seem to be very bold who contend that absolutely everything there is wrapped up in allegorical meanings. That is why I said they were threefold, not twofold. This is what I think; yet I do not blame those who have been able to carve out a sense of spiritual understanding from any event there, provided, of course, that the truth of the history is first preserved. For the rest, when things are said in such a way that they cannot fit events done or to be done by human or divine agency, what believer would doubt that they were not said idly? Who would not refer them to a spiritual understanding, if he could, or confess that they should be so referred by one who can?

### Scripture references

- Gal 4:24–26: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 8:17: allusion, medium confidence
- 2 Sam 12:1–14: allusion, high confidence
- Jer 31:31–33 (38:31-Jer LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Heb 8:8–10: quotation, medium confidence
- 1 Kgs 6:1–38: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Gal 4:24–26; Rom 8:17; 2 Sam 12:1–14; 1 Kgs 6. Quotation: Jer 31:31–33 (38:31–33 LXX) in the Greek-based form (“and I disregarded them”), as in Heb 8:8–10.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.3 (CSEL 40:207–210; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-3/#p-17-3).

## City of God 17.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-3/#p-17-4
- Source: CSEL 40:210–220
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Hannah's song (1 Sam 2:1–10) goes beyond thanks for Samuel: it prophesies the Church, the humbling of the proud, Christ's death and resurrection, his ascension and judgment, and the new priesthood.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. De praefigurata commutatione Israelitici regni et sacerdotii et de his, quae Anna, mater Samuelis, personam gerens ecclesiae prophetauit. Procursus igitur ciuitatis Dei ubi peruenit ad regum tempora, quando Dauid Saule reprobato ita regnum primus obtinuit, ut eius deinde posteri in terrena Hierusalem diuturna successione regnarent, dedit figuram, re gesta significans adque praenuntians, quod non est praetereundum silentio, de rerum mutatione futurarum, quod adtinet ad duo testamenta, uetus et nouum, ubi sacerdotium regnumque mutatum est per sacerdotem eundemque regem nouum ac sempiternum, qui est Christus Iesus. Nam et Heli sacerdote reprobato substitutus in Dei ministerium Samuel simul officio functus sacerdotis et iudicis, et Saule abiecto rex Dauid fundatus in regno hoc quod dico figurauerunt. Mater quoque ipsa Samuelis Anna, quae prius fuit sterilis et posteriore fecunditate laetata est, prophetare aliud non uidetur, cum gratulationem suam Domino fundit exultans, quando eundem puerum natum et ablactatum Deo reddidit eadem pietate, qua uouerat. Dicit enim: Confirmatum est cor meum in Domino, exaltatum est cornu meum in Deo meo. Dilatatum est super inimicos meos os meum, laetata sum in salutari tuo. Quoniam non est sanctus sicut Dominus, et non est iustus sicut Deus noster; non est sanctus praeter te. Nolite gloriari et nolite loqui excelsa, neque procedat magniloquium de ore uestro. Quoniam Deus scientiarum Dominus, et Deus praeparans adinuentiones suas. Arcum potentium fecit infirmum, et infirmi praecincti sunt uirtute. Pleni panibus minorati sunt, et esurientes transierunt terram. Quia sterilis peperit septem, et multa in filiis infirmata est. Dominus mortificat et uiuificat, deducit ad inferos et reducit. Dominus pauperes facit et ditat, humiliat et exaltat. Suscitat a terra pauperem et de stercore erigit inopem, ut conlocet eum cum potentibus populi, et sedem gloriae hereditatem dans eis; dans uotum uouenti, et benedixit annos iusti, quoniam non in uirtute potens est uir. Dominus infirmum faciet aduersarium suum, Dominus sanctus. Non glorietur prudens in prudentia sua, et non glorietur potens in potentia sua, et non glorietur diues in diuitiis suis; sed in hoc glorietur, qui gloriatur, intellegere et scire Dominum et facere iudicium et iustitiam in medio terrae. Dominus ascendit in caelos et tonuit; ipse iudicabit extrema terrae, quia iustus est; et dat uirtutem regibus nostris, et exaltabit cornu christi sui. Itane uero uerba haec unius putabuntur esse mulierculae de nato sibi filio gratulantis? Tantumne mens hominum a luce ueritatis auersa est, ut non sentiat supergredi modum feminae huius dicta quae fudit? Porro qui rebus ipsis, quae iam coeperunt etiam in hac terrena peregrinatione conpleri, conuenienter mouetur, nonne intendit et adspicit et agnoscit per hanc mulierem, cuius etiam nomen, id est Anna, gratia eius interpretatur, ipsam religionem Christianam, ipsam ciuitatem Dei, cuius rex est et conditor Christus, ipsam postremo Dei gratiam prophetico spiritu sic locutam, a qua superbi alienantur, ut cadant, qua humiles inplentur, ut surgant, quod maxime hymnus iste personuit? Nisi quisquam forte dicturus est nihil istam prophetasse mulierem, sed Deum tantummodo propter filium, quem precata inpetrauit, exultanti praedicatione laudasse. Quid ergo sibi uult quod ait: Arcum potentium fecit infirmum, et infirmi praecincti sunt uirtute; pleni panibus minorati sunt, et esurientes transierunt terram; quia sterilis peperit septem, et multa in filiis infirmata est? Numquid septem ipsa pepererat, quamuis sterilis fuerit? Unicum habebat, quando ista dicebat; sed nec postea septem peperit, siue sex, quibus septimus esset ipse Samuel, sed tres mares et duas feminas. Deinde in illo populo cum adhuc nemo regnaret, quod in extremo posuit: Dat uirtutem regibus nostris, et exaltabit cornu christi sui, unde dicebat, si non prophetabat? Dicat ergo ecclesia Christi, ciuitas regis magni, gratia plena, prole fecunda, dicat quod tanto ante de se prophetatum per os huius piae matris agnoscit: Confirmatum est cor meum in Domino, exaltatum est cornu meum in Deo meo. Vere confirmatum cor et cornu uere exaltatum, quia non in se, sed in Domino Deo suo. Dilatatum est super inimicos meos os meum; quia et in angustiis pressurarum sermo Dei non est adligatus nec in praeconibus adligatis. Laetata sum, inquit, in salutari tuo. Christus est iste Iesus, quem Simeon, sicut in euangelio legitur, senex amplectens paruum, agnoscens magnum: Nunc dimittis, inquit, Domine, seruum tuum in pace, quoniam uiderunt oculi mei salutare tuum. Dicat itaque ecclesia: Laetata sum in salutari tuo; quoniam non est sanctus, sicut Dominus, et non est iustus, sicut Deus noster; tamquam sanctus et sanctificans, iustus et iustificans. Non est sanctus praeter te, quia nemo fit nisi abs te. Denique sequitur: Nolite gloriari et nolite loqui excelsa, neque exeat magniloquium de ore uestro; quoniam Deus scientiarum Dominus. Ipse uos scit, et ubi nemo scit; quoniam qui putat se aliquid esse, cum nihil sit, se ipsum seducit. Haec dicuntur aduersariis ciuitatis Dei ad Babyloniam pertinentibus, de sua uirtute praesumentibus, in se, non in Domino gloriantibus; ex quibus sunt etiam carnales Israelitae, terrenae Hierusalem ciues terrigenae, qui, ut dicit apostolus, ignorantes Dei iustitiam (id est, quam dat homini Deus, qui solus est iustus adque iustificans) et suam uolentes constituere (id est uelut a se sibi partam, non ab illo inpertitam) iustitiae Dei non sunt subiecti, utique quia superbi, de suo putantes, non de Dei, posse placere se Deo, qui est Deus scientiarum adque ideo et arbiter conscientiarum, ibi uidens cogitationes hominum, quoniam uanae sunt, si hominum sunt et ab illo non sunt. Et praeparans, inquit, adinuentiones suas. Quas adinuentiones putamus, nisi ut superbi cadant et humiles surgant? Has quippe adinuentiones exsequitur dicens: Arcus potentium infirmatus est, et infirmi praecincti sunt uirtute. Infirmatus est arcus, id est intentio eorum, qui tam potentes sibi uidentur, ut sine Dei dono adque adiutorio humana sufficientia diuina possint inplere mandata, et praecinguntur uirtute, quorum interna uox est: Miserere mei, Domine, quoniam infirmus sum. Pleni panibus, inquit, minorati sunt, et esurientes transierunt terram. Qui sunt intellegendi pleni panibus, nisi idem ipsi quasi potentes, id est Israelitae, quibus credita sunt eloquia Dei? Sed in eo populo ancillae filii minorati sunt (quo uerbo minus quidem Latine, bene tamen expressum est, quod ex maioribus minores facti sunt), quia et in ipsis panibus, id est diuinis eloquiis, quae Israelitae soli tunc ex omnibus gentibus acceperunt, terrena sapiunt. Gentes autem, quibus lex illa non erat data, postea quam per nouum testamentum ad eloquia illa uenerunt, multum esuriendo terram transierunt, quia in eis non terrena, sed caelestia sapuerunt. Et hoc uelut quaereretur causa quur factum sit: Quia sterilis, inquit, peperit septem, et multa in filiis infirmata est. Hic totum quod prophetabatur eluxit agnoscentibus numerum septenarium, quo est uniuersae ecclesiae significata perfectio. Propter quod et Iohannes apostolus ad septem scribit ecclesias, eo modo se ostendens ad unius plenitudinem scribere; et in prouerbiis Salomonis hoc antea praefigurans Sapientia aedificauit sibi domum et subfulsit columnas septem. Sterilis enim erat in omnibus gentibus Dei ciuitas, antequam iste fetus, quem cernimus, oreretur. Cernimus etiam, quae multa in filiis erat, nunc infirmatam Hierusalem terrenam; quoniam quicumque filii liberae in ea erant, uirtus eius erant; nunc uero ibi quoniam littera est et spiritus non est, amissa uirtute infirmata est. Dominus mortificat et uiuificat; mortificauit illam, quae multa erat in filiis, et uiuificauit hanc sterilem, quae peperit septem. Quamuis commodius possit intellegi eosdem uiuificare, quos mortificauerit. Id enim uelut repetiuit addendo: Deducit ad inferos et reducit. Quibus enim dicit apostolus: Si mortui estis cum Christo, quae sursum sunt quaerite, ubi Christus est in dextera Dei sedens, salubriter utique mortificantur a Domino: quibus adiungit: Quae sursum sunt sapite, non quae super terram; ut ipsi sint illi, qui esurientes transierunt terram. Mortui enim estis, inquit; ecce quo modo salubriter mortificat Deus; deinde sequitur: Et uita uestra abscondita est cum Christo in Deo; ecce quo modo eosdem ipsos uiuificat Deus. Sed numquid eosdem deduxit ad inferos et reduxit? Hoc utrumque sine controuersia fidelium in illo potius uidemus inpletum, capite scilicet nostro, cum quo uitam nostram in Deo apostolus dixit absconditam. Nam cum proprio filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum, isto modo utique mortificauit eum; et quia resuscitauit a mortuis, eundem rursus uiuificauit. Et quia in prophetia uox eius agnoscitur: Non derelinques animam meam in inferno, eundem deduxit ad inferos et reduxit. Hac eius paupertate ditati sumus. Dominus enim pauperes facit et ditat. Nam quid hoc sit ut sciamus, quod sequitur audiamus: Humiliat et exaltat; utique superbos humiliat et humiles exaltat. Quod enim alibi legitur: Deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam, hoc totus habet sermo huius, cuius nomen interpretatur gratia eius. Iam uero quod adiungitur: Suscitat a terra pauperem, de nullo melius quam de illo intellego, qui propter nos pauper factus est, cum diues esset, ut eius paupertate, sicut paulo ante dictum est, ditaremur. Ipsum enim de terra suscitauit tam cito, ut caro eius non uideret corruptionem. Nec illud ab illo alienabo, quod additum est: Et de stercore erigit inopem. Inops quippe idem, qui pauper; stercus uero, unde erectus est, rectissime intelleguntur persecutores Iudaei, in quorum numero cum se dixisset apostolus ecclesiam persecutum: Quae mihi fuerunt, inquit, lucra, haec propter Christum damna esse duxi; nec solum detrimenta, uerum etiam stercora existimaui esse, ut Christum lucri facerem. De terra ergo suscitatus est ille supra omnes diuites pauper, et de illo stercore erectus est supra omnes opulentos ille inops, ut sedeat cum potentibus populi, quibus ait: Sedebitis super duodecim sedes, et sedem gloriae hereditatem dans eis; dixerant enim potentes illi: Ecce nos dimisimus omnia et secuti sumus te. Hoc uotum potentissime uouerant. Sed unde hoc eis, nisi ab illo, de quo hic continuo dictum est: Dans uotum uouenti? Alioquin ex illis essent potentibus, quorum infirmatus est arcus. Dans, inquit, uotum uouenti. Non enim Domino quisquam quidquam rectum uoueret, nisi qui ab illo acciperet quod uoueret. Sequitur: Et benedixit annos iusti, ut cum illo scilicet sine fine uiuat, cui dictum est: Et anni tui non deficient. Ibi enim stant anni, hic autem transeunt, immo pereunt; antequam ueniant enim, non sunt; cum autem uenerint, non erunt, quia cum suo fine ueniunt. Horum autem duorum, id est dans uotum uouenti, et benedixit annos iusti, unum est quod facimus, alterum quod sumimus. Sed hoc alterum Deo largitore non sumitur, nisi cum ipso adiutore primum illud efficitur: Quia non in uirtute potens est uir. Dominus infirmum faciet aduersarium eius; illum scilicet, qui homini uouenti inuidet et resistit, ne ualeat inplere quod uouit. Potest ex ambiguo Graeco intellegi et aduersarium suum. Cum enim Dominus possidere nos coeperit, profecto aduersarius, qui noster fuerat, ipsius fit, et uincetur a nobis, sed non uiribus nostris, quia non in uirtute potens est uir. Dominus ergo infirmum faciet aduersarium suum, Dominus sanctus; ut uincatur a sanctis, quos Dominus sanctus sanctorum efficit sanctos. Ac per hoc non glorietur prudens in sua prudentia, et non glorietur potens in sua potentia, et non glorietur diues in diuitiis suis; sed in hoc glorietur, qui gloriatur, intellegere et scire Dominum et facere iudicium et iustitiam in medio terrae. Non parua ex parte intellegit et scit Dominum, qui intellegit et scit etiam hoc a Domino sibi dari, ut intellegat et sciat Dominum. Quid enim habes, ait apostolus, quod non accepisti? Si autem et accepisti, quid gloriaris, quasi non acceperis? id est, quasi a te ipso tibi sit, unde gloriaris. Facit autem iudicium et iustitiam, qui recte uiuit. Recte autem uiuit, qui obtemperat praecipienti Deo; et finis praecepti, id est, ad quod refertur praeceptum, caritas est de corde puro et conscientia bona et fide non ficta. Porro ista caritas, sicut Iohannes apostolus testatur, ex Deo est. Facere igitur iudicium et iustitiam ex Deo est. Sed quid est: In medio terrae? Neque enim non debent facere iudicium et iustitiam qui habitant in extremis terrae. Quis hoc dixerit? Quur ergo additum est: In medio terrae? Quod si non adderetur et tantummodo diceretur: Facere iudicium et iustitiam, magis hoc praeceptum ad utrosque homines pertineret, et mediterraneos et maritimos. Sed ne quisquam putaret post finem uitae, quae in hoc agitur corpore, superesse tempus iudicium iustitiamque faciendi, quam dum esset in carne non fecit, et sic diuinum euadi posse iudicium: in medio terrae mihi uidetur dictum cum quisque uiuit in corpore. In hac quippe uita suam terram quisque circumfert, quam moriente homine recipit terra communis, resurgenti utique redditura. Proinde in medio terrae, id est, cum anima nostra isto terreno clauditur corpore, faciendum est iudicium adque iustitia, quod nobis prosit in posterum, quando recipit quisque secundum ea, quae per corpus gessit, siue bonum siue malum. Per corpus quippe ibi dixit apostolus per tempus, quo uixit in corpore. Neque enim si quis maligna mente adque inpia cogitatione blasphemet neque id ullis membris corporis operetur, ideo non erit reus, quia id non motu corporis gessit, cum hoc per illud tempus gesserit, quo gessit et corpus. Isto modo congruenter intellegi potest etiam illud, quod in psalmo legitur: Deus autem rex noster ante saecula operatus est salutem in medio terrae; ut Dominus Iesus accipiatur Deus noster, qui est ante saecula, quia per ipsum facta sunt saecula, operatus salutem nostram in medio terrae, cum Verbum caro factum est et terreno habitauit in corpore. Deinde postea quam prophetatum est in his uerbis Annae, quo modo gloriari debeat, qui gloriatur, non in se utique, sed in Domino, propter retributionem, quae in die iudicii futura est: Dominus ascendit, inquit, in caelos et tonuit; ipse iudicabit extrema terrae, quia iustus est. Prorsus ordinem tenuit confessionis fidelium. Ascendit enim in caelum Dominus Christus, et inde uenturus est ad uiuos et mortuos iudicandos. Nam quis ascendit, sicut dicit apostolus, nisi qui et descendit in inferiores partes terrae? Qui descendit, ipse est et qui ascendit super omnes caelos, ut adinpleret omnia. Per nubes ergo suas tonuit, quas sancto Spiritu cum ascendisset inpleuit. De quibus ancillae Hierusalem, hoc est ingratae uineae, comminatus est aput Esaiam prophetam, ne pluant super eam imbrem. Sic autem dictum est: Ipse iudicabit extrema terrae, ac si diceretur: Etiam extrema terrae. Non enim alias partes non iudicabit, qui omnes homines procul dubio iudicabit. Sed melius intelleguntur extrema terrae extrema hominis: quoniam non iudicabuntur, quae in melius uel in deterius medio tempore commutantur, sed in quibus extremis inuentus fuerit, qui iudicabitur. Propter quod dictum est: Qui perseuerauerit usque in finem, hic saluus erit. Qui ergo perseueranter facit iudicium et iustitiam in medio terrae, non damnabitur, cum iudicabuntur extrema terrae. Et dat, inquit, uirtutem regibus nostris; ut non eos iudicando condemnet. Dat eis uirtutem, qua carnem sicut reges regant et in illo mundum, qui propter eos fudit sanguinem, uincant. Et exaltabit cornu christi sui. Quo modo Christus exaltabit cornu christi sui? De quo enim supra dictum est: Dominus ascendit in caelos, et intellectus est Dominus Christus: ipse, sicut hic dicitur, exaltabit cornu christi sui. Quis ergo est christus Christi? An cornu exaltabit uniuscuiusque fidelis sui, sicut ista ipsa in principio huius hymni ait: Exaltatum est cornu meum in Deo meo? Omnes quippe unctos eius chrismate recte christos possumus dicere; quod tamen totum cum suo capite corpus unus est Christus. Haec Anna prophetauit, Samuelis mater, sancti uiri multumque laudati; in quo quidem tunc figurata est mutatio ueteris sacerdotii et nunc inpleta, quando infirmata est quae multa erat in filiis, ut nouum haberet in Christo sacerdotium sterilis, quae peperit septem.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. On the prefigured change of the kingdom and priesthood of Israel, and on what Hannah, the mother of Samuel, prophesied, bearing the person of the Church.

When the course of the city of God came to the times of the kings, when David, Saul being rejected, first obtained the kingdom in such a way that his descendants thereafter reigned in the earthly Jerusalem in a long succession, it gave a figure, signifying and foretelling by what was done, something which must not be passed over in silence, concerning the change of things to come as regards the two covenants, the old and the new, where the priesthood and the kingdom were changed by the new and everlasting priest who is also king, Christ Jesus. For both Samuel, put in place of the rejected priest Eli in God's ministry and performing at once the office of priest and of judge, and David, established in the kingdom when Saul was cast off, figured what I am speaking of. And Samuel's mother herself, Hannah, who was at first barren and afterwards rejoiced in fruitfulness, seems to prophesy nothing else when, exulting, she pours out her thanks to the Lord, as she gave back to God the same boy, born and weaned, with the same godliness with which she had vowed him. For she says: “My heart is made firm in the Lord, my horn is exalted in my God. My mouth is enlarged over my enemies, I have rejoiced in your salvation. For there is none holy as the Lord, and none righteous as our God; there is none holy besides you. Do not boast, and do not speak lofty things, and let no arrogance come out of your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and a God who prepares his own devices. He has made the bow of the mighty weak, and the weak are girded with strength. Those full of bread have been diminished, and the hungry have passed over the earth. For the barren has borne seven, and she who had many children has become weak. The Lord kills and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and brings back. The Lord makes poor and makes rich, he humbles and exalts. He raises the poor from the earth and lifts the needy from the dunghill, to set him with the mighty of the people, and giving them the seat of glory as an inheritance; giving the vow to him who vows; and he has blessed the years of the righteous, for not by strength is a man mighty. The Lord will make his adversary weak, the Lord who is holy. Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, and let not the mighty man glory in his might, and let not the rich man glory in his riches; but let him who glories glory in this, to understand and know the Lord and to do judgment and righteousness in the midst of the earth. The Lord has ascended into the heavens and thundered; he will judge the ends of the earth, for he is righteous; and he gives strength to our kings, and will exalt the horn of his anointed.” Are these words really to be thought those of one little woman giving thanks for a son born to her? Is the mind of men so turned away from the light of truth as not to perceive that the sayings this woman poured out go beyond a woman's measure? Moreover, whoever is fittingly moved by the things themselves, which have already begun to be fulfilled even in this earthly pilgrimage, does he not attend, look, and recognize that through this woman, whose very name, Hannah, means “his grace,” the Christian religion itself, the city of God itself, whose king and founder is Christ, and finally the grace of God itself, spoke thus in the prophetic Spirit; the grace from which the proud are estranged so that they fall, and with which the humble are filled so that they rise, which is what this hymn has chiefly sounded forth? Unless perhaps someone is going to say that this woman prophesied nothing, but only praised God with exultant proclamation for the son she obtained by prayer. What, then, is the meaning of her words: “He has made the bow of the mighty weak, and the weak are girded with strength; those full of bread have been diminished, and the hungry have passed over the earth; for the barren has borne seven, and she who had many children has become weak”? Had she herself borne seven, though she had been barren? She had one when she said these things; and not even afterwards did she bear seven, or six, of whom Samuel himself would be the seventh, but three sons and two daughters. Then, since no one yet reigned among that people, from where did she say what she put at the end, “He gives strength to our kings, and will exalt the horn of his anointed”, if she was not prophesying?

Let the Church of Christ, then, the city of the great king, full of grace, fruitful in offspring, say what she recognizes was prophesied of her so long before through the mouth of this godly mother: “My heart is made firm in the Lord, my horn is exalted in my God.” Truly is the heart made firm and the horn truly exalted, because not in herself but in the Lord her God. “My mouth is enlarged over my enemies”; because even in the straits of afflictions the word of God is not bound, not even in heralds who are bound. “I have rejoiced,” she says, “in your salvation.” This is Christ Jesus, whom Simeon, as we read in the Gospel, embracing him as a little one and recognizing him as great, addresses: “Now, Lord, you let your servant depart in peace, for my eyes have seen your salvation.” Let the Church say, then: “I have rejoiced in your salvation; for there is none holy as the Lord, and none righteous as our God”; as holy and sanctifying, righteous and justifying. “There is none holy besides you”, because no one becomes holy except from you. Then follows: “Do not boast, and do not speak lofty things, and let no arrogance come out of your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge.” He knows you, even where no one knows; for “whoever thinks he is something when he is nothing deceives himself.” These things are said to the adversaries of the city of God who belong to Babylon, presuming on their own strength, glorying in themselves, not in the Lord; among whom are also the carnal Israelites, the earth-born citizens of the earthly Jerusalem, who, as the apostle says, “being ignorant of the righteousness of God” (that is, the righteousness which God, who alone is righteous and justifying, gives to man) “and seeking to establish their own” (that is, as though obtained by themselves for themselves, not imparted by him), “did not submit to the righteousness of God”; certainly because, being proud, they think they can please God by what is their own, not by what is God's, who is a God of knowledge and therefore also the judge of consciences, there seeing the thoughts of men, that they are vain, if they are men's and not from him. “And preparing,” she says, “his own devices.” What devices do we suppose, but that the proud should fall and the humble rise? For she goes on to set out these devices, saying: “The bow of the mighty has been made weak, and the weak are girded with strength.” The bow is made weak, that is, the aim of those who seem to themselves so mighty that without God's gift and help they can fulfil the divine commandments by human sufficiency; and those are girded with strength whose inner voice is: “Have mercy on me, Lord, for I am weak.” “Those full of bread,” she says, “have been diminished, and the hungry have passed over the earth.” Who are to be understood as full of bread, but those same ones who are as it were mighty, that is, the Israelites, to whom the oracles of God were entrusted? But among that people the children of the slave woman have been diminished (by which word, not very good Latin, it is nevertheless well expressed that from greater they became lesser), because even in those loaves, that is, the divine oracles, which the Israelites alone of all nations then received, they savor earthly things. But the nations, to whom that law had not been given, after they came to those oracles through the new covenant, by hungering greatly passed over the earth, because in them they savored not earthly but heavenly things.

And as if the cause of this were being asked, she says: “For the barren has borne seven, and she who had many children has become weak.” Here the whole of what was being prophesied shone out for those who recognize the number seven, by which the perfection of the universal Church is signified. For this reason the apostle John too writes to seven churches, showing in this way that he is writing to the fullness of the one Church; and in the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom, prefiguring this beforehand, “built herself a house and set up seven pillars.” For the city of God was barren in all nations before this offspring which we see was born. We see too that the earthly Jerusalem, which had many children, is now made weak; for whatever children of the free woman were in her were her strength; but now, since the letter is there and the Spirit is not, having lost her strength she has become weak. “The Lord kills and makes alive”: he has killed her who had many children, and made alive this barren one, who has borne seven. Though it may more fittingly be understood that he makes alive the same ones whom he has killed. For she as it were repeats this by adding: “He brings down to the grave and brings back.” For those to whom the apostle says, “If you have died with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God”, are certainly killed by the Lord for their salvation; to whom he adds, “Set your minds on the things that are above, not on those on the earth”, so that they themselves are those who hungering have passed over the earth. “For you have died,” he says: see how God kills for salvation; then follows, “and your life is hidden with Christ in God”: see how God makes the same ones alive. But did he bring down the same ones to the grave and bring them back? Without dispute among believers we see both of these fulfilled rather in him, our head, with whom the apostle said our life is hidden in God. For “when he did not spare his own Son but handed him over for us all”, in this way he certainly killed him; and because he raised him from the dead, he made the same one alive again. And because his voice is recognized in the prophecy, “You will not abandon my soul in hell”, he brought down the same one to the grave and brought him back. By this poverty of his we have been made rich. For “the Lord makes poor and makes rich.” To know what this means, let us hear what follows: “He humbles and exalts”; certainly he humbles the proud and exalts the humble. For what we read elsewhere, “God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble”, is the whole content of the speech of her whose name means “his grace.”

Now what is added, “He raises the poor from the earth”, I understand of no one better than of him who became poor for our sake though he was rich, so that by his poverty, as was said a little before, we might be made rich. For he raised him from the earth so quickly that his flesh did not see corruption. Nor will I take from him what is added: “And he lifts the needy from the dunghill.” For the needy is the same as the poor; and the dunghill from which he was lifted is most rightly understood as the persecuting Jews, among whom the apostle, when he had said that he had persecuted the Church, says: “What was gain to me I have counted loss for Christ; and not only loss, but I have counted them as dung, that I may gain Christ.” So that poor one was raised from the earth above all the rich, and that needy one was lifted from that dunghill above all the wealthy, “to sit with the mighty of the people”, to whom he says, “You will sit upon twelve thrones”; “and giving them the seat of glory as an inheritance.” For those mighty ones had said: “Behold, we have left everything and followed you.” This vow they had vowed most mightily. But from where did they get this, except from him of whom it is immediately said here, “Giving the vow to him who vows”? Otherwise they would be among those mighty ones whose bow was made weak. “Giving,” she says, “the vow to him who vows.” For no one would vow anything right to the Lord unless he received from him what he vowed. There follows: “And he has blessed the years of the righteous”, so that he may live without end with him to whom it was said, “And your years will not fail.” For there the years stand, but here they pass, or rather perish; for before they come they are not, and when they have come they will not be, because they come with their own end. Of these two, “giving the vow to him who vows” and “he has blessed the years of the righteous”, one is what we do and the other what we receive. But this second is not received from God's bounty unless the first is accomplished with him as helper: “For not by strength is a man mighty. The Lord will make his adversary weak”; that is, the one who envies and resists the man who vows, so that he may not be able to fulfil what he vowed. From the ambiguity of the Greek it can also be understood as “his own adversary.” For when the Lord has begun to possess us, the adversary who was ours certainly becomes his, and will be conquered by us, but not by our strength, “for not by strength is a man mighty.” “The Lord,” then, “will make his adversary weak, the Lord who is holy”, so that he may be conquered by the saints, whom the Lord, the holy one of holy ones, makes holy. And so “let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, and let not the mighty man glory in his might, and let not the rich man glory in his riches; but let him who glories glory in this, to understand and know the Lord and to do judgment and righteousness in the midst of the earth.” He understands and knows the Lord in no small part who understands and knows that even this is given him by the Lord, that he should understand and know the Lord. “For what do you have,” says the apostle, “that you did not receive? And if you received it, why do you glory as if you had not received it?” That is, as if what you glory in were from yourself. He does judgment and righteousness who lives rightly. And he lives rightly who obeys God's commandment; and “the end of the commandment,” that is, that to which the commandment is referred, “is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a faith unfeigned.” Moreover, this love, as the apostle John testifies, is from God. To do judgment and righteousness, then, is from God.

But what is “in the midst of the earth”? For are those who live at the ends of the earth not bound to do judgment and righteousness? Who would say that? Why, then, is “in the midst of the earth” added? If it were not added, and only “to do judgment and righteousness” were said, this commandment would rather pertain to both kinds of men, the inland and those by the sea. But lest anyone should think that after the end of the life lived in this body there remains a time for doing the judgment and righteousness which he did not do while he was in the flesh, and that in this way the divine judgment could be escaped, “in the midst of the earth” seems to me to have been said of the time when each one lives in the body. For in this life each carries his own earth about with him, which at a man's death the common earth receives, certainly to give it back when he rises. So “in the midst of the earth,” that is, while our soul is shut up in this earthly body, judgment and righteousness are to be done, to profit us hereafter, “when each receives according to what he has done through the body, whether good or bad.” For there the apostle said “through the body” meaning through the time during which he lived in the body. For if anyone blasphemes with a malicious mind and an ungodly thought, but does not carry it out with any members of his body, he will not therefore be guiltless because he did not do it by a movement of the body, since he did it during that time in which he also bore the body. In this way we can also fittingly understand what we read in the psalm: “But God our king before the ages has worked salvation in the midst of the earth”; so that the Lord Jesus is taken as our God, who is before the ages, because the ages were made through him, who worked our salvation in the midst of the earth when the Word was made flesh and dwelt in an earthly body.

Then, after it had been prophesied in these words of Hannah how he who glories ought to glory, not certainly in himself but in the Lord, because of the retribution that will come on the day of judgment, she says: “The Lord has ascended into the heavens and thundered; he will judge the ends of the earth, for he is righteous.” She has kept exactly the order of the confession of the faithful. For the Lord Christ ascended into heaven, and from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. For who has ascended, as the apostle says, but he who also descended into the lower parts of the earth? “He who descended is the same one who also ascended above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.” So he thundered through his clouds, which he filled with the Holy Spirit when he had ascended. Concerning these he threatened the slave woman Jerusalem, that is, the ungrateful vineyard, in the prophet Isaiah, that they should not rain rain upon it. And “he will judge the ends of the earth” is said as if it were said, “even the ends of the earth.” For he will not fail to judge the other parts, since he will without doubt judge all men. But the ends of the earth are better understood as the last end of man; since those things will not be judged which are changed for better or worse in the middle period, but the end in which he who is to be judged is found. That is why it is said: “He who perseveres to the end will be saved.” He, then, who perseveringly does judgment and righteousness in the midst of the earth will not be condemned when the ends of the earth are judged. “And he gives,” she says, “strength to our kings”, so that he does not condemn them in judging. He gives them strength by which as kings they may rule the flesh and conquer the world in him who shed his blood for them. “And he will exalt the horn of his anointed.” How will Christ exalt the horn of his anointed? For he of whom it was said above, “The Lord has ascended into the heavens”, and who was understood as the Lord Christ, is himself the one who, as is said here, “will exalt the horn of his anointed.” Who, then, is the anointed of the Anointed? Or will he exalt the horn of each of his faithful, as she herself says at the beginning of this hymn, “My horn is exalted in my God”? For we can rightly call all who are anointed with his chrism “anointed ones” (christs); yet the whole body with its head is one Christ. These things Hannah prophesied, the mother of Samuel, a holy and much praised man; in whom indeed the change of the old priesthood was then figured and is now fulfilled, when she who had many children was made weak, so that the barren one who has borne seven might have the new priesthood in Christ.

### Scripture references

- 1 Sam 2:1–10: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Sam 1:1–28: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Sam 2:21: allusion, high confidence
- Jer 9:23–24: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Tim 2:9: allusion, medium confidence
- Luke 2:29–30: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 6:3: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 10:3: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 94:11 (93:11 Vulg.): allusion, medium confidence
- Ps 6:2 (6:3 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 3:2: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 1:4: allusion, high confidence
- Prov 9:1: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 3:6: allusion, medium confidence
- Col 3:1–3: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:32: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 16:10 (15:10 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 8:9: allusion, high confidence
- Jas 4:6: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 2:27: allusion, medium confidence
- Phil 3:7–8: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 19:27–28: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 102:27 (101:28 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 4:7: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Tim 1:5: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 4:7: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:10: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 74:12 (73:12 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- John 1:3: allusion, medium confidence
- John 1:14: allusion, high confidence
- Eph 4:9–10: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 5:6: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 24:13: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- 1 Sam 2:1–10 is quoted in the Old Latin form based on the Greek, which includes the addition from Jer 9:23–24 (“Let not the wise man glory …”). Other quotations: Luke 2:29–30; Gal 6:3; Rom 10:3; Ps 94:11 (93:11 Vulgate, allusion); Ps 6:2 (6:3 Vulgate); Prov 9:1; Col 3:1–3; Rom 8:32; Ps 16:10 (15:10 Vulgate); Jas 4:6; Phil 3:7–8; Matt 19:27–28; Ps 102:27 (101:28 Vulgate); 1 Cor 4:7; 1 Tim 1:5; 2 Cor 5:10; Ps 74:12 (73:12 Vulgate); Eph 4:9–10; Matt 24:13. Allusions: 1 Sam 1–2; 1 Sam 2:21; 2 Tim 2:9; Rom 3:2; Rev 1:4; 2 Cor 3:6; 2 Cor 8:9; Acts 2:27, 31; 1 John 4:7; John 1:3, 14; Isa 5:6. The name Hannah is interpreted “his grace” after Jerome's Hebrew Names. The remark on the persecuting Jews as “dung” is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.4 (CSEL 40:210–220; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-3/#p-17-4).

## City of God 17.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-5/#p-17-5
- Source: CSEL 40:220–226
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The prophecy to Eli (1 Sam 2:27–36) foretold the end of Aaron's priesthood and the faithful priest Christ, whose Christian sacrifice of bread the remnant of Israel would share.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. De his, quae ad Heli sacerdotem homo Dei prophetico locutus est spiritu, significans sacerdotium, quod secundum Aaron institutum fuerat, auferendum. Sed hoc euidentius ad ipsum Heli sacerdotem missus loquitur homo Dei, cuius quidem nomen tacetur, sed intellegitur officio ministerioque suo sine dubitatione propheta. Sic enim scriptum est: Et uenit homo Dei ad Heli et dixit: Haec dicit Dominus: Reuelatus reuelatus sum ad domum patris tui, cum essent in terra Aegypti serui in domo Pharao; et elegi domum patris tui ex omnibus sceptris Israel mihi sacerdotio fungi, ut ascenderent ad altare meum et incenderent incensum et portarent Ephod; et dedi domui patris tui omnia, quae sunt ignis filiorum Israel, in escam. Et ut quid respexisti in incensum meum et in sacrificium meum inpudenti oculo et glorificasti filios tuos super me, benedicere primitias omnis sacrificii in Israel in conspectu meo? Propter hoc haec dicit Dominus Deus Israel: Dixi: Domus tua et domus patris tui transibunt coram me usque in aeternum. Et nunc dicit Dominus: Nequaquam, sed glorificantes me glorificabo, et qui spernit me, spernetur. Ecce dies ueniunt, et exterminabo semen tuum et semen domus patris tui, et non erit tibi senior in domo mea omnibus diebus, et uirum exterminabo tibi ab altari meo, ut deficiant oculi eius et defluat anima eius; et omnis qui superauerit domus tuae, decident in gladio uirorum. Et hoc tibi signum, quod ueniet super duos filios tuos hos, Ophni et Phinees: una die morientur ambo. Et suscitabo mihi sacerdotem fidelem, qui omnia, quae in corde meo et quae in anima mea, faciat; et aedificabo ei domum fidelem, et transibit coram Christo meo omnibus diebus. Et erit, qui superauerit in domo tua, ueniet adorare ei obolo argenti dicens: Iacta me in unam partem sacerdotii tui manducare panem. Non est ut dicatur ista prophetia, ubi sacerdotii ueteris tanta manifestatione praenuntiata mutatio est, in Samuele fuisse conpleta. (Quamquam enim non esset de alia tribu Samuel, quam quae constituta fuerat a Domino, ut seruiret altari, tamen non erat de filiis Aaron, cuius progenies fuerat deputata, unde fierent sacerdotes; ac per hoc in ea quoque re gesta eadem mutatio quae per Christum legum futura fuerat, adumbrata est, et ad uetus testamentum proprie, figurate uero pertinebat ad nouum prophetia facti etiam ipsa, non uerbi, id scilicet facto significans, quod uerbo ad Heli sacerdotem dictum est per prophetam.) Nam fuerunt postea sacerdotes ex genere Aaron, sicut Sadoc et Abiathar, regnante Dauid, et alii deinceps, antequam tempus ueniret, quo ista, quae de sacerdotio mutando tanto ante praedicta sunt, effici per Christum oportebat. Quis autem nunc fideli oculo haec intuens non uideat esse conpleta? Quando quidem nullum tabernaculum, nullum templum, nullum altare, nullum sacrificium et ideo nec ullus sacerdos remansit Iudaeis, quibus, ut de semine Aaron ordinaretur, in Dei fuerat lege mandatum. Quod et hic commemoratum est illo dicente propheta: Haec dicit Dominus Deus Israel: Dixi: Domus tua et domus patris tui transibunt coram me usque in aeternum. Et nunc dicit Dominus: Nequaquam, sed glorificantes me glorificabo, et qui me spernit, spernetur. Quod enim nominat domum patris eius, non eum de proximo patre dicere, sed de illo Aaron, qui primus sacerdos est institutus, de cuius progenie ceteri sequerentur, superiora demonstrant, ubi ait: Reuelatus sum ad domum patris tui, cum essent in terra Aegypti serui in domo Pharao, et elegi domum patris tui ex omnibus sceptris Israel mihi sacerdotio fungi. Quis patrum fuit huius in illa Aegyptia seruitute, unde cum liberati essent, electus est ad sacerdotium, nisi Aaron? De huius ergo stirpe isto loco dixit futurum fuisse, ut non essent ulterius sacerdotes; quod iam uidemus inpletum. Vigilet fides, praesto sunt res, cernuntur, tenentur et uidere nolentium oculis ingeruntur. Ecce, inquit, dies ueniunt, et exterminabo semen tuum et semen domus patris tui, et non erit tibi senior in domo mea omnibus diebus, et uirum exterminabo tibi ab altari meo, ut deficiant oculi eius et defluat anima eius. Ecce dies, qui praenuntiati sunt, iam uenerunt. Nullus sacerdos est secundum ordinem Aaron; et quicumque ex eius genere est homo, cum uidet sacrificium Christianorum toto orbe pollere, sibi autem honorem illum magnum esse subtractum, deficiunt oculi eius et defluit anima eius tabe maeroris. Proprie autem ad huius domum Heli, cui haec dicebantur, quod sequitur pertinet: Et omnis qui superauerit domus tuae, decident in gladio uirorum. Et hoc tibi signum, quod ueniet super duos filios tuos hos, Ophni et Phinees: die uno morientur ambo. Hoc ergo signum factum est mutandi sacerdotii de domo huius, quo signo significatum est mutandum sacerdotium domus Aaron. Mors quippe filiorum huius significauit mortem non hominum, sed ipsius sacerdotii de filiis Aaron. Quod autem sequitur, ad illum iam pertinet sacerdotem, cuius figuram gessit huic succedendo Samuel. Proinde quae sequuntur, de Christo Iesu noui testamenti uero sacerdote dicuntur: Et suscitabo mihi sacerdotem fidelem, qui omnia quae in corde meo et quae in anima mea faciat; et aedificabo ei domum fidelem. Ipsa est aeterna et superna Hierusalem. Et transibit, inquit, coram Christo meo omnibus diebus. Transibit dixit conuersabitur; sicut superius dixerat de domo Aaron: Dixi: Domus tua et domus patris tui transibunt coram me in aeternum. Quod autem ait: Coram Christo meo transibit, de ipsa domo utique intellegendum est, non de illo sacerdote, qui est Christus ipse mediator adque saluator. Domus ergo eius coram illo transibit. Potest et transibit intellegi de morte ad uitam, omnibus diebus, quibus peragitur usque in finem saeculi huius ista mortalitas. Quod autem ait Deus: Qui omnia quae in corde meo et quae in anima mea faciat: non arbitremur habere animam Deum, cum sit conditor animae; sed ita hoc de Deo tropice, non proprie dicitur, sicut manus et pes et alia corporis membra. Et ne secundum hoc credatur homo in carnis huius effigie factus ad imaginem Dei, adduntur et alae, quas utique non habet homo, et dicitur Deo: Sub umbra alarum tuarum proteges me; ut intellegant homines de illa ineffabili natura, non propriis, sed translatis rerum uocabulis ista dici. Quod uero adiungitur: Et erit, qui superauerit in domo tua, ueniet adorare ei, non proprie de domo dicitur huius Heli, sed illius Aaron, de qua usque ad aduentum Iesu Christi homines remanserunt, de quo genere etiam nunc usque non desunt. Nam de illa domo huius Heli iam supra dictum erat: Et omnis qui superauerit domus tuae, decident in gladio uirorum. Quo modo ergo hic uere dici potuit: Et erit, qui superauerit in domo tua, ueniet adorare ei, si illud est uerum, quod ultore gladio nemo inde superarit? nisi quia illos intellegi uoluit, qui pertinent ad stirpem, sed illius totius sacerdotii secundum ordinem Aaron. Ergo si de illis est praedestinatis reliquiis, de quibus alius propheta dixit: Reliquiae saluae fient (unde et apostolus: Sic ergo, inquit, et in hoc tempore reliquiae per electionem gratiae factae sunt), quia de talibus reliquiis bene intellegitur esse, de quo dictum est: Qui superauerit in domo tua: profecto credit in Christum; sicut temporibus apostolorum ex ipsa gente plurimi crediderunt, neque nunc desunt, qui, licet rarissime, tamen credant; et inpletur in eo quod hic iste homo Dei continuo secutus adiunxit: Veniet adorare ei obolo argenti. Cui adorare, nisi summo illi sacerdoti, qui et Deus est? Neque enim in illo sacerdotio secundum ordinem Aaron ad hoc ueniebant homines ad templum uel altare Dei, ut sacerdotem adorarent. Quid est autem quod ait: Obolo argenti, nisi breuitate uerbi fidei, de quo commemorat apostolus dictum: Verbum consummans et breuians faciet Dominus super terram? Argentum autem pro eloquio poni psalmus testis est, ubi canitur: Eloquia Domini eloquia casta, argentum igne examinatum. Quid ergo dicit iste, qui uenit adorare sacerdoti Dei et sacerdoti Deo? Iacta me in partem sacerdotii tui, manducare panem. Nolo in patrum meorum conlocari honore, qui nullus est; iacta me in partem sacerdotii tui. Elegi enim abiectus esse in domo Dei; qualecumque et quantulumcumque membrum esse cupio sacerdotii tui. Sacerdotium quippe hic ipsam plebem dicit, cuius plebis ille sacerdos est mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus. Cui plebi dicit apostolus Petrus: Plebs sancta, regale sacerdotium. Quamuis nonnulli sacrificii tui sint interpretati, non sacerdotii tui; quod nihilo minus eundem significat populum Christianum. Unde dicit apostolus Paulus: Unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus. Quod ergo addidit: Manducare panem, etiam ipsum sacrificii genus eleganter expressit, de quo dicit sacerdos ipse: Panis, quem ego dedero, caro mea est pro saeculi uita. Ipsum est sacrificium; non secundum ordinem Aaron, sed secundum ordinem Melchisedech, qui legit, intellegat. Breuis itaque ista confessio et salubriter humilis, qua dicitur: Iacta me in partem sacerdotii tui manducare panem; ipse est obolus argenti, quia et breue est et eloquium Domini est habitantis in corde credentis. Quia enim dixerat superius, dedisse se cibos domui Aaron de uictimis ueteris testamenti, ubi ait: Dedi domui patris tui omnia, quae sunt ignis filiorum Israel, in escam (haec quippe fuerant sacrificia Iudaeorum): ideo hic dixit: Manducare panem, quod est in nouo testamento sacrificium Christianorum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. On what a man of God said to the priest Eli in the prophetic Spirit, signifying that the priesthood established according to Aaron was to be taken away.

But this is said more clearly by a man of God sent to the priest Eli himself; his name is not given, but from his office and ministry he is understood without doubt to be a prophet. For it is written thus: “And a man of God came to Eli and said: Thus says the Lord: I revealed myself plainly to the house of your father, when they were slaves in the land of Egypt in Pharaoh's house; and I chose the house of your father out of all the sceptres of Israel to serve me as priests, to go up to my altar and burn incense and wear the ephod; and I gave to the house of your father all the offerings by fire of the sons of Israel for food. Why then have you looked on my incense and my sacrifice with a shameless eye, and honored your sons above me, to bless the firstfruits of every sacrifice in Israel in my sight? Therefore thus says the Lord God of Israel: I said, Your house and your father's house shall pass before me for ever. And now the Lord says: By no means; but those who honor me I will honor, and he who despises me shall be despised. Behold, the days are coming, and I will destroy your seed and the seed of your father's house, and you shall have no elder in my house all the days; and I will destroy for you a man from my altar, so that his eyes fail and his soul flows away; and all who remain of your house shall fall by the sword of men. And this shall be the sign to you, which shall come upon these two sons of yours, Hophni and Phinehas: both of them shall die on one day. And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do all that is in my heart and in my soul; and I will build him a faithful house, and he shall pass before my Anointed all the days. And whoever remains in your house shall come to bow down to him for an obol of silver, saying: Put me into one part of your priesthood, to eat bread.”

It cannot be said that this prophecy, in which the change of the old priesthood was foretold so plainly, was fulfilled in Samuel. (For although Samuel was of no other tribe than the one appointed by the Lord to serve the altar, yet he was not of the sons of Aaron, whose progeny had been set apart to supply the priests; and so in this event too the same change that was to come through Christ was foreshadowed; and the prophecy, a prophecy of deed, not of word, pertained properly to the old covenant but figuratively to the new, signifying by the deed what was said by word to the priest Eli through the prophet.) For afterwards there were priests of the line of Aaron, such as Zadok and Abiathar in David's reign, and others after them, before the time came when these things foretold so long before about the change of the priesthood were to be brought about through Christ. But who, looking at these things now with a faithful eye, does not see that they have been fulfilled? For no tabernacle, no temple, no altar, no sacrifice, and therefore no priest either, has remained to the Jews, to whom it had been commanded in God's law that he be ordained from the seed of Aaron. This too is recalled here when the prophet says: “Thus says the Lord God of Israel: I said, Your house and your father's house shall pass before me for ever. And now the Lord says: By no means; but those who honor me I will honor, and he who despises me shall be despised.” For in naming his father's house he is not speaking of his immediate father but of that Aaron who was first appointed priest, from whose progeny the others were to follow; the earlier words show this, where he says: “I revealed myself to the house of your father, when they were slaves in the land of Egypt in Pharaoh's house, and I chose the house of your father out of all the sceptres of Israel to serve me as priests.” Which of his fathers was in that Egyptian slavery and, when they were freed from it, was chosen for the priesthood, but Aaron? Of his stock, then, he said in this place that there would no longer be priests; which we now see fulfilled. Let faith be watchful: the facts are before us; they are seen, they are grasped, and they are thrust upon the eyes of those who do not wish to see. “Behold,” he says, “the days are coming, and I will destroy your seed and the seed of your father's house, and you shall have no elder in my house all the days; and I will destroy for you a man from my altar, so that his eyes fail and his soul flows away.” Behold, the days that were foretold have now come. There is no priest according to the order of Aaron; and any man of his race, when he sees the sacrifice of the Christians flourishing throughout the whole world and that great honor taken away from himself, his eyes fail and his soul flows away, wasting with grief.

What follows pertains properly to the house of this Eli to whom these things were said: “And all who remain of your house shall fall by the sword of men. And this shall be the sign to you, which shall come upon these two sons of yours, Hophni and Phinehas: both of them shall die on one day.” This, then, was made the sign of the priesthood's being changed from his house, by which sign it was signified that the priesthood of the house of Aaron was to be changed. For the death of his sons signified the death not of men but of the priesthood itself from the sons of Aaron. What follows pertains now to that priest whose figure Samuel bore by succeeding Eli. So what follows is said of Christ Jesus, the true priest of the new covenant: “And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do all that is in my heart and in my soul; and I will build him a faithful house.” That house is the eternal Jerusalem above. “And he shall pass,” he says, “before my Anointed all the days.” By “shall pass” he meant “shall live”; as he had said above of the house of Aaron: “I said, Your house and your father's house shall pass before me for ever.” And his saying, “It shall pass before my Anointed”, is certainly to be understood of that house itself, not of that priest who is Christ himself, the mediator and savior. His house, then, shall pass before him. “Shall pass” can also be understood as from death to life, all the days in which this mortality runs its course to the end of this age. And as for God's saying, “who shall do all that is in my heart and in my soul”, let us not think that God has a soul, since he is the creator of the soul; this is said of God figuratively, not literally, as are hand and foot and the other members of the body. And lest it be believed from this that man was made in the image of God in the shape of this flesh, wings too are added, which man certainly does not have, and it is said to God, “Under the shadow of your wings you will protect me”, so that men may understand that these things are said of that ineffable nature not by proper but by transferred names of things.

What is added, “And whoever remains in your house shall come to bow down to him”, is not said properly of the house of this Eli but of that of Aaron, of which men remained until the coming of Jesus Christ, and of which race there are not lacking some even now. For of the house of this Eli it had already been said above: “And all who remain of your house shall fall by the sword of men.” How, then, could it be truly said here, “And whoever remains in your house shall come to bow down to him”, if it is true that no one of that house survived the avenging sword? Unless he meant to be understood those who belong to the stock, but that of the whole priesthood according to the order of Aaron. So if it is a matter of that predestined remnant of whom another prophet said, “A remnant shall be saved” (whence the apostle too says, “So too at the present time a remnant has come into being, chosen by grace”), since it is well understood that the one of whom it was said, “Whoever remains in your house”, belongs to such a remnant, he certainly believes in Christ; just as in the times of the apostles very many of that nation believed, and there are not lacking even now some who, though very rarely, believe; and in him is fulfilled what this man of God immediately added: “He shall come to bow down to him for an obol of silver.” To bow down to whom, but to that high priest who is also God? For in that priesthood according to the order of Aaron men did not come to the temple or the altar of God to bow down to the priest. And what does “for an obol of silver” mean, but the brevity of the word of faith, of which the apostle recalls the saying: “The Lord will carry out his word on the earth, completing and cutting it short”? That silver stands for speech the psalm is witness, where it is sung: “The words of the Lord are pure words, silver tried in the fire.” What, then, does this man say who comes to bow down to the priest of God and the priest who is God? “Put me into a part of your priesthood, to eat bread.” I do not wish to be placed in the honor of my fathers, which is nothing; put me into a part of your priesthood. For “I have chosen to be cast down in the house of God”; I desire to be a member, of whatever kind and however small, of your priesthood. For here he calls the people itself the priesthood, the people whose priest is the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. To this people the apostle Peter says: “A holy people, a royal priesthood.” Some, however, have translated “of your sacrifice,” not “of your priesthood”; which nonetheless signifies the same Christian people. Hence the apostle Paul says: “We, though many, are one bread, one body.” What he added, then, “to eat bread”, also elegantly expressed the very kind of sacrifice of which the priest himself says: “The bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world.” This is the sacrifice, not according to the order of Aaron but according to the order of Melchizedek; let him who reads understand. So this short confession, wholesomely humble, in which it is said, “Put me into a part of your priesthood, to eat bread”, is itself the obol of silver, because it is both short and the speech of the Lord dwelling in the heart of the believer. For since he had said above that he had given food to the house of Aaron from the victims of the old covenant, where he says, “I gave to the house of your father all the offerings by fire of the sons of Israel for food” (for these were the sacrifices of the Jews), therefore he said here, “to eat bread”, which in the new covenant is the sacrifice of the Christians.

### Scripture references

- 1 Sam 2:27–36: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Sam 4:11: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Sam 8:17: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 28:1: allusion, medium confidence
- Ps 17:8 (16:8 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Isa 10:22: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 9:27: quotation, medium confidence
- Rom 11:5: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 9:28: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 10:23: quotation, medium confidence
- Ps 12:6 (11:7 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 84:10 (83:11 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- 1 Tim 2:5: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Pet 2:9: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 10:17: quotation, high confidence
- John 6:51: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 110:4 (109:4 Vulg.): allusion, high confidence
- Matt 24:15: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- 1 Sam 2:27–36 is quoted in the Old Latin form based on the Greek. Other quotations: Isa 10:22 (Rom 9:27); Rom 11:5; Isa 10:23 as in Rom 9:28 (“completing and cutting it short”); Ps 12:6 (11:7 Vulgate); Ps 17:8 (16:8 Vulgate); Ps 84:10 (83:11 Vulgate); 1 Pet 2:9; 1 Cor 10:17; John 6:51 (in the form “the bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world”); 1 Tim 2:5. Allusions: 1 Sam 4:11; 2 Sam 8:17; Exod 28:1; Ps 110:4; Matt 24:15. The Christian sacrifice is the Eucharist; the remarks on the Jews' loss of priesthood and temple are translated as written. A stray “(” before “sacerdotii” is removed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.5 (CSEL 40:220–226; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-5/#p-17-5).

## City of God 17.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-5/#p-17-6
- Source: CSEL 40:226–228
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The 'eternal' priesthood and kingdom promised to Eli's house and Saul were shadows; their eternity belongs to what they figured, Christ's priesthood and kingdom.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. De Iudaico sacerdotio et regno, quae cum in aeternum dicantur statuta, non permanent, ut alia intellegantur, quorum spondetur aeternitas. Cum igitur haec tanta tunc altitudine praenuntiata sint, tanta nunc manifestatione clarescant, non frustra tamen moueri quispiam potest ac dicere: Quo modo confidimus uenire omnia, quae in libris illis uentura praedicta sunt, si hoc ipsum, quod ibi diuinitus dictum est: Domus tua et domus patris tui transibunt coram me in aeternum, effectum habere non potuit? quoniam uidemus illud sacerdotium fuisse mutatum, et quod illi domui promissum est, nec sperari aliquando conplendum, quia illud, quod ei reprobato mutatoque succedit, hoc potius praedicatur aeternum. Hoc qui dicit, nondum intellegit aut non recolit etiam ipsum secundum ordinem Aaron sacerdotium tamquam umbram futuri aeterni sacerdotii constitutum; ac per hoc, quando aeternitas ei promissa est, non ipsi umbrae ac figurae, sed ei, quod per ipsam adumbrabatur figurabaturque, promissum est. Sed ne putaretur ipsa umbra esse mansura, ideo etiam mutatio eius debuit prophetari. Regnum quoque isto modo etiam Saulis ipsius, qui certe reprobatus adque reiectus est, futuri regni erat umbra in aeternitate mansuri. Oleum quippe illud, quo unctus est et ab eo chrismate christus est dictus, mystice accipiendum et magnum sacramentum intellegendum est; quod in eo tantum ueneratus est ipse Dauid, ut percusso corde pauitauerit, quando in tenebroso occultatus antro, quo etiam Saul urgente intrauerat necessitate naturae, exiguam particulam uestis eius retrorsum latenter abscidit, ut haberet unde monstraret, quo modo ei pepercerit, cum posset occidere, adque ita suspicionem de animo eius, qua sanctum Dauid putans inimicum suum uehementer persequebatur, auferret. Ne itaque reus esset tanti sacramenti in Saule uiolati, quia uel indumentum eius sic adtrectauit, extimuit. Ita enim scriptum est: Et percussit cor Dauid super eum, quia abstulit pinnulam chlamydis eius. Viris autem, qui cum illo erant et, ut Saulem in manus suas traditum interimeret, suadebant: Non mihi, inquit, contingat a Domino, si fecero hoc uerbum domino meo christo Domini, inferre manum meam super eum; quia christus Domini est hic. Huic ergo umbrae futuri non propter ipsam, sed propter illud, quod praefigurabat, tanta ueneratio exhibebatur. Unde et illud, quod ait Sauli Samuel: Quoniam non seruasti mandatum meum, quod mandauit tibi Dominus, quem ad modum nunc parauerat Dominus regnum tuum usque in aeternum super Israel: et nunc regnum tuum non stabit tibi, et quaeret Dominus sibi hominem secundum cor suum, et mandabit ei Dominus esse in principem super populum suum; quia non custodisti quae mandauit tibi Dominus, non sic accipiendum est, ac si ipsum Saulem Deus in aeternum praeparauerit regnaturum, et hoc postea noluerit seruare peccanti (neque enim eum peccaturum esse nesciebat); sed praeparauerat regnum eius, in quo figura regni esset aeterni. Ideo addidit: Et nunc regnum tuum non stabit tibi. Stetit ergo et stabit, quod in illo significatum est; sed non huic stabit, quia non in aeternum ipse fuerat regnaturus, nec progenies eius, ut saltem per posteros alterum alteri succedentes uideretur inpleri quod dictum est: In aeternum. Et quaeret, inquit, Dominus sibi hominem; siue Dauid siue ipsum Mediatorem significans testamenti noui, qui figurabatur in chrismate etiam, quo unctus est ipse Dauid et progenies eius. Non autem quasi nesciat ubi sit, ita sibi hominem Deus quaerit; sed per hominem more hominum loquitur, quia et sic loquendo nos quaerit. Non solum enim Deo Patri, uerum ipsi quoque Unigenito eius, qui uenit quaerere quod perierat, usque adeo iam eramus noti, ut in ipso essemus electi ante constitutionem mundi. Quaeret sibi ergo dixit suum habebit. Unde in Latina lingua hoc uerbum accipit praepositionem et adquirit dicitur; quod satis apertum est quid significet. Quamquam et sine additamento praepositionis quaerere intellegatur adquirere; ex quo lucra uocantur et quaestus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. On the Jewish priesthood and kingdom, which, though said to be established for ever, do not endure, so that other things may be understood whose eternity is promised.

Since, then, these things, foretold then with such depth, now shine with such clarity, someone may nevertheless not unreasonably be troubled and say: How can we be confident that everything foretold in those books as to come will come, if this very thing that was divinely spoken there, “Your house and your father's house shall pass before me for ever”, could not take effect? For we see that that priesthood has been changed, and what was promised to that house cannot be hoped ever to be fulfilled, because what succeeds it, rejected and changed as it is, is rather the one proclaimed eternal. Whoever says this does not yet understand, or does not remember, that even the priesthood according to the order of Aaron was established as a shadow of the future eternal priesthood; and so, when eternity was promised to it, it was promised not to the shadow and figure itself but to what was foreshadowed and figured through it. But lest the shadow itself be thought to endure, its change also had to be prophesied. In the same way the kingdom too, even of Saul himself, who was certainly rejected and cast off, was a shadow of the kingdom to come that would endure in eternity. For the oil with which he was anointed, and from which chrism he was called the anointed (christus), is to be taken mystically and understood as a great sacrament. This David himself so revered in him that his heart was struck and he trembled when, hidden in a dark cave into which Saul too had entered under the pressure of nature's need, he secretly cut off from behind a small piece of his garment, so that he might have something with which to show how he had spared him when he could have killed him, and so remove from his mind the suspicion with which Saul, thinking holy David his enemy, was fiercely pursuing him. So he feared lest he be guilty of violating so great a sacrament in Saul, because he had even handled his garment in this way. For it is written thus: “And David's heart struck him, because he had taken away the edge of his cloak.” And to the men who were with him and urged him to kill Saul, delivered into his hands, he said: “Let it not happen to me from the Lord that I do this thing to my lord, the Lord's anointed, to lay my hand on him; for he is the Lord's anointed.” So great a reverence, then, was shown to this shadow of the future, not for its own sake but for the sake of what it prefigured. Hence also what Samuel said to Saul: “Because you have not kept my commandment which the Lord commanded you, as the Lord had now prepared your kingdom over Israel for ever; and now your kingdom shall not stand for you, and the Lord will seek for himself a man after his own heart, and the Lord will command him to be prince over his people; because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you”, is not to be taken as though God had prepared Saul himself to reign for ever, and afterwards was unwilling to keep this for him when he sinned (for he was not unaware that he would sin); but he had prepared his kingdom, in which there would be a figure of the eternal kingdom. That is why he added: “And now your kingdom shall not stand for you.” What was signified in it, then, has stood and will stand; but it will not stand for him, because neither was he himself to reign for ever, nor his progeny, so that what was said, “for ever”, might seem to be fulfilled at least through his descendants succeeding one another. “And the Lord will seek,” he says, “for himself a man”, signifying either David or the mediator of the new covenant himself, who was figured also in the chrism with which David himself and his progeny were anointed. God does not seek a man for himself as though he did not know where he is; but he speaks through a man in the manner of men, because by speaking so he seeks us. For not only to God the Father but also to his only-begotten Son, who came to seek what was lost, we were already so known that we were chosen in him before the foundation of the world. “He will seek for himself”, then, means “he will have as his own.” Hence in the Latin language this verb takes a preposition and is said adquirit, “acquires,” whose meaning is plain enough. Although even without the addition of the preposition quaerere, “to seek,” is understood as “to acquire”; from which gains are called quaestus.

### Scripture references

- 1 Sam 2:30: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Sam 10:1: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Sam 24:1–7: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Sam 24:5–6: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Sam 13:13–14: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 19:10: allusion, high confidence
- Eph 1:4: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: 1 Sam 2:30; 1 Sam 24:5–6 (24:6–7 in the Hebrew numbering); 1 Sam 13:13–14. Allusions: 1 Sam 24:1–7; 1 Sam 10:1; Luke 19:10; Eph 1:4. Augustine plays on christus (“anointed”) and on quaerere/adquirere/quaestus. The digital text's “Cadquirit)” is corrected.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.6 (CSEL 40:226–228; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-5/#p-17-6).

## City of God 17.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-5/#p-17-7
- Source: CSEL 40:228–232
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Samuel's saying that the kingdom was torn from Israel and Israel divided in two prefigures the permanent division between Israel that clings to Christ and Israel that rejects him.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. De disruptione regni Israelitici, qua praefiguratur perpetua diuisio Israelis spiritalis ab Israele carnali. Rursus peccauit Saul per inoboedientiam, et rursus Samuel in uerbo Domini ait illi: Quia spreuisti uerbum Domini, spreuit te Dominus, ut non sis rex super Israel. Et rursus pro eodem peccato, cum id confiteretur Saul et ueniam precaretur rogaretque Samuelem, ut reuerteretur cum illo ad placandum Deum: Non reuertar, inquit, tecum; quia spreuisti uerbum Domini, et spernet te Dominus, ne sis rex super Israel. Et conuertit Samuel faciem suam, ut abiret; et tenuit Saul pinnulam diploidis eius et disrupit eam. Et dixit ad eum Samuel: Disrupit Dominus regnum ab Israel de manu tua hodie et dabit proximo tuo bono super te, et diuidetur Israel in duo; et non conuertetur neque paenitebit eum; quoniam non est sicut homo, ut paeniteat eum; ipse minatur, et non permanet. Iste, cui dicitur: Spernet te Dominus, ne sis rex super Israel, et: Disrupit Dominus regnum ab Israel de manu tua hodie, quadraginta regnauit annos super Israel, tanto scilicet spatio temporis, quanto et ipse Dauid, et audiuit hoc primo tempore regni sui; ut intellegamus ideo dictum, quia nullus de stirpe eius fuerat regnaturus, et respiciamus ad stirpem Dauid, unde exortus est secundum carnem mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus. Non autem habet scriptura, quod in plerisque Latinis codicibus legitur: Disrupit Dominus regnum Israel de manu tua; sed sicut a nobis positum est inuentum in Graecis: Disrupit Dominus regnum ab Israel de manu tua; ut hoc intellegatur de manu tua, quod est ab Israel. Populi ergo Israel personam figurate gerebat homo iste, qui populus regnum fuerat amissurus, Christo Iesu Domino nostro per nouum testamentum non carnaliter, sed spiritaliter regnaturo. De quo cum dicitur: Et dabit illud proximo tuo, ad carnis cognationem id refertur; ex Israel enim Christus secundum carnem, unde et Saul. Quod uero additum est: bono super te, potest quidem intellegi meliori te; nam et quidam sic sunt interpretati; sed melius sic accipitur bono super te, ut, quia ille bonus est, ideo sit super te, iuxta illud aliud propheticum: Donec ponam omnes inimicos tuos sub pedibus tuis; in quibus est et Israel, cui suo persecutori regnum abstulit Christus; quamuis fuerit illic et Israel, in quo dolus non erat, quoddam quasi frumentum illarum palearum; nam utique inde erant apostoli, inde tot martyres, quorum prior Stephanus: inde tot ecclesiae, quas apostolus Paulus commemorat, in conuersione eius magnificantes Deum. De qua re non dubito intellegendum esse quod sequitur: Et diuidetur Israel in duo, in Israel scilicet inimicum Christo et Israel adhaerentem Christo, in Israel ad ancillam et Israel ad liberam pertinentem. Nam ista duo genera primum simul erant, uelut Abraham adhuc adhaereret ancillae, donec sterilis per Christi gratiam fecundata clamaret: Eice ancillam et filium eius. Propter peccatum quidem Salomonis regnante filio eius Roboam scimus Israel in duo fuisse diuisum adque ita perseuerasse, habentibus singulis partibus reges suos, donec illa gens tota a Chaldaeis esset ingenti uastatione subuersa adque translata. Sed hoc quid ad Saulem, cum, si tale aliquid comminandum esset, ipsi Dauid fuerit potius comminandum, cuius erat filius Salomon? Postremo nunc inter se gens Hebraea diuisa non est, sed indifferenter in eiusdem erroris societate dispersa per terras. Diuisio uero illa, quam Deus sub persona Saulis, illius regni et populi figuram gerentis, eidem regno populoque minatus est, aeterna adque inmutabilis significata est per hoc, quod adiunctum est: Et non conuertetur neque paenitebit eum; quoniam non est sicut homo, ut paeniteat eum; ipse minatur, et non permanet; id est, homo minatur, et non permanet: non autem Deus, quem non paenitet, sicut hominem. Ubi enim legitur, quod paeniteat eum, mutatio rerum significatur, inmutabili praescientia manente diuina. Ubi ergo non paenitere dicitur, non mutare intellegitur. Prorsus insolubilem uidemus per haec uerba prolatam diuinitus fuisse sententiam de ista diuisione populi Israel et omnino perpetuam. Quicumque enim ad Christum transierunt uel transeunt uel transibunt inde, non erant inde secundum Dei praescientiam, non secundum generis humani unam eandemque naturam. Prorsus quicumque ex Israelitis adhaerentes Christo perseuerant in illo, numquam erunt cum eis Israelitis, qui eius inimici usque in finem uitae huius esse persistunt; sed in diuisione, quae hic praenuntiata est, perpetuo permanebunt. Nihil enim prodest testamentum uetus de monte Sina in seruitutem generans, nisi quia testimonium perhibet testamento nouo. Alioquin, quamdiu legitur Moyses, uelamen super corda eorum positura est; cum autem inde quisque transierit ad Christum, auferetur uelamen. Transeuntium quippe intentio ipsa mutatur de uetere ad nouum, ut iam non quisque intendat accipere carnalem, sed spiritalem felicitatem. Propter quod ipse magnus propheta Samuel, antequam unxisset regem Saul, quando exclamauit ad Dominum pro Israel, et exaudiuit eum, et, cum offerret holocaustosim, accedentibus alienigenis ad pugnam contra populum Dei tonuit Dominus super eos, et confusi sunt et offenderunt coram Israel adque superati sunt: adsumsit lapidem unum et statuit illum inter Massephat nouam et ueterem, et uocauit nomen eius Abennezer, quod est Latine lapis adiutoris, et dixit: Usque hoc adiuuit nos Dominus. Massephat interpretatur intentio. Lapis ille adiutoris medietas est Saluatoris, per quem transeundum est a Massephat uetere ad nouam, id est ab intentione, qua exspectabatur in carnali regno beatitudo falsa carnalis, ad intentionem, qua per nouum testamentum exspectatur in regno caelorum beatitudo uerissima spiritalis; qua quoniam nihil est melius, huc usque adiuuat Deus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. On the rending of the kingdom of Israel, by which the perpetual division of the spiritual Israel from the carnal Israel is prefigured.

Saul sinned again by disobedience, and again Samuel said to him in the word of the Lord: “Because you have despised the word of the Lord, the Lord has despised you, so that you shall not be king over Israel.” And again for the same sin, when Saul confessed it and begged pardon and asked Samuel to return with him to appease God, he said: “I will not return with you; because you have despised the word of the Lord, the Lord will also despise you, so that you shall not be king over Israel. And Samuel turned his face to go away; and Saul took hold of the edge of his double cloak and tore it. And Samuel said to him: The Lord has torn the kingdom from Israel out of your hand today, and will give it to your neighbor, who is good above you; and Israel shall be divided in two; and he will not turn back nor repent; for he is not as a man, that he should repent; he threatens and does not persist.” This man, to whom it is said, “The Lord will despise you, so that you shall not be king over Israel”, and “The Lord has torn the kingdom from Israel out of your hand today”, reigned forty years over Israel, that is, for as long a span of time as David himself, and heard this in the first period of his reign; so that we may understand that it was said because no one of his stock was to reign, and may look to the stock of David, from which sprang according to the flesh the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Scripture does not have what is read in most Latin manuscripts, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel out of your hand”, but, as we have set it down, found in the Greek, “The Lord has torn the kingdom from Israel out of your hand”; so that “out of your hand” is understood to mean “from Israel.” This man, then, figuratively bore the person of the people of Israel, which was to lose the kingdom, since Christ Jesus our Lord was to reign through the new covenant not carnally but spiritually. When it is said of him, “And he will give it to your neighbor”, this refers to kinship of the flesh; for Christ is from Israel according to the flesh, as was Saul. What is added, “who is good above you”, can indeed be understood as “better than you”, and some have so translated it; but it is better taken as “good above you” in the sense that, because he is good, he is therefore above you, according to that other prophetic saying: “Until I put all your enemies under your feet”; among whom is also Israel, his persecutor, from whom Christ took the kingdom; although there was also there an Israel in whom there was no guile, a kind of grain among that chaff. For certainly from there came the apostles, from there so many martyrs, of whom Stephen was the first; from there so many churches which the apostle Paul mentions, glorifying God at his conversion.

Of this I do not doubt that what follows is to be understood: “And Israel shall be divided in two”: namely into Israel hostile to Christ and Israel clinging to Christ, into Israel belonging to the slave woman and Israel belonging to the free woman. For these two kinds were at first together, as Abraham still clung to the slave woman, until the barren woman, made fruitful by the grace of Christ, cried out: “Cast out the slave woman and her son.” We know indeed that because of Solomon's sin, in the reign of his son Rehoboam, Israel was divided in two and so continued, each part having its own kings, until that whole nation was overthrown and carried away by the Chaldeans in a great devastation. But what has this to do with Saul, when, if anything of the kind were to be threatened, it should rather have been threatened to David himself, whose son Solomon was? Finally, the Hebrew nation is now not divided among itself, but dispersed throughout the earth without distinction in the fellowship of the same error. But that division which God threatened to that kingdom and people in the person of Saul, who bore the figure of that kingdom and people, was signified as eternal and unchangeable by what was added: “And he will not turn back nor repent; for he is not as a man, that he should repent; he threatens and does not persist”; that is, a man threatens and does not persist, but not God, who does not repent as a man does. For where we read that he repents, a change of things is signified, while the divine foreknowledge remains unchangeable. Where, then, he is said not to repent, it is understood that he does not change. We see that by these words a divine sentence was pronounced, altogether indissoluble and wholly perpetual, concerning this division of the people of Israel. For whoever have passed over, or are passing over, or will pass over to Christ from there, were not of there according to God's foreknowledge, not according to the one and same nature of the human race. Assuredly, whoever of the Israelites cling to Christ and persevere in him will never be with those Israelites who persist in being his enemies to the end of this life, but will remain perpetually in the division which was foretold here. For the old covenant from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery, is of no profit except in that it bears witness to the new covenant. Otherwise, as long as Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts; but when anyone passes over from there to Christ, the veil will be taken away. For the very aim of those who pass over is changed from the old to the new, so that each no longer aims to receive carnal but spiritual happiness.

For this reason the great prophet Samuel himself, before he had anointed Saul king, when he cried out to the Lord for Israel and the Lord heard him, and, as he was offering a burnt offering and the foreigners were approaching to fight against the people of God, the Lord thundered over them and they were confused and stumbled before Israel and were overcome, took one stone and set it up between the new and the old Mizpah, and called its name Ebenezer, which is in Latin “the stone of the helper,” and said: “Thus far the Lord has helped us.” Mizpah means “aim” (intentio). That stone of the helper is the mediation of the Savior, through whom we must pass from the old Mizpah to the new, that is, from the aim with which a false carnal happiness was awaited in a carnal kingdom to the aim with which through the new covenant the truest spiritual happiness is awaited in the kingdom of heaven; and since nothing is better than this, God helps us thus far.

### Scripture references

- 1 Sam 15:23: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Sam 15:26–29: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 13:21: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Tim 2:5: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 9:5: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 110:1 (109:1 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- John 1:47: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 7:54–60: allusion, medium confidence
- Gal 1:22–24: allusion, high confidence
- Gal 4:30: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Kgs 11:29–12:20: allusion, medium confidence
- 2 Kgs 25:1–21: allusion, medium confidence
- Gal 4:24: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 3:14–16: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Sam 7:9–12: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: 1 Sam 15:23, 26–29 (in the Greek-based form “from Israel”); Ps 110:1 (109:1 Vulgate); Gal 4:30. Allusions: Acts 13:21; 1 Tim 2:5; Rom 9:5; John 1:47; Acts 7; Gal 1:22–24; 1 Kgs 11–12; 2 Kgs 25; Gal 4:24; 2 Cor 3:14–16; 1 Sam 7:9–12. The Hebrew etymologies (Mizpah “aim”, Ebenezer “stone of the helper”) follow the tradition Augustine uses. The statements on the division of Israel and on the Jews are translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.7 (CSEL 40:228–232; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-5/#p-17-7).

## City of God 17.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-5/#p-17-8
- Source: CSEL 40:232–235
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God's promise to David of an eternal house and kingdom for his son (2 Sam 7) was not fulfilled in Solomon, who fell into idolatry, but in Christ, who builds God's house of people.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. De promissionibus ad Dauid in filio eius, quae nullatenus in Salomone, sed plenissime inueniuntur in Christo. Iam nunc uideo esse monstrandum, quid ipsi Dauid, qui Sauli successit in regnum, cuius mutatione finalis illa mutatio figurata est, propter quam diuinitus cuncta dicta, cuncta conscripta sunt, Deus promiserit, quod ad rem de qua agimus pertinet. Cum regi Dauid multa prospera prouenissent, cogitauit facere Deo domum, templum illud scilicet excellentissime diffamatum, quod a rege Salomone filio eius postea fabricatum est. Hoc eo cogitante factum est uerbum Dei ad Nathan prophetam, quod perferret ad regem. Ubi cum dixisset Deus, quod non ab ipso Dauid sibi aedificaretur domus, neque per tantum tempus se mandasse cuiquam in populo suo, ut sibi fieret domus cedrina: Et nunc, inquit, haec dices seruo meo Dauid: Haec dicit Dominus omnipotens: Accepi te de ouili ouium, ut esses in ducem super populum meum super Israel, et eram tecum in omnibus quibus ingrediebaris, et exterminaui omnes inimicos tuos a facie tua, et feci te nominatum secundum nomen magnorum, qui sunt super terram; et ponam locum populo meo Israel, et plantabo illum, et inhabitabit seorsum, et non sollicitus erit ultra; et non adponet filius iniquitatis humiliare eum, sicut ab initio a diebus, quibus constitui iudices super populum meum Israel; et requiem tibi dabo ab omnibus inimicis tuis, et nuntiabit tibi Dominus, quoniam domum aedificabis ipsi. Et erit, cum repleti fuerint dies tui, et dormies cum patribus tuis, et suscitabo semen tuum post te, qui erit de uentre tuo, et praeparabo regnum eius. Hic aedificabit mihi domum nomini meo, et dirigam thronum illius usque in aeternum. Ego ero illi in patrem, et ille erit mihi in filium. Et si uenerit iniquitas eius, redarguam illum in uirga uirorum et in tactibus filiorum hominum; misericordiam autem meam non amoueam ab eo, sicut amoui, a quibus amoui faciem meam; et fidelis erit domus eius et regnum eius usque in aeternum coram me, et thronus eius erit erectus usque in aeternum. Hanc tam grandem promissionem qui putat in Salomone fuisse conpletam, multum errat. Adtendit enim quod dictum est: Hic aedificabit mihi domum, quoniam Salomon templum illud nobile struxit, et non adtendit: Fidelis erit domus eius et regnum eius usque in aeternum coram me. Adtendat ergo et adspiciat Salomonis domum plenam mulieribus alienigenis colentibus deos falsos et ipsum ab eis regem aliquando sapientem in eandem idolatriam seductum adque deiectum; et non audeat existimare Deum uel hoc promisisse mendaciter uel talem Salomonem domumque eius futuram non potuisse praescire. Non hinc autem deberemus ambigere, nec si non in Christo Domino nostro, qui factus est ex semine Dauid secundum carnem, iam uideremus ista conpleri, ne uane adque inaniter hic alium aliquem requiramus, sicut carnales Iudaei. Nam et ipsi usque adeo filium, quem loco isto regi Dauid promissum legunt, intellegunt non fuisse Salomonem, ut eo, qui promissus est tanta iam manifestatione, declarato adhuc mirabili caecitate alium sperare se dicant. Facta est quidem nonnulla imago rei futurae etiam in Salomone, in eo quod templum aedificauit et pacem habuit secundum nomen suum (Salomon quippe pacificus est Latine) et in exordio regni sui mirabiliter laudabilis fuit; sed eadem sua persona per umbram futuri praenuntiabat etiam ipse Christum Dominum, non exhibebat. Unde quaedam de illo ita scripta sunt, quasi de ipso ista praedicta sint, dum scriptura sancta etiam rebus gestis prophetans quodam modo in eo figuram definiat futurorum. Nam praeter libros diuinae historiae, ubi regnasse narratur, psalmus etiam septuagensimus primus titulo nominis eius inscriptus est; in quo tam multa dicuntur, quae omnino ei conuenire non possunt, Domino autem Christo aptissima perspicuitate conueniunt, ut euidenter appareat, quod in illo figura qualiscumque adumbrata sit, in isto autem ipsa ueritas praesentata. Notum est enim, quibus terminis regnum conclusum fuerat Salomonis; et tamen in eo psalmo legitur, ut alia taceam: Dominabitur a mari usque ad mare et a flumine usque ad terminos orbis terrae, quod in Christo uidemus inpleri. A flumine quippe dominandi sumsit exordium, ubi baptizatus a Iohanne eodem monstrante coepit agnosci a discipulis, qui eum non solum magistrum, uerum etiam Dominum appellauerunt. Nec ob aliud uiuente adhuc patre suo Dauid regnare coepit Salomon, quod nulli regum illorum contigit, nisi ut hinc quoque satis eluceat non esse ipsum, quem prophetia ista praesignat, quae ad eius patrem loquitur dicens: Et erit, cum repleti fuerint dies tui, et dormies cum patribus tuis, et suscitabo semen tuum post te, qui erit de uentre tuo, et praeparabo regnum illius. Quo modo ergo propter id quod sequitur: Hic aedificabit mihi domum, iste Salomon putabitur prophetatus, et non potius propter id quod praecedit: Cum repleti fuerint dies tui et dormies cum patribus tuis, suscitabo semen tuum post te, alius pacificus intellegitur esse promissus, qui non ante, sicut iste, sed post mortem Dauid praenuntiatus est suscitandus? Quamlibet enim longo interposito tempore Iesus Christus ueniret, procul dubio post mortem regis Dauid, cui sic est promissus, eum uenire oportebat, qui aedificaret domum Deo, non de lignis et lapidibus, sed de hominibus, qualem illum aedificare gaudemus. Huic enim domui dicit apostolus, hoc est fidelibus Christi: Templum enim Dei sanctum est, quod estis uos.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. On the promises made to David concerning his son, which are by no means found in Solomon but most fully in Christ.

Now I see that I must show what God promised to David himself, who succeeded Saul in the kingdom, and whose change of fortune figured that final change for the sake of which all things were divinely said and all things written, so far as it pertains to the matter we are treating. When King David had enjoyed much prosperity, he thought of making a house for God, namely that most renowned temple which was afterwards built by King Solomon his son. While he was thinking of this, the word of God came to the prophet Nathan, to be carried to the king. There, after God had said that the house would not be built for him by David himself, and that in all that time he had not commanded anyone among his people to build him a house of cedar, he says: “And now you shall say this to my servant David: Thus says the Lord Almighty: I took you from the sheepfold, to be leader over my people, over Israel; and I was with you in all your goings, and I destroyed all your enemies from before you, and I made you renowned like the name of the great ones who are on the earth; and I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, and they shall dwell apart and shall be troubled no more; and the son of iniquity shall no more humble them, as from the beginning, from the days when I appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies; and the Lord will tell you that you shall build a house for him. And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled and you sleep with your fathers, that I will raise up your seed after you, who shall come from your belly, and I will prepare his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will direct his throne for ever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. And if his iniquity comes, I will rebuke him with the rod of men and with the strokes of the sons of men; but my mercy I will not take away from him, as I took it from those from whom I turned away my face; and his house shall be faithful and his kingdom for ever before me, and his throne shall be set up for ever.” Whoever thinks this great promise was fulfilled in Solomon is much mistaken. For he attends to what was said, “He shall build a house for me”, because Solomon built that famous temple, and does not attend to, “His house shall be faithful and his kingdom for ever before me.” Let him attend, then, and look at Solomon's house, full of foreign women worshipping false gods, and at the king himself, once wise, seduced by them into the same idolatry and cast down; and let him not dare to think that God either promised this falsely or could not foreknow that Solomon and his house would be such. We ought not to be in doubt on this point, even if we did not already see these things fulfilled in Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, so as not to look here vainly and emptily for someone else, as the carnal Jews do. For they themselves understand so well that the son whom they read was promised to King David in this place was not Solomon that, now that the one promised has been declared with such clarity, they still say, with wonderful blindness, that they hope for another. There was indeed some image of the thing to come in Solomon too, in that he built the temple and had peace according to his name (for Solomon means “peaceful” in Latin), and at the beginning of his reign was wonderfully praiseworthy; but in his own person, through the shadow of the future, he too foretold Christ the Lord, he did not exhibit him. Hence some things are written of him as though these things had been foretold of him, since holy Scripture, prophesying even by events, in a way sketches in him the figure of things to come. For besides the books of divine history, where his reign is narrated, the seventy-first psalm too is inscribed with his name in its title; and in it so many things are said which cannot fit him at all, but fit Christ the Lord with the most apt clarity, that it evidently appears that in the one some sort of figure was sketched, but in the other the truth itself was presented. For it is known within what boundaries Solomon's kingdom had been confined; and yet in that psalm we read, to say nothing of other things: “He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth”, which we see fulfilled in Christ. For he took the beginning of his dominion from the river, where, baptized by John and pointed out by him, he began to be recognized by the disciples, who called him not only Master but also Lord. And Solomon began to reign while his father David was still living, which happened to none of those kings, for no other reason than that from this too it might be clear enough that he is not the one whom this prophecy foreshadows, which speaks to his father and says: “And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled and you sleep with your fathers, that I will raise up your seed after you, who shall come from your belly, and I will prepare his kingdom.” How, then, because of what follows, “He shall build a house for me”, shall this Solomon be thought to be prophesied, and not rather, because of what goes before, “When your days are fulfilled and you sleep with your fathers, I will raise up your seed after you”, another peaceful one be understood to have been promised, who was foretold to be raised up not before, as Solomon was, but after David's death? For however long a time intervened before Jesus Christ came, without doubt he had to come after the death of King David, to whom he was promised in this way, to build a house for God, not of wood and stones but of men, such as we rejoice that he is building. For to this house, that is, to the faithful of Christ, the apostle says: “For the temple of God is holy, which you are.”

### Scripture references

- 2 Sam 7:1–7: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Sam 7:8–16: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Kgs 11:1–8: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 1:3: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 72:1–20 (71:1-Ps Vulg.): allusion, high confidence
- Ps 72:8 (71:8 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Matt 3:13–17: allusion, high confidence
- John 1:29–37: allusion, medium confidence
- John 13:13: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Kgs 1:32–40: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 3:17: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- 2 Sam 7:8–16 is quoted in the Old Latin form based on the Greek (2 Kingdoms). Other quotations: Ps 72:8 (71:8 Vulgate); 1 Cor 3:17. Allusions: 2 Sam 7:1–7; 1 Kgs 11:1–8; Rom 1:3; 1 Kgs 1:32–40; Matt 3:13–17; John 1:29–37; John 13:13. The “seventy-first psalm” is Ps 72 in the Hebrew numbering. The remarks on the carnal Jews are translated as written. The digital text's praesigDat is corrected to praesignat.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.8 (CSEL 40:232–235; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-5/#p-17-8).

## City of God 17.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-9/#p-17-9
- Source: CSEL 40:235–238
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Psalm 89 repeats the promises to David, which apply to Christ, while the sins to be punished belong to his body, the Church.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. Quam similis in psalmo octogensimo octauo sit prophetia de Christo his, quae in regnorum libris Nathan prophetante promittuntur. Propter quod et in psalmo octogensimo octauo, cuius est titulus: Intellectus ipsi Aethan Israelitae, commemorantur promissiones Dei factae regi Dauid, et istis, quae in libro regnorum sunt posita, quaedam ibi similia dicuntur, sicut est: Iuraui Dauid seruo meo: Usque in aeternum praeparabo semen tuum; et iterum: Tunc locutus es in adspectu filiis tuis et dixisti: Posui adiutorium super potentem, exaltaui electum de populo meo. Inueni Dauid seruum meum, in oleo sancto meo unxi eum. Manus enim mea auxiliabitur ei et bracchium meum confortabit eum. Non proficiet inimicus in eo et filius iniquitatis non adponet nocere ei. Et concidam inimicos eius a facie eius, et eos, qui oderunt eum, fugabo. Et ueritas mea et misericordia mea cum ipso, et in nomine meo exaltabitur cornu eius. Et ponam in mari manum eius et in fluminibus dexteram eius. Ipse inuocabit me: Pater meus es tu, Deus meus et susceptor salutis meae. Et ego primogenitum ponam eum, excelsum aput reges terrae. In aeternum seruabo ei misericordiam meam et testamentum meum fidele ipsi. Et ponam in saeculum saeculi semen eius, et thronum eius sicut dies caeli. Quae omnia de Domino Iesu intelleguntur, quando recte intelleguntur, sub nomine Dauid propter formam serui, quam de semine Dauid idem Mediator adsumsit ex uirgine. Continuo etiam dicitur de peccatis filiorum eius tale aliquid, quale in regnorum libro positum est et quasi de Salomone procliuius accipitur. Ibi namque, hoc est in regnorum libro: Et si uenerit, inquit, iniquitas eius, redarguam illum in uirga uirorum et in tactibus filiorum hominum; misericordiam autem meam non amoueam ab eo; tactibus significans plagas correptionis. Unde illud est: Ne tetigeritis christos meos. Quod quid est aliud, quam Ne laeseritis? In psalmo uero cum ageret tamquam de Dauid, ut quiddam eius modi etiam ibi diceret: Si dereliquerint, inquit, filii eius legem meam et in iudiciis meis non ambulauerint; si iustificationes meas profanauerint et mandata mea non custodierint: uisitabo in uirga iniquitates eorum et in flagellis delicta eorum; misericordiam autem meam non dispergam ab eo. Non dixit ab eis, cum loqueretur de filiis eius, non de ipso; sed dixit ab eo, quod bene intellectum tantundem ualet. Non enim Christi ipsius, quod est caput ecclesiae, possent inueniri ulla peccata, quae opus esset humanis correptionibus seruata misericordia diuinitus coherceri; sed in eius corpore ac membris, quod populus eius est. Ideo in libro regnorum: Iniquitas eius dicitur; in psalmo autem: Filiorum eius; ut intellegamus de ipso dici quodam modo, quod de eius corpore dicitur. Propter quod etiam ipse de caelo, cum corpus eius, quod sunt fideles eius, Saulus persequeretur: Saule, inquit, Saule, quid me persequeris? Deinde in consequentibus psalmi: Neque nocebo, inquit, in ueritate mea, neque profanabo testamentum meum, et quae procedunt de labiis meis non reprobabo. Semel iuraui in sancto meo, si Dauid mentiar; id est, nequaquam Dauid mentiar. Solet enim sic loqui scriptura. Quid autem non mentiatur, adiungit et dicit: Semen eius in aeternum manet; et sedes eius sicut sol in conspectu meo, et sicut luna perfecta in aeternum, et testis in caelo fidelis.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. How like the prophecy about Christ in the eighty-eighth psalm is to what is promised through the prophet Nathan in the books of Kingdoms.

For this reason in the eighty-eighth psalm too, whose title is “Of understanding, for Ethan the Israelite”, the promises of God made to King David are recalled, and some things are said there like those set down in the book of Kingdoms, such as: “I have sworn to David my servant: I will prepare your seed for ever”; and again: “Then you spoke in a vision to your sons and said: I have laid help upon one who is mighty; I have exalted one chosen from my people. I have found David my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him. For my hand shall help him, and my arm shall strengthen him. The enemy shall not prevail against him, and the son of iniquity shall no more harm him. And I will cut down his enemies before his face, and those who hate him I will put to flight. And my truth and my mercy shall be with him, and in my name his horn shall be exalted. And I will set his hand in the sea and his right hand in the rivers. He shall call upon me: You are my Father, my God and the upholder of my salvation. And I will make him the firstborn, high above the kings of the earth. For ever I will keep my mercy for him, and my covenant shall be faithful to him. And I will set his seed for ever and ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.” All these things, when rightly understood, are understood of the Lord Jesus, under the name of David, because of the form of a servant which the same Mediator took from the Virgin, of the seed of David. Immediately something is also said about the sins of his sons, like what is set down in the book of Kingdoms and is more readily taken as said of Solomon. For there, that is, in the book of Kingdoms, it says: “And if his iniquity comes, I will rebuke him with the rod of men and with the strokes of the sons of men; but my mercy I will not take away from him”; by “strokes” signifying the blows of correction. Hence the saying: “Touch not my anointed ones.” What else does this mean but “Do not harm them”? But in the psalm, when he was speaking as if of David, so as to say something of the same sort there too, he says: “If his sons forsake my law and do not walk in my judgments; if they profane my ordinances and do not keep my commandments, I will visit their iniquities with the rod and their offences with scourges; but my mercy I will not scatter from him.” He did not say “from them,” though he was speaking of his sons, not of him; but he said “from him,” which, rightly understood, comes to the same thing. For no sins could be found in Christ himself, who is the head of the Church, that would need to be restrained by divine action through human corrections, with mercy preserved; but in his body and members, which is his people. That is why in the book of Kingdoms it is said “his iniquity,” but in the psalm “of his sons”; so that we may understand that what is said of his body is in a way said of him. For this reason he himself too, when Saul was persecuting his body, that is, his faithful, said from heaven: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Then in what follows in the psalm he says: “Nor will I do harm in my truth, nor profane my covenant, and what goes out from my lips I will not reject. Once I have sworn by my holiness, if I lie to David”; that is, I will by no means lie to David. For Scripture is accustomed to speak so. And in what he will not lie, he adds, saying: “His seed endures for ever, and his throne like the sun before me, and like the full moon for ever, and a faithful witness in heaven.”

### Scripture references

- Ps 89:1 (88:1 Vulg.): allusion, high confidence
- Ps 89:3–4 (88:4-Ps Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 89:19–29 (88:20-Ps Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:7: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Sam 7:14–15: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 105:15 (104:15 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 89:30–37 (88:31-Ps Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Acts 9:4: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The “eighty-eighth psalm” is Ps 89 in the Hebrew numbering. Quotations: Ps 89:1, 3–4, 19–29, 30–33, 34–37 (88:1, 4–5, 20–30, 31–34, 35–38 Vulgate); 2 Sam 7:14–15; Ps 105:15 (104:15 Vulgate); Acts 9:4. Allusion: Phil 2:7. The digital text's garbled “(De laeseritis?” and “(ab eis\\” are corrected.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.9 (CSEL 40:235–238; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-9/#p-17-9).

## City of God 17.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-9/#p-17-10
- Source: CSEL 40:238–239
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Psalm 89's lament over the fall of David's kingdom shows that the promise was 'deferred' to Christ, the one true Anointed.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. Quam diuersa acta sint in regno terrenae Hierusalem ab his, quae promiserat Deus, ut intellegeretur promissionis ueritas ad alterius regis et regni gloriam pertinere. Post haec tantae promissionis ualidissima firmamenta, ne putarentur in Salomone conpleta, tamquam id speraretur nec inueniretur: Tu uero, inquit, reppulisti et ad nihilum deduxisti, Domine. Hoc quippe factum est de regno Salomonis in posteris eius usque ad euersionem ipsius terrenae Hierusalem, quae regni eiusdem sedes fuit, et maxime ipsius templi labem, quod fuerat a Salomone constructum. Sed ne ob hoc putaretur Deus contra sua promissa fecisse, continuo subiecit: Distulisti christum tuum. Non ergo est ille Salomon, sed nec ipse Dauid, si dilatus est christus Domini. Cum enim christi eius dicerentur omnes reges mystico illo chrismate consecrati, non solum a rege Dauid et deinceps, sed ab illo etiam Saule, qui populo eidem rex primus est unctus (ipse quippe Dauid eum christum Domini appellat): erat tamen unus uerus christus, cuius illi figuram prophetica unctione gestabant; qui secundum opinionem hominum, qui eum putabant in Dauid uel in Salomone intellegendum, differebatur in longum; secundum dispositionem autem Dei uenturus suo tempore parabatur. Interea dum ille differtur, quid factum sit de regno terrenae Hierusalem, ubi sperabatur utique regnaturus, secutus iste psalmus adiunxit adque ait: Euertisti testamentum serui tui, profanasti in terra sanctitatem eius; destruxisti omnes macerias eius, posuisti munitiones eius formidinem; diripuerunt eum omnes transeuntes uiam, factus est obprobrium uicinis suis; exaltasti dexteram inimicorum eius, iucundasti omnes inimicos eius; auertisti adiutorium gladii eius et non es opitulatus ei in bello; dissoluisti eum ab emundatione, sedem eius in terram conlisisti; minuisti dies sedis eius, perfudisti eum confusione. Haec omnia uenerunt super ancillam Hierusalem, in qua regnauerunt nonnulli etiam filii liberae, regnum illud tenentes in dispensatione temporaria, regnum autem caelestis Hierusalem, cuius erant filii, in uera fide habentes et in uero Christo sperantes. Quo modo autem ista uenerint super illud regnum, index est rerum gestarum, si legatur, historia.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. How different were the events in the kingdom of the earthly Jerusalem from what God had promised, so that the truth of the promise might be understood to pertain to the glory of another king and kingdom.

After these very strong supports of so great a promise, lest they be thought fulfilled in Solomon, as though it were hoped for and not found, he says: “But you have rejected and brought to nothing, O Lord.” This indeed happened to Solomon's kingdom in his descendants, down to the overthrow of the earthly Jerusalem itself, which was the seat of that kingdom, and above all the ruin of the temple itself, which had been built by Solomon. But lest God be thought on this account to have acted against his promises, he immediately added: “You have deferred your anointed.” He, then, is not Solomon, nor David himself either, if the Lord's anointed was deferred. For though all the kings consecrated with that mystical chrism were called his anointed, not only from King David onward, but even from that Saul who was the first anointed king for that people (for David himself calls him the Lord's anointed), yet there was one true Anointed, whose figure they bore by the prophetic anointing; who, according to the opinion of men who thought he was to be understood in David or in Solomon, was long deferred, but according to God's disposition was being prepared to come in his own time. Meanwhile, while he is deferred, what became of the kingdom of the earthly Jerusalem, where he was certainly hoped to reign, this psalm goes on to add and says: “You have overturned the covenant of your servant; you have profaned his holiness on the earth; you have broken down all his walls; you have made his strongholds a terror; all who pass by the way have plundered him; he has become a reproach to his neighbors; you have exalted the right hand of his enemies; you have made all his enemies rejoice; you have turned back the help of his sword and have not aided him in war; you have loosed him from cleansing; you have dashed his throne to the ground; you have shortened the days of his throne; you have covered him with confusion.” All these things came upon the slave woman Jerusalem, in which even some sons of the free woman reigned, holding that kingdom in a temporary stewardship, but holding the kingdom of the heavenly Jerusalem, whose sons they were, in true faith, and hoping in the true Christ. How these things came upon that kingdom, history, if it is read, is the witness of events.

### Scripture references

- Ps 89:38–45 (88:39-Ps Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- 1 Sam 24:6: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Kgs 25:8–17: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Ps 89:38–45 (88:39–46 Vulgate, Old Latin form). Allusions: 1 Sam 24:6; 2 Kgs 25:8–17 (the temple's destruction).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.10 (CSEL 40:238–239; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-9/#p-17-10).

## City of God 17.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-9/#p-17-11
- Source: CSEL 40:239–241
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The psalmist's prayer points to Christ as the 'substance' of Israel, who alone died and rescued his own soul from hell.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. De substantia populi Dei, quae per susceptionem carnis in Christo est, qui solus eruendi ab inferis animam suam habuit potestatem. Post haec autem prophetata ad precandum Deum propheta conuertitur; sed et ipsa precatio prophetatio est. Usque quo, Domine, auertis in finem? subauditur faciem tuam, sicut alibi dicitur: Quo usque auertis faciem tuam a me? Nam ideo quidam codices hic non habent auertis, sed auerteris; quamquam possit intellegi: Auertis misericordiam tuam, quam promisisti Dauid. Quod autem dixit: In finem, quid est nisi usque in finem? Qui finis intellegendus est ultimum tempus, quando in Christum Iesum etiam gens illa est creditura, ante quem finem illa fieri oportebat, quae superius aerumnosa defleuit. Propter quae et hic sequitur: Exardescit sicut ignis ira tua: memento quae est mea substantia. Nihil hic melius quam ipse Iesus intellegitur substantia populi eius, ex quo natura est carnis eius. Non enim uane, inquit, constituisti omnes filios hominum. Nisi enim esset unus filius hominis substantia Israel, per quem filium hominis liberarentur multi filii hominum, uane utique constituti essent omnes filii hominum. Nunc uero omnis quidem humana natura per peccatum primi hominis in uanitatem de ueritate conlapsa est, propter quod dicit alius psalmus: Homo uanitati similis factus est, dies eius uelut umbra praetereunt; sed non uane Deus constituit omnes filios hominum, quia et multos a uanitate liberat per mediatorem Iesum, et quos liberandos non esse praesciuit, ad utilitatem liberandorum et conparationem duarum inter se a contrario ciuitatum non utique uane in totius rationalis creaturae pulcherrima adque iustissima ordinatione constituit. Deinde sequitur: Quis est homo, qui uiuet et non uidebit mortem, eruet animam suam de manu inferi? Quis est iste, nisi substantia illa Israel ex semine Dauid, Christus Iesus? De quo dicit apostolus, quod surgens a mortuis iam non moritur, et mors ei ultra non dominabitur. Sic enim uiuet et non uidebit mortem, ut tamen mortuus fuerit, sed animam suam eruerit de manu inferni, quo propter quorundam soluenda inferna uincula descenderat; eruerit autem potestate illa, de qua in euangelio dicit: Potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam et potestatem habeo iterum sumendi eam.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. On the substance of the people of God, which is in Christ through his taking of flesh, who alone had the power to rescue his soul from hell.

After these prophecies the prophet turns to prayer to God; but the prayer itself is also prophecy. “How long, O Lord, do you turn away to the end?” “Your face” is understood, as is said elsewhere, “How long do you turn away your face from me?” That is why some manuscripts here have not “do you turn away” but “will you be turned away”; though it could be understood as, “Do you turn away your mercy, which you promised David?” And what is “to the end,” but “until the end”? That end is to be understood as the last time, when even that nation will believe in Christ Jesus; before that end the things had to happen which he lamented above as full of distress. Because of them there follows here: “Your anger burns like fire: remember what my substance is.” Nothing is better understood here than Jesus himself, the substance of his people, from which is the nature of his flesh. “For not in vain,” he says, “have you established all the sons of men.” For unless there were one son of man who is the substance of Israel, through which son of man many sons of men would be set free, all the sons of men would certainly have been established in vain. As it is, the whole of human nature indeed fell from truth into vanity through the sin of the first man, which is why another psalm says, “Man has become like vanity; his days pass like a shadow”; but God has not established all the sons of men in vain, because he both frees many from vanity through the mediator Jesus, and those whom he foreknew were not to be freed he has established, certainly not in vain, in the most beautiful and most just ordering of the whole rational creation, for the benefit of those to be freed and for the contrast of the two cities with one another. Then follows: “Who is the man who shall live and not see death, who shall rescue his soul from the hand of hell?” Who is this but that substance of Israel from the seed of David, Christ Jesus? Of whom the apostle says that, rising from the dead, he dies no more, and death shall no longer have dominion over him. For he shall live and not see death in such a way that he nevertheless died, but rescued his soul from the hand of hell, into which he had descended to loose the bonds of hell for certain ones; and he rescued it by that power of which he says in the Gospel: “I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it up again.”

### Scripture references

- Ps 89:46–48 (88:47-Ps Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 13:1 (12:1 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 11:25–26: allusion, medium confidence
- Ps 144:4 (143:4 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 6:9: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Pet 3:19: allusion, medium confidence
- Acts 2:24: allusion, medium confidence
- John 10:18: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Ps 89:46–48 (88:47–49 Vulgate, Old Latin form, “remember what my substance is”); Ps 13:1 (12:1 Vulgate); Ps 144:4 (143:4 Vulgate); John 10:18. Allusions: Rom 6:9; Rom 11:25–26 (the nation's final belief); 1 Pet 3:19 and Acts 2:24 (the descent to hell). The statement on those not to be freed is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.11 (CSEL 40:239–241; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-9/#p-17-11).

## City of God 17.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-9/#p-17-12
- Source: CSEL 40:241–244
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The psalm's plea over the 'reproach' of God's servants fits Christians persecuted for Christ, who await the eternal house of David, built of people by God.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. Ad quorum personam pertinere intellegenda sit flagitatio promissorum, de quibus in psalmo dicitur: Ubi sunt misericordiae tuae, Domine, antiquae et cetera. Sed cetera psalmi huius, quae ita se habent: Ubi sunt miserationes tuae antiquae, Domine, quas iurasti Dauid in ueritate tua? Memento, Domine, obprobrii seruorum tuorum, quod continui in sinu meo multarum gentium; quod exprobrauerunt inimici tui, Domine; quod exprobrauerunt, commutationem Christi tui, utrum ex persona dicta sint illorum Israelitarum, qui desiderabant reddi sibi promissionem, quae facta est ad Dauid, an potius Christianorum, qui non secundum carnem, sed secundum spiritum sunt Israelitae, merito quaeri potest. Dicta sunt quippe ista uel scripta tempore, quo fuit Aethan, de cuius nomine titulum iste psalmus accepit; et idem tempus regni Dauid fuit; ac per hoc non diceretur: Ubi sunt miserationes tuae antiquae, Domine, quas iurasti Dauid in ueritate tua? nisi eorum personam in se propheta transfiguraret, qui longe postea futuri erant, quibus hoc tempus esset antiquum, quando regi Dauid ista promissa sunt. Potest autem intellegi multas gentes, quando Christianos persequebantur, exprobrasse illis passionem Christi, quam scriptura commutationem uocat, quoniam moriendo inmortalis est factus. Potest et commutatio Christi secundum hoc accipi exprobrata Israelitis, quia, cum eorum speraretur futurus, factus est gentium, et hoc eis nunc exprobrant multae gentes, quae crediderunt in eum per testamentum nouum, illis in uetustate remanentibus, ut ideo dicatur: Memento, Domine, obprobrii seruorum tuorum, quia non eos obliuiscente, sed potius miserante Domino et ipsi post hoc obprobrium credituri sunt. Sed ille, quem prius posui, conuenientior mihi sensus uidetur. Inimicis enim Christi, quibus exprobratur, quod eos ad gentes transiens reliquerit Christus, incongrue uox ista coaptatur: Memento, Domine, obprobrii seruorum tuorum; non enim serui Dei nuncupandi sunt tales Iudaei; sed eis uerba ista conpetunt, qui, cum graues humilitates persecutionum pro Christi nomine paterentur, recordari potuerunt excelsum regnum semini Dauid fuisse promissum, et eius desiderio dicere, non desperando, sed petendo quaerendo pulsando: Ubi sunt miserationes tuae antiquae, Domine, quas iurasti Dauid in ueritate tua? Memento, Domine, obprobrii seruorum tuorum, quod continui in sinu meo multarum gentium (hoc est, in interioribus meis patienter pertuli); quod exprobrauerunt inimici tui, Domine; quod exprobrauerunt, commutationem Christi tui; non eam putantes commutationem sed consumtionem. Quid est autem: Memento, Domine, nisi ut miserearis et pro tolerata patienter humilitate mea reddas celsitudinem, quam iurasti Dauid in ueritate tua? Si autem Iudaeis adsignemus haec uerba, illi serui Dei talia dicere potuerunt, qui expugnata terrena Hierusalem, antequam Iesus Christus humanitus nasceretur, in captiuitatem ducti sunt, intellegentes commutationem Christi, quia scilicet non per eum terrena carnalisque felicitas, qualis paucis annis regis Salomonis apparuit, sed caelestis ac spiritalis esset fideliter exspectanda; quam tunc ignorans infidelitas gentium, cum Dei populum exultabat adque insultabat esse captiuum, quid aliud quam Christi commutationem, sed scientibus nesciens, exprobrabat? Et ideo quod sequitur, ubi psalmus iste concluditur: Benedictio Domini in aeternum: fiat, fiat, uniuerso populo Dei ad caelestem Hierusalem pertinenti siue in illis, qui latebant in testamento uetere, antequam reuelaretur nouum, siue in his, qui iam testamento nouo reuelato manifeste pertinere cernuntur ad Christum, satis congruit. Benedictio quippe Domini in semine Dauid non ad aliquod tempus, qualis diebus Salomonis apparuit, sed in aeternum speranda est, in qua certissima spe dicitur: Fiat, fiat. Illius enim spei est confirmatio uerbi huius iteratio. Hoc ergo intellegens Dauid ait in secundo regnorum libro, unde ad istum psalmum digressi sumus: Et locutus es pro domo serui tui in longinquum. Ideo autem post paululum ait: Nunc incipe et benedic domum serui tui usque in aeternum et cetera, quia tunc geniturus erat filium, ex quo progenies eius duceretur ad Christum, per quem futura erat domus eius aeterna eademque domus Dei. Domus enim Dauid propter genus Dauid; domus autem Dei eadem ipsa propter templum Dei de hominibus factum, non de lapidibus, ubi habitet in aeternum populus cum Deo et in Deo suo, et Deus cum populo adque in populo suo; ita ut Deus sit inplens populum suum, et populus plenus Deo suo, cum Deus erit omnia in omnibus, ipse in pace praemium, qui uirtus in bello. Ideo cum in uerbis Nathan dictum sit: Et nuntiabit tibi Dominus, quoniam domum aedificabis ipsi, postea dictum est in uerbis Dauid: Quoniam tu Dominus omnipotens Deus Israel, reuelasti aurem serui tui dicens: Domum aedificabo tibi. Hanc enim domum et nos aedificamus bene uiuendo, et Deus ut bene uiuamus opitulando; quia nisi Dominus aedificauerit domum, in uanum laborant aedificantes eam. Cuius domus cum uenerit ultima dedicatio, tunc fiet illud, quod hic per Nathan locutus est Deus dicens: Et ponam locum populo meo Israel, et plantabo illum, et inhabitabit seorsum, et non sollicitus erit ultra, et non adponet filius iniquitatis humiliare eum, sicut ab initio a diebus, quibus constitui iudices super populum meum Israel.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. To whose person the demand for the promises is to be understood to belong, of which it is said in the psalm: “Where are your ancient mercies, Lord?” and so on.

But as for the rest of this psalm, which runs thus: “Where are your ancient compassions, Lord, which you swore to David in your truth? Remember, Lord, the reproach of your servants, which I have held in my bosom, of many nations; with which your enemies have reproached, Lord; with which they have reproached the change of your Anointed”, it may rightly be asked whether these words are spoken in the person of those Israelites who longed for the promise made to David to be paid to them, or rather of the Christians, who are Israelites not according to the flesh but according to the spirit. For these words were spoken or written in the time of Ethan, from whose name this psalm received its title; and that was the time of David's reign; and so it would not be said, “Where are your ancient compassions, Lord, which you swore to David in your truth?”, unless the prophet transferred to himself the person of those who were to come long afterwards, for whom the time when these things were promised to King David would be ancient. It can be understood that many nations, when they were persecuting the Christians, reproached them with the passion of Christ, which Scripture calls a “change,” because by dying he was made immortal. The “change of Christ” can also be taken as reproached to the Israelites in this sense: that whereas he was hoped to be theirs, he became the nations'; and many nations which have believed in him through the new covenant now reproach them with this, while they remain in the old; so that it is said, “Remember, Lord, the reproach of your servants”, because, with the Lord not forgetting them but rather having mercy, they too will believe after this reproach. But the sense I set down first seems to me more fitting. For to the enemies of Christ, who are reproached that Christ left them and passed over to the nations, this utterance is ill suited: “Remember, Lord, the reproach of your servants”; for such Jews are not to be called servants of God. But these words fit those who, when they suffered the heavy humiliations of persecutions for the name of Christ, could remember that a lofty kingdom had been promised to the seed of David, and say out of longing for it, not despairing but asking, seeking, knocking: “Where are your ancient compassions, Lord, which you swore to David in your truth? Remember, Lord, the reproach of your servants, which I have held in my bosom, of many nations” (that is, which I have borne patiently in my inmost self), “with which your enemies have reproached, Lord; with which they have reproached the change of your Anointed”, thinking it not a change but an annihilation. And what is “Remember, Lord”, but that you should have mercy, and for my humiliation patiently borne repay the exaltation which you swore to David in your truth?

But if we assign these words to the Jews, such servants of God as could say such things were those who, when the earthly Jerusalem had been stormed, were led into captivity before Jesus Christ was born as man; understanding the change of Christ, namely that through him not an earthly and carnal happiness, such as appeared in the few years of King Solomon, but a heavenly and spiritual one was to be faithfully awaited; which the unbelief of the nations, not knowing it then, when it exulted over and insulted the people of God for being captive, what else did it reproach but the change of Christ, though it did not know it and they did? And so what follows, where this psalm ends, “The blessing of the Lord for ever: so be it, so be it”, fits well enough the whole people of God belonging to the heavenly Jerusalem, whether in those who lay hidden in the old covenant before the new was revealed, or in those who, now that the new covenant has been revealed, are plainly seen to belong to Christ. For the blessing of the Lord in the seed of David is to be hoped for not for some time, such as appeared in the days of Solomon, but for ever; and in this most certain hope it is said, “So be it, so be it.” For the repetition of this word is the confirmation of that hope. Understanding this, then, David says in the second book of Kingdoms, from which we digressed to this psalm: “And you have spoken of your servant's house for a long time to come.” And a little later he says, “Now begin and bless the house of your servant for ever”, and so on, because he was then about to beget the son from whom his progeny was to be led to Christ, through whom his house was to be eternal and at the same time the house of God. For it is the house of David because of David's race; but the same is the house of God because of the temple of God made of men, not of stones, where the people will dwell for ever with God and in their God, and God with his people and in his people; so that God may fill his people and the people be full of their God, when God will be all in all, himself the reward in peace who is the strength in war. That is why, although in the words of Nathan it was said, “And the Lord will tell you that you shall build a house for him”, afterwards it is said in the words of David: “For you, Lord Almighty, God of Israel, have opened the ear of your servant, saying: I will build you a house.” For this house we too build by living well, and God builds it by helping us to live well; for “unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain.” When the final dedication of this house comes, then will come to pass what God spoke here through Nathan, saying: “And I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, and they shall dwell apart and shall be troubled no more; and the son of iniquity shall no more humble them, as from the beginning, from the days when I appointed judges over my people Israel.”

### Scripture references

- Ps 89:49–52 (88:50-Ps Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Matt 7:7: allusion, medium confidence
- 2 Sam 7:19: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Sam 7:29: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:28: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Sam 7:11: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Sam 7:27: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 127:1 (126:1 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- 2 Sam 7:10–11: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Ps 89:49–52 (88:50–53 Vulgate, Old Latin form “the change of your Anointed”); 2 Sam 7:19, 29, 11, 27, 10; Ps 127:1 (126:1 Vulgate). Allusions: Matt 7:7; 1 Cor 15:28; 2 Kgs 25 (the captivity). The remarks about the Jews are translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.12 (CSEL 40:241–244; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-9/#p-17-12).

## City of God 17.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-9/#p-17-13
- Source: CSEL 40:244–245
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The promised secure peace was not Solomon's, since the judges' times had longer peace; it is the eternal peace of the heavenly Jerusalem.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. An promissae pacis ueritas illis temporibus possit adscribi, quae sub Salomone fluxerunt. Hoc tam magnum bonum quisquis in hoc saeculo et in hac terra sperat, insipienter sapit. An quispiam putabit in pace regni Salomonis id esse conpletum? Pacem quippe illam scriptura in umbra futuri excellenti praedicatione commendat. Sed huic suspicioni uigilanter occursum est, cum, postea quam dictum est: Et non adponet filius iniquitatis humiliare eum, continuo subiunctum est: Sicut ab initio a diebus, quibus constitui iudices super populum meum Israel. Iudices namque, priusquam reges ibi esse coepissent, super illum populum fuerant constituti, ex quo terram promissionis accepit. Et utique humiliabat eum filius iniquitatis, hoc est hostis alienigena, per interualla temporum, quibus leguntur paces alternasse cum bellis; et inueniuntur illic pacis tempora prolixiora quam Salomon habuit, qui quadraginta regnauit annos; nam sub eo iudice, qui est appellatus Aod, octoginta anni pacis fuerunt. Absit ergo ut Salomonis tempora in hac promissione praedicta esse credantur; multo minus itaque cuiuslibet regis alterius. Non enim quisquam eorum in tanta, quanta ille, pace regnauit; nec umquam omnino gens illa ita regnum tenuit, ut sollicita non fuerit ne hostibus subderetur; quia in tanta mutabilitate rerum humanarum nulli aliquando populo concessa est tanta securitas, ut huic uitae hostiles non formidaret incursus. Locus ergo iste, qui promittitur tam pacatae ac securae habitationis, aeternus est aeternisque debetur in matre Hierusalem libera, ubi erit ueraciter populus Israel; hoc enim nomen interpretatur uidens Deum; cuius praemii desiderio pia per fidem uita in hac aerumnosa peregrinatione ducenda est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. Whether the truth of the promised peace can be ascribed to the times that passed under Solomon.

Whoever hopes for so great a good in this world and on this earth has foolish wisdom. Will anyone think that it was fulfilled in the peace of Solomon's reign? Scripture indeed commends that peace with excellent praise as a shadow of the future. But this supposition has been watchfully met, since after it was said, “And the son of iniquity shall no more humble them”, there was immediately added: “as from the beginning, from the days when I appointed judges over my people Israel.” For judges had been appointed over that people before there began to be kings there, from the time it received the land of promise. And certainly the son of iniquity, that is, the foreign enemy, humbled it at intervals of time, in which we read that periods of peace alternated with wars; and periods of peace are found there longer than Solomon had, who reigned forty years; for under the judge called Ehud there were eighty years of peace. Far be it, then, that the times of Solomon should be believed to have been foretold in this promise; much less, then, those of any other king. For none of them reigned in such peace as he did; nor did that nation ever hold its kingdom in such a way as not to be anxious lest it be subdued by enemies; for in such changeableness of human affairs no people has ever been granted such security as not to fear hostile inroads upon this life. This place, then, of so peaceful and secure a habitation that is promised is eternal, and is due to the eternal ones in the free mother Jerusalem, where the people of Israel will truly be; for this name means “seeing God”; and for the desire of this reward a godly life must be led by faith in this toilsome pilgrimage.

### Scripture references

- 2 Sam 7:10–11: quotation, high confidence
- Judg 3:30: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Kgs 11:42: allusion, high confidence
- Gal 4:26: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotation: 2 Sam 7:10–11. Allusions: Judg 3:30 (eighty years' rest under Ehud); 1 Kgs 11:42; Gal 4:26. The digital text reads cuidens for uidens (“seeing”), corrected.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.13 (CSEL 40:244–245; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-9/#p-17-13).

## City of God 17.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-9/#p-17-14
- Source: CSEL 40:245–246
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: David's psalms are almost all his prophecy; Augustine holds that David wrote all 150, some headed with other names for figurative reasons.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. De studio Dauid in dispositione mysterioque psalmorum. Procurrente igitur per tempora ciuitate Dei, primo in umbra futuri, in terrena scilicet Hierusalem, regnauit Dauid. Erat autem Dauid uir in canticis eruditus, qui harmoniam musicam non uulgari uoluptate, sed fideli uoluntate dilexerit eaque Deo suo, qui uerus est Deus, mystica rei magnae figuratione seruierit. Diuersorum enim sonorum rationabilis moderatusque concentus concordi uarietate conpactam bene ordinatae ciuitatis insinuat unitatem. Denique omnis fere prophetia eius in psalmis est, quos centum quinquaginta liber continet, quem psalmorum uocamus. In quibus nonnulli uolunt eos solos factos esse a Dauid, qui eius nomine inscripti sunt. Sunt item qui putant non ab eo factos, nisi qui praenotantur: Ipsius Dauid; qui uero habent in titulis: Ipsi Dauid, ab aliis factos personae ipsius fuisse coaptatos. Quae opinio uoce euangelica Saluatoris ipsius refutatur, ubi ait, quod ipse Dauid in spiritu Christum dixerit esse Dominum suum; quoniam psalmus centensimus nonus sic incipit: Dixit Dominus Domino meo: Sede a dextris meis, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum. Et certe idem psalmus non habet in titulo: Ipsius Dauid, sed: Ipsi Dauid, sicut plurimi. Mihi autem credibilius uidentur existimare, qui omnes illos centum et quinquaginta psalmos eius operi tribuunt eumque aliquos praenotasse etiam nominibus aliorum aliquid, quod ad rem pertineat, figurantibus, ceteros autem nullius hominis nomen in titulis habere uoluisse, sicut ei uarietatis huius dispositionem, quamuis latebrosam, non tamen inanem Dominus inspirauit. Nec mouere debet ad hoc non credendum, quod nonnullorum nomina prophetarum, qui longe post Dauid regis tempora fuerunt, quibusdam psalmis in eo libro leguntur inscripta et quae ibi dicuntur uelut ab eis dici uidentur. Neque enim non potuit propheticus spiritus prophetanti regi Dauid haec etiam futurorum prophetarum nomina reuelare, ut aliquid, quod eorum personae conueniret, prophetice cantaretur; sicut rex Iosias exorturus et regnaturus post annos amplius quam trecentos cuidam prophetae, qui etiam facta eius futura praedixit, cum suo nomine reuelatus est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. On David's care in the arrangement and mystery of the psalms.

As the city of God ran its course through the times, then, first in the shadow of the future, namely in the earthly Jerusalem, David reigned. David was a man skilled in songs, who loved musical harmony not with vulgar pleasure but with faithful will, and served his God, who is the true God, with it by a mystical figuring of a great reality. For the rational and measured concord of different sounds, in harmonious variety, suggests the compact unity of a well-ordered city. In fact, almost all his prophecy is in the psalms, a hundred and fifty of which are contained in the book we call the Psalms. Among these some wish only those to have been made by David which are inscribed with his name. There are also those who think that only those were made by him which are headed “Of David himself”, but that those which have in their titles “To David himself” were made by others and fitted to his person. This opinion is refuted by the voice of the Savior himself in the Gospel, where he says that David himself in the Spirit said that Christ was his Lord; since the hundred and ninth psalm begins thus: “The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet.” And certainly that same psalm does not have in its title “Of David himself”, but “To David himself”, like very many. But to me those seem to judge more credibly who attribute all those hundred and fifty psalms to his work, and think that he headed some even with the names of others, who figure something pertaining to the matter, and chose to have no man's name in the titles of the rest; as the Lord inspired in him the arrangement of this variety, obscure, yet not empty. Nor should it move anyone to disbelieve this that the names of some prophets who lived long after the times of King David are read inscribed on certain psalms in that book, and that what is said there seems to be said as if by them. For the prophetic Spirit could well have revealed to King David, as he prophesied, even these names of future prophets, so that something befitting their persons might be sung prophetically; just as King Josiah, who was to arise and reign more than three hundred years later, was revealed by name to a certain prophet who also foretold his future deeds.

### Scripture references

- Ps 110:1 (109:1 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Matt 22:43–44: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Kgs 13:2: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotation: Ps 110:1 (109:1 Vulgate; “the hundred and ninth psalm”). Allusions: Matt 22:43–44; 1 Kgs 13:2 (Josiah foretold by name). The authorship of the whole Psalter by David is Augustine's opinion, argued here; the digital text's latebrosaru is corrected to latebrosam (“obscure”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.14 (CSEL 40:245–246; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-9/#p-17-14).

## City of God 17.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-9/#p-17-15
- Source: CSEL 40:246–247
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine declines to list all the psalms' prophecies of Christ, since each should be read in its whole context, and refers readers to fuller expositions of the psalms.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. An omnia, quae in psalmis de Christo et ecclesia prophetantur, ad contextum huius operis adhibenda sint. Nunc iam exspectari a me uideo, ut hoc loco libri huius aperiam quid in psalmis Dauid de Domino Iesu Christo uel eius ecclesia prophetauerit. Ego autem ut hoc non ita faciam, sicut uidetur ipsa exspectatio postulare (quamuis iam in uno fecerim), copia quam inopia magis inpedior; omnia enim ponere uitandae prolixitatis causa prohibeor. Vereor autem ne, cum aliqua elegero, multis, qui ea nouerunt, uidear magis necessaria praeterisse; deinde quia testimonium, quod profertur, de contextione totius psalmi debet habere suffragium aut certe nihil sit, quod ei refragetur, si non omnia suffragantur, ne more centonum ad rem, quam uolumus, tamquam uersiculos decerpere uideamur, uelut de grandi carmine, quod non de re illa, sed de alia longeque diuersa reperiatur esse conscriptum. Hoc autem ut in quocumque psalmo possit ostendi, exponendus est totus; quod quanti operis sit et aliorum et nostra uolumina, in quibus hoc fecimus, satis indicant. Legat ergo illa, qui uoluerit et potuerit; inueniet quot et quanta rex Dauid idemque propheta de Christo et eius ecclesia prophetauerit, de rege scilicet et ciuitate quam condidit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. Whether all the prophecies in the psalms about Christ and the Church are to be brought into the framework of this work.

Now I see that I am expected at this point in this book to disclose what David prophesied in the psalms about the Lord Jesus Christ or his Church. But I am hindered by abundance rather than by want from doing this in the way the expectation itself seems to demand (although I have already done it in one case); for I am prevented from setting out everything, to avoid prolixity. And I fear that if I choose some, I may seem to many who know them to have passed over more necessary ones; then too, because a testimony that is brought forward ought to have the support of the context of the whole psalm, or at least there should be nothing opposing it, if not everything supports it, lest we seem, in the manner of patchwork poems, to pluck verses as it were for the matter we want from a great poem which is found to have been written not about that matter but about another, far different. But for this to be shown in any psalm, the whole must be expounded; and how great a task this is, both others' volumes and our own, in which we have done it, sufficiently show. Let whoever wishes and is able read those, then; he will find how many and how great things King David, who was also a prophet, prophesied about Christ and his Church, that is, about the king and the city which he founded.

### Translation notes

- The expositions referred to include Augustine's own Enarrationes in Psalmos. The “one case” already done is Ps 89 in 17.9–12.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.15 (CSEL 40:246–247; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-9/#p-17-15).

## City of God 17.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-9/#p-17-16
- Source: CSEL 40:247–251
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Psalm 45 plainly sings of Christ the anointed king and of his bride the Church, gathered from all nations, the true city of God.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. De his, quae in quadragensimo quarto psalmo ad Christum et ecclesiam pertinentia aut aperte dicuntur aut tropice. Quamlibet enim de quacumque re propriae sint adque manifestae propheticae locutiones, necesse est ut eis etiam tropicae misceantur; quae maxime propter tardiores ingerunt doctoribus laboriosum disputandi exponendique negotium. Quaedam tamen Christum et ecclesiam ipsa prima facie, mox ut dicuntur, ostendunt; etsi ex otio restant exponenda, quae in eis minus intelleguntur; quale illud est in eodem psalmorum libro: Eructauit cor meum uerbum bonum, dico ego opera mea regi. Lingua mea calamus scribae uelociter scribentis. Speciosus forma prae filiis hominum; diffusa est gratia in labiis tuis, propterea benedixit te Deus in aeternum. Accingere gladio tuo circa femur, potentissime specie tua et pulchritudine tua, et intende et prospere procede et regna propter ueritatem et mansuetudinem et iustitiam, et deducet te mirabiliter dextera tua. Sagittae tuae acutae, potentissimae (populi sub te cadent) in corda inimicorum regis. Sedes tua, Deus, in saecula saeculorum, uirga directionis uirga regni tui. Dilexisti iustitiam et odio habuisti iniquitatem; propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus oleo exultationis prae participibus tuis. Myrrha et gutta et casia a uestimentis tuis, a domibus eburneis; ex quibus te delectauerunt filiae regum in honore tuo. Quis non hic Christum, quem praedicamus et in quem credimus, quamlibet sit tardus, agnoscat, cum audiat Deum, cuius sedes est in saecula saeculorum, et unctum a Deo, utique sicut unguit Deus, non uisibili, sed spiritali adque intellegibili chrismate? Quis enim tam rudis est in hac religione uel tam surdus aduersus eius famam longe lateque diffusam, ut Christum a chrismate, hoc est ab unctione appellatum esse non nouerit? Agnito autem rege Christo, iam cetera, quae hic tropice dicta sunt, quo modo sit speciosus forma prae filiis hominum, quadam tanto magis amanda adque miranda, quanto minus corporea pulchritudine, quis gladius eius, quae sagittae, et cetera isto modo non proprie, sed tropice posita iam subditus ei, qui regnat propter ueritatem et mansuetudinem et iustitiam, inquirat ex otio. Deinde adspiciat eius ecclesiam tanto uiro suo spiritali conubio et diuino amore coniunctam, de qua dicitur in his quae sequuntur. Adstitit regina a dextris tuis in uestitu deaurato, circumamicta uarietate. Audi, filia, et uide et inclina aurem tuam, et obliuiscere populum tuum et domum patris tui; quoniam concupiuit rex speciem tuam, quia ipse est Deus tuus. Et adorabunt eum filiae Tyri in muneribus; uultum tuum deprecabuntur diuites plebis. Omnis gloria eius filiae regis intrinsecus, in fimbriis aureis circumamicta uarietate. Adferentur regi uirgines post eam, proximae eius adferentur tibi. Adferentur cum laetitia et exultatione; adducentur in templum regis. Pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filii; constitues eos principes super omnem terram. Memores erunt nominis tui in omni generatione et generatione. Propterea populi confitebuntur tibi in aeternum et in saeculum saeculi. Non opinor quemquam ita desipere, ut hic aliquam mulierculam praedicari credat adque describi; coniugem uidelicet illius, cui dictum est: Sedes tua, Deus, in saecula saeculorum; uirga directionis uirga regni tui. Dilexisti iustitiam et odio habuisti iniquitatem; propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus oleo exultationis prae participibus tuis; Christum utique prae Christianis. Hi sunt enim participes eius, ex quorum in omnibus gentibus unitate adque concordia fit ista regina, sicut in alio psalmo de illa dicitur: Ciuitas regis magni. Ipsa est Sion spiritaliter; quod nomen Latine interpretatum speculatio est; speculatur enim futuri saeculi magnum bonum, quoniam illuc dirigitur eius intentio. Ipsa est et Hierusalem eodem modo spiritaliter, unde multa iam diximus. Eius inimica est ciuitas diaboli Babylon, quae confusio interpretatur; ex qua tamen Babylone regina ista in omnibus gentibus regeneratione liberatur et a pessimo rege ad optimum regem, id est a diabolo transit ad Christum. Propter quod ei dicitur: Obliuiscere populum tuum et domum patris tui. Cuius ciuitatis inpiae portio sunt et Israelitae sola carne, non fide; inimici etiam ipsi magni huius regis eiusque reginae. Ad ipsos enim ueniens et ab eis Christus occisus magis aliorum factus est, quos non uidit in carne. Unde per cuiusdam psalmi prophetiam dicit ipse rex noster: Erues me de contradictionibus populi, constitues me in capite gentium. Populus, quem non cognoui, seruiuit mihi; in obauditu auris obaudiuit mihi. Populus ergo iste gentium, quem non cognouit Christus praesentia corporali, in quem tamen Christum sibi adnuntiatum credidit, ut merito de illo diceretur: In obauditu auris obaudiuit mihi, quia fides ex auditu est — iste, inquam, populus additus ueris et carne et fide Israelitis ciuitas est Dei, quae ipsum quoque secundum carnem peperit Christum, quando in solis illis Israelitis fuit. Inde quippe erat uirgo Maria, in qua carnem Christus, ut homo esset, adsumsit. De qua ciuitate psalmus alius ait: Mater Sion, dicet homo, et homo factus est in ea, et ipse fundauit eam Altissimus. Quis est iste Altissimus nisi Deus? Ac per hoc Christus Deus, antequam in illa ciuitate per Mariam fieret homo, ipse in patriarchis et prophetis fundauit eam. Cum igitur huic reginae ciuitati Dei tanto ante dictum sit per prophetiam, quod iam uidemus inpletum: Pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filii, constitues eos principes super omnem terram (ex filiis quippe eius per omnem terram sunt praepositi et patres eius, cum confiteantur ei populi concurrentes ad eam confessionem laudis aeternae in saeculum saeculi): procul dubio quidquid hic tropicis locutionibus subobscure dictum est, quoquo modo intellegatur, debet his rebus manifestissimis conuenire.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. On the things in the forty-fourth psalm pertaining to Christ and the Church, said either openly or figuratively.

However literal and clear prophetic sayings may be on any subject, figurative ones must be mixed with them; and these, chiefly for the sake of the slower, impose on teachers a laborious business of discussion and exposition. Some, however, show Christ and the Church at first sight, as soon as they are spoken, even if what is less understood in them remains to be expounded at leisure; such as this in the same book of Psalms: “My heart has uttered a good word; I speak my works to the king. My tongue is the pen of a swiftly writing scribe. You are beautiful in form above the sons of men; grace is poured on your lips; therefore God has blessed you for ever. Gird your sword upon your thigh, O most mighty, in your comeliness and your beauty; and set forth and proceed prosperously and reign, because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and your right hand shall lead you wonderfully. Your arrows are sharp, most mighty (peoples shall fall under you), in the hearts of the king's enemies. Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the rod of uprightness is the rod of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows. Myrrh and stacte and cassia are from your garments, from the ivory houses, from which the daughters of kings have delighted you in your honor.” Who, however slow, would not recognize here the Christ whom we preach and in whom we believe, when he hears of God, whose throne is for ever and ever, and anointed by God, as God anoints, that is, not with a visible but with a spiritual and intelligible chrism? For who is so unskilled in this religion, or so deaf to its fame spread far and wide, as not to know that Christ is named from chrism, that is, from anointing? Once Christ the king is recognized, let one who is now subject to him who reigns because of truth and meekness and righteousness inquire at leisure into the rest that is said here figuratively: how he is beautiful in form above the sons of men, with a beauty the more to be loved and admired the less it is bodily; what his sword is, what his arrows, and the other things set down in this way not literally but figuratively.

Then let him look at his Church, joined to so great a husband in spiritual marriage and divine love, of whom it is said in what follows: “The queen stood at your right hand in gilded clothing, arrayed in many colors. Hear, daughter, and see, and incline your ear, and forget your people and your father's house; for the king has desired your beauty, for he is your God. And the daughters of Tyre shall worship him with gifts; the rich among the people shall entreat your face. All the glory of the king's daughter is within, arrayed in many colors with golden fringes. Virgins shall be brought to the king after her; her companions shall be brought to you. They shall be brought with gladness and rejoicing; they shall be led into the king's temple. In place of your fathers sons are born to you; you will make them princes over all the earth. They will remember your name in every generation and generation. Therefore peoples shall confess you for ever, and for ever and ever.” I do not think anyone is so foolish as to believe that some little woman is being proclaimed and described here, namely the wife of him to whom it was said, “Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the rod of uprightness is the rod of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows”; that is, Christ above Christians. For these are his fellows, from whose unity and concord in all nations this queen is formed, as it is said of her in another psalm: “The city of the great king.” She is Zion spiritually; which name, translated into Latin, is “watching”; for she watches for the great good of the age to come, since her aim is directed there. She is also Jerusalem in the same spiritual way, of which we have already said much. Her enemy is the city of the devil, Babylon, which means “confusion”; yet from this Babylon this queen is set free in all nations by regeneration, and passes from the worst king to the best, that is, from the devil to Christ. That is why it is said to her: “Forget your people and your father's house.” Of this ungodly city the Israelites who are Israelites only by the flesh, not by faith, are also a part; they too are enemies of this great king and his queen. For Christ, having come to them and been killed by them, became rather the possession of others, whom he did not see in the flesh. Hence our king himself says through the prophecy of a certain psalm: “You will rescue me from the contradictions of the people; you will make me the head of the nations. A people whom I did not know served me; at the hearing of the ear it obeyed me.” This people of the nations, then, whom Christ did not know by bodily presence, but who believed in the Christ proclaimed to it, so that it was rightly said of it, “At the hearing of the ear it obeyed me”, because faith comes from hearing: this people, I say, added to the Israelites who were true both by flesh and by faith, is the city of God, which also gave birth to Christ himself according to the flesh, when it was only in those Israelites. For from there was the Virgin Mary, in whom Christ took flesh so as to be man. Of this city another psalm says: “Mother Zion, a man shall say, and a man was made in her, and the Most High himself founded her.” Who is this Most High but God? And so Christ, God, before he was made man in that city through Mary, himself founded it in the patriarchs and prophets. Since, then, it was said so long before by prophecy to this queen, the city of God, what we now see fulfilled, “In place of your fathers sons are born to you; you will make them princes over all the earth” (for from her sons throughout the whole earth are her leaders and fathers, while the peoples confess her, running together to that confession of eternal praise for ever and ever), without doubt whatever is said here somewhat obscurely in figurative expressions, however it may be understood, must agree with these most evident facts.

### Scripture references

- Ps 45:1–9 (44:2-Ps Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 45:9–17 (44:10-Ps Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 48:2 (47:3 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 18:43–44 (17:44-Ps Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 10:17: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 87:5 (86:5 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The “forty-fourth psalm” is Ps 45 in the Hebrew numbering. Quotations: Ps 45:1–9 and 45:9–17 (44:2–10 and 44:10–18 Vulgate, Old Latin form); Ps 48:2 (47:3 Vulgate); Ps 18:43–44 (17:44–45 Vulgate); Ps 87:5 (86:5 Vulgate, in the Greek-based form “Mother Zion, a man shall say”). Allusion: Rom 10:17. The etymologies of Zion and Babylon follow the tradition Augustine uses. The remarks on Israelites by the flesh are translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.16 (CSEL 40:247–251; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-9/#p-17-16).

## City of God 17.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-9/#p-17-17
- Source: CSEL 40:251–253
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Psalm 110 proclaims Christ's eternal priesthood after Melchizedek, and Psalm 22 foretells his crucifixion and the conversion of the nations.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. De his, quae ad sacerdotium Christi in psalmo centensimo nono, et de his, quae in psalmo uicensimo primo ad passionem ipsius spectant. Sicut etiam in illo psalmo, ubi sacerdos Christus, quem ad modum hic rex, apertissime praedicatur: Dixit Dominus Domino meo: Sede a dextris meis, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum. Sedere Christus ad dexteram Patris creditur, non uidetur; eius etiam inimicos poni sub pedibus eius nondum apparet; id agitur, apparebit in fine; etiam hoc nunc creditur, post uidebitur. Verum quod sequitur: Virgam uirtutis tuae emittet Dominus ex Sion, et dominare in medio inimicorum tuorum, ita clarum est, ut non solum infideliter et infeliciter, sed etiam inpudenter negetur. Et ipsi quippe fatentur inimici ex Sion missam fuisse legem Christi, quod euangelium nos uocamus, et eam uirgam uirtutis eius agnoscimus. Dominari uero eum in medio inimicorum suorum idem ipsi, inter quos dominatur, dentibus frendendo et tabescendo et nihil aduersus eum ualendo testantur. Deinde quod paulo post dicit: Iurauit Dominus, et non paenitebit eum, quibus uerbis inmutabile futurum esse significat, quod adiungit: Tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech, ex eo quod iam nusquam est sacerdotium et sacrificium secundum ordinem Aaron et ubique offertur sub sacerdote Christo, quod protulit Melchisedech, quando benedixit Abraham, quis ambigere permittitur, de quo ista dicantur? Ad haec itaque manifesta referuntur, quae paulo obscurius in eodem psalmo posita sunt, quando recte intelleguntur; quod in nostris iam popularibus sermonibus fecimus. Sic et in illo, ubi humilitatem passionis suae per prophetiam Christus eloquitur dicens: Foderunt manus meas et pedes, dinumerauerunt omnia ossa mea; ipsi uero considerauerunt et conspexerunt me (quibus utique uerbis in cruce corpus significauit extentum manibus pedibusque confixis et clauorum transuerberatione confossis, eoque modo se spectaculum considerantibus et conspicientibus praebuisse), addens etiam: Diuiserunt sibi uestimenta mea et super uestimentum meum miserunt sortem, quae prophetia quem ad modum inpleta sit euangelica narratur historia, tunc profecto et alia recte intelleguntur, quae ibi minus aperte dicta sunt, cum congruunt his, quae tanta manifestatione claruerunt: praesertim quia et illa, quae non transacta credimus, sed praesentia contuemur, sicut in eodem psalmo leguntur tanto ante praedicta, ita nunc exhibita iam toto orbe cernuntur. Ibi enim paulo post dicitur: Commemorabuntur et conuertentur ad Dominum uniuersi fines terrae et adorabunt in conspectu eius uniuersae patriae gentium; quoniam Domini est regnum, et ipse dominabitur gentium.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. On what pertains to Christ's priesthood in the hundred and ninth psalm, and what in the twenty-first psalm looks to his passion.

So too in that psalm where Christ is most plainly proclaimed a priest, as here a king: “The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet.” That Christ sits at the Father's right hand is believed, not seen; that his enemies too are being put under his feet does not yet appear; it is being done, and will appear at the end; this too is now believed, and will be seen afterwards. But what follows, “The Lord will send forth the rod of your power from Zion, and rule in the midst of your enemies”, is so clear that it can be denied not only faithlessly and unhappily but also shamelessly. For even the enemies themselves admit that the law of Christ, which we call the Gospel, was sent forth from Zion, and we recognize it as the rod of his power. And that he rules in the midst of his enemies, those very people among whom he rules bear witness, gnashing their teeth and wasting away and able to do nothing against him. Then, when he says a little later, “The Lord has sworn and will not repent”, by which words he signifies that what he adds will be unchangeable, “You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek”, since there is now nowhere a priesthood and sacrifice according to the order of Aaron, and everywhere there is offered, under Christ the priest, what Melchizedek brought out when he blessed Abraham, who is permitted to doubt of whom these things are said? To these manifest things, then, are referred those that are set down a little more obscurely in the same psalm, when they are rightly understood; which we have already done in our sermons to the people. So too in that psalm where Christ speaks through prophecy of the humility of his passion, saying, “They have dug my hands and feet; they have counted all my bones; but they looked and stared at me” (by which words he certainly signified his body stretched out on the cross, with hands and feet fastened and pierced through by the nails, and that in this way he offered himself as a spectacle to those who looked and stared), adding also, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots” (how this prophecy was fulfilled is told in the Gospel history), then certainly the other things too that are said there less openly are rightly understood when they agree with these, which have shone out with such clarity; especially since those things too, which we do not believe as past but see as present, as they are read in the same psalm foretold so long before, are now seen displayed throughout the whole world. For a little later it is said there: “All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship in his sight; for the kingdom is the Lord's, and he shall rule over the nations.”

### Scripture references

- Ps 110:1–2 (109:1-Ps Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 110:4 (109:4 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 112:10 (111:10 Vulg.): echo, low confidence
- Gen 14:18–19: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 22:16–18 (21:17-Ps Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Matt 27:35: allusion, high confidence
- John 19:23–24: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 22:27–28 (21:28-Ps Vulg.): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The “hundred and ninth” and “twenty-first” psalms are Pss 110 and 22 in the Hebrew numbering. Quotations: Ps 110:1–2, 4 (109:1–2, 4 Vulgate); Ps 22:16–18 (21:17–19 Vulgate, Greek-based “they have dug my hands and feet”); Ps 22:27–28 (21:28–29 Vulgate). Allusions: Gen 14:18–19; Ps 112:10; Matt 27:35; John 19:23–24. The “sermons to the people” are Augustine's Enarrationes on these psalms. The offering “brought out” by Melchizedek (bread and wine) refers to the Eucharist.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.17 (CSEL 40:251–253; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-9/#p-17-17).

## City of God 17.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-18/#p-17-18
- Source: CSEL 40:253–256
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Psalms 3, 41, 16, and 68 foretell Christ's death as 'sleep', his betrayal by Judas, his resurrection without corruption, and salvation through his death.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. De psalmo tertio et de quadragensimo et de quinto decimo et de sexagensimo septimo, in quibus mors et resurrectio Domini prophetatur. De resurrectione quoque eius nequaquam psalmorum oracula tacuerunt. Nam quid est aliud quod in psalmo tertio ex persona eius canitur: Ego dormiui et somnum cepi; exsurrexi, quoniam Dominus suscepit me? An forte quisquam ita desipit, ut credat uelut aliquid magnum nobis indicare uoluisse prophetam, quod dormierit et exsurrexerit, nisi somnus iste mors esset et euigilatio resurrectio, quam de Christo sic oportuit prophetari? Nam et in quadragensimo multo manifestius id ostenditur, ubi ex persona eiusdem Mediatoris more solito tamquam praeterita narrantur, quae futura prophetabantur; quoniam, quae uentura erant, iam in praedestinatione et praescientia Dei uelut facta erant [quia certa erant]. Inimici, inquit, mei dixerunt mala mihi: Quando morietur et peribit nomen eius? Et si ingrediebatur ut uideret, uana locutum est cor eius, congregauit iniquitatem ipsi. Egrediebatur foras et loquebantur simul in unum. Aduersus me susurrabant omnes inimici mei, aduersus me cogitabant mala mihi. Verbum iniquum disposuerunt aduersus me: Numquid qui dormit non adiciet ut resurgat? Hic certe ita posita sunt uerba haec, ut nihil aliud dixisse intellegatur, quam si diceret: Numquid qui moritur, non adiciet ut reuiuescat? Superiora quippe demonstrant mortem ipsius cogitasse et disposuisse inimicos eius, et hoc actum esse per eum, qui ingrediebatur ut uideret, et egrediebatur ut proderet. Cui autem hic non ocurrat ex discipulo eius factus traditor Iudas? Quia ergo facturi erant quod moliebantur, id est occisuri erant eum, ostendens illos uana malitia frustra occisuros resurrecturum, sic adiecit hunc uersum, uelut diceret: Quid agitis uani? quod uestrum scelus erit, meus somnus erit: Numquid qui dormit non adiciet ut resurgat? Et tamen eos tam magnum nefas non inpune facturos consequentibus indicat uersibus dicens: Etenim homo pacis meae, in quem speraui, qui edebat panes meos, ampliauit super me calcaneum, hoc est conculcauit me. Tu autem, inquit, Domine, miserere mei et resuscita me, et reddam illis. Quis hoc iam neget, qui Iudaeos post passionem resurrectionemque Christi de sedibus suis bellica strage et excidio funditus eradicatos uidet? Occisus enim ab eis resurrexit et reddidit eis interim temporariam disciplinam, excepto quod non correctis seruat, quando uiuos et mortuos iudicabit. Nam Dominus ipse Iesus istum ipsum traditorem suum per panem porrectum ostendens apostolis hunc etiam uersum psalmi huius commemorauit et in se dixit inpletum: Qui edebat panes meos, ampliauit super me calcaneum. Quod autem ait: In quem speraui, non congruit capiti, sed corpori. Neque enim nesciebat eum ipse Saluator, de quo ante iam dixerat: Unus ex uobis diabolus est. Sed solet in se membrorum suorum transferre personam et sibi tribuere quod esset illorum, quia caput et corpus unus est Christus; unde illud est in euangelio: Esuriui, et dedistis mihi manducare, quod exponens ait: Quando uni ex minimis meis fecistis, mihi fecistis. Se itaque dixit sperasse, quod tunc sperauerant de Iuda discipuli eius, quando est connumeratus apostolis. Iudaei autem Christum, quem sperant, moriturum esse non sperant. Ideo quem lex et prophetae adnuntiauerunt, nostrum esse non putant, sed nescio quem suum, quem sibi alienum a mortis passione confingunt. Ideo mirabili uanitate adque caecitate uerba, quae posuimus, non mortem et resurrectionem, sed somnum et euigilationem significasse contendunt. Sed clamat eis etiam psalmus quintus decimus: Propter hoc iucundatum est cor meum et exultauit lingua mea, insuper et caro mea requiescet in spe; quoniam non derelinques animam meam in inferno, nec dabis sanctum tuum uidere corruptionem. Quis in ea spe diceret requieuisse carnem suam, ut non derelicta anima sua in inferno, sed cito ad eam redeunte reuiuesceret, ne corrumperetur, sicut cadauera corrumpi solent, nisi qui die tertio resurrexit? Quod utique dicere non possunt de propheta et rege Dauid. Clamat et sexagensimus septimus: Deus noster Deus saluos faciendi, et Domini exitus mortis. Quid apertius diceretur? Deus enim saluos faciendi Dominus est Iesus, quod interpretatur saluator siue salutaris. Nam ratio nominis huius haec reddita est, quando priusquam ex uirgine nasceretur dictum est: Pariet filium, et uocabis nomen eius Iesum. Ipse enim saluum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum. In quorum peccatorum remissionem quoniam sanguis eius effusus est, non utique oportuit eum de hac uita exitus alios habere quam mortis. Ideo cum dictum esset: Deus noster Deus saluos faciendi, continuo subiunctum est: Et Domini exitus mortis, ut ostenderetur moriendo saluos esse facturus. Sed mirando dictum est: Et Domini; tamquam diceretur: "Talis est ista uita mortalium, ut nec ipse Dominus aliter ab illa exiret, nisi per mortem."

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. On the third, fortieth, fifteenth, and sixty-seventh psalms, in which the death and resurrection of the Lord are prophesied.

Nor were the oracles of the psalms silent about his resurrection. For what else is sung in his person in the third psalm: “I lay down and slept; I rose up, for the Lord upheld me”? Or is anyone so foolish as to believe that the prophet wished to indicate to us, as something great, that he had slept and risen, unless that sleep were death and that waking resurrection, which it was fitting to be prophesied thus of Christ? For in the fortieth too this is shown much more plainly, where in the person of the same Mediator, in the usual way, things are narrated as past which were being prophesied as future; since what was to come had already, in God's predestination and foreknowledge, as it were been done. “My enemies,” he says, “have spoken evil against me: When will he die, and his name perish? And if one came in to see, his heart spoke vanity; he gathered iniquity to himself. He went out and they spoke together as one. All my enemies whispered against me; against me they devised evils for me. They set an unjust word against me: Shall he who sleeps not rise again?” Here certainly these words are so placed that he is understood to have said nothing other than if he had said: “Shall he who dies not live again?” For what precedes shows that his enemies had plotted and planned his death, and that this was carried out through him who came in to see and went out to betray. And to whom does Judas, the disciple turned traitor, not occur here? Since, then, they were going to do what they were plotting, that is, going to kill him, he added this verse, showing that they would kill in vain, with empty malice, one who would rise again; as if he said: What are you doing, you vain men? What will be your crime will be my sleep: “Shall he who sleeps not rise again?” And yet he indicates in the following verses that they will not commit so great a crime with impunity, saying: “For even the man of my peace, in whom I hoped, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me”, that is, has trampled on me. “But you, Lord,” he says, “have mercy on me and raise me up, and I will repay them.” Who will now deny this, who sees the Jews, after the passion and resurrection of Christ, uprooted from their homes by the slaughter of war and utter destruction? For, killed by them, he rose again and has repaid them in the meantime with a temporal discipline, apart from what he reserves for the uncorrected when he will judge the living and the dead. For the Lord Jesus himself, pointing out this very traitor of his to the apostles by the bread he handed him, also quoted this verse of this psalm and said it was fulfilled in him: “He who ate my bread has lifted up his heel against me.” But the words “in whom I hoped” do not fit the head but the body. For the Savior himself was not ignorant of the man of whom he had already said: “One of you is a devil.” But he is accustomed to transfer to himself the person of his members and to ascribe to himself what belonged to them, because head and body are one Christ; hence the saying in the Gospel, “I was hungry and you gave me food to eat”, which he explains by saying, “When you did it to one of the least of mine, you did it to me.” So he said that he had hoped what his disciples had then hoped of Judas, when he was numbered among the apostles. But the Jews do not hope that the Christ whom they hope for will die. That is why they do not think that the one whom the law and the prophets announced is ours, but some one of their own, whom they imagine for themselves as exempt from suffering death. So with wonderful vanity and blindness they contend that the words we have quoted signified not death and resurrection, but sleep and waking.

But the fifteenth psalm too cries out to them: “Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced; moreover my flesh also shall rest in hope; for you will not abandon my soul in hell, nor let your holy one see corruption.” Who would say that his flesh had rested in such hope that, his soul not being abandoned in hell but quickly returning to it, it would live again, so as not to decay as corpses usually decay, but he who rose on the third day? This they certainly cannot say of the prophet and king David. The sixty-seventh cries out too: “Our God is the God of saving, and the Lord's are the issues of death.” What could be said more plainly? For the God of saving is the Lord Jesus, which means “savior” or “saving.” For the reason for this name was given when, before he was born of the virgin, it was said: “She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. For he will save his people from their sins.” Since his blood was shed for the remission of those sins, it was certainly not fitting for him to have other issues from this life than those of death. So when it had been said, “Our God is the God of saving”, there was immediately added, “and the Lord's are the issues of death”, to show that he would save by dying. But it was said with wonder, “and the Lord's”; as if it were said: “Such is this life of mortals that not even the Lord himself would go out of it otherwise than by death.”

### Scripture references

- Ps 3:5 (3:6 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 41:5–10 (40:6-Ps Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- John 13:18: quotation, high confidence
- John 13:26: allusion, high confidence
- John 6:70: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 25:35: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 25:40: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 16:9–10 (15:9-Ps Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 68:20 (67:21 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Matt 1:21: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Psalm numbers in the text are those of the Greek and Latin Psalter: Pss 3, 41, 16, 68 in the Hebrew numbering. Quotations: Ps 3:5 (3:6 Vulgate); Ps 41:5–10 (40:6–11 Vulgate); John 13:18; John 6:70; Matt 25:35, 40; Ps 16:9–10 (15:9–10 Vulgate); Ps 68:20 (67:21 Vulgate); Matt 1:21. Allusion: John 13:26. The editor deletes “because they were certain” (quia certa erant). The passage on the Jews' punishment after the destruction of Jerusalem is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.18 (CSEL 40:253–256; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-18/#p-17-18).

## City of God 17.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-18/#p-17-19
- Source: CSEL 40:256–257
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Psalm 69's prophecy of gall and vinegar and of darkened eyes explains why many Jews did not accept the fulfilled prophecies.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. De psalmo sexagensimo octauo, in quo Iudaeorum infidelitas et pertinacia declaratur. Sed ut Iudaei tam manifestis huius prophetiae testimoniis etiam rebus ad effectum tam clarum certumque perductis omnino non cedant, profecto in eis illud inpletur, quod in eo psalmo, qui hunc sequitur, scriptum est. Cum enim et illic ex persona Christi, quae ad eius passionem pertinent, prophetice dicerentur, commemoratum est, quod in euangelio patuit: Dederunt in escam meam fel et in siti mea potum mihi dederunt acetum. Et uelut post tale conuiuium epulasque sibi huiusce modi exhibitas mox intulit: Fiat mensa eorum coram ipsis in muscipulam et in retributionem et in scandalum; obscurentur oculi eorum ne uideant, et dorsum eorum semper incurua, et cetera, quae non optando sunt dicta, sed optandi specie prophetando praedicta. Quid ergo mirum, si haec manifesta non uident, quorum oculi sunt obscurati, ne uideant? Quid mirum, si caelestia non suspiciunt, qui ut in terrena sint proni, dorsum eorum semper incuruum est? His enim uerbis translatis a corpore uitia significantur animorum. Ista de psalmis, hoc est de prophetia regis Dauid, satis dicta sint, ut aliquis modus sit. Ignoscant autem qui haec legunt et cuncta illa nouerunt, et de his, quae fortasse firmiora me praetermisisse uel intellegunt uel existimant, non querantur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. On the sixty-eighth psalm, in which the unbelief and obstinacy of the Jews is declared.

But that the Jews do not yield at all to such manifest testimonies of this prophecy, even when the facts have been brought to so clear and certain an outcome, is surely the fulfilment in them of what is written in the psalm that follows this one. For when there too the things pertaining to Christ's passion were being prophetically spoken in his person, what was made plain in the Gospel was recalled: “They gave me gall for my food, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.” And as if after such a banquet and feast served to him, he at once went on: “Let their table become a snare before them, and a retribution, and a stumbling block; let their eyes be darkened so that they do not see, and bend their back always”, and the rest, which were not said as a wish but, in the form of a wish, foretold by prophecy. What wonder, then, if those whose eyes are darkened so that they do not see do not see these manifest things? What wonder if those do not look up to heavenly things whose back is always bent, so that they are bowed toward earthly things? For by these words, transferred from the body, vices of the mind are signified. Let this suffice concerning the psalms, that is, the prophecy of King David, so that there may be some limit. And let those who read these things and know all of them pardon me, and not complain about the things, perhaps stronger, which they understand or think I have passed over.

### Scripture references

- Ps 69:21–23 (68:22-Ps Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Matt 27:34: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 27:48: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 11:9–10: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The “sixty-eighth psalm” is Ps 69 in the Hebrew numbering. Quotations: Ps 69:21–23 (68:22–24 Vulgate; compare Rom 11:9–10). Allusions: Matt 27:34, 48. Augustine stresses that the curse is a prophecy in the form of a wish. The chapter's statements on the Jews are translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.19 (CSEL 40:256–257; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-18/#p-17-19).

## City of God 17.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-18/#p-17-20
- Source: CSEL 40:257–262
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine praises David's repentance, notes Solomon's fall, and finds prophecies of Christ and the Church in Wisdom, Sirach, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. De regno ac merito Dauid et de filio ipsius Salomone eaque prophetia, quae ad Christum pertinens inuenitur uel in eis libris, qui scriptis ipsius copulantur, uel in eis, quos ipsius esse non dubium est. Regnauit ergo Dauid in terrena Hierusalem, filius caelestis Hierusalem, diuino multum testimonio praedicatus, quia et delicta eius tanta pietate superata sunt per saluberrimam paenitendi humilitatem, ut prorsus inter eos sit, de quibus ipse ait: Beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates et quorum tecta sunt peccata. Post hunc regnauit eidem populo uniuerso Salomon filius eius, qui, ut supra dictum est, patre suo uiuente coepit regnare. Hic bonis initiis malos exitus habuit. Quippe secundae res, quae sapientium animos fatigant, magis huic obfuerunt, quam profuit ipsa sapientia, etiam nunc et deinceps memorabilis, et tunc longe lateque laudata. Prophetasse etiam ipse reperitur in suis libris, qui tres recepti sunt in auctoritatem canonicam: Prouerbia, ecclesiastes et canticum canticorum. Alii uero duo, quorum unus sapientia, alter ecclesiasticus dicitur, propter eloquii nonnullam similitudinem, ut Salomonis dicantur, obtinuit consuetudo; non autem esse ipsius non dubitant doctiores; eos tamen in auctoritatem maxime occidentalis antiquitus recepit ecclesia. Quorum in uno, qui appellatur sapientia Salomonis, passio Christi apertissime prophetatur. Inpii quippe interfectores eius commemorantur dicentes: Circumueniamus iustum, quoniam insuauis est nobis et contrarius est operibus nostris et inproperat nobis peccata legis et infamatis in nos peccata disciplinae nostrae. Promittit scientiam Dei se habere et filium Dei se nominat. Factus est nobis in traductionem cogitationum nostrarum. Grauis est nobis etiam ad uidendum, quoniam dissimilis est aliis uita illius et inmutatae uiae eius. Tamquam nugaces aestimati sumus ab illo, et abstinet se a uiis nostris quasi ab inmunditiis; praefert nouissima iustorum et gloriatur patrem Deum se habere. Videamus ergo si sermones illius ueri sunt, et tentemus quae uentura sunt illi, et sciemus quae erunt nouissima illius. Si enim est iustus filius Dei, suscipiet illum et liberabit eum de manu contrariorum. Contumelia et tormento interrogemus illum, ut sciamus reuerentiam illius et probemus patientiam ipsius. Morte turpissima condemnemus illum; erit enim ei respectus ex sermonibus illius. Haec cogitauerunt et errauerunt; excaecauit enim illos malitia ipsorum. In ecclesiastico autem fides gentium futura praedicitur isto modo: Miserere nostri, dominator Deus omnium, et inmitte timorem tuum super omnes gentes; extolle manum tuam super gentes alienas et uideant potentiam tuam. Sicut coram illis sanctificatus es in nobis, ita coram nobis magnificeris in illis, et agnoscant te secundum quod et nos agnouimus te, quia non est Deus praeter te, Domine. Hanc optandi et precandi specie prophetiam per Iesum Christum uidemus inpletam. Sed aduersus contradictores non tanta firmitate proferuntur, quae scripta non sunt in canone Iudaeorum. In tribus uero illis, quos Salomonis esse constat et Iudaei canonicos habent, ut ostendatur ad Christum et ecclesiam pertinere quod in eis eius modi reperitur, operosa disputatio necessaria est, quae nos ultra quam oportet, si nunc adhibetur, extendit. Tamen quod in prouerbiis legitur, uiros inpios dicere: Abscondamus in terra uirum iustum iniuste, absorbeamus uero eum tamquam infernus uiuentem et auferamus eius memoriam de terra, possessionem eius pretiosam adprehendamus, non ita obscurum est, ut de Christo et possessione eius ecclesia sine laboriosa expositione non possit intellegi. Tale quippe aliquid etiam Dominus ipse Iesus per euangelicam parabolam ostendit dixisse malos colonos: Hic est heres, uenite, occidamus eum, et nostra erit hereditas. Itemque illud in eodem libro, quod iam ante perstrinximus, cum ageremus de sterili, quae peperit septem, non nisi de Christo et ecclesia, mox ut fuerit, pronuntiatum consueuit intellegi ab eis, qui Christum sapientiam Dei esse nouerunt: Sapientia aedificauit sibi domum et subfulsit columnas septem; immolauit suas uictimas, miscuit in cratere uinum suum et parauit mensam suam. Misit seruos suos conuocans cum excellenti praedicatione ad craterem dicens: Quis est insipiens? Diuertat ad me. Et inopibus sensu dixit: Venite, manducate de meis panibus et bibite uinum quod miscui uobis. Hic certe agnoscimus Dei sapientiam, hoc est Verbum Patri coaeternum, in utero uirginali domum sibi aedificasse corpus humanum et huic, tamquam capiti membra, ecclesiam subiunxisse, martyrum uictimas immolasse, mensam in uino et panibus praeparasse, ubi apparet etiam sacerdotium secundum ordinem Melchisedech, insipientes et inopes sensu uocasse, quia, sicut dicit apostolus, infirma huius mundi elegit, ut confunderet fortia. Quibus tamen infirmis quod sequitur dicit: Derelinquite insipientiam, ut uiuatis, et quaerite prudentiam, ut habeatis uitam. Participem autem fieri mensae illius, ipsum est incipere habere uitam. Nam et in alio libro, qui uocatur ecclesiastes, ubi ait: Non est bonum homini, nisi quod manducabit et bibet, quid credibilius dicere intellegitur, quam quod ad participationem mensae huius pertinet, quam sacerdos ipse Mediator testamenti noui exhibet secundum ordinem Melchisedech de corpore et sanguine suo? Id enim sacrificium successit omnibus illis sacrificiis ueteris testamenti, quae immolabantur in umbra futuri; propter quod etiam uocem illam in psalmo tricensimo et nono eiusdem Mediatoris per prophetiam loquentis agnoscimus: Sacrificium et oblationem noluisti, corpus autem perfecisti mihi; quia pro illis omnibus sacrificiis et oblationibus corpus eius offertur et participantibus ministratur. Nam istum ecclesiasten in hac sententia manducandi et bibendi, quam saepe repetit plurimumque commendat, non sapere carnalis epulas uoluptatis, satis illud ostendit, ubi ait: Melius est ire in domum luctus quam ire in domum potus; et paulo post: Cor, inquit, sapientium in domo luctus et cor insipientium in domo epularum. Sed illud magis commemorandum existimo de hoc libro, quod pertinet ad ciuitates duas, unam diaboli, alteram Christi, et earum reges diabolum et Christum: Vae tibi, terra, inquit, cuius rex adulescens, et principes tui mane comedunt. Beata tu, terra, cuius rex tuus filius ingenuorum, et principes tui in tempore comedunt, in fortitudine, et non in confusione. Adulescentem dixit diabolum propter stultitiam et superbiam et temeritatem et petulantiam ceteraque uitia, quae huic aetati adsolent abundare; Christum autem filium ingenuorum, sanctorum scilicet patriarcharum, pertinentium ad liberam ciuitatem, ex quibus est in carne progenitus. Principes illius ciuitatis mane manducantes, id est ante horam congruam, quia non exspectant opportunam, quae uera est, in futuro saeculo felicitatem, festinanter beari huius saeculi celebritate cupientes; principes autem ciuitatis Christi tempus non fallacis beatitudinis patienter exspectant. Hoc ait: In fortitudine, et non in confusione, quia non eos fallit spes, de qua dicit apostolus: Spes autem non confundit; dicit et psalmus: Etenim qui te exspectant, non confundentur. Iam uero canticum canticorum spiritalis quaedam sanctarum est uoluptas mentium in coniugio illius regis et reginae ciuitatis, quod est Christus et ecclesia. Sed haec uoluptas allegoricis tegminibus inuoluta est, ut desideretur ardentius nudeturque iucundius, et appareat sponsus, cui dicitur in eodem cantico: Aequitas dilexit te, et sponsa, quae ibi audit: Caritas in deliciis tuis. Tacita multa transimus cura huius operis terminandi.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. On the reign and merit of David and on his son Solomon, and on the prophecy pertaining to Christ that is found either in the books joined to his writings or in those which are undoubtedly his.

David, then, reigned in the earthly Jerusalem, a son of the heavenly Jerusalem, much commended by divine testimony, because even his offences were overcome by such godliness, through the most wholesome humility of repentance, that he is altogether among those of whom he himself says: “Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered.” After him Solomon his son reigned over the same whole people; he, as was said above, began to reign while his father was still living. He had good beginnings and bad endings. For prosperity, which wearies the minds of the wise, harmed him more than his very wisdom helped him, a wisdom memorable even now and hereafter, and then praised far and wide. He himself too is found to have prophesied in his books, three of which have been received into canonical authority: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. But custom has prevailed that two others, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, be called Solomon's because of some likeness of style; yet the more learned do not doubt that they are not his; the Church, however, especially in the West, received them from ancient times into authority. In one of these, which is called the Wisdom of Solomon, the passion of Christ is most openly prophesied. For his ungodly killers are recorded as saying: “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is disagreeable to us and opposed to our works, and reproaches us with sins against the law, and charges against us the sins of our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and names himself the son of God. He has become to us a reproof of our thoughts. He is grievous to us even to behold, because his life is unlike others', and his ways are different. We are counted by him as triflers, and he keeps himself from our ways as from uncleanness; he extols the last end of the righteous and boasts that he has God for his father. Let us see, then, whether his words are true, and let us test what will happen to him, and we shall know what his end will be. For if the righteous man is the son of God, he will uphold him and deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us examine him with insult and torture, that we may know his reverence and prove his patience. Let us condemn him to a most shameful death; for he will be looked after, according to his words. These things they thought, and they went astray; for their own malice blinded them.” And in Ecclesiasticus the future faith of the nations is foretold in this way: “Have mercy on us, O Lord God of all, and send your fear upon all the nations; lift up your hand over the foreign nations, and let them see your power. As you have been sanctified in us before them, so be magnified in them before us; and let them know you as we also have known you, that there is no God but you, O Lord.” This prophecy, in the form of a wish and a prayer, we see fulfilled through Jesus Christ. But what is not written in the canon of the Jews is not brought forward against opponents with such strength.

In those three, however, which it is agreed are Solomon's and which the Jews hold canonical, to show that what is found of this kind in them pertains to Christ and the Church a laborious discussion is necessary, which would extend us further than is fitting if it were undertaken now. Yet what we read in Proverbs, that ungodly men say, “Let us hide the righteous man unjustly in the earth; let us swallow him alive like hell, and take away his memory from the earth; let us seize his precious possession”, is not so obscure that it cannot be understood without laborious exposition of Christ and his possession, the Church. For the Lord Jesus himself too showed through a parable of the Gospel that the wicked tenants said something of the kind: “This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.” Likewise what is in the same book, which we have already touched on when we were treating of the barren woman who bore seven, is usually understood, as soon as it is uttered, of nothing but Christ and the Church, by those who know that Christ is the wisdom of God: “Wisdom has built herself a house and set up seven pillars; she has sacrificed her victims, mixed her wine in the bowl, and prepared her table. She has sent her servants, calling with a lofty proclamation to the bowl, saying: Who is foolish? Let him turn aside to me. And to those lacking sense she said: Come, eat of my bread and drink the wine which I have mixed for you.” Here certainly we recognize that the wisdom of God, that is, the Word coeternal with the Father, built himself a house, a human body, in the virgin's womb; joined the Church to it as members to a head; sacrificed the victims of the martyrs; prepared a table with wine and bread, where the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek also appears; and called the foolish and those lacking sense, because, as the apostle says, he has chosen the weak things of this world to confound the strong. Yet to these weak ones he says what follows: “Forsake folly, that you may live, and seek prudence, that you may have life.” To become a sharer in that table is itself to begin to have life. For in another book too, which is called Ecclesiastes, where he says, “There is no good for a man but what he will eat and drink”, what is he more credibly understood to say than what pertains to the sharing of this table, which the priest himself, the Mediator of the new covenant, provides according to the order of Melchizedek from his body and blood? For that sacrifice has succeeded all those sacrifices of the old covenant, which were offered in the shadow of the future; for which reason we also recognize that voice in the thirty-ninth psalm of the same Mediator speaking through prophecy: “Sacrifice and offering you did not want, but a body you have perfected for me”; because instead of all those sacrifices and offerings his body is offered and administered to those who partake. For that this Ecclesiastes, in this saying about eating and drinking which he often repeats and much commends, does not savor of feasts of carnal pleasure, is shown sufficiently where he says, “It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of drinking”; and a little later: “The heart of the wise,” he says, “is in the house of mourning, and the heart of fools in the house of feasting.”

But I think what should rather be recalled from this book is what pertains to the two cities, one of the devil, the other of Christ, and to their kings, the devil and Christ: “Woe to you, O land,” he says, “whose king is a youth, and whose princes eat in the morning. Blessed are you, O land, whose king is the son of the free-born, and whose princes eat in due season, in strength, and not in confusion.” He called the devil a youth because of the folly, pride, rashness, wantonness, and other vices that usually abound in that age; but Christ the son of the free-born, that is, of the holy patriarchs belonging to the free city, from whom he was begotten in the flesh. The princes of that city eat in the morning, that is, before the fitting hour, because they do not await the timely happiness, which is the true one, in the age to come, desiring hastily to be made happy by the celebrity of this age; but the princes of the city of Christ patiently await the time of a happiness that does not deceive. This is what he means by “in strength, and not in confusion”, because the hope does not deceive them of which the apostle says, “But hope does not confound”; and the psalm too says, “For those who wait for you shall not be confounded.” As for the Song of Songs, it is a kind of spiritual delight of holy minds in the marriage of that king and queen of the city, that is, Christ and the Church. But this delight is wrapped in allegorical coverings, so that it may be desired more ardently and uncovered more joyfully, and the bridegroom may appear, to whom it is said in the same Song, “Equity has loved you”, and the bride, who hears there, “Love in your delights.” We pass over much in silence, in our care to finish this work.

### Scripture references

- Ps 32:1 (31:1 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- 2 Sam 12:13: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Kgs 1:32–40: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Kgs 11:1–8: allusion, high confidence
- Prov 1:11–13: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 21:38: quotation, high confidence
- Prov 9:1–6: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:27: quotation, high confidence
- Eccl 8:15: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 40:6 (39:7 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Heb 10:5: quotation, medium confidence
- Eccl 7:2: quotation, high confidence
- Eccl 7:4: quotation, high confidence
- Eccl 10:16–17: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 5:5: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 25:3 (24:3 Vulg.): quotation, high confidence
- Song 1:4: quotation, high confidence
- Song 7:6: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 2:12–21 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence
- Sir 36:1–5 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence
- Sallust, Cat. 11.8 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- “Prosperity, which wearies the minds of the wise” quotes Sallust, Catiline 11.8. Quotations: Ps 32:1 (31:1 Vulgate); Wis 2:12–21; Sir 36:1–5; Prov 1:11–13; Matt 21:38; Prov 9:1–5, 6; 1 Cor 1:27; Eccl 8:15; Ps 40:6 (39:7 Vulgate, Greek-based “a body you have perfected for me”, as in Heb 10:5); Eccl 7:2, 4; Eccl 10:16–17; Rom 5:5; Ps 25:3 (24:3 Vulgate); Song 1:4 and 7:6 (Old Latin forms). Allusions: 2 Sam 12:13; 1 Kgs 1:32–40; 1 Kgs 11:1–8. Augustine's remarks on the canonical status of Wisdom and Sirach (not Solomon's, not in the Jewish canon, but received by the Church, especially in the West) are translated as written. The digital text reads per legum Christum, corrected to per Iesum Christum as an OCR slip. The Eucharistic interpretation (the table of bread and wine) is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.20 (CSEL 40:257–262; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-18/#p-17-20).

## City of God 17.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-18/#p-17-21
- Source: CSEL 40:262–263
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: After Solomon the kingdom divided into Israel (ten tribes) and Judah (Judah and Benjamin) by God's will, a political, not religious, division.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. De regibus post Salomonem siue in Iuda siue in Israel. Ceteri post Salomonem reges Hebraeorum uix inueniuntur per aliqua aenigmata dictorum suorum rerumue gestarum, quod ad Christum et ecclesiam pertineat, prophetasse, siue in Iuda siue in Israel. Sic enim appellatae sunt illius populi partes, ex quo propter Salomonis offensam tempore filii eius Roboam, qui patri successit in regnum, Deo uindicante diuisus est. Proinde tribus decem, quas accepit Hieroboam, seruus Salomonis, rex eis in Samaria constitutus, proprie uocabantur Israel, quamuis hoc uniuersi illius populi nomen esset. Duabus uero tribubus, Iudae scilicet et Beniamin, quae propter Dauid ne penitus regnum stirpis eius fuisset eradicatum, remanserant subiacentes ciuitati Hierusalem, Iudae nomen fuit, quia ipsa erat tribus unde Dauid. Beniamin uero tribus altera ad idem regnum, sicut dixi, pertinens erat, unde fuit Saul rex ante Dauid. Sed simul istae duae tribus, ut dictum est, Iuda uocabantur, et hoc nomine discernebantur ab Israel, quod appellabantur proprie decem tribus habentes suum regem. Nam tribus Leui, quoniam sacerdotalis fuit, Dei, non regum seruitio mancipata, tertia decima numerabatur. Ioseph quippe unus ex duodecim filiis Israel, non unam, sicut ceteri singulas, sed duas tribus fecit, Ephraem et Manassen. Verum tamen etiam tribus Leui ad regnum Hierosolymitanum pertinebat magis, ubi erat Dei templum, cui seruiebat. Diuiso igitur populo primus regnauit in Hierusalem Roboam, rex Iuda, filius Salomonis, et in Samaria Hieroboam, rex Israel, seruus Salomonis. Et cum uoluisset Roboam tamquam tyrannidem diuisae illius partis bello persequi, prohibitus est populus pugnare cum fratribus suis dicente Deo per prophetam se hoc fecisse. Unde apparuit nullum in ea re uel regis Israel uel populi fuisse peccatum, sed uoluntatem Dei uindicantis inpletam. Qua cognita pars utraque inter se pacata conquieuit; non enim religionis, sed regni fuerat facta diuisio.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. On the kings after Solomon, whether in Judah or in Israel.

The other kings of the Hebrews after Solomon, whether in Judah or in Israel, are hardly found to have prophesied through any enigmas of their words or deeds anything that pertains to Christ and the Church. For so were the parts of that people called, from the time when, because of Solomon's offence, in the time of his son Rehoboam, who succeeded his father in the kingdom, it was divided by God's punishment. So the ten tribes which Jeroboam, Solomon's servant, received when he was made their king in Samaria, were properly called Israel, although this was the name of that whole people. But the two tribes, namely Judah and Benjamin, which had remained subject to the city of Jerusalem for David's sake, so that the kingdom of his stock should not be entirely uprooted, had the name of Judah, because that was the tribe from which David came. Benjamin, the other tribe belonging to the same kingdom, as I said, was the one from which Saul came, the king before David. But these two tribes together, as has been said, were called Judah, and by this name were distinguished from Israel, which was the proper name of the ten tribes having their own king. For the tribe of Levi, since it was priestly, dedicated to the service of God, not of kings, was counted as the thirteenth. For Joseph, one of the twelve sons of Israel, formed not one tribe, as the others each did, but two, Ephraim and Manasseh. Nevertheless the tribe of Levi too belonged rather to the kingdom of Jerusalem, where the temple of God was, which it served. When the people was divided, then, the first to reign in Jerusalem was Rehoboam, king of Judah, son of Solomon, and in Samaria Jeroboam, king of Israel, Solomon's servant. And when Rehoboam wished to pursue with war that divided part as a tyranny, the people was forbidden to fight with its brothers, God saying through a prophet that he had done this. From this it appeared that there was no sin in the matter either of the king of Israel or of the people, but that the will of God in punishment had been fulfilled. When this was known, both parts rested at peace with each other; for the division that had been made was one not of religion but of the kingdom.

### Scripture references

- 1 Kgs 11:11–13: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Kgs 11:26–39: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Kgs 12:1–24: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 48:5: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: 1 Kgs 11:11–13, 26–39; 1 Kgs 12:1–24 (Shemaiah's prophecy, 12:22–24); Gen 48:5 (Ephraim and Manasseh).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.21 (CSEL 40:262–263; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-18/#p-17-21).

## City of God 17.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-18/#p-17-22
- Source: CSEL 40:263–264
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Jeroboam led Israel into idolatry, yet God sent prophets like Elijah and Elisha and kept seven thousand faithful.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. De Hieroboam, qui inpietate idolatriae subditum sibi populum profanauit, in quo tamen non destitit Deus et prophetas inspirare et multos ab idolatriae crimine custodire. Verum rex Israel Hieroboam mente peruersa non credens Deo, quem ueracem promisso sibi regno datoque probauerat, timuit ne ueniendo ad templum Dei, quod erat in Hierusalem, quo secundum diuinam legem sacrificandi causa uniuersae illi genti ueniendum fuit, seduceretur ab eo populus et stirpi Dauid tamquam regio semini redderetur, et instituit idolatriam in regno suo et populum Dei secum simulacrorum cultu obstrictum nefanda inpietate decepit. Nec tamen omni modo cessauit Deus non solum illum regem, uerum etiam successores eius et inpietatis imitatores populumque ipsum arguere per prophetas. Nam ibi exstiterunt et magni illi insignesque prophetae, qui etiam mirabilia multa fecerunt, Helias et Helisaeus discipulus eius; ibi etiam dicenti Heliae: Domine, prophetas tuos occiderunt, altaria tua suffoderunt, et ego relictus sum solus, et quaerunt animam meam, responsum est esse illic septem milia uirorum, qui non curuauerunt genua ante Bahal.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. On Jeroboam, who profaned the people subject to him with the ungodliness of idolatry; among whom God nevertheless did not cease to inspire prophets and to keep many from the crime of idolatry.

But Jeroboam, king of Israel, with a perverse mind, not believing God, whom he had proved truthful when the kingdom was promised and given to him, feared that by coming to the temple of God which was in Jerusalem, to which by divine law that whole nation had to come to sacrifice, the people might be drawn away from him and returned to the stock of David as the royal seed; and he established idolatry in his kingdom, and with abominable ungodliness deceived the people of God, binding them with himself to the worship of images. Yet God did not altogether cease to rebuke through prophets not only that king but also his successors and imitators in ungodliness, and the people itself. For there arose there those great and famous prophets who also did many wonders, Elijah and Elisha his disciple; there too, when Elijah said, “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have dug up your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”, the answer was given that there were there seven thousand men who had not bowed the knee before Baal.

### Scripture references

- 1 Kgs 12:26–33: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Kgs 19:10: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Kgs 19:18: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 11:3–4: quotation, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: 1 Kgs 11:31–38; 1 Kgs 12:26–33; 1 Kgs 17–2 Kgs 13 (Elijah and Elisha). Quotation: 1 Kgs 19:10, 18 (as in Rom 11:3–4).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.22 (CSEL 40:263–264; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-18/#p-17-22).

## City of God 17.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-18/#p-17-23
- Source: CSEL 40:264–266
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The divided kingdoms, alternately blessed and punished, went into captivity; after the return, prophecy ceased with Malachi, Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra until the prophets of the Gospel and John the Baptist.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. De uario utriusque regni Hebraeorum statu, donec ambo populi in captiuitatem diuerso tempore ducerentur, reuocato postea Iuda in regnum suum, quod nouissime in Romanorum transiit potestatem. Itemque in regno Iuda pertinente ad Hierusalem etiam regum succedentium temporibus non defuerunt prophetae; sicut Deo placebat eos mittere uel ad praenuntiandum, quod opus erat, uel ad corripienda peccata praecipiendamque iustitiam. Nam et illic, etsi longe minus quam in Israel, tamen exstiterunt reges, qui suis inpietatibus Deum grauiter offenderent et moderatis flagellis cum populo simili plecterentur. Piorum sane regum merita ibi non parua laudantur; in Israel autem reges alios magis, alios minus, omnes tamen reprobos legimus. Utraque igitur pars, sicut iubebat diuina prouidentia uel sinebat, uariis et erigebatur prosperitatibus et aduersitatibus premebatur, et sic adfligebatur non solum externis, uerum etiam inter se ciuilibus bellis, ut certis exsistentibus causis misericordia Dei uel ira patesceret, donec eius indignatione crescente uniuersa gens illa a Chaldaeis debellantibus non solum subuerteretur in sedibus suis, sed etiam ex maxima sui parte transferretur in terras Assyriorum; prius illa pars, quae uocabatur Israel in tribubus decem; postea uero etiam Iudas, euersa Hierusalem et templo illo nobilissimo; in quibus terris per annos septuaginta captiuum egit otium. Post quos inde dimissa templum, quod euersum fuerat, instaurauit; et quamuis plurimi eius in alienigenarum degerent terris, non habuit tamen deinceps duas regni partes et duos diuersos in singulis partibus reges; sed in Hierusalem princeps eorum erat unus, adque ad Dei templum, quod ibi erat, omnes undique, ubicumque essent et undecumque possent, per certa tempora ueniebant. Sed nec tunc eis hostes ex aliis gentibus expugnatoresque defuerunt; nam etiam Romanorum iam tributarios eos Christus inuenit. CAPUT XXIIII. De prophetis, qui uel aput Iudaeos postremi fuerunt, uel quos circa tempus natiuitatis Christi euangelica prodit historia. Toto autem illo tempore, ex quo redierunt de Babylonia, post Malachiam, Aggaeum et Zachariam, qui tunc prophetauerunt, et Esdram non habuerunt prophetas usque ad Saluatoris aduentum, nisi alium Zachariam patrem Iohannis et Elisabeth eius uxorem, Christi natiuitate iam proxima, et eo iam nato Simeonem senem et Annam uiduam iamque grandaeuam et ipsum Iohannem nouissimum; qui iuuenis iam iuuenem Christum non quidem futurum praedixit, sed tamen incognitum prophetica cognitione monstrauit; propter quod ipse Dominus ait: Lex et prophetae usque ad Iohannem. Sed istorum quinque prophetatio ex euangelio nobis nota est, ubi et ipsa uirgo mater Domini ante Iohannem prophetasse inuenitur. Sed hanc istorum prophetiam Iudaei reprobi non accipiunt; acceperunt autem, qui ex eis innumerabiles euangelio crediderunt. Tunc enim est uere Israel diuisus in duo diuisione illa, quae per Samuelem prophetam Sauli regi est inmutabilis praenuntiata. Malachiam uero, Aggaeum, Zachariam et Esdram etiam Iudaei reprobi in auctoritatem canonicam receptos nouissimos habent. Sunt enim et scripta eorum, sicut aliorum, qui in magna multitudine prophetarum perpauci ea scripserunt, quae auctoritatem canonis obtinerent. De quorum praedictis, quae ad Christum ecclesiamque eius pertinent, nonnulla mihi in hoc opere uideo esse ponenda; quod commodius fiet adiuuante Domino sequenti libro, ne hunc tam prolixum ulterius oneremus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. On the varied state of both kingdoms of the Hebrews, until both peoples were led into captivity at different times; Judah was later recalled to its kingdom, which at last passed into the power of the Romans.

Likewise in the kingdom of Judah, belonging to Jerusalem, prophets were not lacking in the times of the succeeding kings either, as it pleased God to send them, whether to foretell what was needed or to rebuke sins and enjoin righteousness. For there too, though far less than in Israel, there arose kings who gravely offended God by their ungodliness and were punished, together with a people like them, with moderate scourges. The considerable merits of godly kings are indeed praised there; but in Israel we read that the kings, some more and some less, were all reprobate. So both parts, as divine providence commanded or permitted, were both raised up by various prosperities and pressed down by adversities, and were afflicted not only by foreign wars but also by civil wars among themselves, so that for definite causes the mercy or the anger of God might be made manifest; until, as his indignation grew, that whole nation was not only overthrown in its dwellings by the conquering Chaldeans but also, for the greatest part, carried away into the lands of the Assyrians: first the part called Israel, in ten tribes; afterwards Judah too, when Jerusalem and that most famous temple were overthrown; and in those lands it spent seventy years of captive leisure. After these years, released from there, it restored the temple that had been overthrown; and though very many of them lived in foreign lands, it did not thereafter have two parts of a kingdom and two different kings in each part, but in Jerusalem there was one ruler of them, and all from everywhere, wherever they were and from wherever they could, came at fixed times to the temple of God that was there. But not even then were they without enemies and conquerors from other nations; for Christ found them already tributaries of the Romans.

Chapter 24. On the prophets who were the last among the Jews, or whom the Gospel history makes known around the time of Christ's birth.

In the whole of that time since they returned from Babylon, after Malachi, Haggai, and Zechariah, who prophesied then, and Ezra, they had no prophets until the Savior's coming, except another Zechariah, the father of John, and Elizabeth his wife, when Christ's birth was already near; and after he was born, the old man Simeon and Anna, a widow already of great age, and John himself, the last; who, as a young man, did not indeed foretell the young Christ as one to come, but pointed him out, unknown as he was, by prophetic knowledge; for which reason the Lord himself says: “The law and the prophets were until John.” But the prophecy of these five is known to us from the Gospel, where the virgin mother of the Lord herself is also found to have prophesied before John. But the reprobate Jews do not accept this prophecy of these persons; those, however, accepted it who, innumerable among them, believed the Gospel. For then Israel was truly divided in two, by that division which was foretold as unchangeable to King Saul through the prophet Samuel. But Malachi, Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra even the reprobate Jews hold as the last received into canonical authority. For there are also writings of theirs, as of others who, out of a great multitude of prophets, were very few who wrote what would obtain the authority of the canon. Of their predictions that pertain to Christ and his Church I see that I must set down some in this work; which will be done more fittingly, with the Lord's help, in the next book, so as not to burden this one, already so long, any further.

### Scripture references

- 2 Kgs 17:6: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Kgs 25:1–21: allusion, high confidence
- Jer 25:11–12: allusion, high confidence
- Ezra 1:1–6:22: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 1:41–45: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 1:46–55: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 1:67–79: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 2:25–38: allusion, high confidence
- John 1:29–34: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 16:16: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 11:13: quotation, medium confidence
- 1 Sam 15:28: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The digital text includes chapter 24 (“CAPUT XXIIII”) within this section; it is translated here under its own heading. Augustine says both kingdoms were overthrown by the Chaldeans and carried to Assyria; Israel's exile was by the Assyrians (2 Kgs 17:6) and Judah's by the Babylonians (2 Kgs 25); translated as written. Allusions: 2 Kgs 17:6; 2 Kgs 25:1–21; Jer 25:11–12; Ezra 1–6; Luke 1:5–25, 41–45, 46–55, 67–79; Luke 2:25–38; John 1:29–34; 1 Sam 15:28. Quotation: Luke 16:16 (compare Matt 11:13). The phrase “reprobate Jews” is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 17.23 (CSEL 40:264–266; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-18/#p-17-23).

## City of God 18.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-18/#p-18-1
- Source: CSEL 40:266–267
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine recalls the plan of the work and announces that he will now trace the earthly city from Abraham onward, so that the two cities can be compared.

### Latin text

De his, quae usque ad tempora Saluatoris decem et septem uoluminibus disputata sunt. De ciuitatum duarum, quarum Dei una, saeculi huius est altera, in qua est, quantum ad hominum genus pertinet, etiam ista peregrina, exortu et procursu et debitis finibus me scripturum esse promisi, cum prius inimicos ciuitatis Dei, qui conditori eius Christo deos suos praeferunt et liuore sibi perniciosissimo atrociter inuident Christianis, quantum me adiuuaret eius gratia, refellissem, quod uoluminibus decem prioribus feci. De hac uero mea, quam modo commemoraui, tripertita promissione decimum sequentibus quattuor libris ambarum est digestus exortus, deinde procursus ab homine primo usque ad diluuium libro uno, qui est huius operis quintus decimus, adque inde usque ad Abraham rursus ambae, sicut in temporibus, ita et in nostris litteris cucurrerunt. Sed a patre Abraham usque ad regum tempus Israelitarum, ubi sextum decimum uolumen absoluimus, et inde usque ad ipsius in carne Saluatoris aduentum, quo usque septimus decimus liber tenditur, sola uidetur in meo stilo cucurrisse Dei ciuitas; cum in hoc saeculo non sola cucurrerit, sed ambae utique in genere humano, sicut ab initio, simul suo procursu tempora uariauerint. Verum hoc ideo feci, ut prius, ex quo apertiores Dei promissiones esse coeperunt, usque ad eius ex uirgine natiuitatem, in quo fuerant quae primo promittebantur inplenda, sine interpellatione a contrario alterius ciuitatis ista, quae Dei est, procurrens distinctius appareret; quamuis usque ad reuelationem testamenti noui non in lumine, sed in umbra cucurrerit. Nunc ergo, quod intermiseram, uideo esse faciendum, ut ex Abrahae temporibus quo modo etiam illa cucurrerit, quantum satis uidetur, adtingam, ut ambae inter se possint consideratione legentium conparari.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. On the matters discussed in the seventeen books down to the times of the Saviour.

I promised to write of the rise, the progress, and the appointed ends of the two cities, of which one is God's and the other this world's, in which the former too, so far as the human race is concerned, is now a pilgrim; but first, so far as his grace should help me, to refute the enemies of the city of God, who prefer their gods to Christ its founder and with an envy most ruinous to themselves bitterly begrudge the Christians. This I did in the first ten books. Of this threefold promise of mine, which I have just recalled, the rise of both cities was set out in the four books that follow the tenth; then their progress from the first man down to the flood in one book, which is the fifteenth of this work; and from there down to Abraham both again ran their course, in my writing as in time. But from father Abraham down to the time of the kings of the Israelites, where we completed the sixteenth volume, and from there down to the coming of the Saviour himself in the flesh, to which the seventeenth book extends, the city of God alone seems to have run its course in my pen; although in this world it did not run alone, but both, as from the beginning, certainly passed through the ages together in their course within the human race. I did this, however, so that from the time when God's promises began to be clearer, down to his birth from the virgin, in whom the things first promised were to be fulfilled, this city, which is God's, might appear more distinctly as it ran its course, without interruption from the opposing city; though until the revelation of the New Testament it ran not in light but in shadow. Now, then, I see that I must do what I had left aside, and touch, as far as seems sufficient, on how that other city too ran its course from the times of Abraham, so that the two may be compared with one another by the reader's reflection.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.1 (CSEL 40:266–267; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-18/#p-18-1).

## City of God 18.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-18/#p-18-2
- Source: CSEL 40:267–270
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that the earthly city is marked chiefly by the Assyrian and Roman empires, and begins to synchronize the kings of Assyria and Sicyon with the life of Abraham.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. De terrenae ciuitatis regibus adque temporibus, quibus ab exortu Abrahae sanctorum tempora subputata conueniunt. Societas igitur usquequaque mortalium diffusa per terras et in locorum quantislibet diuersitatibus unius tamen eiusdemque naturae quadam communione deuincta utilitates et cupiditates suas quibusque sectantibus, dum id quod adpetitur aut nemini aut non omnibus sufficit, quia non est id ipsum, aduersus se ipsam plerumque diuiditur, et pars partem, quae praeualet, obprimit. Victrici enim uicta subcumbit, dominationi scilicet uel etiam libertati qualemcumque pacem praeferens ac salutem, ita ut magnae fuerint admirationi, qui perire quam seruire maluerunt. Nam in omnibus fere gentibus quodam modo uox naturae ista personuit, ut subiugari uictoribus mallent, quibus contigit uinci, quam bellica omnifariam uastatione deleri. Hinc factum est, ut non sine Dei prouidentia, in cuius potestate est, ut quisque bello aut subiugetur aut subiuget, quidam essent regnis praediti, quidam regnantibus subditi. Sed inter plurima regna terrarum, in quae terrenae utilitatis uel cupiditatis est diuisa societas (quam ciuitatem mundi huius uniuersali uocabulo nuncupamus), duo regna cernimus longe ceteris prouenisse clariora, Assyriorum primum, deinde Romanorum, ut temporibus, ita locis inter se ordinata adque distincta. Nam quo modo illud prius, hoc posterius: eo modo illud in Oriente, hoc in Occidente surrexit; denique in illius fine huius initium confestim fuit. Regna cetera ceterosque reges uelut adpendices istorum dixerim. Ninus ergo iam secundus rex erat Assyriorum, qui patri suo Belo successerat, regni illius primo regi, quando in terra Chaldaeorum natus est Abraham. Erat etiam tempore illo regnum Sicyoniorum admodum paruum, a quo ille undecumque doctissimus Marcus Varro scribens de gente populi Romani, uelut antiquo tempore. exorsus est. Ab his enim Sicyoniorum regibus ad Athenienses peruenit, a quibus ad Latinos, inde Romanos. Sed ante conditam Romam in conparatione regni Assyriorum perexigua ista memorantur; quamuis Athenienses in Graecia plurimum claruisse fateatur etiam Sallustius Romanus historicus; plus tamen fama quam re ipsa. Nam loquens de illis: Atheniensium, inquit, res gestae, sicuti ego existimo, satis amplae magnificaeque fuere; uerum aliquanto minores tamen, quam fama feruntur. Sed quia prouenere ibi scriptorum magna ingenia, per terrarum orbem Atheniensium facta pro maximis celebrantur. Ita eorum qui fecere uirtus tanta habetur, quantum eam uerbis potuere extollere praeclara ingenia. Accedit huic ciuitati non parua etiam ex litteris et philosophis gloria, quod ibi potissimum talia studia uiguerunt. Nam quantum adtinet ad imperium, nullum maius primis temporibus quam Assyriorum fuit, nec tam longe lateque diffusum, quippe ubi Ninus rex, Beli filius, uniuersam Asiam, quae totius orbis ad numerum partium tertia dicitur, ad magnitudinem uero dimidia reperitur, usque ad Libyae fines subegisse traditur. Solis quippe Indis in partibus Orientis non dominabatur, quos tamen eo defuncto Samiramis uxor eius est adgressa bellando. Ita factum est, ut, quicumque in illis terris populi siue reges erant, Assyriorum regno dicionique parerent et quidquid imperaretur efficerent. Abraham igitur in eo regno aput Chaldaeos Nini temporibus natus est. Sed quoniam res Graecae multo sunt nobis quam Assyriae notiores, et per Graecos ad Latinos ac deinde ad Romanos, qui etiam ipsi Latini sunt, temporum seriem deduxerunt qui gentem populi Romani in originis eius antiquitate rimati sunt: ob hoc debemus, ubi opus est, Assyrios memorare reges, ut appareat quem ad modum Babylonia, quasi prima Roma, cum peregrina in hoc mundo Dei ciuitate procurrat; res autem, quas propter conparationem ciuitatis utriusque, terrenae scilicet et caelestis, huic operi oportet inserere, magis ex Graecis et Latinis, ubi et ipsa Roma quasi secunda Babylonia est, debemus adsumere. Quando ergo natus est Abraham, secundi reges erant aput Assyrios Ninus, aput Sicyonios Europa; primi autem illic Belus, hic Aegialeus fuerunt. Cum uero egresso Abraham de Babylonia promisit ei Deus ex illo magnam gentem futuram et in eius semine omnium gentium benedictionem. Assyrii quartum regem habebant, Sicyonii quintum; aput illos enim regnabat filius Nini post matrem Samiramidem: quae ab illo interfecta perhibetur, ausa filium mater incestare concubitu. Hanc putant nonnulli condidisse Babylonem, quam quidem potuit instaurare. Quando autem uel quo modo condita fuerit, in sexto decimo libro diximus. Filium porro Nini et Samiramidis, qui matri successit in regnum, quidam etiam ipsum Ninum, quidam uero deriuato a patre uocabulo Ninyan uocant. Sicyoniorum autem regnum tunc tenebat TelIioD. Quo regnante usque adeo ibi mitia et laeta tempora fuerunt, ut eum defunctum uelut deum colerent sacrificando et ludos celebrando, quos ei primitus institutos ferunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. On the kings and times of the earthly city with which the times of the saints, reckoned from the birth of Abraham, correspond.

The society of mortals, then, spread everywhere over the earth, and in however great diversities of place, yet bound together by a certain fellowship of one and the same nature, while each pursues its own interests and desires, and what is sought is sufficient either for no one or not for all, because it is not the thing itself, is for the most part divided against itself, and the part that prevails oppresses the other. For the conquered submits to the victor, preferring any sort of peace and safety to dominion, or even to liberty, so that those who have preferred to perish rather than serve have been greatly admired. For in almost all nations this voice of nature has in some way sounded, that those whose lot it was to be conquered should prefer to be subjected to the victors than to be destroyed by the utter devastation of war. Hence it has come about, not without the providence of God, in whose power it lies whether anyone in war is subjugated or subjugates, that some have been endowed with kingdoms and others made subject to those who reign. But among the very many kingdoms of the earth into which the society of earthly interest or desire has been divided (which we call by the general name of the city of this world), we see two kingdoms that have far surpassed the rest in renown: first that of the Assyrians, then that of the Romans, ordered and distinguished from one another in place as in time. For as the one was earlier and the other later, so the one arose in the East and the other in the West; and in fact the beginning of the one came immediately upon the end of the other. The other kingdoms and other kings I would call appendages, as it were, of these.

Ninus, then, was already the second king of the Assyrians, having succeeded his father Belus, the first king of that realm, when Abraham was born in the land of the Chaldeans. There was also at that time the very small kingdom of the Sicyonians, with which that man learned in every field, Marcus Varro, began, as with an ancient time, when he wrote on the race of the Roman people. For from these kings of the Sicyonians he came to the Athenians, from them to the Latins, and thence to the Romans. But before the founding of Rome the things recorded of these are very slight in comparison with the kingdom of the Assyrians; although even Sallust, the Roman historian, admits that the Athenians were very illustrious in Greece, more, however, in fame than in reality. For speaking of them he says: “The deeds of the Athenians, as I judge, were ample and magnificent enough, but somewhat less, nevertheless, than they are reported by fame. But because writers of great talent arose there, the deeds of the Athenians are celebrated throughout the world as the greatest. So the valour of those who did them is held to be as great as brilliant talents have been able to extol it in words.” This city also has no small glory from letters and philosophers, because such studies flourished there above all. But as regards dominion, none in the earliest times was greater than that of the Assyrians, nor so widely spread; for there King Ninus, the son of Belus, is said to have subdued the whole of Asia as far as the borders of Libya, Asia being called a third part of the whole world in the number of its parts, but found to be half of it in size. In the parts of the East only the Indians were not under his rule; and yet after his death his wife Semiramis attacked them in war. So it came about that whatever peoples or kings there were in those lands obeyed the kingdom and dominion of the Assyrians and did whatever they were commanded.

Abraham, therefore, was born in that kingdom, among the Chaldeans, in the times of Ninus. But since Greek history is much better known to us than Assyrian, and those who have searched out the race of the Roman people in the antiquity of its origin have drawn the sequence of times through the Greeks to the Latins and then to the Romans, who are themselves Latins too, we ought for this reason to mention the Assyrian kings where it is needed, so that it may appear how Babylon, a first Rome as it were, runs its course alongside the city of God, a pilgrim in this world; but the matters which must be inserted in this work for the comparison of both cities, the earthly, that is, and the heavenly, we ought rather to take from the Greeks and Latins, where Rome itself is a second Babylon, as it were.

When, then, Abraham was born, the second kings were Ninus among the Assyrians and Europs among the Sicyonians; the first had been Belus there and Aegialeus here. But when, after Abraham had gone out from Babylonia, God promised him that a great nation would come from him and that in his seed would be the blessing of all nations, the Assyrians had their fourth king and the Sicyonians their fifth; for among the former reigned the son of Ninus, after his mother Semiramis, who is said to have been killed by him when, as his mother, she dared to defile her son with incestuous intercourse. Some think that she founded Babylon, which she may indeed have restored. But when or how it was founded we said in the sixteenth book. The son of Ninus and Semiramis, who succeeded his mother in the kingdom, some also call Ninus, while others call him Ninyas, a name derived from his father's. At that time the kingdom of the Sicyonians was held by Telxion. In his reign the times there were so mild and happy that after his death they worshipped him as a god by offering sacrifices and celebrating games, which they say were first instituted for him.

### Scripture references

- Gen 12:2: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 12:3: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 11:28: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro (Varro): allusion, high confidence
- Sallust, Cat. 8.2-4 (Sallust): quotation, high confidence
- Chron. (Eusebius and Jerome, Chronicle): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Varro, On the Race of the Roman People (De gente populi Romani), lost. The quotation is Sallust, Catiline 8.2–4. The printed text reads “Europa” for the second Sicyonian king, translated as the usual form Europs; the name of the fifth Sicyonian king is garbled in the digital text (“TelIioD”, marked sic) and is rendered Telxion, the form in the chronicle tradition. The synchronisms follow the Chronicle of Eusebius and Jerome. The printed text makes the Assyrian king at Abraham's departure the fourth; some translations give a different number.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.2 (CSEL 40:267–270; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/17-18/#p-18-2).

## City of God 18.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-3
- Source: CSEL 40:270–272
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine dates the births of Isaac, Esau, and Jacob by the Assyrian, Sicyonian, and Argive kings, and notes how early kings such as Phegous and Io came to be worshipped as gods.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. Quibus regnantibus aput Assyrios adque Sicyonios Abrahae centenario Isaac de promissione sit natus, uel ipsi Isaac sexagenario Esau et Iacob gemini de Rebecca sint editi. Huius temporibus etiam Isaac ex promissione Dei natus est centenario patri filius Abrahae de Sarra coniuge, quae sterilis et anus iam spem prolis amiserat. Tunc et Assyriis quintus erat rex Arrius. Ipsi uero Isaac sexagenario nati sunt gemini, Esau et Iacob, quos ei Rebecca uxor peperit. auo eorum Abraham adhuc uiuente et centum sexaginta aetatis annos agente, qui expletis centum septuaginta quinque defunctus est, regnantibus aput Assyrios Xerse illo antiquiore, qui etiam Baleus uocabatur, et aput Sicyonios Thuriaco, quem quidam Thurimachum scribunt, septimis regibus. Regnum autem Argiuorum simul cum Abrahae nepotibus ortum est, ubi primus regnauit Inachus. Sane, quod praetereundum non fuit, etiam aput sepulcrum septimi sui regis Thuriaci sacrificare Sicyonios solere Varro refert. Regnantibus porro octauis regibus, Armamitre Assyriorum, Sicyoniorum Leucippo et primo Argiuorum Inacho Deus locutus est ad Isaac adque ipsi quoque eadem, quae patri eius, duo illa promisit, semini scilicet eius terram Chanaan et in eius semine benedictionem cunctarum gentium. Haec ipsa promissa sunt etiam filio eius, nepoti Abrahae, qui est appellatus primo Iacob, post Israel, cum iam Belocus rex nonus Assyriae et Phoroneus Inachi filius secundus regnaret Argiuis, Leucippo adhuc aput Sicyonios permanente. His temporibus Graecia sub Phoroneo Argolico rege legum et iudiciorum quibusdam clarior facta est institutis. Phegous tamen frater huius Phoronei iunior cum esset mortuus, ad eius sepulcrum templum est constitutum, in quo coleretur ut Deus et ei boues immolarentur. Credo honore tanto ideo dignum putarunt, quia in regni sui parte (pater quippe loca ambobus distribuerat, in quibus eo uiuente regnarent) iste sacella constituerat ad colendos deos et docuerat obseruari tempora per menses adque annos, quid eorum quatenus metirentur adque numerarent. Haec in eo noua mirantes rudes adhuc homines morte obita deum esse factum siue opinati sunt siue uoluerunt. Nam et Io filia Inachi fuisse perhibetur, quae postea Isis appellata ut magna dea culta est in Aegypto; quamuis alii scribant eam ex Aethiopia in Aegyptum uenisse reginam, et quod late iusteque imperauerit eisque multa commoda et litteras instituerit, hunc honorem illi habitum esse diuinum. postea quam ibi mortua est, et tantum honorem, ut capitali crimine reus fieret, si quis eam fuisse hominem diceret.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. In whose reigns among the Assyrians and Sicyonians Isaac was born by promise to Abraham at a hundred years old, and Esau and Jacob were born as twins of Rebecca to Isaac himself at sixty.

In his times also Isaac, the son of Abraham, was born according to the promise of God to a father a hundred years old, from his wife Sarah, who, barren and now old, had given up hope of offspring. At that time Arrius was the fifth king of the Assyrians. To Isaac himself at the age of sixty were born twins, Esau and Jacob, whom his wife Rebecca bore him, while their grandfather Abraham was still living and in his hundred and sixtieth year; he died when he had completed a hundred and seventy-five years, while Xerxes the elder, who was also called Baleus, reigned among the Assyrians, and Thuriacus, whom some write Thurimachus, among the Sicyonians, each the seventh king. The kingdom of the Argives, moreover, arose together with the grandsons of Abraham, and Inachus was its first king. Indeed, something that should not be passed over: Varro records that the Sicyonians used to sacrifice also at the tomb of their seventh king Thuriacus. Further, while the eighth kings were reigning, Armamitres of the Assyrians and Leucippus of the Sicyonians, and Inachus the first of the Argives, God spoke to Isaac and promised him also the same two things that he had promised his father: to his seed the land of Canaan, and in his seed the blessing of all nations. These same things were promised also to his son, Abraham's grandson, who was called first Jacob and afterwards Israel, when Belocus was now reigning as the ninth king of Assyria and Phoroneus the son of Inachus as the second king of the Argives, Leucippus still continuing among the Sicyonians. In these times Greece, under the Argive king Phoroneus, became more renowned for certain institutions of laws and courts. Yet when Phegous, the younger brother of this Phoroneus, had died, a temple was set up at his tomb in which he was to be worshipped as a god and oxen sacrificed to him. I believe they thought him worthy of so great an honour because in his part of the kingdom (for their father had divided territories between the two, in which they were to reign while he lived) he had set up shrines for the worship of the gods and had taught them to observe the times by months and years, how far they should measure and number them. Men still uncultivated, marvelling at these new things in him, either supposed, or chose to suppose, that he had become a god when he died. For Io too is said to have been the daughter of Inachus, who was afterwards called Isis and worshipped as a great goddess in Egypt; although others write that she came as a queen from Ethiopia into Egypt, and that because she ruled widely and justly and established many benefits and letters for them, this divine honour was paid her after she died there, and so great an honour that anyone who said she had been a human being was made guilty of a capital crime.

### Scripture references

- Gen 21:2: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 21:5: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 25:26: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 25:7: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 26:3: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 26:4: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 28:13: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 28:14: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 32:28: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro (Varro): allusion, high confidence
- Chron. (Eusebius and Jerome, Chronicle): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The regnal synchronisms follow the Chronicle of Eusebius and Jerome; the Assyrian and Sicyonian king lists are legendary and their names vary between sources.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.3 (CSEL 40:270–272; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-3).

## City of God 18.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-4
- Source: CSEL 40:272–273
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine sets the death of Isaac, Joseph's rise in Egypt, and Jacob's descent into Egypt against the kings of Assyria, Sicyon, and Argos.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. De temporibus Iacob et filii eius Ioseph. Regnantibus Assyriorum decimo rege Baleo et Sicyoniorum nono Messapo, qui etiam Cephisos a quibusdam traditur (si tamen duorum nominum homo unus fuit ac non potius alterum pro altero putauerunt fuisse hominem, qui in suis posuerunt scriptis alterum nomen), cum rex Argiuorum tertius Apis esset, mortuus est Isaac annorum centum octoginta et reliquit geminos suos annorum centum et uiginti; quorum minor Iacob pertinens ad ciuitatem Dei, de qua scribimus, maiore utique reprobato, habebat duodecim filios, quorum illum, qui uocabatur Ioseph, mercatoribus in Aegyptum transeuntibus fratres adhuc Isaac auo eorum uiuente uendiderant. Stetit autem ante Pharaonem Ioseph, quando ex humilitate, quam pertulit, sublimatus est, cum triginta esset annorum; quoniam somnia regis diuine interpretatus praenuntiauit septem ubertatis annos futuros, quorum abundantiam praepollentem consequentes alii septem steriles fuerant consumturi, et ob hoc eum rex praefecerat Aegypto de carcere liberatum, quo eum coniecerat integritas castitatis, quam fortiter seruans male amanti dominae et male credulo domino mentiturae ueste etiam derelicta de manibus adtrahentis aufugiens non consensit ad stuprum. Secundo autem anno septem annorum sterilium Iacob in Aegyptum cum suis omnibus uenit ad filium, agens annos centum et triginta, sicut interroganti regi ipse respondit, cum Ioseph ageret triginta et nouem, ad triginta scilicet, quos agebat, quando a rege honoratus est, additis septem ubertatis et duobus famis.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. On the times of Jacob and his son Joseph.

While Baleus, the tenth king of the Assyrians, was reigning, and Messapus, the ninth of the Sicyonians, who is said by some to have been also called Cephisus (if indeed one man had two names, and those who put the other name in their writings did not rather think that one was another man), and when Apis was the third king of the Argives, Isaac died at a hundred and eighty years, and left his twins a hundred and twenty years old. Of these the younger, Jacob, who belonged to the city of God of which we are writing, the elder being certainly rejected, had twelve sons; of whom the one called Joseph had been sold by his brothers to merchants passing into Egypt while their grandfather Isaac was still alive. Joseph stood before Pharaoh when he was raised from the humiliation which he had endured, being thirty years old; for, interpreting the king's dreams by divine gift, he foretold that there would be seven years of plenty, whose overflowing abundance seven barren years following would consume; and for this the king had set him over Egypt, freed from the prison into which his unswerving chastity had thrown him. For keeping it bravely, he did not consent to sexual immorality with his mistress, who loved him wickedly and was about to lie to her wickedly credulous master, but fled from her, leaving even his garment in the hands of her who was pulling at him. In the second year of the seven barren years Jacob came with all his family into Egypt to his son, being a hundred and thirty years old, as he himself answered the king when he asked him; Joseph being then thirty-nine, that is, thirty, as he was when he was honoured by the king, plus the seven years of plenty and two of famine.

### Scripture references

- Gen 35:28: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 37:28: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 41:46: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 41:25: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 41:29: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 41:30: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 41:41: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 39:12: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 45:6: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 47:9: allusion, high confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.4 (CSEL 40:272–273; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-4).

## City of God 18.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-5
- Source: CSEL 40:273–274
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reports Varro's explanation that the Argive king Apis, dying in Egypt, became the god Serapis, and explains the Apis bull as a demonic deception.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. De Api rege Argiuorum, quem Aegyptii Serapim nominatum diuino honore coluerunt. His temporibus rex Argiuorum Apis nauibus transuectus in Aegyptum, cum ibi mortuus fuisset, factus est Serapis omnium maximus Aegyptiorum deus. Nominis autem huius, quur non Apis etiam post mortem, sed Serapis appellatus sit, facillimam rationem Varro reddidit. Quia enim arca, in qua mortuus ponitur, quod omnes iam sarcophagum uocant, σορός dicitur Graece, et ibi eum uenerari sepultum coeperant, priusquam templum eius esset exstructum: uelut soros et Apis Sorapis primo, deinde una littera, ut fieri adsolet, commutata Serapis dictus est. Et constitutum est etiam de illo, ut, quisquis eum hominem fuisse dixisset, capitalem penderet poenam. Et quoniam fere in omnibus templis, ubi colebantur Isis et Serapis, erat etiam simulacrum, quod digito labiis inpresso admonere uideretur, ut silentium fieret: hoc significare idem Varro existimat, ut homines eos fuisse taceretur. Ille autem bos, quem mirabili uanitate decepta Aegyptus in eius honorem deliciis afluentibus alebat, quoniam eum sine sarcophago uiuum uenerabantur, Apis, non Serapis uocabatur. Quo boue mortuo quoniam quaerebatur et reperiebatur uitulus coloris eiusdem, hoc est albis quibusdam maculis similiter insignitus, mirum quiddam et diuinitus sibi procuratum esse credebant. Non enim magnum erat daemonibus ad eos decipiendos phantasiam talis tauri, quam sola cerneret, ostentare uaccae concipienti adque praegnanti, unde libido matris adtraheret, quod in eius fetu iam corporaliter appareret; sicut Iacob de uirgis uariatis, ut oues et caprae uariae nascerentur, effecit. Quod enim homines coloribus et corporibus ueris, hoc daemones figuris fictis facillime possunt animalibus concipientibus exhibere.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. On Apis, king of the Argives, whom the Egyptians worshipped with divine honour under the name Serapis.

In these times Apis, king of the Argives, crossed by ship into Egypt, and having died there became Serapis, the greatest of all the gods of the Egyptians. Why he was called not Apis even after his death but Serapis, Varro has given a very easy explanation. Since the chest in which a dead man is placed, which everyone now calls a sarcophagus, is called soros in Greek, and they had begun to venerate him buried there before his temple was built, he was first called, as it were, Soros-Apis, Sorapis, and then, one letter being changed, as commonly happens, Serapis. And it was decreed concerning him too that whoever said he had been a man should pay the capital penalty. And since in almost all the temples where Isis and Serapis were worshipped there was also an image which, with a finger pressed to its lips, seemed to warn that there should be silence, the same Varro thinks this signified that it should be kept silent that they had been human beings.

But that bull which Egypt, deceived by a marvellous vanity, fed in his honour with luxurious delicacies was called Apis, not Serapis, because they venerated it alive, without a sarcophagus. When that bull died, since a calf of the same colour was sought and found, that is, marked in the same way with certain white spots, they believed that something wonderful had been provided for them by divine power. For it was no great matter for demons, in order to deceive them, to show to a cow conceiving and pregnant a phantasm of such a bull, which she alone would see, from which the mother's desire would draw what would then appear bodily in her offspring; just as Jacob by means of the spotted rods brought it about that sheep and goats were born spotted. For what men can do with real colours and bodies, demons can very easily present with feigned forms to animals as they conceive.

### Scripture references

- Gen 30:37: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 30:38: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 30:39: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Varro, fragment. The Greek word σορός (“coffin”) is mis-encoded in the digital text (“aopds”, marked sic) and corrected.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.5 (CSEL 40:273–274; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-5).

## City of God 18.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-6
- Source: CSEL 40:274–275
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine dates Jacob's death and his prophecy of Christ in the blessing of Judah to the reign of Argus, who with others was later worshipped as a god.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. Quo regnante aput Argiuos quoue aput Assyrios Iacob in Aegypto sit mortuus. Apis ergo rex, non Aegyptiorum, sed Argiuorum, mortuus est in Aegypto. Huic filius Argus successit in regnum, ex cuius nomine et Argi et ex hoc Argiui appellati sunt; superioribus autem regibus nondum uel locus uel gens habebat hoc nomen. Hoc regnante aput Argiuos et aput Sicyonios Erato, aput Assyrios uero adhuc manente Baleo mortuus est Iacob in Aegypto annorum centum quadraginta septem, cum moriturus filios suos et nepotes ex Ioseph benedixisset Christumque apertissime prophetasset, dicens in benedictione Iudae: Non deficiet princeps ex Iuda et dux de femoribus eius, donec ueniant quae reposita sunt ei; et ipse exspectatio gentium. Regnante Argo suis coepit uti frugibus Graecia et habere segetes in agricultura, delatis aliunde seminibus. Argus quoque post obitum deus haberi coepit, templo et sacrificiis honoratus. Qui honor eo regnante ante illum delatus est homini priuato et fulminato cuidam Homogyro, eo quod primus ad aratrum boues iunxerit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. Under which king of the Argives and which of the Assyrians Jacob died in Egypt.

Apis, then, king not of the Egyptians but of the Argives, died in Egypt. His son Argus succeeded him in the kingdom, from whose name both Argos and from it the Argives took their name; for under the earlier kings neither the place nor the people yet had this name. While he reigned among the Argives, and Eratus among the Sicyonians, and Baleus still remained among the Assyrians, Jacob died in Egypt at a hundred and forty-seven years, after he had blessed his sons and his grandsons by Joseph when about to die, and had prophesied Christ most plainly, saying in the blessing of Judah: “A prince shall not fail from Judah, nor a leader from his thighs, until the things laid up for him come; and he is the expectation of the nations.” In the reign of Argus Greece began to use its own crops and to have harvests in agriculture, seeds having been brought from elsewhere. Argus too began to be held a god after his death, honoured with a temple and sacrifices. This honour had been given in his reign, before him, to a private man struck by lightning, a certain Homogyrus, because he was the first to yoke oxen to the plough.

### Scripture references

- Gen 47:28: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 48:15: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 49:10: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Gen 49:10 is quoted in an Old Latin form close to the LXX.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.6 (CSEL 40:274–275; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-6).

## City of God 18.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-7
- Source: CSEL 40:275
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine dates the death of Joseph and describes Israel's growth and oppression in Egypt.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. Quorum regum tempore Ioseph in Aegypto defunctus sit. Regnantibus Assyriorum duodecimo Mamytho et undecimo Sicyoniorum Plemmeo et Argis adhuc manente Argo mortuus est Ioseph in Aegypto annorum centum decem. Post cuius mortem populus Dei mirabiliter crescens mansit in Aegypto centum quadraginta quinque annos, tranquille prius, donec morerentur quibus Ioseph notus fuit; deinde quia inuidebatur incrementis eius erantque suspecta, quo usque inde liberaretur, persecutionibus (inter quas tamen diuinitus fecundata multiplicatione crescebat) et laboribus premebatur intolerabilis seruitutis. In Assyria uero et Graecia per idem tempus regna eadem permanebant.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. In the time of which kings Joseph died in Egypt.

While Mamythus, the twelfth king of the Assyrians, and Plemmeus, the eleventh of the Sicyonians, were reigning, and Argus still remained at Argos, Joseph died in Egypt at a hundred and ten years. After his death the people of God, increasing marvellously, remained in Egypt a hundred and forty-five years, peacefully at first, until those died to whom Joseph had been known; then, because its growth was envied and was suspect, until it was set free from there, it was oppressed by persecutions (amid which it nevertheless grew with a divinely fruitful multiplication) and by the labours of an intolerable slavery. In Assyria and Greece, meanwhile, the same kingdoms continued through the same period.

### Scripture references

- Gen 50:26: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 1:7: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 1:8: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 1:12: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 1:13: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 1:14: allusion, high confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.7 (CSEL 40:275; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-7).

## City of God 18.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-8
- Source: CSEL 40:275–277
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine dates the birth of Moses and argues that figures such as Prometheus, Atlas, Mercury, Hercules, and Minerva were human beings later honoured as gods.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. Quorum regum aetate Moyses natus sit, et quorum deorum eisdem temporibus sit orta religio. Cum ergo regnaret Assyriis quartus decimus Saphrus et Sicyoniis duodecimus Orthopolis et Criasus quintus Argiuis, natus est in Aegypto Moyses, per quem populus Dei de seruitute Aegyptia liberatus est, in qua eum ad desiderandum sui Creatoris auxilium sic exerceri oportebat. Regnantibus memoratis regibus fuisse a quibusdam creditur Prometheus, quem propterea ferunt de luto formasse homines, quia optimus sapientiae doctor fuisse perhibetur; nec tamen ostenditur, qui eius temporibus fuerint sapientes. Frater eius Atlans magnus fuisse astrologus dicitur; unde occasionem fabula inuenit, ut eum caelum portare confingeret; quamuis mons eius nomine nuncupetur, cuius altitudine potius caeli portatio in opinionem uulgi uenisse uideatur. Multa quoque alia ex illis in Graecia temporibus confingi fabulosa coeperunt; sed usque ad Cecropem regem Atheniensium, quo regnante eadem ciuitas etiam tale nomen accepit, et quo regnante Deus per Moysen eduxit ex Aegypto populum suum, relati sunt in deorum numerum aliquot mortui caeca et uana consuetudine ac superstitione Graecorum. In quibus Criasi regis coniux Melantomice et Phorbas filius eorum, qui post patrem rex Argiuorum sextus fuit, et septimi regis Triopae filius Iasus et rex nonus Sthenelas siue Stheneleus siue Sthenelus, uarie quippe in diuersis auctoribus inuenitur. His temporibus etiam Mercurius fuisse perhibetur, nepos Atlantis ex Maia filia, quod uulgatiores etiam litterae personant. Multarum autem artium peritus claruit, quas et hominibus tradidit; quo merito eum post mortem deum esse uoluerunt siue etiam crediderunt. Posterior fuisse Hercules dicitur, ad ea tamen tempora pertinens Argiuorum; quamuis nonnulli eum Mercurio praeferant tempore; quos falli existimo. Sed quolibet tempore nati sint, constat inter historicos graues, qui haec antiqua litteris mandauerunt, ambos homines fuisse, et quod mortalibus ad istam uitam commodius ducendam beneficia multa contulerint, honores ab eis meruisse diuinos. Minerua uero longe his antiquior; nam temporibus Ogygi ad lacum, qui Tritonis dicitur, uirginali apparuisse fertur aetate, unde et Tritonia nuncupata est; multorum sane operum inuentrix et tanto procliuius dea credita, quanto minus origo eius innotuit. Quod enim de capite Iouis nata canitur, poetis et fabulis, non historiae rebusque gestis est adplicandum. Quamquam Ogygus ipse quando fuerit, cuius temporibus etiam diluuium magnum factum est, non illud maximum, in quo nulli homines euaserunt, nisi qui in arca esse potuerunt, quod gentium nec Graeca nec Latina nouit historia, sed tamen maius quam postea tempore Deucalionis fuit, inter scriptores historiae non conuenit. Nam Varro inde exorsus est librum, cuius mentionem superius feci, et nihil sibi, ex quo perueniat ad res Romanas, proponit antiquius quam Ogygi diluuium, hoc est Ogygi factum temporibus. Nostri autem qui chronica scripserunt, prius Eusebius, post Hieronymus, qui utique praecedentes aliquos historicos in hac opinione secuti sunt, post annos amplius quam trecentos iam secundo Argiuorum Phoroneo rege regnante Ogygi diluuium fuisse commemorant. Sed quolibet tempore fuerit, iam tamen Minerua tamquam dea colebatur regnante Atheniensibus Cecrope, sub quo rege etiam ipsam uel instauratam ferunt uel conditam ciuitatem.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. In the age of which kings Moses was born, and the worship of which gods arose in those times.

When, then, Saphrus was reigning as the fourteenth king of the Assyrians, Orthopolis as the twelfth of the Sicyonians, and Criasus as the fifth of the Argives, Moses was born in Egypt, through whom the people of God was freed from the Egyptian slavery in which it had to be so exercised in order to long for the help of its Creator. Some believe that in the reign of these kings lived Prometheus, of whom they say that he formed men out of clay because he is reported to have been an excellent teacher of wisdom; yet it is not shown who the wise men of his times were. His brother Atlas is said to have been a great astrologer; hence the fable found occasion to feign that he holds up the sky; though a mountain is named after him, from whose height the idea of holding up the sky seems rather to have entered popular opinion. Many other fabulous things also began to be invented in Greece from those times; but down to Cecrops, king of the Athenians, in whose reign that city also received its name, and in whose reign God led his people out of Egypt through Moses, some dead men were placed among the number of the gods by the blind and vain custom and superstition of the Greeks. Among them were Melantomice, the wife of King Criasus, and Phorbas their son, who after his father was the sixth king of the Argives; and Iasus, son of Triopas the seventh king; and the ninth king, Sthenelas, or Stheneleus, or Sthenelus, for he is found variously in different authors. In these times too Mercury is said to have lived, the grandson of Atlas by his daughter Maia, as even the more popular writings proclaim. He was renowned as skilled in many arts, which he also handed on to men; for which merit they chose, or even believed, that he was a god after his death. Hercules is said to have been later, though belonging to the same period of the Argives; though some put him earlier in time than Mercury; I think they are mistaken. But at whatever time they were born, it is agreed among serious historians who committed these ancient things to writing that both were men, and that because they conferred many benefits on mortals for living this life more comfortably, they earned divine honours from them.

Minerva, however, is far older than these; for in the times of Ogygus she is said to have appeared at the age of a maiden by the lake called Triton, whence she was also named Tritonia; she was indeed the discoverer of many works, and was the more readily believed a goddess the less her origin was known. For what is sung, that she was born from the head of Jupiter, must be ascribed to poets and fables, not to history and actual events. Although when Ogygus himself lived, in whose times also a great flood took place (not that greatest one, in which no men escaped except those who could be in the ark, which neither Greek nor Latin history of the nations knows, but yet greater than the one later in the time of Deucalion), is not agreed among the writers of history. For Varro began from there the book of which I made mention above, and sets before himself nothing more ancient from which to arrive at Roman affairs than the flood of Ogygus, that is, the one that took place in the times of Ogygus. But our writers who wrote chronicles, first Eusebius and afterwards Jerome, who certainly followed some earlier historians in this opinion, record that the flood of Ogygus took place more than three hundred years later, when Phoroneus, the second king of the Argives, was already reigning. But at whatever time it took place, Minerva was nevertheless already worshipped as a goddess when Cecrops reigned over the Athenians, under which king they say that the city itself was either restored or founded.

### Scripture references

- Exod 2:2: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 7:23: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro (Varro): allusion, high confidence
- Chron. (Eusebius and Jerome, Chronicle): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Varro, On the Race of the Roman People (lost). “Eusebius and Jerome” means the Chronicle of Eusebius in Jerome's Latin translation and continuation, which has no entry in the site's list of extrabiblical texts. From what point the “more than three hundred years” are counted is not stated; it is translated as printed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.8 (CSEL 40:275–277; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-8).

## City of God 18.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-9
- Source: CSEL 40:277–278
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine relates Varro's account of how Athens was named after Minerva by the women's vote, and how the women were punished to appease Neptune.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. Quando Atheniensium sit ciuitas condita, et quam causam nominis eius Varro perhibeat. Nam ut Athenae uocarentur, quod certe nomen a Minerua est, quae Graece Ἀθηνᾶ dicitur, hanc causam Varro indicat. Cum apparuisset illic repente oliuae arbor et alio loco aqua erupisset, regem prodigia ista mouerunt, et misit ad Apollinem Delphicum sciscitatum quid intellegendum esset quidue faciendum. Ille respondit, quod olea Mineruam significaret, unda Neptunum, et quod esset in ciuium potestate, ex cuius potius nomine duorum deorum, quorum illa signa essent, ciuitas uocaretur. Isto Cecrops oraculo accepto ciues omnes utriusque sexus (mos enim tunc in eisdem locis erat, ut etiam feminae publicis consultationibus interessent) ad ferendum suffragium conuocauit. Consulta igitur multitudine mares pro Neptuno, feminae pro Minerua tulere sententias, et quia una plus inuenta est feminarum, Minerua uicit. Tunc Neptunus iratus marinis fluctibus exaestuantibus terras Atheniensium populatus est; quoniam spargere latius quaslibet aquas difficile daemonibus non est. Cuius ut iracundia placaretur, triplici supplicio dicit idem auctor ab Atheniensibus adfectas esse mulieres, ut nulla ulterius ferrent suffragia, ut nullus nascentium maternum nomen acciperet, ut ne quis eas Athenaeas uocaret. Ita illa ciuitas, mater aut nutrix liberalium doctrinarum et tot tantorumque philosophorum, qua nihil habuit Graecia clarius adque nobilius, ludificantibus daemonibus de lite deorum suorum, maris et feminae, et de uictoria per feminas feminae Athenas nomen accepit, et a uicto laesa ipsam uictricis uictoriam punire conpulsa est, plus aquas Neptuni quam Mineruae arma formidans. Nam in mulieribus, quae sic punitae sunt, et Minerua quae uicerat uicta est; nec adfuit suffragatricibus suis, ut suffragiorum deinceps perdita potestate et alienatis filiis a nominibus matrum Athenaeas saltem uocari liceret et eius deae mereri uocabulum, quam uiri dei uictricem fecerant ferendo suffragium. Quae et quanta hinc dici possent, nisi sermo ad alia properaret!

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. When the city of the Athenians was founded, and what reason Varro gives for its name.

For Varro gives this reason why it was called Athens, a name which certainly comes from Minerva, who in Greek is called Athena. When an olive tree had suddenly appeared there, and in another place water had burst out, these portents moved the king, and he sent to Delphic Apollo to ask what should be understood or done. He answered that the olive signified Minerva and the water Neptune, and that it was in the power of the citizens from which of the two gods, whose signs these were, the city should rather be named. Having received this oracle, Cecrops called together all the citizens of both sexes (for it was then the custom in those places that women too should take part in public deliberations) to cast their votes. When the multitude was consulted, then, the men voted for Neptune and the women for Minerva, and because the women were found to be one more, Minerva won. Then Neptune in anger laid waste the lands of the Athenians with raging floods of the sea; for it is not difficult for demons to spread any waters more widely. To appease his wrath, the same author says, the women were punished by the Athenians with a threefold penalty: that they should no longer vote, that none of their children should take the mother's name, and that no one should call them Athenaeans. So that city, the mother or nurse of liberal learning and of so many and such great philosophers, than which Greece had nothing more renowned and noble, received the name Athens, through the mockery of demons, from a quarrel of its gods, male and female, and from the victory of the female through the women; and, injured by the vanquished, it was compelled to punish the very victory of the victress, fearing the waters of Neptune more than the arms of Minerva. For in the women who were thus punished Minerva too, who had conquered, was conquered; nor did she stand by her supporters, so that, when they had lost the power of voting thereafter and their sons were estranged from their mothers' names, they might at least be allowed to be called Athenaeans and to earn the name of the goddess whom they had made victorious over the male god by casting their votes. What and how much could be said on this, if my discourse were not hastening to other things!

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Varro, fragment. The Greek name Ἀθηνᾶ is mis-encoded in the digital text (“Adijva”, marked sic) and corrected.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.9 (CSEL 40:277–278; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-9).

## City of God 18.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-10
- Source: CSEL 40:278–280
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine notes that Varro rejects the myth that Mars was tried on the Areopagus yet reports the contest of Neptune and Minerva as history, and dates Deucalion's flood.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. Quid Varro tradat de nuncupatione Areopagi et de diluuio Deucalionis. Et tamen Marcus Varro non uult fabulosis aduersus deos fidem adhibere figmentis, ne de maiestatis eorum dignitate indignum aliquid sentiat. Et ideo nec Areon pagon, ubi cum Atheniensibus Paulus apostolus disputauit, ex quo loco Areopagitae appellati sunt curiales urbis eiusdem, uult inde accepisse nomen, quod Mars, qui Graece Ἄρης dicitur, cum homicidii crimine reus fieret, iudicantibus duodecim dis in eo pago sex sententiis absolutus est (quia ubi paris numeri sententiae fuissent, praeponi absolutio damnationi solebat); sed contra istam, quae multo amplius est celebrata, opinionem aliam quandam de obscurarum notitia litterarum causam nominis huius conatur adstruere, ne Areon pagon Athenienses de nomine Martis et pagi quasi Martis pagum nominasse credantur, in iniuriam uidelicet numinum, a quibus litigia uel iudicia existimat aliena; non minus hoc, quod de Marte dicitur, falsum esse adseuerans, quam illud quod de tribus deabus, Iunone scilicet et Minerua et Venere, quae pro malo aureo adipiscendo aput iudicem Paridem de pulchritudinis excellentia certasse narrantur et ad placandos ludis deos, qui delectantur seu ueris seu falsis istis criminibus suis, inter theatricos plausus cantantur adque saltantur. Haec Varro non credit, ne deorum naturae seu moribus credat incongrua; et tamen non fabulosam, sed historicam rationem de Athenarum uocabulo reddens tantam Neptuni et Mineruae litem suis litteris inserit, de cuius nomine potius illa ciuitas uocaretur, ut, cum prodigiorum ostentatione contenderent, inter eos iudicare nec Apollo consultus auderet, sed deorum iurgium finiendum, sicut memoratarum trium dearum ad Paridem Iuppiter, ita et iste ad homines mitteret, ubi uinceret Minerua suffragiis et in poena suarum suffragatricium uinceretur, quae in aduersariis suis uiris obtinere Athenas potuit, et amicas suas feminas Athenaeas habere non potuit. His temporibus, ut Varro scribit, regnante Atheniensibus Cranao, successore Cecropis, ut autem nostri Eusebius et Hieronymus, adhuc eodem Cecrope permanente, diluuium fuit, quod appellatum est Deucalionis, eo quod ipse regnabat in earum terrarum partibus, ubi maxime factum est. Hoc autem diluuium nequaquam ad Aegyptum adque ad eius uicina peruenit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. What Varro relates about the naming of the Areopagus and about the flood of Deucalion.

And yet Marcus Varro will not give credit to fabulous inventions against the gods, lest he think anything unworthy of the dignity of their majesty. And so he will not have it that the Areopagus, where the apostle Paul disputed with the Athenians, and from which place the councillors of that city were called Areopagites, took its name from this: that Mars, who in Greek is called Ares, when he was accused of the crime of homicide, was acquitted in that district by six votes, twelve gods sitting in judgment (because when the votes were of equal number, acquittal used to be preferred to condemnation). Against this opinion, which is much more widely celebrated, he tries to build up some other reason for this name from the knowledge of obscure writings, so that the Athenians may not be believed to have named the Areopagus from the name of Mars and pagus, as though “the district of Mars,” to the injury, of course, of the divine powers, from whom he considers lawsuits and trials to be foreign; asserting that what is said of Mars is no less false than what is told of the three goddesses, Juno, Minerva, and Venus, who are said to have contended before Paris as judge for the prize of beauty, to obtain the golden apple, and whose story is sung and danced amid the applause of the theatres at the games held to appease the gods, who delight in these crimes of theirs, whether true or false. These things Varro does not believe, lest he believe what is unfitting to the nature or character of the gods; and yet, giving not a fabulous but a historical account of the name of Athens, he inserts in his writings so great a quarrel of Neptune and Minerva, over which of their names the city should rather be called, that when they contended by a display of portents, not even Apollo when consulted dared to judge between them, but, just as Jupiter sent the three goddesses we have mentioned to Paris, so Apollo sent the quarrel of the gods to be ended by men; where Minerva won by votes and was conquered in the punishment of those who voted for her, being able to secure Athens among her opponents, the men, and unable to have her friends, the women, called Athenaeans.

In these times, as Varro writes, when Cranaus, the successor of Cecrops, was reigning over the Athenians, but, as our Eusebius and Jerome say, while the same Cecrops still remained, the flood took place which was called Deucalion's, because he reigned in those parts of the earth where it chiefly occurred. But this flood by no means reached Egypt and the regions near it.

### Scripture references

- Acts 17:19: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 17:22: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro (Varro): allusion, high confidence
- Chron. (Eusebius and Jerome, Chronicle): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Varro, fragment. On Eusebius and Jerome see the note on 18.8 (their Chronicle has no entry in the site's list of extrabiblical texts).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.10 (CSEL 40:278–280; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-10).

## City of God 18.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-11
- Source: CSEL 40:280–281
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine dates the exodus, the giving of the law, and the deaths of Moses and Joshua, explaining why the Old Testament of earthly promises came before the New.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. Quo tempore Moyses populum Dei ex Aegypto eduxerit, et Iesus Naue, qui eidem successit, quorum regum aetate sit mortuus. Eduxit ergo Moyses ex Aegypto populum Dei nouissimo tempore Cecropis Atheniensium regis, cum aput Assyrios regnaret Ascatades, aput Sicyonios Marathus, aput Argiuos Triopas. Educto autem populo in monte Sina diuinitus acceptam tradidit legem, quod uetus dicitur testamentum, quia promissiones terrenas habet, et per Iesum Christum futurum fuerat testamentum nouum, quo regnum caelorum promitteretur. Hunc enim ordinem seruari oportebat, sicut in uno quoque homine, qui in Deum proficit, id agitur, quod ait apostolus, ut non sit prius quod spiritale est; sed quod animale, postea spiritale; quoniam sicut dicit et uerum est, primus homo de terra, terrenus; secundus homo de caelo. Rexit autem populum Moyses per annos quadraginta in deserto et mortuus est annorum centum et uiginti, cum Christum etiam ipse prophetasset per figuras obseruationum carnalium in tabernaculo et sacerdotio et sacrificiis aliisque mysticis plurimisque mandatis. Moysi successit Iesus Naue et in terra promissionis introductum populum conlocauit ex auctoritate diuina debellatis gentibus, a quibus eadem loca tenebantur. Qui cum populum rexisset post mortem Moysi uiginti et septem annos, etiam ipse defunctus est regnante aput Assyrios octauo decimo Amynta, aput Sicyonios sexto decimo Corace, aput Argiuos decimo Danao, aput Athenienses quarto Erichthonio.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. At what time Moses led the people of God out of Egypt, and in the age of which kings Joshua the son of Nun, who succeeded him, died.

Moses, then, led the people of God out of Egypt in the last years of Cecrops, king of the Athenians, when Ascatades was reigning among the Assyrians, Marathus among the Sicyonians, and Triopas among the Argives. When the people had been led out, he delivered to them on Mount Sinai the law received from God, which is called the Old Testament because it has earthly promises; and through Jesus Christ there was to be the New Testament, in which the kingdom of heaven would be promised. For this order had to be kept, just as in each individual man who advances toward God there takes place what the apostle says, that “the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterwards the spiritual”; since, as he says, and truly, “the first man was from the earth, earthly; the second man from heaven.” Moses ruled the people for forty years in the desert and died at a hundred and twenty, having himself also prophesied Christ through the figures of fleshly observances in the tabernacle, the priesthood, the sacrifices, and very many other mystical commandments. Joshua the son of Nun succeeded Moses, and brought the people into the land of promise and settled them there, having by divine authority subdued the nations by whom those places were held. When he had ruled the people for twenty-seven years after the death of Moses, he too died, while Amyntas reigned as the eighteenth king among the Assyrians, Corax as the sixteenth among the Sicyonians, Danaus as the tenth among the Argives, and Erichthonius as the fourth among the Athenians.

### Scripture references

- Exod 12:51: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 19:20: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:46: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:47: quotation, high confidence
- Deut 34:7: allusion, high confidence
- Josh 1:1: allusion, medium confidence
- Josh 24:29: allusion, medium confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.11 (CSEL 40:280–281; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-11).

## City of God 18.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-12
- Source: CSEL 40:281–283
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine lists the rites and games instituted by Greek kings between the exodus and the death of Joshua and argues that the gods who delight in fabulous crimes are guilty of real ones.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. De sacris falsorum deorum, quae reges Graeciae illis temporibus instituerunt, quae ab exitu Israel ex Aegypto usque ad Iesu Naue obitum dinumerantur. Per haec tempora, id est ab exitu Israel ex Aegypto usque ad mortem Iesu Naue, per quem populus idem terram promissionis accepit, sacra sunt instituta dis falsis a regibus Graeciae, quae memoriam diluuii et ab eo liberationis hominum uitaeque tunc aerumnosae modo ad alta, modo ad plana migrantium sollemni celebritate reuocarunt. Nam et Lupercorum per sacram uiam adscensum adque descensum sic interpretantur, ut ab eis significari dicant homines, qui propter aquae inundationem summa montium petiuerunt et rursus eadem residente ad ima redierunt. His temporibus Dionysum, qui etiam Liber pater dictus est et post mortem deus habitus, uitem ferunt ostendisse in Attica terra hospiti suo. Tunc Apollini Delphico instituti sunt ludi musici, ut placaretur ira eius, qua putabant adflictas esse sterilitate Graeciae regiones, quia non defenderint templum eius, quod rex Danaus, cum easdem terras bello inuasisset, incendit. Hos autem ludos ut instituerent, oraculo sunt eius admoniti. In Attica uero rex Erichthonius ei ludos primus instituit, nec ei tantum. sed etiam Mineruae, ubi praemium uictoribus oleum ponebatur, quod eius fructus inuentricem Mineruam, sicut uini Liberum tradunt. Per eos annos a rege Xantho Cretensium, cuius aput alios aliud nomen inuenimus, rapta perhibetur Europa, et inde geniti Rhadamanthus, Sarpedon et Minos. quos magis ex eadem muliere filios Iouis esse uulgatum est. Sed talium deorum cultores illud, quod de rege Cretensium diximus, historicae ueritati, hoc autem, quod de Ioue poetae cantant, theatra concrepant, populi celebrant, uanitati deputant fabularum, ut esset unde ludi fierent placandis numinibus etiam falsis eorum criminibus. His temporibus Hercules in Syria clarus habebatur; sed nimirum alius, non ille, de quo supra. locuti sumus. Secretiore quippe historia plures fuisse dicuntur et Liberi patres et Hercules. Hunc sane Herculem, cuius ingentia duodecim facta numerant, inter quae Antaei Afri necem non commemorant, quod ea res ad alterum Herculem pertinet, in Oeta monte a se ipso incensum produnt suis litteris, cum ea uirtute, qua multa subegerat, morbum tamen, quo languebat, sustinere non posset. Illo tempore uel rex uel potius tyrannus Busiris suis dis suos hospites immolabat, quem filium perhibent fuisse Neptuni ex matre Libya, filia Epaphi. Verum non credatur hoc stuprum perpetrasse Neptunus, ne di accusentur; sed poetis et theatris ista tribuantur, ut sit unde placentur. Erichthonii regis Atheniensium, cuius nouissimis annis Iesus Naue mortuus reperitur, Vulcanus et Minerua parentes fuisse dicuntur. Sed quoniam Mineruam uirginem uolunt, in amborum contentione Vulcanum commotum effudisse aiunt semen in terram adque inde homini nato ob eam causam tale inditum nomen. Graeca enim lingua ἔρις contentio, χθὼν terra est, ex quibus duobus conpositum uocabulum est Erichthonius. Verum, quod fatendum est, refellunt et a suis dis repellunt ista doctiores, qui hanc opinionem fabulosam hinc exortam ferunt, quia in templo Vulcani et Mineruae, quod ambo unum habebant Athenis, expositus inuentus est puer dracone inuolutus, qui eum significauit magnum futurum, et propter commune templum, cum essent parentes eius ignoti, Vulcani et Mineruae dictum esse filium. Nominis tamen eius originem fabula illa potius quam ista designat historia. Sed quid ad nos? Hoc in ueracibus libris homines instruat religiosos, illud in fallacibus ludis daemones delectet inpuros; quos tamen illi religiosi tamquam deos colunt, et cum de illis haec negant, ab omni eos crimine purgare non possunt, quoniam ludos eis poscentibus exhibent, ubi turpiter aguntur, quae uelut sapienter negantur, et his falsis ac turpibus di placantur, ubi etsi fabula cantat crimen numinum falsum, delectari tamen falso. crimine crimen est uerum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. On the rites of false gods which the kings of Greece instituted in those times, which are reckoned from the exodus of Israel from Egypt down to the death of Joshua the son of Nun.

In these times, that is, from the exodus of Israel from Egypt down to the death of Joshua the son of Nun, through whom that people received the land of promise, rites were instituted to false gods by the kings of Greece, which by solemn celebration recalled the memory of the flood, and of men's deliverance from it, and of their life at that time full of hardship, as they moved now to the heights, now to the plains. For they interpret even the going up and coming down of the Luperci along the Sacred Way thus, saying that they signify the men who because of the flooding of the waters sought the summits of the mountains, and when it subsided returned again to the lowlands. In these times, they say, Dionysus, who was also called Father Liber and after his death held a god, showed the vine to his host in the land of Attica. Then musical games were instituted for Delphic Apollo, to appease his anger, by which they thought the regions of Greece had been afflicted with barrenness because they had not defended his temple, which King Danaus burned when he invaded those lands in war. They were admonished by his oracle to institute these games. In Attica King Erichthonius first instituted games for him, and not for him only but also for Minerva, where oil was set as the prize for the victors, because they record that Minerva discovered its fruit, as Liber discovered that of wine.

In those years Europa is said to have been carried off by Xanthus, king of the Cretans, whose name we find given differently by others, and from her were born Rhadamanthus, Sarpedon, and Minos, who are more commonly reported to have been the sons of Jupiter by the same woman. But the worshippers of such gods assign what we have said of the king of the Cretans to historical truth, and what the poets sing of Jupiter, what the theatres resound with, and what the peoples celebrate, to the vanity of fables, so that there might be material for making games to appease the divine powers even with false crimes of their own. In these times Hercules was held renowned in Syria; but surely another, not the one of whom we spoke above. For in more recondite history there are said to have been several Father Libers and Herculeses. This Hercules, whose twelve mighty deeds they count, among which they do not mention the killing of the African Antaeus because that belongs to another Hercules, they report in their writings to have burned himself on Mount Oeta, when with that valour by which he had subdued so much he could not, nevertheless, endure the disease from which he was suffering. At that time the king, or rather tyrant, Busiris used to sacrifice his guests to his gods; they report that he was the son of Neptune by his mother Libya, daughter of Epaphus. But let it not be believed that Neptune committed this sexual immorality, lest the gods be accused; let these things be attributed to the poets and the theatres, so that there may be something to appease them with.

Of Erichthonius, king of the Athenians, in whose last years Joshua the son of Nun is found to have died, Vulcan and Minerva are said to have been the parents. But since they will have Minerva a virgin, they say that in a struggle between the two Vulcan, being aroused, shed his seed on the earth, and that the man born from it was given such a name for this reason. For in the Greek language eris is “strife” and chthon is “earth,” and from these two the name Erichthonius is compounded. But, it must be admitted, the more learned refute these things and repel them from their gods; they say this fabulous opinion arose from the fact that in the temple of Vulcan and Minerva, which the two had in common at Athens, a boy was found exposed, wrapped in the coils of a serpent, which signified that he would be great; and because of the common temple, since his parents were unknown, he was called the son of Vulcan and Minerva. Yet that fable rather than this history accounts for the origin of his name. But what is that to us? Let the one instruct religious men in truthful books; let the other delight impure demons in deceitful games; whom nevertheless those religious men worship as gods, and when they deny these things of them they cannot clear them of every crime, since they put on games for them at their demand, where things are basely acted which are wisely, as it were, denied; and the gods are appeased by these false and base things, where, even if the fable sings a false crime of the divine powers, yet to delight in a false crime is a real crime.

### Translation notes

- The Greek words ἔρις and χθών are mis-encoded in the digital text and corrected.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.12 (CSEL 40:281–283; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-12).

## City of God 18.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-13
- Source: CSEL 40:283–285
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine lists the Greek fables invented in the period of the judges and blames the worshippers of Jupiter for accepting and staging the shameful stories told of him.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. Qualium fabularum figmenta exorta sint eo tempore, quo Hebraeis iudices praeesse coeperunt. Post mortem Iesu Naue populus Dei iudices habuit, quibus temporibus alternauerunt aput eos et humilitates laborum pro eorum peccatis, et prosperitates consolationum propter miserationem Dei. His temporibus fabulae fictae sunt de Triptolemo, quod iubente Cerere anguibus portatus alitibus indigentibus terris frumenta uolando contulerit; de Minotauro, quod bestia fuerit inclusa Labyrintho, quo cum intrassent homines, inextricabili errore inde exire non poterant; de Centauris, quod equorum hominumque fuerit natura coniuncta; de Cerbero, quod sit triceps inferorum canis; de Phryxo et Helle eius sorore, quod uecti ariete uolauerint; de Gorgone, quod fuerit crinita serpentibus et adspicientes conuertebat in lapides; de Bellerophonte, quod equo pennis uolante sit uectus, qui equus Pegasus dictus est; de Amphione, quod citharae suauitate lapides mulserit et adtraxerit; de fabro Daedalo et eius Icaro filio, quod sibi coaptatis pinnis uolauerint; de Oedipo, quod monstrum quoddam, quae Sphinga dicebatur, humana facie quadrupedem, soluta quae ab illa proponi soleret uelut insolubili quaestione suo praecipitio perire conpulerit; de Antaeo. quem necauit Hercules, quod filius terrae fuerit, propter quod cadens in terram fortior soleret adsurgere; et si qua forte alia praetermisi. Hae fabulae bellum ad usque Troianum, ubi secundum librum Marcus Varro de populi Romani gente finiuit, ex occasione historiarum, quae res ueraciter gestas continent, ita sunt ingeniis hominum fictae, ut non sint obprobriis numinum adfixae. Porro autem quicumque finxerunt a Ioue ad stuprum raptum pulcherrimum puerum Ganymedem, quod nefas rex Tantalus fecit et Ioui fabula tribuit, uel Danaes per imbrem aureum adpetisse concubitum, ubi intellegitur pudicitia mulieris auro fuisse corrupta, quae illis temporibus uel facta uel ficta sunt, aut facta ab aliis et ficta de Ioue, dici non potest quantum mali de hominum praesumserint cordibus, quod possent ista patienter ferre mendacia, quae tamen etiam libenter amplexi sunt. Qui utique quanto deuotius Iouem colunt, tanto eos, qui haec de illo dicere ausi sunt, seuerius punire debuerunt. Nunc uero non solum eis, qui ista finxerunt, irati non sunt, sed ut talia figmenta etiam in theatris agerent, ipsos deos potius iratos habere timuerunt. His temporibus Latona Apollinem peperit, non illum, cuius oracula solere consuli superius loquebamur, sed illum, qui cum Hercule seruiuit Admeto; qui tamen sic est deus creditus, ut plurimi ac paene omnes unum eundemque Apollinem fuisse opinentur. Tunc et Liber pater bellauit in India, qui multas habuit in exercitu feminas, quae Bacchae appellatae sunt, non tam uirtute nobiles quam furore. Aliqui sane et uictum scribunt istum Liberum et uinctum; nonnulli et occisum in pugna a Perseo, nec ubi fuerit sepultus tacent; et tamen eius uelut dei nomine per inmundos daemones Bacchanalia sacra uel potius sacrilegia sunt instituta, de quorum rabiosa turpitudine post tam multos annos sic senatus erubuit, ut in urbe Roma esse prohiberet. Per ea tempora Perseus et uxor eius Andromeda postea quam sunt mortui, sic eos in caelum receptos esse crediderunt, ut imagines eorum stellis designare eorumque appellare nominibus non erubescerent, non timerent.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. What fabulous fictions arose at the time when judges began to rule over the Hebrews.

After the death of Joshua the son of Nun the people of God had judges, in whose times there alternated among them humiliations of hardship because of their sins and prosperous consolations because of the mercy of God. In these times fables were invented: of Triptolemus, that at the command of Ceres he was carried by winged serpents and in his flight brought grain to lands in need; of the Minotaur, that it was a beast shut up in the Labyrinth, from which men who had entered could not get out because of its inextricable windings; of the Centaurs, that the nature of horses and of men was joined in them; of Cerberus, that he is the three-headed dog of the underworld; of Phrixus and his sister Helle, that they flew carried by a ram; of the Gorgon, that she had serpents for hair and turned those who looked at her into stone; of Bellerophon, that he was carried by a horse flying on wings, which horse was called Pegasus; of Amphion, that by the sweetness of his lyre he charmed and drew stones; of the craftsman Daedalus and his son Icarus, that they flew with wings fitted to themselves; of Oedipus, that he forced a certain monster called the Sphinx, a four-footed beast with a human face, to perish by throwing herself down, when he had solved the question she used to propose as unsolvable; of Antaeus, whom Hercules killed, that he was the son of the earth, so that when he fell to the earth he used to rise the stronger; and whatever others I may have passed over. These fables, down to the Trojan War, where Marcus Varro ended the second book on the race of the Roman people, were so invented by men's wits, on the occasion of histories containing things truly done, that they were not attached to the disgrace of the divine powers.

But whoever invented that Jupiter carried off the most beautiful boy Ganymede for the purpose of sexual immorality, a wickedness which King Tantalus committed and fable ascribed to Jupiter, or that he sought to lie with Danae by means of a golden shower, by which it is understood that the woman's chastity was corrupted by gold (things that in those times were either done or invented, or done by others and invented about Jupiter), it cannot be said how much evil they presumed of men's hearts, that they could bear these lies patiently; which nevertheless they even embraced gladly. And certainly the more devoutly they worship Jupiter, the more severely they ought to have punished those who dared to say these things of him. But now they have not only not been angry with those who invented such things, but they feared rather to have the gods themselves angry with them if they did not act such fictions even in the theatres.

In these times Latona bore Apollo, not the one whose oracles we spoke of above as commonly consulted, but the one who served Admetus together with Hercules; who was nevertheless so believed a god that very many, indeed almost all, suppose there was one and the same Apollo. Then too Father Liber made war in India, who had in his army many women, called Bacchae, notable not so much for valour as for frenzy. Some indeed write that this Liber was both conquered and bound; some also that he was killed in battle by Perseus, and they do not keep silent about where he was buried; and yet in his name, as though of a god, the Bacchanalian rites, or rather sacrileges, were instituted through unclean demons, at whose raving filthiness the senate after so many years was so ashamed that it forbade them to be in the city of Rome. In those times, after Perseus and his wife Andromeda died, men so believed them received into heaven that they did not blush, did not fear, to mark out their images with stars and to call the stars by their names.

### Scripture references

- Judg 2:16: allusion, medium confidence
- Judg 2:18: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Varro, On the Race of the Roman People (lost), book 2.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.13 (CSEL 40:283–285; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-13).

## City of God 18.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-14
- Source: CSEL 40:285–286
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine describes the “theological poets” such as Orpheus, who sang of the gods but did not rightly serve the one God, and mentions men such as Ino and Castor and Pollux who were deified.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. De theologis poetis. Per idem temporis interuallum exstiterunt poetae, qui etiam theologi dicerentur, quoniam de dis carmina faciebant, sed talibus dis, qui licet magni homines, tamen homines fuerunt aut mundi huius, quem uerus Deus fecit, elementa sunt aut in principatibus et potestatibus pro uoluntate Creatoris et suis meritis ordinati, et si quid de uno uero Deo inter multa uana et falsa cecinerunt, colendo cum illo alios, qui di non sunt, eisque exhibendo famulatum, qui uni tantum debetur Deo, non ei utique rite seruierunt nec a fabuloso deorum suorum dedecore etiam sibi se abstinere potuerunt — Orpheus, Musaeus, Linus. Verum isti theologi deos coluerunt, non pro dis culti sunt; quamuis Orpheum nescio quo modo infernis sacris uel potius sacrilegiis praeficere soleat ciuitas inpiorum. Uxor autem regis Athamantis, quae uocabatur Ino, et eius filius Melicertes praecipitio spontaneo in mari perierunt et opinione hominum in deos relati sunt, sicut alii homines eorum temporum, Castor et Pollux. Illam sane Melicertis matrem Leucothean Graeci, Matutam Latini uocauerunt, utrique tamen putantes deam.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. On the theological poets.

In the same interval of time there arose poets who were also called theologians, because they made songs about the gods, but about such gods as, though great men, were yet men, or are elements of this world which the true God made, or were set in principalities and powers according to the will of the Creator and their own merits; and if among many vain and false things they sang anything of the one true God, by worshipping with him others who are not gods and rendering them the service owed to the one God alone, they certainly did not serve him rightly, nor could they keep even themselves from the fabulous disgrace of their gods: Orpheus, Musaeus, Linus. But these theologians worshipped the gods; they were not worshipped as gods; although the city of the ungodly usually sets Orpheus, somehow or other, over the rites, or rather sacrileges, of the underworld. The wife of King Athamas, who was called Ino, and her son Melicertes perished by throwing themselves into the sea, and by men's opinion were placed among the gods, as were other men of their times, Castor and Pollux. That mother of Melicertes the Greeks called Leucothea and the Latins Matuta, both, however, thinking her a goddess.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Orpheus (attributed), Orph. frag. (Orpheus (attributed), Orphic poems (fragments)): echo, low confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.14 (CSEL 40:285–286; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-14).

## City of God 18.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-15
- Source: CSEL 40:286–287
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine dates the end of the Argive kingdom and the beginning of the Laurentine kings to the judgeship of Deborah, and shows that Saturn, Picus, and Faunus were men deified by the Latins.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. De occasu regni Argiuorum, quo tempore aput Laurentes Picus Saturni filius regnum [patris] primus accepit. Per ea tempora regnum finitum est Argiuorum, translatum ad Mycenas, unde fuit Agamemnon, et exortum est regnum Laurentum, ubi Saturni filius Picus regnum primus accepit. iudicante aput Hebraeos femina Debbora; sed per illam Dei spiritus id agebat; nam etiam prophetissa erat, cuius prophetia minus aperta est, quam ut possimus eam sine diuturna expositione de Christo demonstrare prolatam. Iam ergo regnabant Laurentes utique in Italia, ex quibus euidentior ducitur origo Romana post Graecos; et tamen adhuc regnum Assyrium permanebat, ubi erat rex uicensimus et tertius Lampares, cum primus Laurentum Picus esse coepisset. De huius Pici patre Saturno uiderint quid sentiant talium deorum cultores, qui negant hominem fuisse; de quo et alii scripserunt, quod ante. Picum filium suum in Italia ipse regnauerit, et Vergilius notioribus litteris dicit: Is genus indocile et dispersum montibus altis Conposuit legesque dedit Latiumque uocari Maluit, his quoniam latuisset tutus in oris. Aurea quae perhibent illo sub rege fuere Saecula. Sed haec poetica opinentur esse figmenta et Pici patrem Stercen potius fuisse adseuerent, a quo peritissimo agricola inuentum ferunt, ut fimo animalium agri fecundarentur, quod ab eius nomine stercus est dictum; hunc quidam Stercutium uocatum ferunt. Qualibet autem ex causa eum Saturnum appellare uoluerint, certe tamen hunc Stercen siue Stercutium merito agriculturae fecerunt deum. Picum quoque similiter eius filium in talium deorum numerum receperunt, quem praeclarum augurem et belligeratorem fuisse adserunt. Picus Faunum genuit, Laurentum regem secundum; etiam iste deus illis uel est uel fuit. Hos ante Troianum bellum diuinos honores mortuis hominibus detulerunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. On the fall of the kingdom of the Argives, at the time when Picus, the son of Saturn, first received the kingdom among the Laurentines.

In those times the kingdom of the Argives came to an end, being transferred to Mycenae, from which Agamemnon came, and the kingdom of the Laurentines arose, where Picus, the son of Saturn, first received the kingdom, while among the Hebrews a woman, Deborah, was judge; but the Spirit of God was doing this through her, for she was also a prophetess, though her prophecy is too obscure for us to be able to show without long exposition that it was uttered about Christ. The Laurentines, then, were already reigning in Italy, from whom the Roman origin is more clearly derived after the Greeks; and yet the Assyrian kingdom still continued, where Lampares was the twenty-third king when Picus began to be the first of the Laurentines. Of this Picus's father Saturn let the worshippers of such gods, who deny he was a man, see what they think. Others too have written of him that he himself reigned in Italy before his son Picus, and Virgil says in better-known writings:

“He gathered the unruly race, scattered on the high mountains, and gave them laws, and chose that it be called Latium, since he had lain hidden safe on these shores. The golden ages which they tell of were under that king.”

But let them think these to be poetic fictions, and let them assert that Picus's father was rather Sterces, a most skilled farmer, by whom they say it was discovered that fields could be fertilized with the dung of animals, which from his name is called stercus; some say he was called Stercutius. For whatever reason they chose to call him Saturn, it is certain that they made this Sterces or Stercutius a god for his merit in agriculture. Picus his son they likewise received into the number of such gods, whom they assert to have been a distinguished augur and warrior. Picus begot Faunus, the second king of the Laurentines; he too is or was a god to them. These divine honours they conferred on dead men before the Trojan War.

### Scripture references

- Judg 4:4: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 8.321-325 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The title in the printed text has the word “patris” (“of his father”) in square brackets, which the editor deletes; it is left out. The verse is Virgil, Aeneid 8.321–325.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.15 (CSEL 40:286–287; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-3/#p-18-15).

## City of God 18.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-16
- Source: CSEL 40:287–288
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reports the story that Diomede was deified after the Trojan War and that his companions became birds that guard his temple.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. De Diomede post excidium Troiae in deos relato, cuius socii crediti sunt in uolucres esse conuersi. Troia uero euersa excidio illo usquequaque cantato puerisque notissimo, quod et magnitudine sui et scriptorum excellentibus linguis insigniter diffamatum adque uulgatum est gestumque regnante iam Latino Fauni filio, ex quo Latinorum regnum dici coepit Laurentumque cessauit, Graeci uictores deletam Troiam relinquentes et ad propria remeantes diuersis et horrendis cladibus dilacerati adque contriti sunt; et tamen etiam ex eis deorum suorum numerum auxerunt. Nam et Diomeden fecerunt deum, quem poena diuinitus inrogata perhibent ad suos non reuertisse: eiusque socios in uolucres fuisse conuersos non fabuloso poeticoque mendacio, sed historica adtestatione confirmant; quibus nec deus, ut putant, factus humanam reuocare naturam uel ipse potuit uel certe a Ioue suo rege tamquam caelicola nouicius inpetrauit. Quin etiam templum eius esse aiunt in insula Diomedea, non longe a monte Gargano, qui est in Apulia, et hoc templum circumuolare adque incolere has alites tam mirabili obsequio, ut aquam inpleant et adspergant; et eo si Graeci uenerint uel Graecorum stirpe prognati, non solum quietas esse, uerum et insuper adulare; si autem alienigenas uiderint, subuolare ad capita tamque grauibus ictibus, ut etiam perimant, uulnerare. Nam duris et grandibus rostris satis ad haec proelia perhibentur armatae.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. On Diomede, placed among the gods after the destruction of Troy, whose companions were believed to have been turned into birds.

When Troy had been overthrown in that destruction sung everywhere and very well known even to children, which both by its own magnitude and by the excellent tongues of writers has been signally spread abroad and made common, and which happened when Latinus the son of Faunus was already reigning, from whom the kingdom began to be called that of the Latins, and that of the Laurentines ceased, the victorious Greeks, leaving Troy destroyed and returning to their own homes, were torn apart and crushed by various and horrible disasters; and yet from these too they increased the number of their gods. For they made even Diomede a god, who they say did not return to his own people because of a penalty inflicted by divine power; and they confirm, not by fabulous and poetic falsehood but by historical testimony, that his companions were turned into birds; and he, made a god, as they think, neither could himself restore to them their human nature nor at least obtained this from Jupiter his king, as a new inhabitant of heaven. They say moreover that there is a temple of his on the island of Diomedea, not far from Mount Garganus, which is in Apulia, and that these birds fly around this temple and inhabit it with such wonderful devotion that they fill their beaks with water and sprinkle it; and that if Greeks come there, or those descended from Greek stock, they are not only quiet but even fawn on them; but if they see foreigners, they fly up at their heads and wound them with such heavy blows as even to kill them. For they are said to be well enough armed for these battles with hard and large beaks.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.16 (CSEL 40:287–288; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-16).

## City of God 18.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-17
- Source: CSEL 40:288–289
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reports Varro's stories of Circe and of Arcadians turned into wolves, from which Varro derives the names Lycaeus and the Roman Luperci.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. De incredibilibus commutationibus hominum quid Varro tradiderit. Hoc Varro ut adstruat, commemorat alia non minus incredibilia de illa maga famosissima Circe, quae socios quoque Ulixis mutauit in bestias, et de Arcadibus, qui sorte ducti tranatabant quoddam stagnum adque ibi conuertebantur in lupos et cum similibus feris per illius regionis deserta uiuebant. Si autem carne non uescerentur humana, rursus post nouem annos eodem renatato stagno reformabantur in homines. Denique etiam nominatim expressit quendam Demaenetum gustasse de sacrificio, quod Arcades immolato puero deo suo Lycaeo facere solerent, et in lupum fuisse mutatum et anno decimo in figuram propriam restitutum pugilatum sese exercuisse et Olympiaco uicisse certamine. Nec idem propter aliud arbitratur historicus in Arcadia tale nomen adfictum Pani Lycaeo et Ioui Lycaeo nisi propter hanc in lupos hominum mutationem, quod eam nisi ui diuina fieri non putarent. Lupus enim Graece λύκος dicitur, unde Lycaei nomen apparet inflexum. Romanos etiam Lupercos ex illorum mysteriorum ueluti semine dicit exortos.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. What Varro relates of incredible transformations of men.

To support this, Varro records other things no less incredible, about that most famous sorceress Circe, who also changed the companions of Ulysses into beasts, and about the Arcadians who, chosen by lot, used to swim across a certain pool and there be turned into wolves, and live with similar wild beasts in the wilds of that region. But if they did not eat human flesh, after nine years they swam back across the same pool and were changed back into men. Finally he even named expressly a certain Demaenetus who tasted of the sacrifice which the Arcadians used to make to their god Lycaeus by sacrificing a boy, and was changed into a wolf, and in the tenth year, restored to his own shape, trained himself in boxing and won in the Olympic contest. And the same historian thinks that in Arcadia such a name was given to Pan Lycaeus and Jupiter Lycaeus for no other reason than this changing of men into wolves, because they thought it could not happen except by divine power. For a wolf is called lykos in Greek, from which the name Lycaeus appears to be derived. He says too that the Roman Luperci arose as it were from the seed of those mysteries.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro (Varro): allusion, high confidence
- Homer, Od. 10 (Homer, Odyssey): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Varro, fragment. The Greek word λύκος (“wolf”) is mis-encoded in the digital text (“Xoxoc”, marked sic) and corrected. The story of Circe is from the Odyssey (book 10).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.17 (CSEL 40:288–289; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-17).

## City of God 18.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-18
- Source: CSEL 40:289–292
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains reports of men turned into animals as demonic illusions acting on the human imagination, permitted by God, and not as real changes of body or soul.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. Quid credendum sit de transformationibus, quae arte daemonum hominibus uidentur accidere. Sed de ista tanta ludificatione daemonum nos quid dicamus, qui haec legent, fortassis exspectent. Et quid dicemus, nisi de medio Babylonis esse fugiendum? Quod praeceptum propheticum ita spiritaliter intellegitur, ut de huius saeculi ciuitate, quae profecto et angelorum et hominum societas inpiorum est, fidei passibus, quae per dilectionem operatur, in Deum uiuum proficiendo fugiamus. Quanto quippe in haec ima potestatem daemonum maiorem uidemus, tanto tenacius Mediatori est inhaerendum, per quem de imis ad summa conscendimus. Si enim dixerimus ea non esse credenda, non desunt etiam nunc, qui eius modi quaedam uel certissima audisse uel etiam expertos se esse adseuerent. Nam et nos cum essemus in Italia audiebamus talia de quadam regione illarum partium, ubi stabularias mulieres inbutas his malis artibus in caseo dare solere dicebant quibus uellent seu possent uiatoribus, unde in iumenta ilico uerterentur et necessaria quaeque portarent postque perfuncta opera iterum ad se redirent; nec tamen in eis mentem fieri bestialem, sed rationalem humanamque seruari. sicut Apuleius in libris, quos asini aurei titulo inscripsit, sibi ipsi accidisse, ut accepto ueneno humano animo permanente asinus fieret, aut indicauit aut finxit. Haec uel falsa sunt uel tam inusitata, ut merito non credantur. Firmissime tamen credendum est omnipotentem Deum posse omnia facere quae uoluerit, siue uindicando siue praestando, nec daemones aliquid operari secundum naturae suae potentiam (quia et ipsa angelica creatura est, licet proprio uitio sit maligna) nisi quod ille permiserit, cuius iudicia occulta sunt multa, iniusta nulla. Nec sane daemones naturas creant, si aliquid tale faciunt, de qualibus factis ista uertitur quaestio; sed specie tenus, quae a uero Deo sunt creata, commutant, ut uideantur esse quod non sunt. Non itaque solum animum, sed ne corpus quidem ulla ratione crediderim daemonum arte uel potestate in membra et liniamenta bestialia ueraciter posse conuerti, sed phantasticum hominis, quod etiam cogitando siue somniando per rerum innumerabilia genera uariatur et, cum corpus non sit, corporum tamen similes mira celeritate formas capit, sopitis aut obpressis corporeis hominis sensibus ad aliorum sensum nescio quo ineffabili modo figura corporea posse perduci; ita ut corpora ipsa hominum alicubi iaceant, uiuentia quidem, sed multo grauius adque uehementius quam somno suis sensibus obseratis; phantasticum autem illud ueluti corporatum in alicuius animalis effigie appareat sensibus alienis talisque etiam sibi esse homo uideatur, sicut talis sibi uideri posset in somnis, et portare onera; quae onera si uera sunt corpora, portantur a daemonibus, ut inludatur hominibus, partim uera onerum corpora, partim iumentorum falsa cernentibus. Nam quidam nomine Praestantius patri suo contigisse indicabat, ut uenenum illud per caseum in domo sua sumeret et iaceret in lecto suo quasi dormiens, qui tamen nullo modo poterat excitari. Post aliquot autem dies eum uelut euigilasse dicebat et quasi somnia narrasse quae passus est, caballum se scilicet factum annonam inter alia iumenta baiulasse militibus, quae dicitur Retica, quoniam ad Retias deportatur. Quod ita, ut narrauit, factum fuisse conpertum est; quae tamen ei sua somnia uidebantur. Indicauit et alius se domi suae per noctem, antequam requiesceret, uidisse uenientem ad se philosophum quendam sibi notissimum sibique exposuisse nonnulla Platonica, quae antea rogatus exponere noluisset. Et cum ab eodem philosopho quaesitum fuisset, quur in domo eius fecerit, quod in domo sua petenti negauerat: "Non feci, inquit, sed me fecisse somniaui." Ac per hoc alteri per imaginem phantasticam exhibitum est uigilanti, quod alter uidit in somnis. Haec ad nos non quibuscumque, qualibus credere putaremus indignum, sed eis referentibus peruenerunt, quos nobis non existimaremus fuisse mentitos. Proinde quod homines dicuntur mandatumque est litteris ab dis uel potius daemonibus Arcadibus in lupos solere conuerti, et quod Carminibus Circe socios mutauit Ulixi, secundum istum modum mihi uidetur fieri potuisse, quem dixi, si tamen factum est. Diomedeas autem uolucres, quando quidem genus earum per successionem propaginis durare perhibetur, non mutatis hominibus factas, sed subtractis credo fuisse subpositas, sicut cerua pro Iphigenia, regis Agamemnonis filia. Neque enim daemonibus iudicio Dei permissis huius modi praestigiae difficiles esse potuerunt; sed quia illa uirgo postea uiua reperta est, subpositam pro illa esse ceruam facile cognitum est. Socii uero Diomedis quia nusquam subito conparuerunt et postea nullo loco apparuerunt, perdentibus eos ultoribus angelis malis, in eas aues, quae pro illis sunt occulte ex aliis locis, ubi est hoc genus auium, ad ea loca perductae ac repente subpositae, creduntur esse conuersi. Quod autem Diomedis templo aquam rostris adferunt et adspergunt, et quod blandiuntur Graecigenis adque alienigenas persequuntur, mirandum non est fieri daemonum instinctu, quorum interest persuadere deum factum esse Diomeden ad decipiendos homines, ut falsos deos cum ueri Dei iniuria multos colant et hominibus mortuis, qui nec cum uiuerent uere uixerunt, templis altaribus, sacrificiis sacerdotibus (quae omnia cum recta sunt non nisi uni Deo uiuo et uero debentur) inseruiant.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. What is to be believed about transformations which seem to happen to men by the art of demons.

But those who read this may perhaps expect what we are to say about so great a deception of demons. And what shall we say, except that we must flee from the midst of Babylon? This prophetic command is understood spiritually in this way: that we should flee from the city of this world, which is indeed the society of ungodly angels and men, by advancing toward the living God with the steps of faith, which works through love. For the greater we see the power of demons to be in these lower things, the more firmly we must cling to the Mediator, through whom we climb from the lowest to the highest. For if we say that these things are not to be believed, there are not lacking even now those who assert that they have heard some things of this kind on the surest authority, or have even experienced them. For we too, when we were in Italy, used to hear such things of a certain region of those parts, where they said that women who kept inns, steeped in these evil arts, used to give something in cheese to such travellers as they wished or could, by which they were at once turned into beasts of burden and carried whatever was needed, and after the work was done they returned again to themselves; and yet their mind did not become bestial but remained rational and human; just as Apuleius, in the books he entitled The Golden Ass, either reported or invented that it happened to himself that on taking a drug he became an ass while his human mind remained.

These things are either false or so unusual that they are rightly not believed. Yet it must be most firmly believed that almighty God can do whatever he wills, whether in punishing or in granting, and that demons accomplish nothing by the power of their nature (for it too is an angelic creature, though malignant by its own fault) except what he permits, whose judgments are many of them hidden, none unjust. Nor indeed do demons create natures, if they do anything of the kind about which this question turns; but they change in appearance only things created by the true God, so that they seem to be what they are not. So I would not believe that by the art or power of demons either the soul, or even the body, can by any means truly be turned into the members and features of beasts. But I think that a man's phantasm, which even in thought or in dreams is varied through innumerable kinds of things, and, though it is not a body, yet with wonderful speed takes forms like bodies, can, when the bodily senses of the man are lulled or oppressed, be brought in some ineffable way I do not know to the senses of others in bodily shape; so that men's bodies themselves lie somewhere, alive indeed, but with their senses shut up much more heavily and powerfully than in sleep, while that phantasm, as though embodied in the likeness of some animal, appears to the senses of others; and the man himself seems to himself to be such, as he might seem to himself in dreams, and to carry burdens; which burdens, if they are real bodies, are carried by demons so that men may be deluded, seeing partly the real bodies of the burdens and partly the false bodies of the beasts of burden.

For a certain man named Praestantius used to report that this had happened to his father: that he took that drug in cheese in his own house and lay on his bed as though asleep, yet could in no way be roused. After some days, he said, his father woke, as it were, and told as though they were dreams the things he had undergone: namely, that he had become a horse and among other beasts of burden had carried to the soldiers the supplies called Raetian, because they are taken to Raetia. This was found to have happened just as he told it; yet it seemed to him to be his own dreams. Another also reported that at night in his own house, before he went to rest, he saw a certain philosopher well known to him coming to him and explaining to him some Platonic matters which he had earlier been asked to explain and had refused. And when that same philosopher was asked why he had done in the other's house what he had refused to do when asked in his own, he said: “I did not do it, but I dreamed that I did.” And so what one saw in his sleep was shown to the other while awake through a phantasmal image.

These things came to us not from just anyone, whom we might think it unworthy to believe, but from those who reported them, whom we did not think had lied to us. Accordingly, what men say and what is committed to writing, that the Arcadians used to be turned into wolves by gods, or rather demons, and that “by her songs Circe changed the companions of Ulysses,” seems to me to have been able to happen in the way I have described, if indeed it happened. But the Diomedean birds, since their kind is said to continue by succession of offspring, I believe were not made from men changed, but were substituted for men taken away, as the hind was for Iphigenia, daughter of King Agamemnon. For such tricks could not have been difficult for demons when permitted by the judgment of God; but because that maiden was afterwards found alive, it was easily recognized that the hind had been substituted for her. But the companions of Diomede, because they suddenly disappeared and afterwards appeared nowhere, the avenging evil angels destroying them, are believed to have been turned into those birds, which were secretly brought to those places from other places where that kind of bird exists and suddenly substituted for them. And that they bring water in their beaks to Diomede's temple and sprinkle it, and fawn on those of Greek birth and pursue foreigners, it is no wonder that this should happen at the instigation of demons, whose interest it is to persuade men that Diomede was made a god, so as to deceive them into worshipping many false gods to the injury of the true God, and serving dead men, who even when alive did not truly live, with temples, altars, sacrifices, and priests, all of which, when they are right, are owed only to the one living and true God.

### Scripture references

- Jer 51:6 (28:6 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Isa 48:20: allusion, medium confidence
- Gal 5:6: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Tim 2:5: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Ecl. 8.70 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Varro (Varro): allusion, medium confidence
- Apuleius (Apuleius): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- “Flee from the midst of Babylon” is Jer 51:6 (compare Isa 48:20). Apuleius, Metamorphoses (The Golden Ass), has no entry in the site's list of extrabiblical texts. “By her songs Circe changed the companions of Ulysses” is Virgil, Eclogues 8.70.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.18 (CSEL 40:289–292; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-18).

## City of God 18.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-19
- Source: CSEL 40:292–293
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine dates the arrival of Aeneas in Italy to the judge Abdon and notes the deification of Aeneas, Sancus, and Codrus, and the end of the Sicyonian kingdom under Eli.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. Quod eo tempore Aeneas in Italiam uenerit, quo Labdon iudex praesidebat Hebraeis. Eo tempore post captam Troiam adque deletam Aeneas cum uiginti nauibus, quibus portabantur reliquiae Troianorum, in Italiam uenit, regnante ibi Latino et aput Athenienses Menestheo, aput Sicyonios Polyphide, aput Assyrios Tautane, aput Hebraeos autem iudex Labdon fuit. Mortuo autem Latino regnauit Aeneas tribus annis, eisdem in supradictis locis manentibus regibus, nisi quod Sicyoniorum iam Pelasgus erat et Hebraeorum iudex Samson; qui cum mirabiliter fortis esset, putatus est Hercules. Sed Aenean, quoniam quando mortuus est non conparuit, deum sibi fecerunt Latini. Sabini etiam regem suum primum Sancum siue, ut aliqui appellant, Sanctum, rettulerunt in deos. Per idem tempus Codrus rex Atheniensium Peloponnensibus eiusdem hostibus ciuitatis se interficiendum ignotus obiecit; et factum est. Hoc modo eum praedicant patriam liberasse. Responsum enim acceperant Peloponnenses tum demum se superaturos, si eorum regem non occidissent. Fefellit ergo eos habitu pauperis apparendo et in suam necem per iurgium prouocando. Unde ait Vergilius: Et iurgia Codri. Et hunc Athenienses tamquam deum sacrificiorum honore coluerunt. Quarto Latinorum rege Siluio Aeneae filio, non de Creusa, de qua fuit Ascanius, qui tertius ibi regnauit, sed de Lauinia Latini filia, quem postumum Aeneas dicitur habuisse, Assyriorum autem uicensimo et nono Oneo et Melantho Atheniensium sexto decimo, iudice autem Hebraeorum Heli sacerdote regnum Sicyoniorum consumtum est, quod per annos nongentos quinquaginta et nouem traditur fuisse porrectum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. That Aeneas came into Italy at the time when Abdon the judge ruled over the Hebrews.

At that time, after Troy had been taken and destroyed, Aeneas came into Italy with twenty ships carrying the remnants of the Trojans, while Latinus reigned there, and Menestheus among the Athenians, Polyphides among the Sicyonians, Tautanes among the Assyrians, while among the Hebrews Abdon was judge. After the death of Latinus Aeneas reigned three years, the same kings remaining in the places mentioned above, except that Pelasgus was now king of the Sicyonians and Samson judge of the Hebrews; who, since he was marvellously strong, was thought to be Hercules. But the Latins made Aeneas a god for themselves, since when he died he disappeared. The Sabines too placed their first king, Sancus, or as some call him Sanctus, among the gods. About the same time Codrus, king of the Athenians, exposed himself unrecognized to the Peloponnesians, enemies of that city, to be killed; and so it happened. In this way they proclaim that he freed his country. For the Peloponnesians had received an oracle that they would conquer only if they did not kill the king of the Athenians. He deceived them, then, by appearing in the dress of a poor man and provoking them to kill him by a quarrel. Hence Virgil says: “and the quarrels of Codrus.” And the Athenians worshipped him too as a god with the honour of sacrifices. When Silvius was the fourth king of the Latins, the son of Aeneas not by Creusa, of whom Ascanius was born, who reigned there as the third, but by Lavinia, the daughter of Latinus, a posthumous son, as Aeneas is said to have had him; and Oneus the twenty-ninth of the Assyrians, and Melanthus the sixteenth of the Athenians; and when Eli the priest was judge of the Hebrews, the kingdom of the Sicyonians came to an end, which is said to have lasted nine hundred and fifty-nine years.

### Scripture references

- Judg 12:13: allusion, high confidence
- Judg 15:20: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Sam 4:18: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Ecl. 5.11 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Abdon: the printed text has “Labdon”, the Latin form of the judge's name. “And the quarrels of Codrus” is Virgil, Eclogues 5.11.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.19 (CSEL 40:292–293; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-19).

## City of God 18.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-20
- Source: CSEL 40:293–294
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine sets the Israelite monarchy from Saul to the division under Rehoboam alongside the Silvian kings of Latium and the end of kingship at Athens.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. De successione ordinis regii aput Israelitas post iudicum tempora. Mox eisdem per loca memorata regnantibus Israelitarum regnum finito tempore iudicum a Saule rege sumsit exordium, quo tempore fuit propheta Samuel. Ab illo igitur tempore hi reges Latinorum esse coeperunt, quos cognominabant Siluios; ab eo quippe, qui filius Aeneae primus dictus est Siluius, ceteris subsecutis et propria nomina inponebantur et hoc non defuit cognomentum; sicut longe postea Caesares cognominati sunt, qui successerunt Caesari Augusto. Reprobato autem Saule, ne quisquam ex eius stirpe regnaret, eoque defuncto Dauid successit in regnum post annos a Saulis imperio quadraginta. Tunc Athenienses habere deinde reges post Codri interitum destiterunt et magistratus habere coeperunt administrandae rei publicae. Post Dauid, qui etiam ipse quadraginta regnauit annos, filius eius Salomon rex Israelitarum fuit, qui templum illud nobilissimum Dei Hierosolymitanum condidit. Cuius tempore aput Latinos condita est Alba, ex qua deinceps non Latinorum, sed Albanorum reges appellari, in eodem tamen Latio, coeperunt. Salomoni successit filius eius Roboam, sub quo in duo regna populus ille diuisus est, et singulae partes suos singulos reges habere coeperunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. On the succession of the royal line among the Israelites after the time of the judges.

Soon, while the same kings were reigning in the places mentioned, the time of the judges ended and the kingdom of the Israelites took its beginning with King Saul, at which time Samuel the prophet lived. From that time, then, began those kings of the Latins whom they surnamed Silvii; for from him who, as the son of Aeneas, was first called Silvius, the rest who followed were given their own names and yet did not lack this surname, just as long afterwards those who succeeded Caesar Augustus were surnamed Caesars. But when Saul had been rejected, so that none of his stock should reign, and he had died, David succeeded to the kingdom forty years after the beginning of Saul's rule. Then the Athenians, after the death of Codrus, ceased to have kings any more and began to have magistrates to administer the state. After David, who himself also reigned forty years, his son Solomon was king of the Israelites, who built that most renowned temple of God at Jerusalem. In his time Alba was founded among the Latins, from which the kings began thereafter to be called kings not of the Latins but of the Albans, though still in the same Latium. Solomon was succeeded by his son Rehoboam, under whom that people was divided into two kingdoms, and each part began to have its own king.

### Scripture references

- 1 Sam 10:1: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Sam 15:23: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 13:21: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Kgs 2:11: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Kgs 6:1: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Kgs 12:19: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Kgs 12:20: allusion, high confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.20 (CSEL 40:293–294; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-20).

## City of God 18.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-21
- Source: CSEL 40:294–296
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine traces the Latin kings from Aeneas to Numitor, dates the end of the Assyrian empire to the reign of Procas, and discusses the stories of Romulus's birth and the she-wolf.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. De regibus Latii, quorum primus Aeneas et duodecimus Auentinus di facti sunt. Latium post Aenean, quem deum fecerunt, undecim reges habuit, quorum nullus deus factus est. Auentinus autem, qui duodecimo loco Aenean sequitur, cum esset prostratus in bello et sepultus in eo monte, qui etiam nunc eius nomine nuncupatur, deorum talium, quales sibi faciebant, numero est additus. Alii sane noluerunt eum in proelio scribere occisum, sed non conparuisse dixerunt; nec ex eius uocabulo appellatum montem, sed ex aduentu auium dictum Auentinum. Post hunc non est deus factus in Latio nisi Romulus conditor Romae. Inter istum autem et illum reges reperiuntur duo, quorum primus est, ut eum Vergiliano uersu eloquar: Proximus ille Procas, Troianae gloria gentis. Cuius tempore quia iam quodam modo Roma parturiebatur, illud omnium regnorum maximum Assyrium finem tantae diuturnitatis accepit. Ad Medos quippe translatum est post annos ferme mille trecentos quinque, ut etiam Beli, qui Ninum genuit et illic paruo contentus imperio primus rex fuit. tempora conputentur. Procas autem regnauit ante Amulium. Porro Amulius fratris sui Numitoris filiam, Rheam nomine, quae etiam Ilia uocabatur, Romuli matrem, Vestalem uirginem fecerat, quam uolunt de Marte geminos concepisse, isto modo stuprum eius honorantes uel excusantes, et adhibentes argumentum, quod infantes expositos lupa nutriuerit. Hoc enim genus bestiae ad Martem existimant pertinere, ut uidelicet ideo lupa credatur admouisse ubera paruulis, quia filios domini sui Martis agnouit; quamuis non desint qui dicant, cum expositi uagientes iacerent, a nescio qua primum meretrice fuisse collectos et primas eius suxisse mamillas (meretrices autem lupas uocabant, unde etiam nunc turpia loca earum lupanaria nuncupantur), et eos postea ad Faustulum peruenisse pastorem adque ab eius Acca uxore nutritos. Quamquam si ad arguendum hominem regem, qui eos in aquam proici crudeliter iusserat, eis infantibus, per quos tanta ciuitas condenda fuerat, de aqua diuinitus liberatis per lactantem feram Deus uoluit subuenire, quid mirum est? Amulio successit in regnum Latiare frater eius Numitor, auus Romuli, cuius Numitoris primo anno condita est Roma; ac per hoc cum suo deinceps, id est Romulo, nepote regnauit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. On the kings of Latium, of whom the first, Aeneas, and the twelfth, Aventinus, were made gods.

After Aeneas, whom they made a god, Latium had eleven kings, none of whom was made a god. But Aventinus, who follows Aeneas in the twelfth place, when he had been struck down in war and buried on the hill which is still called by his name, was added to the number of such gods as they made for themselves. Some, indeed, would not write that he was killed in battle, but said that he disappeared; and that the hill was not named from his name but called Aventine from the arrival of birds. After him no one was made a god in Latium except Romulus, the founder of Rome. Between him and the other two kings are found, of whom the first is, to put it in a verse of Virgil:

“Next that Procas, glory of the Trojan race.”

In his time, because Rome was already in a way in labour to be born, that greatest of all kingdoms, the Assyrian, received the end of its long duration. For it was transferred to the Medes after about one thousand three hundred and five years, if the times of Belus too are counted, who begot Ninus and, content with a small dominion, was the first king there. Procas reigned before Amulius. Amulius, moreover, had made his brother Numitor's daughter, named Rhea, who was also called Ilia, the mother of Romulus, a Vestal virgin; they will have it that she conceived twins by Mars, in this way honouring or excusing her sexual immorality, and adding as proof that a she-wolf nursed the infants when they were exposed. For they think this kind of beast belongs to Mars, so that the she-wolf, of course, is believed to have given her teats to the little ones because she recognized them as the sons of her lord Mars; although there are not lacking those who say that when they lay exposed and crying they were first picked up by some prostitute or other and sucked her breasts first (for they used to call prostitutes lupae, “she-wolves,” whence even now their foul haunts are called lupanaria), and that afterwards they came to the shepherd Faustulus and were nursed by his wife Acca. And yet, if God willed, in order to rebuke the human king who had cruelly ordered them to be thrown into the water, to come to the aid, by means of a wild beast giving milk, of those infants who had been delivered from the water by divine power and through whom so great a city was to be founded, what wonder is it? Amulius was succeeded in the kingdom of Latium by his brother Numitor, the grandfather of Romulus, in the first year of whose reign Rome was founded; and so from then on he reigned together with his grandson, that is, Romulus.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 6.767 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The verse is Virgil, Aeneid 6.767.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.21 (CSEL 40:294–296; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-21).

## City of God 18.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-22
- Source: CSEL 40:296–297
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine presents Rome as a second Babylon through which God subdued and pacified the world, and dates its founding against the history of Israel and Judah.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. Quod eo tempore Roma sit condita, quo regnum Assyriorum intercidit et quo Ezechias regnabat in Iuda. Ne multis morer, condita est ciuitas Roma uelut altera Babylon et uelut prioris filia Babylonis, per quam Deo placuit orbem debellare terrarum et in unam societatem rei publicae legumque perductum longe lateque pacare. Erant enim iam populi ualidi et fortes et armis gentes exercitatae, quae non facile cederent, et quas opus esset ingentibus periculis et uastatione utrimque non parua adque horrendo labore superari. Nam quando regnum Assyriorum totam paene Asiam subiugauit, licet bellando sit factum, non tamen multum asperis et difficilibus bellis fieri potuit, quia rudes adhuc ad resistendum gentes erant nec tam multae uel magnae. Si quidem post illud maximum adque uniuersale diluuium, cum in arca Noe octo soli homines euaserunt, anni non multo amplius quam mille transierant, quando Ninus Asiam totam excepta India subiugauit. Roma uero tot gentes [et] Orientis et Occidentis, quas imperio Romano subditas cernimus, non ea celeritate ac facilitate perdomuit, quoniam paulatim crescendo robustas eas et bellicosas, quaqua uersum dilatabatur, inuenit. Tempore igitur, quo Roma condita est, populus Israel habebat in terra promissionis annos septingentos decem et octo. Ex quibus uiginti septem pertinent ad Iesum Naue, deinde ad tempus iudicum trecenti uiginti nouem. Ex quo autem reges ibi esse coeperant, anni erant trecenti sexaginta duo. Et rex tunc erat in Iuda, cuius nomen erat Achaz uel, sicut alii conputant, qui ei successit Ezechias, quem quidem constat optimum et piissimum regem Romuli regnasse temporibus. In ea uero Hebraei populi parte, quae appellabatur Israel, regnare coeperat Osee.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. That Rome was founded at the time when the kingdom of the Assyrians fell and when Hezekiah was reigning in Judah.

Not to delay over many things, the city of Rome was founded as a second Babylon, as it were, and as the daughter, as it were, of the former Babylon, through which it pleased God to subdue the world and, having brought it into one fellowship of commonwealth and laws, to pacify it far and wide. For there were already strong and brave peoples and nations trained in arms, which would not easily yield, and which could be overcome only with enormous dangers, no small devastation on both sides, and dreadful toil. For when the kingdom of the Assyrians subjugated almost the whole of Asia, although it was done by fighting, yet it could not be done by very harsh and difficult wars, because the nations were still untrained in resisting and were neither so many nor so great. For after that greatest and universal flood, when only eight people escaped in the ark of Noah, not much more than a thousand years had passed when Ninus subjugated the whole of Asia except India. But Rome did not subdue with the same speed and ease so many nations of the East and the West, which we see made subject to the Roman empire, because, growing little by little, it found them strong and warlike in whatever direction it spread.

At the time, then, when Rome was founded, the people of Israel had been in the land of promise seven hundred and eighteen years. Of these twenty-seven belong to Joshua the son of Nun, then three hundred and twenty-nine to the time of the judges. But from the time when there began to be kings there, there were three hundred and sixty-two years. And the king in Judah at that time was named Ahaz, or, as others reckon, Hezekiah, who succeeded him, a most excellent and most pious king, who is agreed to have reigned in the times of Romulus. In that part of the Hebrew people which was called Israel, Hoshea had begun to reign.

### Scripture references

- Gen 7:13: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Pet 3:20: echo, medium confidence
- 2 Kgs 16:1: allusion, medium confidence
- 2 Kgs 18:1: allusion, medium confidence
- 2 Kgs 17:1: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The editor deletes an “and” (“et”) before “of the East and the West”; the sense is unaffected. The figures (718 years in the land; 27 + 329 + 362) are translated as printed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.22 (CSEL 40:296–297; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-22).

## City of God 18.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-23
- Source: CSEL 40:297–300
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine gives a Latin version of the Erythraean Sibyl's acrostic poem on the judgment, whose Greek initials spell “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour” and form the word ichthys (“fish”), and gathers the Sibylline prophecies of Christ's passion quoted by Lactantius.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. De Sibylla Erythraea, quae inter alias Sibyllas cognoscitur de Christo euidentia multa cecinisse. Eodem tempore nonnulli Sibyllam Erythraeam uaticinatam ferunt. Sibyllas autem Varro prodit plures fuisse, non unam. Haec sane Erythraea Sibylla quaedam de Christo manifesta conscripsit; quod etiam nos prius in Latina lingua uersibus male Latinis et non stantibus legimus per nescio cuius interpretis inperitiam, sicut post cognouimus. Nam uir clarissimus. Flaccianus, qui etiam proconsul fuit, homo facillimae facundiae multaeque doctrinae, cum de Christo conloqueremur, Graecum nobis codicem protulit, carmina esse dicens Sibyllae Erythraeae, ubi ostendit quodam loco in capitibus uersuum ordinem litterarum ita se habentem, ut haec in eo uerba legerentur: Ἰησοῦς Χρειστὸς Θεοῦ υἱὸς σωτήρ, quod est Latine, Iesus Christus Dei filius saluator. Hi autem uersus, quorum primae litterae istum sensum, quem diximus, reddunt, sicut eos quidam Latinis et stantibus uersibus est interpretatus, hoc continent: Ι Iudicii signum tellus sudore madescet. Η E caelo rex adueniet per saecla futurus, Σ Scilicet ut carnem praesens, ut iudicet orbem. Ο Unde Deum cernent incredulus adque fidelis Υ Celsum cum sanctis aeui iam termino in ipso. Σ Sic animae cum carne aderunt, quas iudicat ipse, Χ Cum iacet incultus densis in uepribus orbis, Ρ Reicient simulacra uiri, cunctam quoque gazam, Ε Exuret terras ignis pontumque polumque Ι Inquirens taetri portas effringet Auerni. Σ Sanctorum sed enim cunctae lux libera carni Τ Tradetur, sontes aeterna flamma cremabit. Ο Occultos actus retegens tunc quisque loquetur Σ Secreta, adque Deus reserabit pectora luci. Θ Tunc erit et luctus, stridebunt dentibus omnes. Ε Eripitur solis iubar et chorus interit astris. Ο Voluetur caelum, lunaris splendor obibit; Υ Deiciet colles, ualles extollet ab imo. Υ Non erit in rebus hominum sublime uel altum. Ι Iam aequantur campis montes et caerula ponti Ο Omnia cessabunt, tellus confracta peribit: Σ Sic pariter fontes torrentur fluminaque igni. Σ Sed tuba tum sonitum tristem demittet ab alto Ω Orbe, gemens facinus miserum uariosque labores, Τ Tartareumque chaos monstrabit terra dehiscens. Η Et coram hic Domino reges sistentur ad unum. Ρ Reccidet e caelo ignisque et sulphuris amnis. In his Latinis uersibus de Graeco utcumque translatis ibi non potuit ille sensus occurrere, qui fit, cum litterae, quae sunt in eorum capitibus, conectuntur, ubi Υ littera in Graeco posita est, quia non potuerunt Latina uerba inueniri, quae ab eadem littera inciperent et sententiae conuenirent. Hi autem sunt uersus tres, quintus et octauus decimus et nonus decimus. Denique si litteras quae sunt in capitibus omnium uersuum conectentes horum trium quae scriptae sunt non legamus, sed pro eis Υ litteram, tamquam in eisdem locis ipsa sit posita, recordemur, exprimitur in quinque uerbis: Iesus Christus Dei filius saluator; sed cum Graece hoc dicitur, non Latine. Et sunt uersus uiginti et septem, qui numerus quadratum ternarium solidum reddit. Tria enim ter ducta fiunt nouem; et ipsa nouem si ter ducantur, ut ex lato in altum figura consurgat, ad uiginti septem perueniunt. Horum autem Graecorum quinque uerborum, quae sunt Ἰησοῦς Χρειστὸς Θεοῦ υἱὸς σωτήρ, quod est Latine Iesus Christus Dei filius saluator, si primas litteras iungas, erit ἰχθύς, id est piscis, in quo nomine mystice intellegitur Christus, eo quod in huius mortalitatis abysso uelut in aquarum profunditate uiuus, hoc est sine peccato, esse potuerit. Haec autem Sibylla siue Erythraea siue, ut quidam magis credunt, Cumaea ita nihil habet in toto carmine suo, cuius exigua ista particula est, quod ad deorum falsorum siue factorum cultum pertineat, quin immo ita etiam contra eos et contra cultores eorum loquitur, ut in eorum numero deputanda uideatur, qui pertinent ad ciuitatem Dei. Inserit etiam Lactantius operi suo quaedam de Christo uaticinia Sibyllae, quamuis non exprimat cuius. Sed quae ipse singillatim posuit, ego arbitratus sum coniuncta esse ponenda, tamquam unum sit prolixum, quae ille plura commemorauit et breuia. In manus [iniquas], inquit, infidelium postea ueniet; dabunt autem Deo alapas manibus incestis et inpurato ore exspuent uenenatos sputus; dabit uero ad uerbera simpliciter sanctum dorsum. Et colaphos accipiens tacebit, ne quis agnoscat, quod uerbum uel unde uenit, ut inferis loquatur et corona spinea coronetur. Ad cibum autem fel et ad sitim acetum dederunt; inhospitalitatis hanc monstrabunt mensam. Ipsa enim insipiens tuum Deum non intellexisti, ludentem mortalium mentibus, sed spinis coronasti et horridum fel miscuisti. Templi uero uelum scindetur; et medio die nox erit tenebrosa nimis in tribus horis. Et morte morietur tribus diebus somno suscepto; et tunc ab inferis regressus ad lucem ueniet primus resurrectionis principio reuocatis ostenso. Ista Lactantius carptim per interualla disputationis suae, sicut ea poscere uidebantur, quae probare intenderat, adhibuit testimonia Sibyllina, quae nos nihil interponentes, sed in unam seriem conexa ponentes solis capitibus, si tamen scriptores deinceps ea seruare non neglegant, distinguenda curauimus. Nonnulli sane Erythraeam Sibyllam non Romuli, sed belli Troiani tempore fuisse scripserunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. On the Erythraean Sibyl, who among the other Sibyls is known to have sung many things clearly about Christ.

At the same time, some say, the Erythraean Sibyl prophesied. Varro reports that there were several Sibyls, not one. This Erythraean Sibyl certainly wrote some things that are plain about Christ; which we too first read in the Latin language in bad Latin verses that did not scan, through the unskilfulness of some translator or other, as we afterwards learned. For the most distinguished Flaccianus, who was also proconsul, a man of very ready eloquence and much learning, when we were conversing about Christ, brought out a Greek manuscript to us, saying that it was the songs of the Erythraean Sibyl, and showed us in one place that the order of the letters at the beginnings of the lines was such that these words could be read in it: Iēsous Chreistos Theou huios sōtēr, which in Latin is “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour.” These lines, whose first letters give the sense we have mentioned, as someone has translated them into Latin verses that scan, contain the following:

Ι The earth shall be wet with sweat, the sign of judgment.
Η From heaven shall come the King who will reign through the ages,
Σ present, that is, in the flesh, to judge the world.
Ο Hence the unbeliever and the faithful shall see God
Υ on high with the saints, at the very end of the age.
Σ So souls shall be present with the flesh, which he himself judges,
Χ when the world lies untilled among thick thorns.
Ρ Men shall cast away their idols and all their treasure too;
Ε fire shall burn up the lands and the sea and the sky,
Ι and, searching, shall break the gates of loathsome Avernus.
Σ But to all the flesh of the saints free light
Τ shall be given; the guilty the eternal flame shall burn.
Ο Uncovering hidden deeds, each one shall then speak
Σ his secrets, and God shall open hearts to the light.
Θ Then there shall be mourning too; all shall gnash their teeth.
Ε The radiance of the sun is snatched away, and the choir of stars perishes.
Ο The sky shall be rolled up; the moon's splendour shall die;
Υ he shall cast down the hills and raise the valleys from the depths.
Υ There shall be nothing lofty or high in human affairs.
Ι Now the mountains are levelled with the plains, and the blue of the sea—
Ο all things shall cease; the earth shall perish, shattered.
Σ So springs and rivers alike are scorched with fire.
Σ But then the trumpet shall send forth a mournful sound from the height
Ω of the world, lamenting wretched crime and manifold toils,
Τ and the earth, gaping open, shall show the chaos of Tartarus.
Η And here before the Lord kings shall be set, every one.
Ρ A river of fire and of sulphur shall fall from heaven.

In these Latin verses, translated from the Greek as best they could be, the sense that arises when the letters at their beginnings are joined could not appear where the letter Υ is placed in the Greek, because Latin words could not be found that begin with that letter and fit the meaning. These are three lines, the fifth, the eighteenth, and the nineteenth. Accordingly, if, joining the letters at the beginnings of all the lines, we do not read the letters written at the beginning of these three, but remember the letter Υ in their place, as though it stood in those very places, there is expressed in five words: “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour”; but only when this is said in Greek, not in Latin. And there are twenty-seven lines, which number makes the cube of three. For three times three makes nine; and if nine itself is taken three times, so that the figure rises from breadth to height, it comes to twenty-seven. And if you join the first letters of these five Greek words, Iēsous Chreistos Theou huios sōtēr, which in Latin is “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour,” it will be ichthys, that is, “fish,” in which name Christ is mystically understood, because in the abyss of this mortality, as in the depth of waters, he was able to be alive, that is, without sin.

This Sibyl, whether the Erythraean or, as some rather believe, the Cumaean, has nothing in her whole poem, of which this is a tiny part, that pertains to the worship of false or fabricated gods; on the contrary, she speaks so strongly against them and against their worshippers that she seems to be reckoned among those who belong to the city of God. Lactantius also inserts in his work certain prophecies of the Sibyl about Christ, although he does not state whose. But what he set down one by one, I have thought should be set down together, as though it were one long passage, the many short sayings he recorded:

“Afterwards,” she says, “he will come into the hands of unbelievers; and they will give God blows with impure hands, and with polluted mouth they will spit poisoned spittle; but he will simply give his holy back to the scourges. And receiving buffets he will be silent, so that no one may know what word he is, or whence he comes, that he may speak to the dead and be crowned with a crown of thorns. And for food they gave gall, and for his thirst vinegar; this table of inhospitality they will show. For you yourself, foolish one, did not understand your God, who was playing with the minds of mortals, but crowned him with thorns and mixed him dreadful gall. But the veil of the temple will be torn; and at midday there will be night, exceedingly dark, for three hours. And he will die a death, having taken sleep for three days; and then, returning from the dead, he will come to the light, the first, having shown the beginning of the resurrection to those called back.”

These Sibylline testimonies Lactantius used piecemeal, at intervals in his argument, as the things he meant to prove seemed to require; we, inserting nothing, but setting them down joined in one series, have taken care to mark them off only by capitals, if only copyists hereafter do not neglect to keep them. Some indeed have written that the Erythraean Sibyl lived not in the time of Romulus but at the time of the Trojan War.

### Scripture references

- Matt 24:29: echo, medium confidence
- Isa 40:4: echo, medium confidence
- Matt 8:12: echo, medium confidence
- Isa 34:4: echo, medium confidence
- Rev 6:14: echo, low confidence
- 1 Cor 15:52: echo, low confidence
- Isa 50:6: echo, medium confidence
- Matt 27:29: echo, medium confidence
- Matt 27:34: echo, medium confidence
- Ps 69:21 (68:22 LXX): echo, medium confidence
- Matt 27:45: echo, medium confidence
- Matt 27:51: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sib. Or. 8.217-243 (Sibylline Oracles): quotation, high confidence
- Sib. Or. 8.287-320 (Sibylline Oracles): quotation, medium confidence
- Lactantius, Inst. 4.18-19 (Divine Institutes): quotation, high confidence
- Varro (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The acrostic is Sibylline Oracles 8.217–243, quoted in an anonymous Latin verse translation; each line is preceded by the Greek letter of the original acrostic, as in the printed text. The English cannot reproduce the acrostic. Line 5 reads “aeni” in the digital text, corrected to “aeui” (“of the age”). The Sibylline sayings gathered from Lactantius are from Divine Institutes 4.18–19 (Sibylline Oracles 8.287–320 and 6.24–26 in modern numbering, with some uncertainty). In “into the hands” the editor deletes “iniquas” (“wicked”), left out here. Augustine's statement that three lines lost their Υ-initial in Latin, and his count of 27 lines, are translated as printed. Varro's account of several Sibyls is cited from memory.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.23 (CSEL 40:297–300; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-23).

## City of God 18.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-24
- Source: CSEL 40:300–301
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine dates Thales and the fall of the northern kingdom to the reign of Romulus, notes Cicero's praise of Romulus's deification, and dates the Samian Sibyl to the reign of Numa and Manasseh.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIIII. Quod regnante Romulo septem sapientes claruerint, quo tempore decem tribus, quae Israel dicebantur, in captiuitatem a Chaldaeis ductae sunt, idemque Romulus mortuus diuino honore donatus est. Eodem Romulo regnante Thales Milesius fuisse perhibetur, unus e septem sapientibus, qui post theologos poetas, in quibus Orpheus maxime omnium nobilitatus est, σοφοί appellati sunt, quod est Latine sapientes. Per idem tempus decem tribus, quae in diuisione populi uocatae sunt Israel, debellatae a Chaldaeis et in eas terras captiuae ductae sunt, remanentibus in Iudaea terra duabus illis tribubus, quae nomine Iudae uocabantur sedemque regni habebant Hierusalem. Mortuum Romulum, cum et ipse non conparuisset, in deos, quod et uulgo notissimum est, rettulere Romani; quod usque adeo fieri iam desierat (nec postea nisi adulando, non errando, factum est temporibus Caesarum), ut Cicero magnis Romuli laudibus tribuat, quod non rudibus et indoctis temporibus, quando facile homines fallebantur, sed iam expolitis et eruditis meruerit hos honores, quamuis nondum efferbuerat ac pullulauerat philosophorum subtilis et acuta loquacitas. Sed etiamsi posteriora tempora deos homines mortuos non instituerunt, tamen ab antiquis institutos colere ut deos et habere non destiterunt; quin etiam simulacris, quae ueteres non habebant, auxerunt uanae adque inpiae superstitionis inlecebram, id efficientibus inmundis in eorum corde daemonibus per fallacia quoque oracula decipientibus, ut fabulosa etiam crimina deorum, quae iam urbaniore saeculo non fingebantur, per ludos tamen in eorundem falsorum numinum obsequium turpiter agerentur. Regnauit deinde Numa post Romulum, qui cum illam ciuitatem putauerit deorum profecto falsorum numerositate muniendam, in eandem turbam referri mortuus ipse non meruit, tamquam ita putatus sit caelum multitudine numinum constipasse, ut locum ibi reperire non posset. Hoc regnante Romae et aput Hebraeos initio regni Manasse, a quo inpio rege propheta Esaias perhibetur occisus, Samiam fuisse Sibyllam ferunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 24. That in the reign of Romulus the seven sages flourished, at the time when the ten tribes called Israel were led into captivity by the Chaldeans, and that the same Romulus when he died was granted divine honour.

While the same Romulus was reigning, Thales of Miletus is said to have lived, one of the seven sages, who after the theological poets, among whom Orpheus was the most renowned of all, were called sophoi, which in Latin is sapientes, “wise men.” At the same time the ten tribes which at the division of the people were called Israel were subdued by the Chaldeans and led captive into those lands, while there remained in the land of Judea the two tribes which were called by the name of Judah and had Jerusalem as the seat of their kingdom. When Romulus died, since he too disappeared, the Romans placed him among the gods, as is very well known even to the common people; which had by then so far ceased to be done (nor was it done afterwards, in the times of the Caesars, except by flattery, not by error) that Cicero attributes it to the great praise of Romulus that he earned these honours not in rude and unlearned times, when men were easily deceived, but in times already polished and learned; although the subtle and sharp talkativeness of the philosophers had not yet boiled up and sprouted. But even if later times did not make dead men gods, yet they did not cease to worship and regard as gods those made so by the ancients; indeed, with images, which the ancients did not have, they increased the allurement of vain and impious superstition, the unclean demons bringing this about in their hearts, deceiving them also by lying oracles, so that even the fabulous crimes of the gods, which in a more refined age were no longer invented, were nevertheless basely acted in the games in homage to those same false divinities. Then Numa reigned after Romulus, who, though he thought that city must be fortified by a great number of gods, false ones certainly, did not himself deserve to be placed among that crowd when he died; as though he were thought to have so packed heaven with a multitude of divinities that he could find no place there. While he reigned at Rome, and among the Hebrews at the beginning of the reign of Manasseh, by whom, an impious king, the prophet Isaiah is said to have been killed, they say the Samian Sibyl lived.

### Scripture references

- 2 Kgs 17:6: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Kgs 17:18: allusion, medium confidence
- 2 Kgs 21:16: echo, low confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Rep. 2.10.18-20 (Cicero): allusion, high confidence
- Ascen. Isa. 5 (Ascension of Isaiah): echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Cicero, Republic 2.10.18–20. The Greek σοφοί is mis-encoded in the digital text (“cotpoi”, marked sic) and corrected. The tradition that Isaiah was killed under Manasseh is found in the Ascension of Isaiah and in Jewish tradition; Augustine gives it as a report. Augustine says the ten tribes were led captive by the Chaldeans (2 Kings 17 names the Assyrians); translated as printed.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.24 (CSEL 40:300–301; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-24).

## City of God 18.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-25
- Source: CSEL 40:301–302
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine dates the Babylonian captivity to the reign of Tarquinius Priscus and lists the seven sages and early Greek philosophers of that period.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXV. Qui philosophi enituerint regnante aput Romanos Tarquinio Prisco, aput Hebraeos Sedechia, cum Hierusalem capta est templumque subuersum. Regnante uero aput Hebraeos Sedechia et aput Romanos Tarquinio Prisco, qui successerat Anco Marcio, ductus est captiuus in Babyloniam populus Iudaeorum euersa Hierusalem et templo illo a Salomone constructo. Increpantes enim eos prophetae de iniquitatibus et inpietatibus suis haec eis uentura praedixerant, maxime Hieremias, qui etiam numerum definiuit annorum. Eo tempore Pittacus Mitylenaeus, alius e septem sapientibus, fuisse perhibetur. Et quinque ceteros, qui, ut septem numerentur, Thaleti, quem supra commemorauimus, et huic Pittaco adduntur, eo tempore fuisse scribit Eusebius, quo captiuus Dei populus in Babylonia tenebatur. Hi sunt autem: Solon Atheniensis, Chilon Lacedaemonius, Periandrus Corinthius, Cleobulus Lindius, Bias Prienaeus. Omnes hi, septem appellati sapientes, post poetas theologos claruerunt, quia genere uitae quodam laudabili praestabant hominibus ceteris et morum nonnulla praecepta sententiarum breuitate conplexi sunt. Nihil autem monumentorum, quod ad litteras adtinet, posteris reliquerant, nisi quod Solon quasdam leges Atheniensibus dedisse perhibetur; Thales uero physicus fuit et suorum dogmatum libros reliquit. Eo captiuitatis Iudaicae tempore et Anaximander et Anaximenes et Xenophanes physici claruerunt. Tunc et Pythagoras, ex quo coeperunt appellari philosophi.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 25. Which philosophers were eminent when Tarquinius Priscus reigned among the Romans and Zedekiah among the Hebrews, when Jerusalem was taken and the temple overthrown.

When Zedekiah was reigning among the Hebrews and Tarquinius Priscus, who had succeeded Ancus Marcius, among the Romans, the people of the Jews was led captive into Babylonia, Jerusalem and that temple built by Solomon having been overthrown. For the prophets, rebuking them for their iniquities and impieties, had foretold that these things would come upon them, above all Jeremiah, who even fixed the number of years. At that time Pittacus of Mitylene, another of the seven sages, is said to have lived. And Eusebius writes that the other five, who are added to Thales, whom we mentioned above, and to this Pittacus to make seven, lived at the time when the captive people of God was held in Babylonia. They are these: Solon of Athens, Chilon of Sparta, Periander of Corinth, Cleobulus of Lindus, Bias of Priene. All these, called the seven sages, became eminent after the theological poets, because they excelled other men by a certain praiseworthy kind of life and summed up some precepts of morals in brief sayings. But they left posterity no monuments in writing, except that Solon is said to have given certain laws to the Athenians; Thales, however, was a natural philosopher and left books of his teachings. At that time of the Jewish captivity Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Xenophanes, natural philosophers, also became eminent. Then too Pythagoras, from whom they began to be called philosophers.

### Scripture references

- 2 Kgs 25:1: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Kgs 25:9: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Kgs 25:11: allusion, high confidence
- Jer 25:11: allusion, high confidence
- Jer 29:10 (36:10 LXX): allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Chron. (Eusebius and Jerome, Chronicle): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Eusebius here is his Chronicle (in Jerome's Latin), which has no entry in the site's list of extrabiblical texts.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.25 (CSEL 40:301–302; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-25).

## City of God 18.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-26
- Source: CSEL 40:302–303
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine dates the return under Cyrus, the delayed rebuilding of the temple until Darius, and the end of the seventy years to the expulsion of the Roman kings, and introduces the writing prophets.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVI. Quod eo tempore, quo inpletis septuaginta annis Iudaeorum est resoluta captiuitas, Romani quoque a dominatu sint regio liberati. Per idem tempus Cyrus, rex Persarum, qui etiam Chaldaeis et Assyriis imperabat, relaxata aliquanta captiuitate Iudaeorum, quinquaginta milia hominum ex eis ad instaurandum templum regredi fecit. A quibus tantum prima coepta fundamina et altare constructum est. Incursantibus autem hostibus nequaquam progredi aedificando ualuerunt, dilatumque opus est usque ad Darium. Per idem tempus etiam illa sunt gesta, quae conscripta sunt in libro Iudith; quem sane in canone scripturarum Iudaei non recepisse dicuntur. Sub Dario ergo rege Persarum inpletis septuaginta annis, quos Hieremias propheta praedixerat, reddita est Iudaeis soluta captiuitate libertas, regnante Romanorum septimo rege Tarquinio. Quo expulso etiam ipsi a regum suorum dominatione liberi esse coeperunt. Usque ad hoc tempus prophetas habuit populus Israel; qui cum multi fuerint, paucorum et aput Iudaeos et aput nos canonica scripta retinentur. De quibus me aliqua positurum esse promisi in hoc libro, cum clauderem superiorem, quod iam uideo esse faciendum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 26. That at the time when the captivity of the Jews was ended after seventy years had been completed, the Romans too were freed from the rule of kings.

At the same time Cyrus, king of the Persians, who also ruled the Chaldeans and Assyrians, relaxed the captivity of the Jews somewhat and made fifty thousand of them return to restore the temple. By them only the first foundations were begun and the altar built. But because of the attacks of enemies they were by no means able to go forward with the building, and the work was put off until Darius. At the same time too the things were done that are written in the book of Judith, which the Jews indeed are said not to have received into the canon of the Scriptures. Under Darius, king of the Persians, then, when the seventy years were completed which the prophet Jeremiah had foretold, freedom was restored to the Jews, their captivity being ended, while Tarquin was reigning as the seventh king of the Romans. When he was driven out, they too began to be free from the rule of their kings. Down to this time the people of Israel had prophets; and though they were many, the canonical writings of only a few are kept both among the Jews and among us. I promised, when I was closing the preceding book, that I would set down some things about them in this book, which I see must now be done.

### Scripture references

- Ezra 1:1: allusion, high confidence
- Ezra 1:3: allusion, high confidence
- Ezra 2:64: allusion, medium confidence
- Ezra 3:3: allusion, high confidence
- Ezra 3:10: allusion, high confidence
- Ezra 4:4: allusion, high confidence
- Ezra 4:24: allusion, high confidence
- Jer 25:11: allusion, high confidence
- Jer 29:10 (36:10 LXX): allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Jdt (Judith): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Augustine notes that the Jews do not receive Judith into the canon; it is outside the 66 books. The figure of fifty thousand returning exiles is translated as printed (Ezra 2:64–65 gives about fifty thousand in all).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.26 (CSEL 40:302–303; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-26).

## City of God 18.27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-27
- Source: CSEL 40:303–304
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine dates Hosea, Amos, Isaiah, Micah, Jonah, and Joel to the time when the Assyrian empire ended and Rome began, so that written prophecy for the nations arose with the city that would rule them.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVII. De temporibus prophetarum, quorum oracula habentur in libris quique tunc de uocatione gentium multa cecinerunt, quando Romanorum regnum coepit Assyriorumque defecit. Tempora igitur eorum ut possimus aduertere, in anteriora paululum recurramus. In capite libri Osee prophetae, qui primus in duodecim ponitur, ita scriptum est: Verbum Domini, quod factum est ad Osee in diebus Oziae et Ioatham et Achaz et Ezechiae regum Iuda. Amos quoque diebus regis Oziae prophetasse se scribit; addit etiam Hieroboam regem Israel, qui per eosdem dies fuit. Nec non Esaias, filius Amos, siue supradicti prophetae siue, quod magis perhibetur, alterius qui non propheta eodem nomine uocabatur, eosdem reges quattuor, quos posuit Osee, in capite libri sui ponit, quorum diebus se prophetasse praeloquitur. Michaeas etiam eadem suae prophetiae commemorat tempora post dies Oziae. Nam tres qui sequuntur reges nominat, quos et Osee nominauit, Ioatham et Achaz et Ezechian. Hi sunt, quos eodem tempore simul prophetasse ex eorum litteris inuenitur. His adiungitur Ionas eodem Ozia rege regnante et Ioel, cum iam regnaret Ioatham, qui successit Oziae. Sed istorum prophetarum duorum tempora in chronicis, non in eorum libris potuimus inuenire, quoniam de suis diebus tacent. Tenduntur autem hi dies a rege Latinorum Proca siue superiore Auentino usque ad regem Romulum iam Romanum, uel etiam usque ad regni primordia successoris eius Numae Pompilii (Ezechias quippe rex Iuda eo usque regnauit); ac per hoc per ea tempora isti uelut fontes prophetiae pariter eruperunt, quando regnum defecit Assyrium coepitque Romanum; ut scilicet, quem ad modum regni Assyriorum primo tempore exstitit Abraham, cui promissiones apertissimae fierent in eius semine benedictionis omnium gentium, ita occidentalis Babylonis exordio, qua fuerat Christus imperante uenturus, in quo inplerentur illa promissa, oracula prophetarum non solum loquentium, uerum etiam scribentium in tantae rei futurae testimonium soluerentur. Cum enim prophetae numquam fere defuissent populo Israel, ex quo ibi reges esse coeperunt, in usum tantummodo eorum fuere, non gentium; quando autem scriptura manifestius prophetica condebatur, quae gentibus quandoque prodesset, tunc oportebat inciperet, quando condebatur haec ciuitas, quae gentibus imperaret.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 27. On the times of the prophets whose oracles are contained in books and who sang many things about the calling of the nations at the time when the kingdom of the Romans began and that of the Assyrians came to an end.

In order that we may observe their times, then, let us go back a little to earlier times. At the head of the book of the prophet Hosea, who is placed first among the twelve, it is written thus: “The word of the Lord which came to Hosea in the days of Uzziah and Jotham and Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.” Amos also writes that he prophesied in the days of King Uzziah; he adds also Jeroboam, king of Israel, who lived in the same days. Isaiah too, the son of Amoz, whether of the prophet mentioned above or, as is more commonly said, of another who was not a prophet and was called by the same name, places at the head of his book the same four kings whom Hosea set down, in whose days he states in his preface that he prophesied. Micah also records the same times of his prophecy, after the days of Uzziah. For he names the three kings who follow, whom Hosea also named: Jotham and Ahaz and Hezekiah. These are those who, from their own writings, are found to have prophesied together at the same time. To them are added Jonah, while the same Uzziah was reigning, and Joel, when Jotham, who succeeded Uzziah, was already reigning. But the times of these two prophets we have been able to find in the chronicles, not in their books, since they are silent about their own days. These days extend from Procas, king of the Latins, or the earlier Aventinus, down to Romulus, now king of the Romans, or even down to the beginning of the reign of his successor Numa Pompilius (for Hezekiah king of Judah reigned until then); and so in those times these springs of prophecy, as it were, burst forth together, when the Assyrian kingdom came to an end and the Roman began; so that, as at the first time of the kingdom of the Assyrians there appeared Abraham, to whom the plainest promises were made of the blessing of all nations in his seed, so at the beginning of the western Babylon, under whose rule Christ was to come, in whom those promises were to be fulfilled, the oracles of the prophets, not only speaking but also writing, might be released in testimony of so great a thing to come. For though prophets had almost never been lacking to the people of Israel from the time when there began to be kings there, they were for their use only, not for the nations'; but when prophetic Scripture was being composed more openly, which would at some time benefit the nations, it was fitting that it should begin when this city was being founded which was to rule the nations.

### Scripture references

- Hos 1:1: quotation, high confidence
- Amos 1:1: allusion, high confidence
- Isa 1:1: allusion, high confidence
- Mic 1:1: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Kgs 14:25: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 22:18: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Chron. (Eusebius and Jerome, Chronicle): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The dates of Jonah and Joel are from “the chronicles”, i.e. the Chronicle of Eusebius and Jerome (no entry in the site's list of extrabiblical texts).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.27 (CSEL 40:303–304; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-16/#p-18-27).

## City of God 18.28

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-28/#p-18-28
- Source: CSEL 40:304–306
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reads Hosea's prophecies of the calling of the nations, the later conversion of Israel, and the third-day resurrection, and Amos's prophecies, as foretelling Christ and the church.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIII. De his, quae ad euangelium Christi pertinent, quid Osee et Amos prophetauerint. Osee igitur propheta, quanto profundius quidem loquitur, tanto operosius penetratur. Sed aliquid inde sumendum est et hic ex nostra promissione ponendum. Et erit, inquit, in loco quo dictum est eis: Non populus meus uos, uocabuntur et ipsi filii Dei uiui. Hoc testimonium propheticum de uocatione populi gentium, qui prius non pertinebat ad Deum, etiam apostoli intellexerunt. Et quia ipse quoque populus gentium spiritaliter est in filiis Abrahae ac per hoc recte dicitur Israel, propterea sequitur et dicit: Et congregabuntur filii Iuda et filii Israel in id ipsum, et ponent sibi principatum unum et adscendent a terra. Hoc si adhuc uelimus exponere, eloquii prophetici obtundetur sapor. Recolatur tamen lapis ille angularis et duo parietes, unus ex Iudaeis, alter ex gentibus; ille nomine filiorum Iuda, iste nomine filiorum Israel, eidem uni principatui suo in id ipsum innitentes et adscendentes agnoscantur a terra. Istos autem carnaliter Israelitas, qui nunc nolunt credere in Christum, postea credituros, id est filios eorum (nam utique isti in suum locum moriendo transibunt), idem propheta testatur dicens: Quoniam diebus multis sedebunt filii Israel sine rege, sine principe, sine sacrificio, sine altari, sine sacerdotio, sine manifestationibus. Quis non uideat nunc sic esse Iudaeos? Sed quid adiungat, audiamus. Et postea, inquit, reuertentur filii Israel et inquirent Dominum Deum suum et Dauid regem suum, et stupescent in Domino et in bonis ipsius in nouissimis diebus. Nihil est ista prophetia manifestius, cum Dauid regis nomine significatus intellegitur Christus, quia factus est, sicut dicit apostolus, ex semine Dauid secundum carnem. Praenuntiauit iste propheta etiam tertio die Christi resurrectionem futuram, sicut eam prophetica altitudine praenuntiari oportebat, ubi ait: Sanabit nos post biduum, in die tertio resurgemus. Secundum hoc enim nobis dicit apostolus: Si resurrexistis cum Christo, quae sursum sunt quaerite. Amos quoque de rebus talibus sic prophetat: Praepara, inquit, te, ut inuoces Deum tuum Israel; quia ecce ego firmans tonitrum et creans spiritum et adnuntians in hominibus Christum suum; et alio loco: In illa die, inquit, resuscitabo tabernaculum Dauid, quod cecidit, et reaedificabo, quae ceciderunt eius, et destructa eius resuscitabo et reaedificabo ea sicut dies saeculi; ita ut exquirant me residui hominum et omnes gentes, in quibus inuocatum est nomen meum super eos, dicit Dominus faciens haec.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 28. What Hosea and Amos prophesied of things that pertain to the gospel of Christ.

The prophet Hosea, then, the more profoundly he speaks, the more laboriously is he penetrated. But something must be taken from him and set down here, according to our promise. “And it shall be,” he says, “in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they too shall be called sons of the living God.” This prophetic testimony even the apostles understood of the calling of the people of the nations, which formerly did not belong to God. And because the people of the nations too is spiritually among the sons of Abraham, and is therefore rightly called Israel, he therefore goes on and says: “And the sons of Judah and the sons of Israel shall be gathered together into one, and they shall appoint for themselves one headship, and they shall go up from the land.” If we should wish to explain this further, the savour of the prophetic speech would be dulled. Yet let that cornerstone be recalled, and the two walls, one from the Jews, the other from the nations; the one under the name of the sons of Judah, the other under the name of the sons of Israel, resting together on the same one headship of theirs and going up from the land, let them be recognized.

That those who are Israelites according to the flesh, who are now unwilling to believe in Christ, will believe afterwards, that is, their sons (for these certainly will pass away to their own place by dying), the same prophet testifies, saying: “For the sons of Israel shall sit many days without king, without prince, without sacrifice, without altar, without priesthood, without manifestations.” Who does not see that the Jews are now so? But let us hear what he adds. “And afterwards,” he says, “the sons of Israel shall return and shall seek the Lord their God and David their king, and shall be amazed at the Lord and at his good things in the last days.” Nothing is plainer than this prophecy, since by the name of King David Christ is understood to be signified, because he was made, as the apostle says, “of the seed of David according to the flesh.” This prophet foretold also the resurrection of Christ that was to come on the third day, as it had to be foretold with prophetic loftiness, where he says: “He will heal us after two days; on the third day we shall rise again.” For in accordance with this the apostle says to us: “If you have risen with Christ, seek the things that are above.”

Amos also prophesies of such things thus: “Prepare yourself,” he says, “to call upon your God, Israel; for behold, I am he who makes firm the thunder and creates the wind, and announces to men his Christ.” And in another place: “On that day,” he says, “I will raise up the tabernacle of David that has fallen, and I will rebuild what has fallen of it, and I will raise up what was destroyed of it, and rebuild it as in the days of old; so that the rest of men may seek me, and all the nations on whom my name is called, says the Lord who does these things.”

### Scripture references

- Hos 1:10: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 9:26: allusion, high confidence
- Hos 1:11: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 2:20: allusion, high confidence
- Eph 2:14: allusion, medium confidence
- Hos 3:4: quotation, high confidence
- Hos 3:5: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:3: quotation, high confidence
- Hos 6:2: quotation, high confidence
- Col 3:1: quotation, high confidence
- Amos 4:12: quotation, high confidence
- Amos 4:13: quotation, high confidence
- Amos 9:11: quotation, high confidence
- Amos 9:12: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 15:16: allusion, medium confidence
- Acts 15:17: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The Amos passages follow the LXX (“announces to men his Christ”, Amos 4:13; Amos 9:11–12 as quoted in Acts 15:16–17). The Jews are described as the prophet describes them; the passage expects their later conversion. Hos 6:2 is quoted in a form close to the LXX (“we shall rise again”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.28 (CSEL 40:304–306; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-28/#p-18-28).

## City of God 18.29

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-28/#p-18-29
- Source: CSEL 40:306–309
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine quotes Isaiah's song of the suffering servant as prophecy of Christ and Isaiah 54 as prophecy of the church.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIIII. Quae ab Esaia de Christo et ecclesia sint praedicta. Esaias propheta non est in libro duodecim prophetarum, qui propterea dicuntur minores, quia sermones eorum sunt breues in eorum conparatione, qui maiores ideo uocantur, quia prolixa uolumina condiderunt; ex quibus est hic Esaias, quem propter eadem prophetiae tempora subiungo supradictis duobus. Esaias ergo inter illa, quae arguit iniqua et iusta praecepit et peccatori populo mala futura praedixit, etiam de Christo et ecclesia, hoc est de rege et ea quam condidit ciuitate, multo plura quam ceteri prophetauit, ita ut a quibusdam euangelista quam propheta potius diceretur. Sed propter rationem operis terminandi unum de multis hoc loco ponam. Ex persona quippe Dei Patris loquens: Ecce, inquit, intelleget puer meus et exaltabitur et glorificabitur ualde. Quem ad modum stupescent super te multi, ita gloria priuabitur ab hominibus species tua et gloria tua ab hominibus; ita mirabuntur gentes multae super eum et continebunt reges os suum; quoniam quibus non est nuntiatum de illo, uidebunt, et qui non audierunt, intellegent. Domine, quis credidit auditui nostro, et brachium Domini cui reuelatum est? Adnuntiauimus coram illo, ut infans, ut radix in terra sitienti: non est species illi neque gloria. Et uidimus eum, et non habebat speciem neque decorem; sed species eius sine honore, deficiens prae omnibus hominibus. Homo in plaga positus et sciens ferre infirmitatem; quoniam auersa est facies eius, inhonoratus est nec magni aestimatus est. Hic peccata nostra portat et pro nobis dolet; et nos existimauimus illum esse in dolore et in plaga et in adflictione. Ipse autem uulneratus est propter iniquitates nostras et infirmatus est propter peccata nostra. Eruditio pacis nostrae in eo; liuore eius nos sanati sumus. Omnes ut oues errauimus, homo a uia sua errauit; et Dominus tradidit illum pro peccatis nostris; et ipse, propter quod adflictus est, non aperuit os. Ut ouis ad immolandum ductus est et ut agnus ante eum, qui se tonderet, sine uoce, sic non aperuit os suum. In humilitate iudicium eius sublatum est. Generationem eius quis enarrabit? Quoniam tolletur de terra uita eius. Ab iniquitatibus populi mei ductus est ad mortem. Et dabo malignos pro sepultura eius et diuites pro morte eius. Quoniam iniquitatem non fecit nec dolum in ore suo; et Dominus uult purgare eum de plaga. Si dederitis pro peccato animam uestram, uidebitis semen longaeuum; et Dominus uult auferre a dolore animam eius, ostendere illi lucem et formare intellectum, iustificare iustum bene seruientem pluribus; et peccata eorum ipse portabit. Propterea ipse hereditabit plures et fortium diuidet spolia, propter quod tradita est ad mortem anima eius, et inter iniquos aestimatus est et ipse peccata multorum portauit, et propter peccata eorum traditus est. Haec de Christo Iam uero de ecclesia, quod sequitur, audiamus. Laetare, inquit, sterilis, quae non paris; erumpe et clama, quae non parturis; quoniam multi filii desertae magis quam eius, quae habet uirum. Dilata locum tabernaculi tui et aulaearum tuarum; fige, noli parcere, prolonga funiculos tuos et palos tuos conforta, adhuc in dextram et sinistram partem extende. Et semen tuum hereditabit gentes, et ciuitates desertas inhabitabis. Ne timeas, quoniam confusa es, neque reuerearis, quia exprobrata es; quoniam confusionem aeternam obliuisceris et obprobrium uiduitatis tuae non eris memor. Quoniam Dominus faciens te, Dominus Sabaoth nomen ei; et qui eruit te, ipse Deus Israel uniuersae terrae uocabitur; et cetera. Verum ista sint satis; et in eis sunt exponenda nonnulla; sed sufficere arbitror quae ita sunt aperta, ut etiam inimici intellegere cogantur inuiti.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 29. What was foretold by Isaiah about Christ and the church.

The prophet Isaiah is not in the book of the twelve prophets, who are called minor because their discourses are brief in comparison with those who are called major because they composed long volumes; among whom is this Isaiah, whom I add to the two above because of the same times of his prophecy. Isaiah, then, among the things in which he rebuked iniquity, commanded righteousness, and foretold evils to come for a sinful people, prophesied also about Christ and the church, that is, about the King and the city which he founded, much more than the others, so that some have called him an evangelist rather than a prophet. But for the sake of bringing the work to an end I shall set down here one passage out of many. Speaking in the person of God the Father, he says:

“Behold, my servant shall understand, and shall be exalted and glorified exceedingly. As many shall be astonished at you, so shall your appearance be deprived of glory among men, and your glory among men; so shall many nations marvel at him, and kings shall shut their mouths; for those to whom nothing was announced of him shall see, and those who have not heard shall understand. Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? We announced before him as a child, as a root in thirsty ground: he has no form nor glory. And we saw him, and he had no form nor beauty; but his appearance was without honour, failing beyond all men. A man set in affliction and knowing how to bear weakness; for his face was turned away; he was dishonoured and not highly esteemed. He bears our sins and suffers pain for us; and we thought him to be in pain and in affliction and in distress. But he was wounded for our iniquities and made weak for our sins. The chastisement of our peace was upon him; by his bruise we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; each man has strayed from his way; and the Lord handed him over for our sins; and he, because he was afflicted, did not open his mouth. As a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the one who shears it is without voice, so he did not open his mouth. In humiliation his judgment was taken away. Who shall declare his generation? For his life shall be taken from the earth. By the iniquities of my people he was led to death. And I will give the wicked for his burial and the rich for his death. For he did no iniquity nor was deceit in his mouth; and the Lord wills to cleanse him from affliction. If you give your soul for sin, you shall see a long-lived seed; and the Lord wills to take away his soul from pain, to show him light and to form understanding, to justify the just one who serves many well; and he himself shall bear their sins. Therefore he shall inherit many and shall divide the spoils of the strong, because his soul was handed over to death, and he was reckoned among the wicked, and he bore the sins of many, and for their sins he was handed over.”

So much about Christ. Now let us hear what follows about the church. “Rejoice,” he says, “barren one, who do not bear; break forth and cry out, you who are not in labour; for more are the children of the desolate than of her who has a husband. Enlarge the place of your tent and of your curtains; fix them, do not spare, lengthen your cords and strengthen your stakes; stretch out still to the right and to the left. And your seed shall inherit the nations, and you shall inhabit the desolate cities. Do not fear because you have been put to shame, nor be afraid because you have been reproached; for you shall forget your everlasting shame, and you shall not remember the reproach of your widowhood. For the Lord is your maker, the Lord of hosts is his name; and he who delivered you, the God of Israel himself, shall be called the God of the whole earth,” and so on. But let this be enough; and in these there are some things that need explanation; but I think those things suffice which are so plain that even enemies are compelled against their will to understand them.

### Scripture references

- Isa 52:13: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 52:14: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 52:15: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:1: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:2: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:3: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:4: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:5: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:6: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:7: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:8: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:9: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:10: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:11: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:12: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 54:1: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 54:2: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 54:3: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 54:4: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 54:5: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Isa 52:13–53:12 and 54:1–5 are quoted in an Old Latin version following the LXX.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.29 (CSEL 40:306–309; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-28/#p-18-29).

## City of God 18.30

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-28/#p-18-30
- Source: CSEL 40:309–310
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reads Micah's mountain of the Lord and Bethlehem prophecy, the sign of Jonah, and Joel's promise of the Spirit as prophecies fulfilled in Christ and the church.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXX. Quae Michaeas et Ionas et Ioel nouo testamento congruentia prophetarint. Michaeas propheta Christum in figura ponens magni cuiusdam montis haec loquitur: Erit in nouissimis diebus manifestus mons Domini paratus super uertices montium et exaltabitur super colles. Et festinabunt ad eum plebes, et ibunt gentes multae et dicent: Venite, ascendamus in montem Domini et in domum Dei Iacob, et ostendet nobis uiam suam, et ibimus in semitis eius; quia ex Sion procedet lex et uerbum Domini ex Hierusalem. Et iudicabit inter plebes multas, et redarguet gentes potentes usque in longinquum. Praedicens iste propheta et locum in quo natus est Christus: Et tu, inquit, Bethleem, domus Ephrata, minima es, ut sis in milibus Iuda; ex te mihi prodiet, ut sit in principem Israel; et egressus eius ab initio et ex diebus aeternitatis. Propterea dabit eos usque ad tempus parturientis, pariet, et residui fratres eius conuertentur ad filios Israel. Et stabit et uidebit et pascet gregem suum in uirtute Domini, et in honore nominis Domini Dei sui erunt; quoniam nunc magnificabitur usque ad summum terrae. Ionas autem propheta non tam sermone Christum, quam sua quadam passione prophetauit, profecto apertius, quam si eius mortem et resurrectionem uoce clamaret. Ut quid enim exceptus est uentre beluino et die tertio redditus, nisi ut significaret Christum de profundo inferni die tertio rediturum? Ioel omnia, quae prophetat, multis uerbis conpellit exponi. ut quae pertinent ad Christum et ecclesiam dilucescant. Unum tamen, quod etiam apostoli commemorauerunt, quando in congregatos credentes Spiritus sanctus, sicut a Christo promissus fuerat, desuper uenit, non praetermittam. Et erit, inquit, post haec, et effundam de spiritu meo super omnem carnem; et prophetabunt filii uestri et filiae uestrae, et seniores uestri somnia somniabunt, et iuuenes uestri uisa uidebunt; et quidem in seruos et ancillas meas in illis diebus effundam de spiritu meo.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 30. What Micah, Jonah, and Joel prophesied in agreement with the New Testament.

The prophet Micah, representing Christ under the figure of a great mountain, speaks thus: “In the last days the mountain of the Lord shall be manifest, established on the tops of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills. And peoples shall hasten to it, and many nations shall go and say: Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord and to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will show us his way, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among many peoples, and rebuke strong nations far away.” This prophet foretells also the place where Christ was born: “And you,” he says, “Bethlehem, house of Ephrathah, are the least to be among the thousands of Judah; out of you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel; and his going forth is from the beginning and from the days of eternity. Therefore he will give them up until the time when she who is in labour gives birth, and the remnant of his brothers shall be converted to the sons of Israel. And he shall stand and see and feed his flock in the strength of the Lord, and they shall be in the honour of the name of the Lord their God; for now he shall be magnified to the ends of the earth.”

The prophet Jonah prophesied Christ not so much by speech as by a certain suffering of his own, certainly more plainly than if he had proclaimed his death and resurrection aloud. For why was he received into the belly of the monster and given back on the third day, except to signify that Christ would return on the third day from the depth of the underworld?

Joel compels a great many words to explain all that he prophesies, so that what pertains to Christ and the church may become clear. Yet one passage I shall not pass over, which the apostles too recalled when the Holy Spirit, as Christ had promised, came from above upon the believers gathered together: “And it shall be,” he says, “after these things, that I will pour out of my Spirit on all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions; and indeed on my menservants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out of my Spirit.”

### Scripture references

- Mic 4:1: quotation, high confidence
- Mic 4:2: quotation, high confidence
- Mic 4:3: quotation, high confidence
- Mic 5:2: quotation, high confidence
- Mic 5:3: quotation, high confidence
- Mic 5:4: quotation, high confidence
- Jonah 1:17: allusion, high confidence
- Jonah 2:10: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 12:40: allusion, medium confidence
- Acts 2:16: allusion, high confidence
- Joel 2:28 (3:1 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Joel 2:29 (3:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Mic 5:2–4 is quoted in a form close to the LXX (“house of Ephrathah”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.30 (CSEL 40:309–310; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-28/#p-18-30).

## City of God 18.31

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-28/#p-18-31
- Source: CSEL 40:310–312
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine interprets Obadiah's saved ones going up from Zion, Nahum's messenger of peace and the one who breathes into Judah's face, and Habakkuk's vision as prophecies of Christ and the gospel.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXI. Quae in Abdia et Naum et Ambacu de salute mundi in Christo praenuntiata reperiantur. Tres prophetae de minoribus, Abdias, Naum, Ambacum, nec tempora sua dicunt ipsi, nec in chronicis Eusebii et Hieronymi, quando prophetauerint, inuenitur. Abdias enim positus est quidem ab eis cum Michaea, sed non eo loco, ubi notantur tempora, quando Michaeam prophetasse ex eius litteris constat; quod errore neglegenter describentium labores alienos existimo contigisse; duos uero alios commemoratos in codicibus chronicorum, quos habuimus, non potuimus inuenire. Tamen quia canone continentur, nec ipsi oportet praetereantur a nobis. Abdias, quantum ad scripturam eius adtinet, omnium breuissimus prophetarum, aduersus Idumaeam loquitur, gentem scilicet Esau, ex duobus geminis filiis Isaac, nepotibus Abrahae, maioris illius reprobati. Porro si Idumaeam modo locutionis, quo intellegitur a parte totum, accipiamus positam esse pro gentibus: possumus de Christo agnoscere, quod ait inter cetera: In monte autem Sion erit salus et erit sanctum; et paulo post in fine ipsius prophetiae: Et adscendent, inquit, resaluati ex monte Sion, ut defendant montem Esau, et erit Domino regnum. Apparet quippe id esse conpletum, cum resaluati ex monte Sion, id est ex Iudaea credentes in Christum, qui praecipue agnoscuntur apostoli, adscenderunt, ut defenderent montem Esau. Quo modo defenderent, nisi per euangelii praedicationem saluos faciendo eos qui crediderunt, ut eruerentur de potestate tenebrarum et transferrentur in regnum Dei? Quod consequenter expressit addendo: Et erit Domino regnum. Mons enim Sion Iudaeam significat, ubi futura praedicta est salus et sanctum, quod est Christus Iesus. Mons uero Esau Idumaea est, per quam significata est ecclesia gentium, quam defenderunt, sicut exposui, resaluati ex monte Sion, ut esset Domino regnum. Hoc obscurum erat, antequam fieret; sed factum quis non fidelis agnoscat? Naum uero propheta, immo per illum Deus: Exterminabo, inquit, sculptilia et conflatilia, ponam sepulturam tuam; quia ueloces ecce super montes pedes euangelizantis et adnuntiantis pacem. Celebra, Iuda, dies festos tuos, redde uota tua; quia iam non adicient ultra, ut transeant in uetustatem. Consummatum est, consumtum est, ablatum est. Adscendit, qui insufflat in faciem tuam, eripiens te ex tribulatione. Quis adscenderit ab inferis et insufflauerit in faciem Iudae, hoc est Iudaeorum discipulorum, Spiritum sanctum, recolat qui meminit euangelium. Ad nouum enim testamentum pertinent, quorum dies festi ita spiritaliter innouantur, ut in uetustatem transire non possint. Porro per euangelium exterminata sculptilia et conflatilia, id est idola deorum falsorum, et obliuioni tamquam sepulturae tradita iam uidemus et hanc etiam in hac re prophetiam conpletam esse cognoscimus. Ambacum de quo alio quam de Christi aduentu, qui futurus fuerat, intellegitur dicere: Et respondit Dominus ad me et dixit: Scribe uisum aperte in buxo, ut adsequatur qui legit ea; quia adhuc uisio ad tempus, et orietur in fine et non in uacuum; si tardauerit, sustine eum, quia ueniens ueniet et non morabitur?.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 31. What is found foretold in Obadiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk about the salvation of the world in Christ.

Three of the minor prophets, Obadiah, Nahum, and Habakkuk, neither state their times themselves, nor is it found in the chronicles of Eusebius and Jerome when they prophesied. For Obadiah is indeed placed by them with Micah, but not in the place where the times are noted when Micah, as is clear from his writings, prophesied; which I think happened through the mistake of those who carelessly copy the labours of others; while the other two we could not find mentioned in the copies of the chronicles that we had. Yet because they are contained in the canon, we ought not to pass over them either.

Obadiah, as far as his writing goes the shortest of all the prophets, speaks against Idumea, that is, the nation of Esau, the elder, the rejected one, of the twin sons of Isaac, grandsons of Abraham. Now if we take Idumea as put for the nations, by the figure of speech in which the whole is understood from a part, we can recognize as referring to Christ what he says among other things: “But on Mount Zion there shall be salvation, and there shall be holiness”; and a little after, at the end of the same prophecy: “And those who are saved again,” he says, “shall go up from Mount Zion to defend Mount Esau, and the kingdom shall be the Lord's.” It is plain that this was fulfilled when those saved again from Mount Zion, that is, those from Judea who believed in Christ, who are recognized chiefly as the apostles, went up to defend Mount Esau. How would they defend it except by saving, through the preaching of the gospel, those who believed, so that they might be rescued from the power of darkness and transferred into the kingdom of God? This he expressed accordingly by adding: “And the kingdom shall be the Lord's.” For Mount Zion signifies Judea, where salvation and holiness were foretold to come, which is Christ Jesus. But Mount Esau is Idumea, by which is signified the church of the nations, which those saved again from Mount Zion defended, as I have explained, so that the kingdom might be the Lord's. This was obscure before it happened; but now that it has happened, what believer does not recognize it?

The prophet Nahum, or rather God through him, says: “I will destroy the carved and the molten images; I will make your burial; for behold, swift upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news and announces peace. Celebrate, Judah, your festivals, pay your vows; for they shall no more add to pass into oldness. It is finished, it is consumed, it is taken away. He has gone up who breathes into your face, rescuing you from tribulation.” Who went up from the underworld and breathed the Holy Spirit into the face of Judah, that is, of the Jewish disciples, let him recall who remembers the gospel. For they belong to the New Testament whose festivals are so spiritually renewed that they cannot pass into oldness. Moreover, we now see the carved and molten images, that is, the idols of false gods, destroyed through the gospel and given over to oblivion as to a grave, and we recognize that in this matter too this prophecy has been fulfilled.

Of what else than of the coming of Christ, which was to be, is Habakkuk understood to speak when he says: “And the Lord answered me and said: Write the vision plainly on a box-wood tablet, so that he who reads it may follow it; for the vision is still for a time, and it shall rise at the end and not in vain; if it delays, wait for him, for he will surely come and will not tarry”?

### Scripture references

- Obad 1:17: quotation, high confidence
- Obad 1:21: quotation, high confidence
- Col 1:13: allusion, high confidence
- Nah 1:14: quotation, high confidence
- Nah 1:15: quotation, high confidence
- Nah 2:1: quotation, high confidence
- John 20:22: allusion, high confidence
- Hab 2:2: quotation, high confidence
- Hab 2:3: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Chron. (Eusebius and Jerome, Chronicle): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The chronicles are the Chronicle of Eusebius in Jerome's Latin (no entry in the site's list of extrabiblical texts). Nahum is quoted in a form close to the LXX; “he has gone up who breathes into your face” (Nah 2:1) is read of the risen Christ breathing the Spirit on the disciples (John 20:22).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.31 (CSEL 40:310–312; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-28/#p-18-31).

## City of God 18.32

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-28/#p-18-32
- Source: CSEL 40:312–317
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine interprets Habakkuk's prayer, verse by verse, as a prophecy of Christ's coming, passion, preaching, ascension, and the church's tribulations, ending with “I will rejoice in God my Jesus.”

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXII. De prophetia quae in oratione Ambacu et cantico continetur. In oratione autem sua cum cantico cui nisi Domino Christo dicit: Domine, audiui auditionem tuam, et timui; Domine, consideraui opera tua, et expaui? Quid enim hoc est nisi praecognitae nouae ac repentinae salutis hominum ineffabilis admiratio? In medio duorum animalium cognosceris quid est nisi aut in medio duorum testamentorum, aut in medio duorum latronum, aut in medio Moysi et Heliae cum illo in monte sermocinantium? Dum adpropinquant anni, nosceris; in aduentu temporis ostenderis, nec exponendum est. In eo cum turbata fuerit anima mea, in ira misericordiae memor eris quid est nisi quod Iudaeos in se transfigurauit, quorum gentis fuit, qui cum magna ira turbati crucifigerent Christum, ille misericordiae memor dixit: Pater ignosce illis, quia nesciunt quod faciunt? Deus de Theman ueniet et sanctus de monte umbroso et condenso. Quod hic dictum est: De Theman ueniet, alii interpretati sunt (ab Austro) uel (Africo); per quod significatur meridies, id est feruor caritatis et splendor ueritatis. Montem uero umbrosum adque condensum, quamuis multis modis possit intellegi, libentius acceperim scripturarum altitudinem diuinarum, quibus prophetatus est Christus. Multa ibi quippe umbrosa adque condensa sunt, quae mentem quaerentis exerceant. Inde autem uenit, cum ibi eum, qui intellegit, inuenit. Operuit caelos uirtus eius, et laudis eius plena est terra quid est nisi quod etiam in psalmo dicitur: Exaltare super caelos, Deus, et super omnem terram gloria tua? Splendor eius ut lumen erit quid est nisi fama eius credentes inluminabit? Cornua in manibus eius sunt quid est nisi tropaeum crucis? Et posuit caritatem firmam fortitudinis suae nec exponendum est. Ante faciem eius ibit uerbum, et prodiet in campum post pedes eius quid est nisi quod et antequam huc ueniret praenuntiatus est, et postea quam hinc reuersus est, adnuntiatus est? Stetit, et terra commota est quid est nisi stetit ad subueniendum, et terra commota est ad credendum? Respexit. et tabuerunt gentes, hoc est misertus est et fecit populos paenitentes. Contriti sunt montes uiolentia, hoc est uim facientibus miraculis elatorum est contrita superbia. Defluxerunt colles aeternales, hoc est humiliati sunt ad tempus, ut erigerentur in aeternum. Ingressus aeternos eius pro laboribus uidi, hoc est non sine mercede aeternitatis laborem caritatis adspexi. Tabernacula Aethiopum expauescent et tabernacula terrae Madiam, hoc est gentes repente perterritae nuntio mirabilium tuorum etiam quae non sunt in iure Romano erunt in populo Christiano. Numquid in fluminibus iratus es, Domine. aut in fluminibus furor tuus aut in mari impetus tuus? hoc ideo dictum est, quia non uenit nunc ut iudicet mundum, sed ut saluetur mundus per ipsum. Quia adscendes super equos tuos, et equitatio tua salus, hoc est euangelistae tui portabunt te, qui reguntur a te, et euangelium tuum salus erit eis, qui credunt in te. Intendens intendes arcum tuum super sceptra, dicit Dominus; hoc est comminaberis iudicium tuum etiam regibus terrae. Fluminibus scindetur terra, hoc est influentibus sermonibus praedicantium te aperientur ad confitendum hominum corda, quibus est dictum: Scindite corda uestra et non uestimenta. Quid est: Videbunt te et dolebunt populi, nisi ut lugendo sint beati? Quid est: Dispergens aquas incessu, an ambulando in eis, qui te usque quaque adnuntiant, hac adque hac dispergis fluenta doctrinae? Quid est: Dedit abyssus uocem suam, an profunditas cordis humani quid ei uideretur expressit? Altitudo phantasiae suae tamquam uersus superioris est expositio; altitudo enim est abyssus. Quod autem ait: Phantasiae suae, subaudiendum est (uocem dedit); hoc est, quod diximus, quid ei uideretur expressit). Phantasia quippe uisio est, quam non tenuit, non operuit, sed confitendo eructauit. Eleuatus est sol, et luna stetit in ordine suo, hoc est adscendit Christus in caelum, et ordinata est ecclesia sub rege suo. In lucem iacula tua ibunt, hoc est non in occultum, sed in manifestum tua uerba mittentur. In splendorem coruscationis armorum tuorum, subaudiendum est iacula tua ibunt. Dixerat enim suis: Quae dico uobis in tenebris, dicite in lumine. In comminatione minorabis terram, id est comminando humiliabis homines. Et in furore deicies gentes, quia eos, qui se exaltant, uindicando conlides. Existi in salutem populi tui, ut saluos facias christos tuos; misisti in capita iniquorum mortem, nihil horum est exponendum. Excitasti uincula usque ad collum, et bona hic possunt intellegi uincula sapientiae, ut iniciantur pedes in conpedes eius et collum in torquem eius. Praecidisti in stupore mentis, subaudimus (uincula); excitauit enim bona, praecidit mala, de quibus ei dicitur: Disrupisti uincula mea, et hoc in stupore mentis, id est mirabiliter. Capita potentium mouebuntur in ea, in ea scilicet admiratione. Adaperient morsus suos, sicut edens pauper absconse. Potentes enim quidam Iudaeorum ueniebant ad Dominum facta eius et uerba mirati, et esurientes panem doctrinae manducabant absconse propter metum Iudaeorum, sicut eos prodidit euangelium. Et inmisisti in mare equos tuos turbantes aquas multas, quae nihil sunt aliud quam populi multi; non enim alii timore conuerterentur, alii furore persequerentur, nisi omnes turbarentur. Obseruaui, et expauit uenter meus a uoce orationis labiorum meorum; et introiit tremor in ossa mea, et subtus me turbata est habitudo mea. Intendit in ea, quae dicebat, et ipsa sua est oratione perterritus, quam prophetice fundebat et in qua futura cernebat; turbatis enim populis multis uidit inminentes ecclesiae tribulationes; continuoque se membrum eius agnouit adque ait: Requiescam in die tribulationis. tamquam ad eos pertinens, qui sunt spe gaudentes, in tribulatione patientes. Ut adscendam, inquit, ad populum peregrinationis meae, recedens utique a populo maligno carnalis cognationis suae, non peregrinante in hac terra nec supernam patriam requirente. Quoniam ficus, inquit, non adferet fructus, et non erunt natiuitates in uineis; mentietur opus oliuae, et campi non facient escam. Defecerunt ab esca oues, et non supersunt in praesepibus boues. Vidit eam gentem, quae Christum fuerat occisura, ubertatem copiarum spiritalium perdituram, quas per terrenam fecunditatem more prophetico figurauit Et quia iram Dei talem propterea passa est illa gens, quia ignorans Dei iustitiam suam uoluit constituere, iste continuo: Ego autem, inquit, in Domino exultabo, gaudebo in Deo salutari meo. Dominus Deus meus uirtus mea, statuit pedes meos in consummationem; super excelsa inponet me, ut uincam in cantico eius, illo scilicet cantico, de quo similia quaedam dicuntur in psalmo: Statuit super petram pedes meos et direxit gressus meos, et inmisit in os meum canticum nouum, hymnum Deo nostro. Ipse ergo uincit in cantico Domini, qui placet in eius laude non sua, ut qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur. Melius autem mihi uidentur quidam codices habere: Gaudebo in Deo Iesu meo, quam hi, qui uolentes id Latine ponere, nomen ipsum non posuerunt, quod est nobis amicius et dulcius nominare.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 32. On the prophecy contained in the prayer and song of Habakkuk.

In his prayer with a song, to whom but the Lord Christ does he say: “Lord, I have heard your report, and was afraid; Lord, I have considered your works, and was terrified”? For what is this but the inexpressible wonder at the new and sudden salvation of men, foreknown? “In the midst of two living creatures you shall be known”: what is this but either in the midst of the two testaments, or in the midst of the two thieves, or in the midst of Moses and Elijah talking with him on the mountain? “When the years draw near you shall be known; at the coming of the time you shall be shown”: this needs no explanation. “When my soul has been troubled in him, in wrath you will remember mercy”: what is this but that he transfigured into himself the Jews, of whose nation he was, who, when they were troubled with great wrath and crucified Christ, he, remembering mercy, said: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing”? “God shall come from Teman, and the Holy One from the shady and thick mountain.” What is said here, “he shall come from Teman,” others have translated “from the south” or “from the south-west”; by which is signified midday, that is, the fervour of love and the splendour of truth. The shady and thick mountain, though it could be understood in many ways, I would more gladly take as the depth of the divine Scriptures, by which Christ was prophesied. For there are many shady and thick things there, which exercise the mind of the seeker. And he comes from there when he who understands finds him there. “His power covered the heavens, and the earth is full of his praise”: what is this but what is also said in the psalm: “Be exalted above the heavens, O God, and your glory above all the earth”? “His splendour shall be as light”: what is this but that his fame shall enlighten those who believe? “Horns are in his hands”: what is this but the trophy of the cross? “And he set firm the love of his strength”: this needs no explanation. “Before his face shall go the Word, and it shall go forth into the plain after his feet”: what is this but that he was both foretold before he came here and proclaimed after he returned from here? “He stood, and the earth was moved”: what is this but that he stood to help, and the earth was moved to believe? “He looked, and the nations melted,” that is, he had mercy and made the peoples repent. “The mountains were crushed by violence,” that is, by miracles that did violence the pride of the lofty was crushed. “The everlasting hills flowed down,” that is, they were humbled for a time to be raised up for ever. “I saw his eternal goings in return for labours,” that is, I beheld that the labour of love is not without the reward of eternity. “The tents of the Ethiopians shall be terrified, and the tents of the land of Midian,” that is, the nations suddenly terrified by the news of your wonders, even those that are not under Roman rule, shall be in the Christian people. “Were you angry at the rivers, Lord, or was your fury against the rivers, or your onset against the sea?” This is said because he did not come now to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him. “For you shall mount upon your horses, and your riding is salvation,” that is, your evangelists, who are guided by you, shall carry you, and your gospel shall be salvation to those who believe in you. “Bending, you shall bend your bow against sceptres, says the Lord,” that is, you shall threaten your judgment even to the kings of the earth. “The earth shall be split by rivers,” that is, by the flowing words of those who preach you the hearts of men shall be opened to confess, to whom it was said: “Rend your hearts and not your garments.” What is: “The peoples shall see you and grieve,” except that by mourning they may be blessed? What is: “Scattering the waters in your going,” unless that by walking in those who proclaim you everywhere you scatter the streams of teaching this way and that? What is: “The abyss gave forth its voice,” unless that the depth of the human heart expressed what seemed good to it? “The height of its imagination” is, as it were, an explanation of the preceding verse; for the height is the abyss. But when he says “of its imagination,” “gave forth its voice” is to be understood; that is, as we have said, it expressed what seemed good to it. For imagination is a vision, which it did not keep back, did not cover, but poured forth in confession. “The sun was raised, and the moon stood in her order,” that is, Christ ascended into heaven, and the church was set in order under her King. “Your darts shall go into the light,” that is, your words shall be sent not into secret but into the open. “Into the brightness of the flashing of your arms”: “your darts shall go” is to be understood. For he had said to his own: “What I tell you in darkness, speak in the light.” “In threatening you shall diminish the earth,” that is, by threatening you shall humble men. “And in fury you shall cast down the nations,” because by punishing you shall dash down those who exalt themselves. “You went forth for the salvation of your people, to save your anointed ones; you sent death on the heads of the wicked”: none of this needs explanation. “You raised up bonds even to the neck”: here too the good bonds of wisdom can be understood, so that the feet may be put into her fetters and the neck into her collar. “You cut off in astonishment of mind”: we understand “the bonds”; for he raised up the good bonds and cut off the evil ones, of which it is said to him: “You have broken my bonds”; and this “in astonishment of mind,” that is, wonderfully. “The heads of the mighty shall be moved at it,” that is, at that wonder. “They shall open their mouths like a poor man eating in secret.” For certain powerful men of the Jews used to come to the Lord, marvelling at his deeds and words, and, hungry, they ate the bread of teaching in secret for fear of the Jews, as the gospel has revealed them. “And you sent your horses into the sea, troubling many waters,” which are nothing other than many peoples; for some would not be converted in fear and others pursue in fury, unless all were troubled. “I watched, and my belly was terrified at the voice of the prayer of my lips; and trembling entered into my bones, and my condition was troubled beneath me.” He attended to the things he was saying and was terrified by his own prayer, which he was pouring forth prophetically and in which he discerned things to come; for when many peoples were troubled he saw the tribulations threatening the church; and at once he recognized himself as a member of it and said: “I will rest in the day of tribulation,” as belonging to those who are “rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation.” “That I may go up,” he says, “to the people of my pilgrimage,” departing, of course, from the wicked people of his fleshly kindred, who are not pilgrims in this land and do not seek the heavenly homeland. “For the fig tree,” he says, “shall not bear fruit, and there shall be no produce in the vines; the work of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no food. The sheep have failed from food, and there are no oxen left in the stalls.” He saw that that nation which was to kill Christ would lose the abundance of spiritual riches, which in the prophetic manner he represented by earthly fruitfulness. And because that nation suffered such wrath of God for this reason, that, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, it wished to establish its own, he goes on at once: “But I will exult in the Lord, I will rejoice in God my Saviour. The Lord God is my strength; he has set my feet for completion; he will set me upon the heights, that I may conquer in his song,” namely in that song of which something similar is said in the psalm: “He set my feet upon a rock and directed my steps, and put a new song in my mouth, a hymn to our God.” He, then, conquers in the song of the Lord who takes pleasure in the Lord's praise, not his own, so that “he who glories may glory in the Lord.” But some manuscripts seem to me to have it better, “I will rejoice in God my Jesus,” than those which, wishing to put it in Latin, did not set down the very name which it is more loving and sweeter for us to name.

### Scripture references

- Hab 3:2: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 17:3: allusion, medium confidence
- Luke 23:34: quotation, high confidence
- Hab 3:3: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 57:5 (56:6 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Hab 3:4: quotation, high confidence
- Hab 3:5: quotation, high confidence
- Hab 3:6: quotation, high confidence
- Hab 3:7: quotation, high confidence
- Hab 3:8: quotation, high confidence
- John 3:17: allusion, high confidence
- Hab 3:9: quotation, high confidence
- Joel 2:13: quotation, high confidence
- Hab 3:10: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 5:4: allusion, medium confidence
- Hab 3:11: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 10:27: quotation, high confidence
- Hab 3:12: quotation, high confidence
- Hab 3:13: quotation, high confidence
- Hab 3:14: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 116:16 (115:7 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- John 19:38: allusion, medium confidence
- John 3:2: allusion, low confidence
- Hab 3:15: quotation, high confidence
- Hab 3:16: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 12:12: quotation, high confidence
- Hab 3:17: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 10:3: allusion, high confidence
- Hab 3:18: quotation, high confidence
- Hab 3:19: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 40:2 (39:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 40:3 (39:4 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:31: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sir 6:24-25 (Sirach): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Hab 3 is quoted in an Old Latin version following the LXX (“in the midst of two living creatures”, “God shall come from Teman”). The digital text marks the alternative renderings as “(ab Austro) uel (Africo)”, garbled; they are restored. “Be exalted above the heavens” is Ps 57:5 (LXX 56:6). The “bonds of wisdom” echo Sir 6:24–25. “You have broken my bonds” is Ps 116:16 (LXX 115:7). “I will rejoice in God my Jesus” renders the Greek ἐν τῷ θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί μου (“God my Saviour”), in which some Latin manuscripts kept the name Jesus (Hebrew yēšaʿ, “salvation”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.32 (CSEL 40:312–317; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-28/#p-18-32).

## City of God 18.33

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-28/#p-18-33
- Source: CSEL 40:317–319
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine dates Jeremiah and Zephaniah and quotes their prophecies of Christ's passion, incarnation, righteous reign, rejection by the Jews, and the calling of the nations.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXIII. De Christo et uocatione gentium quae Hieremias et Sophonias prophetico spiritu sint praefati. Hieremias propheta de maioribus est, sicut Esaias, non de minoribus, sicut ceteri, de quorum scriptis nonnulla iam posui. Prophetauit autem regnante Iosia in Hierusalem et aput Romanos Anco Marcio, iam propinquante captiuitate Iudaeorum Tetendit autem prophetiam usque ad quintum mensem captiuitatis, sicut in eius litteris inuenimus. Sophonias autem unus de minoribus adiungitur ei. Nam et ipse in diebus Iosiae prophetasse se dicit; sed quousque, non dicit. Prophetauit ergo Hieremias non solum Anci Marcii, uerum etiam Tarquinii Prisci temporibus, quem Romani habuerunt quintum regem. Ipse enim, quando illa captiuitas facta est, regnare iam coeperat. Prophetans ergo de Christo Hieremias: Spiritus, inquit, oris nostri Christus Dominus captus est in peccatis nostris, sic breuiter ostendens et dominum nostrum Christum et passum esse pro nobis. Item loco alio: Hic Deus meus, inquit, et non aestimabitur alter ad eum; qui inuenit omnem uiam prudentiae et dedit eam Iacob puero suo et Israel dilecto suo; post haec in terra uisus est et cum hominibus conuersatus est. Hoc testimonium quidam non Hieremiae, sed scribae eius adtribuunt, qui uocabatur Baruch; sed Hieremiae celebratius habetur. Rursus idem propheta de ipso: Ecce. inquit, dies ueniunt, ait Dominus, et suscitabo Dauid germen iustum, et regnabit rex et sapiens erit et faciet iudicium et iustitiam in terra. In diebus illis saluabitur Iuda, et Israel habitabit confidenter; et hoc est nomen, quod uocabunt eum: Dominus iustus noster. De uocatione etiam gentium, quae fuerat futura et eam nunc inpletam cernimus, sic locutus est: Domine Deus meus et refugium meum in die malorum, ad te gentes uenient ab extremo terrae et dicent: Vere mendacia coluerunt patres nostri simulacra, et non est in illis utilitas. Quia uero non erant eum agnituri Iudaei, a quibus eum et occidi oportebat, sic idem propheta significat: Graue cor per omnia, et homo est, et quis agnoscit eum? Huius est etiam illud quod in libro septimo decimo posui de testamento nouo, cuius est mediator Christus. Ipse quippe Hieremias ait: Ecce dies ueniunt, dicit Dominus, et consummabo super domum Iacob testamentum nouum, et cetera quae ibi leguntur. Sophoniae autem prophetae, qui cum Hieremia prophetabat, haec praedicta de Christo interim ponam: Exspecta me, dicit Dominus, in die resurrectionis meae in futurum: quia iudicium meum, ut congregem gentes et colligam regna. Et iterum: Horribilis, inquit, Dominus super eos, et exterminabit omnes deos terrae, et adorabit eum uir de loco suo, omnes insulae gentium. Et paulo post: Tunc, inquit, transuertam in populos linguam et progenies eius, ut inuocent omnes nomen Domini et seruiant ei sub iugo uno; a finibus fluminum Aethiopiae adferent hostias mihi. In illo die [non] confunderis ex omnibus adinuentionibus tuis, quas inpie egisti in me; quia tunc auferam abs te prauitates iniuriae tuae; et iam non adicies, ut magnificeris super montem sanctum meum, et subrelinquam in te populum mansuetum et humilem; et uerebuntur a nomine Domini, qui reliqui fuerint Israel. Hae sunt reliquiae, de quibus alibi prophetatur, quod apostolus etiam commemorat: Si fuerit numerus filiorum Israel sicut harena maris, reliquiae saluae fient. Hae quippe in Christum illius gentis reliquiae crediderunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 33. What Jeremiah and Zephaniah foretold by the prophetic spirit about Christ and the calling of the nations.

The prophet Jeremiah is one of the major prophets, like Isaiah, not of the minor, like the others from whose writings I have already set down some things. He prophesied when Josiah was reigning in Jerusalem and Ancus Marcius among the Romans, when the captivity of the Jews was already drawing near. And he extended his prophecy to the fifth month of the captivity, as we find in his writings. Zephaniah, one of the minor prophets, is joined with him. For he too says that he prophesied in the days of Josiah, but does not say until when. Jeremiah, then, prophesied not only in the times of Ancus Marcius but also in those of Tarquinius Priscus, whom the Romans had as their fifth king. For he had already begun to reign when that captivity took place.

Jeremiah, then, prophesying of Christ, says: “The breath of our mouth, Christ the Lord, was taken in our sins,” thus briefly showing both that Christ is our Lord and that he suffered for us. Again in another place he says: “This is my God, and no other shall be reckoned beside him; who found out every way of understanding and gave it to Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved; after this he was seen on earth and lived among men.” Some attribute this testimony not to Jeremiah but to his scribe, who was called Baruch; but it is more commonly held to be Jeremiah's. Again the same prophet says of him: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, and I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign and shall be wise and shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell confidently; and this is the name that they shall call him: the Lord our righteous one.” Of the calling of the nations too, which was to come and which we now see fulfilled, he spoke thus: “O Lord my God and my refuge in the day of evils, to you the nations shall come from the end of the earth and shall say: Truly our fathers worshipped lying images, and there is no profit in them.” And because the Jews, by whom he must also be killed, were not to recognize him, the same prophet indicates it thus: “The heart is heavy through all things, and he is a man, and who recognizes him?” His too is that passage which I set down in the seventeenth book about the new testament, whose mediator is Christ. For Jeremiah himself says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, and I will accomplish upon the house of Jacob a new testament,” and the rest that is read there.

Of the prophet Zephaniah, who prophesied together with Jeremiah, I shall meanwhile set down these things foretold of Christ: “Wait for me, says the Lord, in the day of my resurrection in the future; for my judgment is to gather the nations and assemble the kingdoms.” And again: “The Lord,” he says, “shall be terrible against them, and he shall destroy all the gods of the earth, and each man shall worship him from his own place, all the islands of the nations.” And a little after: “Then,” he says, “I will turn to the peoples a tongue and its generations, so that all may call on the name of the Lord and serve him under one yoke; from the ends of the rivers of Ethiopia they shall bring me sacrifices. In that day you shall be put to shame for all your devices which you have wickedly practised against me; for then I will take away from you the perversities of your wrongdoing; and you shall no longer be exalted upon my holy mountain; and I will leave in you a meek and humble people; and those who are left of Israel shall fear the name of the Lord.” These are the remnant of which it is prophesied elsewhere, as the apostle also recalls: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved.” For this remnant of that nation believed in Christ.

### Scripture references

- Jer 1:2: allusion, high confidence
- Jer 1:3: allusion, high confidence
- Zeph 1:1: allusion, high confidence
- Lam 4:20: quotation, high confidence
- Jer 23:5: quotation, high confidence
- Jer 23:6: quotation, high confidence
- Jer 16:19: quotation, high confidence
- Jer 17:9: quotation, high confidence
- Jer 31:31 (38:31 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Zeph 3:8: quotation, high confidence
- Zeph 2:11: quotation, high confidence
- Zeph 3:9: quotation, high confidence
- Zeph 3:10: quotation, high confidence
- Zeph 3:11: quotation, high confidence
- Zeph 3:12: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 9:27: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 10:22: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Bar 3:35-37 (Baruch): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- “The breath of our mouth, Christ the Lord” is Lam 4:20 (LXX), cited as Jeremiah. “This is my God …” is Baruch 3:35–37 (Vulgate 3:36–38), outside the 66 books; Augustine notes that some assign it to Baruch. “The heart is heavy … and he is a man, and who recognizes him?” is Jer 17:9 in the LXX form. In Zeph 3:11 the editor deletes “non” (“you shall not be put to shame”); the word is left out here, as printed, though the LXX reads the negative.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.33 (CSEL 40:317–319; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-28/#p-18-33).

## City of God 18.34

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-28/#p-18-34
- Source: CSEL 40:319–321
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine cites Daniel's vision of the Son of Man and Ezekiel's prophecy of one shepherd, “my servant David,” as prophecies of Christ and his kingdom.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXIIII. De prophetia Danielis et Hiezechielis, quae in Christum ecclesiamque concordat. In ipsa Babyloniae captiuitate prius prophetauerunt Daniel et Hiezechiel, alii scilicet duo ex prophetis maioribus. Quorum Daniel etiam tempus, quo uenturus fuerat Christus adque passurus, numero definiuit annorum; quod longum est conputando monstrare, et ab aliis factitatum est ante nos. De potestate uero eius et ecclesia sic locutus est: Videbam, inquit, in uisu noctis, et ecce cum nubibus caeli ut filius hominis ueniens erat; et usque ad uetustum dierum peruenit, et in conspectu eius praelatus est; et ipsi datus est principatus et honor et regnum, et omnes populi, tribus, linguae ipsi seruient. Potestas eius potestas perpetua. quae non transibit, et regnum eius non corrumpetur. Hiezechiel quoque more prophetico per Dauid Christum significans, quia carnem de Dauid semine adsumsit (propter quam formam serui, qua factus est homo, etiam seruus Dei dicitur idem Dei filius), sic eum prophetando praenuntiat ex persona Dei Patris: Et suscitabo, inquit, super pecora mea pastorem unum qui pascat ea, seruum meum Dauid; et ipse pascet ea et ipse erit his in pastorem. Ego autem Dominus ero eis in Deum, et seruus meus Dauid princeps in medio eorum; ego Dominus locutus sum. Et alio loco: Et rex, inquit. unus erit omnibus imperans; et non erunt ultra duae gentes, nec diuidentur amplius in duo regna; neque polluentur ultra in idolis suis et abominationibus et in cunctis iniquitatibus suis. Et saluos eos faciam de uniuersis sedibus suis, in quibus peccauerunt, et mundabo eos; et erunt mihi populus, et ego ero eis Deus; et seruus meus Dauid rex super eos, et pastor unus erit omnium eorum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 34. On the prophecy of Daniel and Ezekiel, which agrees concerning Christ and the church.

In the Babylonian captivity itself Daniel and Ezekiel prophesied first, that is, two others of the major prophets. Of these, Daniel even defined by a number of years the time when Christ would come and suffer; which it would be long to show by calculation, and it has been done by others before us. But of his power and the church he spoke thus: “I saw,” he says, “in the vision of the night, and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man was coming; and he came to the Ancient of Days and was brought before him; and to him was given dominion and honour and a kingdom, and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve him. His power is an everlasting power, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed.” Ezekiel too, in the prophetic manner signifying Christ by David, because he took flesh from the seed of David (and because of this form of a servant, in which he was made man, the same Son of God is also called the servant of God), thus foretells him in prophecy, speaking in the person of God the Father: “And I will raise up,” he says, “over my flock one shepherd to feed them, my servant David; and he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David prince in their midst; I the Lord have spoken.” And in another place: “And one king,” he says, “shall rule over all; and they shall no longer be two nations, nor be divided any more into two kingdoms; nor shall they be defiled any more with their idols and abominations and all their iniquities. And I will save them out of all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and I will cleanse them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God; and my servant David shall be king over them, and there shall be one shepherd of them all.”

### Scripture references

- Dan 9:24: allusion, high confidence
- Dan 9:25: allusion, high confidence
- Dan 9:26: allusion, high confidence
- Dan 7:13: quotation, high confidence
- Dan 7:14: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:7: allusion, high confidence
- Ezek 34:23: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 34:24: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 37:22: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 37:23: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 37:24: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Daniel's “number of years” is Dan 9:24–27 (the seventy weeks).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.34 (CSEL 40:319–321; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-28/#p-18-34).

## City of God 18.35

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-35/#p-18-35
- Source: CSEL 40:321–325
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reads Haggai's shaking of the nations, Zechariah's humble king and the blood of the covenant, and Malachi's pure offering among the nations, the angel of the covenant, and the day of judgment as prophecies of Christ and the church.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXV. De trium prophetarum uaticinio, id est Aggaei, Zachariae et Malachiae. Restant tres minores prophetae, qui prophetauerunt in fine captiuitatis, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias. Quorum Aggaeus Christum et ecclesiam hac apertius breuitate prophetat: Haec dicit Dominus exercituum: Adhuc unum modicum est, et ego commouebo caelum et terram et mare et aridam, et mouebo omnes gentes, et ueniet desideratus cunctis gentibus. Haec prophetia partim conpleta iam cernitur, partim speratur in fine conplenda. Mouit enim caelum angelorum et siderum testimonio, quando incarnatus est Christus; mouit terram ingenti miraculo de ipso uirginis partu; mouit mare et aridam, cum et in insulis et in orbe toto Christus adnuntiatur: ita moueri omnes gentes uidemus ad fidem. Iam uero quod sequitur: Et ueniet desideratus cunctis gentibus, de nouissimo eius exspectatur aduentu. Ut enim esset desideratus exspectantibus, prius oportuit eum dilectum esse credentibus. Zacharias de Christo et ecclesia: Exulta, inquit, ualde, filia Sion, iubila, filia Hierusalem; ecce rex tuus uenit tibi iustus et saluator; ipse pauper et adscendens super asinum et super pullum filium asinae; et potestas eius a mari usque ad mare et a fluminibus usque ad fines terrae. Hoc quando factum sit, ut Dominus Christus in itinere iumento huius generis uteretur, in euangelio legitur, ubi et haec prophetia commemoratur ex parte, quantum illi loco sufficere uisum est. Alio loco ad ipsum Christum in spiritu prophetiae loquens de remissione peccatorum per eius sanguinem: Tu quoque, inquit, in sanguine testamenti tui emisisti uinctos tuos de lacu, in quo non est aqua. Quid per hunc lacum uelit intellegi, possunt diuersa sentiri etiam secundum rectam fidem. Mihi tamen uidetur non eo significari melius, nisi humanae miseriae profunditatem siccam quodam modo et sterilem, ubi non sunt fluenta iustitiae, sed iniquitatis lutum. De hoc quippe etiam in psalmo dicitur: Et eduxit me de lacu miseriae et de luto limi. Malachias prophetans ecclesiam, quam per Christum cernimus propagatam, Iudaeis apertissime dicit ex persona Dei: Non est mihi uoluntas in uobis, et munus non suscipiam de manu uestra. Ab ortu enim solis usque ad occasum magnum nomen meum in gentibus, et in omni loco sacrificabitur et offeretur nomini meo oblatio munda; quia magnum nomen meum in gentibus, dicit Dominus. Hoc sacrificium per sacerdotium Christi secundum ordinem Melchisedech cum in omni loco a solis ortu usque ad occasum Deo iam uideamus offerri, sacrificium autem Iudaeorum, quibus dictum est: Non est mihi uoluntas in uobis, nec accipiam munus de manibus uestris, cessasse negare non possunt: quid adhuc exspectant alium Christum, cum hoc, quod prophetatum legunt et inpletum uident, inpleri non potuerit nisi per ipsum? Dicit enim paulo post de ipso ex persona Dei: Testamentum meum erat cum eo uitae et pacis, et dedi ei, ut timore timeret me, et a facie nominis mei reuereretur. Lex ueritatis erat in ore ipsius. in pace dirigens ambulauit mecum et multos conuertit ab iniquitate; quoniam labia sacerdotis custodient scientiam et legem inquirent ex ore eius; quoniam angelus Domini omnipotentis est. Nec mirandum est, quia Domini omnipotentis angelus dictus est Christus Iesus. Sicut enim seruus propter formam serui, in qua uenit ad homines, sic angelus propter euangelium, quod nuntiauit hominibus. Nam si Graeca ista interpretemur, et euangelium bona nuntiatio est et angelus nuntius. De ipso quippe iterum dicit: Ecce mittam angelum meum, et prospiciet uiam ante faciem meam; et subito ueniet in templum suum Dominus, quem uos quaeritis, et angelus testamenti, quem uos uultis. Ecce uenit, dicit Dominus omnipotens; et quis sustinebit diem introitus eius? aut quis resistet in adspectu eius? Hoc loco et primum et secundum Christi praenuntiauit aduentum; primum scilicet, de quo ait: Et subito ueniet in templum suum, id est in carnem suam, de qua dixit in euangelio: Soluite templum hoc, et in triduo resuscitabo illud; secundum uero, ubi ait: Ecce uenit, dicit Dominus omnipotens, et quis sustinebit diem introitus eius? aut quis resistet in adspectu eius? Quod autem dixit: Dominus, quem uos quaeritis, et angelus testamenti, quem uos uultis, significauit utique etiam Iudaeos secundum scripturas, quas legunt, Christum quaerere et uelle. Sed multi eorum, quem quaesierunt et uoluerunt, uenisse non agnouerunt, excaecati in cordibus suis praecedentibus meritis suis. Quod sane hic nominat testamentum, uel supra, ubi ait: Testamentum meum erat cum eo, uel hic, ubi eum dixit angelum testamenti, nouum procul dubio testamentum debemus accipere, ubi sempiterna, non uetus, ubi temporalia sunt promissa; quae pro magno habentes plurimi infirmi et Deo uero talium rerum mercede seruientes, quando uident eis inpios abundare, turbantur. Propter quod idem propheta, ut noui testamenti aeternam beatitudinem, quae non dabitur nisi bonis, distingueret a ueteris terrena felicitate, quae plerumque datur et malis: Ingrauastis, inquit, super me uerba uestra, dicit Dominus, et dixistis: In quo detraximus de te? Dixistis: Vanus est omnis, qui seruit Deo, et quid plus, quia custodiuimus obseruationes eius, et quia ambulauimus supplicantes ante faciem Domini omnipotentis? Et nunc nos beatificamus alienos, et reaedificantur omnes, qui faciunt iniqua; et aduersati sunt Deo, et salui facti sunt. Haec oblocuti sunt, qui timebant Dominum, unusquisque ad proximum suum; et animaduertit Dominus et audiuit; et scripsit librum memoriae in conspectu suo eis, qui timent Dominum et reuerentur nomen eius. Isto libro significatum est testamentum nouum. Denique quod sequitur audiamus: Et erunt mihi, dicit Dominus omnipotens, in diem qua ego facio in adquisitionem, et eligam eos sicut eligit homo filium suum seruientem sibi; et conuertimini, et uidebitis inter iustum et iniustum, et inter seruientem Deo et non seruientem. Quoniam ecce dies uenit ardens sicut clibanus et concremabit eos, et erunt omnes alienigenae et omnes facientes iniquitatem stipula, et incendet illos dies, qui adueniet, dicit Dominus omnipotens; et non derelinquetur eorum radix neque sarmentum. Et orietur uobis timentibus nomen meum sol iustitiae, et sanitas in pinnis eius; et exibitis et exultabitis sicut uituli ex uinculis resoluti; et conculcabitis iniquos, et erunt cinis sub pedibus uestris in die, in quo ego facio, dicit Dominus omnipotens. Hic est qui dicitur dies iudicii; de quo suo loco, si Deus uoluerit, loquemur uberius.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 35. On the prophecy of the three prophets, that is, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

There remain three minor prophets, who prophesied at the end of the captivity: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of these Haggai prophesies Christ and the church quite plainly with this brevity: “Thus says the Lord of hosts: Yet one little while, and I will move heaven and earth and the sea and the dry land, and I will move all nations, and the one desired by all nations shall come.” This prophecy is seen partly fulfilled already, and is partly hoped to be fulfilled at the end. For he moved the heaven by the testimony of angels and stars when Christ became incarnate; he moved the earth by the great miracle of his birth from the virgin; he moved the sea and the dry land when Christ is proclaimed both in the islands and in the whole world: so we see all nations moved to faith. But what follows, “and the one desired by all nations shall come,” is awaited of his last coming. For in order to be desired by those who await him, he had first to be loved by those who believe.

Zechariah says of Christ and the church: “Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion; shout for joy, daughter of Jerusalem; behold, your king comes to you, righteous and a saviour; he is poor and riding upon an ass and upon a colt, the foal of an ass; and his dominion is from sea to sea and from the rivers to the ends of the earth.” When this was done, when the Lord Christ used a beast of this kind on a journey, is read in the gospel, where this prophecy too is recalled in part, as far as seemed sufficient for that place. In another place, speaking to Christ himself in the spirit of prophecy about the forgiveness of sins through his blood, he says: “You also, by the blood of your testament, have sent forth your prisoners from the pit in which there is no water.” What he wishes to be understood by this pit may be variously thought, even in accordance with the right faith. To me, however, it seems that nothing is better signified by it than the depth of human misery, dry and in a way barren, where there are no streams of righteousness but the mire of iniquity. Of this too it is said in the psalm: “And he brought me out of the pit of misery and from the miry clay.”

Malachi, prophesying the church, which we see spread abroad through Christ, says most plainly to the Jews in the person of God: “I have no pleasure in you, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place sacrifice shall be made and a pure offering shall be offered to my name; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord.” Since we now see this sacrifice offered to God in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting, through the priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchizedek, while they cannot deny that the sacrifice of the Jews has ceased, to whom it was said, “I have no pleasure in you, nor will I accept an offering from your hands,” why do they still wait for another Christ, when what they read prophesied and see fulfilled could not have been fulfilled except through him? For a little after he says of him in the person of God: “My covenant was with him of life and peace, and I gave him to fear me with fear and to stand in awe before my name. The law of truth was in his mouth; directing in peace he walked with me and turned many from iniquity; for the lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law from his mouth; for he is the angel of the Lord almighty.” Nor is it to be wondered at that Christ Jesus was called the angel of the Lord almighty. For as he is called servant because of the form of a servant in which he came to men, so he is called angel because of the gospel which he announced to men. For if we translate these Greek words, “gospel” is good news and “angel” is messenger. Of him again he says: “Behold, I will send my angel, and he shall look out the way before my face; and suddenly the Lord whom you seek shall come to his temple, and the angel of the testament whom you desire. Behold, he comes, says the Lord almighty; and who shall endure the day of his coming? Or who shall stand in his sight?” In this place he foretold both the first and the second coming of Christ: the first, namely, of which he says, “And suddenly he shall come to his temple,” that is, to his flesh, of which he said in the gospel, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”; and the second, where he says, “Behold, he comes, says the Lord almighty, and who shall endure the day of his coming? Or who shall stand in his sight?” And when he said, “the Lord whom you seek, and the angel of the testament whom you desire,” he indicated, surely, that the Jews too, according to the Scriptures which they read, seek and desire Christ. But many of them did not recognize that he whom they sought and desired had come, being blinded in their hearts by their previous deserts. What he here names the testament, whether above, where he says, “My testament was with him,” or here, where he called him the angel of the testament, we must without doubt take as the new testament, in which eternal things are promised, not the old, in which temporal things are promised; and a great many weak people, who count these things great and serve the true God for a reward of such things, are disturbed when they see the ungodly abound in them. Therefore the same prophet, to distinguish the eternal blessedness of the new testament, which will be given only to the good, from the earthly happiness of the old, which is often given to the wicked too, says: “You have made your words heavy against me, says the Lord, and you said: In what have we spoken against you? You said: Everyone who serves God is vain; and what more have we, because we kept his observances and walked as suppliants before the face of the Lord almighty? And now we call strangers blessed, and all who do iniquity are built up; they have opposed God and have been saved. These things those who feared the Lord spoke against him, each to his neighbour; and the Lord took note and heard; and he wrote a book of remembrance before him for those who fear the Lord and revere his name.” By this book the new testament is signified. Finally, let us hear what follows: “And they shall be mine, says the Lord almighty, on the day when I act, for a possession, and I will choose them as a man chooses his son who serves him; and you shall turn and see the difference between the righteous and the unrighteous, and between the one who serves God and the one who does not serve him. For behold, the day comes burning like an oven, and it shall burn them up, and all the aliens and all who do iniquity shall be stubble, and the day that is coming shall set them on fire, says the Lord almighty; and neither root nor branch of them shall be left. And to you who fear my name the sun of righteousness shall rise, and healing in his wings; and you shall go out and leap like calves loosed from their bonds; and you shall tread down the wicked, and they shall be ashes under your feet on the day when I act, says the Lord almighty.” This is what is called the day of judgment; of which, God willing, we shall speak more fully in its place.

### Scripture references

- Hag 2:6: quotation, high confidence
- Hag 2:7: quotation, high confidence
- Zech 9:9: quotation, high confidence
- Zech 9:10: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 21:5: allusion, high confidence
- John 12:15: allusion, medium confidence
- Zech 9:11: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 40:2 (39:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Mal 1:10: quotation, high confidence
- Mal 1:11: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 110:4 (109:4 LXX): allusion, high confidence
- Mal 2:5: quotation, high confidence
- Mal 2:6: quotation, high confidence
- Mal 2:7: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:7: allusion, medium confidence
- Mal 3:1: quotation, high confidence
- Mal 3:2: quotation, high confidence
- John 2:19: quotation, high confidence
- Mal 3:13: quotation, high confidence
- Mal 3:14: quotation, high confidence
- Mal 3:15: quotation, high confidence
- Mal 3:16: quotation, high confidence
- Mal 3:17: quotation, high confidence
- Mal 3:18: quotation, high confidence
- Mal 4:1 (3:19 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Mal 4:2 (3:20 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Mal 4:3 (3:21 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Malachi is quoted in an Old Latin version following the LXX (“angel” for “messenger”). The argument about the Jewish sacrifice and the Jews' expectation of “another Christ” is Augustine's own and is translated as written. Mal 4:1–3 in English Bibles is 3:19–21 in the LXX and Vulgate.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.35 (CSEL 40:321–325; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-35/#p-18-35).

## City of God 18.36

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-35/#p-18-36
- Source: CSEL 40:325–326
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine treats Ezra and Esther as historical books, reads the contest of the three young men as pointing to Christ the truth, and notes that the church, not the Jews, holds the books of the Maccabees as canonical because of their martyrs.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXVI. De Esdra et libris Macchabaeorum. Post hos tres prophetas, Aggaeum, Zachariam, Malachiam, per idem tempus liberationis populi ex Babylonica seruitute scripsit etiam Esdras, qui magis rerum gestarum scriptor est habitus quam propheta (sicuti est et liber, qui appellatur Esther, cuius res gesta in laudem Dei non longe ab his temporibus inuenitur); nisi forte Esdras in eo Christum prophetasse intellegendus est, quod inter quosdam iuuenes orta quaestione, quid amplius ualeret in rebus, cum reges unus dixisset, alter uinum, tertius mulieres, quae plerumque regibus imperarent, idem tamen tertius ueritatem super omnia demonstrauit esse uictricem. Consulto autem euangelio Christum esse cognoscimus ueritatem. Ab hoc tempore aput Iudaeos restituto templo non reges, sed principes fuerunt usque ad Aristobolum: quorum subputatio temporum non in scripturis sanctis, quae appellantur canonicae, sed in aliis inuenitur, in quibus sunt et Macchabaeorum libri, quos non Iudaei, sed ecclesia pro canonicis habet propter quorundam martyrum passiones uehementes adque mirabiles, qui, antequam Christus uenisset in carne, usque ad mortem pro Dei lege certarunt et mala grauissima adque horribilia pertulerunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 36. On Ezra and the books of the Maccabees.

After these three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, in the same period of the people's liberation from the Babylonian slavery, Ezra also wrote, who has been regarded more as a writer of history than as a prophet (as is also the book called Esther, whose events, told to the praise of God, are found to be not far from these times); unless perhaps Ezra is to be understood as having prophesied Christ in the passage where, when a question arose among certain young men as to what had most power in the world, and one had said kings, another wine, and the third women, who for the most part rule over kings, that same third nevertheless showed that truth is victorious over all. But by consulting the gospel we learn that Christ is the truth. From this time, the temple having been restored, there were among the Jews not kings but rulers down to Aristobulus; the reckoning of whose times is found not in the holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of the Maccabees, which not the Jews but the church holds as canonical, because of the fierce and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs who, before Christ had come in the flesh, contended for the law of God even to death and endured most grievous and horrible evils.

### Scripture references

- John 14:6: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- 1 Esd 3:1-4.41 (1 Esdras): allusion, high confidence
- 2 Macc 6:18-7.42 (2 Maccabees): allusion, high confidence
- 1 Macc (1 Maccabees): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The contest of the three young men is 1 Esdras 3–4 (Vulgate 3 Esdras), which Augustine assigns to Ezra; it is outside the 66 books. Augustine's statement that “the church holds as canonical” the books of the Maccabees is translated as written; under the site's convention they are extrabiblical. The Maccabean martyrs are those of 2 Macc 6–7.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.36 (CSEL 40:325–326; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-35/#p-18-36).

## City of God 18.37

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-35/#p-18-37
- Source: CSEL 40:326–328
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that the Hebrew prophets, and above all Moses, are older than every Greek philosopher and even than the wisdom of Egypt.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXVII. Quod prophetica auctoritas omni origine gentilis philosophiae inueniatur antiquior. Tempore igitur prophetarum nostrorum, quorum iam scripta ad notitiam fere omnium gentium peruenerunt, et multo magis post eos fuerunt philosophi gentium, qui hoc etiam nomine uocarentur, quod coepit a Samio Pythagora, qui eo tempore, quo Iudaeorum est soluta captiuitas, coepit excellere adque cognosci. Multo magis ergo ceteri philosophi post prophetas reperiuntur fuisse. Nam ipse Socrates Atheniensis, magister omnium, qui tunc maxime claruerunt, tenens in ea parte, quae moralis uel actiua dicitur, principatum, post Esdram in chronicis inuenitur. Non multo post etiam Plato natus est, qui longe ceteros Socratis discipulos anteiret. Quibus si addamus etiam superiores, qui nondum philosophi uocabantur, septem scilicet sapientes ac deinde physicos, qui Thaleti successerunt in perscrutanda natura rerum studium eius imitati, Anaximandrum scilicet et Anaximenem et Anaxagoram aliosque nonnullos, antequam Pythagoras philosophum primus profiteretur: nec illi prophetas nostros uniuersos temporis antiquitate praecedunt, quando quidem Thales, post quem ceteri fuerunt, regnante Romulo eminuisse fertur, quando de fontibus Israel in eis litteris, quae toto orbe manarent, prophetiae flumen erupit. Soli igitur illi theologi poetae, Orpheus, Linus, Musaeus et si quis alius aput Graecos fuit, his prophetis Hebraeis, quorum scripta in auctoritate habemus, annis reperiuntur priores. Sed nec ipsi uerum theologum nostrum Moysen, qui unum uerum Deum ueraciter praedicauit, cuius nunc scripta in auctoritatis canone prima sunt, tempore praeuenerunt; ac per hoc, quantum ad Graecos adtinet, in qua lingua litterae huius saeculi maxime ferbuerunt, nihil habent unde sapientiam suam iactent, quo religione nostra, ubi uera sapientia est, si non superior, saltem uideatur antiquior. Verum, quod fatendum est, non quidem in Graecia, sed in barbaris gentibus, sicut in Aegypto, iam fuerat ante Moysen nonnulla doctrina, quae illorum sapientia diceretur; alioquin non scriptum esset in libris sanctis, Moysen eruditum fuisse omni sapientia Aegyptiorum, tunc utique, quando ibi natus et a filia Pharaonis adoptatus adque nutritus etiam liberaliter educatus est. Sed nec sapientia Aegyptiorum sapientiam prophetarum nostrorum tempore antecedere potuit, quando quidem et Abraham propheta fuit. Quid autem sapientiae potuit esse in Aegypto, antequam eis Isis, quam mortuam tamquam magnam deam colendam putarunt, litteras traderet? Isis porro Inachi filia fuisse proditur, qui primus regnare coepit Argiuis, quando Abrahae iam nepotes reperiuntur exorti.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 37. That prophetic authority is found to be more ancient than any origin of Gentile philosophy.

It was in the time of our prophets, then, whose writings have now come to the knowledge of almost all nations, and much more after them, that there were philosophers of the nations who were also called by this name, which began with Pythagoras of Samos, who began to excel and be known at the time when the captivity of the Jews was ended. Much more, then, are the other philosophers found to have lived after the prophets. For Socrates of Athens himself, the master of all who were then most renowned, holding the first place in that part which is called moral or active, is found in the chronicles after Ezra. Not much later Plato too was born, who far surpassed the other disciples of Socrates. If we add to these also the earlier ones, who were not yet called philosophers, namely the seven sages and then the natural philosophers who succeeded Thales, imitating his zeal in searching out the nature of things, namely Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and some others, before Pythagoras first professed himself a philosopher, not even they precede all our prophets in antiquity of time, since Thales, after whom the others came, is said to have been eminent in the reign of Romulus, when the river of prophecy burst forth from the springs of Israel in those writings that were to flow through the whole world. Only those theological poets, then, Orpheus, Linus, Musaeus, and any other among the Greeks, are found to be earlier in years than these Hebrew prophets whose writings we hold as authoritative. But not even they preceded in time our true theologian Moses, who truthfully proclaimed the one true God, and whose writings are now first in the canon of authority; and therefore, as far as the Greeks are concerned, in whose language the literature of this world has most flourished, they have nothing to boast of in their wisdom by which it might seem, if not superior to our religion, where true wisdom is, at least more ancient.

It must be admitted, however, that not indeed in Greece, but among barbarian nations, as in Egypt, there had already been before Moses some learning which could be called their wisdom; otherwise it would not have been written in the holy books that Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, namely at the time when he was born there and, adopted and nursed by Pharaoh's daughter, was also liberally educated. But not even the wisdom of the Egyptians could precede in time the wisdom of our prophets, since Abraham too was a prophet. And what wisdom could there have been in Egypt before Isis, whom after her death they thought should be worshipped as a great goddess, gave them letters? Isis, moreover, is reported to have been the daughter of Inachus, who first began to reign over the Argives when Abraham's grandsons are found to have been born.

### Scripture references

- Acts 7:22: quotation, high confidence
- Exod 2:10: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 20:7: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Chron. (Eusebius and Jerome, Chronicle): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- “The chronicles” are the Chronicle of Eusebius and Jerome (no entry in the site's list of extrabiblical texts).
- The first sentence is translated as printed; its sense is that philosophers so called appeared only at the time of the later prophets and after them (some translations read that they had “not yet” arisen).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.37 (CSEL 40:326–328; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-35/#p-18-37).

## City of God 18.38

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-35/#p-18-38
- Source: CSEL 40:328–329
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that writings attributed to Noah, Enoch, and other early prophets were excluded from the canon because their authenticity could not be trusted, and distinguishes prophets' historical writing from inspired Scripture.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXVIII. Quod quaedam sanctorum scripta ecclesiasticus canon propter nimiam non receperit uetustatem, ne per occasionem eorum falsa ueris insererentur. Iam uero si longe antiquiora repetam, et ante illud grande diluuium noster erat utique Noe patriarcha, quem prophetam quoque non inmerito dixerim; si quidem ipsa arca, quam fecit et in qua cum suis euasit, prophetia nostrorum temporum fuit. Quid Enoch septimus ab Adam, nonne etiam in canonica epistula apostoli Iudae prophetasse praedicatur? Quorum scripta ut aput Iudaeos et aput nos in auctoritate non essent, nimia fecit antiquitas, propter quam uidebantur habenda esse suspecta, ne proferrentur falsa pro ueris. Nam et proferuntur quaedam quae ipsorum esse dicantur ab eis, qui pro suo sensu passim quod uolunt credunt. Sed ea castitas canonis non recepit, non quod eorum hominum, qui Deo placuerunt, reprobetur auctoritas, sed quod ista esse non credantur ipsorum. Nec mirum debet uideri, quod suspecta habentur, quae sub tantae antiquitatis nomine proferuntur; quando quidem in ipsa historia regum Iuda et regum Israel, quae res gestas continet, de quibus eidem scripturae canonicae credimus, commemorantur plurima, quae ibi non explicantur et in libris dicuntur aliis inueniri, quos prophetae scripserunt, et alicubi eorum quoque prophetarum nomina non tacentur; nec tamen inueniuntur in canone, quem recepit populus Dei. Cuius rei, fateor, causa me latet, nisi quod existimo etiam ipsos, quibus ea, quae in auctoritate religionis esse deberent, sanctus utique Spiritus reuelabat, alia sicut homines historica diligentia, alia sicut prophetas inspiratione diuina scribere potuisse, adque haec ita fuisse distincta, ut illa tamquam ipsis, ista uero tamquam Deo per ipsos loquenti iudicarentur esse tribuenda, ac sic illa pertinerent ad ubertatem cognitionis, haec ad religionis auctoritatem, in qua auctoritate custoditur canon, praeter quem iam si qua etiam sub nomine uerorum prophetarum scripta proferuntur, nec ad ipsam copiam scientiae ualent, quoniam utrum eorum sint, quorum esse dicuntur, incertum est; et ob hoc eis non habetur fides, maxime his, in quibus etiam contra fidem librorum canonicorum quaedam leguntur, propter quod ea prorsus non esse apparet illorum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 38. That the church's canon has not received certain writings of saints because of their excessive antiquity, lest on their pretext false things be inserted among true.

Now if I go back to much more ancient times, even before that great flood there was certainly our patriarch Noah, whom I might not undeservedly call a prophet too; since the very ark which he made and in which he escaped with his family was a prophecy of our times. What of Enoch, the seventh from Adam? Is he not declared in the canonical epistle of the apostle Jude to have prophesied? That their writings should not be authoritative among the Jews and among us was the effect of their excessive antiquity, on account of which they seemed to need to be held suspect, lest false things be put forward as true. For some things are indeed put forward which are said to be theirs by those who, according to their own notion, believe at random whatever they please. But the purity of the canon has not received them, not because the authority of those men who pleased God is rejected, but because these writings are not believed to be theirs. Nor ought it to seem strange that writings put forward under the name of so great antiquity are held suspect, since in the very history of the kings of Judah and the kings of Israel, which contains events concerning which we believe the same canonical Scripture, very many things are mentioned which are not explained there and are said to be found in other books which prophets wrote; and in some places the names of these prophets too are not left unmentioned; and yet these books are not found in the canon which the people of God has received.

The reason for this, I confess, is hidden from me; except that I think that those very men to whom the Holy Spirit certainly revealed what ought to be of religious authority could write some things as men with historical diligence and other things as prophets by divine inspiration; and that these were so distinguished that the former were judged to be attributed to themselves, the latter to God speaking through them; and so the former belonged to the fullness of knowledge, the latter to the authority of religion, in which authority the canon is guarded. Beyond it, if any writings are now put forward even under the name of true prophets, they are of no value even for the abundance of knowledge, since it is uncertain whether they are the work of those whose they are said to be; and for this reason no credit is given them, especially those in which some things are read that are even contrary to the faith of the canonical books, from which it is quite clear that they are not theirs.

### Scripture references

- Gen 6:14: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Pet 3:20: echo, medium confidence
- Jude 1:14: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Chr 29:29: allusion, medium confidence
- 2 Chr 9:29: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- 1 En. (1 Enoch): allusion, medium confidence
- Chron. (Eusebius and Jerome, Chronicle): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The books of Enoch (1 Enoch), cited in Jude 14–15, are meant; Augustine does not name them. The lost prophetic books are those cited in Kings and Chronicles (e.g. 1 Chr 29:29; 2 Chr 9:29).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.38 (CSEL 40:328–329; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-35/#p-18-38).

## City of God 18.39

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-35/#p-18-39
- Source: CSEL 40:329–330
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that Hebrew with its letters was preserved from the patriarchs, and that Egyptian learning and Hermes Trismegistus came after Abraham and Moses.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXVIIII. De Hebraicis litteris, quae numquam in suae linguae proprietate non fuerint. Non itaque credendum est, quod nonnulli arbitrantur, Hebraeam tantum linguam per illum, qui uocabatur Heber, unde Hebraeorum uocabulum est, fuisse seruatam, adque inde peruenisse ad Abraham, Hebraeas autem litteras a lege coepisse, quae data est per Moysen, sed potius per illam successionem patrum memoratam linguam cum suis litteris custoditam. Denique Moyses in populo constituit qui docendis litteris praeessent, priusquam diuinae legis ullas litteras nossent. Hos appellat scriptura 7pa[i{iatostoaif«>Yoy(:, qui Latine dici possunt litterarum inductores uel introductores, eo quod eas inducant, id est introducant, quodam modo in corda discentium uel in eas potius ipsos quos docent. Nulla igitur gens de antiquitate suae sapientiae super patriarchas et prophetas nostros, quibus diuina inerat sapientia, ulla se uanitate iactauerit, quando nec Aegyptus inuenitur, quae solet falso et inaniter de suarum doctrinarum antiquitate gloriari, qualicumque sapientia sua patriarcharum nostrorum tempore praeuenisse sapientiam. Neque enim quisquam dicere audebit mirabilium disciplinarum eos peritissimos fuisse, antequam litteras nossent, id est, antequam Isis eo uenisset easque ibi docuisset. Ipsa porro eorum memorabilis doctrina, quae appellata est sapientia, quid erat nisi maxime astronomia et si quid aliud talium disciplinarum magis ad exercenda ingenia quam ad inluminandas uera sapientia mentes solet ualere? Nam quod adtinet ad philosophiam, quae se docere profitetur aliquid, unde fiant homines beati, circa tempora Mercurii, quem Trismegistum uocauerunt, in illis terris eius modi studia claruerunt, longe quidem ante sapientes uel philosophos Graeciae, sed tamen post Abraham et Isaac et Iacob et Ioseph, nimirum etiam post ipsum Moysen. Eo quippe tempore, quo Moyses natus est, fuisse reperitur Atlans ille magnus astrologus, Promethei frater, maternus auus Mercurii maioris, cuius nepos fuit Trismegistus iste Mercurius,

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 39. On the Hebrew letters, which were never lacking to that language as its own.

It is not to be believed, then, as some think, that only the Hebrew language was preserved through the man called Heber, from whom the name of the Hebrews comes, and so came down to Abraham, but that the Hebrew letters began with the law given through Moses; rather, that language was kept with its letters through that succession of fathers. Indeed, Moses appointed among the people men to be in charge of teaching letters, before they knew any letters of the divine law. These the Scripture calls grammatoeisagōgeis, who in Latin can be called “inductors” or “introducers” of letters, because they lead them in, that is, introduce them in a way into the hearts of the learners, or rather lead those whom they teach into them. No nation, then, should boast with any vanity of the antiquity of its wisdom over our patriarchs and prophets, in whom there was divine wisdom, since not even Egypt, which is accustomed falsely and emptily to glory in the antiquity of its learning, is found to have preceded in time, by any wisdom of its own, the wisdom of our patriarchs. For no one will dare to say that they were most skilled in wonderful sciences before they knew letters, that is, before Isis came there and taught them there. And that memorable learning of theirs which was called wisdom, what was it but chiefly astronomy and whatever else of such sciences is wont to serve rather to exercise the wits than to enlighten minds with true wisdom? For as regards philosophy, which professes to teach something by which men may become happy, studies of that kind flourished in those lands about the times of Mercury, whom they called Trismegistus, long indeed before the sages or philosophers of Greece, but yet after Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Joseph, and certainly after Moses himself. For at the time when Moses was born there is found to have lived that great astrologer Atlas, the brother of Prometheus, maternal grandfather of the elder Mercury, whose grandson was this Mercury Trismegistus.

### Scripture references

- Gen 10:21: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 11:14: allusion, medium confidence
- Deut 1:15: allusion, low confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Corp. herm. (Hermetic writings): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- The Greek word is garbled in the digital text; it is the LXX term γραμματοεισαγωγεῖς (“introducers of letters”, Exod 18:21–25 and Deut 1:15 in some manuscripts; the exact reference is uncertain), left uncorrected. The chapter ends mid-sentence with a comma in the digital text; it is translated as a complete sentence.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.39 (CSEL 40:329–330; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-35/#p-18-39).

## City of God 18.40

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-35/#p-18-40
- Source: CSEL 40:330–331
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine rejects the Egyptian claim of a hundred thousand years of astronomy, citing Varro and the biblical chronology of fewer than six thousand years since Adam.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXX. De Aegyptiorum mendacissima uanitate, quae antiquitati scientiae suae centum milia adscribit annorum. Frustra itaque uanissima praesumtione garriunt quidam dicentes, ex quo Aegyptus rationem siderum conprehendit, amplius quam centum annorum milia numerari. In quibus enim libris istum numerum collegerunt, qui non multum ante annorum duo milia litteras magistra Iside didicerunt? Non enim paruus auctor est in historia Varro, qui hoc prodidit, quod a litterarum etiam diuinarum ueritate non dissonat. Cum enim ab ipso primo homine, qui est appellatus Adam, nondum sex annorum milia conpleantur, quo modo non isti ridendi potius quam refellendi sunt, qui de spatio temporum tam diuersa et huic exploratae ueritati tam contraria persuadere conantur? Cui enim melius narranti praeterita credimus, quam qui etiam futura praedixit, quae praesentia iam uidemus? Nam et ipsa historicorum inter se dissonantia copiam nobis praebet, ut ei potius credere debeamus, qui diuinae, quam tenemus, non repugnat historiae. Porro autem ciues inpiae ciuitatis diffusi usquequaque per terras cum legunt doctissimos homines, quorum nullius contemnenda uideatur auctoritas, inter se de rebus gestis ab aetatis nostrae memoria remotissimis discrepantes, cui potius credere debeant, non inueniunt. Nos uero in nostrae religionis historia fulti auctoritate diuina, quidquid ei resistit, non dubitamus esse falsissimum, quomodolibet sese habeant cetera in saecularibus litteris, quae seu uera seu falsa sint, nihil momenti adferunt, quo recte beateque uiuamus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 40. On the most lying vanity of the Egyptians, who ascribe a hundred thousand years to the antiquity of their science.

In vain, then, do some chatter with most empty presumption, saying that more than a hundred thousand years are counted since Egypt grasped the reckoning of the stars. For in what books did they collect that number, who learned letters from Isis as their teacher not much more than two thousand years ago? For Varro, no small authority in history, reported this, and it is not out of harmony with the truth of the divine writings too. For since not yet six thousand years are completed from the first man himself, who was called Adam, how are those not rather to be laughed at than refuted who try to persuade us of things about the length of time so different from, and so contrary to, this ascertained truth? For whom do we better believe when he narrates the past than one who also foretold the future, which we now see present? For the very disagreement of the historians among themselves gives us good reason to believe rather the one who does not contradict the divine history which we hold. Moreover, the citizens of the ungodly city, spread everywhere over the earth, when they read most learned men, none of whose authority seems to be despised, disagreeing among themselves about events very remote from the memory of our age, do not find whom they ought rather to believe. But we, supported in the history of our religion by divine authority, do not doubt that whatever opposes it is most false, however other things may stand in secular writings, which, whether true or false, contribute nothing of importance to our living rightly and happily.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Varro, fragment.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.40 (CSEL 40:330–331; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-35/#p-18-40).

## City of God 18.41

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-35/#p-18-41
- Source: CSEL 40:331–335
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine contrasts the endless disagreements of the philosophers, all tolerated by the earthly city, “Babylon,” with the concord of the canonical Scriptures, through which God himself taught Israel.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXXI. De philosophicarum opinionum dissensionibus et canonicarum aput ecclesiam concordia scripturarum. Ut autem iam cognitionem omittamus historiae, ipsi philosophi, a quibus ad ista progressi sumus, qui non uidentur laborasse in studiis suis, nisi ut inuenirent quo modo uiuendum esset adcommodate ad beatitudinem capessendam, quur dissenserunt et a magistris discipuli, et inter se condiscipuli, nisi quia ut homines humanis sensibus et humanis ratiocinationibus ista quaesierunt? Ubi quamuis esse potuerit et studium gloriandi, quo quisque alio sapientior et acutior uideri cupit nec sententiae quodam modo addictus alienae. sed sui dogmatis et opinionis inuentor, tamen ut nonnullos uel etiam plurimos eorum fuisse concedam, quos a suis doctoribus uel discendi sociis amor ueritatis abruperit, ut pro ea certarent, quam ueritatem putarent, siue illa esset, siue non esset: quid agit aut quo uel qua, ut ad beatitudinem perueniatur, humana se porrigit infelicitas, si diuina non ducit auctoritas? Denique auctores nostri, in quibus non frustra sacrarum litterarum figitur et terminatur canon, absit ut inter se aliqua ratione dissentiant. Unde non inmerito, cum illa scriberent, eis Deum uel per eos locutum, non pauci in scholis adque gymnasiis litigiosis disputationibus garruli, sed in agris adque urbibus cum doctis adque indoctis tot tantique populi crediderunt. Ipsi sane pauci esse debuerunt, ne multitudine uilesceret, quod religione carum esse oporteret; nec tamen ita pauci, ut eorum non sit miranda consensio. Neque enim in multitudine philosophorum, qui labore etiam litterario monumenta suorum dogmatum reliquerunt, facile quis inuenerit, inter quos cuncta quae sensere conueniant: quod ostendere hoc opere longum est. Quis autem sectae cuiuslibet auctor sic est in hac daemonicola ciuitate adprobatus, ut ceteri inprobarentur, qui diuersa et aduersa senserunt? Nonne aput Athenas et Epicurei clarebant, adserentes res humanas ad deorum curam non pertinere, et Stoici, qui contraria sentientes eas regi adque muniri dis adiutoribus et tutoribus disputabant? Unde miror quur Anaxagoras reus factus sit, quia solem dixit esse lapidem ardentem, negans utique deum, cum in eadem ciuitate gloria floruerit Epicurus uixeritque securus, non solum solem uel ullum siderum deum esse non credens, sed nec Iouem nec ullum deorum omnino in mundo habitare contendens, ad quem preces hominum supplicationesque perueniant. Nonne ibi Aristippus in uoluptate corporis summum bonum ponens, ibi Antisthenes uirtute animi potius hominem fieri beatum adseuerans, duo philosophi nobiles et ambo Socratici, in tam diuersis adque inter se contrariis finibus uitae summam locantes, quorum etiam ille fugiendam, iste administrandam sapienti dicebat esse rem publicam, ad suam quisque sectam sectandam discipulos congregabat? Nempe palam in conspicua et notissima porticu, in gymnasiis, in hortulis, in locis publicis ac priuatis cateruatim pro sua quisque opinione certabant, alii adserentes unum, alii innumerabiles mundos; ipsum autem unum alii ortum esse, alii uero initium non habere; alii interiturum, alii semper futurum; alii mente diuina, alii fortuito et casibus agi; alii inmortales esse animas, alii mortales; et qui inmortales, alii reuolui in bestias, alii nequaquam; qui uero mortales, alii mox interire post corpus, alii uiuere etiam postea uel paululum uel diutius, non tamen semper; alii in corpore constituentes finem boni, alii in animo, alii in utroque, alii extrinsecus posita etiam bona ad animum et corpus addentes; alii sensibus corporis semper, alii non semper, alii numquam putantes esse credendum. Has et alias paene innumerabiles dissensiones philosophorum quis umquam populus, quis senatus, quae potestas uel dignitas publica inpiae ciuitatis diiudicandas et alias probandas ac recipiendas, alias inprobandas repudiandasque curauit, ac non passim sine ullo iudicio confuseque habuit in gremio suo tot controuersias hominum dissidentium, non de agris et domibus uel quacumque pecuniaria ratione, sed de his rebus, quibus aut misere uiuitur aut beate? Ubi etsi aliqua uera dicebantur, eadem licentia dicebantur et falsa, prorsus ut non frustra talis ciuitas mysticum uocabulum Babylonis acceperit. Babylon interpretatur quippe confusio, quod nos iam dixisse meminimus. Nec interest diaboli regis eius, quam contrariis inter se rixentur erroribus, quos merito multae uariaeque inpietatis pariter possidet. At uero gens illa, ille populus, illa ciuitas, illa res publica, illi Israelitae, quibus credita sunt eloquia Dei, nullo modo pseudoprophetas cum ueris prophetis parilitate licentiae confuderunt, sed concordes inter se adque in nullo dissentientes sacrarum litterarum ueraces ab eis agnoscebantur et tenebantur auctores. Ipsi eis erant philosophi, hoc est amatores sapientiae, ipsi sapientes, ipsi theologi, ipsi prophetae, ipsi doctores probitatis adque pietatis. Quicumque secundum illos sapuit et uixit, non secundum homines, sed secundum Deum, qui per eos locutus est, sapuit et uixit. Ibi si prohibitum est sacrilegium, Deus prohibuit. Si dictum est: Honora patrem [tuum] et matrem tuam, Deus iussit. Si dictum est: Non moechaberis, non homicidium facies, non furaberis, et cetera huius modi, non haec ora humana. sed oracula diuina fuderunt. Quidquid philosophi quidam inter falsa, quae opinati sunt, uerum uidere potuerunt et laboriosis disputationibus persuadere moliti sunt, quod mundum istum Deus fecerit eumque ipse prouidentissimus administret, de honestate uirtutum, de amore patriae; de fide amicitiae, de bonis operibus adque omnibus ad mores probos pertinentibus rebus, quamuis nescientes ad quem finem et quonam modo essent ista omnia referenda, propheticis, hoc est diuinis, uocibus, quamuis per homines, in illa ciuitate populo commendata sunt, non argumentationum concertationibus inculcata, ut non hominis ingenium, sed Dei eloquium contemnere formidaret, qui illa cognosceret.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 41. On the disagreements of philosophical opinions and the concord of the canonical Scriptures in the church.

But to leave aside now the knowledge of history, why have the philosophers themselves, from whom we have come on to these matters, who seem to have laboured in their studies for nothing except to find how one should live so as to attain happiness, disagreed, disciples with their masters and fellow disciples among themselves, except because as men they sought these things with human senses and human reasonings? Though there could have been in this also a desire for glory, by which each wishes to seem wiser and sharper than another, and not bound, as it were, to another's opinion, but the discoverer of his own doctrine and view, yet, granting that some or even very many of them were such that the love of truth tore them away from their teachers or fellow learners, so that they might contend for what they thought the truth, whether it was so or not: what does human unhappiness do, or where or by what way does it stretch itself out to reach happiness, if divine authority does not lead it?

Our authors, finally, in whom the canon of the sacred writings is fixed and bounded, not without reason, far be it that they should disagree among themselves in any way. Hence not without reason did not a few talkers in the schools and gymnasia, with contentious disputations, but so many and such great peoples, in fields and cities, learned and unlearned, believe that God spoke to them or through them when they wrote those things. They themselves indeed had to be few, lest what ought to be dear to religion should grow cheap by multitude; and yet not so few that their agreement is not to be wondered at. For among the multitude of philosophers who, even with literary labour, left monuments of their doctrines, one would not easily find any among whom all that they thought agrees; which it would be long to show in this work. And what founder of any sect whatever has been so approved in this demon-worshipping city that the others, who thought differently and contrarily, were disapproved? Were there not renowned at Athens both the Epicureans, who asserted that human affairs do not belong to the care of the gods, and the Stoics, who, thinking the contrary, argued that they are ruled and defended by the gods as helpers and guardians? Hence I wonder why Anaxagoras was put on trial because he said that the sun was a burning stone, thereby, of course, denying that it was a god, when in the same city Epicurus flourished in glory and lived secure, not only not believing that the sun or any of the stars was a god, but contending that neither Jupiter nor any of the gods dwelt in the world at all, for the prayers and supplications of men to reach him. Did not Aristippus there, placing the highest good in the pleasure of the body, and Antisthenes there, asserting rather that man becomes happy by virtue of mind, two noble philosophers and both Socratics, placing the sum of life in ends so different and contrary to each other, of whom the former said the wise man should avoid public affairs and the latter that he should administer them, each gather disciples to follow his own sect? Indeed, openly, in the conspicuous and very well-known Porch, in gymnasia, in gardens, in public and private places, they contended in crowds, each for his own opinion: some asserting one world, others innumerable worlds; of this one world, some that it had a beginning, others that it had none; some that it would perish, others that it would always exist; some that it is governed by the divine mind, others by chance and accident; some that souls are immortal, others that they are mortal; and of those who held them immortal, some that they return into beasts, others by no means; of those who held them mortal, some that they perish immediately after the body, others that they live on afterwards for a little or for longer, but not for ever; some placing the end of the good in the body, others in the mind, others in both, others adding to mind and body external goods as well; some thinking the senses of the body always to be trusted, others not always, others never.

These and other almost innumerable disagreements of the philosophers, what people, what senate, what public power or dignity of the ungodly city ever took care to judge between them, approving and receiving some, disapproving and rejecting others? Did it not rather hold in its bosom, at random, without any judgment and in confusion, so many controversies of men disagreeing, not about fields and houses or any matter of money, but about those things by which one lives either wretchedly or happily? Where, even if some true things were said, false things were said with the same licence, so that it was not for nothing that such a city received the mystical name of Babylon. For Babylon means “confusion,” as we remember having said already. Nor does it matter to the devil, its king, with how contrary errors they quarrel among themselves, since he possesses them all alike, as they deserve, for their many and various impieties.

But that nation, that people, that city, that commonwealth, those Israelites to whom the oracles of God were entrusted, by no means confused false prophets with true ones with equal licence; but the truthful authors of the sacred writings, in agreement among themselves and disagreeing in nothing, were recognized and held by them. These were to them their philosophers, that is, lovers of wisdom; these their sages, these their theologians, these their prophets, these their teachers of uprightness and piety. Whoever was wise and lived according to them was wise and lived not according to men but according to God, who spoke through them. If sacrilege was forbidden there, God forbade it. If it was said, “Honour father and your mother,” God commanded it. If it was said, “You shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit murder, you shall not steal,” and other things of this kind, these were poured forth not by human mouths but by divine oracles. Whatever truth certain philosophers could see amid the false things they held, and strove to persuade by laborious disputations, that God made this world and himself governs it most providently, about the honourableness of the virtues, the love of country, the faithfulness of friendship, good works, and all things pertaining to upright morals, though they did not know to what end and in what way all these things were to be referred, was commended to the people in that city by prophetic, that is, divine, voices, though through men, not driven home by contests of argument; so that whoever came to know these things feared to despise not the wit of a man but the word of God.

### Scripture references

- Gen 11:9: allusion, medium confidence
- Rom 3:2: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 20:12: quotation, high confidence
- Exod 20:13: quotation, high confidence
- Exod 20:14: quotation, high confidence
- Exod 20:15: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Epicurus (Epicurus (sayings and fragments)): allusion, medium confidence
- Anaxagoras (Anaxagoras): allusion, medium confidence
- Aristippus (Aristippus (fragments)): allusion, medium confidence
- Antisthenes (Antisthenes (fragments)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- In “Honour father and your mother” the editor deletes “tuum” (“your”) before “father”; it is left out. On Babylon as “confusion” see Gen 11:9 and Book 16 of this work.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.41 (CSEL 40:331–335; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-35/#p-18-41).

## City of God 18.42

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-35/#p-18-42
- Source: CSEL 40:335–336
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine recounts how Ptolemy Philadelphus obtained the Hebrew Scriptures and had them translated by seventy-two elders whose separate translations miraculously agreed, a gift of God for the future faith of the nations.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXXII. Qua dispensatione prouidentiae Dei scripturae sacrae ueteris testamenti ex Hebraeo in Graecum eloquium translatae sint, ut gentibus innotescerent. Has sacras litteras etiam unus Ptolomaeorum regum Aegypti nosse studuit et habere. Nam post Alexandri Macedonis, qui etiam Magnus cognominatus est, mirificentissimam minimeque diuturnam potentiam, qua uniuersam Asiam, immo paene totum orbem, partim ui et armis, partim terrore subegerat, quando inter cetera Orientis etiam Iudaeam ingressus obtinuit; eo mortuo comites eius cum regnum illud amplissimum non pacifice inter se possessuri diuisissent, sed potius dissipassent bellis omnia uastaturi, Ptolomaeos reges habere coepit Aegyptus; quorum primus, Lagi filius, multos ex Iudaea captiuos in Aegyptum transtulit. Huic autem succedens alius Ptolomaeus, qui est appellatus Philadelphus, omnes, quos ille adduxerat subiugatos, liberos redire permisit; insuper et dona regia in templum Dei misit petiuitque ab Eleazaro tunc pontifice dari sibi scripturas, quas profecto audierat fama praedicante diuinas, et ideo concupiuerat habere in bibliotheca, quam nobilissimam fecerat. Has ei cum idem pontifex misisset Hebraeas, post ille etiam interpretes postulauit; et dati sunt septuaginta duo, de singulis duodecim tribubus seni homines, linguae utriusque doctissimi, Hebraeae scilicet adque Graecae, quorum interpretatio ut Septuaginta uocetur, iam obtinuit consuetudo. Traditur sane tam mirabilem ac stupendum planeque diuinum in eorum uerbis fuisse consensum, ut, cum ad hoc opus separatim singuli sederint (ita enim eorum fidem Ptolomaeo placuit explorare), in nullo uerbo, quod idem significaret et tantundem ualeret, uel in uerborum ordine alter ab altero discreparet; sed tamquam unus esset interpres, ita quod omnes interpretati sunt unum erat; quoniam re uera spiritus erat unus in omnibus. Et ideo tam mirabile Dei munus acceperant, ut illarum scripturarum non tamquam humanarum, sed, sicut erant, tamquam diuinarum etiam isto modo commendaretur auctoritas, credituris quandoque gentibus profutura, quod iam uidemus effectum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 42. By what dispensation of God's providence the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament were translated from Hebrew into the Greek language, so that they might become known to the nations.

These sacred writings one of the Ptolemies, kings of Egypt, was eager to know and to possess. For after the most marvellous and by no means lasting power of Alexander of Macedon, who was also surnamed the Great, by which he had subdued all Asia, indeed almost the whole world, partly by force of arms, partly by terror, when among other parts of the East he also entered and held Judea: after his death, when his companions had divided that very great kingdom among themselves, not to possess it peacefully, but rather had torn it apart to lay everything waste with wars, Egypt began to have the Ptolemies as kings. The first of them, the son of Lagus, carried many captives from Judea into Egypt. But another Ptolemy succeeding him, who was called Philadelphus, allowed all those whom he had brought as subjects to return free; and moreover he sent royal gifts to the temple of God and asked Eleazar, then high priest, that the Scriptures should be given him, which he had certainly heard, as fame proclaimed, were divine, and therefore he had desired to have them in the library which he had made most renowned. When the same high priest had sent them to him in Hebrew, he afterwards asked for translators too; and there were given seventy-two, six men from each of the twelve tribes, most learned in both languages, that is, Hebrew and Greek; and custom has now established that their translation is called the Septuagint. It is related, indeed, that there was so marvellous, astonishing, and plainly divine an agreement in their words that, though each sat separately at this work (for so it pleased Ptolemy to test their faithfulness), they did not differ from one another in any word that meant the same thing and had the same force, or in the order of the words; but as if there were one translator, so what they all translated was one, since in truth the Spirit was one in all. And they had received so marvellous a gift of God so that in this way too the authority of those Scriptures might be commended, not as human but, as they were, as divine, to benefit the nations that would at some time believe, which we now see accomplished.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Let. Aris. (Letter of Aristeas): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The story comes from the Letter of Aristeas, embellished (the separate cells and identical translations) in later Jewish and Christian tradition; the Letter of Aristeas has no entry in the site's list of extrabiblical texts. The miracle is reported by Augustine as tradition (“it is related”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.42 (CSEL 40:335–336; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-35/#p-18-42).

## City of God 18.43

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-43/#p-18-43
- Source: CSEL 40:336–338
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine defends the church's preference for the Septuagint, holding that the same Spirit spoke through the Hebrew prophets and the seventy translators, so that differences between the Hebrew and the Greek are both inspired.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXXIII. De auctoritate septuaginta interpretum, quae, saluo honore Hebraei stili, omnibus sit interpretibus praeferenda. Nam cum fuerint et alii interpretes, qui ex Hebraea lingua in Graecam sacra illa eloquia transtulerunt, sicut Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion; sicut etiam illa est interpretatio, cuius auctor non apparet et ob hoc sine nomine interpretis quinta editio nuncupatur: hanc tamen, quae Septuaginta est, tamquam sola esset, sic recepit ecclesia, eaque utuntur Graeci populi Christiani, quorum plerique utrum alia sit aliqua ignorant. Ex hac Septuaginta interpretatione etiam in Latinam linguam interpretatum est, quod ecclesiae Latinae tenent; quamuis non defuerit temporibus nostris presbyter Hieronymus, homo doctissimus et omnium trium linguarum peritus. qui non ex Graeco, sed ex Hebraeo in Latinum eloquium easdem. scripturas conuerterit. Sed eius tam litteratum laborem quamuis Iudaei fateantur esse ueracem, septuaginta uero interpretes in multis errasse contendant: tamen ecclesiae Christi tot hominum auctoritati ab Eleazaro tunc pontifice ad hoc tantum opus electorum neminem iudicant praeferendum; quia, etsi non in eis unus apparuisset spiritus sine dubitatione diuinus, sed inter se uerba interpretationis suae septuaginta docti more hominum contulissent, ut, quod placuisset omnibus, hoc maneret, nullus eis unus interpres debuit anteponi; cum uero tantum in eis signum diuinitatis apparuerit, profecto quisquis alius illarum scripturarum ex Hebraea in quamlibet aliam linguam interpres est uerax, aut congruit illis septuaginta interpretibus, aut si non congruere uidetur, altitudo ibi prophetica esse credenda est. Spiritus enim, qui in prophetis erat, quando illa dixerunt, idem ipse erat etiam in septuaginta uiris, quando illa interpretati sunt; qui profecto auctoritate diuina et aliud dicere potuit, tamquam propheta ille utrumque dixisset, quia utrumque idem Spiritus diceret, et hoc ipsum aliter, ut, si non eadem uerba, idem tamen sensus bene intellegentibus dilucesceret, et aliquid praetermittere et aliquid addere, ut etiam hinc ostenderetur non humanam fuisse in illo opere seruitutem, quam uerbis debebat interpres, sed diuinam potius potestatem, quae mentem replebat et regebat interpretis. Nonnulli autem codices Graecos interpretationis Septuaginta ex Hebraeis codicibus emendandos putarunt; nec tamen ausi sunt detrahere, quod Hebraei non habebant et Septuaginta posuerunt; sed tantum modo addiderunt, quae in Hebraeis inuenta aput Septuaginta non erant, eaque signis quibusdam in stellarum modum factis ad capita eorundem uersuum notauerunt, quae signa asteriscos uocant. Illa uero, quae non habent Hebraei, habent autem Septuaginta. similiter ad capita uersuum iacentibus uirgulis, sicut scribuntur unciae, signauerunt. Et multi codices has notas habentes usquequaque diffusi sunt et Latini. Quae autem non praetermissa uel addita, sed aliter dicta sunt, siue alium sensum faciant etiam ipsum non abhorrentem, siue alio modo eundem sensum explicare monstrentur, nisi utrisque codicibus inspectis nequeunt reperiri. Si ergo, ut oportet, nihil aliud intueamur in scripturis illis. nisi quid per homines dixerit Dei Spiritus, quidquid est in Hebraeis codicibus et non est aput interpretes septuaginta, noluit ea per istos, sed per illos prophetas Dei Spiritus dicere. Quidquid uero est aput Septuaginta, in Hebraeis autem codicibus non est, per istos ea maluit quam per illos idem Spiritus dicere, sic ostendens utrosque fuisse prophetas. Isto enim modo alia per Esaiam, alia per Hieremiam, alia per alium aliumque prophetam uel aliter eadem per hunc ac per illum dixit. ut uoluit. Quidquid porro aput utrosque inuenitur, per utrosque dicere uoluit unus adque idem Spiritus; sed ita ut illi praecederent prophetando, isti sequerentur prophetice illos interpretando; quia sicut in illis uera et concordantia dicentibus unus pacis Spiritus fuit, sic et in istis non secum conferentibus et tamen tamquam ore uno cuncta interpretantibus idem Spiritus unus apparuit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 43. On the authority of the seventy translators, which, saving the honour of the Hebrew text, is to be preferred to all translators.

For though there have been other translators who rendered those sacred oracles from the Hebrew language into Greek, such as Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and there is also that translation whose author is unknown and which is therefore called the fifth edition, without a translator's name, yet the church has received this one, which is the Septuagint, as though it were the only one, and the Greek Christian peoples use it, most of whom do not know whether there is any other. From this Septuagint translation there has also been translated into the Latin language what the Latin churches hold; although in our times there has not been lacking the presbyter Jerome, a most learned man and skilled in all three languages, who translated the same Scriptures into the Latin language not from the Greek but from the Hebrew. But though the Jews acknowledge that his so learned labour is truthful, and contend that the seventy translators erred in many things, yet the churches of Christ judge that no one is to be preferred to the authority of so many men, chosen for so great a work by Eleazar, then high priest. For even if there had not appeared in them one Spirit, without doubt divine, but the seventy learned men had compared the words of their translation among themselves in the manner of men, so that what pleased all should stand, no single translator ought to be preferred to them; but since so great a sign of divinity appeared in them, surely any other truthful translator of those Scriptures from Hebrew into any other language either agrees with those seventy translators, or, if he does not seem to agree, a prophetic depth is to be believed to be there. For the Spirit who was in the prophets when they spoke those things was the same Spirit who was also in the seventy men when they translated them; and he could surely, with divine authority, both say something else, as though the prophet had said both, because the same Spirit said both, and say the same thing differently, so that, if not the same words, yet the same sense might shine out to those who understand well; and he could omit something and add something, so that by this too it might be shown that in that work there was not the human servitude which a translator owed to words, but rather the divine power which filled and ruled the translator's mind.

Some, however, have thought that the Greek manuscripts of the Septuagint translation should be corrected from the Hebrew manuscripts; yet they did not dare to take away what the Hebrew did not have and the Seventy had put in; but they only added what was found in the Hebrew and was not in the Seventy, and they marked these at the beginnings of the same verses with certain signs made in the manner of stars, which signs they call asterisks. But those things which the Hebrews do not have but the Seventy do, they likewise marked at the beginnings of the verses with horizontal strokes, as ounces are written. And many manuscripts with these marks have been spread everywhere, Latin ones too. But things that are not omitted or added but said differently, whether they make another sense, itself not inconsistent, or are shown to express the same sense in another way, cannot be found except by inspecting both sets of manuscripts. If, then, as we ought, we look in those Scriptures at nothing else than what the Spirit of God has said through men, whatever is in the Hebrew manuscripts and is not in the seventy translators, the Spirit of God did not will to say through these, but through those prophets. But whatever is in the Seventy and not in the Hebrew manuscripts, the same Spirit preferred to say through these rather than through those, thus showing that both were prophets. For in this way he said some things through Isaiah, others through Jeremiah, others through one prophet or another, or the same things differently through this one and that, as he willed. Whatever, further, is found in both, the one and the same Spirit willed to say through both; but so that the former went before by prophesying and the latter followed by translating them prophetically; because, as in the former, saying true and concordant things, there was the one Spirit of peace, so in the latter too, not conferring with one another and yet translating everything as with one mouth, the same one Spirit appeared.

### Translation notes

- Augustine's view that the Septuagint translators were themselves inspired is stated as written. The signs described are Origen's asterisks and obeli in the Hexapla; the “horizontal strokes, as ounces are written” are the obelus.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.43 (CSEL 40:336–338; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-43/#p-18-43).

## City of God 18.44

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-43/#p-18-44
- Source: CSEL 40:338–340
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains the Hebrew “forty days” and the Septuagint “three days” of Jonah's warning to Nineveh as both pointing to Christ's resurrection and ascension, and resolves to use both the Hebrew and the Septuagint as authoritative.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXXIIII. Quid intellegendum sit de Nineuitarum excidio. cuius denuntiatio in Hebraeo quadraginta dierum spatio tenditur, in Septuaginta autem tridui breuitate concluditur. Sed ait aliquis: Quo modo sciam quid Ionas propheta dixerit Nineuitis, utrum: Triduum, et Nineue euertetur. an: Quadraginta dies? Quis enim non uideat non potuisse utrumque tunc dici a propheta, qui missus fuerat terrere comminatione inminenti exitii ciuitatem? Cui si tertio die fuerat futurus interitus, non utique quadragensimo die; si autem quadragensimo, non utique tertio. Si ergo a me quaeritur, quid horum Ionas dixerit, hoc puto potius quod legitur in Hebraeo: Quadraginta dies, et Nineue euertetur. Septuaginta longe posterius interpretati aliud dicere potuerunt, quod tamen ad rem pertineret et in unum eundemque sensum, quamuis sub altera significatione, concurreret, admoneretque lectorem utraque auctoritate non spreta ab historia sese adtollere ad ea requirenda, propter quae significanda historia ipsa conscripta est. Gesta sunt quippe illa in Nineue ciuitate, sed aliquid etiam significauerunt, quod modum illius ciuitatis excedat; sicut gestum est, quod ipse propheta in uentre ceti triduo fuit, et tamen alium significauit in profundo inferni triduo futurum, qui dominus est omnium prophetarum. Quapropter si per illam ciuitatem recte accipitur ecclesia gentium prophetice figurata, euersa scilicet per paenitentiam, ut qualis fuerat iam non esset, hoc quoniam per Christum factum est in ecclesia gentium, cuius illa Nineue figuram gerebat, siue per quadraginta dies siue per triduum idem ipse significatus est Christus; per quadraginta scilicet, quia tot dies peregit cum discipulis suis post resurrectionem et adscendit in caelum; per triduum uero, quia die tertio resurrexit; tamquam lectorem nihil aliud quam historiae rerum gestarum inhaerere cupientem de somno excitauerint septuaginta interpretes idemque prophetae ad perscrutandam altitudinem prophetiae et quodam modo dixerint: In quadraginta diebus ipsum quaere, in quo et triduum potueris inuenire; illud in adscensione, hoc in eius resurrectione reperies. Propter quod utroque numero significari conuenientissime potuit, quorum unum per Ionam prophetam, alterum per septuaginta interpretum prophetiam, tamen unus adque idem Spiritus dixit. Longitudinem fugio, ut non haec per multa demonstrem, in quibus ab Hebraica ueritate putantur septuaginta interpretes discrepare et bene intellecti inueniuntur esse concordes. Unde etiam ego pro meo modulo uestigia sequens apostolorum, quia et ipsi ex utriusque, id est ex Hebraeis et ex Septuaginta, testimonia prophetica posuerunt, utraque auctoritate utendum putaui, quoniam utraque una adque diuina est. Sed iam quae restant, ut possumus, exsequamur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 44. How the destruction of the Ninevites is to be understood, whose announcement in the Hebrew extends to a space of forty days, but in the Septuagint is confined to the brevity of three.

But someone says: “How am I to know what the prophet Jonah said to the Ninevites: ‘Three days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown,’ or ‘Forty days’?” For who does not see that both could not have been said then by the prophet, who had been sent to terrify the city with the threat of impending destruction? If its destruction was to be on the third day, then certainly not on the fortieth; but if on the fortieth, then certainly not on the third. If, then, I am asked which of these Jonah said, I think rather that which is read in the Hebrew: “Forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” The Seventy, translating long afterwards, could say something else, which nevertheless pertained to the matter and ran together into one and the same sense, though under a different signification, and which might admonish the reader, despising neither authority, to raise himself from the history to seek those things for the signifying of which the history itself was written. For those things were done in the city of Nineveh, but they also signified something which goes beyond the measure of that city; just as it was done that the prophet himself was three days in the belly of the whale, and yet it signified another who would be three days in the depth of the underworld, who is the Lord of all the prophets. Therefore, if by that city the church of the nations is rightly taken to be prophetically represented, overthrown, that is, by repentance, so that it was no longer what it had been, since this was done through Christ in the church of the nations, of which that Nineveh bore the figure, then, whether by forty days or by three, the same Christ was signified: by forty, because he spent that many days with his disciples after the resurrection and ascended into heaven; by three, because he rose on the third day. It is as if the seventy translators, being prophets as well, had roused from sleep the reader who wished for nothing but to cling to the history of events, to search into the depth of the prophecy, and had said in a way: “Seek in the forty days him in whom you may also find the three days; the one you will find in his ascension, the other in his resurrection.” For this reason it could be most fittingly signified by both numbers, one of which the one and the same Spirit spoke through the prophet Jonah, the other through the prophecy of the seventy translators. I avoid length, so as not to demonstrate this through many instances in which the seventy translators are thought to differ from the Hebrew truth and, when well understood, are found to agree. Hence I too, according to my small measure, following in the footsteps of the apostles, since they too set down prophetic testimonies from both, that is, from the Hebrew and from the Septuagint, have thought that both authorities should be used, since both are one and divine. But now let us pursue, as we can, what remains.

### Scripture references

- Jonah 3:4: quotation, high confidence
- Jonah 1:17: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 12:40: allusion, medium confidence
- Acts 1:3: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 1:9: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The LXX of Jonah 3:4 reads “three days”; the Hebrew reads “forty days”.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.44 (CSEL 40:338–340; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-43/#p-18-44).

## City of God 18.45

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-43/#p-18-45
- Source: CSEL 40:340–343
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine traces the afflictions of the Jews from the rebuilding of the temple to Herod, arguing that the greater glory promised by Haggai belongs to the church, and that Jacob's prophecy was fulfilled when a foreign king ruled at Christ's birth.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXXV. Quod post instaurationem templi Iudaei prophetas habere destiterint et exinde usque ad natiuitatem Christi continuis aduersitatibus sint adflicti, ut probaretur alterius templi aedificationem propheticis uocibus fuisse promissam. Postea quam gens Iudaea coepit non habere prophetas, procul dubio deterior facta est, eo scilicet tempore, quo se sperabat instaurato templo post captiuitatem, quae fuit in Babylonia, futuram esse meliorem. Sic quippe intellegebat populus ille carnalis, quod praenuntiatum est per Aggaeum prophetam dicentem: Magna erit gloria domus istius nouissimae, plus quam primae; quod de nouo testamento dictum esse paulo superius demonstrauit, ubi ait aperte Christum promittens: Et mouebo omnes gentes, et ueniet desideratus cunctis gentibus. Quo loco septuaginta interpretes alium sensum magis corpori quam capiti, hoc est magis ecclesiae quam Christo, conuenientem prophetica auctoritate dixerunt: Venient quae electa sunt Domini de cunctis gentibus, id est homines, de quibus ipse Iesus in euangelio: Multi, inquit, uocati, pauci uero electi. Talibus enim electis gentium domus aedificatur Dei per testamentum nouum lapidibus uiuis, longe gloriosior, quam templum illud fuit, quod a rege Salomone constructum est et post captiuitatem instauratum. Propter hoc ergo nec prophetas ex illo tempore habuit illa gens et multis cladibus adflicta est ab alienigenis regibus ipsisque Romanis, ne hanc Aggaei prophetiam in illa instauratione templi opinaretur inpletam. Non multo post enim adueniente Alexandro subiugata est, quando etsi nulla est facta uastatio, quoniam non sunt ei ausi resistere et ideo placatum facillime subditi receperunt, non erat tamen gloria tanta domus illius, quanta fuit in suorum regum libera potestate. Hostias sane Alexander immolauit in Dei templo, non ad eius cultum uera pietate conuersus, sed inpia uanitate cum dis eum falsis colendum putans. Deinde Ptolomaeus, Lagi filius, quod supra memoraui, post Alexandri mortem captiuos inde in Aegyptum transtulit, quos eius successor Ptolomaeus Philadelphus beneuolentissime inde dimisit; per quem factum est, quod paulo ante narraui, ut septuaginta interpretum scripturas haberemus. Deinde contriti sunt bellis, quae in Macchabaeorum libris explicantur. Post haec capti a rege Alexandriae Ptolomaeo, qui est appellatus, Epiphanes; inde ab Antiocho rege Syriae multis et grauissimis malis ad idola colenda conpulsi, templumque ipsum repletum sacrilegis superstitionibus gentium. quod tamen dux eorum strenuissimus Iudas, qui etiam Macchabaeus dictus est, Antiochi ducibus pulsis ab omni illa idolatriae contaminatione mundauit. Non autem multo post Alcimus quidam per ambitionem, cum a genere sacerdotali esset alienus, quod nefas erat, pontifex factus est. Hinc iam post annos ferme quinquaginta, in quibus eis tamen pax non fuit, quamuis aliqua et prospere gesserint, primus aput eos Aristobolus adsumto diademate et rex et pontifex factus est. Antea quippe, ex quo de Babyloniae captiuitate reuersi sunt templumque instauratum est, non reges, sed duces uel principes habuerunt; quamuis et qui rex est possit dici princeps a principatu imperandi et dux eo, quod sit ductor exercitus; sed non continuo, quicumque principes uel duces sunt, etiam reges dici possunt, quod iste Aristobolus fuit. Cui successit Alexander, etiam ipse rex et pontifex, qui crudeliter in suos regnasse traditur. Post hunc uxor eius Alexandra regina Iudaeorum fuit, ex cuius tempore deinceps mala sunt eos secuta grauiora. Filii quippe huius Alexandrae Aristobolus et Hyrcanus inter se de imperio dimicantes uires aduersus Israeliticam gentem prouocauere Romanas. Hyrcanus namque ab eis contra fratrem poposcit auxilium. Tunc iam Roma subiugauerat Africam, subiugauerat Graeciam lateque etiam aliis orbis partibus imperans, tamquam se ipsam non ualens ferre, sua se quodam modo magnitudine fregerat. Peruenerat quippe ad seditiones domesticas graues? adque inde ad bella socialia moxque ciuilia, tantumque se comminuerat et adtriuerat, ut ei mutandus rei publicae status. quo regeretur regibus, inmineret. Pompeius ergo, populi Romani praeclarissimus princeps, Iudaeam cum exercitu ingressus ciuitatem capit, templum reserat, non deuotione supplicis, sed iure uictoris. et ad sancta sanctorum, quo nisi summum sacerdotem non licebat intrare, non ut uenerator, sed ut profanator accedit; confirmatoque Hyrcani pontificatu et subiugatae genti inposito custode Antipatro, quos tunc procuratores uocabant, uinctum secum Aristobolum ducit. Ex illo Iudaei etiam tributarii Romanorum esse coeperunt. Postea Cassius etiam templum exspoliauit. Deinde post paucos annos etiam Herodem alienigenam regem habere meruerunt, quo regnante natus est Christus. Iam enim uenerat plenitudo temporis significata prophetico spiritu per os patriarchae Iacob, ubi ait: Non deficiet princeps ex Iuda, neque dux de femoribus eius, donec ueniat cui repositum est, et ipse exspectatio gentium. Non ergo defuit Iudaeorum princeps ex Iudaeis usque ad istum Herodem, quem primum acceperunt alienigenam regem. Tempus ergo iam erat, ut ueniret ille, cui repositum erat, quod nouo promissum est testamento, ut ipse esset exspectatio gentium. Fieri autem non posset, ut exspectarent eum gentes uenturum, sicut eum cernimus exspectari, ut ueniat ad faciendum iudicium in claritate potentiae, nisi prius in eum crederent, cum uenit ad patiendum iudicium in humilitate patientiae.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 45. That after the restoration of the temple the Jews ceased to have prophets and from then until the birth of Christ were afflicted with continual adversities, so that it might be proved that the building of another temple had been promised by the prophetic voices.

After the Jewish nation began to be without prophets, it undoubtedly became worse, at the very time, namely, when, the temple having been restored after the captivity in Babylonia, it hoped that it would be better. For so that carnal people understood what was foretold through the prophet Haggai, saying: “Great shall be the glory of this latter house, more than of the former”; which he showed a little above to have been said of the new testament, where he says, openly promising Christ: “And I will move all nations, and the one desired by all nations shall come.” In this place the seventy translators, by prophetic authority, gave another sense, more suited to the body than to the head, that is, more to the church than to Christ: “The chosen things of the Lord shall come from all nations,” that is, men, of whom Jesus himself says in the gospel: “Many are called, but few are chosen.” For by such chosen ones from the nations the house of God is built through the new testament with living stones, far more glorious than was that temple which was built by King Solomon and restored after the captivity. For this reason, then, that nation had no prophets from that time, and was afflicted with many disasters by foreign kings and by the Romans themselves, so that it might not suppose that this prophecy of Haggai was fulfilled in that restoration of the temple.

For not long afterwards, at the coming of Alexander, it was subjugated; when, though no devastation took place, because they did not dare to resist him and therefore, submitting, received him very easily appeased, yet the glory of that house was not so great as it was under the free power of its own kings. Alexander indeed offered sacrifices in the temple of God, not converted to his worship with true piety, but thinking with impious vanity that he was to be worshipped along with false gods. Then Ptolemy the son of Lagus, as I mentioned above, after Alexander's death carried captives from there into Egypt, whom his successor Ptolemy Philadelphus most kindly sent back from there; through whom it came about, as I related a little before, that we have the Scriptures of the seventy translators. Then they were crushed by the wars which are set out in the books of the Maccabees. After this they were taken by Ptolemy, king of Alexandria, who was called Epiphanes; then by Antiochus, king of Syria, they were compelled with many and most grievous evils to worship idols, and the temple itself was filled with the sacrilegious superstitions of the Gentiles; which nevertheless their most vigorous leader Judas, who was also called Maccabeus, cleansed from all that contamination of idolatry after he had driven out the generals of Antiochus. Not long afterwards a certain Alcimus, through ambition, though he was a stranger to the priestly family, which was unlawful, was made high priest. From then, after about fifty years, in which they nevertheless had no peace, though they did some things successfully, Aristobulus was the first among them to take the diadem and was made both king and high priest. For before, from the time when they returned from the Babylonian captivity and the temple was restored, they had not kings but leaders or rulers; although he who is king can also be called ruler, from the rulership of command, and leader, because he is the leader of the army; but not all who are rulers or leaders can at once also be called kings, as this Aristobulus was. He was succeeded by Alexander, himself also king and high priest, who is said to have reigned cruelly over his own people. After him his wife Alexandra was queen of the Jews, and from her time on graver evils followed them. For the sons of this Alexandra, Aristobulus and Hyrcanus, fighting between themselves for power, called out the forces of Rome against the Israelite nation. For Hyrcanus asked them for help against his brother.

By then Rome had subjugated Africa, had subjugated Greece, and, ruling widely over other parts of the world too, as though unable to bear itself, had in a way broken itself by its own greatness. For it had come to grave domestic seditions, and from there to the Social wars and soon to the civil wars, and had so shattered and worn itself down that a change in the constitution of the state, by which it would be ruled by kings, was impending. Pompey, then, the most illustrious leader of the Roman people, entering Judea with an army, takes the city, opens the temple, not with the devotion of a suppliant but by the right of a conqueror, and goes into the holy of holies, where no one but the high priest was allowed to enter, not as a worshipper but as a profaner; and having confirmed the high priesthood of Hyrcanus and set over the subjugated nation Antipater as guardian (they then called them procurators), he leads Aristobulus away with him in chains. From that time the Jews also began to be tributaries of the Romans. Afterwards Cassius even plundered the temple. Then, after a few years, they deserved to have even Herod, a foreigner, as king, in whose reign Christ was born. For there had now come the fullness of time signified by the prophetic Spirit through the mouth of the patriarch Jacob, where he says: “A prince shall not fail from Judah, nor a leader from his thighs, until he comes for whom it is laid up; and he is the expectation of the nations.” There did not fail, then, a prince of the Jews from among the Jews down to this Herod, whom they first received as a foreign king. It was now the time, then, for him to come for whom was laid up what was promised in the new testament, that he himself should be the expectation of the nations. But it could not be that the nations should await his coming, as we see him awaited, to come to execute judgment in the splendour of power, unless they first believed in him when he came to undergo judgment in the humility of patience.

### Scripture references

- Hag 2:9: quotation, high confidence
- Hag 2:7: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 22:14: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Pet 2:5: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 49:10: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 4:4: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- 1 Macc 1-7 (1 Maccabees): allusion, high confidence
- 2 Macc (2 Maccabees): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Hag 2:7 is quoted in both the Hebrew-based form and the LXX form (“the chosen things of the Lord shall come”). Augustine's historical outline (Alexander's sacrifice in the temple, Ptolemy Epiphanes, Alcimus, Pompey, Cassius) comes from the books of the Maccabees and the chronicle tradition; figures are translated as printed. The Jews are described as the author describes them.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.45 (CSEL 40:340–343; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-43/#p-18-45).

## City of God 18.46

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-43/#p-18-46
- Source: CSEL 40:343–345
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine dates Christ's birth to the reign of Herod and Augustus and argues that the Jews, dispersed among the nations with their Scriptures, bear unwilling witness that the prophecies of Christ were not invented by Christians.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXXVI. De ortu Saluatoris nostri, secundum quod Verbum caro factum est, et de dispersione Iudaeorum per omnes gentes, sicut fuerat prophetatum. Regnante ergo Herode in Iudaea, aput Romanos autem iam mutato rei publicae statu imperante Caesare Augusto et per eum orbe pacato natus est Christus secundum praecedentem prophetiam in Bethleem Iudae, homo manifestus ex homine uirgine, Deus occultus ex Deo Patre. Sic enim propheta praedixerat: Ecce uirgo accipiet in utero et pariet filium, et uocabunt nomen eius Emmanuel, quod est interpretatum: Nobiscum Deus. Qui ut in se commendaret Deum, miracula multa fecit, ex quibus quaedam, quantum ad eum praedicandum satis esse uisum est, scriptura euangelica continet. Quorum primum est, quod tam mirabiliter natus est; ultimum autem, quod cum suo resuscitato a mortuis corpore adscendit in caelum. Iudaei autem, qui eum occiderunt et in eum credere noluerunt, quia oportebat eum mori et resurgere, uastati infelicius a Romanis funditusque a suo regno, ubi iam eis alienigenae dominabantur, eradicati dispersique per terras (quando quidem ubique non desunt) per scripturas suas testimonio nobis sunt prophetias nos non finxisse de Christo; quas plurimi eorum considerantes et ante passionem et maxime post eius resurrectionem crediderunt in eum, de quibus praedictum est: Si fuerit numerus filiorum Israel sicut harena maris, reliquiae saluae fient. Ceteri uero excaecati sunt, de quibus praedictum est: Fiat mensa eorum [coram ipsis] in laqueum et in retributionem et scandalum. Obscurentur oculi eorum, ne uideant; et dorsum illorum semper incurua. Proinde cum scripturis nostris non credunt, conplentur in eis suae, quas caeci legunt. Nisi forte quis dixerit illas prophetias Christianos finxisse de Christo, quae Sibyllae nomine proferuntur uel aliorum, si quae sunt, quae non pertinent ad populum Iudaeorum. Nobis quidem illae sufficiunt, quae de nostrorum inimicorum codicibus proferuntur, quos agnoscimus propter hoc testimonium, quod nobis inuiti perhibent eosdem codices habendo adque seruando, per omnes gentes etiam ipsos esse dispersos, quaqua uersum Christi ecclesia dilatatur. Nam prophetia in psalmis, quos legunt etiam, de hac re praemissa est, ubi scriptum est: Deus meus, misericordia eius praeueniet me; Deus meus demonstrauit mihi in inimicis meis, ne occideris eos, ne quando obliuiscantur legem tuam; disperge eos in uirtute tua. Demonstrauit ergo Deus ecclesiae in eius inimicis Iudaeis gratiam misericordiae suae, quoniam, sicut dicit apostolus, delictum illorum salus gentibus; et ideo non eos occidit, id est non in eis perdidit quod sunt Iudaei, quamuis a Romanis fuerint deuicti et obpressi, ne obliti legem Dei ad hoc, de quo agimus, testimonium nihil ualerent. Ideo parum fuit, ut diceret: Ne occideris eos, ne quando obliuiscantur legem tuam, nisi adderet etiam: Disperge eos; quoniam si cum isto testimonio scripturarum in sua tantummodo terra, non ubique essent, profecto ecclesia, quae ubique est, eos prophetiarum, quae de Christo praemissae sunt, testes in omnibus gentibus habere non posset.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 46. On the birth of our Saviour, according to which the Word was made flesh, and on the dispersion of the Jews among all nations, as had been prophesied.

When Herod, then, was reigning in Judea, and among the Romans, the constitution of the state having now been changed, Caesar Augustus was emperor, and through him the world was at peace, Christ was born, according to the preceding prophecy, in Bethlehem of Judah, man manifest from a human virgin, God hidden from God the Father. For so the prophet had foretold: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb and bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,” which is interpreted, “God with us.” To commend God in himself, he did many miracles, of which the gospel Scripture contains some, as many as seemed sufficient to proclaim him. The first of them is that he was so wonderfully born; the last, that with his own body raised from the dead he ascended into heaven. But the Jews, who killed him and would not believe in him, because it was necessary for him to die and rise again, were laid waste more unhappily by the Romans and utterly rooted out of their kingdom, where foreigners were already ruling over them, and dispersed through the lands (since indeed they are not lacking anywhere); and through their Scriptures they are a testimony to us that we have not invented the prophecies about Christ. Very many of them, considering these, believed in him both before his passion and especially after his resurrection; of whom it was foretold: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved.” But the rest were blinded, of whom it was foretold: “Let their table become a snare and a retribution and a stumbling block. Let their eyes be darkened so that they do not see, and bend their back always.” Accordingly, when they do not believe our Scriptures, their own, which they read blind, are fulfilled in them.

Unless perhaps someone should say that the Christians invented those prophecies about Christ which are put forward under the name of the Sibyl, or of others, if there are any, who do not belong to the Jewish people. For us, certainly, those suffice which are brought forward from the books of our enemies; whom we acknowledge, because of this testimony which they bear us against their will by having and preserving these same books, to be themselves too dispersed among all nations, wherever the church of Christ spreads. For a prophecy about this was set forth beforehand in the Psalms, which they also read, where it is written: “My God, his mercy shall go before me; my God has shown me in my enemies: do not kill them, lest at some time they forget your law; scatter them in your power.” God has shown the church, then, in its enemies the Jews, the grace of his mercy, since, as the apostle says, “their offence is salvation for the Gentiles”; and therefore he has not killed them, that is, he has not destroyed in them what they are as Jews, though they have been conquered and oppressed by the Romans, lest, forgetting the law of God, they should be of no value for this testimony of which we are treating. Therefore it was not enough for him to say, “Do not kill them, lest at some time they forget your law,” unless he also added, “Scatter them”; because if they were, with this testimony of the Scriptures, only in their own land and not everywhere, surely the church, which is everywhere, could not have them among all nations as witnesses to the prophecies which were set forth beforehand concerning Christ.

### Scripture references

- John 1:14: allusion, high confidence
- Mic 5:2: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 2:1: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 2:1: allusion, medium confidence
- Isa 7:14: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 1:23: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 1:9: allusion, medium confidence
- Rom 9:27: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 10:22: allusion, medium confidence
- Ps 69:22 (68:23 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 69:23 (68:24 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 11:9: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 11:10: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 59:10 (58:11 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 59:11 (58:12 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 11:11: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sib. Or. (Sibylline Oracles): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Augustine's view of the Jews as witnesses through their dispersion, based on Ps 59:11 (LXX 58:12), is translated as written. In Ps 69:22 the editor deletes “coram ipsis” (“before them”); it is left out. The Sibylline prophecies are those discussed in 18.23.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.46 (CSEL 40:343–345; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-43/#p-18-46).

## City of God 18.47

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-43/#p-18-47
- Source: CSEL 40:345–347
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine allows that people outside Israel, like Job, belonged to the heavenly city through faith in the one Mediator, but holds that prophecies preserved by the Jews are the strongest evidence for Christ.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXXVII. An ante tempora Christiana aliqui fuerint extra Israeliticum genus, qui ad caelestis ciuitatis consortium pertinerent. Quapropter quisquis alienigena, id est non ex Israel progenitus nec ab illo populo in canonem sacrarum litterarum receptus, legitur aliquid prophetasse de Christo, si in nostram notitiam uenit aut uenerit, ad cumulum a nobis commemorari potest; non quo necessarius sit, etiamsi desit, sed quia non incongrue creditur fuisse et in aliis gentibus homines, quibus hoc mysterium. reuelatum est, et qui haec etiam praedicere inpulsi sunt, siue participes eiusdem gratiae fuerint siue expertes, sed per malos angelos docti sunt. quos etiam praesentem Christum, quem Iudaei non agnoscebant, scimus fuisse confessos. Nec ipsos Iudaeos existimo audere contendere neminem pertinuisse ad Deum praeter Israelitas, ex quo propago Israel esse coepit, reprobato eius fratre maiore. Populus enim re uera, qui proprie Dei populus diceretur. nullus alius fuit; homines autem quosdam non terrena, sed caelesti societate ad ueros Israelitas supernae ciues patriae pertinentes etiam in aliis gentibus fuisse negare non possunt: quia si negant, facillime conuincuntur de sancto et mirabili uiro Iob, qui nec indigena nec proselytus, id est aduena populi Israel fuit, sed ex gente Idumaea genus ducens, ibi ortus, ibidem mortuus est; qui diuino sic laudatur eloquio, ut, quod ad iustitiam pietatemque adtinet, nullus ei homo suorum temporum coaequetur. Quae tempora eius quamuis non inueniamus in Chronicis, colligimus tamen ex libro eius, quem pro sui merito Israelitae in auctoritatem canonicam receperunt, tertia generatione posteriorem fuisse quam Israel. Diuinitus autem prouisum fuisse non dubito, ut ex hoc uno sciremus etiam per alias gentes esse potuisse, qui secundum Deum uixerunt eique placuerunt, pertinentes ad spiritalem Hierusalem. Quod nemini concessum fuisse credendum est. nisi cui diuinitus reuelatus est unus mediator Dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus, qui uenturus in carne sic antiquis sanctis praenuntiabatur, quem ad modum nobis uenisse nuntiatus est, ut una eademque per ipsum fides omnes in Dei ciuitatem, Dei domum, Dei templum praedestinatos perducat ad Deum. Sed quaecumque aliorum prophetiae de Dei per Iesum Christum gratia proferuntur, possunt putari a Christianis esse confictae. Ideo nihil est firmius ad conuincendos quoslibet alienos, si de hac re contenderint, nostrosque faciendos, si recte sapuerint, quam ut diuina praedicta de Christo ea proferantur, quae in Iudaeorum codicibus scripta sunt; quibus auulsis de sedibus propriis et propter hoc testimonium toto orbe dispersis Christi usquequaque creuit ecclesia.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 47. Whether before Christian times there were any outside the Israelite race who belonged to the fellowship of the heavenly city.

Therefore, whoever of foreign race, that is, not born of Israel nor received by that people into the canon of the sacred writings, is read to have prophesied anything about Christ, if he has come or shall come to our knowledge, can be mentioned by us as an addition; not that he is necessary, even if he is lacking, but because it is not unfittingly believed that there were among other nations too men to whom this mystery was revealed, and who were also impelled to foretell these things, whether they were partakers of the same grace or without it and were taught by evil angels, who, we know, confessed Christ even when he was present, whom the Jews did not recognize. Nor do I think that the Jews themselves dare to contend that no one belonged to God except the Israelites, from the time when the line of Israel began, his elder brother being rejected. For in truth there was no other people which could properly be called the people of God; but they cannot deny that there were among other nations too certain men who belonged, not by earthly but by heavenly fellowship, to the true Israelites, the citizens of the heavenly homeland. For if they deny it, they are very easily refuted by the holy and wonderful man Job, who was neither a native nor a proselyte, that is, a newcomer among the people of Israel, but, deriving his descent from the Idumean nation, was born there and died there; who is so praised by the divine word that as regards righteousness and piety no man of his times is equalled to him. Though we do not find his times in the Chronicles, we gather from his book, which the Israelites for its merit received into canonical authority, that he was later than Israel by three generations. I do not doubt that it was divinely provided that from this one man we might know that there could have been among other nations too those who lived according to God and pleased him, belonging to the spiritual Jerusalem. This must be believed to have been granted to no one except him to whom was divinely revealed the “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” who was foretold to the saints of old as to come in the flesh, just as he is announced to us as having come, so that one and the same faith through him might lead all who are predestined to the city of God, the house of God, the temple of God, to God. But whatever prophecies of others are put forward concerning the grace of God through Jesus Christ can be thought to have been invented by the Christians. Therefore nothing is stronger for refuting any outsiders whatever, if they dispute about this, and for making them ours, if they are rightly wise, than to bring forward those divine predictions about Christ which are written in the books of the Jews; who, torn away from their own seats and dispersed over the whole world for the sake of this testimony, have made the church of Christ grow everywhere.

### Scripture references

- Mark 1:24: allusion, medium confidence
- Jas 2:19: echo, low confidence
- Gen 25:23: allusion, medium confidence
- Job 1:1: allusion, high confidence
- Job 1:8: allusion, high confidence
- Job 42:17: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Tim 2:5: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Chron. (Eusebius and Jerome, Chronicle): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The date of Job “three generations after Israel” depends on the appendix to the LXX Job (Job 42:17b–e), not on the Hebrew book. “The Chronicles” are the Chronicle of Eusebius and Jerome (no entry in the site's list of extrabiblical texts).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.47 (CSEL 40:345–347; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-43/#p-18-47).

## City of God 18.48

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-43/#p-18-48
- Source: CSEL 40:347–349
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that Haggai's promised greater glory belongs to the church built of living stones, which will appear fully when only the chosen remain.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXXVIII. Prophetiam Aggaei, qua dixit maiorem futuram gloriam domus Dei, quam primum fuisset, non in reaedificatione templi, sed in ecclesia Christi esse conpletam. Haec domus Dei maioris est gloriae, quam fuerat illa prima lignis et lapidibus ceterisque pretiosis rebus metallisque constructa. Non itaque Aggaei prophetia in templi illius instauratione conpleta est. Ex quo enim est instauratum, numquam ostenditur habuisse tantam gloriam, quantam habuit tempore Salomonis; immo potius ostenditur primum cessatione prophetiae fuisse domus illius gloriam diminutam, deinde ipsius gentis cladibus tantis usque ad ultimum excidium, quod factum est a Romanis, sicut ea, quae supra sunt commemorata testantur. Haec autem domus ad nouum pertinens testamentum tanto utique maioris est gloriae, quanto meliores sunt lapides uiui, quibus credentibus renouatisque construitur. Sed ideo per instaurationem templi illius significata est, quia ipsa renouatio illius aedificii significat eloquio prophetico alterum testamentum, quod appellatur nouum. Quod ergo Deus dixit per memoratum prophetam: Et dabo pacem in loco isto, per significantem locum ille, qui eo significatur, intellegendus est; ut, quia illo loco instaurato significata est ecclesia, quae fuerat aedificanda per Christum, nihil aliud accipiatur, quod dictum est: Dabo pacem in loco isto, nisi dabo pacem in loco, quem significat locus iste). Quoniam omnia significantia uidentur quodam modo earum rerum, quas significant, sustinere personas; sicut dictum est ab apostolo: Petra erat Christus, quoniam petra illa, de qua hoc dictum est, significabat utique Christum. Maior est itaque gloria domus huius noui testamenti quam domus prioris ueteris testamenti, et tunc apparebit maior cum dedicabitur. Tunc enim ueniet desideratus cunctis gentibus, sicut legitur in Hebraeo. Nam primus eius aduentus nondum erat desideratus omnibus gentibus. Non enim quem deberent desiderare sciebant, in quem non crediderant. Tunc etiam secundum septuaginta interpretes (quia et ipse propheticus sensus est) uenient quae electa sunt Domini de cunctis gentibus. Tunc enim uere non uenient nisi electa, de quibus dicit apostolus: Sicut elegit nos in ipso ante mundi constitutionem. Ipse quippe architectus, qui dixit: Multi uocati, pauci uero electi, non de his, qui uocati sic uenerunt, ut de conuiuio proicerentur, sed de electis demonstraturus erat aedificatam domum, quae nullam ruinam deinceps formidabit. Nunc autem, quando et hi replent ecclesias, quos tamquam in area uentilatio separabit, non apparet tanta gloria domus huius, quanta tunc apparebit, quando, quisquis ibi erit, semper erit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 48. That the prophecy of Haggai, in which he said that the glory of the house of God would be greater than that of the first, was fulfilled not in the rebuilding of the temple but in the church of Christ.

This house of God is of greater glory than was that first one built of wood and stone and other precious things and metals. The prophecy of Haggai, then, was not fulfilled in the restoration of that temple. For from the time it was restored it is never shown to have had so great a glory as it had in the time of Solomon; rather it is shown that the glory of that house was diminished, first by the cessation of prophecy, then by the great disasters of the nation itself, down to the final destruction, which was done by the Romans, as the things mentioned above testify. But this house, which belongs to the new testament, is of so much greater glory as the living stones, believing and renewed, of which it is built are better. But it was signified by the restoration of that temple because the very renewal of that building signifies in prophetic speech the other testament, which is called new. When, then, God said through the prophet mentioned, “And I will give peace in this place,” by the signifying place is to be understood that which is signified by it; so that, since by that restored place was signified the church which was to be built by Christ, nothing else is to be understood by what was said, “I will give peace in this place,” but “I will give peace in the place which this place signifies.” For all things that signify seem in a way to bear the persons of the things they signify; as it was said by the apostle, “The rock was Christ,” because that rock of which this was said certainly signified Christ.

Greater, then, is the glory of this house of the new testament than that of the former house of the old testament; and it will appear greater when it is dedicated. For then “the one desired by all nations shall come,” as it is read in the Hebrew. For his first coming was not yet desired by all nations. For they did not know whom they ought to desire, in whom they had not believed. Then too, according to the seventy translators (for that too is a prophetic sense), “the chosen things of the Lord shall come from all nations.” For then truly there will come only the chosen, of whom the apostle says: “As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world.” For the architect himself, who said, “Many are called, but few are chosen,” was to show the house built not of those who, being called, came in such a way as to be thrown out of the banquet, but of the chosen, a house which will fear no ruin thereafter. But now, when those too fill the churches whom the winnowing will separate as on a threshing floor, the glory of this house does not appear as great as it will appear then, when whoever is there will be there for ever.

### Scripture references

- Hag 2:9: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Pet 2:5: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 10:4: quotation, high confidence
- Hag 2:7: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 1:4: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 22:14: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 22:11: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 22:13: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 3:12: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Hag 2:7 is again quoted in both the Hebrew-based and the LXX forms.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.48 (CSEL 40:347–349; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-43/#p-18-48).

## City of God 18.49

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-43/#p-18-49
- Source: CSEL 40:349–350
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine describes the church in this age as a net holding good and bad until the final separation, and recounts Christ's preaching, choice of apostles, passion, resurrection, ascension, and gift of the Spirit at Pentecost.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXXXVIIII. De indiscreta multiplicatione ecclesiae, qua in hoc saeculo multi reprobi miscentur electis. In hoc ergo saeculo maligno, in his diebus malis, ubi per humilitatem praesentem futuram conparat ecclesia celsitudinem et timorum stimulis, dolorum tormentis, laborum molestiis, tentationum periculis eruditur, sola spe gaudens, quando sanum gaudet, multi reprobi miscentur bonis et utrique tamquam in sagenam euangelicam colliguntur et in hoc mundo tamquam in mari utrique inclusi retibus indiscrete natant, donec perueniatur ad litus, ubi mali segregentur a bonis, et in bonis tamquam in templo suo sit Deus omnia in omnibus. Proinde uocem nunc agnoscimus eius inpleri, qui loquebatur in psalmo adque dicebat: Adnuntiaui et locutus sum, multiplicati sunt super numerum. Hoc fit nunc, ex quo primum per os praecursoris sui Iohannis, deinde per os proprium adnuntiauit et locutus est dicens: Agite paenitentiam, adpropinquauit enim regnum caelorum. Elegit discipulos, quos et apostolos nominauit, humiliter natos, inhonoratos, inlitteratos, ut, quidquid magnum essent et facerent, ipse in eis esset et faceret. Habuit inter eos unum, quo malo utens bene et suae passionis inpleret dispositum et ecclesiae suae tolerandorum malorum praeberet exemplum. Seminato, quantum per eius oportebat praesentiam corporalem, sancto euangelio passus est, mortuus est, resurrexit, passione ostendens quid sustinere pro ueritate, resurrectione quid sperare in aeternitate debeamus, excepta altitudine sacramenti, qua sanguis eius in remissionem fusus est peccatorum. Conuersatus est in terra quadraginta dies cum discipulis suis adque ipsis uidentibus adscendit in caelum et post dies decem misit promissum Spiritum sanctum; cuius uenientis in eos qui crediderant tunc signum erat maximum et maxime necessarium, ut unusquisque eorum linguis omnium gentium loqueretur; ita significans unitatem catholicae ecclesiae per omnes gentes futuram ac sic linguis omnibus locuturam.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 49. On the indiscriminate increase of the church, by which in this world many reprobates are mixed with the elect.

In this evil world, then, in these evil days, when the church through present humility is preparing for future exaltation, and is trained by the goads of fears, the torments of sorrows, the troubles of labours, and the dangers of temptations, rejoicing in hope alone when its joy is sound, many reprobates are mixed with the good, and both are gathered as into the gospel net; and in this world, as in a sea, both, enclosed in the nets, swim without distinction until the shore is reached, where the wicked are to be separated from the good, and in the good, as in his temple, God is to be all in all. Accordingly we now recognize the fulfilment of the words of him who spoke in the psalm and said: “I have announced and have spoken; they are multiplied beyond number.” This is happening now, from the time when first through the mouth of his forerunner John, and then through his own mouth, he announced and spoke, saying: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near.” He chose disciples, whom he also named apostles, lowly born, without honour, unlettered, so that whatever great thing they were and did, he himself might be and do it in them. He had among them one whom, using an evil man well, he employed both to fulfil the plan of his passion and to give his church an example of bearing with the wicked. When the holy gospel had been sown as far as was fitting through his bodily presence, he suffered, died, and rose again, showing by his passion what we ought to endure for the truth, by his resurrection what we ought to hope for in eternity, apart from the depth of the sacrament by which his blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins. He lived on earth forty days with his disciples, and while they watched ascended into heaven, and after ten days sent the promised Holy Spirit; of whose coming upon those who had believed the sign then was very great and very necessary, that each one of them spoke in the tongues of all nations; thus signifying that the unity of the catholic church would be among all nations and so would speak in all tongues.

### Scripture references

- Eph 5:16: allusion, medium confidence
- Rom 12:12: allusion, medium confidence
- Matt 13:47: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 13:48: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:28: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 40:5 (39:6 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Matt 3:2: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 4:17: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 6:13: allusion, high confidence
- John 6:70: allusion, medium confidence
- Matt 26:28: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 1:3: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 1:9: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 2:1: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 2:4: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The psalm is Ps 40:5 (LXX 39:6). The one disciple is Judas.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.49 (CSEL 40:349–350; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-43/#p-18-49).

## City of God 18.50

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-43/#p-18-50
- Source: CSEL 40:350–351
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine describes the spread of the church from Jerusalem through the apostles and their successors amid persecutions, until the persecuting kings themselves submitted to Christ.

### Latin text

CAPUT L. De praedicatione euangelii, quae per passiones praedicantium clarior et potentior facta est. Deinde secundum illam prophetiam: Ex Sion lex prodiet et uerbum Domini ex Hierusalem, et secundum ipsius Domini Christi praedicta, ubi post resurrectionem stupentibus eum discipulis suis aperuit sensum, ut intellegerent scripturas, et dixit eis, quoniam sic scriptum est, et sic oportebat Christum pati et resurgere a mortuis tertio die et praedicari in nomine eius paenitentiam et remissionem peccatorum per omnes gentes, incipientibus ab Hierusalem, et ubi rursus eis de aduentu eius nouissimo requirentibus respondit adque ait: Non est uestrum scire tempora quae Pater posuit in sua potestate; sed accipietis uirtutem Spiritus sancti superuenientem in uos, et eritis mihi testes in Hierusalem et in totam Iudaeam et Samariam et usque in fines terrae, primum se ab Hierusalem diffudit ecclesia, et cum in Iudaea adque Samaria plurimi credidissent, et in alias gentes itum est, eis adnuntiantibus euangelium, quos ipse sicut luminaria et aptauerat uerbo et accenderat Spiritu sancto. Dixerat enim eis: Nolite timere eos, qui corpus occidunt, animam autem non possunt occidere. Qui ut frigidi timore non essent, igne caritatis ardebant. Denique non solum per ipsos, qui eum et ante passionem et post resurrectionem uiderant et audierant, uerum etiam post obitum eorum per posteros eorum inter horrendas persecutiones et uarios cruciatus ac funera martyrum praedicatum est toto orbe euangelium, contestante Deo signis et ostentis et uariis uirtutibus et Spiritus sancti muneribus; ut populi gentium credentes in eum, qui pro eorum redemtione crucifixus est, Christiano amore uenerarentur sanguinem martyrum, quem diabolico furore fuderunt, ipsique reges, quorum legibus uastabatur ecclesia, ei nomini salubriter subderentur, quod de terra crudeliter auferre conati sunt, et falsos deos inciperent persequi, quorum causa cultores Dei ueri fuerant antea persecuti.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 50. On the preaching of the gospel, which was made more illustrious and powerful through the sufferings of its preachers.

Then, in accordance with that prophecy, “Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,” and in accordance with the predictions of the Lord Christ himself, when after the resurrection he opened the mind of his astonished disciples so that they might understand the Scriptures, and said to them that thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for Christ to suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and for repentance and forgiveness of sins to be preached in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem; and when again, as they asked about his last coming, he answered and said: “It is not for you to know the times which the Father has put in his own power; but you shall receive the power of the Holy Spirit coming upon you, and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth”: the church spread itself first from Jerusalem; and when a great many in Judea and Samaria had believed, it went also to other nations, through those announcing the gospel whom he himself, like lamps, had both fitted by his word and kindled with the Holy Spirit. For he had said to them: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.” And so that they might not be chilled with fear, they burned with the fire of love. Finally, not only through those who had seen and heard him both before his passion and after his resurrection, but also after their death through their successors, amid horrible persecutions and various tortures and deaths of martyrs, the gospel was preached in the whole world, God bearing witness with signs and wonders and various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit; so that the peoples of the nations, believing in him who was crucified for their redemption, might venerate with Christian love the blood of the martyrs which they had shed with devilish fury, and the very kings by whose laws the church was being laid waste might submit to their salvation to that name which they had cruelly tried to take away from the earth, and might begin to persecute the false gods for whose sake the worshippers of the true God had formerly been persecuted.

### Scripture references

- Isa 2:3: quotation, high confidence
- Mic 4:2: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 24:45: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 24:46: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 24:47: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 1:6: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 1:7: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 1:8: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 8:1: allusion, medium confidence
- Matt 10:28: quotation, high confidence
- Heb 2:4: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- “Out of Zion shall go forth the law” is Isa 2:3 = Mic 4:2.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.50 (CSEL 40:350–351; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-43/#p-18-50).

## City of God 18.51

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-51/#p-18-51
- Source: CSEL 40:351–354
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that heretics and bad Christians, like outward persecutors, serve to exercise the church's patience, wisdom, and love, which runs its course between the world's persecutions and God's consolations from Abel to the end.

### Latin text

CAPUT LI. Quod etiam per haereticorum dissensiones fides catholica roboretur. Videns autem diabolus templa daemonum deseri et in nomen liberantis Mediatoris currere genus humanum, haereticos mouit, qui sub uocabulo Christiano doctrinae resisterent Christianae, quasi possent indifferenter sine ulla correptione haberi in ciuitate Dei, sicut ciuitas confusionis indifferenter habuit philosophos inter se diuersa et aduersa sentientes. Qui ergo in ecclesia Christi morbidum aliquid prauumque sapiunt, si correpti, ut sanum rectumque sapiant, resistunt contumaciter suaque pestifera et mortifera dogmata emendare nolunt, sed defensare persistunt, haeretici fiunt et foras exeuntes habentur in exercentibus inimicis. Etiam sic quippe ueris illis catholicis membris Christi malo suo prosunt, dum Deus utitur et malis bene et diligentibus eum omnia cooperantur in bonum. Inimici enim omnes ecclesiae, quolibet errore caecentur uel malitia deprauentur, si accipiunt potestatem corporaliter adfligendi, exercent eius patientiam; si tantummodo male sentiendo aduersantur, exercent eius sapientiam; ut autem etiam inimici diligantur, exercent eius beneuolentiam aut etiam beneficentiam, siue suadibili doctrina cum eis agatur siue terribili disciplina. Ac per hoc diabolus princeps inpiae ciuitatis aduersus peregrinantem in hoc mundo ciuitatem Dei uasa propria commouendo nihil ei nocere permittitur, cui procul dubio et rebus prosperis consolatio, ut non frangatur aduersis, et rebus aduersis exercitatio, ut non corrumpatur prosperis, per diuinam prouidentiam procuratur, adque ita temperatur utrumque ab alterutro. ut in psalmo illam uocem non aliunde agnoscamus exortam: Secundum multitudinem dolorum meorum in corde meo consolationes tuae iucundauerunt animam meam. Hinc est et illud apostoli: Spe gaudentes, in tribulatione patientes. Nam et id, quod ait idem doctor: Quicumque uolunt in Christo pie uiuere, persecutionem patiuntur, nullis putandum est deesse posse temporibus. Quia et cum ab eis, qui foris sunt, non saeuientibus uidetur esse tranquillitas et re uera est plurimumque consolationis adfert, maxime infirmis: non tamen desunt, immo multi sunt intus, qui corda pie uiuentium suis perditis moribus cruciant; quoniam per eos blasphematur Christianum et catholicum nomen; quod quanto est carius eis, qui uolunt pie uiuere in Christo, tanto magis dolent, quod per malos intus positos fit, ut minus, quam piorum mentes desiderant, diligatur. Ipsi quoque haeretici, cum cogitantur habere nomen et sacramenta Christiana et scripturas et professionem, magnum dolorem faciunt in cordibus piorum; quia et multi uolentes esse Christiani propter eorum dissensiones haesitare coguntur et multi maledici etiam in his inueniunt materiam blasphemandi Christianum nomen, quia et ipsi quoquo modo Christiani appellantur. His adque huius modi prauis moribus et erroribus hominum persecutionem patiuntur, qui uolunt in Christo pie uiuere, etiam nullo infestante neque uexante corpus illorum. Patiuntur quippe hanc persecutionem non in corporibus, sed in cordibus. Unde illa uox est: Secundum multitudinem dolorum meorum in corde meo. Non enim ait: In corpore meo. Sed rursus quoniam cogitantur inmutabilia diuina promissa, et quod ait apostolus: Nouit Dominus qui sunt eius (quos enim praesciuit et praedestinauit conformes imaginis filii sui, ex eis perire nullus potest): ideo sequitur in illo psalmo: Consolationes tuae iucundauerunt animam meam. Dolor autem ipse, qui fit in cordibus piorum, quos persequuntur mores Christianorum malorum siue falsorum, prodest dolentibus, quoniam de caritate descendit, qua eos perire nolunt nec inpedire aliorum salutem. Denique magnae consolationes fiunt etiam de correctionibus eorum, quae piorum animas tanta iucunditate perfundunt, quantis doloribus de sua perditione cruciauerunt. Sic in hoc saeculo, in his diebus malis non solum a tempore corporalis praesentiae Christi et apostolorum eius, sed ab ipso Abel, quem primum iustum inpius frater occidit, et deinceps usque in huius saeculi finem inter persecutiones mundi et consolationes Dei peregrinando procurrit ecclesia.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 51. That the catholic faith is strengthened even by the dissensions of heretics.

But the devil, seeing the temples of demons deserted and the human race running to the name of the liberating Mediator, stirred up heretics who, under the Christian name, would resist Christian teaching; as if they could be kept indifferently in the city of God without any correction, as the city of confusion indifferently kept philosophers who held different and contrary views among themselves. Those, then, who in the church of Christ hold anything diseased and depraved, if, when corrected so as to hold what is sound and right, they resist stubbornly and will not amend their pestilent and deadly doctrines, but persist in defending them, become heretics, and going out are reckoned among the enemies who exercise it. For even so they benefit, by their own evil, those true catholic members of Christ, since God uses even the wicked well, and all things work together for good for those who love him. For all the enemies of the church, whatever error blinds or malice depraves them, if they receive power to afflict it bodily, exercise its patience; if they oppose it only by thinking wrongly, they exercise its wisdom; and so that even enemies may be loved, they exercise its benevolence or even its beneficence, whether they are dealt with by persuasive teaching or by fearful discipline. And so the devil, the prince of the ungodly city, in stirring up his own vessels against the city of God that is a pilgrim in this world, is permitted to do it no harm. For it, without doubt, by divine providence, both consolation is provided in prosperity, so that it may not be broken by adversity, and exercise in adversity, so that it may not be corrupted by prosperity; and so each is tempered by the other, so that we recognize that the voice in the psalm arose from no other source: “According to the multitude of my sorrows in my heart, your consolations have gladdened my soul.” Hence also that saying of the apostle: “Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation.”

For that too which the same teacher says, “All who wish to live piously in Christ suffer persecution,” must be thought to be lacking at no time. For even when those who are outside do not rage and there seems to be tranquillity, and truly is, and it brings very much consolation, especially to the weak, yet there are not lacking, indeed there are many within, who torment the hearts of those who live piously by their abandoned morals; since through them the Christian and catholic name is blasphemed; and the dearer that name is to those who wish to live piously in Christ, the more they grieve that through the wicked who are placed within it comes about that it is loved less than the minds of the pious desire. The heretics themselves too, when it is considered that they have the Christian name and sacraments and Scriptures and profession, cause great grief in the hearts of the pious; because many who wish to be Christians are compelled to hesitate because of their dissensions, and many slanderers find in them too material for blaspheming the Christian name, because they too are in some fashion called Christians. By these and such like depraved morals and errors of men those who wish to live piously in Christ suffer persecution, even when no one attacks or harasses their bodies. For they suffer this persecution not in their bodies but in their hearts. Hence that voice: “According to the multitude of my sorrows in my heart”; for he does not say “in my body.” But again, since the unchangeable divine promises are considered, and what the apostle says, “The Lord knows those who are his” (for of those whom he foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son none can perish), therefore there follows in that psalm: “Your consolations have gladdened my soul.” And the very grief that arises in the hearts of the pious, whom the morals of bad or false Christians persecute, profits those who grieve, since it comes down from love, by which they do not wish them to perish nor to hinder the salvation of others. Finally, great consolations come also from their correction, which flood the souls of the pious with as great joy as the sorrows with which they tormented them by their perdition. So in this world, in these evil days, not only from the time of the bodily presence of Christ and his apostles, but from Abel himself, the first righteous man, whom his ungodly brother killed, and thenceforth until the end of this world, the church runs its pilgrim course between the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God.

### Scripture references

- 1 John 2:19: allusion, medium confidence
- Rom 8:28: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 5:44: allusion, medium confidence
- Ps 94:19 (93:19 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 12:12: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Tim 3:12: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 2:24: echo, medium confidence
- 2 Tim 2:19: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:29: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 5:16: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 4:8: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The psalm is Ps 94:19 (LXX 93:19). “Fearful discipline” refers to coercion of heretics by law, which Augustine names without further comment here.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.51 (CSEL 40:351–354; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-51/#p-18-51).

## City of God 18.52

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-51/#p-18-52
- Source: CSEL 40:354–356
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine rejects the scheme of exactly ten persecutions matching the ten plagues of Egypt, pointing to persecutions under Herod, Julian, Valens, the Goths, and the Persians, and leaves the number of future persecutions undecided.

### Latin text

CAPUT LII. An credendum sit, quod quidam putant, inpletis decem persecutionibus, quae fuerunt, nullam iam superesse praeter undecimam, quae in ipso Antichristi tempore sit futura. Proinde ne illud quidem temere puto esse dicendum siue credendum, quod nonnullis uisum est uel uidetur, non amplius ecclesiam passuram persecutiones usque ad tempus Antichristi. quam quot iam passa est, id est decem, ut undecima eademque nouissima sit ab Antichristo. Primam quippe conputant a Nerone quae facta est, secundam a Domitiano, a Traiano tertiam, quartam ab Antonino, a Seuero quintam, sextam a Maximino, a Decio septimam, octauam a Valeriano, ab Aureliano nonam, decimam a Diocletiano et Maximiano. Plagas enim Aegyptiorum, quoniam decem fuerunt, antequam exire inde inciperet populus Dei, putant ad hunc intellectum esse referendas, ut nouissima Antichristi persecutio similis uideatur undecimae plagae, qua Aegyptii, dum hostiliter sequerentur Hebraeos, in mari Rubro populo Dei per siccum transeunte perierunt. Sed ego illa re gesta in Aegypto istas persecutiones prophetice significatas esse non arbitror; quamuis ab eis. qui hoc putant, exquisite et ingeniose illa singula his singulis conparata uideantur, non prophetico spiritu, sed coniectura mentis humanae, quae aliquando ad uerum peruenit, aliquando fallitur. Quid enim, qui hoc sentiunt, dicturi sunt de persecutione, qua ipse Dominus crucifixus est? in quo eam numero posituri? Si autem hac excepta existimant conputandum, tamquam illae numerandae sint, quae ad corpus pertinent, non qua ipsum caput est adpetitum et occisum: quid agent de illa. quae, postea quam Christus adscendit in caelum, Hierosolymis facta est, ubi beatus Stephanus lapidatus est, ubi Iacobus frater Iohannis gladio trucidatus, ubi apostolus Petrus ut occideretur inclusus et per angelum liberatus, ubi fugati adque dispersi de Hierosolymis fratres, ubi Saulus, qui postea Paulus apostolus factus est, uastabat ecclesiam, ubi ipse quoque iam fidem, quam persequebatur, euangelizans, qualia faciebat, est passus, siue per Iudaeam siue per alias gentes, quacumque Christum feruentissimus praedicabat? Quur ergo eis a Nerone uidetur ordiendum, cum ad Neronis tempora inter atrocissimas persecutiones, de quibus nimis longum est cuncta dicere, ecclesia crescendo peruenerit? Quod si a regibus factas persecutiones in numero existimant esse debere: rex fuit Herodes, qui etiam post adscensum Domini grauissimam fecit. Deinde quid respondent etiam de Iuliano, quem non numerant in decem? An ipse non est ecclesiam persecutus, qui Christianos liberales litteras docere ac discere uetuit? Sub quo Valentinianus maior, qui post eum tertius imperator fuit, fidei Christianae confessor exstitit militiaque priuatus est; ut omittam quae aput Antiochiam facere coeperat, nisi unius fidelissimi et constantissimi iuuenis, qui multis, ut torquerentur, adprehensis per totum diem primus est tortus, inter ungulas cruciatusque psallentis libertatem adque hilaritatem miratus horruisset et in ceteris deformius erubescere timuisset. Postremo nostra memoria Valens, supradicti Valentiniani frater, Arianus, nonne magna persecutione per Orientis partes catholicam uastauit ecclesiam? Quale est autem, non considerare ecclesiam per totum mundum fructificantem adque crescentem posse in aliquibus gentibus persecutionem pati a regibus, et quando in aliis non patitur? Nisi forte non est persecutio conputanda, quando rex Gothorum in ipsa Gothia persecutus est Christianos crudelitate mirabili, cum ibi non essent nisi catholici, quorum plurimi martyrio coronati sunt, sicut a quibusdam fratribus, qui tunc illic pueri fuerant et se ista uidisse incunctanter recordabantur, audiuimus? Quid modo in Perside? Nonne ita in Christianos ferbuit persecutio (si tamen iam quieuit), ut fugientes inde nonnulli usque ad Romana oppida peruenerint? Haec adque huius modi mihi cogitanti non uidetur esse definiendus numerus persecutionum, quibus exerceri oportet ecclesiam. Sed rursus adfirmare aliquas futuras a regibus praeter illam nouissimam, de qua nullus ambigit Christianus, non minoris est temeritatis. Itaque hoc in medio relinquimus neutram partem quaestionis huius adstruentes siue destruentes, sed tantummodo ab adfirmandi quodlibet horum audaci praesumtione reuocantes.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 52. Whether it is to be believed, as some think, that, the ten persecutions that have taken place being completed, none remains except the eleventh, which is to take place in the very time of Antichrist.

Accordingly, I do not think it should be rashly said or believed either, as has seemed or seems to some, that the church will not suffer more persecutions until the time of Antichrist than it has already suffered, that is, ten, so that the eleventh and last will be from Antichrist. For they reckon the first as that made by Nero, the second by Domitian, the third by Trajan, the fourth by Antoninus, the fifth by Severus, the sixth by Maximinus, the seventh by Decius, the eighth by Valerian, the ninth by Aurelian, the tenth by Diocletian and Maximian. For they think that the plagues of the Egyptians, since there were ten before the people of God began to go out from there, are to be referred to this meaning, so that the last persecution of Antichrist may seem like the eleventh plague, by which the Egyptians, while they pursued the Hebrews as enemies, perished in the Red Sea, while the people of God passed over on dry ground. But I do not think that these persecutions were prophetically signified by that event in Egypt; although by those who think so the single items seem to be compared with the single items exquisitely and ingeniously, not by the prophetic spirit but by the conjecture of the human mind, which sometimes arrives at the truth and sometimes is deceived.

For what will those who hold this say of the persecution in which the Lord himself was crucified? In what number will they place it? But if they think the reckoning should be made with this one excepted, as though those are to be counted which pertain to the body, not that in which the Head himself was attacked and killed, what will they do about the one which, after Christ ascended into heaven, took place at Jerusalem, where the blessed Stephen was stoned, where James the brother of John was slain with the sword, where the apostle Peter was imprisoned to be killed and freed by an angel, where the brothers were put to flight and scattered from Jerusalem, where Saul, who afterwards was made the apostle Paul, laid waste the church, where he too, now preaching the faith which he had persecuted, suffered such things as he had done, whether through Judea or through other nations, wherever he most fervently preached Christ? Why, then, do they think they must begin from Nero, when the church reached the times of Nero growing amid most atrocious persecutions, of which it would be much too long to tell everything? But if they think that persecutions made by kings ought to be in the number, Herod was a king, who even after the Lord's ascension made a most grievous one. Then what do they answer about Julian too, whom they do not count among the ten? Did he not persecute the church, who forbade Christians to teach or learn the liberal letters? Under him Valentinian the elder, who was the third emperor after him, stood forth as a confessor of the Christian faith and was deprived of his military rank; to pass over what he had begun to do at Antioch, had he not been struck with horror at the freedom and cheerfulness of one most faithful and steadfast young man, who, when many had been seized to be tortured, was tortured first for a whole day and sang psalms amid the hooks and torments, and had he not feared to be put to more shameful blushing in the case of the others. Lastly, in our own memory, did not Valens, the brother of the above-mentioned Valentinian, an Arian, lay waste the catholic church throughout the regions of the East with a great persecution? And what sort of thing is it not to consider that the church, bearing fruit and growing through the whole world, can suffer persecution from kings in some nations even when it does not suffer it in others? Unless perhaps it is not to be counted a persecution when the king of the Goths in Gothia itself persecuted the Christians with marvellous cruelty, when there were none there but catholics, very many of whom were crowned with martyrdom, as we have heard from certain brothers who had been boys there at the time and unhesitatingly remembered having seen these things? What of Persia just now? Did not persecution so rage against the Christians there (if indeed it has now subsided) that some, fleeing from there, came even to Roman towns?

Thinking of these and suchlike things, it does not seem to me that the number of persecutions by which the church must be exercised is to be defined. But again, to affirm that there will be some from kings besides that last one, about which no Christian is in doubt, is no less rash. And so we leave this open, neither building up nor pulling down either side of this question, but only calling men back from the bold presumption of affirming either of them.

### Scripture references

- Exod 7:14: allusion, medium confidence
- Exod 14:28: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 14:29: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 7:58: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 12:2: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 12:4: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 12:7: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 8:1: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 8:3: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 11:24: allusion, medium confidence
- Acts 12:1: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The scheme of ten persecutions is found in Orosius (History against the Pagans 7.27), whom Augustine does not name. The young man tortured at Antioch under Julian is probably Theodore, known from Rufinus's Church History (not named here). The Gothic persecution is that of Athanaric (ca. 370); the Persian one is probably that of 420–422.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.52 (CSEL 40:354–356; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-51/#p-18-52).

## City of God 18.53

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-51/#p-18-53
- Source: CSEL 40:356–359
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine warns against calculating the date of the last persecution and Christ's return, and ridicules a pagan oracle claiming that Peter's sorcery had fixed the duration of Christianity at 365 years.

### Latin text

CAPUT LIII. De tempore nouissimae persecutionis nulli hominum reuelato. Illam sane nouissimam persecutionem, quae ab Antichristo futura est, praesentia sua exstinguet ipse Iesus. Sic enim scriptum est, quod eum interficiet spiritu oris sui et euacuabit inluminatione praesentiae suae. Hic quaeri solet: Quando istud erit? Inportune omnino. Si enim hoc nobis nosse prodesset, a quo melius quam ab ipso Deo magistro interrogantibus discipulis diceretur? Non enim siluerunt inde aput eum, sed a praesente quaesierunt dicentes: Domine, si hoc tempore repraesentabis regnum Israel? At ille: Non est, inquit, uestrum scire tempora, quae Pater posuit in sua potestate. Non utique illi de hora uel die uel anno, sed de tempore interrogauerant, quando istud accepere responsum. Frustra igitur annos, qui remanent huic saeculo, conputare ac definire conamur, cum hoc scire non esse nostrum ex ore Veritatis audiamus; quos tamen alii quadringentos, alii quingentos, alii etiam mille ab adscensione Domini usque ad eius ultimum aduentum conpleri posse dixerunt. Quem ad modum autem quisque eorum adstruat opinionem suam, longum est demonstrare et non necessarium. Coniecturis quippe utuntur humanis, non ab eis aliquid certum de scripturae canonicae auctoritate profertur. Omnium uero de hac re calculantium digitos resoluit et quiescere iubet ille, qui dicit: Non est uestrum scire tempora, quae Pater posuit in sua potestate. Sed haec quia euangelica sententia est, mirum non est non ea repressos fuisse deorum multorum falsorumque cultores, quominus fingerent daemonum responsis, quos tamquam deos colunt, definitum esse quanto tempore mansura esset religio Christiana. Cum enim uiderent nec tot tantisque persecutionibus eam potuisse consumi, sed his potius mira incrementa sumsisse, excogitauerunt nescio quos uersus Graecos tamquam consulenti cuidam diuino oraculo effusos, ubi Christum quidem ab huius tamquam sacrilegii crimine faciunt innocentem. Petrum autem maleficia fecisse subiungunt, ut coleretur Christi nomen per trecentos sexaginta quinque annos, deinde conpleto memorato numero annorum, sine mora sumeret finem. O hominum corda doctorum! O ingenia litterata digna credere ista de Christo, quae credere non uultis in Christum, quod eius discipulus Petrus ab eo magicas artes non didicerit, sed, ipso innocente, tamen eius maleficus fuerit nomenque illius quam suum coli maluerit magicis artibus suis, magnis laboribus et periculis suis, postremo etiam effusione sanguinis sui! Si Petrus maleficus fecit, ut Christum sic diligeret mundus, quid fecit innocens Christus, ut eum sic diligeret Petrus? Respondeant igitur ipsi sibi et si possunt intellegant illa superna gratia factum esse, ut propter aeternam uitam Christum diligeret mundus, qua gratia factum est, ut et propter aeternam uitam ab illo accipiendam et usque ad temporariam mortem pro illo patiendam Christum diligeret Petrus. Deinde isti di qui sunt, qui possunt ista praedicere nec possunt auertere, ita succumbentes uni malefico et uni sceleri magico, quo puer, ut dicunt, anniculus occisus et dilaniatus et ritu nefario sepultus est, ut sectam sibi aduersariam tam prolixo tempore conualescere, tot tantarumque persecutionum horrendas crudelitates non resistendo, sed patiendo superare et ad suorum simulacrorum templorum, sacrorum oraculorum euersionem peruenire permitterent? Quis postremo est deus, non noster utique, sed ipsorum, qui uel inlectus tanto scelere uel inpulsus est ista praestare? Non enim alicui daemoni, sed deo dicunt illi uersus haec Petrum arte magica definisse. Talem deum habent, qui Christum non habent.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 53. On the time of the last persecution, which has been revealed to no man.

That last persecution, indeed, which is to come from Antichrist, Jesus himself will extinguish by his presence. For so it is written, that he will kill him with the breath of his mouth and destroy him by the brightness of his presence. Here people usually ask: “When will this be?” Altogether untimely. For if it profited us to know this, by whom would it better have been told than by God himself, the Master, when his disciples asked him? For they were not silent about it with him, but asked him when he was present, saying: “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” And he said: “It is not for you to know the times which the Father has put in his own power.” They had certainly not asked about the hour or the day or the year, but about the time, when they received this answer. In vain, then, do we try to count and define the years that remain to this world, since we hear from the mouth of the Truth that it is not for us to know this; which years, nevertheless, some have said could be completed as four hundred, others five hundred, others even a thousand, from the Lord's ascension to his last coming. How each of them builds up his opinion it would be long to show and not necessary. For they use human conjectures; nothing certain is brought forward by them from the authority of canonical Scripture. But he unclenches the fingers of all who calculate about this, and bids them be still, who says: “It is not for you to know the times which the Father has put in his own power.”

But because this is a saying of the gospel, it is no wonder that it did not restrain the worshippers of many false gods from inventing that it had been determined by the responses of the demons, whom they worship as gods, how long the Christian religion would last. For when they saw that it could not be consumed even by so many and so great persecutions, but rather had taken wonderful increase from them, they devised some Greek verses or other, as though poured out by a divine oracle to someone consulting it, in which they make Christ indeed innocent of the crime of this, as it were, sacrilege, but add that Peter worked sorceries so that the name of Christ should be worshipped for three hundred and sixty-five years, and then, when that number of years was completed, should come to an end without delay. O hearts of learned men! O lettered minds, worthy to believe these things about Christ, you who will not believe in Christ: that his disciple Peter did not learn magic arts from him, but, though he was innocent, was yet his sorcerer, and preferred that Christ's name rather than his own should be worshipped, by his magic arts, by his great labours and dangers, and finally even by the shedding of his blood! If Peter the sorcerer brought it about that the world should so love Christ, what did the innocent Christ do that Peter should so love him? Let them answer themselves, then, and, if they can, understand that it was by that heavenly grace that the world came to love Christ for the sake of eternal life, by which grace it came about too that Peter loved Christ both for the sake of the eternal life to be received from him and to the point of suffering temporal death for him. Then who are these gods, who can foretell these things but cannot avert them, so succumbing to one sorcerer and one magic crime, by which, as they say, a boy one year old was killed and torn apart and buried with an abominable rite, that they allowed a sect hostile to them to grow strong for so long a time, to overcome the horrible cruelties of so many and such great persecutions not by resisting but by suffering, and to come to the overthrow of their images, temples, rites, and oracles? Who, finally, is the god, not ours certainly, but theirs, who was either enticed or impelled by so great a crime to grant these things? For those verses say that Peter determined these things by magic art not with some demon but with a god. Such a god they have who do not have Christ.

### Scripture references

- 2 Thess 2:8: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 1:6: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 1:7: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 24:36: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The pagan oracle about Peter and the 365 years is not otherwise identified; it has been connected, without certainty, with Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles, and is named here only in the note.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.53 (CSEL 40:356–359; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-51/#p-18-53).

## City of God 18.54

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-51/#p-18-54
- Source: CSEL 40:359–362
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine refutes the pagan oracle by dating the 365 years from Pentecost to the consulship of Honorius and Eutychianus (AD 398), noting that the next year the temples of Carthage were overthrown and the church grew, and concludes Book 18.

### Latin text

CAPUT LIIII. De stultissimo mendacio paganorum, quo Christianam religionem non ultra trecentos sexaginta quinque annos mansuram esse finxerunt. Haec adque huius modi multa colligerem, si nondum annus ipse transisset, quem diuinatio ficta promisit et decepta uanitas credidit. Cum uero, ex quo nominis Christi cultus per eius in carne praesentiam et per apostolos institutus est, ante aliquot annos anni trecenti sexaginta quinque conpleti sint, quid aliud quaerimus, unde ista falsitas refellatur? Ut enim in Christi natiuitate huius rei non ponamus initium, quia infans et puer discipulos non habebat, tamen quando habere coepit, procul dubio tunc innotuit per eius corporalem praesentiam doctrina et religio Christiana, id est, postea quam in fluuio Iordane ministerio Iohannis est baptizatus. Propter hoc enim de illo prophetia illa praecesserat: Dominabitur a mari usque ad mare et a flumine usque ad terminos orbis terrae. Sed quoniam, priusquam passus esset et resurrexisset a mortuis, nondum fides omnibus fuerat definita (in resurrectione quippe Christi definita est, nam sic apostolus Paulus Atheniensibus loquitur dicens: Iam nunc adnuntiat hominibus omnes ubique agere paenitentiam, eo quod statuit diem iudicare orbem in aequitate in uiro quo definiuit fidem omnibus resuscitans illum a mortuis): melius in hac quaestione soluenda inde initium sumimus; praesertim quia tunc datus est etiam Spiritus sanctus, sicut eum dari post resurrectionem Christi oportebat in ea ciuitate, ex qua debuit incipere lex secunda, hoc est testamentum nouum. Prima enim fuit ex monte Sina per Moysen, quod testamentum uocatur uetus. De hac autem. quae per Christum danda erat, praedictum est: Ex Sion lex prodiet et uerbum Domini ex Hierusalem. Unde et ipse per omnes gentes dixit praedicari oportere in nomine suo paenitentiam, sed tamen incipientibus ab Hierusalem. Ibi ergo exorsus est huius nominis cultus, ut in Iesum Christum, qui crucifixus fuerat et resurrexerat, crederetur. Ibi haec fides tam insignibus initiis incanduit, ut aliquot hominum milia in Christi nomen mirabili alacritate conuersa uenditis suis rebus, ut egenis distribuerentur, proposito sancto et ardentissima caritate ad paupertatem uoluntariam peruenirent adque inter frementes et sanguinem sitientes Iudaeos se usque ad mortem pro ueritate certare non armata potentia, sed potentiore patientia praepararent. Hoc si nullis magicis artibus factum est, quur credere dubitant eadem uirtute diuina per totum mundum id fieri potuisse, qua hoc factum est? Si autem ut Hierosolymis sic ad cultum nominis Christi accenderetur tanta hominum multitudo, quae illum in cruce uel fixerat prensum uel riserat fixum, iam maleficium illud fecerat Petrus, ex ipso anno quaerendum est, quando trecenti sexaginta quinque conpleti sint. Mortuus est ergo Christus duobus Geminis consulibus octauo Kalendas Aprilis. Resurrexit tertio die, sicut apostoli suis etiam sensibus probauerunt. Deinde post quadraginta dies adscendit in caelum; post decem dies, id est quinquagensimo post suam resurrectionem die, misit Spiritum sanctum. Tunc tria milia hominum apostolis eum praedicantibus crediderunt. Tunc itaque nominis illius cultus exorsus est, sicut nos credimus et ueritas habet, efficacia Spiritus sancti; sicut autem finxit uanitas inpia uel putauit, magicis artibus Petri. Paulo post etiam signo mirabili facto, quando ad uerbum ipsius Petri quidam mendicus ab utero matris ita claudus, ut ab aliis portaretur et ad portam templi, ubi stipem peteret, poneretur, in nomine Iesu Christi saluus exsiliuit, quinque hominum milia crediderunt; ac deinde aliis adque aliis accessibus credentium creuit ecclesia. Ac per hoc colligitur etiam dies, ex quo annus ipse sumsit initium, scilicet quando missus est Spiritus sanctus, id est per Idus Maias. Numeratis proinde consulibus trecenti sexaginta quinque anni reperiuntur inpleti per easdem Idus consulatu Honorii et Eutychiani. Porro sequenti anno, consule Mallio Theodoro, quando iam secundum illud oraculum daemonum aut figmentum hominum nulla esse debuit religio Christiana, quid per alias terrarum partes forsitan factum sit, non fuit necesse perquirere; interim, quod scimus, in ciuitate notissima et eminentissima Carthagine Africae Gaudentius et Iouius comites imperatoris Honorii quarto decimo Kalendas Aprilis falsorum deorum templa euerterunt et simulacra fregerunt. Ex quo usque ad hoc tempus per triginta ferme annos quis non uideat quantum creuerit cultus nominis Christi. praesertim postea quam multi eorum Christiani facti sunt, qui tamquam uera illa diuinatione reuocabantur a fide eamque conpleto eodem numero annorum inanem ridendamque uiderunt? Nos ergo, qui sumus uocamurque Christiani, non in Petrum credimus, sed in quem credidit Petrus; Petri de Christo aedificati sermonibus, non carminibus uenenati; nec decepti maleficiis, sed beneficiis eius adiuti. Ille Petri magister Christus in doctrina, quae ad uitam ducit aeternam, ipse est magister et noster. Sed aliquando iam concludamus hunc librum, huc usque disserentes et quantum satis uisum est demonstrantes, quisnam sit duarum ciuitatum, caelestis adque terrenae, ab initio usque in finem permixtarum mortalis excursus; quarum illa, quae terrena est, fecit sibi quos uoluit uel undecumque uel etiam ex hominibus falsos deos, quibus sacrificando seruiret; illa autem, quae caelestis peregrinatur in terra, falsos deos non facit, sed a uero Deo ipsa fit, cuius uerum sacrificium ipsa sit. Ambae tamen temporalibus uel bonis pariter utuntur uel malis pariter adfliguntur, diuersa fide, diuersa spe, diuerso amore, donec ultimo iudicio separentur, et percipiat unaquaeque suum finem, cuius nullus est finis; de quibus ambarum finibus deinceps disserendum est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 54. On the very foolish lie of the pagans, by which they invented that the Christian religion would not last beyond three hundred and sixty-five years.

I would collect these and many things of this kind if that year had not yet passed which the invented divination promised and deluded vanity believed. But since, some years ago, three hundred and sixty-five years were completed from the time when the worship of the name of Christ was established through his presence in the flesh and through the apostles, what else do we seek by which this falsehood may be refuted? For even if we do not place the beginning of this in the birth of Christ, since as an infant and a boy he had no disciples, yet when he began to have them, then without doubt the Christian teaching and religion became known through his bodily presence, that is, after he was baptized in the river Jordan by the ministry of John. For on this account that prophecy had gone before concerning him: “He shall rule from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth.” But since, before he had suffered and risen from the dead, faith had not yet been defined for all (for it was defined in the resurrection of Christ; for so the apostle Paul speaks to the Athenians, saying: “Now he announces to men that all everywhere should repent, because he has appointed a day to judge the world in equity by the man by whom he defined faith for all, raising him from the dead”), we better take our beginning from there in solving this question; especially because then too the Holy Spirit was given, as it was fitting that he should be given after the resurrection of Christ, in that city from which the second law, that is, the new testament, was to begin. For the first was from Mount Sinai through Moses, which is called the old testament. But of this one, which was to be given through Christ, it was foretold: “Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” Hence he himself also said that repentance must be preached in his name through all nations, but nevertheless beginning from Jerusalem. There, then, the worship of this name began, that men should believe in Jesus Christ, who had been crucified and had risen again. There this faith glowed with such remarkable beginnings that some thousands of men, turned to the name of Christ with wonderful eagerness, sold their goods to be distributed to the needy, and with a holy purpose and most ardent love came to voluntary poverty, and prepared themselves, amid the raging and bloodthirsty Jews, to contend for the truth even to death, not with armed power but with a more powerful patience. If this was done by no magic arts, why do they hesitate to believe that it could have been done through the whole world by the same divine power by which this was done? But if, so that at Jerusalem so great a multitude of men, who had either seized him and fixed him to the cross or mocked him when fixed there, might be kindled to the worship of the name of Christ, Peter had already done that sorcery, then we must reckon from that very year when the three hundred and sixty-five years were completed.

Christ, then, died in the consulship of the two Gemini, on the eighth day before the Kalends of April. He rose on the third day, as the apostles proved even with their own senses. Then after forty days he ascended into heaven; after ten days, that is, on the fiftieth day after his resurrection, he sent the Holy Spirit. Then three thousand men believed when the apostles preached him. Then, therefore, the worship of that name began, as we believe and the truth holds, by the efficacy of the Holy Spirit; but, as impious vanity invented or supposed, by the magic arts of Peter. A little later too, when a wonderful sign had been done, when at the word of that same Peter a certain beggar, lame from his mother's womb, so that he was carried by others and set at the gate of the temple to beg alms, leaped up healed in the name of Jesus Christ, five thousand men believed; and thereafter the church grew by additions of believers one after another. And from this the very day is gathered from which that year took its beginning, namely when the Holy Spirit was sent, that is, about the Ides of May. Counting the consuls, then, three hundred and sixty-five years are found to have been completed at the same Ides in the consulship of Honorius and Eutychianus. Further, in the following year, in the consulship of Mallius Theodorus, when according to that oracle of demons or fiction of men there ought to have been no Christian religion at all, what perhaps took place in other parts of the world there was no need to search out; meanwhile, what we know: in the most famous and eminent city of Carthage in Africa, Gaudentius and Jovius, officers of the emperor Honorius, on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of April overthrew the temples of the false gods and broke the images. From that time until now, for almost thirty years, who does not see how much the worship of the name of Christ has grown, especially after many of those became Christians who had been held back from the faith by that divination as though it were true, and saw it, when that same number of years was completed, to be empty and ridiculous?

We, then, who are and are called Christians, do not believe in Peter, but in him in whom Peter believed; built up by Peter's words about Christ, not poisoned by his spells; not deceived by his sorceries but helped by his good deeds. That Christ who was Peter's master in the teaching that leads to eternal life is himself our master too.

But let us at last conclude this book, having discussed up to this point and shown as far as seemed sufficient what is the mortal course of the two cities, the heavenly and the earthly, mingled from the beginning to the end; of which the one that is earthly has made for itself, from wherever it pleased, or even from men, false gods whom it might serve by sacrificing; but the one that is heavenly, being a pilgrim on earth, does not make false gods, but is itself made by the true God, and is itself his true sacrifice. Yet both alike either use temporal goods or are alike afflicted with temporal evils, with different faith, different hope, different love, until they are separated at the last judgment and each receives its own end, of which there is no end; of the ends of both of which we must next discuss.

### Scripture references

- Matt 3:13: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 72:8 (71:8 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Acts 17:30: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 17:31: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 2:3: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 24:47: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 2:44: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 2:45: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 4:34: allusion, medium confidence
- Acts 1:3: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 2:1: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 2:41: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 3:2: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 3:8: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 4:4: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- “He shall rule from sea to sea” is Ps 72:8 (LXX 71:8). Acts 17:30–31 is quoted in an Old Latin form (“by the man by whom he defined faith for all”). The consular dates are as printed: the Gemini (AD 29), Honorius and Eutychianus (AD 398), Mallius Theodorus (AD 399); the closure of the Carthage temples on 19 March 399. “Almost thirty years” dates the writing of this book to the mid-420s.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 18.54 (CSEL 40:359–362; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-51/#p-18-54).

## City of God 19.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-51/#p-19-1
- Source: CSEL 40:362–368
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine sets out Varro's scheme by which philosophical views of the supreme good could be multiplied to 288 possible sects, and explains Varro's removal of the distinctions that do not concern the end of good.

### Latin text

Quod in quaestione, quam de finibus bonorum et malorum philosophica disputatio uentilauit, ducentas octoginta et octo sectas esse posse Varro perspexerit. Quoniam de ciuitatis utriusque, terrenae scilicet et caelestis, debitis finibus deinceps mihi uideo disputandum: prius exponenda sunt, quantum operis huius terminandi ratio patitur, argumenta mortalium, quibus sibi ipsi beatitudinem facere in huius uitae infelicitate moliti sunt, ut ab eorum rebus uanis spes nostra quid differat, quam Deus nobis dedit, et res ipsa, hoc est uera beatitudo, quam dabit, non tantum auctoritate diuina, sed adhibita etiam ratione, qualem propter infideles possumus adhibere, clarescat. De finibus enim bonorum et malorum multa et multipliciter inter se philosophi disputarunt; quam quaestionem maxima intentione uersantes inuenire conati sunt, quid efficiat hominem beatum. Illud enim est finis boni nostri, propter quod adpetenda sunt cetera, ipsum autem propter se ipsum; et illud finis mali, propter quod uitanda sunt cetera, ipsum autem propter se ipsum. Finem boni ergo nunc dicimus, non quo consumatur, ut non sit, sed quo perficiatur, ut plenum sit; et finem mali, non quo esse desinat, sed quo usque nocendo perducat. Fines itaque isti sunt summum bonum et summum malum. De quibus inueniendis adque in hac uita summo bono adipiscendo, uitando autem summo malo, multum, sicut dixi, laborauerunt, qui studium sapientiae in saeculi huius uanitate professi sunt; nec tamen eos, quamuis diuersis errantes modis, naturae limes in tantum ab itinere ueritatis deuiare permisit, ut non alii in animo, alii in corpore, alii in utroque fines bonorum ponerent et malorum. Ex qua tripertita uelut generalium distributione sectarum Marcus Varro in libro de philosophia tam multam dogmatum uarietatem diligenter et subtiliter scrutatus aduertit, ut ad ducentas octoginta et octo sectas, non quae iam essent, sed quae esse possent, adhibens quasdam differentias facillime perueniret. Quod ut breuiter ostendam, inde oportet incipiam, quod ipse aduertit et posuit in libro memorato, quattuor esse quaedam, quae homines sine magistro, sine ullo doctrinae adminiculo, sine industria uel arte uiuendi, quae uirtus dicitur et procul dubio discitur, uelut naturaliter adpetunt, aut uoluptatem, qua delectabiliter mouetur corporis sensus, aut quietem, qua fit ut nullam molestiam corporis quisque patiatur, aut utramque, quam tamen uno nomine uoluptatis Epicurus appellat, aut uniuersaliter prima naturae, in quibus et haec sunt et alia, uel in corpore, ut membrorum integritas et salus adque incolumitas eius, uel in animo, ut sunt ea, quae uel parua uel magna in hominum reperiuntur ingeniis. Haec igitur quattuor, id est uoluptas, quies, utrumque, prima naturae, ita sunt in nobis, ut uel uirtus, quam postea doctrina inserit, propter haec adpetenda sit, aut ista propter uirtutem, aut utraque propter se ipsa; ac per hoc fiunt hinc duodecim sectae; per hanc enim rationem singulae triplicantur; quod cum in una demonstrauero, difficile non erit id in ceteris inuenire. Cum ergo uoluptas corporis animi uirtuti aut subditur aut praefertur aut iungitur, tripertita uariatur diuersitate sectarum. Subditur autem uirtuti, quando in usum uirtutis adsumitur. Pertinet quippe ad uirtutis officium et uiuere patriae et propter patriam filios procreare, quorum neutrum fieri potest sine corporis uoluptate; nam sine illa nec cibus potusque sumitur, ut uiuatur, nec concumbitur, ut generatio propagetur. Cum uero praefertur uirtuti, ipsa adpetitur propter se ipsam, uirtus autem adsumenda creditur propter illam, id est, ut nihil uirtus agat nisi ad consequendam uel conseruandam corporis uoluptatem; quae uita deformis est quidem, quippe ubi uirtus seruit dominae uoluptati, quamuis nullo modo haec dicenda sit uirtus; sed tamen etiam ista horribilis turpitudo habuit quosdam philosophos patronos et defensores suos. Virtuti porro uoluptas iungitur, quando neutra earum propter alteram, sed propter se ipsas ambae adpetuntur. Quapropter sicut uoluptas uel subdita uel praelata uel iuncta uirtuti tres sectas facit, ita quies, ita utrumque, ita prima naturae alias ternas inueniuntur efficere. Pro uarietate quippe humanarum opinionum uirtuti aliquando subduntur, aliquando praeferuntur, aliquando iunguntur, ac sic ad duodenarium sectarum numerum peruenitur. Sed iste quoque numerus duplicatur adhibita una differentia, socialis uidelicet uitae, quoniam, quisquis sectatur aliquam istarum duodecim sectam, profecto aut propter se tantum id agit aut etiam propter socium, cui debet hoc uelle quod sibi. Quocirca duodecim sunt eorum, qui propter se tantum unamquamque tenendam putant, et aliae duodecim eorum, qui non solum propter se sic uel sic philosophandum esse decernunt, sed etiam propter alios, quorum bonum adpetunt sicut suum. Hae autem sectae uiginti quattuor iterum geminantur addita differentia ex Academicis nouis et fiunt quadraginta octo. Illarum quippe uiginti quattuor unamquamque sectarum potest quisque sic tenere ac defendere ut certam, quem ad modum defenderunt Stoici, quod hominis bonum, quo beatus esset, in animi tantummodo uirtute consisteret; potest alius ut incertam, sicut defenderunt Academici noui, quod eis etsi non certum, tamen ueri simile uidebatur. Viginti quattuor ergo fiunt per eos, qui eas uelut certas propter ueritatem, et aliae uiginti quattuor per eos, qui easdem quamuis incertas propter ueri similitudinem sequendas putant. Rursus, quia unamquamque istarum quadraginta octo sectarum potest quisque sequi habitu ceterorum philosophorum, itemque alius potest habitu Cynicorum, ex hac etiam differentia duplicantur et nonaginta sex fiunt. Deinde quia earum singulas quasque ita tueri homines possunt adque sectari, ut aut otiosam diligant uitam, sicut hi, qui tantummodo studiis doctrinae uacare uoluerunt adque ualuerunt, aut negotiosam, sicut hi, qui cum philosopharentur tamen administratione rei publicae regendisque rebus humanis occupatissimi fuerunt,. aut ex utroque genere temperatam, sicut hi, qui partim erudito otio partim necessario negotio alternantia uitae suae tempora tribuerunt: propter has differentias potest etiam triplicari numerus iste sectarum et ad ducentas octoginta octo perduci. Haec de Varronis libro, quantum potui, breuiter ac dilucide posui, sententias eius meis explicans uerbis. Quo modo autem refutatis ceteris unam eligat, quam uult esse Academicorum ueterum (quos a Platone institutos usque ad Polemonem, qui ab illo quartus eius scholam tenuit, quae Academia dicta est, habuisse certa dogmata uult uideri et ob hoc distinguit ab Academicis nouis, quibus incerta sunt omnia, quod philosophiae genus ab Arcesila coepit successore Polemonis), eamque sectam, id est ueterum Academicorum, sicut dubitatione ita omni errore carere arbitretur, longum est per omnia demonstrare; nec tamen omni ex parte res omittenda est. Remouet ergo prius illas omnes differentias, quae numerum multiplicauere sectarum, quas ideo remouendas putat, quia non in eis est finis boni. Neque enim existimat ullam philosophiae sectam esse dicendam, quae non eo distet a ceteris. quod diuersos habeat fines bonorum et malorum. Quando quidem nulla est homini causa philosophandi, nisi ut beatus sit; quod autem beatum facit, ipse est finis boni; nulla est igitur causa philosophandi, nisi finis boni: quam ob rem quae nullum boni finem sectatur, nulla philosophiae secta dicenda est. Cum ergo quaeritur de sociali uita, utrum sit tenenda sapienti, ut summum bonum, quo fit homo beatus, ita uelit et curet amici sui, quem ad modum suum, an suae tantummodo beatitudinis causa faciat quidquid facit: non de ipso summo bono quaestio est, sed de adsumendo uel non adsumendo socio ad huius participationem boni, non propter se ipsum, sed propter eundem socium, ut eius bono ita gaudeat, sicut gaudet suo. Item cum quaeritur de Academicis nouis, quibus incerta sunt omnia, utrum ita sint res habendae, in quibus philosophandum est, an, sicut aliis philosophis placuit, certas eas habere debeamus: non quaeritur quid in boni fine sectandum sit, sed de ipsius boni ueritate, quod sectandum uidetur, utrum sit necne dubitandum; hoc est, ut id planius eloquar, utrum ita sectandum sit, ut, qui sectatur, dicat esse uerum, an ita, ut, qui sectatur, dicat uerum sibi uideri, etiamsi forte sit falsum, tamen uterque sectetur unum adque idem bonum. In illa etiam differentia, quae adhibetur ex habitu et consuetudine Cynicorum, non quaeritur, quisnam sit finis boni, sed utrum in illo habitu et consuetudine sit uiuendum ei, qui uerum sectatur bonum, quodlibet ei uerum uideatur esse adque sectandum. Denique fuerunt, qui cum diuersa sequerentur bona finalia, alii uirtutem, alii uoluptatem, eundem tamen habitum et consuetudinem tenebant, ex qua Cynici appellabantur. Ita illud quidquid est, unde philosophi Cynici discernuntur a ceteris, ad eligendum ac tenendum bonum, quo beati fierent, utique nil ualebat. Nam si aliquid ad hoc interesset, profecto idem habitus eundem finem sequi cogeret, et diuersus habitus eundem sequi finem non sineret.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. That Varro perceived that in the question of the ends of goods and evils, which philosophical discussion has aired, there could be two hundred and eighty-eight sects.

Since I see that I must next discuss the due ends of both cities, the earthly, that is, and the heavenly, I must first set out, as far as the plan of bringing this work to a close allows, the arguments by which mortals have striven to make happiness for themselves in the unhappiness of this life; so that it may become clear how far our hope, which God has given us, and the thing itself, that is, true happiness, which he will give, differ from their vain pursuits, not only by divine authority but also by the use of reason, such as we can use for the sake of unbelievers. For the philosophers have disputed much and in many ways among themselves about the ends of goods and evils; turning this question over with the greatest attention, they have tried to find what makes a man happy. For that is the end of our good for the sake of which other things are to be sought, while it is sought for its own sake; and that is the end of evil for the sake of which other things are to be avoided, while it is avoided for its own sake. By the end of good, then, we now mean not that by which it is consumed so that it ceases to be, but that by which it is perfected so that it is full; and by the end of evil, not that by which it ceases to be, but that to which it leads by doing harm. These ends, then, are the supreme good and the supreme evil. In finding these, and in attaining the supreme good and avoiding the supreme evil in this life, those who professed the pursuit of wisdom in the vanity of this world have laboured much, as I said; yet, though they erred in various ways, the boundary set by nature did not allow them to stray so far from the road of truth that they did not place the ends of goods and evils some in the mind, some in the body, and some in both.

From this threefold division, as it were, of the general classes of sects, Marcus Varro, in his book On Philosophy, examining diligently and subtly, observed so great a variety of doctrines that by applying certain distinctions he very easily arrived at two hundred and eighty-eight sects, not such as already existed, but such as could exist. To show this briefly, I must begin from what he himself observed and set down in the book mentioned: that there are four things which men seek as it were naturally, without a teacher, without any aid of instruction, without the effort or art of living which is called virtue and which is without doubt learned: either pleasure, by which the sense of the body is pleasantly moved; or repose, by which it comes about that one suffers no bodily discomfort; or both, which Epicurus nevertheless calls by the one name of pleasure; or, comprehensively, the primary things of nature, among which are these and others, either in the body, such as the soundness of the members and its health and safety, or in the mind, such as the endowments, small or great, found in men's natural abilities. These four, then, namely pleasure, repose, both, and the primary things of nature, are in us in such a way that either virtue, which instruction later implants, is to be sought for their sake, or they for the sake of virtue, or both for their own sake; and so from this twelve sects arise; for by this reasoning each is tripled. When I have shown this in one, it will not be difficult to find it in the others.

When, then, bodily pleasure is either subordinated, or preferred, or joined to the virtue of the mind, it is varied into a threefold diversity of sects. It is subordinated to virtue when it is taken up for the use of virtue. For it belongs to the duty of virtue both to live for one's country and to beget children for one's country, neither of which can be done without bodily pleasure; for without it neither is food and drink taken in order to live, nor is there intercourse in order that offspring may be propagated. But when it is preferred to virtue, it is sought for its own sake, and virtue is believed to be taken up for its sake, that is, so that virtue does nothing except to obtain or preserve bodily pleasure; which is indeed a hideous life, since there virtue serves pleasure as its mistress, though in no way should this be called virtue; and yet even this horrible baseness has had certain philosophers as its patrons and defenders. Again, pleasure is joined to virtue when neither of them is sought for the sake of the other, but both for their own sake. Therefore, as pleasure, either subordinated or preferred or joined to virtue, makes three sects, so repose, so both, so the primary things of nature are found to make three others each. For according to the variety of human opinions they are sometimes subordinated to virtue, sometimes preferred, sometimes joined; and so the number of twelve sects is reached.

But this number too is doubled by applying one distinction, namely that of social life; for whoever follows any of these twelve sects surely does it either for his own sake only or also for the sake of a companion, for whom he ought to wish what he wishes for himself. Hence there are twelve of those who think each one should be held for their own sake only, and another twelve of those who decide that one should philosophize in this way or that not only for their own sake but also for the sake of others, whose good they seek as their own. These twenty-four sects are again doubled by adding a distinction from the New Academics, and become forty-eight. For each of those twenty-four sects one man can hold and defend as certain, as the Stoics defended that man's good, by which he would be happy, consisted only in virtue of the mind; another as uncertain, as the New Academics defended what seemed to them, though not certain, yet probable. Twenty-four, then, arise through those who think they should be followed as certain, because of their truth, and another twenty-four through those who think the same should be followed, though uncertain, because of their probability. Again, since each of these forty-eight sects can be followed by one man in the dress of the other philosophers, and likewise by another in the dress of the Cynics, by this distinction too they are doubled and become ninety-six. Then, since men can maintain and follow each of them either loving a life of leisure, like those who wished and were able to devote themselves only to the pursuits of learning, or a life of business, like those who, though they philosophized, were nevertheless fully occupied with administering the state and governing human affairs, or a life tempered from both kinds, like those who gave the alternating times of their life partly to learned leisure, partly to necessary business: because of these distinctions this number of sects can also be tripled and brought to two hundred and eighty-eight.

These things from Varro's book I have set down as briefly and clearly as I could, explaining his opinions in my own words. But how, having refuted the rest, he chooses one, which he will have to be that of the Old Academics (whom, founded by Plato down to Polemo, who was the fourth after him to hold his school, which was called the Academy, he wishes to be seen to have had certain doctrines, and for this reason distinguishes them from the New Academics, to whom all things are uncertain, a kind of philosophy that began with Arcesilaus, the successor of Polemo), and how he thinks that this sect, that of the Old Academics, is free from all error as from doubt, it would be long to show in every point; yet the matter must not be omitted entirely.

First, then, he removes all those distinctions which multiplied the number of sects; he thinks they should be removed because the end of good is not in them. For he does not think that any sect of philosophy should be so called which does not differ from the others by having different ends of goods and evils. Since there is no reason for a man to philosophize except that he may be happy, and what makes him happy is itself the end of good, there is no reason for philosophizing except the end of good; wherefore that which pursues no end of good is not to be called a sect of philosophy. When, then, it is asked about social life, whether the wise man should hold to it, so as to will and care for the supreme good, by which a man becomes happy, for his friend as for himself, or whether he does whatever he does only for the sake of his own happiness, the question is not about the supreme good itself, but about taking or not taking a companion into participation in this good, not for his own sake but for the sake of the companion, so that he may rejoice in his good as he rejoices in his own. Likewise, when it is asked about the New Academics, to whom all things are uncertain, whether the things about which we must philosophize are to be held so, or whether, as other philosophers held, we ought to hold them certain, the question is not what is to be pursued as the end of good, but whether one should or should not doubt the truth of the good itself which seems to be pursued; that is, to put it more plainly, whether it is to be pursued in such a way that he who pursues it says it is true, or in such a way that he who pursues it says it seems to him to be true, even if perhaps it is false, while both nevertheless pursue one and the same good. In that distinction too which is drawn from the dress and habits of the Cynics, the question is not what the end of good is, but whether he who pursues the true good, whatever seems to him to be true and to be pursued, should live in that dress and habit. In fact there were those who, while they followed different final goods, some virtue, others pleasure, nevertheless kept the same dress and habit, from which they were called Cynics. So whatever it is by which the Cynic philosophers are distinguished from the rest was certainly of no value for choosing and holding the good by which they would become happy. For if it made any difference to this, surely the same dress would compel them to follow the same end, and a different dress would not allow them to follow the same end.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro (Varro): allusion, high confidence
- Epicurus (Epicurus (sayings and fragments)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Varro, On Philosophy (De philosophia), lost; this chapter is the chief source for it.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.1 (CSEL 40:362–368; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/18-51/#p-19-1).

## City of God 19.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-2/#p-19-2
- Source: CSEL 40:368–370
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains how Varro strips away the distinctions of social life, certainty, Cynic dress, and kind of life, and reduces the question of the supreme good to three possible views about virtue and the primary goods of nature.

### Latin text

CAPUT II..Quo modo remotis omnibus differentiis, quae non sectae, sed quaestiones sint, ad tripertitam summi boni definitionem Varro perueniat, quarum tamen una sit eligenda. In tribus quoque illis uitae generibus, uno scilicet non segniter, sed in contemplatione uel inquisitione ueritatis otioso, altero in gerendis rebus humanis negotioso, tertio ex utroque genere temperato, cum quaeritur quid horum sit potius eligendum, non finis boni habet controuersiam: sed quid horum trium difficultatem uel facilitatem adferat ad consequendum uel retinendum finem boni, id in ista quaestione uersatur. Finis enim boni, cum ad eum quisque peruenerit, protinus beatum facit; in otio autem litterato, uel in negotio publico, uel quando utrumque uicibus agitur, non continuo quisque beatus est. Multi quippe in quolibet horum trium possunt uiuere, et in adpetendo boni fine, quo fit homo beatus, errare. Alia est igitur quaestio de finibus bonorum et malorum, quae unamquamque philosophorum sectam facit, et aliae sunt quaestiones de sociali uita, de cunctatione Academicorum, de uestitu et uictu Cynicorum, de tribus uitae generibus. otioso. actuoso, ex utroque modificato; quarum nulla est, in qua de bonorum et malorum finibus disputatur. Proinde quoniam Marcus Varro has quattuor adhibens differentias, id est ex uita sociali, ex Academicis nouis, ex Cynicis, ex isto uitae genere tripertito ad sectas ducentas octoginta octo peruenit, et si quae aliae possunt similiter adici: remotis eis omnibus, quoniam de sectando summo bono nullam inferunt quaestionem et ideo sectae nec sunt nec uocandae sunt, ad illas duodecim, in quibus quaeritur, quod sit bonum hominis, quo adsecuto fit beatus, ut ex eis unam ueram, ceteras falsas ostendat esse, reuertitur. Nam remoto illo tripertito genere uitae duae partes huius numeri detrahuntur et sectae nonaginta sex remanent. Remota uero differentia ex Cynicis addita ad dimidium rediguntur et quadraginta octo fiunt. Auferamus etiam quod ex Academicis nouis adhibitum est: rursus dimidia pars remanet, id est uiginti quattuor. De sociali quoque uita quod accesserat similiter auferatur: duodecim sunt reliquae, quas ista differentia, ut uiginti quattuor fierent, duplicauerat. De his ergo duodecim nihil dici potest, quur sectae non sint habendae. Nihil quippe aliud in eis quaeritur quam fines bonorum et malorum. Inuentis autem bonorum finibus profecto e contrario sunt malorum. Hae autem ut fiant duodecim sectae, illa quattuor triplicantur, uoluptas, quies, utrumque et prima naturae, quae primigenia Varro uocat. Haec quippe quattuor dum singillatim uirtuti aliquando subduntur, ut non propter se ipsa, sed propter officium uirtutis adpetenda uideantur, aliquando praeferuntur, ut non propter se ipsa, sed propter haec adipiscenda uel conseruanda necessaria uirtus putetur, aliquando iunguntur, ut propter se ipsa et uirtus et ista adpetenda credantur, quaternarium numerum triplum reddunt et ad duodecim sectas perueniunt. Ex illis autem quattuor rebus Varro tres tollit, uoluptatem scilicet et quietem et utrumque; non quod eas inprobet, sed quod primigenia illa naturae et uoluptatem in se habeant et quietem. Quid ergo opus est ex his duabus tria quaedam facere, duo scilicet, cum singillatim adpetuntur uoluptas aut quies, et tertium cum ambae simul, quando quidem prima naturae et ipsas et praeter ipsas alia multa contineant? De tribus ergo sectis ei placet diligenter esse tractandum, quaenam sit potius eligenda. Non enim ueram plus quam unam uera ratio esse permittit, siue in his tribus sit siue alicubi alibi, quod post uidebimus. Interim de his tribus quo modo unam Varro eligat, quantum breuiter aperteque possumus, disseramus. Istae nempe tres sectae ita fiunt, cum uel prima naturae propter uirtutem, uel uirtus propter prima naturae, uel utraque, id est et uirtus et prima naturae, propter se ipsa sunt expetenda.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. How, having removed all the distinctions which are not sects but questions, Varro arrives at a threefold definition of the supreme good, of which one is nevertheless to be chosen.

In those three kinds of life also, namely one leisured, not slothfully but in the contemplation or investigation of truth, another busy in conducting human affairs, the third tempered from both kinds, when it is asked which of these should rather be chosen, it is not the end of good that is in dispute; what is at issue in that question is which of these three brings difficulty or ease in attaining or keeping the end of good. For the end of good, when anyone has reached it, at once makes him happy; but in learned leisure, or in public business, or when both are done in turn, no one is at once happy. For many can live in any of these three and err in seeking the end of good by which a man becomes happy. The question, then, about the ends of goods and evils, which makes each sect of philosophers, is one thing, and the questions about social life, about the hesitation of the Academics, about the dress and food of the Cynics, and about the three kinds of life, leisured, active, and tempered from both, are others; none of which is one in which the ends of goods and evils are discussed.

Accordingly, since Marcus Varro, by applying these four distinctions, namely from social life, from the New Academics, from the Cynics, and from this threefold kind of life, arrived at two hundred and eighty-eight sects, and any others that can be added similarly, he removes all of them, since they raise no question about the pursuit of the supreme good and therefore neither are sects nor are to be called sects, and returns to those twelve in which it is asked what the good of man is, by attaining which he becomes happy, in order to show that one of them is true and the rest false. For when that threefold kind of life is removed, two thirds of this number are taken away and ninety-six sects remain. When the distinction added from the Cynics is removed, they are reduced to half and become forty-eight. Let us also take away what was applied from the New Academics: again half remains, that is, twenty-four. Let what had been added about social life be likewise taken away: twelve remain, which that distinction had doubled to make twenty-four. Of these twelve, then, no reason can be given why they should not be held to be sects. For nothing else is sought in them than the ends of goods and evils. And when the ends of goods have been found, those of evils are surely their contraries. For these to become twelve sects, those four are tripled: pleasure, repose, both, and the primary things of nature, which Varro calls primigenia. For while these four, one by one, are sometimes subordinated to virtue, so that they seem to be sought not for their own sake but for the duty of virtue; sometimes preferred, so that virtue is thought necessary not for its own sake but for obtaining or keeping these; sometimes joined, so that both virtue and these are believed to be sought for their own sake: they make the number four threefold and arrive at twelve sects.

But of those four things Varro takes away three, namely pleasure, repose, and both; not because he disapproves of them, but because those primary things of nature contain in themselves both pleasure and repose. What need, then, is there to make three things out of these two, two when pleasure or repose is sought singly, and a third when both together, since the primary things of nature contain both them and many other things besides? Of three sects, then, he thinks it must be diligently treated which should rather be chosen. For true reason does not allow more than one to be true, whether it is among these three or somewhere else, as we shall see later. Meanwhile let us discuss, as briefly and plainly as we can, how Varro chooses one of these three. These three sects, then, arise when either the primary things of nature are to be sought for the sake of virtue, or virtue for the sake of the primary things of nature, or both, that is, both virtue and the primary things of nature, for their own sake.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Varro, On Philosophy (lost).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.2 (CSEL 40:368–370; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-2/#p-19-2).

## City of God 19.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-2/#p-19-3
- Source: CSEL 40:370–373
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reports Varro's argument, following Antiochus of Ascalon, that man is soul and body together, so that the supreme good consists of virtue and the goods of both, in a social life that mixes leisure and action.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. De tribus sectis summum hominis bonum quaerentibus quam eligendam Varro definiat sequens ueteris Academiae Antiocho auctore sententiam. Quid ergo istorum trium sit uerum adque sectandum, isto modo persuadere conatur. Primum, quia summum bonum in philosophia non arboris, non pecoris, non Dei, sed hominis quaeritur, quid sit ipse homo, quaerendum putat. Sentit quippe in eius natura duo esse quaedam, corpus et animam. Et horum quidem duorum melius esse animam longeque praestabilius omnino non dubitat, sed utrum anima sola sit homo. ut ita sit ei corpus tamquam equus equiti (eques enim non homo et equus, sed solus homo est; ideo tamen eques dicitur, quod aliquo modo se habeat ad equum), an corpus solum sit homo, aliquo modo se habens ad animam, sicut poculum ad potionem (non enim calix et potio, quam continet calix. simul dicitur poculum, sed calix solus; ideo tamen quod potioni continendae sit adcommodatus), an uero nec anima sola nec solum corpus, sed simul utrumque sit homo, cuius sit pars una siue anima siue corpus, ille autem totus ex utroque constet, ut homo sit (sicut duos equos iunctos bigas uocamus, quorum siue dexter siue sinister pars est bigarum, unum uero eorum, quoquo modo se habeat ad alterum, bigas non dicimus, sed ambo simul). Horum autem trium hoc elegit tertium hominemque nec animam solam nec solum corpus, sed animam simul et corpus esse arbitratur. Proinde summum bonum hominis, quo fit beatus, ex utriusque rei bonis constare dicit, et animae scilicet et corporis. Ac per hoc prima illa naturae propter se ipsa existimat expetenda ipsamque uirtutem, quam doctrina inserit uelut artem uiuendi, quae in animae bonis est excellentissimum bonum. Quapropter eadem uirtus, id est ars agendae uitae, cum acceperit prima naturae, quae sine illa erant, sed tamen erant etiam quando eis doctrina adhuc deerat, omnia propter se ipsa adpetit simulque etiam se ipsam, omnibusque simul et se ipsa utitur, eo fine, ut omnibus delectetur adque perfruatur, magis minusque, ut quaeque inter se maiora adque minora sunt, tamen omnibus gaudens et quaedam minora, si necessitas postulat, propter maiora uel adipiscenda uel tenenda contemnens. Omnium autem bonorum uel animi uel corporis nihil sibi uirtus omnino praeponit. Haec enim bene utitur et se ipsa et ceteris, quae hominem faciunt beatum, bonis. Ubi uero ipsa non est, quamlibet multa sint bona, non bono eius sunt, cuius sunt, ac per hoc iam nec eius bona dicenda sunt, cui male utenti utilia esse non possunt. Haec ergo uita hominis, quae uirtute et aliis animi et corporis bonis, sine quibus uirtus esse non potest, fruitur, beata esse dicitur; si uero et aliis, sine quibus esse uirtus potest, uel ullis uel pluribus, beatior; si autem prorsus omnibus, ut nullum omnino bonum desit uel animi uel corporis, beatissima. Non enim hoc est uita, quod uirtus, quoniam non omnis uita, sed sapiens uita uirtus est; et tamen qualiscumque uita sine ulla uirtute potest esse; uirtus uero sine ulla uita non potest esse. Hoc et de memoria dixerim adque ratione, et si quid tale aliud est in homine. Sunt enim haec et ante doctrinam, sine his autem non potest esse ulla doctrina, ac per hoc nec uirtus, quae utique discitur. Bene autem currere, pulchrum esse corpore, uiribus ingentibus praeualere et cetera huius modi talia sunt, ut et uirtus sine his esse possit et ipsa sine uirtute; bona sunt tamen, et secundum istos etiam ipsa propter se ipsam diligit uirtus, utiturque illis et fruitur, sicut uirtutem decet. Hanc uitam beatam etiam socialem perhibent esse, quae amicorum bona propter se ipsa diligat sicut sua eisque propter ipsos hoc uelit quod sibi; siue in domo sint, sicut coniux et liberi et quicumque domestici, siue in loco, ubi domus est eius, sicuti est urbs, ut sunt hi qui ciues uocantur, siue in orbe toto, ut sunt gentes quas ei societas humana coniungit, siue in ipso mundo, qui censetur nomine caeli et terrae, sicut esse dicunt deos, quos uolunt amicos esse homini sapienti, quos nos familiarius angelos dicimus. De bonorum autem et e contrario malorum finibus negant ullo modo esse dubitandum et hanc inter se et nouos Academicos adfirmant esse distantiam, nec eorum interest quidquam, siue Cynico siue alio quolibet habitu et uictu in his finibus, quos ueros putant, quisque philosophetur. Ex tribus porro illis uitae generibus, otioso, actuoso et quod ex utroque conpositum est, hoc tertium sibi placere adseuerant. Haec sensisse adque docuisse Academicos ueteres Varro adserit, auctore Antiocho, magistro Ciceronis et suo, quem sane Cicero in pluribus fuisse Stoicum quam ueterem Academicum uult uideri. Sed quid ad nos, qui potius de rebus ipsis iudicare debemus, quam pro magno de hominibus quid quisque senserit scire?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. Which of the three sects seeking the supreme good of man Varro decides is to be chosen, following the opinion of the Old Academy on the authority of Antiochus.

Which of these three, then, is true and to be followed, he tries to persuade us in this way. First, since in philosophy the supreme good sought is not that of a tree, nor of a beast, nor of God, but of man, he thinks we must ask what man himself is. He perceives that in his nature there are two things, body and soul. And of these two he does not doubt at all that the soul is the better and far more excellent; but whether the soul alone is the man, so that the body is to it as the horse to the horseman (for the horseman is not man and horse, but the man alone, and yet he is called a horseman because he is in some relation to the horse); or whether the body alone is the man, in some relation to the soul, as the cup to the drink (for it is not the vessel and the drink which the vessel contains together that is called the cup, but the vessel alone; yet it is so called because it is fitted to contain the drink); or whether neither the soul alone nor the body alone, but both together, is the man, of whom one part is either the soul or the body, while he as a whole consists of both so as to be a man (as we call two horses yoked together a pair, of which whether the right or the left is a part of the pair, yet we do not call one of them, however it is related to the other, a pair, but both together). Of these three he chose the third, and thinks that man is neither the soul alone nor the body alone, but soul and body together. Accordingly he says that the supreme good of man, by which he becomes happy, consists of the goods of both, namely of the soul and of the body.

And therefore he thinks that those primary things of nature are to be sought for their own sake, and virtue itself too, which instruction implants as the art of living, and which is the most excellent good among the goods of the soul. Therefore this same virtue, that is, the art of conducting life, when it has received the primary things of nature, which existed without it, and existed even when instruction was still lacking to them, seeks all things for their own sake and at the same time itself too, and uses all of them together and itself, with this end, that it may delight in and enjoy them all, more or less as each is greater or less than the others, yet rejoicing in all, and despising some lesser things, if necessity demands, for the sake of obtaining or keeping greater ones. But of all goods, whether of mind or body, virtue sets nothing at all above itself. For it uses well both itself and the other goods which make man happy. But where it is not present, however many goods there are, they are not for the good of him whose they are, and therefore are no longer even to be called his goods, since they cannot be useful to him who uses them badly. This life of man, then, which enjoys virtue and the other goods of mind and body without which virtue cannot exist, is called happy; if it enjoys also any or several of the others without which virtue can exist, happier; but if absolutely all, so that no good at all of mind or body is lacking, most happy. For life is not the same as virtue, since not every life, but only wise life, is virtue; and yet life of some sort can exist without any virtue, but virtue cannot exist without any life. I would say this of memory and reason too, and of anything else of the kind in man. For these exist even before instruction, and without them there can be no instruction, and therefore no virtue either, which is certainly learned. But to run well, to be beautiful in body, to excel in great strength, and other things of this kind are such that virtue can exist without them and they without virtue; yet they are goods, and according to these men virtue loves them too for their own sake, and uses and enjoys them as befits virtue.

They say that this happy life is also social, loving the goods of friends for their own sake as its own and willing for them, for their sake, what it wills for itself; whether they are in the household, such as wife and children and all members of the household; or in the place where one's house is, such as a city, as are those who are called citizens; or in the whole world, as are the nations which human society joins to him; or in the universe itself, which is reckoned under the name of heaven and earth, as they say the gods are, whom they will have to be friends to the wise man, and whom we more familiarly call angels. About the ends of goods and, on the contrary, of evils, they deny that there is to be any doubt at all, and they affirm that this is the difference between themselves and the New Academics; nor does it matter to them at all whether anyone philosophizes, within these ends which they think true, in the Cynic or any other dress and manner of life. Of those three kinds of life, the leisured, the active, and that which is composed of both, they assert that the third pleases them. Varro asserts that the Old Academics held and taught these things, on the authority of Antiochus, the teacher of Cicero and of himself, whom Cicero indeed will have to seem in more points a Stoic than an Old Academic. But what is that to us, who ought rather to judge of the things themselves than to count it a great matter to know what each man thought about them?

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro (Varro): allusion, high confidence
- Cicero, Acad. 2.132 (Cicero): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Varro, On Philosophy (lost). Cicero's judgment that Antiochus was more Stoic than Academic is in Academica 2.132 (Lucullus).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.3 (CSEL 40:370–373; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-2/#p-19-3).

## City of God 19.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-2/#p-19-4
- Source: CSEL 40:373–380
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine answers that eternal life is the supreme good and eternal death the supreme evil, and argues that the miseries of this life, the constant war of virtue against vice, and even the Stoic defence of suicide show that happiness here can only be held in hope.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. De summo bono et summo malo quid Christiani sentiant contra philosophos, qui summum bonum in se sibi esse dixerunt. Si ergo quaeratur a nobis, quid ciuitas Dei de his singulis interrogata respondeat ac primum de finibus bonorum malorumque quid sentiat: respondebit aeternam uitam esse summum bonum, aeternam uero mortem summum malum; propter illam proinde adipiscendam istamque uitandam recte nobis esse uiuendum. Propter quod scriptum est: Iustus ex fide uiuit; quoniam neque bonum nostrum iam uidemus, unde oportet ut credendo quaeramus, neque ipsum recte uiuere nobis ex nobis est, nisi credentes adiuuet et orantes qui et ipsam fidem dedit. qua nos ab illo adiuuandos esse credamus. Illi autem, qui in ista uita fines bonorum et malorum esse putauerunt, siue in corpore siue in animo siue in utroque ponentes summum bonum, adque, ut id explicatius eloquar, siue in uoluptate siue in uirtute siue in utraque; siue in quiete siue in uirtute siue in utraque; siue in uoluptate simul et quiete siue in uirtute siue in utrisque, siue in primis naturae siue in uirtute siue in utrisque; hic beati esse et a se ipsis beati fieri mira uanitate uoluerunt. Inrisit hos Veritas per prophetam dicentem: Dominus nouit cogitationes hominum uel, sicut hoc testimonium posuit apostolus Paulus: Dominus nouit cogitationes sapientium, quoniam uanae sunt. Quis enim sufficit quantouis eloquentiae flumine uitae huius miserias explicare? Quam lamentatus est Cicero in consolatione de morte filiae, sicut potuit; sed quantum est quod potuit? Ea quippe, quae dicuntur prima naturae, quando, ubi, quo modo tam bene se habere in hac uita possunt, ut non sub incertis casibus fluctuent? Quis enim dolor contrarius uoluptati, quae inquietudo contraria quieti in corpus cadere sapientis non potest? Membrorum certe amputatio uel debilitas hominis expugnat incolumitatem, deformitas pulchritudinem, inbecillitas sanitatem, uires lassitudo, mobilitatem torpor aut tarditas; et quid horum est, quod nequeat in carnem sapientis inruere? Status quoque corporis adque motus, cum decentes et congruentes sunt, inter naturae prima numerantur; sed quid si aliqua mala ualetudo membra tremore concutiat? quid si usque ad ponendas in terra manus dorsi spina curuetur et hominem quodam modo quadrupedem faciat? Nonne omnem statuendi corporis et mouendi speciem decusque peruertet? Quid ipsius animi primigenia quae appellantur bona, ubi duo prima ponunt propter conprehensionem perceptionemque ueritatis sensum et intellectum? Sed qualis quantusque remanet sensus, si, ut alia taceam, fiat homo surdus et caecus? Ratio uero et intellegentia quo recedet, ubi sopietur, si aliquo morbo efficiatur insanus? Phrenetici multa absurda cum dicunt uel faciunt, plerumque a bono suo proposito et moribus aliena, immo suo bono proposito moribusque contraria, siue illa cogitemus siue uideamus, si digne consideremus, lacrimas tenere uix possumus aut forte nec possumus. Quid dicam de his, qui daemonum patiuntur incursus? Ubi habent absconditam uel obrutam intellegentiam suam, quando secundum suam uoluntatem et anima eorum et corpore malignus utitur spiritus? Et quis confidit hoc malum in hac uita euenire non posse sapienti? Deinde perceptio ueritatis in hac carne qualis aut quanta est, quando. sicut legimus in ueraci libro sapientiae, corpus corruptibile adgrauat animam et deprimit terrena inhabitatio sensum multa cogitantem? Inpetus porro uel adpetitus actionis, si hoc modo recte Latine appellatur ea, quam Graeci uocant ὁρμήν, quia et ipsam primis naturae deputant bonis, nonne ipse est, quo geruntur etiam insanorum illi miserabiles motus et facta, quae horremus, quando peruertitur sensus ratioque sopitur? Porro ipsa uirtus, quae non est inter prima naturae, quoniam eis postea doctrina introducente superuenit, cum sibi bonorum culmen uindicet humanorum, quid hic agit nisi perpetua bella cum uitiis, nec exterioribus, sed interioribus, nec alienis, sed plane nostris et propriis, maxime illa, quae Graece σωφροσύνη, Latine temperantia nominatur, qua carnales frenantur libidines, ne in quaeque flagitia mentem consentientem trahant? Neque enim nullum est uitium, cum, sicut dicit apostolus, caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum; cui uitio contraria uirtus est, cum, sicut idem dicit, spiritus. concupiscit aduersus carnem. Haec enim, inquit, inuicem aduersantur, ut non ea quae uultis faciatis. Quid autem facere uolumus, cum perfici uolumus fine summi boni, nisi ut caro aduersus spiritum non concupiscat, nec sit in nobis hoc uitium, contra quod spiritus concupiscat? Quod in hac uita, quamuis uelimus, quoniam facere non ualemus, id saltem in adiutorio Dei facimus, ne carni concupiscenti aduersus spiritum spiritu succumbente cedamus et ad perpetrandum peccatum nostra consensione pertrahamur. Absit ergo ut, quamdiu in hoc bello intestino sumus, iam nos beatitudinem, ad quam uincendo uolumus peruenire, adeptos esse credamus. Et quis est usque adeo sapiens, ut contra libidines nullum habeat omnino conflictum? Quid illa uirtus, quae prudentia dicitur, nonne tota uigilantia sua bona discernit a malis, ut in illis adpetendis istisque uitandis nullus error obrepat, ac per hoc et ipsa nos in malis uel mala in nobis esse testatur? Ipsa enim docet malum esse ad peccandum consentire bonumque esse ad peccandum non consentire libidini. Illud tamen malum, cui nos non consentire docet prudentia, facit temperantia, nec prudentia nec temperantia tollit huic uitae. Quid iustitia, cuius munus est sua cuique tribuere (unde fit in ipso homine quidam iustus ordo naturae, ut anima subdatur Deo et animae caro, ac per hoc Deo et anima et caro), nonne demonstrat in eo se adhuc opere laborare potius quam in huius operis iam fine requiescere? Tanto minus quippe anima subditur Deo, quanto minus Deum in ipsis suis cogitationibus concipit; et tanto minus animae subditur caro, quanto magis aduersus spiritum concupiscit. Quamdiu ergo nobis inest haec infirmitas, haec pestis, hic languor, quo modo nos iam saluos, et si nondum saluos, quo modo iam beatos illa finali beatitudine dicere audebimus? Iam uero illa uirtus, cuius nomen est fortitudo, in quantacumque sapientia euidentissima testis est humanorum malorum, quae conpellitur patientia tolerare. Quae mala Stoici philosophi miror qua fronte mala non esse contendant, quibus fatentur, si tanta fuerint, ut ea sapiens uel non possit uel non debeat sustinere, cogi eum mortem sibimet inferre adque ex hac uita emigrare. Tantus autem superbiae stupor est in his hominibus hic se habere finem boni et a se ipsis fieri beatos putantibus, ut sapiens eorum, hoc est, qualem mirabili uanitate describunt, etiamsi excaecetur obsurdescat obmutescat, membris debilitetur doloribus crucietur et, si quid aliud talium malorum dici aut cogitari potest, incidat in eum, quo sibi mortem cogatur inferre, hanc in his malis uitam constitutam eum non pudeat beatam uocare. O uitam beatam, quae ut finiatur mortis quaerit auxilium! Si beata est, maneatur in ea. Quo modo ista non sunt mala, quae uincunt fortitudinis bonum eandemque fortitudinem non solum sibi cedere, uerum etiam delirare conpellunt, ut eandem uitam et dicat beatam et persuadeat esse fugiendam? Quis usque adeo caecus est, ut non uideat, quod, si beata esset, fugienda non esset? Sed aperta infirmitatis uoce fugiendam fatentur. Quid igitur causae est, quur non etiam miseram fracta superbiae ceruice fateantur? Utrum, obsecro, Cato ille patientia an potius inpatientia se peremit? Non enim hoc fecisset, nisi uictoriam Caesaris inpatienter tulisset. Ubi est fortitudo? Nempe cessit, nempe succubuit, nempe usque adeo superata est, ut uitam beatam derelinqueret desereret fugeret. An non erat iam beata? Misera ergo erat. Quo modo igitur mala non erant, quae uitam miseram fugiendamque faciebant? Quapropter etiam ipsi, qui mala ista esse confessi sunt, sicut Peripatetici, sicut ueteres Academici, quorum sectam Varro defendit, tolerabilius quidem loquuntur, sed eorum quoque mirus est error, quod in his malis, etsi tam grauia sint, ut morte fugienda sint ab ipso sibimet inlata, qui haec patitur, uitam beatam tamen esse contendunt. Mala sunt, inquit, tormenta adque cruciatus corporis, et tanto sunt peiora, quanto potuerint esse maiora; quibus ut careas, ex hac uita fugiendum est. Qua uita, obsecro? Hac, inquit, quae tantis adgrauatur malis. Certe ergo beata est in eisdem ipsis malis, propter quae dicis esse fugiendam? An ideo beatam dicis, quia licet tibi ab his malis morte discedere? Quid si ergo in eis aliquo diuino iudicio tenereris nec permittereris mori nec umquam sine illis esse sinereris? Nempe tunc saltem miseram talem diceres uitam. Non igitur propterea misera non est, quia cito relinquitur. Quando quidem si sempiterna sit, etiam abs te ipso misera iudicatur; non itaque propterea, quoniam breuis est, nulla miseria debet uideri aut, quod est absurdius, quia breuis miseria est, ideo etiam beatitudo appellari. Magna uis est in eis malis, quae cogunt hominem secundum ipsos etiam sapientem sibimet auferre quod homo est; cum dicant et uerum dicant, hanc esse naturae primam quodam modo et maximam uocem, ut homo concilietur sibi et propterea mortem naturaliter fugiat, ita sibi amicus, ut esse se animal et in hac coniunctione corporis adque animae uiuere uelit uehementer adque adpetat. Magna uis est in eis malis, quibus iste naturae uincitur sensus, quo mors omni modo omnibus uiribus conatibusque uitatur, et ita uincitur, ut, quae uitabatur optetur adpetatur et, si non potuerit aliunde contingere, ab homine ipso sibimet inferatur. Magna uis est in eis malis, quae fortitudinem faciunt homicidam; si tamen adhuc dicenda est fortitudo, quae ita his malis uincitur, ut hominem, quem sicut uirtus regendum tuendumque suscepit, non modo non possit per patientiam custodire, sed ipsa insuper cogatur occidere. Debet quidem etiam mortem sapiens ferre patienter, sed quae accidit aliunde. Secundum istos autem si eam sibi ipse inferre conpellitur, profecto fatendum est eis non solum mala, sed intolerabilia etiam mala esse. quae hoc eum perpetrare conpellunt. Vita igitur, quae istorum tam magnorum tamque grauium malorum aut premitur oneribus aut subiacet casibus, nullo modo beata diceretur, si homines, qui hoc dicunt, sicut uicti malis ingrauescentibus, cum sibi ingerunt mortem, cedunt infelicitati, ita uicti certis rationibus, cum quaerunt beatam uitam, dignarentur cedere ueritati et non sibi putarent in ista mortalitate fine summi boni esse gaudendum, ubi uirtutes ipsae, quibus hic certe nihil melius adque utilius in homine reperitur, quanto maiora sunt adiutoria contra uim periculorum laborum dolorum, tanto fideliora testimonia miseriarum. Si enim uerae uirtutes sunt, quae nisi in eis, quibus uera inest pietas, esse non possunt: non se profitentur hoc posse, ut nullas miserias patiantur homines, in quibus sunt (neque enim mendaces sunt uerae uirtutes, ut hoc profiteantur), sed ut uita humana, quae tot et tantis huius saeculi malis esse cogitur misera, spe futuri saeculi sit beata, sicut et salua. Quo modo enim beata est, quae nondum salua est? Unde et apostolus Paulus non de hominibus inprudentibus inpatientibus, intemperantibus et iniquis, sed de his, qui secundum ueram pietatem uiuerent et ideo uirtutes, quas haberent, ueras haberent, ait: Spe enim salui facti sumus. Spes autem quae uidetur, non est spes. Quod enim uidet quis, quid et sperat? Si autem quod non uidemus speramus, per patientiam expectamus. Sicut ergo spe salui, ita spe beati facti sumus, et sicut salutem, ita beatitudinem non iam tenemus praesentem, sed exspectamus futuram, et hoc per patientiam; quia in malis sumus, quae patienter tolerare debemus, donec ad illa ueniamus bona, ubi omnia erunt, quibus ineffabiliter delectemur, nihil erit autem, quod iam tolerare debeamus. Talis salus, quae in futuro erit saeculo, ipsa erit etiam finalis beatitudo. Quam beatitudinem isti philosophi, quoniam non uidentes nolunt credere, hic sibi conantur falsissimam fabricare, quanto superbiore, tanto mendaciore uirtute.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. What the Christians think about the supreme good and the supreme evil, against the philosophers who have said that the supreme good is in themselves.

If, then, we are asked what the city of God answers when questioned about each of these, and first what it thinks about the ends of goods and evils, it will answer that eternal life is the supreme good and eternal death the supreme evil, and that therefore we must live rightly in order to obtain the one and avoid the other. For this reason it is written: “The righteous lives by faith”; since we do not yet see our good, and so must seek it by believing; nor is living rightly itself from ourselves, unless he who has given us the very faith by which we believe that we must be helped by him helps us as we believe and pray. But those who have thought that the ends of goods and evils are in this life, placing the supreme good either in the body or in the soul or in both, or, to put it more fully, either in pleasure or in virtue or in both; either in repose or in virtue or in both; either in pleasure and repose together or in virtue or in both; either in the primary things of nature or in virtue or in both, have wished with marvellous vanity to be happy here and to be made happy by themselves. The Truth has mocked them through the prophet, saying: “The Lord knows the thoughts of men,” or, as the apostle Paul set down this testimony: “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.”

For who is able, with any flood of eloquence whatever, to set out the miseries of this life? Cicero lamented it, as well as he could, in the Consolation on the death of his daughter; but how much is it that he could do? For those things that are called the primary things of nature, when, where, how can they be so well off in this life that they do not waver under uncertain chances? For what pain contrary to pleasure, what disquiet contrary to repose, cannot befall the body of the wise man? Certainly the amputation or crippling of limbs overthrows a man's soundness, deformity his beauty, weakness his health, weariness his strength, numbness or slowness his agility; and which of these cannot fall upon the flesh of the wise man? The posture of the body too and its movement, when they are seemly and fitting, are numbered among the primary things of nature; but what if some illness shakes the limbs with trembling? What if the spine is bent until the hands are put on the ground and makes the man in a way four-footed? Will it not pervert all the beauty and grace of standing and moving the body? What of the so-called primary goods of the mind itself, where they put first sense and understanding for the grasping and perceiving of truth? But what sense remains, and how much, if, to say nothing of other things, a man becomes deaf and blind? And where will reason and intelligence retreat, where will they be put to sleep, if he is made insane by some disease? When the frenzied say or do many absurd things, for the most part foreign to their own good purpose and character, indeed contrary to their good purpose and character, whether we think of them or see them, if we consider them worthily, we can scarcely hold back our tears, or perhaps we cannot. What shall I say of those who suffer the assaults of demons? Where do they have their intelligence hidden or buried, when the malignant spirit uses both their soul and their body according to his will? And who is confident that this evil cannot befall the wise man in this life? Then, what is the perception of truth in this flesh, and how great, when, as we read in the truthful book of Wisdom, “the corruptible body weighs down the soul, and the earthly dwelling presses down the mind that thinks many things”? Further, the impulse or appetite for action, if that is the right Latin name for what the Greeks call hormē, since they reckon it too among the primary goods of nature, is it not that by which are carried out even those pitiable movements and deeds of the insane which we shudder at, when sense is perverted and reason put to sleep?

Further, virtue itself, which is not among the primary things of nature, since it comes upon them later when instruction introduces it, though it claims for itself the summit of human goods, what does it do here but wage perpetual wars with vices, not outside ones but inside, not other people's but plainly our own and proper to us; above all that virtue which in Greek is called sōphrosynē and in Latin temperance, by which the lusts of the flesh are bridled, lest they drag the consenting mind into all manner of shameful deeds? For there is no lack of vice when, as the apostle says, “the flesh lusts against the spirit”; to which vice the contrary virtue exists when, as he also says, “the spirit lusts against the flesh.” “For these,” he says, “are opposed to one another, so that you do not do what you will.” But what do we will to do, when we will to be perfected by the end of the supreme good, except that the flesh should not lust against the spirit, and that there should not be in us this vice against which the spirit lusts? Since in this life, though we will it, we are not able to do it, we do at least this with the help of God: that we do not yield to the flesh lusting against the spirit by the spirit's giving way, and are not dragged to committing sin by our consent. Far be it, then, that as long as we are in this civil war we should believe that we have already attained the happiness which we wish to reach by conquering. And who is so wise as to have no conflict at all against lusts?

What of that virtue which is called prudence? Does it not with all its vigilance distinguish goods from evils, so that no error may creep in in seeking the former and avoiding the latter, and thereby itself testify that we are in evils or that evils are in us? For it teaches that it is evil to consent to sin and good not to consent to lust in order to sin. Yet that evil to which prudence teaches us not to consent, and temperance brings it about that we do not, neither prudence nor temperance removes from this life. What of justice, whose task is to give to each his own (whence there arises in man himself a certain just order of nature, that the soul should be subject to God and the flesh to the soul, and thus both soul and flesh to God)? Does it not show that it is still labouring at this work rather than already resting at the end of it? For the soul is the less subject to God the less it conceives of God in its very thoughts; and the flesh is the less subject to the soul the more it lusts against the spirit. As long, then, as this weakness, this plague, this sickness is in us, how shall we dare to say that we are already saved, and if not yet saved, how already happy with that final happiness? Now that virtue whose name is fortitude, in whatever wisdom, is the most evident witness of human evils, which it is compelled to bear with patience.

I wonder with what face the Stoic philosophers contend that these evils are not evils, when they admit that if they are so great that the wise man either cannot or ought not to bear them, he is compelled to inflict death on himself and depart from this life. But so great is the stupidity of pride in these men, who think that they have the end of good here and are made happy by themselves, that their wise man, that is, such as they describe with marvellous vanity, even if he is blinded, deafened, struck dumb, crippled in his limbs, tortured with pains, and if any other such evil that can be spoken or thought of falls upon him, by which he is forced to inflict death on himself, is not ashamed to call this life, set among these evils, happy. O happy life, which seeks the help of death to be ended! If it is happy, let him remain in it. How are those things not evils which conquer the good of fortitude, and compel that same fortitude not only to yield to them but even to rave, so that it both calls that same life happy and persuades him that it is to be fled? Who is so blind as not to see that if it were happy it would not be something to flee? But with an open voice of weakness they confess that it is to be fled. What reason is there, then, why they should not also, the neck of their pride broken, confess it to be wretched? Did that famous Cato, I ask, kill himself from patience or rather from impatience? For he would not have done it if he had not borne Caesar's victory impatiently. Where is fortitude? It yielded, of course; it gave way; it was so far overcome that it abandoned, deserted, fled a happy life. Or was it no longer happy? Then it was wretched. How, then, were those things not evils which made life wretched and something to be fled?

Therefore even those who have admitted that these things are evils, like the Peripatetics, like the Old Academics, whose sect Varro defends, speak more tolerably indeed; but their error too is remarkable, in that they contend that in these evils, even if they are so grave that they must be fled by a death inflicted by the sufferer on himself, life is nevertheless happy. “Tortures and torments of the body are evils,” he says, “and the worse the greater they can be; to be free of them one must flee from this life.” From what life, I ask? “From this one,” he says, “which is weighed down with such great evils.” Then surely it is happy amid those very evils on account of which you say it is to be fled? Or do you call it happy because you are allowed to depart from these evils by death? What, then, if by some divine judgment you were held in them and not allowed to die, nor ever permitted to be without them? Then at least you would call such a life wretched. It is not, then, therefore not wretched because it is quickly left. For if it were everlasting, it would be judged wretched even by yourself; so it should not seem to be no misery because it is brief, or, what is more absurd, be called happiness because it is brief misery. There is great power in those evils which compel a man, according to them even a wise man, to take away from himself that he is a man; though they say, and say truly, that this is in a way the first and greatest voice of nature, that a man should be reconciled to himself and therefore naturally flee death, being so much his own friend that he wishes and seeks vehemently to be a living creature and to live in this union of body and soul. There is great power in those evils by which this sense of nature is conquered, by which death is avoided in every way with all one's strength and efforts, and so conquered that what was avoided is wished for and sought, and, if it cannot come from elsewhere, is inflicted by the man himself on himself. There is great power in those evils which make fortitude a murderer; if indeed it is still to be called fortitude which is so conquered by these evils that the man whom it undertook as a virtue to rule and protect it not only cannot guard by patience, but is itself compelled besides to kill. The wise man ought indeed to bear even death patiently, but death that comes from elsewhere. But if, according to them, he is compelled to inflict it on himself, surely it must be admitted by them that those things are not only evils but even intolerable evils which compel him to do this.

The life, then, which is either pressed down by the burdens or lies exposed to the chances of such great and grievous evils would in no way be called happy, if the men who say this, just as, when they bring death on themselves, they yield to unhappiness conquered by increasing evils, so, when they seek the happy life, would deign to yield to the truth, conquered by sure reasons, and would not think that in this mortality they are to enjoy the end of the supreme good; where the virtues themselves, than which certainly nothing better or more useful is found in man here, are the more faithful testimonies of miseries, the greater the aids they are against the force of dangers, labours, and pains. For if they are true virtues, which cannot exist except in those in whom there is true piety, they do not profess to be able to bring it about that the men in whom they are suffer no miseries (for true virtues are not liars, to profess this), but that human life, which is compelled by so many and great evils of this world to be wretched, may be happy in the hope of the world to come, as it is also saved in hope. For how is that life happy which is not yet saved? Hence the apostle Paul too, speaking not of imprudent, impatient, intemperate, and unjust men, but of those who lived according to true piety and therefore had true virtues, says: “For in hope we have been saved. But hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.” As, then, we have been saved in hope, so we have been made happy in hope; and as we do not yet hold salvation as present, so neither happiness, but we await it as future, and this with patience; because we are among evils which we must bear patiently until we come to those goods where there will be everything in which we may delight unspeakably, and there will be nothing which we must still bear. Such salvation, which will be in the world to come, will itself also be the final happiness. This happiness these philosophers, because they do not see it and will not believe it, try to fabricate for themselves here, a most false one, with a virtue as much the more deceitful as it is the more proud.

### Scripture references

- Hab 2:4: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:17: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 94:11 (93:11 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 3:20: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 5:17: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:24: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:25: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Consolatio (Cicero): allusion, high confidence
- Wis 9:15 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence
- Varro (Varro): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- “The righteous lives by faith” is Hab 2:4 as quoted in Rom 1:17. Cicero's Consolation (on the death of Tullia) is lost. “The corruptible body weighs down the soul” is Wis 9:15, outside the 66 books. The Greek words ὁρμή and σωφροσύνη are mis-encoded in the digital text and corrected. Augustine's argument against suicide (the Stoic wise man, Cato) is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.4 (CSEL 40:373–380; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-2/#p-19-4).

## City of God 19.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-2/#p-19-5
- Source: CSEL 40:380–381
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine agrees that the wise man's life should be social, since the city of God is itself a society, but shows how households and cities are full of betrayals, quarrels, and dangers.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. De sociali uita, quae, cum maxime expetenda sit, multis offensionibus saepe subuertitur. Quod autem socialem uitam uolunt esse sapientis, nos multo amplius adprobamus. Nam unde ista Dei ciuitas, de qua huius operis ecce iam undeuicensimum librum uersamus in manibus, uel inchoaretur exortu uel progrederetur excursu uel adprehenderet debitos fines, si non esset socialis uita sanctorum? Sed in huius mortalitatis aerumna quot et quantis abundet malis humana societas, quis enumerare ualeat? quis aestimare sufficiat? Audiant aput comicos suos hominem cum sensu adque consensu omnium hominum dicere: Duxi uxorem; quam ibi miseriam uidi! Nati filii. Alia cura. Quid itidem illa, quae in amore uitia commemorat idem Terentius, iniuriae suspiciones, inimicitiae bellum, pax rursum: nonne res humanas ubique inpleuerunt? nonne et in amicorum honestis amoribus plerumque contingunt? nonne his usquequaque plenae sunt res humanae, ubi iniurias suspiciones, inimicitias bellum mala certa sentimus; pacem uero incertum bonum, quoniam corda eorum, cum quibus eam tenere uolumus, ignoramus, et si hodie nosse possemus qualia cras futura essent utique nesciremus. Qui porro inter se amiciores solent esse uel debent, quam qui una etiam continentur domo? Et tamen quis inde securus est, cum tanta saepe mala ex eorum occultis insidiis exstiterint, tanto amariora, quanto pax dulcior fuit, quae uera putata est, cum astutissime fingeretur? Propter quod omnium pectora sic adtingit, ut cogat in gemitum, quod ait Tullius: Nullae sunt occultiores insidiae quam hae, quae latent in simulatione officii aut in aliquo necessitudinis nomine. Nam eum, qui palam est aduersarius, facile cauendo uitare possis; hoc uero occultum intestinum ac domesticum malum non solum exsistit, uerum etiam obprimit, antequam prospicere adque explorare potueris. Propter quod etiam diuina uox illa: Et inimici hominis domestici eius cum magno dolore cordis auditur, quia, etsi quisque tam fortis sit, ut aequo animo perferat, uel tam uigilans, ut prouido consilio caueat, quae aduersus eum molitur amicitia simulata, eorum tamen hominum perfidorum malo, cum eos esse pessimos experitur, si ipse bonus est, grauiter excrucietur necesse est, siue semper mali fuerint et se bonos finxerint, siue in istam malitiam ex bonitate mutati sint. Si ergo domus, commune perfugium in his malis humani generis, tuta non est, quid ciuitas, quae quanto maior est, tanto forum eius litibus et ciuilibus et criminalibus plenius, etiamsi quiescant non solum turbulentae, uerum saepius et cruentae seditiones ac bella ciuilia, a quorum euentis sunt aliquando liberae ciuitates, a periculis numquam?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. On social life, which, though it is most to be desired, is often overthrown by many offences.

That they will have the life of the wise man to be social, we approve much more fully. For how would this city of God, of which we are now handling the nineteenth book of this work, either have begun at its rise, or progressed in its course, or reach its due ends, if the life of the saints were not social? But in the hardship of this mortality, who could count with how many and how great evils human society abounds? Who could reckon them? Let them hear a man in their comic poets saying, with the feeling and agreement of all men: “I married a wife; what misery I saw there! Sons were born; another care.” What of those faults in love which the same Terence recounts: “Wrongs, suspicions, enmities, war, peace again”? Have they not filled human affairs everywhere? Do they not happen for the most part even in the honourable loves of friends? Are not human affairs full of them everywhere, where we feel wrongs, suspicions, enmities, war as certain evils, but peace as an uncertain good, since we do not know the hearts of those with whom we wish to keep it, and even if we could know them today, we would certainly not know what they would be tomorrow? Who, moreover, are, or ought to be, more friendly to one another than those who are contained even in one house? And yet who is secure from that quarter, when such great evils have often arisen from their hidden plots, the more bitter the sweeter was the peace, which was thought true when it was most cunningly feigned? For this reason what Tullius says touches the hearts of all so as to force a groan: “There are no plots more hidden than those that lie concealed under the pretence of duty or under some name of kinship. For the man who is openly an adversary you can easily avoid by being on guard; but this hidden, internal, and domestic evil not only arises but even overwhelms you before you have been able to foresee and examine it.” For this reason too that divine voice, “And a man's enemies are those of his own household,” is heard with great pain of heart; because, even if one is so strong as to bear with an even mind, or so watchful as to guard with provident counsel against, what feigned friendship plots against him, yet he must necessarily be grievously tormented, if he himself is good, by the evil of those faithless men, when he finds them to be very bad, whether they were always bad and feigned themselves good, or were changed from goodness into this malice. If, then, the home, the common refuge in these evils of the human race, is not safe, what of the city, whose forum, the greater it is, is the fuller of lawsuits both civil and criminal, even if not only turbulent but, more often, bloody seditions and civil wars are quiet, from whose occurrence cities are sometimes free, but from whose dangers never?

### Scripture references

- Matt 10:36: quotation, high confidence
- Mic 7:6: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Terence, Ad. 867-868 (Terence): quotation, high confidence
- Terence, Eun. 59-61 (Terence): quotation, high confidence
- Cicero, Verr. 2.1.15.39 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The comic quotations are Terence, Adelphoe 867–868, and Eunuchus 59–61. Tullius is Cicero, Against Verres 2.1.15.39. “A man's enemies are those of his own household” is Matt 10:36 (compare Mic 7:6).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.5 (CSEL 40:380–381; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-2/#p-19-5).

## City of God 19.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-2/#p-19-6
- Source: CSEL 40:381–383
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine shows the misery of human judgment, in which judges, unable to see consciences, torture and condemn the innocent, and says the wise judge must serve but should lament this necessity before God.

### Latin text

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

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. On the error of human judgments when the truth is hidden.

What of the very judgments of men on men, which cannot be lacking in cities, however much peace they enjoy? What do we think them to be like, how wretched, how lamentable? Since those judge who cannot see the consciences of those whom they judge. Hence they are often compelled to seek the truth by torturing innocent witnesses in a case that concerns another. What of when a man is tortured in his own case, and, while it is asked whether he is guilty, he is tormented, and, innocent, pays most certain penalties for an uncertain crime, not because it is discovered that he committed it, but because it is not known that he did not? And so the ignorance of the judge is often the calamity of the innocent. And what is more intolerable and more to be lamented, and watered, if it were possible, with fountains of tears: when the judge tortures the accused so as not to kill an innocent man unknowingly, it happens through the misery of ignorance that he kills, tortured and innocent, the man whom he had tortured so as not to kill an innocent man. For if, according to the wisdom of these philosophers, he has chosen to flee from this life rather than bear those tortures longer, he says that he committed what he did not commit. When he has been condemned and killed, the judge still does not know whether he has killed a guilty or an innocent man, whom he tortured so as not unknowingly to kill an innocent man; and so he both tortured an innocent man in order to know, and killed him while not knowing.

In these darknesses of social life will that wise judge sit, or will he not dare? He will sit, plainly. For human society, which he thinks it wicked to desert, binds him and draws him to this office. For he does not think it wicked that innocent witnesses are tortured in the cases of others; that those who are accused, often overcome by the force of pain and having confessed falsehoods about themselves, are even punished when innocent, after they have already been tortured when innocent; that, even if they are not punished with death, they often die in the tortures themselves or from them; that sometimes those who accuse, wishing perhaps to benefit human society so that crimes may not go unpunished, and unable to prove what they charge, because the witnesses lie and the accused himself holds out monstrously against the tortures and does not confess, are condemned by the unknowing judge, though what they charged was true. These so many and great evils he does not count as sins; for the wise judge does not do these things with the will to harm, but from the necessity of not knowing, and yet, because human society compels, from the necessity of judging too. This, then, is what we call certainly the misery of man, even if not the malice of the wise man. Or does he, from the necessity of not knowing and of judging, torture the innocent, punish the innocent, and is it not enough for him that he is not guilty, unless he is also happy besides? How much more considerately and worthily of a man does he recognize misery in this necessity, and hate it in himself, and, if he is piously wise, cry to God: “From my necessities deliver me!”

### Scripture references

- Ps 25:17 (24:17 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The psalm is Ps 25:17 (LXX 24:17). The judicial torture of witnesses and accused was normal Roman procedure; Augustine accepts the judge's duty while calling it a misery.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.6 (CSEL 40:381–383; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-2/#p-19-6).

## City of God 19.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-7/#p-19-7
- Source: CSEL 40:383–385
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine describes how differences of language divide the human race and how the peace of empire was bought with terrible wars, and says that even the wise man who wages just wars must grieve over their necessity.

### Latin text

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

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. On the diversity of languages, by which the society of men is divided, and on the misery of wars, even those called just.

After the city or town comes the world, in which they place the third level of human society, beginning with the household and proceeding from there to the city and then to the world; which, like a gathering of waters, the greater it is, the fuller it is of dangers. In it, first, the diversity of languages estranges man from man. For if two men meet each other and are compelled by some necessity not to pass by but to stay together, neither of whom knows the other's language, dumb animals, even of different kinds, associate with each other more easily than they, though both are men. For when they cannot communicate to each other what they feel, merely because of the diversity of language, so great a likeness of nature is of no use for bringing men into fellowship; so that a man would more gladly be with his dog than with a foreign man. But, it is said, pains have been taken that the imperial city should impose on the subdued nations, through the peace of society, not only its yoke but also its language, so that there should be no lack, indeed an abundance, of interpreters. True; but by how many and how great wars, by what slaughter of men, by what shedding of human blood has this been obtained? And when these were over, the misery of those same evils has not ended. For though there have not been lacking, nor are lacking, foreign nations as enemies, against whom wars have always been waged and are waged, yet the very breadth of the empire has given birth to wars of a worse kind, namely social and civil wars, by which the human race is shaken more wretchedly, whether when war is waged so that they may at some time cease, or when it is feared that they may rise again. If I wished to speak as is fitting of the many and manifold disasters, the hard and dire necessities of these evils, though I could by no means do so as the matter requires, what limit would there be to a long discussion?

But the wise man, they say, will wage just wars. As if, if he remembers that he is a man, he will not rather grieve much more that the necessity of just wars has arisen for him; because unless they were just, he would not have to wage them, and so for the wise man there would be no wars. For it is the injustice of the opposing side that imposes just wars on the wise man to be waged; and this injustice is certainly to be grieved over by a man, because it is men's, even if no necessity of making war arose from it. Whoever, then, considers with grief these evils so great, so horrible, so savage, let him confess misery; but whoever either suffers or thinks of them without grief of mind thinks himself happy much more wretchedly, because he has lost even human feeling.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.7 (CSEL 40:383–385; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-7/#p-19-7).

## City of God 19.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-7/#p-19-8
- Source: CSEL 40:385–386
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine says that the faithful love of friends is the chief comfort of human society, yet it brings constant fear for their safety and virtue, and grief at their death, which is nevertheless consoled because they have escaped the evils of this life.

### Latin text

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

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. That the friendship of good men cannot be free from care, since we must tremble at the dangers that are in this life.

But if there does not befall us a certain ignorance like madness, which nevertheless often befalls us in the wretched condition of this life, so that one is believed to be a friend who is an enemy, or an enemy who is a friend, what consoles us in this human society, so full of errors and hardships, except the unfeigned faith and mutual love of true and good friends? The more of these we have, and in the more places, the farther and more widely we fear lest some evil befall them out of the vast heaps of the evils of this world. For we are anxious not only lest they be afflicted by famine, by wars, by diseases, by captivity, lest in that same slavery they suffer such things as we cannot even imagine; but also, where the fear is much more bitter, lest they be changed into faithlessness, malice, and wickedness. And when these things happen (the more of them, of course, the more friends there are) and are brought to our knowledge, who, except one who feels such things, can perceive with what scourges our heart is burned? We would rather hear that they were dead, though we cannot hear even this without grief. For how can it be that the death of those whose life delighted us with the comforts of friendship should bring us no sadness? Let him who forbids this forbid, if he can, friendly conversation; let him prohibit or cut off friendly affection; let him break with the unfeeling numbness of his mind the bonds of all human ties, or think that they should be so used that no sweetness from them flows over the mind. But if this can in no way be done, how is it to come about that the death of one whose life is sweet should not be bitter to us? Hence comes mourning, a kind of wound or sore of a heart that is not inhuman, for the healing of which dutiful consolations are applied. For it is not that there is nothing to be healed because, the better the mind is, the more quickly and easily it is healed in it. Since, then, the life of mortals is afflicted, now more gently, now more harshly, even by the deaths of those dearest to us, especially those whose services are necessary to human society, yet we would rather hear or see that those whom we love were dead than that they had fallen from faith or good morals, that is, were dead in the soul itself. With this vast material of evils the earth is full; on account of which it is written: “Is not human life on earth a temptation?” and on account of which the Lord himself says: “Woe to the world because of offences,” and again: “Because iniquity has abounded, the love of many will grow cold.” From this it comes about that we rejoice when good friends die, and, though their death saddens us, it consoles us more surely, since they have escaped the evils by which in this life even good men are either crushed or corrupted or endangered in both ways.

### Scripture references

- 1 Tim 1:5: echo, medium confidence
- Job 7:1: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 18:7: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 24:12: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- “Is not human life on earth a temptation?” is Job 7:1 in the LXX-based Old Latin.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.8 (CSEL 40:385–386; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-7/#p-19-8).

## City of God 19.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-7/#p-19-9
- Source: CSEL 40:386–387
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine says that friendship with the holy angels, though free from death and corruption, is obscured in this life by demons who disguise themselves as angels of light, into whose power the pagan philosophers fell.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. De amicitia sanctorum angelorum, quae homini in hoc mundo non potest esse manifesta propter fallaciam daemonum, in quos inciderunt, qui multos sibi deos colendos putarunt. In societate uero sanctorum angelorum, quam philosophi illi, qui nobis deos amicos esse uoluerunt, quarto constituerunt loco, uelut ad mundum uenientes ab orbe terrarum, ut sic quodam modo conplecterentur et caelum, nullo modo quidem metuimus, ne tales amici uel morte nos sua uel deprauatione contristent. Sed quia nobis non ea, qua homines, familiaritate miscentur (quod etiam ipsum ad aerumnas huius pertinet uitae) et aliquando Satanas, sicut legimus, transfigurat se uelut angelum lucis ad tentandos eos, quos ita uel erudiri opus est uel decipi iustum est: magna Dei misericordia necessaria est, ne quisquam, cum bonos angelos amicos se habere putat, habeat malos daemones fictos amicos, eosque tanto nocentiores, quanto astutiores ac fallaciores, patiatur inimicos. Et cui magna ista Dei misericordia necessaria est nisi magnae humanae miseriae, quae ignorantia tanta premitur, ut facile istorum simulatione fallatur? Et illos quidem philosophos in inpia ciuitate, qui deos sibi amicos esse dixerunt, in daemones malignos incidisse certissimum est, quibus tota ipsa ciuitas subditur, aeternum cum eis habitura supplicium. Ex eorum quippe sacris uel potius sacrilegiis, quibus eos colendos, et ex ludis inmundissimis, ubi eorum crimina celebrantur, quibus eos placandos putarunt eisdem ipsis auctoribus et exactoribus talium tantorumque dedecorum, satis ab eis qui colantur apertum est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. On the friendship of the holy angels, which cannot be manifest to man in this world because of the deceit of the demons, into whose hands those fell who thought that many gods should be worshipped.

In the society of the holy angels, which those philosophers who would have the gods to be our friends placed in the fourth place, coming, as it were, from the world of lands to the universe, so as in a way to embrace heaven too, we have indeed no fear at all that such friends will sadden us by their death or corruption. But because they do not mingle with us with the familiarity that men do (which itself too belongs to the hardships of this life), and Satan sometimes, as we read, transforms himself as it were into an angel of light, to tempt those whom it is needful to instruct in this way or just to deceive, great mercy of God is necessary, lest anyone, when he thinks he has good angels as friends, should have evil demons as feigned friends, and suffer them as enemies, the more harmful the more cunning and deceitful they are. And to whom is this great mercy of God necessary except to great human misery, which is pressed by so great an ignorance that it is easily deceived by their pretence? And it is most certain that those philosophers in the ungodly city who said that the gods were their friends fell into the hands of malignant demons, to whom that whole city is subject, and with whom it will have eternal punishment. For by their rites, or rather sacrileges, by which they thought they should be worshipped, and by the most unclean games in which their crimes are celebrated, by which they thought they should be appeased, those very beings being the authors and exactors of such great disgraces, it is made plain enough by them who they are that are worshipped.

### Scripture references

- 2 Cor 11:14: allusion, high confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.9 (CSEL 40:386–387; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-7/#p-19-9).

## City of God 19.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-7/#p-19-10
- Source: CSEL 40:387–388
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine says that the saints' struggle with temptation makes them long for the final peace, in which body and soul will be perfected and virtue will no longer fight, and that true virtue refers everything to that end.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. Quis fructus sanctis de superata huius uitae tentatione pariatur. Sed neque sancti et fideles unius ueri Dei summique cultores ab eorum fallaciis et multiformi tentatione securi sunt. In hoc enim loco infirmitatis et diebus malignis etiam ista sollicitudo non est inutilis, ut illa securitas, ubi pax plenissima adque certissima est, desiderio feruentiore quaeratur. Ibi enim erunt naturae munera, hoc est, quae naturae nostrae ab omnium naturarum creatore donantur, non solum bona, uerum etiam sempiterna, non solum in animo, qui sanatur per sapientiam, uerum etiam in corpore, quod resurrectione renouabitur; ibi uirtutes, non contra ulla uitia uel mala quaecumque certantes, sed habentes uictoriae praemium aeternam pacem. quam nullus aduersarius inquietet. Ipsa est enim beatitudo finalis, ipse perfectionis finis, qui consumentem non habet finem. Hic autem dicimur quidem beati, quando pacem habemus, quantulacumque hic haberi potest in uita bona; sed haec beatitudo illi, quam finalem dicimus, beatitudini conparata prorsus miseria reperitur. Hanc ergo pacem, qualis hic potest esse, mortales homines in rebus mortalibus quando habemus, si recte uiuimus, bonis eius recte utitur uirtus; quando uero eam non habemus, etiam malis, quae homo patitur, bene utitur uirtus. Sed tunc est uera uirtus, quando et omnia bona, quibus bene utitur. et quidquid in bono usu bonorum et malorum facit, et se ipsam ad eum finem refert, ubi nobis talis et tanta pax erit, qua melior et maior esse non possit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. What fruit is produced for the saints by overcoming the temptation of this life.

But neither are the saints and faithful worshippers of the one true and supreme God secure from their deceits and many-formed temptation. For in this place of weakness and in these evil days even this anxiety is not useless, so that that security, where peace is most full and most certain, may be sought with more fervent desire. For there the gifts of nature, that is, those given to our nature by the creator of all natures, will be not only good but also everlasting, not only in the soul, which is healed through wisdom, but also in the body, which will be renewed by resurrection; there the virtues will not be fighting against any vices or evils whatever, but will have as the prize of victory eternal peace, which no adversary will disturb. For this is the final happiness, this the end of perfection, which has no consuming end. Here, indeed, we are called happy when we have peace, however little of it can be had here in a good life; but this happiness, compared with that which we call final, is found to be altogether misery. When, then, we mortal men, amid mortal things, have this peace, such as it can be here, if we live rightly, virtue uses its goods rightly; and when we do not have it, virtue uses well even the evils that man suffers. But virtue is true virtue when it refers all the goods it uses well, and whatever it does in the good use of goods and evils, and itself too, to that end where we shall have a peace so great and of such a kind that there can be none better or greater.

### Scripture references

- Eph 5:16: allusion, low confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.10 (CSEL 40:387–388; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-7/#p-19-10).

## City of God 19.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-7/#p-19-11
- Source: CSEL 40:388–390
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that the end of the city of God may be called peace as well as eternal life, and best “peace in eternal life” or “eternal life in peace,” since Jerusalem means “vision of peace.”

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. De beatitudine pacis aeternae, in qua sanctis finis est, id est uera perfectio. Quapropter possemus dicere fines bonorum nostrorum esse pacem, sicut aeternam diximus uitam, praesertim quia ipsi ciuitati Dei, de qua nobis est ista operosissima disputatio, in sancto dicitur psalmo: Lauda Hierusalem Dominum, conlauda Deum tuum Sion; quoniam confirmauit seras portarum tuarum, benedixit filios tuos in te, qui posuit fines tuos pacem. Quando enim confirmatae fuerint serae portarum eius, iam in illam nullus intrabit nec ab illa ullus exibit. Ac per hoc fines eius eam debemus hic intellegere pacem, quam uolumus demonstrare finalem. Nam et ipsius ciuitatis mysticum nomen, id est Hierusalem, quod et ante iam diximus, uisio pacis interpretatur. Sed quoniam pacis nomen etiam in his rebus mortalibus frequentatur, ubi utique non est uita aeterna, propterea finem ciuitatis huius, ubi erit summum bonum eius, aeternam uitam maluimus commemorare quam pacem. De quo fine apostolus ait: Nunc uero liberati a peccato, serui autem facti Deo, habetis fructum uestrum in sanctificationem, finem uero uitam aeternam. Sed rursus quia uita aeterna ab eis, qui familiaritatem non habent cum scripturis sanctis, potest accipi etiam malorum uita, uel secundum quosdam etiam philosophos propter animae inmortalitatem uel secundum etiam fidem nostram propter poenas interminabiles inpiorum, qui utique in aeternum cruciari non poterunt, nisi etiam uixerint in aeternum: profecto finis ciuitatis huius, in quo summum habebit bonum, uel pax in uita aeterna uel uita aeterna in pace dicendus est, ut facilius ab omnibus possit intellegi. Tantum est enim pacis bonum, ut etiam in rebus terrenis adque mortalibus nihil gratius soleat audiri, nihil desiderabilius concupisci, nihil postremo possit melius inueniri. De quo si aliquanto diutius loqui uoluerimus, non erimus, quantum arbitror, onerosi legentibus, et propter finem ciuitatis huius, de qua nobis sermo est, et propter ipsam dulcedinem pacis, quae omnibus cara est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. On the happiness of eternal peace, in which the saints have their end, that is, true perfection.

Therefore we could say that the ends of our goods are peace, as we have said eternal life, especially since to the very city of God, of which this most laborious discussion of ours treats, it is said in a holy psalm: “Praise the Lord, Jerusalem; praise your God, Zion; for he has strengthened the bars of your gates; he has blessed your sons within you, who has made your borders peace.” For when the bars of its gates have been strengthened, no one will enter it any more nor anyone go out from it. And so by its borders we ought to understand here that peace which we wish to show to be final. For the mystical name of that city too, that is, Jerusalem, as we have said before, is interpreted “vision of peace.” But since the name of peace is also often used in these mortal things, where certainly there is no eternal life, we have for that reason preferred to name the end of this city, where its supreme good will be, as eternal life rather than peace. Of this end the apostle says: “But now, set free from sin and made servants of God, you have your fruit in sanctification, and the end eternal life.” But again, because eternal life can be taken by those who have no familiarity with the holy Scriptures as also the life of the wicked, either, according to some philosophers, because of the immortality of the soul, or, according to our faith too, because of the endless punishments of the ungodly, who certainly will not be able to be tormented for ever unless they also live for ever: surely the end of this city, in which it will have its supreme good, should be called either peace in eternal life or eternal life in peace, so that it may be more easily understood by all. For so great is the good of peace that even in earthly and mortal things nothing is usually heard with more pleasure, nothing desired with more longing, nothing, finally, can be found better. If we wish to speak of it somewhat longer, we shall not, I think, be burdensome to readers, both because of the end of this city of which we are speaking and because of the very sweetness of peace, which is dear to all.

### Scripture references

- Ps 147:12 (147:1 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 147:13 (147:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 147:14 (147:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 6:22: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The psalm is Ps 147:12–14 (LXX and Vulgate 147:1–3, the second half of Hebrew Ps 147 counted as a separate psalm). The Latin fines (“borders”) is also the word for “ends”, which is the point of Augustine's argument.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.11 (CSEL 40:388–390; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-7/#p-19-11).

## City of God 19.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-7/#p-19-12
- Source: CSEL 40:390–395
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that all beings desire peace: warriors, robbers, and even the monster Cacus seek it in their own way, pride perversely imitates God's peace, and even a corpse is governed by the peace of natural order.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. Quod etiam bellantium saeuitia omnesque hominum inquietudines ad pacis finem cupiant peruenire, sine cuius adpetitu nulla natura sit. Quod enim mecum quisquis res humanas naturamque communem utcumque intuetur agnoscit, sicut nemo est qui gaudere nolit, ita nemo est qui pacem habere nolit. Quando quidem et ipsi, qui bella uolunt, nihil aliud quam uincere uolunt; ad gloriosam ergo pacem bellando cupiunt peruenire. Nam quid est aliud uictoria nisi subiectio repugnantium? quod cum factum fuerit, pax erit. Pacis igitur intentione geruntur et bella, ab his etiam, qui uirtutem bellicam student exercere imperando adque pugnando. Unde pacem constat belli esse optabilem finem. Omnis enim homo etiam belligerando pacem requirit; nemo autem bellum pacificando. Nam et illi qui pacem, in qua sunt, perturbari uolunt, non pacem oderunt, sed eam pro arbitrio suo cupiunt commutari. Non ergo ut sit pax nolunt, sed ut ea sit quam uolunt. Denique etsi per seditionem se ab aliis separauerint, cum eis ipsis conspiratis uel coniuratis suis nisi qualemcumque speciem pacis teneant, non efficiunt quod intendunt. Proinde latrones ipsi, ut uehementius et tutius infesti sint paci ceterorum, pacem uolunt habere sociorum. Sed etsi unus sit tam praepollens uiribus et conscios ita cauens, ut nulli socio se committat solusque insidians et praeualens quibus potuerit obpressis et exstinctis praedas agat, cum eis certe, quos occidere non potest et quos uult latere quod facit, qualemcumque umbram pacis tenet. In domo autem sua cum uxore et cum filiis, et si quos. alios illic habet, studet profecto esse pacatus; eis quippe ad nutum obtemperantibus sine dubio delectatur. Nam si non fiat, indignatur corripit uindicat et domus suae pacem, si ita necesse sit, etiam saeuiendo conponit, quam sentit esse non posse, nisi cuidam principio, quod ipse in domo sua est, cetera in eadem domestica societate subiecta sint. Ideoque si offerretur ei seruitus plurium, uel ciuitatis uel gentis, ita ut sic ei seruirent, quem ad modum sibi domi suae seruiri uolebat: non se iam latronem latebris conderet, sed regem conspicuum sublimaret, cum eadem in illo cupiditas et malitia permaneret. Pacem itaque cum suis omnes habere cupiunt, quos ad arbitrium suum uolunt uiuere. Nam et cum quibus bellum gerunt, suos facere, si possint, uolunt eisque subiectis leges suae pacis inponere. Sed faciamus aliquem, qualem canit poetica et fabulosa narratio, quem fortasse propter ipsam insociabilem feritatem semihominem quam hominem dicere maluerunt. Quamuis ergo huius regnum dirae speluncae fuerit solitudo tamque malitia singularis, ut ex hac ei nomen inuentum sit (Graece namque malus κακός dicitur, quod ille uocabatur), nulla coniux ei blandum ferret referretque sermonem, nullis filiis uel adluderet paruulis uel grandiusculis imperaret, nullo amici conloquio frueretur, nec Vulcani patris, quo uel hinc tantum non parum felicior fuit, quia tale monstrum ipse non genuit; nihil cuiquam daret, sed a quo posset quidquid uellet et quando posset et cum uellet auferret: tamen in ipsa sua spelunca solitaria. cuius, ut describitur, semper recenti caede tepebat humus, nihil aliud quam pacem uolebat, in qua nemo illi molestus esset, nec eius quietem uis ullius terrorue turbaret. Cum corpore denique suo pacem habere cupiebat, et quantum habebat, tantum bene illi erat. Quando quidem membris obtemperantibus imperabat, et ut suam mortalitatem aduersum se ex indigentia rebellantem ac seditionem famis ad dissociandam adque excludendam de corpore animam concitantem quanta posset festinatione pacaret, rapiebat necabat uorabat et quamuis inmanis ac ferus paci tamen suae uitae ac salutis inmaniter ac ferociter consulebat; ac per hoc si pacem, quam in sua spelunca adque in se ipso habere satis agebat, etiam cum aliis habere uellet, nec malus nec monstrum nec semihomo uocaretur. Aut si eius corporis forma et atrorum ignium uomitus ab eo deterrebat hominum societatem, forte non nocendi cupiditate, sed uiuendi necessitate saeuiebat. Verum iste non fuerit uel, quod magis credendum est, non talis fuerit, qualis poetica uanitate describitur; nisi enim nimis accusaretur Cacus, parum Hercules laudaretur. Talis ergo homo siue semihomo melius, ut dixi, creditur non fuisse, sicut multa figmenta poetarum. Ipsae enim saeuissimae ferae, unde ille partem habuit feritatis (nam et semiferus dictus est), genus proprium quadam pace custodiunt, coeundo gignendo pariendo, fetus fouendo adque nutriendo, cum sint pleraeque insociabiles et soliuagae; non scilicet ut [oues] cerui columbae sturni apes, sed ut leones uulpes aquilae noctuae. Quae enim tigris non filiis suis mitis inmurmurat et pacata feritate blanditur? Quis miluus, quantumlibet solitarius rapinis circumuolet, non coniugium copulat, nidum congerit, oua confouet, pullos alit et quasi cum sua matre familias societatem domesticam quanta potest pace conseruat? Quanto magis homo fertur quodam modo naturae suae legibus ad ineundam societatem pacemque cum hominibus, quantum in ipso est, omnibus obtinendam, cum etiam mali pro suorum pace belligerent omnesque, si possint, suos facere uelint, ut uni cuncti et cuncta deseruiant; quo pacto, nisi in eius pacem uel amando uel timendo consentiant? Sic enim superbia peruerse imitatur Deum. Odit namque cum sociis aequalitatem sub illo. sed inponere uult sociis dominationem suam pro illo. Odit ergo iustam pacem Dei et amat iniquam pacem suam. Non amare tamen qualemcumque pacem nullo modo potest. Nullius quippe uitium ita contra naturam est, ut naturae deleat etiam extrema uestigia. Itaque pacem iniquorum in pacis conparatione iustorum ille uidet nec pacem esse dicendam, qui nouit praeponere recta prauis et ordinata peruersis. Quod autem peruersum est, etiam hoc necesse est ut in aliqua et ex aliqua et cum aliqua rerum parte pacatum sit, in quibus est uel ex quibus constat; alioquin nihil esset omnino. Velut si quisquam capite deorsum pendeat, peruersus est utique situs corporis et ordo membrorum, quia id, quod desuper esse natura postulat, subter est. et quod illa subter uult esse, desuper factum est; conturbauit carnis pacem ista peruersitas et ideo molesta est: uerum tamen anima corpori suo pacata est et pro eius salute satagit, et ideo est qui doleat: quae si molestiis eius exclusa discesserit, quamdiu conpago membrorum manet, non est sine quadam partium pace quod remanet, et ideo est adhuc qui pendeat. Et quod terrenum corpus in terram nititur et uinculo quo suspensum est renititur, in suae pacis ordinem tendit et locum quo requiescat quodam modo uoce ponderis poscit, iamque exanime ac sine ullo sensu a pace tamen naturali sui ordinis non recedit, uel cum tenet eam, uel cum fertur ad eam. Si enim adhibeantur medicamenta adque curatio, quae formam cadaueris dissolui dilabique non sinat, adhuc pax quaedam partes partibus iungit totamque molem adplicat terreno et conuenienti ac per hoc pacato loco. Si autem nulla adhibeatur cura condendi, sed naturali cursui relinquatur, tamdiu quasi tumultuatur dissidentibus exhalationibus et nostro inconuenientibus sensui (id enim est quod in putore sentitur), donec mundi conueniat elementis et in eorum pacem paulatim particulatimque discedat. Nullo modo tamen inde aliquid legibus summi illius creatoris ordinatorisque subtrahitur, a quo pax uniuersitatis administratur; quia, etsi de cadauere maioris animantis animalia minuta nascantur, eadem lege creatoris quaeque corpuscula in salutis pace suis animulis seruiunt; etsi mortuorum carnes ab aliis animalibus deuorentur. easdem leges per cuncta diffusas ad salutem generis cuiusque mortalium congrua congruis pacificantes, quaqua uersum trahantur et rebus quibuscumque iungantur et in res quaslibet conuertantur et commutentur, inueniunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. That even the fierceness of those who wage war and all the disquiets of men desire to reach the end of peace, without the desire of which no nature exists.

For whoever looks in any way at human affairs and our common nature recognizes with me that, as there is no one who does not wish to rejoice, so there is no one who does not wish to have peace. Since even those who want wars want nothing else than to conquer; by warring, then, they desire to reach a glorious peace. For what else is victory but the subjection of those who resist? When this has been done, there will be peace. Wars too, then, are waged with the intention of peace, even by those who are eager to exercise military valour by commanding and fighting. Hence it is clear that peace is the desired end of war. For every man seeks peace even by making war; but no one seeks war by making peace. For even those who wish the peace in which they are to be disturbed do not hate peace, but desire it to be changed at their will. They do not, then, want there to be no peace, but that there should be the peace they want. Finally, even if they have separated themselves from others by sedition, they do not achieve what they intend unless they keep some appearance of peace with their very fellow conspirators or sworn confederates. Accordingly robbers themselves, so that they may be more violently and safely hostile to the peace of others, wish to have peace with their companions. But even if one man is so outstanding in strength, and so wary of accomplices, that he entrusts himself to no companion, and, lying in wait alone and prevailing, drives off plunder, having overpowered and killed those he could, he certainly keeps some shadow of peace with those whom he cannot kill and from whom he wishes to hide what he does. In his own home, with his wife and children and any others he has there, he surely strives to be at peace; he is without doubt delighted when they obey at his nod. For if this does not happen, he is indignant, rebukes, punishes, and establishes the peace of his house, if necessary even by cruelty; for he feels that it cannot exist unless the other members of that domestic society are subject to a certain head, which he himself is in his own house. And so, if the service of more people were offered him, of a city or a nation, so that they would serve him as he wished to be served in his own house, he would no longer hide himself as a robber in hiding places, but would raise himself up as a conspicuous king, though the same greed and malice remained in him. All, then, desire to have peace with their own, whom they wish to live according to their will. For even those with whom they wage war they wish to make their own, if they can, and to impose on them, when subjected, the laws of their own peace.

But let us suppose someone such as poetic and fabulous narrative sings of, whom perhaps, because of his unsociable savagery itself, they preferred to call half-man rather than man. Though his kingdom was the solitude of a dreadful cave, and his malice so singular that his name was found from it (for in Greek “bad” is kakos, which he was called); though no wife exchanged caressing words with him, he neither played with little children nor ruled over older ones, enjoyed the conversation of no friend, not even of his father Vulcan, than whom he was at least in this not a little happier, that he himself begot no such monster; though he gave nothing to anyone, but took what he wished from whom he could, and when he could, and as he wished; yet in that solitary cave of his, whose floor, as it is described, was always warm with fresh slaughter, he wanted nothing else than peace, in which no one should molest him nor the violence or terror of anyone disturb his quiet. Finally, he desired to have peace with his own body, and the more he had, the better it was for him. For he commanded obedient members; and in order to pacify with all possible haste his mortality, which rebelled against him through want and stirred up the sedition of hunger to sever and drive the soul out of the body, he seized, killed, devoured; and though monstrous and savage, he yet provided monstrously and savagely for the peace of his own life and safety. And so, if he had been willing to have with others too the peace he was so busy to have in his cave and in himself, he would be called neither bad, nor a monster, nor a half-man. Or if the form of his body and his vomiting of black fires frightened the society of men away from him, perhaps he raged not from a desire to harm but from the necessity of living. But let him not have existed, or, as is more to be believed, not have been such as he is described by poetic vanity; for unless Cacus were accused too much, Hercules would be praised too little. Such a man, then, or half-man, is better believed, as I said, not to have existed, like many fictions of the poets. For the most savage wild beasts themselves, from which he had a share of savagery (for he was also called half-beast), guard their own kind by a certain peace, by mating, begetting, bearing, cherishing and rearing their young, though most of them are unsociable and solitary; not, that is, like deer, doves, starlings, bees, but like lions, foxes, eagles, owls. For what tigress does not purr gently over her cubs and caress them, her ferocity calmed? What kite, however solitary as it circles for prey, does not take a mate, build a nest, hatch eggs, rear its young, and preserve with its mate, the mother of the family as it were, a domestic society with as much peace as it can? How much more is man drawn in a way by the laws of his nature to enter into society and to obtain peace with all men, as far as lies in him, since even the wicked make war for the peace of their own and wish, if they can, to make all men their own, so that all men and all things may serve one; and how, unless they agree to his peace either by loving or by fearing?

For so pride perversely imitates God. For it hates equality with its fellows under him, but wishes to impose its own dominion on its fellows in place of him. It hates, then, the just peace of God and loves its own unjust peace. Yet it cannot in any way not love peace of some kind. For no one's vice is so contrary to nature as to destroy even the last traces of nature. So the man who knows how to prefer the right to the wrong and the ordered to the perverse sees that the peace of the wicked, in comparison with the peace of the just, is not even to be called peace. But even what is perverse must of necessity be at peace in some part, from some part, and with some part of the things in which it exists or of which it consists; otherwise it would not exist at all. For example, if someone hangs head downwards, the position of the body and the order of the members is certainly perverse, because what nature requires to be above is below, and what it wishes to be below has been made above; this perversity has disturbed the peace of the flesh and is therefore painful; but the soul is at peace with its body and busies itself for its safety, and therefore there is one who feels pain; and if it departs, driven out by its pains, as long as the framework of the members remains, what remains is not without a certain peace of the parts, and therefore there is still something that hangs. And that the earthly body strains towards the earth and strains against the bond by which it is suspended shows that it tends towards the order of its own peace, and in a way asks by the voice of its weight for a place where it may rest; and now lifeless and without any sense, it does not depart from the natural peace of its order, whether when it holds it or when it is borne towards it. For if medicines and care are applied which do not allow the form of the corpse to be dissolved and to fall apart, a certain peace still joins parts to parts and applies the whole mass to an earthly and fitting, and therefore peaceful, place. But if no care is applied for embalming it, but it is left to the natural course, it is in a tumult, as it were, with discordant exhalations that are unpleasant to our sense (for that is what is perceived in the stench), until it accords with the elements of the world and departs, little by little and particle by particle, into their peace. Yet nothing in any way is withdrawn from the laws of that supreme creator and orderer by whom the peace of the universe is administered; for even if tiny animals are born from the corpse of a larger animal, by the same law of the creator each little body serves its little soul in the peace of its well-being; and even if the flesh of the dead is devoured by other animals, it finds the same laws spread through all things for the preservation of each kind of mortal thing, pacifying fitting things with fitting, wherever it is dragged, and to whatever things it is joined, and into whatever things it is converted and changed.

### Scripture references

- Rom 12:18: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 8.193-197 (Virgil): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The half-man is Cacus, from Virgil, Aeneid 8.193–197; the Greek κακός (“bad”) is mis-encoded in the digital text and corrected. In the list of sociable animals the editor deletes “oues” (“sheep”); it is left out.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.12 (CSEL 40:390–395; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-7/#p-19-12).

## City of God 19.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-7/#p-19-13
- Source: CSEL 40:395–397
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine defines the peace of body, soul, household, city, and the heavenly city, and of all things as “the tranquillity of order,” showing that even the wretched and the devil remain within God's order, and that temporal peace, rightly used, leads to eternal peace.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. De pace uniuersali, quae inter quaslibet perturbationes priuari non potest lege naturae, dum sub iusto iudice ad id quisque peruenit ordinatione, quod meruit uoluntate. Pax itaque corporis est ordinata temperatura partium, pax animae inrationalis ordinata requies adpetitionum, pax animae rationalis ordinata cognitionis actionisque consensio, pax corporis et animae ordinata uita et salus animantis, pax hominis mortalis et Dei ordinata in fide sub aeterna lege oboedientia, pax hominum ordinata concordia, pax domus ordinata imperandi oboediendique concordia cohabitantium, pax ciuitatis ordinata imperandi adque oboediendi concordia ciuium, pax caelestis ciuitatis ordinatissima et concordissima societas fruendi Deo et inuicem in Deo, pax omnium rerum tranquillitas ordinis. Ordo est parium dispariumque rerum sua cuique loca tribuens dispositio. Proinde miseri, quia, in quantum miseri sunt, utique in pace non sunt, tranquillitate quidem ordinis carent, ubi perturbatio nulla est; uerum tamen quia merito iusteque sunt miseri, in ea quoque ipsa miseria sua praeter ordinem esse non possunt; non quidem coniuncti beatis, sed ab eis tamen ordinis lege seiuncti. Qui cum sine perturbatione sunt, rebus, in quibus sunt, quantacumque congruentia coaptantur; ac per hoc inest eis ordinis nonnulla tranquillitas, inest ergo nonnulla pax. Verum ideo miseri sunt, quia, etsi in aliqua securitate non dolent, non tamen ibi sunt, ubi securi esse ac dolere non debeant; miseriores autem, si pax eis cum ipsa lege non est, qua naturalis ordo administratur. Cum autem dolent, ex qua parte dolent, pacis perturbatio facta est; in illa uero adhuc pax est, in qua nec dolor urit nec conpago ipsa dissoluitur. Sicut ergo est quaedam uita sine dolore, dolor autem sine aliqua uita esse non potest: sic est quaedam pax sine ullo bello, bellum uero esse sine aliqua pace non potest; non secundum id, quod bellum est, sed secundum id, quod ab eis uel in eis geritur, quae aliquae naturae sunt; quod nullo modo essent, si non qualicumque pace subsisterent. Quapropter est natura, in qua nullum malum est uel etiam in qua nullum esse malum potest; esse autem natura, in qua nullum bonum sit, non potest. Proinde nec ipsius diaboli natura, in quantum natura est, malum est; sed peruersitas eam malam facit. Itaque in ueritate non stetit, sed ueritatis iudicium non euasit; in ordinis tranquillitate non mansit, nec ideo tamen a potestate ordinatoris effugit. Bonum Dei, quod illi est in natura, non eum subtrahit iustitiae Dei, qua ordinatur in poena; nec ibi Deus bonum insequitur quod creauit, sed malum quod ille commisit. Neque enim totum aufert quod naturae dedit, sed aliquid adimit, aliquid relinquit, ut sit qui doleat quod ademit. Et ipse dolor testimonium est boni ademti et boni relicti. Nisi enim bonum relictum esset, bonum amissum dolere non posset. Nam qui peccat, peior est, si laetatur in damno aequitatis; qui uero cruciatur, si nihil inde adquirat boni, dolet damnum salutis. Et quoniam aequitas ac salus utrumque bonum est bonique amissione dolendum est potius quam laetandum (si tamen non sit conpensatio melioris; melior est autem animi aequitas quam corporis sanitas): profecto conuenientius iniustus dolet in supplicio, quam laetatus est in delicto. Sicut ergo laetitia deserti boni in peccato testis est uoluntatis malae, ita dolor amissi boni in supplicio testis est naturae bonae. Qui enim dolet amissam naturae suae pacem, ex aliquibus reliquiis pacis id dolet, quibus fit, ut sibi amica natura sit. Hoc autem in extremo supplicio recte fit, ut iniqui et inpii naturalium bonorum damna in cruciatibus defleant, sentientes eorum ablatorem iustissimum Deum, quem contemserunt benignissimum largitorem. Deus ergo naturarum omnium sapientissimus conditor et iustissimus ordinator, qui terrenorum ornamentorum maximum instituit mortale genus humanum, dedit hominibus quaedam bona huic uitae congrua, id est pacem temporalem pro modulo mortalis uitae in ipsa salute et incolumitate ac societate sui generis, et quaeque huic paci uel tuendae uel recuperandae necessaria sunt (sicut ea, quae apte et conuenienter adiacent sensibus, lux uox, aurae spirabiles aquae potabiles, et quidquid ad alendum tegendum curandum ornandumque corpus congruit), eo pacto aequissimo, ut, qui mortalis talibus bonis paci mortalium adcommodatis recte usus fuerit, accipiat ampliora adque meliora, ipsam scilicet inmortalitatis pacem eique conuenientem gloriam et honorem in uita aeterna ad fruendum Deo et proximo in Deo; qui autem perperam, nec illa accipiat et haec amittat.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. On the universal peace, of which, amid whatever disturbances, nothing can be deprived by the law of nature, since under the just Judge each one comes by ordinance to what he has deserved by his will.

The peace of the body, then, is the ordered proportion of its parts; the peace of the irrational soul, the ordered repose of its appetites; the peace of the rational soul, the ordered agreement of knowledge and action; the peace of body and soul, the ordered life and health of the living being; the peace of mortal man and God, ordered obedience in faith under the eternal law; the peace of men, ordered concord; the peace of a household, the ordered concord of those who live together in commanding and obeying; the peace of a city, the ordered concord of citizens in commanding and obeying; the peace of the heavenly city, the most ordered and most harmonious fellowship of enjoying God and one another in God; the peace of all things, the tranquillity of order. Order is the arrangement of things equal and unequal that assigns to each its own place.

Accordingly the wretched, since, in so far as they are wretched, they are certainly not in peace, lack indeed the tranquillity of order, in which there is no disturbance; yet because they are deservedly and justly wretched, even in their very wretchedness they cannot be outside order; not joined, indeed, to the happy, but separated from them by the law of order. When they are without disturbance, they are fitted to the things in which they are with some measure of harmony; and therefore there is in them some tranquillity of order, and so some peace. But they are wretched because, even if in some security they do not suffer, yet they are not there where they ought to be secure and free from suffering; and more wretched if they have no peace with the very law by which the natural order is administered. But when they suffer, in the part in which they suffer a disturbance of peace has taken place; but in that part there is still peace in which neither does pain burn nor is the framework itself dissolved. As, then, there is a life without pain, but pain cannot exist without some life, so there is a peace without any war, but war cannot exist without some peace; not in so far as it is war, but in so far as it is waged by or in those who are some natures; which would in no way exist if they did not subsist by some peace or other.

Therefore there is a nature in which there is no evil, or even in which there can be no evil; but there cannot be a nature in which there is no good. Accordingly not even the nature of the devil himself, in so far as it is a nature, is evil; but perversity makes it evil. So he did not stand in the truth, but did not escape the judgment of the truth; he did not remain in the tranquillity of order, but did not therefore flee from the power of the orderer. The good of God, which is in him in his nature, does not withdraw him from the justice of God by which he is ordered in punishment; nor does God there pursue the good which he created, but the evil which he committed. For he does not take away all that he gave to the nature, but takes away something and leaves something, so that there may be one to feel pain at what he has taken away. And the pain itself is a testimony to the good taken away and to the good left. For unless good were left, it could not feel pain at the good lost. For he who sins is the worse if he rejoices in the loss of equity; but he who is tormented, if he gains no good from it, feels pain at the loss of well-being. And since equity and well-being are both goods, and the loss of a good is to be grieved over rather than rejoiced in (unless there is compensation by something better; and equity of mind is better than health of body), surely it is more fitting for the unjust man to feel pain in punishment than it was for him to rejoice in his offence. As, then, joy at a good abandoned in sin is a witness to an evil will, so pain at a good lost in punishment is a witness to a good nature. For he who feels pain at the lost peace of his nature feels it from some remnants of peace, by which it comes about that his nature is friendly to itself. And this rightly happens in the final punishment, that the wicked and ungodly bewail in their torments the loss of natural goods, feeling that the one who takes them away is the most just God, whom they despised as the most kind giver.

God, then, the most wise founder and most just orderer of all natures, who set the mortal human race as the greatest ornament of earthly things, has given men certain goods suited to this life, that is, temporal peace according to the measure of mortal life, in health and safety and the fellowship of their own kind, and whatever things are necessary either to guard or to recover this peace (such as those things that are aptly and fittingly at hand for the senses, light, sound, breathable air, drinkable water, and whatever is fit for feeding, covering, curing, and adorning the body); on this most equitable condition, that the mortal who uses rightly such goods suited to the peace of mortals shall receive fuller and better goods, namely the very peace of immortality and the glory and honour suited to it in eternal life, for enjoying God and his neighbour in God; but he who uses them wrongly shall neither receive those and shall lose these.

### Scripture references

- John 8:44: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- “He did not stand in the truth” alludes to John 8:44.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.13 (CSEL 40:395–397; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-7/#p-19-13).

## City of God 19.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-7/#p-19-14
- Source: CSEL 40:397–399
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that the earthly city uses temporal things for earthly peace and the heavenly for eternal peace, and that love of God and neighbour produces an ordered household in which those who command actually serve.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII.- De ordine ac lege siue terrena siue caelesti, per quam societati humanae etiam dominando consulitur, cui et consulendo seruitur. Omnis igitur usus rerum temporalium refertur ad fructum pacis terrenae in terrena ciuitate; in caelesti autem ciuitate refertur ad fructum pacis aeternae. Quapropter si inrationalia essemus animantia, nihil adpeteremus praeter ordinatam temperaturam partium corporis et requiem adpetitionum; nihil ergo praeter quietem carnis et copiam uoluptatum, ut pax corporis prodesset paci animae. Si enim desit pax corporis, inpeditur etiam inrationalis animae pax, quia requiem adpetitionum consequi non potest. Utrumque autem simul ei paci prodest, quam inter se habent anima et corpus, id est ordinatae uitae ac salutis. Sicut enim pacem corporis amare se ostendunt animantia, cum fugiunt dolorem, et pacem animae, cum propter explendas indigentias adpetitionum uoluptatem sequuntur: ita mortem fugiendo satis indicant, quantum diligant pacem, qua sibi conciliantur anima et corpus. Sed quia homini rationalis anima inest, totum hoc, quod habet commune cum bestiis, subdit paci animae rationalis, ut mente aliquid contempletur et secundum hoc aliquid agat, ut sit ei ordinata cognitionis actionisque consensio, quam pacem rationalis animae dixeramus. Ad hoc enim uelle debet nec dolore molestari nec desiderio perturbari nec morte dissolui, ut aliquid utile cognoscat et secundum eam cognitionem uitam moresque conponat. Sed ne ipso studio cognitionis propter humanae mentis infirmitatem in pestem alicuius erroris incurrat, opus habet magisterio diuino, cui certus obtemperet, et adiutorio, ut liber obtemperet. Et quoniam, quamdiu est in isto mortali corpore, peregrinatur a Domino: ambulat per fidem, non per speciem; ac per hoc omnem pacem uel corporis uel animae uel simul corporis et animae refert ad illam pacem, quae homini mortali est cum inmortali Deo, ut ei sit ordinata in fide sub aeterna lege oboedientia. Iam uero quia duo praecipua praecepta, hoc est dilectionem Dei et dilectionem proximi, docet magister Deus, in quibus tria inuenit homo quae diligat, Deum, se ipsum et proximum, adque ille in se diligendo non errat, qui Deum diligit: consequens est, ut etiam proximo ad diligendum Deum consulat, quem iubetur sicut se ipsum diligere (sic uxori, sic filiis, sic domesticis, sic ceteris quibus potuerit hominibus), et ad hoc sibi a proximo, si forte indiget, consuli uelit; ac per hoc erit pacatus, quantum in ipso est, omni homini pace hominum, id est ordinata concordia, cuius hic ordo est, primum ut nulli noceat, deinde ut etiam prosit cui potuerit. Primitus ergo inest ei suorum cura; ad eos quippe habet opportuniorem facilioremque aditum consulendi, uel naturae ordine uel ipsius societatis humanae. Unde apostolus dicit: Quisquis autem suis et maxime domesticis non prouidet, fidem denegat et est infideli deterior. Hinc itaque etiam pax domestica oritur, id est ordinata imperandi oboediendique concordia cohabitantium. Imperant enim, qui consulunt; sicut uir uxori, parentes filiis, domini seruis. Oboediunt autem quibus consulitur; sicut mulieres maritis, filii parentibus, serui dominis. Sed in domo iusti uiuentis ex fide et adhuc ab illa caelesti ciuitate peregrinantis etiam qui imperant seruiunt eis, quibus uidentur imperare. Neque enim dominandi cupiditate imperant, sed officio consulendi, nec principandi superbia, sed prouidendi misericordia.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. On the order and law, whether earthly or heavenly, by which even in ruling there is care for human society, which is also served by that care.

All use of temporal things, then, is referred in the earthly city to the enjoyment of earthly peace; but in the heavenly city it is referred to the enjoyment of eternal peace. Therefore, if we were irrational animals, we would seek nothing beyond the ordered proportion of the parts of the body and the repose of the appetites; nothing, then, beyond the quiet of the flesh and an abundance of pleasures, so that the peace of the body might benefit the peace of the soul. For if the peace of the body is lacking, the peace of the irrational soul too is hindered, because it cannot attain the repose of its appetites. And both together benefit that peace which soul and body have with each other, that is, the peace of ordered life and health. For as animals show that they love the peace of the body when they flee pain, and the peace of the soul when they pursue pleasure to satisfy the needs of their appetites, so by fleeing death they indicate clearly enough how much they love the peace by which soul and body are united to each other.

But because man has a rational soul, he subordinates all this which he has in common with the beasts to the peace of the rational soul, so that he may contemplate something with his mind and act in accordance with it, so that there may be in him that ordered agreement of knowledge and action which we called the peace of the rational soul. For this he ought to wish neither to be troubled by pain, nor disturbed by desire, nor dissolved by death, so that he may come to know something useful and order his life and morals according to that knowledge. But lest in the very pursuit of knowledge, because of the weakness of the human mind, he fall into the plague of some error, he needs divine teaching, which he may obey with certainty, and divine help, so that he may obey freely. And since, as long as he is in this mortal body, he is away from the Lord, he walks by faith, not by sight; and so he refers all peace, whether of the body or of the soul or of both together, to that peace which mortal man has with the immortal God, so that there may be in him ordered obedience in faith under the eternal law.

Now since God, the teacher, teaches two chief commandments, that is, love of God and love of neighbour, in which man finds three things to love, God, himself, and his neighbour, and he who loves God does not err in loving himself, it follows that he should also care for his neighbour's loving God, since he is commanded to love him as himself (so for his wife, so for his children, so for his household, so for other men as far as he can), and should wish his neighbour to care for him in this, if perhaps he needs it; and so he will be at peace, as far as lies in him, with every man in the peace of men, that is, ordered concord, whose order is this: first, to harm no one, and next, to help whomever he can. First, then, he has the care of his own; for he has a more fitting and easier access to caring for them, whether by the order of nature or of human society itself. Hence the apostle says: “But whoever does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” From this, then, arises domestic peace too, that is, the ordered concord of those who live together in commanding and obeying. For those command who care for others, as the husband the wife, parents the children, masters the slaves; and those obey who are cared for, as wives their husbands, children their parents, slaves their masters. But in the house of the just man who lives by faith and is still a pilgrim away from that heavenly city, even those who command serve those whom they seem to command. For they command not from the desire to rule but from the duty of caring for others, not from the pride of lordship but from the mercy of providing.

### Scripture references

- 2 Cor 5:6: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:7: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 22:37: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 22:39: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Tim 5:8: quotation, high confidence
- Hab 2:4: echo, medium confidence
- Eph 5:22: echo, low confidence
- Eph 6:1: echo, low confidence
- Eph 6:5: echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- The household order of husband, parents, and masters commanding and wife, children, and slaves obeying is translated as written; Augustine adds that in a Christian household those who command are servants of those they command.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.14 (CSEL 40:397–399; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-7/#p-19-14).

## City of God 19.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-15/#p-19-15
- Source: CSEL 40:399–401
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine teaches that God made man to rule over beasts, not over other men, that slavery entered as a penalty of sin, and that slaves should serve faithfully until all human rule ends and God is all in all.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. De libertate naturali et de seruitute, cuius prima causa peccatum est, quia homo malae uoluntatis, etiamsi non est mancipium alterius hominis, seruus est propriae libidinis. Hoc naturalis ordo praescribit, ita Deus hominem condidit. Nam: Dominetur, inquit, piscium maris et uolatilium caeli et omnium repentium, quae repunt super terram. Rationalem factum ad imaginem suam noluit nisi inrationabilibus dominari; non hominem homini. sed hominem pecori. Inde primi iusti pastores pecorum magis quam reges hominum constituti sunt, ut etiam sic insinuaret Deus, quid postulet ordo creaturarum, quid exigat meritum peccatorum. Condicio quippe seruitutis iure intellegitur inposita peccatori. Proinde nusquam scripturarum legimus seruum, antequam hoc uocabulo Noe iustus peccatum filii uindicaret. Nomen itaque istuc culpa meruit, non natura. Origo autem uocabuli seruorum in Latina lingua inde creditur ducta, quod hi, qui iure belli possent occidi. a uictoribus cum seruabantur serui fiebant, a seruando appellati; quod etiam ipsum sine peccati merito non est. Nam et cum iustum geritur bellum, pro peccato e contrario dimicatur; et omnis uictoria, cum etiam malis prouenit, diuino iudicio uictos humiliat uel emendans peccata uel puniens. Testis est homo Dei Daniel. cum in captiuitate positus peccata sua et peccata populi sui confitetur Deo et hanc esse causam illius captiuitatis pio dolore testatur. Prima ergo seruitutis causa peccatum est. ut homo homini condicionis uinculo subderetur; quod non fit nisi Deo iudicante, aput quem non est iniquitas et nouit diuersas poenas meritis distribuere delinquentium. Sicut autem supernus Dominus dicit: Omnis, qui facit peccatum, seruus est peccati, ac per hoc multi quidem religiosi dominis iniquis, non tamen liberis seruiunt: A quo enim quis deuictus est, huic et seruus addictus est. Et utique felicius seruitur homini, quam libidini, cum saeuissimo dominatu uastet corda mortalium, ut alias omittam, libido ipsa dominandi. Hominibus autem illo pacis ordine, quo aliis alii subiecti sunt, sicut prodest humilitas seruientibus, ita nocet superbia dominantibus. Nullus autem natura, in qua prius Deus hominem condidit, seruus est hominis aut peccati. Verum et poenalis seruitus ea lege ordinatur, quae naturalem ordinem conseruari iubet, perturbari uetat; quia si contra eam legem non esset factum, nihil esset poenali seruitute cohercendum. Ideoque apostolus etiam seruos monet subditos esse dominis suis et ex animo eis cum bona uoluntate seruire; ut scilicet, si non possunt a dominis liberi fieri, suam seruitutem ipsi quodam modo liberam faciant, non timore subdolo, sed fideli dilectione seruiendo, donec transeat iniquitas et euacuetur omnis principatus et potestas humana et sit Deus omnia in omnibus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. On natural freedom and on slavery, whose first cause is sin; because a man of evil will, even if he is not the chattel of another man, is the slave of his own lust.

This the natural order prescribes; so God created man. For he says: “Let him have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky and all creeping things that creep upon the earth.” He did not will that the rational being made in his image should have dominion except over irrational beings; not man over man, but man over beast. Hence the first righteous men were set up as shepherds of flocks rather than as kings of men, so that God might suggest in this way too what the order of creatures requires and what the desert of sinners demands. For the condition of slavery is understood to have been rightly imposed on the sinner. Accordingly we nowhere read in the Scriptures of a slave before the righteous Noah punished his son's sin with this word. So it was guilt that earned this name, not nature. The origin of the word for slaves in the Latin language is believed to be drawn from this: that those who by the law of war could be killed became slaves, servi, when they were preserved, servabantur, by the victors, being named from preserving; which itself is not without the desert of sin. For even when a just war is waged, the other side fights for sin; and every victory, even when it falls to the wicked, humbles the conquered by divine judgment, either correcting or punishing sins. The man of God Daniel is witness, when, placed in captivity, he confesses to God his own sins and the sins of his people, and testifies with pious grief that this was the cause of that captivity.

The first cause of slavery, then, is sin, so that man was subjected to man by the bond of that condition; which does not happen except by the judgment of God, with whom there is no injustice, and who knows how to distribute different punishments according to the deserts of offenders. But as the supreme Lord says, “Everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin”; and so many religious men serve unjust masters, yet not free ones: “For by whom a man is overcome, to him he is also given over as a slave.” And certainly it is a happier thing to be a slave to a man than to a lust, since, to pass over others, the very lust for domination lays waste the hearts of mortals with a most savage dominion. But among men, in that order of peace by which some are subject to others, as humility benefits those who serve, so pride harms those who rule. No one, however, by nature, in which God first created man, is the slave of man or of sin. Yet penal slavery too is ordered by that law which commands the natural order to be preserved and forbids it to be disturbed; for if nothing had been done against that law, there would be nothing to be restrained by penal slavery. And therefore the apostle also admonishes slaves to be subject to their masters and to serve them from the heart with good will; so that, if they cannot be made free by their masters, they may themselves make their slavery in a way free, by serving not with deceitful fear but with faithful love, until iniquity passes away and all human rule and power is made void and God is all in all.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:26: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 4:2: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 9:25: allusion, high confidence
- Dan 9:5: allusion, high confidence
- Dan 9:20: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 9:14: allusion, medium confidence
- John 8:34: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Pet 2:19: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 6:5: allusion, high confidence
- Eph 6:6: allusion, high confidence
- Eph 6:7: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:24: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:28: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Augustine's teaching on slavery (not natural, but a just penalty of sin within the present order) is translated as written. The etymology of servus from servare is traditional (compare Justinian, Institutes 1.3.3).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.15 (CSEL 40:399–401; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-15/#p-19-15).

## City of God 19.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-15/#p-19-16
- Source: CSEL 40:401–402
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine says that righteous fathers cared equally for children and slaves in regard to God, that household discipline serves the good of the one corrected, and that domestic peace is ordered to the peace of the city.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. De aequo iure dominandi. Quocirca etiamsi habuerunt seruos iusti patres nostri, sic administrabant domesticam pacem, ut secundum haec temporalia bona filiorum sortem a seruorum condicione distinguerent; ad Deum autem colendum, in quo aeterna bona speranda sunt, omnibus domus suae membris pari dilectione consulerent. Quod naturalis ordo ita praescribit, ut nomen patrum familias hinc exortum sit et tam late uulgatum, ut etiam inique dominantes hoc se gaudeant appellari. Qui autem ueri patres familias sunt, omnibus in familia sua tamquam filiis ad colendum et promerendum Deum consulunt, desiderantes adque optantes uenire ad caelestem domum, ubi necessarium non sit officium imperandi mortalibus, quia necessarium non erit officium consulendi iam in illa inmortalitate felicibus; quo donec ueniatur, magis debent patres quod dominantur, quam serui tolerare quod seruiunt. Si quis autem in domo per inoboedientiam domesticae paci aduersatur, corripitur seu uerbo seu uerbere seu quolibet alio genere poenae iusto adque licito, quantum societas humana concedit, pro eius qui corripitur utilitate, ut paci unde dissiluerat coaptetur. Sicut enim non est beneficentiae adiuuando efficere, ut bonum quod maius est amittatur: ita non est innocentiae parcendo sinere. ut in malum grauius incidatur. Pertinet ergo ad innocentis officium, non solum nemini malum inferre, uerum etiam cohibere a peccato uel punire peccatum, ut aut ipse qui plectitur corrigatur experimento, aut alii terreantur exemplo. Quia igitur hominis domus initium siue particula debet esse ciuitatis, omne autem initium ad aliquem sui generis finem et omnis pars ad uniuersi, cuius pars est, integritatem refertur, satis apparet esse consequens, ut ad pacem ciuicam pax domestica referatur, id est, ut ordinata imperandi oboediendique concordia cohabitantium referatur ad ordinatam imperandi oboediendique concordiam ciuium. Ita fit, ut ex lege ciuitatis praecepta sumere patrem familias oporteat, quibus domum suam sic regat, ut sit paci adcommoda ciuitatis.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. On just rule.

Therefore, although our righteous fathers had slaves, they so administered domestic peace as to distinguish the lot of their children from the condition of the slaves in regard to these temporal goods; but in regard to worshipping God, in whom eternal goods are to be hoped for, they cared for all the members of their household with equal love. This the natural order so prescribes that the name of father of a family arose from it and became so widely current that even those who rule unjustly rejoice to be so called. But those who are true fathers of families care for all in their family as for children, that they may worship and deserve God, desiring and longing to come to the heavenly home, where the duty of commanding mortals will not be necessary, because the duty of caring for those already happy in that immortality will not be necessary; until that is reached, fathers ought to bear it more that they rule than slaves that they serve.

But if anyone in the house opposes domestic peace by disobedience, he is corrected by word or by blow or by any other kind of just and lawful punishment, as far as human society allows, for the benefit of the one corrected, so that he may be fitted again to the peace from which he had broken away. For as it is not beneficence to help so as to cause a greater good to be lost, so it is not innocence to spare so as to allow one to fall into a graver evil. It belongs, then, to the duty of the innocent man not only to do evil to no one, but also to restrain from sin or to punish sin, so that either the one punished may be corrected by experience or others deterred by example. Since, then, a man's house ought to be the beginning or a small part of the city, and every beginning is referred to some end of its own kind and every part to the integrity of the whole of which it is a part, it is plain enough that domestic peace is to be referred to civic peace, that is, that the ordered concord of those who live together in commanding and obeying is to be referred to the ordered concord of citizens in commanding and obeying. So it comes about that the father of a family ought to take from the law of the city the precepts by which he so rules his house that it may be fitted to the peace of the city.

### Translation notes

- Corporal correction within the household is mentioned as the law and custom of the time allowed; translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.16 (CSEL 40:401–402; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-15/#p-19-16).

## City of God 19.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-15/#p-19-17
- Source: CSEL 40:402–405
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that the heavenly city, while a pilgrim on earth, shares the use of temporal goods and obeys the laws of the earthly city for the sake of peace, but must dissent from it in religion, since it worships the one God alone.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. Unde caelestis societas cum terrena ciuitate pacem habeat et unde discordiam. Sed domus hominum, qui non uiuunt ex fide, pacem terrenam ex huius temporalis uitae rebus commodisque sectatur: domus autem hominum ex fide uiuentium exspectat ea, quae in futurum aeterna promissa sunt, terrenisque rebus ac temporalibus tamquam peregrina utitur, non quibus capiatur et auertatur quo tendit in Deum, sed quibus sustentetur ad facilius toleranda minimeque augenda onera corporis corruptibilis, quod adgrauat animam. Idcirco rerum uitae huic mortali necessariarum utrisque hominibus et utrique domui communis est usus; sed finis utendi cuique suus proprius multumque diuersus. Ita etiam terrena ciuitas, quae non uiuit ex fide, terrenam pacem adpetit in eoque defigit imperandi oboediendique concordiam ciuium, ut sit eis de rebus ad mortalem uitam pertinentibus humanarum quaedam conpositio uoluntatum. Ciuitas autem caelestis uel potius pars eius, quae in hac mortalitate peregrinatur et uiuit ex fide, etiam ista pace necesse est utatur, donec ipsa, cui talis pax necessaria est, mortalitas transeat; ac per hoc, dum aput terrenam ciuitatem uelut captiuam uitam suae peregrinationis agit, iam promissione redemtionis et dono spiritali tamquam pignore accepto legibus terrenae ciuitatis, quibus haec administrantur, quae sustentandae mortali uitae adcommodata sunt, obtemperare non dubitat, ut, quoniam communis est ipsa mortalitas. seruetur in rebus ad eam pertinentibus inter ciuitatem utramque concordia. Verum quia terrena ciuitas habuit quosdam suos sapientes, quos diuina inprobat disciplina, qui uel suspicati uel decepti a daemonibus crederent multos deos conciliandos esse rebus humanis, ad quorum diuersa quodam modo officia diuersa subdita pertinerent, ad alium corpus, ad alium animum, inque ipso corpore ad alium caput, ad alium ceruicem et cetera singula ad singulos; similiter in animo ad alium ingenium, ad alium doctrinam, ad alium iram, ad alium concupiscentiam; inque ipsis rebus uitae adiacentibus ad alium pecus, ad alium triticum, ad alium uinum, ad alium oleum, ad alium siluas, ad alium nummos, ad alium nauigationem, ad alium bella adque uictorias, ad alium coniugia, ad alium partum ac fecunditatem et ad alios alia cetera: caelestis autem ciuitas cum unum Deum solum colendum nosset eique tantum modo seruiendum seruitute illa, quae Graece λατρεία dicitur et non nisi Deo debetur, fideli pietate censeret: factum est, ut religionis leges cum terrena ciuitate non posset habere communes proque his ab ea dissentire haberet necesse adque oneri esse diuersa sentientibus eorumque iras et odia et persecutionum inpetus sustinere, nisi cum animos aduersantium aliquando terrore suae multitudinis et semper diuino adiutorio propulsaret. Haec ergo caelestis ciuitas dum peregrinatur in terra, ex omnibus gentibus ciues euocat adque in omnibus linguis peregrinam colligit societatem, non curans quidquid in moribus legibus institutisque diuersum est, quibus pax terrena uel conquiritur uel tenetur. nihil eorum rescindens uel destruens, immo etiam seruans ac sequens, quod licet diuersum in diuersis nationibus, ad unum tamen eundemque finem terrenae pacis intenditur, si religionem, qua unus summus et uerus Deus colendus docetur. non inpedit. Utitur ergo etiam caelestis ciuitas in hac sua peregrinatione pace terrena et de rebus ad mortalem hominum naturam pertinentibus humanarum uoluntatum conpositionem. quantum salua pietate ac religione conceditur, tuetur adque adpetit eamque terrenam pacem refert ad caelestem pacem,: quae uere ita pax est, ut rationalis dumtaxat creaturae sola pax habenda adque dicenda sit, ordinatissima scilicet et concordissima societas fruendi Deo et inuicem in Deo; quo cum uentum erit, non erit uita mortalis, sed plane certeque uitalis nec corpus animale, quod, dum corrumpitur, adgrauat animam, sed spiritale sine ulla indigentia ex omni parte subditum uoluntati. Hanc pacem, dum peregrinatur in fide, habet adque ex hac fide iuste uiuit, cum ad illam pacem adipiscendam refert quidquid bonarum actionum gerit erga Deum et proximum, quoniam uita ciuitatis utique socialis est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. From what source the heavenly society has peace with the earthly city, and from what source discord.

But the household of men who do not live by faith seeks earthly peace from the things and advantages of this temporal life; while the household of men who live by faith awaits the things promised as eternal in the future, and uses earthly and temporal things like a pilgrim, not so as to be captured by them and turned aside from where it is tending, towards God, but so as to be sustained by them in order more easily to bear, and not at all to increase, the burdens of the corruptible body, which weighs down the soul. Therefore the use of the things necessary for this mortal life is common to both kinds of men and both households; but the end of using them is proper to each and very different. So also the earthly city, which does not live by faith, seeks earthly peace, and fixes in it the concord of citizens in commanding and obeying, so that there may be among them a certain agreement of human wills about the things that pertain to mortal life. But the heavenly city, or rather the part of it which is a pilgrim in this mortality and lives by faith, must also use this peace, until this mortality itself, for which such peace is necessary, passes away; and therefore, while it leads the life of its pilgrimage as a captive, as it were, in the earthly city, having already received the promise of redemption and the spiritual gift as a pledge, it does not hesitate to obey the laws of the earthly city by which those things are administered which are suited to sustaining mortal life; so that, since mortality itself is common to both, concord may be preserved between both cities in the things that pertain to it.

But because the earthly city has had certain wise men of its own, whom the divine teaching rejects, who, either through their own conjecture or deceived by demons, believed that many gods were to be won over to human affairs, to whose different offices, in a way, different things were subject: to one the body, to another the mind; and in the body itself to one the head, to another the neck, and each of the other parts to each god; likewise in the mind to one natural ability, to another learning, to another anger, to another desire; and in the very things that belong to life, to one cattle, to another wheat, to another wine, to another oil, to another forests, to another money, to another navigation, to another wars and victories, to another marriages, to another childbirth and fertility, and to others other things; while the heavenly city knew that the one God alone was to be worshipped, and held with faithful piety that he alone was to be served with that service which in Greek is called latreia and is owed only to God: it came about that it could not have laws of religion in common with the earthly city, and because of these had to dissent from it and be a burden to those who thought differently, and to endure their anger and hatred and the assaults of persecution, except when at times it drove back the minds of its adversaries by the fear of its own numbers, and always by divine help.

This heavenly city, then, while it is a pilgrim on earth, calls out citizens from all nations and gathers a pilgrim society in all languages, not caring about whatever is different in the customs, laws, and institutions by which earthly peace is gained or kept, rescinding or destroying none of them, but rather preserving and following whatever, though different in different nations, is directed to one and the same end of earthly peace, provided it does not hinder the religion by which the one supreme and true God is taught to be worshipped. The heavenly city too, then, in this its pilgrimage uses earthly peace, and guards and seeks the agreement of human wills about the things that pertain to the mortal nature of men, as far as piety and religion allow, and refers that earthly peace to heavenly peace; which is truly peace, so that it alone should be held and called the peace of the rational creature, namely the most ordered and most harmonious fellowship of enjoying God and one another in God. When that is reached, life will not be mortal, but fully and certainly living; nor will the body be animal, which, while it is being corrupted, weighs down the soul, but spiritual, without any want, in every part subject to the will. This peace it has, while it is a pilgrim, in faith, and by this faith it lives justly, when it refers to the attainment of that peace whatever good actions it does towards God and neighbour; since the life of the city is certainly social.

### Scripture references

- Hab 2:4: echo, medium confidence
- 2 Cor 1:22: allusion, medium confidence
- 2 Cor 5:5: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Cor 15:44: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 1:17: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 9:15 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- “The corruptible body, which weighs down the soul” is Wis 9:15, outside the 66 books. The Greek λατρεία is mis-encoded in the digital text and corrected.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.17 (CSEL 40:402–405; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-15/#p-19-17).

## City of God 19.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-15/#p-19-18
- Source: CSEL 40:405
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine rejects the universal doubt of the New Academy, affirming the certainty of reason, the senses, and the canonical Scriptures, while allowing reasonable doubt about matters none of these establishes.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. Quam diuersa sit Academiae nouae ambiguitas a constantia fidei Christianae., Quod autem adtinet ad illam differentiam, quam de Academicis nouis Varro adhibuit, quibus incerta sunt omnia, omnino ciuitas Dei talem dubitationem tamquam dementiam detestatur, habens de rebus, quas mente adque ratione conprehendit, etiamsi paruam propter corpus corruptibile, quod adgrauat animam (quoniam, sicut dicit apostolus, ex parte scimus), tamen certissimam scientiam, creditque sensibus in rei cuiusque euidentia, quibus per corpus animus utitur, quoniam miserabilius fallitur, qui numquam putat eis esse credendum: credit etiam scripturis sanctis et ueteribus et nouis, quas canonicas appellamus, unde fides ipsa concepta est, ex qua iustus uiuit; per quam sine dubitatione ambulamus, quamdiu peregrinamur a Domino; qua salua adque certa de quibusdam rebus, quas neque sensu neque ratione percepimus neque. nobis per scripturam canonicam claruerunt nec per testes, quibus non credere absurdum est, in nostram notitiam peruenerunt, sine iusta reprehensione dubitamus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. How different the doubt of the New Academy is from the steadfastness of the Christian faith.

As regards that distinction which Varro applied from the New Academics, to whom all things are uncertain, the city of God utterly detests such doubt as madness, having about the things which it grasps with mind and reason a knowledge which, though small because of the corruptible body, which weighs down the soul (since, as the apostle says, “we know in part”), is yet most certain; and it believes the senses in the evidence of each thing, which the mind uses through the body, since he is more wretchedly deceived who thinks they are never to be believed. It believes also the holy Scriptures, both old and new, which we call canonical, from which faith itself was conceived, by which the righteous lives; through which we walk without doubting as long as we are pilgrims away from the Lord. While this faith is safe and sure, we may doubt without just reproach about certain things which we have perceived neither by sense nor by reason, and which have not been made clear to us through canonical Scripture, nor come to our knowledge through witnesses whom it is absurd not to believe.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 13:9: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:17: allusion, high confidence
- Hab 2:4: allusion, medium confidence
- 2 Cor 5:6: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:7: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 9:15 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence
- Varro (Varro): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- “The corruptible body, which weighs down the soul” is Wis 9:15.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.18 (CSEL 40:405; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-15/#p-19-18).

## City of God 19.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-15/#p-19-19
- Source: CSEL 40:405–407
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine says that the Christian city is indifferent to dress and manner of life so long as they do not conflict with God's law, and that leisure should serve the search for truth and action the good of others, as the office of bishop is a work, not an honour.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. De habitu et moribus populi Christiani. Nihil sane ad istam pertinet ciuitatem quo habitu uel more uiuendi, si non est contra diuina praecepta, istam fidem, qua peruenitur ad Deum, quisque sectetur; unde ipsos quoque philosophos, quando Christiani fiunt. non habitum uel consuetudinem uictus, quae nihil inpedit religionem, sed falsa dogmata mutare conpellit. Unde illam quam Varro adhibuit ex Cynicis differentiam, si nihil turpiter adque intemperanter agat, omnino non curat. Ex tribus. uero illis uitae generibus. otioso, actuoso et ex utroque conposito, quamuis salua fide quisque possit in quolibet eorum uitam ducere et ad sempiterna praemia peruenire, interest tamen quid amore teneat ueritatis, quid officio caritatis inpendat. Nec sic esse quisque debet otiosus, ut in eodem otio utilitatem non cogitet proximi, nec sic actuosus, ut contemplationem non requirat Dei. In otio non iners uacatio delectare debet, sed aut inquisitio aut inuentio ueritatis, ut in ea quisque proficiat et quod inuenerit ne alteri inuideat. In actione uero non amandus est honor in hac uita siue potentia, quoniam omnia uana sub sole, sed opus ipsum, quod per eundem honorem uel potentiam fit, si recte adque utiliter fit, id est, ut ualeat ad eam salutem subditorum, quae secundum Deum est; unde iam superius disputauimus. Propter quod ait apostolus: Qui episcopatum desiderat, bonum opus desiderat. Exponere uoluit quid sit episcopatus, quia nomen est operis, non honoris. Graecum est enim adque inde ductum uocabulum, quod ille qui praeficitur eis quibus praeficitur superintendit, curam scilicet eorum gerens; σκοπός quippe intentio est; ergo ἐπισκοπεῖν, si uelimus, Latine superintendere possumus dicere, ut intellegat non se esse episcopum, qui praeesse dilexerit, non prodesse. Itaque ab studio cognoscendae ueritatis nemo prohibetur, quod ad laudabile pertinet otium; locus uero superior, sine quo regi populus non potest, etsi ita teneatur adque administretur ut decet, tamen indecenter adpetitur. Quam ob rem otium sanctum quaerit caritas ueritatis; negotium iustum suscipit necessitas caritatis. Quam sarcinam si nullus inponit, percipiendae adque intuendae uacandum est ueritati; si autem inponitur, suscipienda est propter caritatis necessitatem: sed nec sic omni modo ueritatis delectatio deserenda est, ne subtrahatur illa suauitas et obprimat ista necessitas.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. On the dress and customs of the Christian people.

It does not matter at all to this city in what dress or manner of living anyone follows the faith by which one comes to God, if it is not contrary to the divine precepts; hence it does not compel even the philosophers themselves, when they become Christians, to change their dress or habits of diet, which do not hinder religion at all, but their false doctrines. Hence it does not care at all about that distinction which Varro applied from the Cynics, provided nothing is done shamefully and intemperately. As to those three kinds of life, the leisured, the active, and that composed of both, though anyone, with faith kept safe, can lead his life in any of them and come to the everlasting rewards, yet it matters what one holds by love of truth and what one spends in the duty of love. No one ought to be so leisured as not to think in his leisure of his neighbour's benefit, nor so active as not to seek the contemplation of God. In leisure what should delight him is not idle vacancy, but the searching out or the finding of truth, so that each may advance in it and not grudge another what he has found. In action, however, what is to be loved is not honour or power in this life, since all things are vanity under the sun, but the work itself which is done through that honour or power, if it is done rightly and usefully, that is, so as to serve that salvation of those under one's authority which is according to God; as we have already discussed above. For this reason the apostle says: “He who desires the office of bishop desires a good work.” He wished to explain what the episcopate is, because it is the name of a work, not of an honour. For it is a Greek word, derived from the fact that he who is set over those over whom he is set oversees them, that is, takes care of them; for skopos is attention; so episkopein, if we wish, we can say in Latin superintendere, “to oversee,” so that he may understand that he is not a bishop who loves to preside rather than to profit.

And so no one is forbidden the pursuit of knowing the truth, which belongs to praiseworthy leisure; but the higher place, without which a people cannot be ruled, even if it is held and administered as is fitting, is unfittingly sought. Therefore the love of truth seeks holy leisure; the necessity of love takes up just business. If no one imposes this burden, one should be free for perceiving and contemplating truth; but if it is imposed, it must be taken up because of the necessity of love; but not even so is the delight of truth to be altogether abandoned, lest that sweetness be withdrawn and this necessity overwhelm.

### Scripture references

- Eccl 1:14: allusion, high confidence
- Eccl 2:11: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Tim 3:1: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro (Varro): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The Greek words σκοπός and ἐπισκοπεῖν are mis-encoded in the digital text and corrected.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.19 (CSEL 40:405–407; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-15/#p-19-19).

## City of God 19.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-15/#p-19-20
- Source: CSEL 40:407–408
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine says that the citizens of the heavenly city may be called happy now only in hope, since all present goods without that hope are false happiness.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. Quod ciues sanctorum in huius uitae tempore spe beati sint. Quam ob rem summum bonum ciuitatis Dei cum sit pax aeterna adque perfecta, non per quam mortales transeant nascendo adque moriendo, sed in qua inmortales maneant nihil aduersi omnino patiendo: quis est qui illam uitam uel beatissimam neget uel in eius comparatione istam, quae hic agitur, quantislibet animi et corporis externarumque rerum bonis plena sit, non miserrimam iudicet? Quam tamen quicumque sic habet, ut eius usum referat ad illius finem, quam diligit ardentissime ac fidelissime sperat, non absurde dici etiam nunc beatus potest, spe illa potius quam re ista. Res ista uero sine spe illa beatitudo falsa et magna miseria est; non enim ueris animi bonis utitur, quoniam non est uera sapientia, quae intentionem suam in his, quae prudenter discernit, gerit fortiter, cohibet temperanter iusteque distribuit, non in illum dirigit finem, ubi erit Deus omnia in omnibus, aeternitate certa et pace perfecta.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. That the fellow citizens of the saints are happy in hope in the time of this life.

Therefore, since the supreme good of the city of God is eternal and perfect peace, not that through which mortals pass by being born and dying, but that in which immortals remain, suffering nothing adverse at all, who is there who would deny that that life is most happy, or would not judge that this life which is lived here, however full it may be of the goods of mind and body and of external things, is in comparison with it most wretched? Yet whoever so holds it as to refer its use to the end of that life which he loves most ardently and hopes for most faithfully may not absurdly be called happy even now, by that hope rather than by this reality. But this reality without that hope is a false happiness and a great misery; for it does not use the true goods of the mind, since that is not true wisdom which, in the things which it prudently discerns, bravely does, temperately restrains, and justly distributes, does not direct its intention to that end where God will be all in all, in certain eternity and perfect peace.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 15:28: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:24: echo, medium confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.20 (CSEL 40:407–408; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-15/#p-19-20).

## City of God 19.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-15/#p-19-21
- Source: CSEL 40:408–410
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that by Scipio's definition in Cicero's Republic, a commonwealth requires true justice, and since justice gives each his due and the Romans withheld worship from the true God, Rome was never a true commonwealth.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. An secundum definitiones Scipionis, quae in dialogo Ciceronis sunt, umquam fuerit Romana res publica. Quapropter nunc est locus, ut quam potero breuiter ac dilucide expediam, quod in secundo huius operis libro me demonstraturum esse promisi, secundum definitiones, quibus aput Ciceronem utitur Scipio in libris de re publica, numquam rem publicam fuisse Romanam. Breuiter enim rem publicam definit esse rem populi. Quae definitio si uera est, numquam fuit Romana res publica, quia numquam fuit res populi, quam definitionem uoluit esse rei publicae. Populum enim esse definiuit coetum multitudinis iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatum. Quid autem dicat iuris consensum, disputando explicat, per hoc ostendens geri sine iustitia non posse rem publicam; ubi ergo iustitia uera non est, nec ius potest esse. Quod enim iure fit, profecto iuste fit; quod autem fit iniuste, nec iure fieri potest Non enim iura dicenda sunt uel putanda iniqua hominum constituta, cum illud etiam ipsi ius esse dicant, quod de iustitiae fonte manauerit, falsumque esse, quod a quibusdam non recte sentientibus dici solet, id esse ius, quod ei, qui plus potest. utile est. Quocirca ubi non est uera iustitia, iuris consensu sociatus coetus hominum non potest esse et ideo nec populus iuxta illam Scipionis uel Ciceronis definitionem; et si non populus, nec res populi. sed qualiscumque multitudinis, quae populi nomine digna non est. Ac per hoc, si res publica res est populi et populus non est, qui consensu non sociatus est iuris, non est autem ius, ubi nulla iustitia est: procul dubio colligitur, ubi iustitia non est, non esse rem publicam. Iustitia porro ea uirtus est, quae sua cuique distribuit. Quae igitur iustitia est hominis, quae ipsum hominem Deo uero tollit et inmundis daemonibus subdit? Hocine est sua cuique distribuere? An qui fundum aufert eius, a quo emtus est, et tradit ei, qui nihil habet in eo iuris, iniustus est; et qui se ipsum aufert dominanti Deo, a quo factus est, et malignis seruit spiritibus, iustus est? Disputatur certe acerrime adque fortissime in eisdem ipsis de re publica libris aduersus iniustitiam pro iustitia. Et quoniam, cum prius ageretur pro iniustitiae partibus contra iustitiam et diceretur nisi per iniustitiam rem publicam stare augerique non posse, hoc ueluti ualidissimum positum erat, iniustum esse, ut homines hominibus dominantibus seruiant; quam tamen iniustitiam nisi sequatur imperiosa ciuitas, cuius est magna res publica, non eam posse prouinciis imperare: responsum est a parte iustitiae ideo iustum esse, quod talibus hominibus sit utilis seruitus, et pro utilitate eorum fieri, cum recte fit, id est cum inprobis aufertur iniuriarum licentia, et domiti melius se habebunt, quia indomiti deterius se habuerunt; subditumque est, ut ista ratio firmaretur, ueluti a natura sumtum nobile exemplum adque dictum est: Quur igitur Deus homini, animus imperat corpori, ratio libidini ceterisque uitiosis animi partibus? Plane hoc exemplo satis edoctum est quibusdam esse utilem seruitutem, et Deo quidem ut seruiatur utile esse omnibus. Seruiens autem Deo animus recte imperat corpori, inque ipso animo ratio Deo Domino subdita recte imperat libidini uitiisque ceteris. Quapropter ubi homo Deo non seruit, quid in eo putandum est esse iustitiae? quando quidem Deo non seruiens nullo modo potest iuste animus corpori aut humana ratio uitiis imperare. Et si in homine tali non est ulla iustitia. procul dubio nec in hominum coetu, qui ex hominibus talibus constat. Non est hic ergo iuris ille consensus, qui hominum multitudinem populum facit, cuius res dicitur esse res publica. Nam de utilitate quid dicam, cuius etiam communione sociatus coetus hominum, sicut sese habet ista definitio, populus nuncupatur? Quamuis enim, si diligenter adtendas, nec utilitas sit ulla uiuentium, qui uiuunt inpie, sicut uiuit omnis, qui non seruit Deo seruitque daemonibus, tanto magis inpiis, quanto magis sibi, cum sint inmundissimi spiritus, tamquam dis sacrificari uolunt: tamen quod de iuris consensu diximus satis esse arbitror, unde appareat per hanc definitionem non esse populum, cuius res publica esse dicatur, in quo iustitia non est. Si enim dicunt non spiritibus inmundis, sed dis bonis adque sanctis in sua re publica seruisse Romanos: numquid eadem totiens repetenda sunt, quae iam satis, immo ultra quam satis est diximus? Quis enim ad hunc locum per superiores huius operis libros peruenit, qui dubitare adhuc possit malis et inpuris daemonibus seruisse Romanos, nisi uel nimium stolidus uel inpudentissime contentiosus? Sed ut taceam quales sint, quos sacrificiis colebant: in lege ueri Dei scriptum est: Sacrificans dis eradicabitur nisi Domino tantum. Nec bonis igitur nec malis dis sacrificari uoluit, qui hoc cum tanta comminatione praecepit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. Whether, according to the definitions of Scipio in Cicero's dialogue, there was ever a Roman commonwealth.

Therefore this is now the place to set out, as briefly and clearly as I can, what I promised in the second book of this work to show: that, according to the definitions which Scipio uses in Cicero's books On the Commonwealth, there never was a Roman commonwealth. For he briefly defines a commonwealth as “the affair of a people.” If this definition is true, there never was a Roman commonwealth, because it was never the affair of a people, which he wished to be the definition of a commonwealth. For he defined a people as “an assembly of a multitude associated by agreement about right and by community of interest.” What he means by agreement about right he explains in the discussion, showing by it that a commonwealth cannot be carried on without justice; where, then, there is no true justice, neither can there be right. For what is done by right is surely done justly; but what is done unjustly cannot be done by right. For the unjust institutions of men are not to be called or thought rights, since they themselves say that that is right which has flowed from the fountain of justice, and that what some who think wrongly are wont to say, that that is right which is useful to him who is more powerful, is false. Therefore, where there is no true justice, there cannot be an assembly of men associated by agreement about right, and therefore not a people according to that definition of Scipio or Cicero; and if not a people, then not the affair of a people, but of some sort of multitude which is not worthy of the name of a people. And so, if a commonwealth is the affair of a people, and there is no people which is not associated by agreement about right, and there is no right where there is no justice, it is without doubt concluded that where there is no justice there is no commonwealth.

Justice, moreover, is that virtue which gives to each his own. What kind of justice of man is it, then, which takes man himself away from the true God and subjects him to unclean demons? Is this to give to each his own? Or is he unjust who takes away a farm from the man who bought it and hands it over to one who has no right to it, and is he just who takes himself away from the ruling God by whom he was made and serves malignant spirits? Certainly in those same books On the Commonwealth there is a very keen and very strong argument for justice against injustice. And since, when earlier the case was argued on the side of injustice against justice, and it was said that a commonwealth could not stand and grow except through injustice, this had been set down as the strongest point, that it is unjust that men should serve men who rule them, which injustice nevertheless an imperial city, whose commonwealth is great, must follow, or else it cannot rule provinces: it was answered on the side of justice that it is just for this reason, that slavery is useful for such men, and is done for their benefit when it is done rightly, that is, when licence for wrongdoing is taken away from the wicked, and they will be better off when subdued because they were worse off when not subdued; and to confirm this reasoning a noble example was added, as though taken from nature, and it was said: “Why, then, does God rule man, the mind the body, reason lust and the other vicious parts of the mind?” Plainly by this example it is taught clearly enough that slavery is useful for some, and that to serve God is useful for all. And the mind that serves God rightly rules the body, and in the mind itself reason, subject to God the Lord, rightly rules lust and the other vices. Therefore, where man does not serve God, what justice is to be thought to be in him? Since the mind that does not serve God can in no way justly rule the body, nor human reason the vices. And if there is no justice in such a man, without doubt neither is there in an assembly of men which consists of such men. Here, then, there is not that agreement about right which makes a multitude of men a people, whose affair is said to be a commonwealth.

For what shall I say of interest, by community of which too an assembly of men is called a people, as that definition has it? For though, if you attend carefully, there is no interest at all for those who live ungodly, as everyone lives who does not serve God but serves demons, who are the more ungodly the more they wish, though they are most unclean spirits, that sacrifice should be offered to them as to gods: yet what we have said of agreement about right is, I think, enough to make it plain that by this definition there is no people, whose affair can be said to be a commonwealth, in which there is no justice. For if they say that the Romans in their commonwealth served not unclean spirits but good and holy gods, must the same things be repeated so often which we have already said enough, indeed more than enough? For who has come through the earlier books of this work to this place who can still doubt that the Romans served evil and impure demons, unless he is either too stupid or most shamelessly contentious? But, to say nothing of what sort those were whom they worshipped with sacrifices, in the law of the true God it is written: “He who sacrifices to gods shall be rooted out, except to the Lord only.” So he who gave this command with so great a threat wished sacrifice to be offered neither to good nor to bad gods.

### Scripture references

- Exod 22:20: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Rep. 1.25.39 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence
- Cicero, Rep. 3 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The definitions are Cicero, Republic 1.25.39; the debate on justice and the “noble example” are from Republic 3, known largely through this chapter. Exod 22:20 is quoted in an LXX-based form.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.21 (CSEL 40:408–410; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-15/#p-19-21).

## City of God 19.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-15/#p-19-22
- Source: CSEL 40:410–411
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine identifies the God of the Christians as the God of the prophets and of Abraham, whom even Varro took for the supreme god and Porphyry's oracles called great.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. An uerus sit Deus, cui Christiani seruiunt, cui soli debeat sacrificari. Sed responderi potest: Quis iste Deus est aut unde dignus probatur, cui deberent obtemperare Romani, ut nullum deorum praeter ipsum colerent sacrificiis? Magnae caecitatis est, adhuc quaerere, quis iste sit Deus. Ipse est Deus, cuius prophetae praedixerunt ista quae cernimus. Ipse est Deus, a quo responsum accepit Abraham: In semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes. Quod in Christo fieri, qui secundum carnem de illo semine exortus est, idem ipsi qui remanserunt huius nominis inimici, uelint nolintue, cognoscunt. Ipse est Deus, cuius diuinus Spiritus per eos locutus est, quorum praedicta adque conpleta per ecclesiam, quam uidemus toto orbe diffusam, in libris superioribus posui. Ipse est Deus, quem Varro doctissimus Romanorum Iouem putat, quamuis nesciens quid loquatur; quod tamen ideo commemorandum putaui, quoniam uir tantae scientiae nec nullum istum Deum potuit existimare nec uilem. Hunc enim eum esse credidit, quem summum putauit deum. Postremo ipse est Deus, quem doctissimus philosophorum, quamuis Christianorum acerrimus inimicus, etiam per eorum oracula, quos deos putat, deum magnum Porphyrius confitetur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. Whether the God whom the Christians serve is the true God, to whom alone sacrifice ought to be offered.

But it may be answered: “Who is this God, or from what is he proved worthy, that the Romans ought to have obeyed him so as to worship none of the gods with sacrifices except him?” It is great blindness still to ask who this God is. He is the God whose prophets foretold these things which we see. He is the God from whom Abraham received the answer: “In your seed all nations shall be blessed.” That this is done in Christ, who according to the flesh sprang from that seed, even those very enemies of this name who have remained acknowledge, whether they will or not. He is the God whose divine Spirit spoke through those whose predictions, fulfilled through the church which we see spread over the whole world, I have set down in the preceding books. He is the God whom Varro, the most learned of the Romans, thinks to be Jupiter, though not knowing what he says; which I have thought worth mentioning because a man of such great knowledge could not think this God either nothing or worthless. For he believed him to be the one whom he thought the supreme god. Finally, he is the God whom Porphyry, the most learned of the philosophers, though the fiercest enemy of the Christians, confesses to be a great God, even through the oracles of those whom he thinks gods.

### Scripture references

- Gen 22:18: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 12:3: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro (Varro): allusion, high confidence
- Porphyry, Porphyry, Phil. orac. (Porphyry, Philosophy from Oracles (fragments)): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- On Varro's identification of the God of the Jews with Jupiter see Augustine, Harmony of the Gospels 1.22.30.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.22 (CSEL 40:410–411; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-15/#p-19-22).

## City of God 19.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-23/#p-19-23
- Source: CSEL 40:411–419
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine examines oracles quoted by Porphyry, in which Apollo condemns Christ while praising the God of the Hebrews and Hecate praises Christ as a pious man while cursing Christians, and argues that the demons' aim is to keep men from becoming Christians and that justice, and so a true people, exists only where the one God alone receives sacrifice.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. Quae Porphyrius dicat oraculis deorum responsa esse de Christo. Nam in libris. quos ex λογίων φιλοσοφίας appellat, in quibus exsequitur adque conscribit rerum ad philosophiam pertinentium uelut diuina responsa, ut ipsa uerba eius, quem ad modum ex Graeca lingua in Latinam interpretata sunt, ponam: Interroganti, inquit, quem deum placando reuocare possit uxorem suam a Christianismo, haec ait uersibus Apollo. Deinde uerba uelut Apollinis ista sunt: Forte magis poteris in aqua inpressis litteris scribere aut adinflans leues pinnas per aera auis uolare, quam pollutae reuoces inpiae uxoris sensum. Pergat quo modo uult inanibus fallaciis [perseuerans et lamentari fallaciis] mortuum Deum cantans, quem iudicibus recta sentientibus perditum pessima in speciosis ferro uincta mors interfecit. Deinde post hos uersus Apollinis, qui non stante metro Latine interpretati sunt, subiunxit adque ait: In his quidem inremediabile sententiae eorum manifestauit dicens, quoniam Iudaei suscipiunt Deum magis quam isti. Ecce, ubi decolorans Christum Iudaeos praeposuit Christianis, confitens quod Iudaei suscipiant Deum. Sic enim exposuit uersus Apollinis, ubi a iudicibus recta sentientibus Christum dicit occisum, tamquam illis iuste iudicantibus merito sit ille punitus. Viderim quid de Christo uates mendax Apollinis dixerit adque iste crediderit aut fortasse uatem, quod non dixit, dixisse iste ipse confinxerit. Quam sibi constet uel ipsa oracula inter se faciat conuenire, postea uidebimus; hic tamen Iudaeos. tamquam Dei susceptores, recte dicit iudicasse de Christo, quod eum morte pessima excruciandum esse censuerint. Deus itaque Iudaeorum, cui perhibet testimonium, audiendus fuit dicens: Sacrificans dis eradicabitur, nisi Domino tantum. Sed ad manifestiora ueniamus et audiamus quam magnum Deum dicat esse Iudaeorum. Item ad ea, quae interrogauit Apollinem, quid melius, uerbum siue ratio an lex: Respondit, inquit, uersibus haec dicens. Ac deinde subicit Apollinis uersus, in quibus et isti sunt, ut quantum satis est inde decerpam: In Deum uero, inquit, generatorem et in regem ante omnia, quem tremit et caelum et terra adque mare et infernorum abdita et ipsa numina perhorrescunt; quorum lex est Pater, quem ualde sancti honorant Hebraei. Tali oraculo dei sui Apollinis Porphyrius tam magnum Deum dixit Hebraeorum, ut eum et ipsa numina perhorrescant. Cum ergo Deus iste dixerit: Sacrificans dis eradicabitur, miror quod ipse Porphyrius non perhorruerit et sacrificans dis eradicari non formidauerit. Dicit etiam bona philosophus iste de Christo, quasi oblitus illius, de qua paulo ante locuti sumus, contumeliae suae, aut quasi in somnis di eius maledixerint Christo et euigilantes eum bonum esse cognouerint digneque laudauerint. Denique tamquam mirabile aliquid adque incredibile prolaturus: Praeter opinionem, inquit, profecto quibusdam uideatur esse quod dicturi sumus. Christum enim di piissimum pronuntiauerunt et inmortalem factum et cum bona praedicatione eius meminerunt; Christianos uero pollutos, inquit, et contaminatos et errore inplicatos esse dicunt et multis talibus aduersus eos blasphemiis utuntur. Deinde subicit uelut oracula deorum blasphemantium Christianos et post haec: De Christo autem, inquit, interrogantibus si est Deus, ait Hecate: Quoniam quidem inmortalis anima post corpus ut incedit, nosti; a sapientia autem abscisa semper errat. Viri pietate praestantissimi est illa anima; hanc colunt aliena a se ueritate. Deinde post uerba huius quasi oraculi sua ipse contexens: Piissimum igitur uirum, inquit, eum dixit et eius animam, sicut et aliorum piorum, post obitum inmortalitate dignatam et hanc colere Christianos ignorantes. Interrogantibus autem, inquit: Quur ergo damnatus est? oraculo respondit dea: Corpus quidem debilitantibus tormentis semper obpositum est; anima autem piorum caelesti sedi insidet. Illa uero anima aliis animabus fataliter dedit, quibus fata non adnuerunt deorum dona obtinere neque habere Iouis inmortalis agnitionem, errore inplicari. Propterea ergo dis exosi, quia, quibus fato non fuit nosse Deum nec dona ab dis accipere, his fataliter dedit iste errore inplicari. Ipse uero pius et in caelum, sicut pii, concessit. Itaque hunc quidem non blasphemabis, misereberis autem hominum dementiam, ex eo in eis facile praecepsque periculum. Qui ita stultus est, ut non intellegat aut ab homine callido eoque Christianis inimicissimo haec oracula fuisse conficta aut consilio simili ab inpuris daemonibus ista fuisse responsa, ut scilicet, quoniam laudant Christum, propterea credantur ueraciter uituperare Christianos adque ita, si possint, intercludant uiam salutis aeternae, in qua fit quisque Christianus? Suae quippe nocendi astutiae milleformi sentiunt non esse contrarium, si credatur eis laudantibus Christum, dum tamen credatur etiam uituperantibus Christianos; ut eum, qui utrumque crediderit, talem Christi faciant laudatorem, ne uelit esse Christianus, ac sic quamuis ab illo laudatus ab istorum tamen daemonum dominatu eum non liberet Christus; praesertim quia ita laudant Christum, ut, quisquis in eum talem crediderit, qualis ab eis praedicatur, Christianus uerus non sit, sed Photimanus haereticus, qui tantummodo hominem, non etiam Deum nouerit Christum, et ideo per eum saluus esse non possit nec istorum mendaciloquorum daemonum laqueos uitare uel soluere. Nos autem neque Apollinem uituperantem Christum neque Hecaten possumus adprobare laudantem. Ille quippe tamquam iniquum Christum uult credi, quem iudicibus recta sentientibus dicit occisum; ista hominem piissimum, sed hominem tantum. Una est tamen et illius et huius intentio, ut nolint homines esse Christianos, quia, nisi Christiani erunt, ab eorum erui potestate non poterunt. Iste uero philosophus, uel potius qui talibus aduersus Christianos quasi oraculis credunt, prius faciant, si possunt, ut inter se de ipso Christo Hecate adque Apollo concordent eumque aut ambo condemnent aut ambo conlaudent. Quod si facere potuissent, nihilo minus nos et uituperatores et laudatores Christi fallaces daemones uitaremus. Cum uero eorum deus et dea inter se de Christo, ille uituperando, ista laudando dissentiant: profecto eis blasphemantibus Christianos non credunt homines, si recte ipsi sentiant. Sane Christum laudans uel Porphyrius uel Hecate, cum dicat eum ipsum fataliter dedisse Christianis, ut inplicarentur errore, causas tamen eiusdem, sicut putat, pandit erroris. Quas antequam ex uerbis eius exponam, prius quaero, si fataliter dedit Christus Christianis erroris inplicationem, utrum uolens an nolens dederit. Si uolens, quo modo iustus? Si nolens, quo modo beatus? Sed iam causas ipsius audiamus erroris. Sunt, inquit, spiritus terreni minimi loco quodam malorum daemonum potestati subiecti. Ab his sapientes Hebraeorum (quorum unus iste etiam Iesus fuit, sicut audisti diuina Apollinis, quae superius dicta sunt) — ab his ergo Hebraei daemonibus pessimis et minoribus spiritibus uetabant religiosos et ipsis uacare prohibebant; uenerari autem magis caelestes deos, amplius autem uenerari Deum Patrem. Hoc autem, inquit, et di praecipiunt et in superioribus ostendimus, quem ad modum animum aduertere ad Deum monent et illum colere ubique imperant. Verum indocti et inpiae naturae, quibus uere fatum non concessit ab dis dona obtinere neque habere Iouis inmortalis notionem, non audientes et deos et diuinos uiros deos quidem omnes recusauerunt, prohibitos autem daemones et hos non odisse, sed reuereri. Deum autem simulantes colere, ea sola, per quae Deus adoratur, non agunt. Nam Deus quidem, utpote omnium Pater, nullius indiget; sed nobis est bene, cum eum per iustitiam et castitatem aliasque uirtutes adoramus, ipsam uitam precem ad ipsum facientes per imitationem et inquisitionem de ipso. Inquisitio enim purgat, inquit; imitatio deificat adfectionem ad ipsum operando. Bene quidem praedicauit Deum Patrem, et quibus sit colendus moribus dixit; quibus praeceptis prophetici libri pleni sunt Hebraeorum, quando sanctorum uita siue imperatur siue laudatur. Sed in Christianis tantum errat aut tantum calumniatur, quantum uolunt daemones, quos opinatur deos; quasi cuiquam difficile sit recolere, quae turpia, quae dedecora erga deorum obsequium in theatris agebantur et templis, et adtendere quae legantur dicantur audiantur in ecclesiis, uel Deo uero quid offeratur, et hinc intellegere ubi aedificium, et ubi ruina sit morum. Quis autem huic dixit uel inspirauit, nisi diabolicus spiritus, tam uanum apertumque mendacium, quod daemones ab Hebraeis coli prohibitos reuereantur potius, quam oderint Christiani? Sed Deus ille. quem coluerunt sapientes Hebraeorum, etiam caelestibus sanctis angelis et uirtutibus Dei, quos beatissimos tamquam ciues in hac nostra peregrinatione mortali ueneramur et amamus, sacrificari uetat intonans in lege sua, quam dedit Hebraeo populo suo, et ualde minaciter dicens: Sacrificans dis eradicabitur. Et ne quisquam putaret daemonibus pessimis terrenisque spiritibus, quos iste dicit minimos uel minores, ne sacrificetur esse praeceptum (quia et ipsi in scripturis sanctis dicti sunt di, non Hebraeorum, sed gentium; quod euidenter in psalmo septuaginta interpretes posuerunt, dicentes: Quoniam [omnes] di gentium daemonia), — ne quis ergo putaret istis quidem daemoniis prohibitum, caelestibus autem uel omnibus uel aliquibus sacrificari esse permissum, mox addidit: Nisi Domino soli, id est nisi Domino tantum; ne forte in eo, quod ait: Domino soli, Dominum solem credat esse quispiam, cui sacrificandum putet; quod non ita esse intellegendum in scripturis Graecis facillime reperitur. Deus igitur Hebraeorum, cui tam magnum tantus etiam iste philosophus perhibet testimonium, legem dedit Hebraeo populo suo, Hebraeo sermone conscriptam, non obscuram et incognitam, sed omnibus iam gentibus diffamatam, in qua lege scriptum est: Sacrificans dis eradicabitur nisi Domino tantum. Quid opus est in hac eius lege eiusque prophetis de hac re multa perquirere; immo non perquirere, non enim abstrusa uel rara sunt, sed aperta et crebra colligere et in hac disputatione mea ponere, quibus luce clarius apparet nulli omnino nisi tantum sibi Deum uerum et summum uoluisse sacrificari? Ecce hoc unum breuiter, immo granditer, minaciter, sed ueraciter dictum ab illo Deo, quem tam excellenter eorum doctissimi praedicant, audiatur timeatur inpleatur, ne inoboedientes eradicatio consequatur. Sacrificans, inquit, dis eradicabitur nisi Domino tantum; non quo rei egeat alicuius, sed quia nobis expedit, ut res eius simus. Huic enim canitur in sacris litteris Hebraeorum: Dixi Domino: Deus meus es tu, quoniam bonorum meorum non eges. Huius autem praeclarissimum adque optimum sacrificium nos ipsi sumus, hoc est ciuitas eius, cuius rei mysterium celebramus oblationibus nostris, quae fidelibus notae sunt, sicut in libris praecedentibus disputauimus. Cessaturas enim uictimas, quas in umbra futuri offerebant Iudaei, et unum sacrificium gentes a solis ortu usque ad occasum, sicut iam fieri cernimus, oblaturas per prophetas Hebraeos oracula increpuere diuina; ex quibus quantum satis uisum est, nonnulla protulimus et huic iam. operi adspersimus. Quapropter ubi non est ista iustitia, ut secundum suam gratiam ciuitati oboedienti Deus imperet unus et summus, ne cuiquam sacrificet nisi tantum sibi, et per hoc in omnibus hominibus ad eandem ciuitatem pertinentibus adque oboedientibus Deo animus etiam corpori adque ratio uitiis ordine legitimo fideliter imperet; ut, quem ad modum iustus unus, ita coetus populusque iustorum uiuat ex fide, quae operatur per dilectionem, qua homo diligit Deum, sicut diligendus est Deus, et proximum sicut semet ipsum, — ubi ergo non est ista iustitia, profecto non est coetus hominum iuris consensu et utilitatis communione. sociatus. Quod si non est, utique populus non est si uera est haec populi definitio. Ergo nec res publica est, quia res populi non est, ubi ipse populus non est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. What Porphyry says were the answers given by the oracles of the gods about Christ.

For in the books which he calls Philosophy from Oracles, in which he pursues and writes down what are, as it were, divine answers on things pertaining to philosophy, to give his very words as they have been translated from the Greek language into Latin, he says: “To one who asked what god he could propitiate in order to recall his wife from Christianity, Apollo said this in verse.” Then the words, as of Apollo, are these: “Perhaps you will more easily be able to write in letters pressed on water, or, spreading light wings, fly through the air as a bird, than recall the mind of your polluted, impious wife. Let her go as she will, singing with empty deceits a dead God, whom, condemned by judges of right mind, the worst of deaths, bound with iron amid fair show, killed.” Then, after these verses of Apollo, which have been translated into Latin without keeping the metre, he added and said: “In these he made manifest the incurable character of their opinion, saying that the Jews uphold God more than these do.” See how, disparaging Christ, he preferred the Jews to the Christians, confessing that the Jews uphold God. For so he explained the verses of Apollo in which he says that Christ was killed by judges of right mind, as though, since they judged justly, he was deservedly punished. Let me leave aside what the lying seer of Apollo said about Christ and what this man believed, or whether perhaps he himself invented that the seer said what he did not say. How consistent he is with himself, or how he makes the oracles themselves agree with each other, we shall see later; here, however, he says that the Jews, as upholders of God, judged rightly of Christ in deciding that he should be tortured with the worst death. The God of the Jews, then, to whom he bears witness, should have been heard when he says: “He who sacrifices to gods shall be rooted out, except to the Lord only.”

But let us come to plainer things, and hear how great he says the God of the Jews is. Likewise, to his question of Apollo which is better, the word, or reason, or the law: “He answered,” he says, “saying this in verse.” And then he adds verses of Apollo, among which are these, so that I may pluck out as much as suffices: “But in God, the begetter and king before all things, before whom heaven and earth and sea and the hidden places of the underworld tremble, and the very divinities shudder; whose law is the Father, whom the holy Hebrews greatly honour.” By such an oracle of his god Apollo, Porphyry declared the God of the Hebrews so great that even the divinities themselves shudder before him. Since, then, this God has said, “He who sacrifices to gods shall be rooted out,” I wonder that Porphyry himself did not shudder and fear to be rooted out for sacrificing to gods.

This philosopher also says good things of Christ, as though he had forgotten that insult of his of which we spoke a little before; or as though his gods had cursed Christ in their sleep and, when they awoke, recognized him to be good and praised him worthily. Finally, as though he were about to bring out something wonderful and incredible, he says: “What we are going to say will certainly seem to some contrary to expectation. For the gods have declared Christ most pious and made immortal, and remember him with good report; but the Christians, he says, they call polluted and contaminated and entangled in error, and they use many such blasphemies against them.” Then he adds, as it were, oracles of the gods blaspheming the Christians, and after these: “But to those who asked about Christ whether he is God,” he says, “Hecate says: ‘You know that the immortal soul goes on after the body; but when cut off from wisdom it always wanders. That soul is of a man most excellent in piety; they worship it because truth is foreign to them.’” Then after the words of this so-called oracle he weaves in his own: “She said, then, that he was a most pious man, and that his soul, like the souls of other pious men, was granted immortality after death, and that the Christians in their ignorance worship it. But to those who asked,” he says, “‘Why, then, was he condemned?’ the goddess answered by oracle: ‘The body indeed is always exposed to weakening torments; but the soul of the pious sits in the heavenly seat. But that soul fatally gave to other souls, to whom the fates did not grant to obtain the gifts of the gods nor to have knowledge of immortal Jupiter, to be entangled in error. Therefore they are hateful to the gods, because to those to whom it was not fated to know God nor to receive gifts from the gods, this man fatally gave to be entangled in error. But he himself was pious, and passed into heaven, as the pious do. So you shall not blaspheme him, but you shall pity the madness of men, from which comes for them an easy and headlong danger.’”

Who is so foolish as not to understand that these oracles were either invented by a cunning man, most hostile to the Christians, or given in reply by impure demons with a similar design; namely, that because they praise Christ, they may therefore be believed to blame the Christians truthfully, and so, if they can, close the way of eternal salvation, in which one becomes a Christian? For they feel that it is not contrary to their thousand-formed cunning in harming, if they are believed when they praise Christ, provided they are also believed when they blame the Christians; so that they may make him who believes both such a praiser of Christ that he does not wish to be a Christian, and so, though praised by him, Christ does not free him from the dominion of these demons; especially since they so praise Christ that whoever believes in him as such a one as they proclaim is not a true Christian but a Photinian heretic, who knows Christ only as man, not also as God, and therefore cannot be saved through him nor avoid or loose the snares of these lying demons. But we can approve neither Apollo blaming Christ nor Hecate praising him. For he wishes Christ to be believed unjust, since he says he was killed by judges of right mind; she, a most pious man, but a man only. Yet the intention of both is one, that men should not wish to be Christians, because unless they are Christians they cannot be rescued from their power. But let this philosopher, or rather those who believe in such so-called oracles against the Christians, first bring it about, if they can, that Hecate and Apollo agree with each other about Christ himself, and that both either condemn or praise him. Even if they could do this, we would nonetheless avoid the lying demons, both those who blame and those who praise Christ. But since their god and goddess disagree with each other about Christ, he blaming, she praising, surely men do not believe them when they blaspheme the Christians, if they themselves think rightly.

Indeed, when either Porphyry or Hecate, praising Christ, says that he himself fatally gave to the Christians to be entangled in error, he nevertheless sets out the causes, as he thinks, of that error. Before I set them out from his words, I first ask: if Christ fatally gave the Christians entanglement in error, did he give it willingly or unwillingly? If willingly, how is he just? If unwillingly, how is he happy? But now let us hear the causes of this error. “There are,” he says, “very small earthly spirits in a certain place, subject to the power of evil demons. The wise men of the Hebrews (of whom this Jesus too was one, as you have heard from the divine words of Apollo spoken above) — from these most evil demons and lesser spirits, then, the Hebrews forbade religious men and prohibited them from giving their time to them; but taught them rather to venerate the heavenly gods, and still more to venerate God the Father. This,” he says, “the gods also command, and we have shown above how they admonish men to turn their mind to God and command them to worship him everywhere. But the unlearned and impious natures, to whom fate truly did not grant to obtain gifts from the gods nor to have the notion of immortal Jupiter, not listening to the gods and the divine men, refused all the gods, and the forbidden demons they not only did not hate but revered. But, pretending to worship God, they do not do the only things by which God is worshipped. For God indeed, as the Father of all, needs nothing; but it is well for us when we worship him by justice and chastity and the other virtues, making our very life a prayer to him by imitation and inquiry about him. For inquiry purifies,” he says, “and imitation deifies the affection by working towards him.”

He has indeed proclaimed God the Father well, and said by what manner of life he should be worshipped; with such precepts the prophetic books of the Hebrews are full, when the life of the saints is either commanded or praised. But about the Christians he errs, or slanders, as much as the demons wish whom he thinks gods; as though it were difficult for anyone to recall what base and shameful things were done in theatres and temples in homage to the gods, and to attend to what is read, said, and heard in the churches, or what is offered to the true God, and from this to understand where there is the building up and where the ruin of morals. Who told or inspired him but a devilish spirit with so empty and manifest a lie, that the Christians revere rather than hate the demons whose worship was forbidden by the Hebrews? But that God whom the wise men of the Hebrews worshipped forbids sacrifice even to the holy angels of heaven and the powers of God, whom we venerate and love as most blessed fellow citizens in this mortal pilgrimage of ours, thundering in his law which he gave to his Hebrew people, and saying very threateningly: “He who sacrifices to gods shall be rooted out.” And lest anyone should think that the command was that sacrifice should not be offered to the most evil demons and earthly spirits, whom this man calls very small or lesser (because they too are called gods in the holy Scriptures, not of the Hebrews but of the nations, as the seventy translators plainly put it in the psalm, saying, “For the gods of the nations are demons”), lest anyone, then, should think that it was forbidden to sacrifice to these demons but permitted to sacrifice to the heavenly ones, either all or some, he immediately added: “except to the Lord alone,” that is, “except to the Lord only”; lest perhaps anyone should think, from his saying Domino soli, that the Lord Sun (Dominum solem) is meant, to whom one should sacrifice; which is very easily found in the Greek Scriptures not to be the way to understand it.

The God of the Hebrews, then, to whom even this great philosopher bears such great testimony, gave his Hebrew people a law written in the Hebrew language, not obscure and unknown, but now spread abroad among all nations, in which law it is written: “He who sacrifices to gods shall be rooted out, except to the Lord only.” What need is there to search out much on this matter in his law and his prophets; or rather not to search out, for these things are not hidden or rare, but to gather what is plain and frequent and set it down in this discussion of mine, by which it appears clearer than light that the true and supreme God willed sacrifice to be offered to no one at all except to himself alone? See, this one thing, said briefly, or rather grandly, threateningly, but truly, by that God whom their most learned men proclaim so excellently: let it be heard, feared, fulfilled, lest rooting out follow the disobedient. “He who sacrifices to gods,” he says, “shall be rooted out, except to the Lord only”; not that he needs anything, but because it is good for us to be his possession. For to him it is sung in the sacred writings of the Hebrews: “I said to the Lord, You are my God, for you have no need of my goods.” And his most excellent and best sacrifice is we ourselves, that is, his city, the mystery of which we celebrate in our offerings, which are known to the faithful, as we discussed in the preceding books. For the divine oracles through the Hebrew prophets thundered that the victims which the Jews offered in shadow of the future would cease, and that the nations from the rising of the sun to its setting would offer one sacrifice, as we now see done; of these we have brought forward some, as many as seemed sufficient, and have already scattered them through this work. Therefore, where there is not this justice, that the one supreme God rules according to his grace over an obedient city, so that it sacrifices to no one but him alone, and by this in all men who belong to that same city and obey God the mind faithfully rules the body and reason the vices in lawful order; so that, as the one just man, so the assembly and people of the just lives by faith, which works through love, by which man loves God as God is to be loved, and his neighbour as himself — where, then, there is not this justice, there is certainly no assembly of men associated by agreement about right and by community of interest. And if there is not this, there is certainly no people, if this definition of a people is true. Therefore neither is there a commonwealth, because there is no affair of a people where there is no people itself.

### Scripture references

- Exod 22:20: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 96:5 (95:5 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 16:2 (15:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Mal 1:11: allusion, high confidence
- Hab 2:4: allusion, medium confidence
- Gal 5:6: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 22:37: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 22:39: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Porphyry, Porphyry, Phil. orac. (Porphyry, Philosophy from Oracles (fragments)): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Porphyry, Philosophy from Oracles, known chiefly through quotations in Augustine and Eusebius; the Greek title is mis-encoded in the digital text and corrected. The oracles and Porphyry's comments are Augustine's Latin translation. In Apollo's oracle the editor deletes a repeated phrase (“perseverans et lamentari fallaciis”); in Ps 96:5 (LXX 95:5) he deletes “omnes” (“all”); both are left out. Exod 22:20 is quoted in an LXX-based form. “Photinian” refers to the followers of Photinus of Sirmium, who taught that Christ was only a man. The pun on Domino soli (“to the Lord alone”) and Domino soli (“to the Lord Sun”) cannot be kept in English. The account of the Jews' judgment of Christ is Porphyry's, which Augustine rejects.
- The Latin of Apollo's oracle (“pessima in speciosis ferro uincta mors”) is obscure; it is rendered literally and the sense is uncertain.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.23 (CSEL 40:411–419; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-23/#p-19-23).

## City of God 19.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-23/#p-19-24
- Source: CSEL 40:419–420
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine proposes his own definition of a people as a rational multitude united by agreement about the things it loves, by which Rome and other states are peoples and commonwealths, though without true justice.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIIII. Qua definitione constet populi et rei publicae nuncupationem recte sibi non solum Romanos, sed etiam regna alia uindicare. Si autem populus non isto, sed alio definiatur modo, uelut si dicatur: Populus est coetus multitudinis rationalis rerum quas diligit concordi communione sociatus, profecto, ut uideatur qualis quisque populus sit, illa sunt intuenda, quae diligit. Quaecumque tamen diligat, si coetus est multitudinis non pecorum, sed rationalium creaturarum et eorum quae diligit concordi communione sociatus est, non absurde populus nuncupatur; tanto utique melior, quanto in melioribus, tantoque deterior, quanto est in deterioribus concors. Secundum istam definitionem nostram Romanus populus populus est et res eius sine dubitatione res publica. Quid autem primis temporibus suis quidue sequentibus populus ille dilexerit et quibus moribus ad cruentissimas seditiones adque inde ad socialia adque ciuilia bella perueniens ipsam concordiam, quae salus est quodam modo populi, ruperit adque corruperit, testatur historia; de qua in praecedentibus libris multa posuimus. Nec ideo tamen uel ipsum non esse populum uel eius rem dixerim non esse rem publicam, quamdiu manet qualiscumque rationalis multitudinis coetus, rerum quas diligit concordi communione sociatus. Quod autem de isto populo et de ista re publica dixi, hoc de Atheniensium uel quorumcumque Graecorum, hoc de Aegyptiorum, hoc de illa priore Babylone Assyriorum, quando in rebus publicis suis imperia uel parua uel magna tenuerunt, et de alia quacumque aliarum gentium intellegar dixisse adque sensisse. Generaliter quippe ciuitas inpiorum, cui non imperat Deus oboedienti sibi, ut sacrificium non offerat nisi tantummodo sibi, et per hoc in illa et animus corpori ratioque uitiis recte ac fideliter imperet, caret iustitiae ueritate.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 24. By what definition it is established that not only the Romans but also other kingdoms rightly claim for themselves the name of people and commonwealth.

But if a people is defined not in this way but in another, as if it were said: “A people is an assembly of a rational multitude associated by harmonious sharing in the things it loves,” then surely, to see what kind each people is, we must look at the things it loves. Yet whatever it loves, if it is an assembly of a multitude not of beasts but of rational creatures, and is associated by harmonious sharing in the things it loves, it is not absurdly called a people; certainly the better the better the things in which it is in harmony, and the worse the worse the things in which it is in harmony. According to this definition of ours the Roman people is a people and its affair without doubt a commonwealth. But what that people loved in its first times and what in later ones, and by what morals, coming to most bloody seditions and from there to social and civil wars, it broke and corrupted that very concord which is in a way the health of a people, history testifies; of which we have set down much in the preceding books. Yet I would not therefore say either that it is not a people or that its affair is not a commonwealth, as long as there remains an assembly, of whatever kind, of a rational multitude associated by harmonious sharing in the things it loves. And what I have said of this people and of this commonwealth, I must be understood to have said and meant of that of the Athenians or of any Greeks, of that of the Egyptians, of that earlier Babylon of the Assyrians, when in their commonwealths they held empires either small or great, and of any other of other nations. For in general the city of the ungodly, over which God does not rule so that it obeys him and offers sacrifice to no one but him alone, and in which therefore the mind does not rightly and faithfully rule the body nor reason the vices, lacks the truth of justice.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.24 (CSEL 40:419–420; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-23/#p-19-24).

## City of God 19.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-23/#p-19-25
- Source: CSEL 40:420
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that virtues not referred to God, even those valued for their own sake, are really proud vices, since what makes man live happily is above man.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXV. Quod non possint ibi uerae esse uirtutes, ubi non est uera religio. Quamlibet enim uideatur animus corpori et ratio uitiis laudabiliter imperare, si Deo animus et ratio ipsa non seruit, sicut sibi esse seruiendum ipse Deus praecepit, nullo modo corpori uitiisque recte imperat. Nam qualis corporis adque uitiorum potest esse mens domina ueri Dei nescia nec eius imperio subiugata, sed uitiosissimis daemonibus corrumpentibus prostituta? Proinde uirtutes, quas habere sibi uidetur, per quas imperat corpori et uitiis, ad quodlibet adipiscendum uel tenendum rettulerit nisi ad Deum, etiam ipsae uitia sunt potius quam uirtutes. Nam licet a quibusdam tunc uerae adque honestae putentur esse uirtutes, cum referuntur ad se ipsas nec propter aliud expetuntur: etiam tunc inflatae ac superbae sunt, et ideo non uirtutes, sed uitia iudicanda sunt. Sicut enim non est a carne sed super carnem, quod carnem facit uiuere: sic non est ab homine, sed super hominem, quod hominem facit beate uiuere; nec solum hominem, sed etiam quamlibet potestatem uirtutemque caelestem.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 25. That there cannot be true virtues where there is no true religion.

For however praiseworthily the mind may seem to rule the body and reason the vices, if the mind and reason themselves do not serve God, as God himself has commanded that he be served, they in no way rule the body and the vices rightly. For what kind of mistress of the body and the vices can a mind be that is ignorant of the true God and not subjected to his rule, but prostituted to the most vicious corrupting demons? Accordingly the virtues which it seems to itself to have, by which it rules the body and the vices, if it refers them to obtaining or keeping anything whatever other than God, are themselves vices rather than virtues. For although some think that virtues are true and honourable when they are referred to themselves and not sought for the sake of anything else, even then they are puffed up and proud, and therefore are to be judged not virtues but vices. For as that which makes the flesh live is not from the flesh but above the flesh, so that which makes man live happily is not from man but above man; and not only man, but any heavenly power and virtue whatever.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.25 (CSEL 40:420; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-23/#p-19-25).

## City of God 19.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-23/#p-19-26
- Source: CSEL 40:420–421
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine says that the earthly city's peace, though not its final good, benefits the pilgrim people of God, who are therefore told to pray for rulers and for the peace of Babylon.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVI. De pace populi alienati a Deo, qua utitur ad pietatem populus Dei, dum in hoc peregrinus est mundo. Quocirca ut uita carnis anima est, ita beata uita hominis Deus est, de quo dicunt sacrae litterae Hebraeorum: Beatus populus, cuius est Dominus Deus ipsius. Miser igitur populus ab isto alienatus Deo. Diligit tamen etiam ipse quandam pacem suam non inprobandam, quam quidem non habebit in fine, quia non ea bene utitur ante finem. Hanc autem ut interim habeat in hac uita, etiam nostri interest; quoniam, quamdiu permixtae sunt ambae ciuitates, utimur et nos pace Babylonis; ex qua ita per fidem populus Dei liberatur, ut aput hanc interim peregrinetur. Propter quod et apostolus admonuit ecclesiam, ut oraret pro regibus eius adque sublimibus, addens et dicens: Ut quietam et tranquillam uitam agamus cum omni pietate et caritate, et propheta Hieremias, cum populo Dei ueteri praenuntiaret captiuitatem et diuinitus imperaret, ut oboedienter irent in Babyloniam Deo suo etiam ista patientia seruientes monuit et ipse ut oraretur pro illa dicens: Quia in eius est pace pax uestra, utique interim temporalis, quae bonis malisque communis est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 26. On the peace of the people estranged from God, which the people of God uses for piety while it is a pilgrim in this world.

Therefore, as the soul is the life of the flesh, so God is the happy life of man, of whom the sacred writings of the Hebrews say: “Happy is the people whose God is the Lord.” Wretched, then, is the people estranged from that God. Yet even it loves a certain peace of its own, not to be disapproved, which it will not indeed have at the end, because it does not use it well before the end. But that it should have it meanwhile in this life is in our interest too; since, as long as the two cities are mingled, we too use the peace of Babylon; from which the people of God is so freed through faith that meanwhile it is a pilgrim alongside it. For this reason the apostle too admonished the church to pray for its kings and those in high places, adding and saying: “that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all piety and love”; and the prophet Jeremiah, when he foretold captivity to the ancient people of God and by divine command bade them go obediently into Babylonia, serving their God even by this patience, himself also admonished them to pray for it, saying: “For in its peace is your peace”; certainly the temporal peace for the meantime, which is common to good and bad.

### Scripture references

- Ps 144:15 (143:15 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- 1 Tim 2:1: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Tim 2:2: quotation, high confidence
- Jer 29:7 (36:7 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The psalm is Ps 144:15 (LXX 143:15). 1 Tim 2:2 is quoted in an Old Latin form (“love” for “honesty”). Jer 29:7 is LXX 36:7.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.26 (CSEL 40:420–421; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-23/#p-19-26).

## City of God 19.27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-23/#p-19-27
- Source: CSEL 40:421–423
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine says that in this life the peace and righteousness of the saints consist more in the forgiveness of sins than in perfect virtue, as the Lord's Prayer shows, while in the final peace God will rule the whole person without conflict.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVII. De pace seruientium Deo, cuius perfecta tranquillitas in hac temporali uita non potest adprehendi. Pax autem nostra propria et hic est cum Deo per fidem et in aeternum erit cum illo per speciem. Sed hic siue illa communis siue nostra propria talis est pax, ut solacium miseriae sit potius quam beatitudinis gaudium. Ipsa quoque nostra iustitia, quamuis uera sit propter uerum boni finem, ad quem refertur, tamen tanta est in hac uita, ut potius remissione peccatorum constet quam perfectione uirtutum. Testis est oratio totius ciuitatis Dei, quae peregrinatur in terris. Per omnia quippe membra sua clamat ad Deum: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Nec pro eis est efficax haec oratio, quorum fides sine operibus mortua est; sed pro eis, quorum fides per dilectionem operatur. Quia enim Deo quidem subdita, in hac tamen condicione mortali et corpore corruptibili, quod adgrauat animam, non perfecte uitiis imperat ratio, ideo necessaria est iustis talis oratio. Nam profecto quamquam imperetur, nequaquam sine conflictu uitiis imperatur; et utique subrepit aliquid in hoc loco infirmitatis etiam bene confligenti siue hostibus talibus uictis subditisque dominanti, unde si non facili operatione, certe labili locutione aut uolatili cogitatione peccetur. Et ideo, quamdiu uitiis imperatur, plena pax non est, quia et illa, quae resistunt, periculoso debellantur proelio, et illa, quae uicta sunt, nondum securo triumphantur otio, sed adhuc sollicito premuntur imperio. In his ergo tentationibus, de quibus omnibus in diuinis eloquiis breuiter dictum est: Numquid non tentatio est uita humana super terram? quis ita uiuere se praesumat, ut dicere Deo: Dimitte nobis debita nostra necesse non habeat nisi homo elatus? nec uero magnus, sed inflatus ac tumidus, cui per iustitiam resistit, qui gratiam largitur humilibus. Propter quod scriptum est: Deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam. Hic itaque in unoquoque iustitia est. ut oboedienti Deus homini, animus corpori, ratio autem uitiis etiam repugnantibus imperet, uel subigendo uel resistendo, adque ut ab ipso Deo petatur et meritorum gratia et uenia delictorum ac de acceptis bonis gratiarum actio persoluatur. In illa uero pace finali, quo referenda et cuius adipiscendae causa habenda est ista iustitia, quoniam sanata inmortalitate adque incorruptione natura uitia non habebit nec unicuique nostrum uel ab alio uel a se ipso quippiam repugnabit, non opus erit ut ratio uitiis, quae nulla erunt, imperet; sed imperabit Deus homini, animus corpori, tantaque ibi erit oboediendi suauitas et facilitas, quanta uiuendi regnandique felicitas. Et hoc illic in omnibus adque in singulis aeternum erit aeternumque esse certum erit, et ideo pax beatitudinis huius uel beatitudo pacis huius summum bonum erit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 27. On the peace of those who serve God, whose perfect tranquillity cannot be attained in this temporal life.

But our own peace is both here with God through faith and will be for eternity with him through sight. But here, whether that common peace or our own, it is such a peace as to be a solace of misery rather than the joy of happiness. Our very righteousness too, though it is true because of the true end of good to which it is referred, is yet so small in this life that it consists rather in the forgiveness of sins than in the perfection of virtues. The prayer of the whole city of God, which is a pilgrim on earth, is witness. For through all its members it cries to God: “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.” Nor is this prayer effective for those whose faith is dead without works, but for those whose faith works through love. For because reason, though subject to God, yet in this mortal condition and in the corruptible body, which weighs down the soul, does not perfectly rule the vices, therefore such a prayer is necessary for the righteous. For certainly, though they are ruled, the vices are by no means ruled without conflict; and indeed in this place of weakness something creeps in even on him who fights well, or who rules over such enemies when they are conquered and subdued, by which, if not by easy deed, then certainly by a slip of speech or a fleeting thought, one sins. And therefore, as long as the vices are being ruled, there is no full peace, because both those that resist are conquered in a dangerous battle, and those that have been conquered are not yet triumphed over in secure leisure, but are still held down by an anxious rule. In these temptations, then, of all of which it is briefly said in the divine words, “Is not human life on earth a temptation?” who would presume to live so that he has no need to say to God, “Forgive us our debts,” except a proud man? Not a great man, but one puffed up and swollen, whom he justly resists who gives grace to the humble. For this reason it is written: “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

Here, then, righteousness in each one is this: that God rules the obedient man, the mind the body, and reason the vices, even when they resist, either by subduing or by resisting them; and that from God himself are sought both the grace of merits and the pardon of offences, and thanks are rendered for the goods received. But in that final peace, to which this righteousness is to be referred and for the attaining of which it is to be had, since our nature, healed by immortality and incorruption, will have no vices, and nothing will resist any of us either from another or from himself, there will be no need for reason to rule the vices, which will not exist; but God will rule man, the mind the body, and there will be as great a sweetness and ease in obeying as happiness in living and reigning. And this will be eternal there in all and in each, and it will be certain that it is eternal; and therefore the peace of this happiness, or the happiness of this peace, will be the supreme good.

### Scripture references

- 2 Cor 5:7: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 6:12: quotation, high confidence
- Jas 2:17: allusion, high confidence
- Jas 2:26: allusion, high confidence
- Gal 5:6: allusion, high confidence
- Job 7:1: quotation, high confidence
- Jas 4:6: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Pet 5:5: quotation, high confidence
- Prov 3:34: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 9:15 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- “The corruptible body, which weighs down the soul” is Wis 9:15. “Is not human life on earth a temptation?” is Job 7:1 in the LXX-based Old Latin.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.27 (CSEL 40:421–423; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-23/#p-19-27).

## City of God 19.28

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-23/#p-19-28
- Source: CSEL 40:423–424
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine describes the end of the wicked as the second death, an unending war between will and passion and between pain and bodily nature, and announces that the next book will treat the last judgment.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIII. In quem finem uenturus sit exitus inpiorum. Eorum autem, qui non pertinent ad istam ciuitatem Dei, erit e contrario miseria sempiterna, quae mors etiam secunda dicitur, quia nec anima ibi uiuere dicenda est, quae a uita Dei alienata erit, nec corpus, quod aeternis doloribus subiacebit; ac per hoc ideo durior ista secunda mors erit, quia finiri morte non poterit. Sed quoniam sicut miseria beatitudini et mors uitae, ita bellum paci uidetur esse contrarium: merito quaeritur, sicut pax in bonorum finibus praedicata est adque laudata, quod uel quale bellum e contrario in finibus malorum possit intellegi. Verum qui hoc quaerit, adtendat quid in bello noxium perniciosumque sit, et uidebit nihil aliud quam rerum esse inter se aduersitatem adque conflictum. Quod igitur bellum grauius et amarius cogitari potest, quam ubi uoluntas sic aduersa est passioni et passio uoluntati, ut nullius earum uictoria tales inimicitiae finiantur, et ubi sic confligit cum ipsa natura corporis uis doloris, ut neutrum alteri cedat? Hic enim quando contingit iste conflictus, aut dolor uincit et sensum mors adimit, aut natura uincit et dolorem sanitas tollit. Ibi autem et dolor permanet ut adfligat, et natura perdurat ut sentiat; quia utrumque ideo non deficit, ne poena deficiat. Ad hos autem fines bonorum et malorum, illos expetendos, istos cauendos, quoniam per iudicium transibunt ad illos boni, ad istos mali: de hoc iudicio, quantum Deus donauerit, in consequenti uolumine disputabo.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 28. To what end the outcome of the ungodly will come.

But for those who do not belong to this city of God there will be, on the contrary, everlasting misery, which is also called the second death, because neither can the soul be said to live there, which will be estranged from the life of God, nor the body, which will be subject to eternal pains; and therefore this second death will be the harder because it cannot be ended by death. But since, as misery is contrary to happiness and death to life, so war seems to be contrary to peace, it is rightly asked, as peace has been proclaimed and praised as the end of the good, what war, or what kind of war, can be understood on the contrary as the end of the evil. But let him who asks this consider what is harmful and destructive in war, and he will see that it is nothing other than the opposition and conflict of things with one another. What war, then, can be thought more grievous and bitter than where the will is so opposed to passion and passion to the will that their hostility is ended by the victory of neither, and where the force of pain so conflicts with the very nature of the body that neither yields to the other? For here, when this conflict happens, either pain conquers and death takes away feeling, or nature conquers and health removes the pain. But there pain remains to afflict, and nature endures to feel; for neither fails, lest the punishment fail. But these ends of goods and evils, the former to be sought and the latter to be avoided, since through judgment the good will pass to the former and the evil to the latter, I shall discuss this judgment, as far as God grants, in the following book.

### Scripture references

- Rev 20:14: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 21:8: allusion, high confidence
- Eph 4:18: allusion, medium confidence

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 19.28 (CSEL 40:423–424; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-23/#p-19-28).

## City of God 20.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-23/#p-20-1
- Source: CSEL 40:424–426
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that God always judges, but this book concerns the final judgment, when Christ comes to judge the living and the dead.

### Latin text

Quod, quamuis omni tempore Deus iudicet, in hoc tamen libro de nouissimo eius iudicio sit proprie disputandum. De die ultimi iudicii Dei quod ipse donauerit locuturi eumque adserturi aduersus inpios et incredulos tamquam in aedificii fundamento prius ponere testimonia diuina debemus: quibus qui nolunt credere, humanis ratiunculis falsis adque fallacibus contrauenire conantur, ad hoc ut aut aliud significare contendant quod adhibetur testimonium de litteris sacris, aut omnino diuinitus esse dictum negent. Nam nullum existimo esse mortalium, qui cum ea, sicut dicta sunt, intellexerit et a summo ac uero Deo per animas sanctas dicta esse crediderit, non eis cedat adque consentiat, siue id etiam ore fateatur siue aliquo uitio fateri erubescat aut metuat, uel etiam peruicacia simillima insaniae id, quod falsum esse nouit aut credit, [contra id, quod uerum esse nouit aut credit,] etiam contentiosissime defendere moliatur. Quod ergo in confessione ac professione tenet omnis ecclesia Dei ueri Christum de caelo esse uenturum ad uiuos ac mortuos iudicandos, hunc diuini iudicii ultimum diem dicimus, id est nouissimum tempus. Nam per quot dies hoc iudicium tendatur, incertum est; sed scripturarum more sanctarum diem poni solere pro tempore nemo, qui illas litteras quamlibet neglegenter legerit, nescit. Ideo autem, cum diem iudicii Dei dicimus, addimus ultimum uel nouissimum, quia et nunc iudicat et ab humani generis initio iudicauit dimittens de paradiso et a ligno uitae separans primos homines peccati magni perpetratores; immo etiam quando angelis peccantibus non pepercit, quorum princeps homines a se ipso subuersus inuidendo subuertit, procul dubio iudicauit; nec sine illius alto iustoque iudicio et in hoc aerio caelo et in terris et daemonum et hominum miserrima est uita, erroribus aerumnisque plenissima. Verum etsi nemo peccasset, non sine bono rectoque iudicio uniuersam rationalem creaturam perseuerantissime sibi suo Domino cohaerentem in aeterna beatitudine retineret. Iudicat etiam non solum uniuersaliter de genere daemonum adque hominum, ut miseri sint propter primorum meritum peccatorum; sed etiam de singulorum operibus propriis, quae gerunt arbitrio uoluntatis. Nam et daemones ne torqueantur precantur, nec utique iniuste uel parcitur eis uel pro sua quique inprobitate torquentur; et homines plerumque aperte, semper occulte, luunt pro suis factis diuinitus poenas siue in hac uita siue post mortem: quamuis nullus hominum agat recte, nisi diuino adiuuetur auxilio; nullus daemonum aut hominum agat inique, nisi diuino eodemque iustissimo iudicio permittatur. Sicut enim ait apostolus, non est iniquitas aput Deum; etiam sicut ipse alibi dicit, inscrutabilia sunt iudicia eius et inuestigabiles uiae eius. Non igitur in hoc libro de illis primis nec de istis mediis Dei iudiciis, sed de ipso nouissimo, quantum ipsi tribuerit, disputabo, quando Christus de caelo uenturus est uiuos iudicaturus et mortuos. Iste quippe dies iudicii proprie iam uocatur, eo quod nullus ibi erit inperitae querellae locus, quur iniustus ille sit felix et quur ille iustus infelix. Omnium namque tunc nonnisi bonorum uera et plena felicitas et omnium nonnisi malorum digna et summa infelicitas apparebit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. That, although God judges at all times, in this book the discussion is to be properly about his last judgment.

Since I am about to speak, so far as he himself grants, of the day of God's final judgment, and to assert it against the ungodly and the unbelieving, we must first lay down the divine testimonies, as the foundation of a building. Those who refuse to believe them try to oppose them with false and deceitful little human arguments, either contending that a testimony brought from the sacred writings means something else, or denying altogether that it was spoken by God. For I do not think there is any mortal who, having understood these testimonies as they were spoken and believed that they were spoken by the supreme and true God through holy souls, does not yield and assent to them, whether he also confesses it with his mouth, or is ashamed or afraid to confess it through some fault, or even, with a stubbornness very like madness, strives most contentiously to defend what he knows or believes to be false. What, then, the whole church of the true God holds in its confession and profession, that Christ will come from heaven to judge the living and the dead, this we call the last day of divine judgment, that is, the last time. For over how many days this judgment extends is uncertain; but no one who has read the holy Scriptures, however carelessly, is unaware that in their usage “day” is commonly put for “time.” And when we speak of the day of God's judgment, we add “last” or “final” because he judges now as well, and has judged from the beginning of the human race, when he sent the first human beings, the perpetrators of a great sin, out of paradise and cut them off from the tree of life. Indeed, when he did not spare the angels who sinned, whose prince, overthrown by himself, overthrew human beings out of envy, he undoubtedly judged; and it is not without his deep and just judgment that the life both of demons and of human beings, in this lower heaven of the air and on earth, is most wretched and full of errors and troubles. Yet even if no one had sinned, it would not have been without a good and right judgment that he kept the whole rational creation in eternal blessedness, cleaving most steadfastly to him as its Lord. He judges, moreover, not only the race of demons and of human beings as a whole, so that they are wretched because of the guilt of the first sins, but also the particular works of each, which they do by the choice of the will. For the demons too beg not to be tormented, and it is certainly not unjust either that they are spared or that each is tormented for his own wickedness; and human beings pay the penalty for their deeds by God's hand, often openly and always secretly, whether in this life or after death; although no human being acts rightly unless helped by divine aid, and no demon or human being acts wickedly unless permitted by the divine and likewise most just judgment. For, as the apostle says, “There is no injustice with God”; and as he says elsewhere, “His judgments are unsearchable and his ways past finding out.” In this book, then, I shall discuss, as far as he grants, neither those first judgments of God nor these intermediate ones, but the last one itself, when Christ is to come from heaven to judge the living and the dead. That day is properly called the day of judgment, because there will be no room there for the ignorant complaint why this unjust man is happy and why that just man is unhappy. For then the true and full happiness of none but the good, and the deserved and extreme unhappiness of none but the wicked, will be made plain.

### Scripture references

- Rom 9:14: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 11:33: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Pet 2:4: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 3:23: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Tim 4:1: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Romans 9:14; Romans 11:33. The creed's “to judge the living and the dead” echoes 2 Timothy 4:1 and 1 Peter 4:5. The editor deletes a repeated clause (“against what he knows or believes to be true”). The chapter headings are printed with the text in this edition and are translated with it.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.1 (CSEL 40:424–426; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-23/#p-20-1).

## City of God 20.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-23/#p-20-2
- Source: CSEL 40:426–428
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Although in this life good and evil fall on good and bad people without visible order, God's judgment is present and will be shown to be just on the last day.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. De uarietate rerum humanarum, cui non potest dici deesse iudicium Dei, quamuis neque at uestigari. Nunc autem et mala aequo animo ferre discimus, quae patiuntur et boni, et bona non magnipendere, quae adipiscuntur et mali; ac per hoc etiam in his rebus, in quibus non apparet diuina iustitia, salutaris est diuina doctrina. Nescimus enim quo iudicio Dei bonus ille sit pauper, malus ille sit diues; iste gaudeat, quem pro suis perditis moribus cruciari debuisse maeroribus arbitramur, contristetur ille, quem uita laudabilis gaudere debuisse persuadet; exeat de iudicio non solum inultus, uerum etiam damnatus innocens, aut iniquitate iudicis pressus aut falsis obrutus testimoniis, e contrario scelestus aduersarius eius non solum inpunitus, uerum etiam uindicatus insultet; inpius optime ualeat, pius languore tabescat; latrocinentur sanissimi iuuenes, et qui nec uerbo quemquam laedere potuerunt, diuersa morborum atrocitate adfligantur infantes; utilis rebus humanis inmatura morte rapiatur, et qui uidetur nec nasci debuisse, diutissime insuper uiuat; plenus criminibus sublimetur honoribus, et hominem sine querella tenebrae ignobilitatis abscondant, et cetera huius modi, quae quis colligit, quis enumerat? Quae si haberent in ipsa uelut absurditate constantiam, ut in hac uita, in qua homo, sicut sacer psalmus eloquitur, uanitati similis factus est et dies eius uelut umbra praetereunt, nonnisi mali adipiscerentur transitoria bona ista adque terrena, nec nisi boni talia paterentur mala: posset hoc referri ad iudicium iustum Dei siue etiam benignum, ut, qui non erant adsecuturi bona aeterna, quae faciunt beatos, temporalibus uel deciperentur pro malitia sua, uel pro Dei misericordia consolarentur bonis, et qui non erant passuri aeterna tormenta, temporalibus uel pro suis quibuscumque et quantuliscumque peccatis adfligerentur, uel propter inplendas uirtutes exercerentur malis. Nunc uero, quando non solum in malo sunt boni et in bono mali, quod uidetur iniustum, uerum etiam plerumque et malis mala eueniunt et bonis bona proueniunt: magis inscrutabilia fiunt iudicia Dei et inuestigabiles uiae eius. Quamuis ergo nesciamus quo iudicio Deus ista uel faciat uel fieri sinat, aput quem summa uirtus est et summa sapientia, summa iustitia, nulla infirmitas, nulla temeritas. nulla iniquitas: salubriter tamen discimus non magnipendere seu bona seu mala, quae uidemus esse bonis malisque communia, et illa bona quaerere, quae bonorum, adque illa mala maxime fugere, quae propria sunt malorum. Cum uero ad illud Dei iudicium uenerimus, cuius tempus iam proprie dies iudicii et aliquando dies Domini nuncupatur: non solum quaecumque tunc iudicabuntur, uerum etiam quaecumque ab initio iudicata et quaecumque usque ad illud tempus adhuc iudicanda sunt. apparebunt esse iustissima. Ubi hoc quoque manifestabitur, quam iusto iudicio Dei fiat, ut nunc tam multa ac paene omnia iusta iudicia Dei lateant sensus mentesque mortalium, cum tamen in hac re piorum fidem non lateat, iustum esse quod latet.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. On the variety of human affairs, in which God's judgment cannot be said to be lacking, although it cannot be traced.

At present, however, we learn to bear with equanimity the evils that the good also suffer, and not to set great store by the goods that the wicked also obtain; and so even in those matters in which divine justice does not appear, divine teaching is salutary. For we do not know by what judgment of God this good man is poor and that bad man rich; why this man rejoices, whom we think ought to have been tormented with griefs for his depraved conduct, and that man is saddened, whose praiseworthy life convinces us he ought to have rejoiced; why an innocent man leaves the court not only unavenged but even condemned, either crushed by the injustice of the judge or overwhelmed by false testimony, while on the other hand his wicked adversary exults not only unpunished but even vindicated; why the ungodly man enjoys excellent health and the godly wastes away in sickness; why young men in the best of health turn to robbery, and infants who could not injure anyone even with a word are afflicted with all kinds of cruel diseases; why a man useful to human affairs is carried off by an untimely death, and one who seems not even to have deserved to be born lives on for a very long time besides; why a man full of crimes is raised to honors, and the darkness of obscurity hides a man without reproach; and other things of this kind, which no one can gather or count. If these things had even a consistency in their very absurdity, so that in this life, in which, as the holy psalm says, “man has become like vanity, and his days pass away like a shadow,” none but the wicked obtained these passing and earthly goods, and none but the good suffered such evils, this could be referred to God's just, or even kindly, judgment: those who were not going to attain the eternal goods that make people blessed would be either deceived by temporal goods because of their malice or consoled by them through God's mercy; and those who were not going to suffer eternal torments would be either afflicted with temporal evils for their sins, whatever and however small, or exercised by them in order to perfect their virtues. But as it is, since not only are the good in evil circumstances and the wicked in good ones, which seems unjust, but very often evil befalls the wicked and good comes to the good, God's judgments become all the more unsearchable and his ways past finding out. Although, then, we do not know by what judgment God does these things or allows them to be done, God with whom is supreme power and supreme wisdom and supreme justice, no weakness, no rashness, no injustice, yet we learn for our salvation not to set great store by the goods or the evils which we see to be common to good and bad alike, and to seek those goods which belong to the good, and above all to flee those evils which are proper to the wicked. But when we come to that judgment of God, whose time is now properly called the day of judgment and sometimes the day of the Lord, not only whatever will be judged then, but also whatever has been judged from the beginning and whatever is still to be judged until that time, will be seen to be most just. There this too will be made plain: by how just a judgment of God it comes about that now so many, indeed almost all, of God's just judgments are hidden from the senses and minds of mortals, although in this matter it is not hidden from the faith of the godly that what is hidden is just.

### Scripture references

- Ps 144:4 (143:4 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 11:33: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Psalm 144:4 (LXX/Vulgate 143:4); Romans 11:33. The chapter heading as digitized reads “quamuis neque at uestigari”, probably for “quamuis nequeat inuestigari” (“although it cannot be traced”); translated by that sense.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.2 (CSEL 40:426–428; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/19-23/#p-20-2).

## City of God 20.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-3/#p-20-3
- Source: CSEL 40:428–430
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Ecclesiastes laments that the same things befall good and bad in this life, and ends by pointing to God's judgment of every work.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. Quid in libro ecclesiaste Salomon de his, quae in hac uita et bonis et malis sunt communia, disputarit. Nempe Salomon, sapientissimus rex Israel, qui regnauit in Hierusalem, librum, qui uocatur ecclesiastes et a Iudaeis quoque habetur in sacrarum canone litterarum, sic exorsus est: Vanitas uanitantium, dixit ecclesiastes; uanitas uanitantium, omnia uanitas. Quae abundantia homini in omni labore suo, quo laborat sub sole? Et cum ex hac sententia conecteret cetera, commemorans aerumnas erroresque uitae huius et uanescentes interea temporum lapsus, ubi nihil solidum, nihil stabile retinetur: in ea rerum uanitate sub sole illud etiam deplorat quodam. modo, quod, cum sit abundantia sapientiae super insipientiam, sicut abundantia lucis super tenebras, sapientisque oculi sint in capite ipsius et stultus in tenebris ambulet, unus tamen incursus incurrat omnibus, utique in hac uita quae sub sole agitur, significans uidelicet ea mala, quae bonis et malis uidemus esse communia. Dicit etiam illud, quod et boni patiantur mala, tamquam mali sint, et mali, tamquam boni sint, adipiscantur bona, ita loquens: Est, inquit, uanitas, quae facta est super terram, quia sunt iusti, super quos uenit sicut factum inpiorum, et sunt inpii super quos uenit sicut factum iustorum. Dixi quoniam hoc quoque uanitas. In hac uanitate, cui quantum satis uisum est intimandae totum istum librum uir sapientissimus deputauit (non utique ob aliud, nisi ut eam uitam desideremus, quae uanitatem non habet sub hoc sole, sed ueritatem sub illo qui fecit hunc solem), — in hac ergo uanitate numquid nisi iusto Dei rectoque iudicio similis eidem uanitati factus uanesceret homo? In diebus tamen uanitatis suae interest plurimum, utrum resistat an obtemperet ueritati, et utrum sit expers uerae pietatis an particeps; non propter uitae huius uel bona adquirenda uel mala uitanda uanescendo transeuntia, sed propter futurum iudicium, per quod erunt et bonis bona et malis mala sine fine mansura. Denique iste sapiens hunc librum sic conclusit, ut diceret: Deum time et mandata eius custodi, quia hoc est omnis homo; quia omne hoc opus Deus adducet in iudicium in omni despecto, siue bonum siue malum. Quid breuius, uerius, salubrius dici potuit? Deum, inquit, time et mandata eius custodi, quia hoc est omnis homo. Quicumque enim est, hoc est, custos utique mandatorum Dei; quoniam qui hoc non est, nihil est; non enim ad ueritatis imaginem reformatur, remanens in similitudine uanitatis. Quia omne hoc opus, id est, quod ab homine fit in hac uita, siue bonum siue malum, Deus adducet in iudicium in omni despecto, id est in omni etiam qui contemtibilis hic uidetur et ideo nec uidetur; quoniam Deus et ipsum uidet nec eum despicit nec cum iudicat praeterit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. What Solomon discussed in the book of Ecclesiastes about the things that are common to the good and the wicked in this life.

Solomon, the wisest king of Israel, who reigned in Jerusalem, began the book called Ecclesiastes, which the Jews too hold in the canon of the sacred writings, thus: “Vanity of vanities, said the Preacher; vanity of vanities, all is vanity. What advantage has a man in all his toil at which he toils under the sun?” And when he had joined the rest to this statement, recalling the troubles and errors of this life and the vanishing passage of time, in which nothing solid, nothing stable is held fast, among this vanity of things under the sun he also laments, in a way, that although wisdom has the advantage over folly as light has the advantage over darkness, and the wise man's eyes are in his head while the fool walks in darkness, yet one event befalls them all, namely in this life which is lived under the sun; meaning, of course, those evils which we see to be common to the good and the wicked. He says also that the good suffer evils as if they were wicked, and the wicked obtain goods as if they were good, speaking thus: “There is a vanity,” he says, “which is done upon the earth: that there are righteous men upon whom it comes as though according to the deeds of the ungodly, and there are ungodly men upon whom it comes as though according to the deeds of the righteous. I said that this also is vanity.” To make this vanity known, as far as seemed enough, this wisest of men devoted this whole book (certainly for no other reason than that we should long for that life which has no vanity under this sun, but truth under him who made this sun). In this vanity, then, would man, having become like that same vanity, be vanishing away, except by the just and right judgment of God? Yet in the days of his vanity it makes a very great difference whether he resists the truth or obeys it, and whether he is without true godliness or shares in it; not for the sake of gaining the goods or avoiding the evils of this life, which vanish as they pass, but for the sake of the future judgment, through which good things will remain for the good and evil things for the wicked without end. Finally, this wise man concluded this book by saying: “Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole man; for God will bring every work into judgment, with everything that is despised, whether good or evil.” What could be said more briefly, more truly, more salutarily? “Fear God,” he says, “and keep his commandments, for this is the whole man.” For whoever exists, this is what he is: a keeper of God's commandments; since whoever is not this is nothing, for he is not re-formed to the image of the truth but remains in the likeness of vanity. “For every work,” that is, whatever is done by man in this life, “whether good or evil, God will bring into judgment, with everything that is despised,” that is, even with every one who seems contemptible here and therefore is not even noticed; because God both sees him and does not despise him, nor passes him over when he judges.

### Scripture references

- Eccl 1:2–3: quotation, high confidence
- Eccl 2:13–14: allusion, high confidence
- Eccl 8:14: quotation, high confidence
- Eccl 12:13–14: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 144:4 (143:4 LXX): echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Ecclesiastes 1:2–3; 2:13–14; 8:14; 12:13–14, in the Old Latin wording Augustine uses (“in omni despecto”, “with everything despised”, where the Hebrew has “every hidden thing”). “This is the whole man” renders “hoc est omnis homo”.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.3 (CSEL 40:428–430; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-3/#p-20-3).

## City of God 20.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-3/#p-20-4
- Source: CSEL 40:430–431
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine will cite the New Testament first and then the Old, since the new come first in dignity.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. Quod ad disserendum de nouissimo iudicio Dei noui primum testamenti ac deinde ueteris testimonia prolaturus sit. Huius itaque ultimi iudicii Dei testimonia de scripturis sanctis, quae ponere institui, prius eligenda sunt de libris instrumenti noui, postea de ueteris. Quamuis enim uetera priora sint tempore, noua tamen anteponenda sunt dignitate, quoniam illa uetera praeconia sunt nouorum. Noua igitur ponentur prius, quae ut firmius probemus, adsumentur et uetera. In ueteribus habentur lex et prophetae, in nouis euangelium et apostolicae litterae. Ait autem apostolus: Per legem enim cognitio peccati. Nunc autem sine lege iustitia Dei manifestata est, testificata per legem et prophetas; iustitia autem Dei per fidem Iesu Christi in omnes qui credunt. Haec iustitia Dei ad nouum pertinet testamentum et testimonium habet a ueteribus libris, hoc est lege ac prophetis. Prius igitur ipsa causa ponenda est, et postea testes introducendi. Hunc et ipse Christus Iesus ordinem seruandum esse demonstrans: Scriba, inquit, eruditus in regno Dei similis est uiro patri familias proferenti de thesauro suo noua et uetera. Non dixit: Vetera et noua, quod utique dixisset, nisi maluisset meritorum ordinem seruare quam temporum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. That, in discussing God's last judgment, he will bring forward testimonies first from the New Testament and then from the Old.

The testimonies from the holy Scriptures concerning this last judgment of God, which I have undertaken to set down, are to be chosen first from the books of the New Testament and afterwards from those of the Old. For although the old come first in time, the new are to be put first in dignity, since the old are heralds of the new. The new, then, will be set down first, and to prove them more firmly the old will be brought in as well. In the old are the law and the prophets; in the new the gospel and the apostolic letters. Now the apostle says: “For through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, attested by the law and the prophets; the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.” This righteousness of God belongs to the New Testament and has testimony from the old books, that is, from the law and the prophets. First, then, the case itself must be stated, and afterwards the witnesses brought in. Christ Jesus himself showed that this order is to be kept when he said: “A scribe learned in the kingdom of God is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old.” He did not say “old and new,” as he certainly would have said had he not preferred to keep the order of worth rather than of time.

### Scripture references

- Rom 3:20–22: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 13:52: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Romans 3:20–22; Matthew 13:52 (Augustine's text reads “kingdom of God”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.4 (CSEL 40:430–431; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-3/#p-20-4).

## City of God 20.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-3/#p-20-5
- Source: CSEL 40:431–435
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine gathers Christ's sayings in the Gospels that foretell a judgment at the end of the age, with the resurrection of the dead and the separation of good and bad.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. Quibus sententiis Domini Saluatoris diuinum iudicium futurum in fine saeculi declaretur. Ergo ipse Saluator cum obiurgaret ciuitates, in quibus uirtutes magnas fecerat neque crediderant, et eis alienigenas anteponeret: Verum tamen, inquit, dico uobis, Tyro et Sidoni remissius erit in die iudicii quam uobis; et paulo post alteri ciuitati: Arnen, inquit, dico uobis, quia terrae Sodomorum remissius erit in die iudicii quam tibi (hic euidentissime praedicat diem iudicii esse uenturum); et alio loco: Viri Nineuitae, inquit, surgent in iudicio cum generatione ista et condemnabunt eam; quia paenitentiam egerunt in praedicatione Ionae, et ecce plus quam Iona hic. Regina Austri surget in iudicio cum generatione ista et condemnabit eam; quia uenit a finibus terrae audire sapientiam Salomonis, et ecce plus quam Salomon hic. Duas res hoc loco discimus, et uenturum esse iudicium et cum mortuorum resurrectione uenturum. De Nineuitis enim et regina Austri quando ista dicebat, de mortuis sine dubio loquebatur, quos tamen in die iudicii resurrecturos esse praedixit. Nec ideo dixit: Condemnabunt, quia ipsi iudicabunt; sed quia ex ipsorum conparatione isti merito damnabuntur. Rursus alio loco, cum de hominum bonorum et malorum nunc permixtione, postea separatione, quae utique die iudicii futura est, loqueretur, adhibuit similitudinem de tritico seminato et superseminatis zizaniis, eamque suis exponens discipulis: Qui seminat, inquit, bonum semen, est filius hominis; ager autem est mundus: bonum uero semen hi sunt filii regni; zizania autem filii sunt nequam; inimicus autem, qui seminauit ea, est diabolus; messis uero consummatio saeculi est, messores autem angeli sunt. Sicut ergo colliguntur zizania et igni comburuntur: sic erit in consummatione saeculi. Mittet filius hominis angelos suos, et colligunt de regno eius omnia scandala et eos, qui faciunt iniquitatem, et mittunt eos in caminum ignis; ibi erit fletus et stridor dentium. Tunc iusti fulgebunt sicut sol in regno patris eorum. Qui habet aures, audiat. Hic iudicium quidem uel diem iudicii non nominauit, sed eum multo clarius ipsis rebus expressit et in fine saeculi futurum esse praedixit. Item discipulis suis: Arnen, inquit, dico uobis, quod uos, qui secuti estis me, in regeneratione, cum sederit filius hominis in sede maiestatis suae, sedebitis et uos super sedes duodecim iudicantes duodecim tribus Israel. Hic discimus cum suis discipulis iudicaturum Iesum. Unde et alibi Iudaeis dixit: Si ego in Beelzebub eicio daemonia, filii uestri in quo eiciunt? Ideo ipsi iudices erunt uestri. Nec quoniam super duodecim sedes sessuros esse ait, duodecim solos homines cum illo iudicaturos putare debemus. Duodenario quippe. numero uniuersa quaedam significata est iudicantium multitudo propter duas partes numeri septenarii, quo significatur plerumque uniuersitas; quae duae partes, id est tria et quattuor, altera per alteram multiplicatae duodecim faciunt, nam et quattuor ter et tria quater duodecim sunt, et si qua alia huius duodenarii numeri, quae ad hoc ualeat, ratio reperitur. Alioquin, quoniam in locum Iudae traditoris apostolum Matthiam legimus ordinatum, apostolus Paulus, qui plus omnibus illis laborauit, ubi ad iudicandum sedeat non habebit; qui profecto cum aliis sanctis ad numerum iudicum se pertinere demonstrat. cum dicit: Nescitis quia angelos iudicabimus? De ipsis quoque iudicandis in hoc numero duodenario similis causa est. Non enim quia dictum est: Iudicantes duodecim tribus Israel, tribus Leui, quae tertia decima est, ab eis iudicanda non erit, aut solum illum populum, non etiam gentes cet.eras indicabunt. Quod autem ait: In regeneratione, procul dubio mortuorum resurrectionem nomine uoluit regenerationis intellegi. Sic enim caro nostra regenerabitur per incorruptionem, quem ad modum est anima nostra regenerata per fidem.- Multa praetereo, quae de ultimo iudicio ita dici uidentur, ut diligenter considerata reperiantur ambigua uel magis ad aliud pertinentia, siue scilicet ad eum Saluatoris aduentum, quo per totum hoc tempus in ecclesia sua uenit, hoc est in membris suis, particulatim adque paulatim, quoniam tota corpus est eius; siue ad excidium terrenae Hierusalem; quia et de illo cum loquitur, plerumque sic loquitur, tamquam de fine saeculi adque illo die iudicii nouissimo et magno loquatur; ita ut dignosci non possit omnino, nisi ea, quae aput tres euangelistas Matthaeum, Marcum et Lucam de hac re similiter dicta sunt, inter se omnia conferantur. Quaedam quippe alter obscurius, alter explicat planius, ut ea, quae ad unam rem pertinentia dicuntur, appareat unde dicantur. Quod facere utcumque curaui in quadam epistula, quam rescripsi ad beatae memoriae uirum Hesychium, Salonitanae urbis episcopum, cuius epistulae titulus est: De fine saeculi. Proinde iam illud hic dicam, quod in euangelio secundum Matthaeum de. separatione bonorum et malorum legitur per iudicium praesentissimum adque nouissimum Christi. Cum autem uenerit, inquit, filius hominis in maiestate sua, et omnes angeli cum eo, tunc sedebit super sedem maiestatis suae, et congregabuntur ante eum omnes gentes, et separabit eos ab inuicem. sicut pastor segregat oues ab haedis, et statuet oues quidem a dextris suis, haedos autem a sinistris. Tunc dicet rex his, qui a dextris eius erunt: Venite, benedicti patris mei, possidete paratum uobis regnum a constitutione mundi. Esuriui enim, et dedistis mihi manducare; sitiui, et dedistis mihi bibere; hospes eram, et collegistis me; nudus. et operuistis me; [infirmus, et uisitastis me] in carcere eram, et uenistis ad me. Tunc respondebunt ei iusti dicentes: Domine, quando te uidimus esurientem, et pauimus; sitientem, et dedimus potum? Quando autem te uidimus hospitem. et collegimus te; aut nudum, et cooperuimus te? Aut quando te uidimus infirmum aut in carcere, et uenimus ad te? Et respondens rex dicet illis: Arnen dico uobis, quamdiu fecistis uni de his fratribus meis minimis, mihi fecistis. Tunc dicet, inquit, et his qui a sinistris erunt: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius. Deinde similiter etiam his enumerat, quod illa non fecerint, quae dextros fecisse memorauit. Similiterque interrogantibus, quando eum uiderint in horum indigentia constitutum: quod minimis suis non factum est, sibi factum non fuisse respondet; sermonemque concludens: Et ibunt, inquit, hi in supplicium aeternum, iusti autem in uitam aeternam. Iohannes uero euangelista apertissime narrat eum in resurrectione mortuorum futurum praedixisse iudicium. Cum enim dixisset: Neque enim Pater iudicat quemquam, sed iudicium omne dedit Filio, ut omnes honorificent Filium, sicut honorificant Patrem; qui non honorificat Filium, non honorificat Patrem, qui misit illum: protinus addidit: Amen, amen dico uobis, quia, qui uerbum meum audit et credit ei qui misit me, habet uitam aeternam, et in iudicium non uenit, sed transiit a morte in uitam. Ecce hic dixit fideles suos in iudicium non uenire. Quo modo ergo per iudicium separabuntur a malis et ad eius dexteram stabunt, nisi quia hoc loco iudicium pro damnatione posuit? In tale quippe iudicium non uenient, qui audiunt uerbum eius et credunt ei, qui misit illum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. By which sayings of the Lord the Savior the divine judgment to come at the end of the world is declared.

The Savior himself, then, when he was rebuking the cities in which he had done great miracles and which had not believed, and was preferring foreigners to them, said: “But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you”; and a little later, to another city: “Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.” Here he most plainly foretells that the day of judgment is to come. And in another place he says: “The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.” We learn two things in this passage: that the judgment will come, and that it will come with the resurrection of the dead. For when he said this of the Ninevites and the queen of the South, he was without doubt speaking of the dead, and yet he foretold that they would rise on the day of judgment. Nor did he say “they will condemn” because they will themselves judge, but because by comparison with them these will deservedly be condemned. Again, in another place, when he was speaking of the present mixture of good and bad people and their later separation, which will certainly take place on the day of judgment, he used the comparison of the wheat that was sown and the weeds sown on top of it, and explained it to his disciples: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; the field is the world; the good seed are the sons of the kingdom; the weeds are the sons of the evil one; the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. As the weeds, then, are gathered and burned with fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and those who do iniquity, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.” Here he did not name the judgment or the day of judgment, but he expressed it much more clearly by the facts themselves, and foretold that it would be at the end of the age. Likewise he said to his disciples: “Truly I tell you, that you who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of his majesty, you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Here we learn that Jesus will judge together with his disciples. Hence he said elsewhere to the Jews: “If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges.” Nor, because he says they will sit on twelve thrones, should we think that only twelve men will judge with him. By the number twelve is signified the whole multitude, as it were, of those who judge, because of the two parts of the number seven, by which totality is generally signified; these two parts, three and four, multiplied one by the other, make twelve, for four threes and three fours are twelve; and there may be some other reason for this number twelve that serves the purpose. Otherwise, since we read that the apostle Matthias was ordained in place of Judas the betrayer, the apostle Paul, who labored more than all of them, will have nowhere to sit to judge; yet he plainly shows that he belongs with the other saints to the number of the judges when he says: “Do you not know that we shall judge angels?” There is a similar reason for this number twelve with respect to those who are to be judged. For it does not follow, because it was said “judging the twelve tribes of Israel,” that the tribe of Levi, which is the thirteenth, will not be judged by them, or that they will judge only that people and not the other nations as well. And by “in the regeneration” he undoubtedly meant the resurrection of the dead to be understood under the name of regeneration. For so our flesh will be regenerated through incorruption, just as our soul has been regenerated through faith.

I pass over many things which seem to be said of the last judgment in such a way that, on careful consideration, they are found to be ambiguous or rather to refer to something else: either to that coming of the Savior by which he comes throughout this whole time in his church, that is, in his members, bit by bit and little by little, since the whole church is his body; or to the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem. For when he speaks of that too, he often speaks as if he were speaking of the end of the world and that last and great day of judgment, so that it cannot be distinguished at all unless everything said in similar terms on this subject by the three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is compared together. For one of them says some things more obscurely, another explains them more plainly, so that what is said about one subject may be seen to refer to what it does. I took some pains to do this in a letter which I wrote in reply to Hesychius of blessed memory, bishop of the city of Salona; the title of that letter is On the End of the World. So here I shall now give what is read in the Gospel according to Matthew about the separation of the good and the wicked through the most immediate and last judgment of Christ: “When the Son of Man comes in his majesty,” he says, “and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his majesty, and all nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate them from one another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will set the sheep at his right hand and the goats at his left. Then the King will say to those at his right: ‘Come, you blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; naked, and you clothed me; I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and fed you, thirsty and gave you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and took you in, or naked and clothed you? Or when did we see you sick or in prison and came to you?’ And the King will answer and say to them: ‘Truly I tell you, as long as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ Then he will say,” he says, “also to those who will be on the left: ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.’” Then he likewise lists to these that they did not do the things he recalled the ones on the right had done; and likewise, when they ask when they saw him in need of these things, he answers that what was not done to his least ones was not done to him; and, concluding his discourse, he says: “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” John the evangelist, however, relates most openly that he foretold that the judgment would take place at the resurrection of the dead. For when he had said: “For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son as they honor the Father; he who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him,” he immediately added: “Truly, truly I tell you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.” See, here he said that his faithful do not come into judgment. How, then, will they be separated from the wicked by the judgment and stand at his right hand, unless in this place he used “judgment” for condemnation? For those who hear his word and believe him who sent him will not come into that kind of judgment.

### Scripture references

- Matt 11:22: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 11:24: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 12:41–42: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 13:37–43: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 19:28: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 12:27: quotation, high confidence
- Acts 1:26: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:10: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 6:3: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 25:31–46: quotation, high confidence
- John 5:22–24: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Matthew 11:22, 24; 12:41–42; 13:37–43; 19:28; 12:27; 25:31–46; John 5:22–24; 1 Corinthians 6:3; Acts 1:26; 1 Corinthians 15:10. The letter to Hesychius is Augustine's Letter 199. In the quotation of Matthew 25:35–36 the editor deletes “I was sick and you visited me”, although the question in 25:39 (“sick or in prison”) is kept. In Matthew 25:31 “majesty” renders “maiestas”.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.5 (CSEL 40:431–435; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-3/#p-20-5).

## City of God 20.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-3/#p-20-6
- Source: CSEL 40:435–439
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The first resurrection is the present raising of souls from sin through faith; the second is the raising of bodies at the end, to life or to condemnation.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. Quae sit prima resurrectio, quae secunda. Deinde adiungit et dicit: Amen, amen dico uobis, quia uenit hora et nunc est, quando mortui audient uocem filii Dei, et qui audierint uiuent. Sicut enim Pater habet uitam in semet ipso, sic dedit et Filio habere uitam in semet ipso. Nondum de secunda resurrectione, id est corporum, loquitur, quae in fine futura est, sed de prima, quae nunc est. Hanc quippe ut distingueret, ait: Venit hora, et nunc est. Non autem ista corporum, sed animarum est. Habent enim et animae mortem suam in inpietate adque peccatis, secundum quam mortem mortui sunt, de quibus idem Dominus ait: Sine mortuos sepelire mortuos suos; ut scilicet in anima mortui in corpore mortuos sepelirent. Propter istos ergo inpietate et iniquitate in anima mortuos: Venit, inquit, hora, et nunc est, quando mortui audient uocem filii Dei; et qui audierint, uiuent. Qui audierint dixit qui oboedierint, qui crediderint et usque in finem perseuerauerint. Nec fecit hic ullam differentiam bonorum et malorum. Omnibus enim bonum est audire uocem eius et uiuere ad uitam pietatis ex inpietatis morte transeundo. De qua morte ait apostolus Paulus: Ergo omnes mortui sunt, et pro omnibus mortuus est, ut qui uiuunt iam non sibi uiuant, sed ei, qui pro ipsis mortuus est et resurrexit. Omnes itaque mortui sunt in peccatis, nemine prorsus excepto, siue originalibus siue etiam uoluntate additis, uel ignorando uel sciendo nec faciendo quod iustum est; et pro omnibus mortuis uiuus mortuus est unus, id est nullum habens omnino peccatum; ut, qui per remissionem peccatorum uiuunt, iam non sibi uiuant, sed ei, qui pro omnibus mortuus est propter peccata nostra et resurrexit propter iustificationem nostram, ut credentes in eum, qui iustificat inpium, ex inpietate iustificati, tamquam ex morte uiuificati, ad primam resurrectionem, quae nunc est, pertinere possimus. Ad hanc enim primam non pertinent, nisi qui beati erunt in aeternum; ad secundam uero, de qua mox locuturus est, et beatos pertinere docebit et miseros. Ista est misericordiae, illa iudicii. Propter quod in psalmo scriptum est: Misericordiam et iudicium cantabo tibi, Domine. De quo iudicio consequenter adiunxit adque ait: Et potestatem dedit ei iudicium facere, quia filius hominis est. Hic ostendit, quod in ea carne ueniet iudicaturus, in qua uenerat iudicandus. Ad hoc enim ait: Quoniam filius hominis est. Ac deinde subiungens unde agimus: Nolite, inquit, mirari hoc, quia ueniet hora, in qua omnes, qui in monumentis sunt, audient uocem eius et procedent, qui bona fecerunt, in resurrectionem uitae; qui uero mala egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii. Hoc est illud iudicium, quod paulo ante, sicut nunc, pro damnatione posuerat dicens: Qui uerbum meum audit et credit ei qui misit me, habet uitam aeternam et in iudicium non uenit, sed transiit a morte in uitam, id est, pertinendo ad primam resurrectionem, qua nunc transitur a morte ad uitam, in damnationem non ueniet, quam significauit appellatione iudicii, sicut etiam hoc loco, ubi ait: Qui [uero] mala egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii, id est damnationis. Resurgat ergo in prima, qui non uult in secunda resurrectione damnari. Venit enim hora, et nunc est, quando mortui audient uocem filii Dei, et qui audierint, uiuent, id est, in damnationem non uenient, quae secunda mors dicitur: in quam mortem post secundam, quae corporum futura est, resurrectionem praecipitabuntur, qui in prima, quae animarum est, non resurgunt. Veniet enim hora (ubi non ait: Et nunc est, quia in fine erit saeculi, hoc est in ultimo et maximo iudicio Dei), quando omnes, qui in monumentis sunt, audient uocem eius et procedent. Non dixit quem ad modum in prima: Et qui audierint, uiuent. Non enim omnes uiuent, ea uita scilicet, quae, quoniam beata est, sola uita dicenda est. Nam utique non sine qualicumque uita possent audire et de monumentis resurgente carne procedere. Quare autem non omnes uiuent, in eo quod sequitur docet; qui bona, inquit, fecerunt, in resurrectionem uitae, hi sunt qui uiuent; qui uero mala egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii, hi sunt qui non uiuent, quia secunda morte morientur. Mala quippe egerunt, quoniam male uixerunt; male autem uixerunt, quia in prima, quae nunc est, animarum resurrectione non reuixerunt aut in eo, quod reuixerant, non in finem usque manserunt. Sicut ergo duae sunt regenerationes, de quibus iam supra locutus sum, una secundum fidem, quae nunc fit per baptismum; alia secundum carnem, quae fit in eius incorruptione adque inmortalitate per iudicium magnum adque nouissimum: ita sunt et resurrectiones duae, una prima, quae et nunc est et animarum est, quae uenire non permittit in mortem secundam; alia secunda, quae non nunc, sed in saeculi fine futura est, nec animarum, sed corporum est, quae per ultimum iudicium alios mittet in secundam mortem, alios in eam uitam, quae non habet mortem.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. What the first resurrection is, and what the second.

Then he goes on and says: “Truly, truly I tell you, the hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” He is not yet speaking of the second resurrection, that is, of bodies, which will be at the end, but of the first, which is now. To distinguish it he says: “The hour is coming, and now is.” This resurrection is not of bodies but of souls. For souls too have their own death, in ungodliness and sins; according to this death those were dead of whom the same Lord says: “Let the dead bury their own dead,” that is, let those who are dead in soul bury those who are dead in body. It is for these, then, who are dead in soul through ungodliness and iniquity, that he says: “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.” “Those who hear” he said, meaning those who obey, who believe, and who persevere to the end. Nor did he make any difference here between the good and the wicked. For it is good for all to hear his voice and to live, passing from the death of ungodliness to the life of godliness. Of this death the apostle Paul says: “Therefore all have died, and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and rose again.” All, then, have died in sins, with absolutely no one excepted, whether in original sins or in sins added by the will as well, whether through ignorance or through knowing and not doing what is right; and for all the dead one living man died, that is, one who had no sin at all; so that those who live through the forgiveness of sins might no longer live for themselves but for him who died for all because of our sins and rose again for our justification, so that we, believing in him who justifies the ungodly, justified from ungodliness as if brought to life from death, may be able to belong to the first resurrection, which is now. For none belong to this first resurrection except those who will be blessed for ever; but to the second, of which he will speak presently, he will teach that both the blessed and the wretched belong. The one is of mercy, the other of judgment. That is why it is written in the psalm: “Of mercy and judgment I will sing to you, O Lord.” Of this judgment he went on to say: “And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.” Here he shows that he will come to judge in the flesh in which he had come to be judged. For that is why he says: “Because he is the Son of Man.” And then, adding what we are dealing with, he says: “Do not marvel at this, for the hour is coming in which all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, but those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” This is the judgment which a little before, as now, he had used for condemnation, saying: “He who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and does not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life”; that is, by belonging to the first resurrection, by which one now passes from death to life, he will not come into condemnation, which he signified by the name of judgment, as also in this place where he says: “Those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment,” that is, of condemnation. Let him rise, then, in the first resurrection who does not wish to be condemned in the second. For “the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live,” that is, they will not come into condemnation, which is called the second death; into this death, after the second resurrection, which will be of bodies, those will be hurled who do not rise in the first, which is of souls. For “the hour is coming” (here he does not say “and now is,” because it will be at the end of the world, that is, in God's last and greatest judgment) “when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth.” He did not say, as of the first, “and those who hear will live.” For not all will live, with that life, that is, which alone deserves to be called life because it is blessed. For they certainly could not hear and come forth from the tombs with their flesh rising without some kind of life. Why not all will live he teaches in what follows: “Those who have done good to the resurrection of life”: these are those who will live; “but those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment”: these are those who will not live, because they will die the second death. They have done evil because they have lived evilly; and they have lived evilly because they did not come to life again in the first resurrection, the resurrection of souls, which is now, or did not remain to the end in the life to which they had come again. As, then, there are two regenerations, of which I spoke above, one according to faith, which takes place now through baptism, the other according to the flesh, which takes place in its incorruption and immortality through the great and last judgment, so there are also two resurrections: the first, which is now and is of souls, and which does not allow one to come into the second death; the other, the second, which is not now but will be at the end of the world, and is not of souls but of bodies, and which through the last judgment will send some into the second death and others into that life which has no death.

### Scripture references

- John 5:25–29: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 8:22: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:14–15: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 4:25: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 4:5: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 101:1 (100:1 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- John 5:24: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 20:6: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- John 5:25–29; Matthew 8:22; 2 Corinthians 5:14–15; Romans 4:25; 4:5; Psalm 101:1 (LXX/Vulgate 100:1); Revelation 20:6, 14 (“second death”). The editor deletes “uero” in the repeated quotation of John 5:29 (no change in sense). Augustine's first resurrection of souls prepares his reading of Revelation 20 in the next chapter.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.6 (CSEL 40:435–439; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-3/#p-20-6).

## City of God 20.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-3/#p-20-7
- Source: CSEL 40:439–444
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine rejects a literal, carnal reading of the thousand years of Revelation 20 and explains the binding of the devil as the restraint of his power over the church during the present age.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. De duabus resurrectionibus et de mille annis quid in apocalypsi Iohannis scriptum sit et quid de eis rationabiliter sentiatur. De his duabus resurrectionibus idem Iohannes euangelista in libro, qui dicitur apocalypsis, eo modo locutus est, ut earum prima a quibusdam nostris non intellecta insuper etiam in quasdam ridiculas fabulas uerteretur. Ait quippe in libro memorato Iohannes apostolus: Et uidi angelum descendentem de caelo, habentem clauem abyssi et catenam in manu sua. Et tenuit draconem illum serpentem antiquum, qui cognominatus est diabolus et satanas; [et] adligauit illum mille annis et misit illum in abyssum; et clausit et signauit super eum, ut non seduceret iam gentes, donec finiantur mille anni; post haec oportet eum solui breui tempore. Et uidi sedes et sedentes super eas, et iudicium datum est. Et animae occisorum propter testimonium Iesu et propter uerbum Dei, et si qui non adorauerunt bestiam nec imaginem eius, neque acceperunt inscriptionem in fronte aut in manu sua, et regnauerunt cum Iesu mille annis; reliqui eorum non uixerunt, donec finiantur mille anni. Haec resurrectio prima est. Beatus et sanctus est, qui habet in hac prima resurrectione partem. In istis secunda mors non habet potestatem; sed erunt sacerdotes Dei et Christi et regnabunt cum eo mille annis. Qui propter haec huius libri uerba primam resurrectionem futuram suspicati sunt corporalem, inter cetera maxime numero annorum mille permoti sunt, tamquam oporteret in sanctis eo modo uelut tanti temporis fieri sabbatismum, uacatione scilicet sancta post labores annorum sex milium, ex quo creatus est homo et magni illius peccati merito in huius mortalitatis aerumnas de paradisi felicitate dimissus est, ut, quoniam scriptum est: Unus dies aput Dominum sicut mille anni, et mille anni sicut dies unus, sex annorum milibus tamquam sex diebus inpletis, sequatur uelut septimus sabbati in annis mille postremis, ad hoc scilicet sabbatum celebrandum resurgentibus sanctis. Quae opinio esset utcumque tolerabilis, si aliquae deliciae spiritales in illo sabbato adfuturae sanctis per Domini praesentiam crederentur. Nam etiam nos hoc opinati fuimus aliquando. Sed cum eos, qui tunc resurrexerint, dicant inmoderatissimis carnalibus epulis uacaturos, in quibus cibus sit tantus ac potus, ut non solum nullam modestiam teneant, sed modum quoque ipsius incredulitatis excedant: nullo modo ista possunt nisi a carnalibus credi. Hi autem qui spiritales sunt, istos ista credentes χιλιατὰς appellant Graeco uocabulo; quos uerbum e uerbo exprimentes nos possemus miliarios nuncupare. Eos autem longum est refellere ad singula; sed potius, quem ad modum scriptura haec accipienda sit, iam debemus ostendere. Ait ipse Dominus Iesus Christus: Nemo potest introire in domum fortis et uasa eius eripere, nisi prius adligauerit fortem, diabolum uolens intellegi fortem, quia ipse genus humanum potuit tenere captiuum; uasa uero eius, quae fuerat erepturus, fideles suos futuros, quos ille in diuersis peccatis adque inpietatibus possidebat. Ut ergo adligaretur hic fortis, propterea uidit iste apostolus in apocalypsi angelum descendentem de caelo, habentem clauem abyssi et catenam in manu sua. Et tenuit, inquit, draconem illum serpentem antiquum, qui cognominatus est diabolus et satanas, et adligauit illum mille annis, hoc est, eius potestatem ab eis seducendis ac possidendis. qui fuerant liberandi, cohibuit adque frenauit. Mille autem anni duobus modis possunt, quantum mihi occurrit. intellegi: aut quia in ultimis annis mille ista res agitur, id est sexto annorum miliario tamquam sexto die, cuius nunc spatia posteriora uoluuntur, secuturo deinde sabbato, quod non habet uesperam. requie scilicet sanctorum, quae non habet finem, ut huius miliarii tamquam diei nouissimam partem, quae remanebat usque ad terminum saeculi, mille annos appellauerit eo loquendi modo, quo pars significatur a toto; aut certe mille annos pro annis omnibus huius saeculi posuit. ut perfecto numero notaretur ipsa temporis plenitudo. Millenarius quippe numerus denarii numeri quadratum solidum reddit. Decem quippe deciens ducta fiunt centum, quae iam figura quadrata, sed plana est; ut autem in altitudinem surgat et solida fiat, rursus centum deciens multiplicantur, et mille sunt. Porro si centum ipsa pro uniuersitate aliquando ponantur, quale illud est, quod Dominus omnia sua dimittenti et eum sequenti promisit dicens: Accipiet in hoc saeculo centuplum, quod exponens quodam modo apostolus ait: Quasi nihil habentes, et omnia possidentes; quia et ante iam dictum erat: Fidelis hominis totus mundus diuitiarum est: quanto magis mille pro uniuersitate ponuntur, ubi est soliditas ipsius denariae quadraturae? Unde nec illud melius intellegitur, quod in psalmo legitur: Memor fuit in saeculum testamenti sui uerbi, quod mandauit in mille generationes, id est in omnes. Et misit illum, inquit, in abyssum; utique diabolum misit in abyssum, quo nomine significata est multitudo innumerabilis inpiorum, quorum in malignitate aduersus ecclesiam Dei multum profunda sunt corda; non quia ibi diabolus ante non erat; sed ideo illuc dicitur missus, quia exclusus a credentibus plus coepit inpios possidere. Plus namque possidetur a diabolo, qui non solum est alienatus a Deo, uerum etiam gratis odit seruientes Deo. Et clausit, inquit, et signauit super eum, ut non seduceret iam gentes. donec finiantur mille anni. Clausit super eum dictum est interdixit ei, ne posset exire, id est uetitum transgredi. Signauit autem, quod addidit, significasse mihi uidetur, quia occultum esse uoluit, qui pertineant ad partem diaboli, et qui non pertineant. Hoc quippe in saeculo isto prorsus latet, quia et qui uidetur stare, utrum sit casurus, et qui uidetur iacere, utrum sit surrecturus, incertum est. Ab eis autem gentibus seducendis huius interdicti uinculo et claustro diabolus prohibetur adque cohibetur, quas pertinentes ad Christum seducebat antea uel tenebat. Has enim Deus elegit ante mundi constitutionem eruere de potestate tenebrarum et transferre in regnum filii caritatis suae, sicut apostolus dicit. Nam seducere illum gentes etiam nunc et secum trahere in aeternam poenam, sed non praedestinatas in aeternam uitam, quis fidelis ignorat? Nec moueat, quod saepe diabolus seducit etiam illos, qui regenerati iam in Christo uias ingrediuntur Dei. Nouit enim Dominus qui sunt eius; ex his in aeternam damnationem neminem ille seducit. Sic enim eos nouit Dominus, ut Deus, quem nil latet etiam futurorum, non ut homo, qui hominem ad praesens uidet (si tamen uidet, cuius cor non uidet). qualis autem postea sit futurus nec se ipsum uidet. Ad hoc ergo ligatus est diabolus et inclusus in abysso, ut iam non seducat gentes, ex quibus constat ecclesia. quas antea seductas tenebat, antequam essent ecclesia. Neque. enim dictum est ut non seduceret aliquem, sed ut non seduceret, inquit, iam gentes. in quibus ecclesiam procul dubio uoluit intellegi, donec finiantur, inquit, mille anni, id est, aut quod remanet de sexto die, qui constat ex mille annis, aut omnes anni, quibus deinceps hoc saeculum peragendum est. Nec sic accipiendum est quod ait: Ut non seduceret gentes, donec finiantur mille anni, quasi postea sit seducturus eas dumtaxat gentes, ex quibus praedestinata constat ecclesia, a quibus seducendis illo est uinculo claustroque prohibitus. Sed aut illa locutione dictum est, quae in scripturis aliquotiens inuenitur, qualis est in psalmo: Sic oculi nostri ad Dominum Deum nostrum, donec misereatur nostri; neque enim, cum misertus fuerit, non erunt oculi seruorum eius ad Dominum Deum suum; aut certe iste est ordo uerborum: Et clausit et signauit super eum, donec finiantur mille anni; quod uero interposuit: Ut non seduceret iam gentes, ita se habet, ut ab huius ordinis conexione sit liberum et seorsus intellegendum, uelut si post adderetur, ut sic se haberet tota sententia: Et clausit et signauit super eum, donec finiantur mille anni, ut non seduceret iam gentes; id est, ideo clausit donec finiantur mille anni, ut non seduceret iam gentes.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. What is written in the Apocalypse of John about the two resurrections and the thousand years, and what may reasonably be thought about them.

The same John the evangelist, in the book called the Apocalypse, spoke of these two resurrections in such a way that the first of them, not being understood by some of our own people, has even been turned into certain ridiculous fables. For the apostle John says in the book just mentioned: “And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a chain in his hand. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and cast him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he should no longer deceive the nations until the thousand years are ended; after this he must be loosed for a short time. And I saw thrones, and those who sat on them, and judgment was given. And the souls of those who were slain for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and any who had not worshiped the beast or its image, nor received its mark on their forehead or on their hand, reigned with Jesus for a thousand years; the rest of them did not live until the thousand years are ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has a share in this first resurrection. Over these the second death has no power; but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with him for a thousand years.”

Those who, because of these words of this book, have supposed that the first resurrection will be bodily have been moved above all by the number of a thousand years, as though there ought to be in the saints a kind of sabbath rest of that length, a holy leisure, that is, after the labors of the six thousand years since man was created and, for the guilt of that great sin, sent out of the happiness of paradise into the troubles of this mortality; so that, since it is written, “One day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,” when six thousand years have been completed like six days, there should follow, as it were, the seventh day of sabbath in the last thousand years, the saints rising to celebrate this sabbath. This opinion would be tolerable in some measure if it were believed that some spiritual delights would be present to the saints in that sabbath through the Lord's presence. For we too once held this opinion. But since they say that those who have then risen will spend their leisure in the most immoderate carnal feasts, in which there will be so much food and drink that they not only keep no restraint but exceed the measure even of what is credible, these things can by no means be believed except by carnal people. Those who are spiritual call the people who believe these things chiliasts, with a Greek word; translating it word for word we could call them millenarians. It would take long to refute them point by point; rather, we must now show how this passage of Scripture is to be taken.

The Lord Jesus Christ himself says: “No one can enter a strong man's house and seize his goods unless he first binds the strong man,” meaning by the strong man the devil, because he was able to hold the human race captive, and by his goods, which he was going to seize, his own future faithful, whom the devil possessed in various sins and ungodliness. So that this strong man might be bound, therefore, this apostle saw in the Apocalypse an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a chain in his hand. “And he seized,” he says, “the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years”; that is, he restrained and curbed his power to deceive and possess those who were to be set free.

The thousand years, so far as occurs to me, can be understood in two ways. Either this takes place in the last thousand years, that is, in the sixth millennium as in a sixth day, whose later stretches are now passing, to be followed by the sabbath which has no evening, namely the rest of the saints which has no end; so that he called the last part of this millennium, as of a day, the part which remained until the end of the world, “a thousand years,” by the manner of speaking in which the part is signified by the whole. Or else he put a thousand years for all the years of this world, so that the very fullness of time is marked by a perfect number. For the number a thousand is the solid square of the number ten. Ten times ten make a hundred, which is already a square figure, but a plane one; and for it to rise in height and become solid, a hundred is again multiplied ten times, and there are a thousand. Now if a hundred itself is sometimes put for the whole, as in what the Lord promised to one who leaves all he has and follows him, saying, “He will receive a hundredfold in this age,” which the apostle in a way explains when he says, “As having nothing, and yet possessing all things,” because it had already been said before, “The whole world of riches belongs to the faithful man”: how much more is a thousand put for the whole, where there is the solidity of the square of ten itself! Hence too there is no better way to understand what we read in the psalm: “He has been mindful for ever of his covenant, the word which he commanded for a thousand generations,” that is, for all.

“And he cast him,” he says, “into the abyss.” That is, he cast the devil into the abyss, by which name is signified the innumerable multitude of the ungodly, whose hearts are very deep in malice against the church of God; not that the devil was not there before, but he is said to be cast there because, shut out from believers, he began to possess the ungodly more. For he is more possessed by the devil who is not only estranged from God but even hates without cause those who serve God. “And he shut it,” he says, “and sealed it over him, so that he should no longer deceive the nations until the thousand years are ended.” “He shut it over him” means that he forbade him to be able to go out, that is, to cross what was forbidden. And “he sealed it,” which he added, seems to me to signify that he willed it to be hidden who belong to the devil's side and who do not. For in this world this is wholly hidden, since it is uncertain both whether he who seems to stand will fall and whether he who seems to lie fallen will rise. By the chain and prison of this prohibition the devil is prevented and restrained from deceiving those nations which belong to Christ, whom he used to deceive or hold before. For these God chose before the foundation of the world to rescue from the power of darkness and to transfer into the kingdom of the Son of his love, as the apostle says. For what believer does not know that the devil deceives nations even now and draws them with him into eternal punishment, but not those predestined to eternal life? Nor should it trouble anyone that the devil often deceives even those who, already regenerated in Christ, are walking in the ways of God. For “the Lord knows those who are his”; of these the devil deceives none into eternal damnation. For the Lord knows them as God, from whom nothing is hidden, even of things to come; not as a man, who sees a man at present (if indeed he sees one whose heart he does not see), but does not see even himself, what he will be afterwards. The devil, then, was bound and shut in the abyss for this purpose, that he should no longer deceive the nations of which the church consists, which he held deceived before they were the church. For it is not said “that he should not deceive anyone,” but “that he should no longer deceive,” he says, “the nations,” by which he undoubtedly meant the church to be understood, “until,” he says, “the thousand years are ended,” that is, either what remains of the sixth day, which consists of a thousand years, or all the years in which this world is henceforth to run its course.

Nor is his saying, “that he should not deceive the nations until the thousand years are ended,” to be taken as though afterwards he will deceive those very nations of which the predestined church consists, from deceiving whom he was prevented by that chain and prison. Rather, either it is said in that manner of speech which is found now and then in the Scriptures, as in the psalm: “So our eyes are on the Lord our God, until he has mercy on us”; for when he has had mercy, the eyes of his servants will not cease to be on the Lord their God; or else this is the order of the words: “And he shut and sealed it over him until the thousand years are ended”; and what he put in between, “so that he should no longer deceive the nations,” stands free of this connected order and is to be understood separately, as if it were added afterwards, so that the whole sentence would run: “And he shut and sealed it over him until the thousand years are ended, so that he should no longer deceive the nations”; that is, he shut it until the thousand years are ended for this reason, that he should no longer deceive the nations.

### Scripture references

- Rev 20:1–6: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Pet 3:8: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 12:29: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 19:29: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 6:10: quotation, high confidence
- Prov 17:6: quotation, medium confidence
- Ps 105:8 (104:8 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Col 1:13: allusion, high confidence
- Eph 1:4: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Tim 2:19: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 10:12: echo, medium confidence
- Ps 123:2 (122:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Revelation 20:1–6; 2 Peter 3:8; Matthew 12:29; Matthew 19:29 (Mark 10:30); 2 Corinthians 6:10; Proverbs 17:6 in the Old Latin/LXX addition (“The whole world of riches belongs to the faithful man”), not in the Hebrew; Psalm 105:8 (LXX/Vulgate 104:8); Colossians 1:13; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 2:19; 1 Corinthians 10:12; Psalm 123:2 (LXX/Vulgate 122:2). The editor deletes “et” before “bound him”. Augustine says he once held the view of a spiritual millennial sabbath himself; he rejects the chiliasts' expectation of carnal feasts. He offers two readings of the thousand years: the remainder of the sixth millennium, or the whole period until the end of the world. Greek in the text: χιλιαστάς (“chiliasts”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.7 (CSEL 40:439–444; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-3/#p-20-7).

## City of God 20.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-8/#p-20-8
- Source: CSEL 40:444–448
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The binding of the devil restrains his power to tempt during the church's age; at the end he will be loosed for three and a half years, yet the church will endure and even grow.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. De adligatione et solutione diaboli. Post haec, inquit, oportet eum solui breui tempore. Si hoc est diabolo ligari et includi, ecclesiam non posse seducere, haec ergo erit solutio eius, ut possit? Absit: numquam enim ab illo ecclesia seducetur praedestinata et electa ante mundi constitutionem, de qua dictum est: Nouit Dominus qui sunt eius. Et tamen hic erit etiam illo tempore. quo soluendus est diabolus, sicut, ex quo est instituta, hic fuit et erit omni tempore, in suis utique qui succedunt nascendo morientibus. Nam paulo post dicit. quod solutus diabolus seductas gentes toto orbe terrarum adtrahet in bellum aduersus eam, quorum hostium numerus erit ut harena maris. Et adscenderunt, inquit, supra terrae latitudinem, et cinxerunt castra sanctorum et dilectam ciuitatem, et descendit ignis de caelo a Deo et comedit eos; et diabolus, qui seducebat eos, missus est in stagnum ignis et sulphuris, ubi et bestia et pseudopropheta; et cruciabuntur die et nocte in saecula saeculorum. Sed hoc iam ad iudicium nouissimum pertinet, quod nunc propterea commemorandum putaui, ne quis existimet eo ipso paruo tempore, quo soluetur diabolus, in hac terra ecclesiam non futuram, illo hic eam uel non inueniente, cum fuerit solutus, uel absumente, cum fuerit modis omnibus persecutus. Non itaque per totum hoc tempus, quod liber iste conplectitur, a primo scilicet aduentu Christi usque in saeculi finem, qui erit secundus eius aduentus, ita diabolus adligatur, ut eius haec ipsa sit adligatio, per hoc interuallum, quod mille annorum numero appellat, non seducere ecclesiam, quando quidem illam nec solutus utique seducturus est. Nam profecto ei si adligari est non posse seducere siue non permitti: quid erit solui nisi posse seducere siue permitti? Quod absit ut fiat; sed adligatio diaboli est non permitti exserere totam tentationem, quam potest uel ui uel dolo ad seducendos homines in partem suam cogendo uiolenter fraudulenterue fallendo. Quod si permitteretur in tam longo tempore et tanta infirmitate multorum, plurimos tales, quales Deus id perpeti non uult, et fideles deiceret et ne crederent inpediret; quod ne faceret, adligatus est. Tunc autem soluetur, quando et breue tempus erit. (Nam tribus annis et sex mensibus legitur totis suis suorumque uiribus saeuiturus) et tales erunt, cum quibus ei belligerandum est, ut uinci tanto eius inpetu insidiisque non possint. Si autem numquam solueretur, minus appareret eius maligna potentia. minus sanctae ciuitatis fidelissima patientia probaretur, minus denique perspiceretur, quam magno eius malo tam bene fuerit usus Omnipotens, qui eum nec omnino abstulit a tentatione sanctorum, quamuis ab eorum interioribus hominibus, ubi in Deum creditur, foras missum, ut eius forinsecus obpugnatione proficerent; et in eis, qui sunt ex parte ipsius, adligauit, ne quantam posset effundendo et exercendo malitiam innumerabiles infirmos, ex quibus ecclesiam multiplicari et inpleri oportebat, alios credituros, alios iam credentes, a fide pietatis hos deterreret, hos frangeret: et soluet in fine, ut, quam fortem aduersarium Dei ciuitas superauerit, cum ingenti gloria sui redemtoris adiutoris liberatoris adspiciat. In eorum sane, qui tunc futuri sunt, sanctorum adque fidelium conparatione quid sumus? Quando quidem ad illos probandos tantus soluetur inimicus, cum quo nos ligato tantis periculis dimicamus. Quamuis et hoc temporis interuallo quosdam milites Christi tam prudentes et fortes fuisse adque esse non dubium est, ut, etiamsi tunc in ista mortalitate uiuerent, quando ille soluetur, omnes insidias eius adque inpetus et cauerent sapientissime et patientissime sustinerent. Haec autem adligatio diaboli non solum facta est, ex quo coepit ecclesia praeter Iudaeam terram in nationes alias adque alias dilatari; sed etiam nunc fit et fiet usque ad terminum saeculi, quo soluendus est. quia et nunc homines ab infidelitate, in qua eos ipse possidebat, conuertuntur ad fidem et usque in illum finem sine dubio conuertentur; et utique unicuique iste fortis tunc adligatur, quando ab illo tamquam uas eius eripitur; et abyssus, ubi inclusus est, non in eis consumta est, quando sunt mortui, qui tunc erant quando esse coepit inclusus; sed successerunt eis alii nascendo adque succedunt, donec finiatur hoc saeculum, qui oderint Christianos, in quorum cottidie, uelut in abysso, caecis et profundis cordibus includatur. Utrum autem etiam illis ultimis tribus annis et mensibus sex, quando solutus totis uiribus saeuiturus est, aliquis, in qua non fuerat, sit accessurus ad fidem. nonnulla quaestio est. Quo modo enim stabit quod dictum est: Quis intrat in domum fortis, ut uasa eius eripiat, nisi prius adligauerit fortem, si etiam soluto eripiuntur? Ac per hoc ad hoc cogere uidetur ista sententia, ut credamus illo licet exiguo tempore neminem accessurum esse populo Christiano, sed cum eis, qui iam Christiani, reperti fuerint, diabolum pugnaturum; ex quibus etiamsi aliqui uicti secuti eum fuerint, non eos ad praedestinatum filiorum Dei numerum pertinere. Neque enim frustra idem Iohannes apostolus, qui et hanc apocalypsin scripsit, in epistula sua de quibusdam dicit: Ex nobis exierunt, sed non erant ex nobis; nam si fuissent ex nobis, mansissent utique nobiscum. Sed quid fit de paruulis? Nimium quippe incredibile est nullos iam natos et nondum baptizatos praeoccupari Christianorum filios illo tempore infantes, nullos etiam ipsis nasci iam diebus; aut si erunt, non eos a parentibus suis ad lauacrum regenerationis modo quocumque perduci. Quod si fiet, quo pacto soluto iam diabolo uasa ista eripientur, in cuius domum nemo intrat, ut uasa eius eripiat, nisi prius adligauerit eum? Immo uero id potius est credendum. nec qui cadant de ecclesia nec qui accedant ecclesiae illo tempore defuturos; sed profecto tam fortes erunt et parentes pro baptizandis paruulis suis et hi, qui tunc primitus credituri sunt, ut illum fortem uincant etiam non ligatum, id est omnibus, qualibus antea numquam, uel artibus insidiantem uel urgentem uiribus et uigilanter intellegant et toleranter ferant, ac sic illi etiam non ligato eripiantur. Nec ideo falsa erit euangelica illa sententia: Quis intrat in domum fortis. ut uasa eius eripiat, nisi prius adligauerit fortem? Secundum eius enim sententiae ueritatem ordo iste seruatus est, ut prius adligaretur fortis ereptisque uasis eius longe lateque in omnibus gentibus et firmis et infirmis ita multiplicaretur ecclesia, ut ex ipsa rerum diuinitus praedictarum et inpletarum robustissima fide etiam soluto uasa posset auferre. Sicut enim fatendum est multorum refrigescere caritatem, cum abundat iniquitas, et inusitatis maximisque persecutionibus adque fallaciis diaboli iam soluti eos, qui in libro uitae scripti non sunt, multos esse cessuros: ita cogitandum est non solum quos bonos fideles illud tempus inueniet, sed nonnullos etiam, qui foris adhuc erunt, adiuuante Dei gratia per considerationem scripturarum, in quibus et alia et finis ipse praenuntiatus est, quem uenire iam sentiunt, ad credendum quod non credebant futuros esse firmiores et ad uincendum etiam non ligatum diabolum fortiores. Quod si ita erit. propterea praecessisse dicenda est eius adligatio, ut et ligati et soluti exspoliatio sequeretur; quoniam de hac re tu m est: Quis intrabit in domum fortis, ut uasa eius eripiat. nisi prius adligauerit fortem?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. On the binding and loosing of the devil.

“After this,” he says, “he must be loosed for a short time.” If for the devil to be bound and shut in means that he cannot deceive the church, will his loosing, then, mean that he can? Far from it. For the church predestined and chosen before the foundation of the world will never be deceived by him, the church of which it is said: “The Lord knows those who are his.” And yet it will be here even at that time when the devil is to be loosed, just as it has been here since it was founded and will be at all times, in its own members, that is, who succeed the dying by being born. For a little later he says that the devil, when loosed, will draw the nations he has deceived throughout the whole world into war against it, and the number of these enemies will be as the sand of the sea. “And they went up,” he says, “over the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven from God and devoured them; and the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet are; and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” But this already belongs to the last judgment; I thought it should be mentioned now so that no one should think that in that short time when the devil is loosed there will be no church on this earth, whether because he will not find it here when he is loosed or because he will destroy it when he has persecuted it in every way. So the devil is not bound through this whole time which this book covers, that is, from the first coming of Christ to the end of the world, which will be his second coming, in such a way that his binding through this interval, which he calls by the number of a thousand years, means that he does not deceive the church; since, certainly, not even when loosed will he deceive it. For surely, if to be bound means for him that he cannot deceive, or is not permitted to, what will being loosed mean except that he can deceive, or is permitted to? Far be it that this should happen. Rather, the binding of the devil is his not being permitted to put forth all the temptation that he can, whether by force or by guile, to seduce people to his side, compelling them by violence or misleading them by fraud. If this were permitted him over so long a time and amid the great weakness of many, he would cast down very many, of such a kind as God does not wish to have suffer this, both believers already and those whom he would hinder from believing; it is to prevent him from doing this that he has been bound.

But he will be loosed when the time will also be short (for we read that he will rage with all his forces and those of his followers for three years and six months), and those with whom he must make war will be such that they cannot be overcome by all his onslaught and snares. If he were never loosed, his malignant power would be less apparent, the most faithful patience of the holy city would be less proved, and finally it would be less clearly seen how well the Almighty has used so great an evil of his. For he neither removed him altogether from tempting the saints, though he cast him out of their inner man, where there is faith in God, so that they might profit by his assault from outside; and in those who are on his side he bound him, so that by pouring out and exercising all the malice he could he should not deter from the faith of godliness, or break down in it, the countless weak, from whom the church had to be multiplied and filled, some who would believe, some who already believe; and he will loose him at the end, so that the city of God may see how strong an adversary it has overcome, to the great glory of its Redeemer, Helper, and Deliverer. What are we, indeed, in comparison with the saints and believers who will then be? Since so great an enemy will be loosed to test them, one with whom we struggle amid such dangers even while he is bound. And yet there is no doubt that even in this interval of time there have been, and are, some soldiers of Christ so wise and strong that, even if they were living in this mortality at the time when he is loosed, they would both most wisely guard against all his snares and assaults and most patiently endure them.

This binding of the devil did not take place only from the time when the church began to spread beyond the land of Judea into one nation after another; it is taking place even now and will take place until the end of the world, when he is to be loosed. For even now people are being converted to faith from the unbelief in which he possessed them, and they will without doubt be converted until that end; and this strong man is bound, in the case of each one, at the time when that person is seized from him as his goods; and the abyss in which he is shut up was not used up when those died who were alive when he began to be shut in; others have succeeded them by being born, and succeed them, until this world ends, who hate Christians, in whose blind and deep hearts, as in an abyss, he is shut up daily.

But whether in those last three years and six months, when he is loosed and rages with all his forces, anyone who was not in the faith will come to it, is a considerable question. For how will the saying stand, “Who enters a strong man's house to seize his goods unless he first binds the strong man?” if they are seized even when he is loosed? Accordingly this saying seems to compel us to believe that in that time, short as it is, no one will join the Christian people, but that the devil will fight with those who are found to be Christians already; and that even if some of these are overcome and follow him, they do not belong to the predestined number of the sons of God. For not without reason does the same apostle John, who also wrote this Apocalypse, say of certain people in his letter: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would surely have remained with us.” But what of little children? For it is beyond belief that no children of Christians who have been born and not yet baptized will be overtaken at that time as infants, and that none will be born in those very days; or, if there are such, that they will not somehow be brought by their parents to the washing of regeneration. If this happens, how will these goods be seized from the devil when he is already loosed, into whose house no one enters to seize his goods unless he first binds him? Rather, it is to be believed that at that time there will be no lack either of those who fall away from the church or of those who come to it; but that both the parents, for the baptism of their little ones, and those who then first believe will be so strong that they will overcome that strong man even when he is not bound; that is, they will both watchfully understand and patiently endure him as he lies in wait with all his arts or presses with all his forces, such as never before, and so they will be seized from him even when he is not bound. Nor will that saying of the Gospel therefore be false: “Who enters a strong man's house to seize his goods unless he first binds the strong man?” For in accordance with the truth of that saying this order has been kept: first the strong man was bound, and when his goods had been seized, the church was so multiplied far and wide among all nations, strong and weak, that by its most robust faith in the things divinely foretold and fulfilled it could carry off his goods even when he is loosed. For just as it must be admitted that the love of many will grow cold, because iniquity abounds, and that many who are not written in the book of life will yield to the unheard-of and very great persecutions and deceptions of the devil when he is loosed, so we must reckon that that time will find not only good believers, but also some who will still be outside, who by the help of God's grace, through considering the Scriptures, in which among other things the very end is foretold, which they will perceive to be now coming, will be firmer in believing what they did not believe, and stronger to overcome the devil even though he is not bound. If this is so, his binding must be said to have gone before so that the plundering of him, both bound and loosed, might follow; since of this it is said: “Who will enter a strong man's house to seize his goods unless he first binds the strong man?”

### Scripture references

- Rev 20:3: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 20:7–10: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Tim 2:19: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 1:4: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 12:29: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 2:19: quotation, high confidence
- Titus 3:5: allusion, medium confidence
- Matt 24:12: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 13:8: allusion, medium confidence
- Dan 7:25: allusion, medium confidence
- Rev 13:5: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Revelation 20:3, 7–10; 2 Timothy 2:19; Ephesians 1:4; Matthew 12:29; 1 John 2:19; Titus 3:5; Matthew 24:12; Revelation 13:8; 17:8. The three years and six months derive from Daniel 7:25; 12:7 and Revelation 11:2–3; 12:6, 14; 13:5. The last clause's “it is said” renders a damaged word in the digital text (“tu m est”, probably “dictum est”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.8 (CSEL 40:444–448; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-8/#p-20-8).

## City of God 20.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-8/#p-20-9
- Source: CSEL 40:448–454
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The reign of the saints for a thousand years is the present reign of the church, living and dead, with Christ; the thrones are its leaders, the beast the ungodly city, and the first resurrection the rising of souls from sin.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. Quod sit regnum sanctorum cum Christo per mille annos, et in quo discernatur a regno aeterno. Interea dum mille annis ligatus est diabolus, sancti regnant cum Christo etiam ipsis mille annis, eisdem sine dubio et eodem modo intellegendis, id est isto iam tempore prioris eius aduentus. Excepto quippe illo regno, de quo in fine dicturus est: Venite, benedicti patris mei, possidete paratum uobis regnum, nisi alio aliquo modo, longe quidem inpari, iam nunc regnarent cum illo sancti eius. quibus ait: Ecce ego uobiscum sum usque in consummationem saeculi: profecto non etiam nunc diceretur ecclesia regnum eius regnumue caelorum. Nam utique isto tempore in regno Dei eruditur scriba ille, qui profert de thensauro suo noua et uetera, de quo supra locuti sumus; et de ecclesia collecturi sunt zizania messores illi, quae permisit cum tritico simul crescere usque ad messem; quod exponens ait: Messis est finis saeculi, messores autem angeli sunt. Sicut ergo colliguntur zizania et igni comburuntur, sic erit in consummatione saeculi; mittet filius hominis angelos suos, et colligent de regno eius omnia scandala. Numquid de regno illo, ubi nulla sunt scandala? De isto ergo regno eius, quod est hic ecclesia, colligentur. Item dicit: Qui soluerit unum de mandatis istis minimis et docuerit sic homines, minimus uocabitur in regno caelorum; qui autem fecerit et sic docuerit, magnus uocabitur in regno caelorum. Utrumque dicit in regno caelorum, et qui non facit mandata quae docet (hoc est enim soluere: non seruare, non facere), et illum qui facit et sic docet; sed istum minimum, illum magnum. Et continuo secutus adiungit: Dico enim uobis quia, nisi abundauerit iustitia uestra super scribarum et Pharisaeorum, id est super eos, qui soluunt quod docent (de scribis enim et Pharisaeis dicit alio loco: Quoniam dicunt, et non faciunt), — nisi ergo super hos abundauerit iustitia uestra, id est, ut uos non soluatis, sed faciatis potius quod docetis, non intrabitis, inquit, in regnum caelorum. Alio modo igitur intellegendum est regnum caelorum, ubi ambo sunt, et ille scilicet qui soluit quod docet, et ille qui facit; sed ille minimus, ille magnus: alio modo autem regnum caelorum dicitur, quo non intrat nisi ille qui facit. Ac per hoc ubi utrumque genus est, ecclesia est, qualis nunc est: ubi autem illud solum erit, ecclesia est, qualis tunc erit, quando malus in ea non erit. Ergo et nunc ecclesia regnum Christi est regnumque caelorum. Regnant itaque cum illo etiam nunc sancti eius, aliter quidem, quam tunc regnabunt; nec tamen cum illo regnant zizania, quamuis in ecclesia cum tritico crescant. Regnant enim cum illo, qui faciunt quod ait apostolus: Si resurrexistis cum Christo, quae sursum sunt sapite, ubi Christus est in dextera Dei sedens; quae sursum sunt quaerite, non quae super terram; de qualibus item dicit, quod eorum conuersatio sit in caelis. Postremo regnant cum illo, qui eo modo sunt in regno eius, ut sint etiam ipsi regnum eius. Quo modo autem sunt regnum Christi, qui, ut alia taceam, quamuis ibi sint donec colligantur in fine saeculi de regno eius omnia scandala, tamen illic sua quaerunt, non quae Iesu Christi? De hoc ergo regno militiae, in quo adhuc cum hoste confligitur et aliquando repugnatur pugnantibus uitiis, aliquando cedentibus imperatur, donec ueniatur ad illud pacatissimum regnum, ubi sine hoste regnabitur, et de hac prima resurrectione, quae nunc est, liber iste sic loquitur. Cum enim dixisset adligari diabolum mille annis, et postea solui breui tempore, tum recapitulando quid in istis mille annis agat ecclesia uel agatur in ea: Et uidi, inquit, sedes et sedentes super eas, et iudicium datum est Non hoc putandum est de ultimo iudicio dici; sed sedes praepositorum et ipsi praepositi intellegendi sunt, per quos nunc ecclesia gubernatur. Iudicium autem datum nullum melius accipiendum uidetur, quam id quod dictum est: Quae ligaueritis in terra, ligata erunt et in caelo; et quae solueritis in terra, soluta erunt et in caelo. Unde apostolus: Quid enim mihi est, inquit, de his, qui foris sunt, iudicare? Nonne de his qui intus sunt uos iudicatis? Et animae, inquit, occisorum propter testimonium Iesu et propter uerbum Dei; subauditur quod postea dicturus est: Regnauerunt cum Iesu mille annis; animae scilicet martyrum nondum sibi corporibus suis redditis. Neque enim piorum animae mortuorum separantur ab ecclesia, quae nunc etiam est regnum Christi. Alioquin nec ad altare Dei fieret eorum memoria in communicatione corporis Christi; nec aliquid prodesset ad eius baptismum in periculis currere, ne sine illo finiatur haec uita; nec ad reconciliationem, si forte per paenitentiam malamue conscientiam quisque ab eodem corpore separatus est. Quur enim fiunt ista, nisi quia fideles etiam defuncti membra sunt eius? Quamuis ergo cum suis corporibus nondum, iam tamen eorum animae regnant cum illo, dum isti anni mille decurrunt. Unde in hoc eodem libro et alibi legitur: Beati mortui, qui in Domino moriuntur. Amodo etiam dicit Spiritus, ut requiescant a laboribus suis; nam opera eorum sequuntur eos. Regnat itaque cum Christo nunc primum ecclesia in uiuis et mortuis. Propterea enim, sicut dicit apostolus, mortuus est Christus, ut et uiuorum et mortuorum dominetur. Sed ideo tantummodo martyrum animas commemorauit, quia ipsi praecipue regnant mortui, qui usque ad mortem pro ueritate certarunt. Sed a parte totum etiam ceteros mortuos intellegimus pertinentes ad ecclesiam, quod est regnum Christi. Quod uero sequitur: Et si qui non adorauerunt bestiam nec imaginem eius, neque acceperunt inscriptionem in fronte aut in manu sua, simul de uiuis et mortuis debemus accipere. Quae sit porro ista bestia, quamuis sit diligentius requirendum, non tamen abhorret a fide recta. ut ipsa inpia ciuitas intellegatur et populus infidelium contrarius populo fideli et ciuitati Dei. Imago uero eius simulatio eius mihi uidetur, in eis uidelicet hominibus, qui uelut fidem profitentur et infideliter uiuunt. Fingunt enim se esse quod non sunt, uocanturque non ueraci effigie, sed fallaci imagine Christiani. Ad eandem namque bestiam pertinent non solum aperte inimici nominis Christi et eius gloriosissimae ciuitatis, sed etiam zizania, quae de regno eius, quod est ecclesia, in fine saeculi colligenda sunt. Et qui sunt qui non adorant bestiam nec imaginem eius, nisi qui faciunt quod ait apostolus: Ne sitis iugum ducentes cum infidelibus? Non adorant enim est non consentiunt, non subiciuntur; neque accipiunt inscriptionem, notam scilicet criminis, in fronte propter professionem, in manu propter operationem. Ab his igitur malis alieni, siue adhuc in ista mortali carne uiuentes siue defuncti, regnant cum Christo iam nunc modo quodam huic tempori congruo per totum hoc interuallum, quod numero mille significatur annorum. Reliqui eorum, inquit, non uixerunt. Hora enim nunc est, cum mortui audiunt uocem filii Dei, et qui audierint uiuent; reliqui ergo eorum non uiuent. Quod uero subdidit: Donec finiantur mille anni, intellegendum est, quod eo tempore non uixerunt, quo uiuere debuerunt, ad uitam scilicet de morte transeundo. Et ideo cum dies uenerit, quo fiat et corporum resurrectio, non ad uitam de monumentis procedent, sed ad iudicium; ad damnationem scilicet, quae secunda mors dicitur. Donec finiantur enim mille anni, quicumque non uixerit, id est, toto isto tempore, quo agitur prima resurrectio, non audierit uocem filii Dei et ad uitam de morte transierit, profecto in secunda resurrectione, quae carnis est, in mortem secundam cum ipsa carne transibit. Sequitur enim et dicit: Haec resurrectio prima est. Beatus et sanctus qui habet in hac prima resurrectione partem, id est particeps eius est. Ipse est autem particeps eius, qui non solum a morte, quae in peccatis est, reuiuescit, uerum etiam in eo, quod reuixerit, permanebit. In istis, inquit, secunda mors non habet potestatem. Habet ergo in reliquis, de quibus superius ait: Reliqui eorum non uixerunt, donec finiantur mille anni; quoniam toto isto temporis interuallo, quod mille annos uocat, quantumcumque in eo quisque eorum uixit in corpore, non reuixit a morte, in qua eum tenebat inpietas, ut sic reuiuescendo primae resurrectionis particeps fieret adque in eo potestatem secunda mors non haberet.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. What the reign of the saints with Christ for a thousand years is, and how it differs from the eternal kingdom.

Meanwhile, while the devil is bound for a thousand years, the saints reign with Christ, also for those thousand years, which are without doubt to be understood as the same years and in the same way, that is, as this present time of his first coming. For, apart from that kingdom of which he will say at the end, “Come, you blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you,” unless his saints were reigning with him even now in some other way, far inferior indeed, those saints to whom he says, “Behold, I am with you to the end of the age,” the church would surely not be called even now his kingdom, or the kingdom of heaven. For certainly it is in this time that the scribe we spoke of above is instructed in the kingdom of God, who brings out of his treasure things new and old; and it is from the church that those reapers are to gather the weeds which he allowed to grow together with the wheat until the harvest. Explaining this, he says: “The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. As the weeds, then, are gathered and burned with fire, so it will be at the end of the age; the Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin.” Out of that kingdom, surely, where there are no causes of sin? It is from this kingdom of his, then, which is the church here, that they will be gathered. Again he says: “Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” He says that both are in the kingdom of heaven: he who does not do the commandments which he teaches (for this is what it is to break them: not to keep them, not to do them), and he who does and teaches so; but the one least, the other great. And he at once goes on to add: “For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees,” that is, of those who break what they teach (for of the scribes and Pharisees he says in another place, “For they say, and do not do”), unless, then, your righteousness exceeds theirs, that is, so that you do not break but rather do what you teach, “you will not enter,” he says, “the kingdom of heaven.” So the kingdom of heaven is to be understood in one way where both are, namely he who breaks what he teaches and he who does it, but the one least, the other great; and the kingdom of heaven is spoken of in another way, into which none enters except him who does. Consequently, where both kinds are, there is the church as it is now; but where only the one kind will be, there is the church as it will be then, when there will be no evil person in it. Therefore the church is even now the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of heaven. His saints, then, reign with him even now, though otherwise than they will reign then; and yet the weeds do not reign with him, although they grow in the church with the wheat. For those reign with him who do what the apostle says: “If you have risen with Christ, set your minds on the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God; seek the things that are above, not those on earth”; of such people he also says that their citizenship is in heaven. Finally, those reign with him who are in his kingdom in such a way that they themselves are his kingdom. But how are those the kingdom of Christ who, to say nothing else, although they are there until all causes of sin are gathered out of his kingdom at the end of the world, nevertheless seek their own interests there, not those of Jesus Christ?

It is of this kingdom of warfare, then, in which there is still conflict with the enemy, and sometimes vices are resisted as they fight back, sometimes they are ruled as they yield, until one comes to that most peaceful kingdom where there will be reigning without an enemy, and of this first resurrection, which is now, that this book speaks thus. For when he had said that the devil is bound for a thousand years and afterwards loosed for a short time, then, recapitulating what the church does, or what is done in it, during these thousand years, he says: “And I saw thrones, and those who sat on them, and judgment was given.” This is not to be thought to be said of the last judgment; rather, the thrones of those set over the church, and those set over it themselves, are to be understood, by whom the church is now governed. And the judgment given seems best taken as nothing other than what was said: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.” Hence the apostle says: “For what have I to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?” “And the souls,” he says, “of those who were slain for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God”; understand what he will say afterwards, “reigned with Jesus for a thousand years”; the souls, that is, of the martyrs, their bodies not yet given back to them. For the souls of the godly dead are not separated from the church, which even now is the kingdom of Christ. Otherwise they would not be remembered at the altar of God in the communion of the body of Christ; nor would it be of any use in danger to run to his baptism, lest this life end without it; nor to reconciliation, if perhaps someone has been separated from that same body by penance or by a bad conscience. For why are these things done, if not because the faithful, even when dead, are his members? Although, then, not yet with their bodies, their souls already reign with him while these thousand years run their course. Hence in this same book we also read elsewhere: “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord. Henceforth, says the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors, for their works follow them.” So the church now first reigns with Christ in the living and in the dead. For this is why, as the apostle says, Christ died, that he might be Lord of both the living and the dead. But he mentioned only the souls of the martyrs because they especially reign, when dead, who fought for the truth even to death. But taking the part for the whole, we understand the other dead too who belong to the church, which is the kingdom of Christ.

And what follows, “and any who had not worshiped the beast or its image, nor received its mark on their forehead or on their hand,” we must take of the living and the dead together. What this beast is must be inquired into more carefully; yet it is not out of keeping with right faith to understand by it the ungodly city itself and the people of unbelievers opposed to the faithful people and the city of God. Its image seems to me to be its pretense, namely in those people who profess the faith, as it were, and live faithlessly. For they pretend to be what they are not, and are called Christians not by a true likeness but by a deceitful image. For to this same beast belong not only the open enemies of the name of Christ and of his most glorious city, but also the weeds which are to be gathered out of his kingdom, which is the church, at the end of the world. And who are those who do not worship the beast or its image, if not those who do what the apostle says: “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers”? For “do not worship” means do not consent, do not submit; “nor receive the mark,” that is, the brand of crime, on the forehead because of profession, on the hand because of action. Those, then, who are free of these evils, whether still living in this mortal flesh or dead, reign with Christ even now, in a manner suited to this time, through this whole interval which is signified by the number of a thousand years.

“The rest of them,” he says, “did not live.” For “the hour is now when the dead hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live”; the rest of them, therefore, will not live. And as to what he added, “until the thousand years are ended,” it is to be understood that they did not live at the time when they ought to have lived, namely by passing from death to life. And therefore, when the day comes on which the resurrection of bodies also takes place, they will come forth from the tombs not to life but to judgment, that is, to condemnation, which is called the second death. For whoever has not lived until the thousand years are ended, that is, has not, during this whole time in which the first resurrection takes place, heard the voice of the Son of God and passed from death to life, will surely, in the second resurrection, which is of the flesh, pass with that very flesh into the second death. For he goes on to say: “This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has a share in this first resurrection,” that is, who partakes of it. And he partakes of it who not only comes to life again from the death which is in sins, but also remains in the life to which he has come again. “Over these,” he says, “the second death has no power.” It does have power, therefore, over the rest, of whom he said above, “The rest of them did not live until the thousand years are ended”; since in this whole interval of time which he calls a thousand years, however long any of them lived in the body, he did not come to life again from the death in which ungodliness held him, so as to become by this new life a partaker in the first resurrection, and so that the second death should have no power over him.

### Scripture references

- Rev 20:4–6: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 25:34: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 28:20: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 13:52: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 13:39–41: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 5:19–20: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 23:3: quotation, high confidence
- Col 3:1–2: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 3:20: allusion, high confidence
- Phil 2:21: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 18:18: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 5:12: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 14:13: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 14:9: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 6:14: quotation, high confidence
- John 5:25: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 20:3: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Revelation 20:4–6; Matthew 25:34; 28:20; 13:52; 13:30, 39–41; 5:19–20; 23:3; Colossians 3:1–2; Philippians 3:20; 2:21; Matthew 18:18; 1 Corinthians 5:12; Revelation 14:13; Romans 14:9; 2 Corinthians 6:14; John 5:25. Augustine cites the remembrance of the faithful departed at the eucharist, emergency baptism, and reconciliation of penitents as signs that the dead remain members of the church; “penance” here is the church's discipline of public penance. He calls his identification of the beast with the ungodly city a view “not out of keeping with right faith”, leaving it open to further inquiry.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.9 (CSEL 40:448–454; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-8/#p-20-9).

## City of God 20.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-8/#p-20-10
- Source: CSEL 40:454–455
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Resurrection can be spoken of souls as well as bodies, since souls also fall; and all believers, not only clergy, are the priests who reign with Christ.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. Quid respondendum sit eis, qui putant resurrectionem ad sola corpora, non etiam ad animas pertinere. Sunt qui putant resurrectionem dici non posse nisi corporum ideoque istam quoque primam in corporibus futuram esse contendunt. Quorum enim est, inquiunt, cadere, eorum est resurgere. Cadunt autem corpora moriendo; nam et a cadendo cadauera nuncupantur. Non ergo animarum, inquiunt, resurrectio potest esse, sed corporum. Sed quid contra apostolum dicunt, qui eam resurrectionem appellat? Nam secundum interiorem, non secundum exteriorem hominem utique resurrexerant, quibus ait: Si resurrexistis cum Christo. quae sursum sunt sapite. Quem sensum uerbis aliis alibi posuit dicens: Ut, quem ad modum Christus resurrexit a mortuis per gloriam Patris, sic et nos in nouitate uitae ambulemus. Hinc est et illud: Surge qui dormis et exsurge a mortuis, et inluminabit te Christus. Quod autem dicunt non posse resurgere, nisi qui cadunt, et ideo putant resurrectionem ad corpora, non ad animas pertinere, quia corporum est cadere: quur non audiunt: Non recedatis ab illo, ne cadatis, et: Suo Domino stat aut cadit; et: Qui se putat stare, caueat ne cadat? Puto enim quod in anima, non in corpore casus iste cauendus est. Si igitur cadentium est resurrectio, cadunt autem et animae: profecto et animas resurgere confitendum est. Quod autem, cum dixisset: In istis secunda mors non habet potestatem, adiunxit adque ait: Sed erunt sacerdotes Dei et Christi et regnabunt cum eo mille annis: non utique de solis episcopis et presbyteris dictum est, qui proprie iam uocantur in ecclesia sacerdotes; sed sicut omnes christos dicimus propter mysticum chrisma, sic omnes sacerdotes, quoniam membra sunt unius sacerdotis; de quibus apostolus Petrus: Plebs, inquit, sancta, regale sacerdotium. Sane, licet breuiter adque transeunter, insinuauit esse Deum Christum dicendo: Sacerdotes Dei et Christi, hoc est Patris et Filii; quamuis propter formam serui sicut hominis filius, ita etiam sacerdos Christus effectus sit in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech. De qua re in hoc opere non semel diximus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. What reply is to be made to those who think that resurrection belongs only to bodies and not also to souls.

There are some who think that resurrection can be spoken of only in the case of bodies, and therefore they contend that this first resurrection too will take place in bodies. “For what can fall,” they say, “can rise again. But bodies fall by dying; indeed, dead bodies are called cadavera from cadere, ‘to fall.’ So there cannot be a resurrection of souls,” they say, “but only of bodies.” But what do they say against the apostle, who calls it a resurrection? For it was certainly according to the inner man, not the outer, that those had risen to whom he says: “If you have risen with Christ, set your minds on the things that are above.” He put the same sense in other words elsewhere, saying: “That as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” Hence too that saying: “Rise, you who sleep, and arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light.” As for their saying that none can rise again except those who fall, and their thinking that resurrection therefore belongs to bodies and not to souls because it is bodies that fall, why do they not listen to: “Do not turn away from him, lest you fall,” and: “To his own Lord he stands or falls,” and: “Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall”? For I think that this fall to be guarded against is in the soul, not in the body. If, then, resurrection belongs to those who fall, and souls also fall, it must surely be admitted that souls also rise again.

And when he had said, “Over these the second death has no power,” he went on to add: “But they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with him for a thousand years.” This is certainly not said only of the bishops and presbyters, who are now properly called priests in the church; but just as we call all Christians “anointed ones” because of the mystical chrism, so we call all priests, because they are members of the one Priest. Of them the apostle Peter says: “A holy people, a royal priesthood.” Indeed, though briefly and in passing, he intimated that Christ is God by saying “priests of God and of Christ,” that is, of the Father and the Son; although it was because of the form of a servant that Christ, as he became the Son of Man, so also became a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. Of this we have spoken more than once in this work.

### Scripture references

- Col 3:1: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 6:4: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 5:14: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 14:4: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 10:12: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 20:6: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Pet 2:9: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 2:7: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 110:4 (109:4 LXX): allusion, high confidence
- Heb 5:6: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sir 2:7 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Colossians 3:1; Romans 6:4; Ephesians 5:14; Sirach 2:7 (“do not turn away from him, lest you fall”); Romans 14:4; 1 Corinthians 10:12; Revelation 20:6; 1 Peter 2:9; Philippians 2:7; Psalm 110:4 (LXX/Vulgate 109:4); Hebrews 5:6. “Anointed ones” renders “christos”; Augustine plays on christus and chrisma. He takes “priests of God and of Christ” as a passing sign of Christ's divinity.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.10 (CSEL 40:454–455; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-8/#p-20-10).

## City of God 20.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-8/#p-20-11
- Source: CSEL 40:455–457
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Gog and Magog are not particular barbarian peoples but the ungodly throughout the world, who in the last persecution will besiege the church everywhere.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. De Gog et Magog, quos ad persequendam ecclesiam Dei solutus prope finem saeculi diabolus incitabit. Et cum finiti fuerint, inquit, mille anni, soluetur satanas de custodia sua, et exibit ad seducendas nationes, quae sunt in quattuor angulis terrae, Gog et Magog, et trahet eos in bellum, quorum numerus est ut harena maris. Ad hoc ergo tunc seducet, ut in hoc bellum trahat. Nam et antea modis quibus poterat per mala multa et uaria seducebat. Exibit autem dictum est: in apertam persecutionem de latebris erumpet odiorum. Haec enim erit nouissima persecutio, nouissimo inminente iudicio, quam sancta ecclesia toto terrarum orbe patietur, uniuersa scilicet ciuitas Christi ab uniuersa diaboli ciuitate, quantacumque erit utraque super terram. Gentes quippe istae, quas appellat Gog et Magog, non sic sunt accipiendae, tamquam sint aliqui in aliqua parte terrarum barbari constituti, siue quos quidam suspicantur Getas et Massagetas propter litteras horum nominum primas, siue aliquos alios alienigenas et a Romano iure seiunctos. Toto namque orbe terrarum significati sunt isti esse, cum dictum est nationes quae sunt in quattuor angulis terrae, easque subiecit esse Gog et Magog. Quorum interpretationem nominum esse comperimus Gog tectum, Magog de tecto; tamquam domus et ipse qui procedit de domo. Gentes ergo sunt, in quibus diabolum uelut in abysso superius intellegebamus inclusum, et ipse de illis quodam modo sese efferens et procedens; ut illae sint tectum, ipse de tecto. Si autem utrumque referamus ad gentes, non unum horum ad illas, alterum ad diabolum: et tectum ipsae sunt, quia in eis nunc includitur et quodam modo tegitur inimicus antiquus; et de tecto ipsae erunt, quando in apertum odium de operto erupturae sunt. Quod uero ait: Et adscenderunt supra terrae latitudinem et cinxerunt castra sanctorum et dilectam ciuitatem: non utique ad unum locum uenisse uel uenturi esse significati sunt, quasi uno aliquo loco futura sint castra sanctorum et dilecta ciuitas, cum haec non sit nisi Christi ecclesia toto terrarum orbe diffusa; ac per hoc ubicumque tunc erit, quae in omnibus gentibus erit, quod significatum est nomine latitudinis terrae, ibi erunt castra sanctorum, ibi erit dilecta Deo ciuitas eius, ibi ab omnibus inimicis suis, quia et ipsi in omnibus cum illa gentibus erunt, persecutionis illius inmanitate cingetur, hoc est, in angustias tribulationis artabitur urgebitur concludetur; nec militiam suam deseret, quae uocabulo est appellata castrorum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. On Gog and Magog, whom the devil, when loosed near the end of the world, will stir up to persecute the church of God.

“And when the thousand years are ended,” he says, “Satan will be loosed from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, and will draw them into war; their number is as the sand of the sea.” This, then, is the purpose for which he will deceive them at that time: to draw them into this war. For before this too he used to deceive in whatever ways he could, through many and various evils. “He will go out” is said meaning he will break out from lurking hatred into open persecution. For this will be the last persecution, with the last judgment at hand, which the holy church will suffer throughout the whole world; that is, the whole city of Christ will suffer it from the whole city of the devil, however great each will be on earth. For these nations which he calls Gog and Magog are not to be taken as though they were some barbarians settled in some part of the world, whether the Getae and Massagetae, as some suspect because of the first letters of these names, or some other foreigners outside Roman jurisdiction. For they are signified to be throughout the whole world when it is said, “the nations which are in the four corners of the earth,” and he added that these are Gog and Magog. We have found that the meaning of these names is: Gog, “roof”; Magog, “from the roof”; as it were the house, and he himself who comes out of the house. They are therefore the nations in which we understood above that the devil is shut up as in an abyss, and he himself in a way bringing himself out and proceeding from them; so that they are the roof and he is “from the roof.” But if we refer both names to the nations, and not one to them and the other to the devil, then they are both the roof, because in them the ancient enemy is now shut up and in a way covered over, and they will be “from the roof” when they are to break out from covered hatred into open hatred. And as to his saying, “And they went up over the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city,” they are certainly not signified to have come, or to be going to come, to one place, as though the camp of the saints and the beloved city were to be in some one place; since this is nothing but the church of Christ spread throughout the whole world. And therefore wherever it will be then, and it will be in all nations, which is signified by the name “breadth of the earth,” there will be the camp of the saints, there will be his city beloved by God; there it will be surrounded by all its enemies with the savagery of that persecution, because they too will be with it in all nations; that is, it will be pressed into the straits of tribulation, hard pressed, hemmed in; yet it will not desert its warfare, which is signified by the word “camp.”

### Scripture references

- Rev 20:7–9: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 38:2: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Revelation 20:7–9; Ezekiel 38–39 is the background of Gog and Magog. The etymology “roof” and “from the roof” follows the interpretations of Hebrew names current in Augustine's time. The Getae and Massagetae were peoples north of the Danube and in Central Asia.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.11 (CSEL 40:455–457; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-8/#p-20-11).

## City of God 20.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-8/#p-20-12
- Source: CSEL 40:457–458
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The fire from heaven in Revelation 20:9 is either the saints' firmness that torments their persecutors or Christ's blow at his coming, not the final punishment.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. An ad ultimum supplicium pertineat inpiorum, quod descendisse ignis de caelo et eosdem comedisse memoratur. Quod uero ait: Et descendit ignis de caelo et comedit eos: non extremum putandum est id esse supplicium, quod erit, cum dicetur: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum. Tunc quippe in ignem mittentur ipsi, non ignis de caelo ueniet in ipsos. Hic autem bene intellegitur ignis de caelo de ipsa firmitate sanctorum, qua non cessuri sunt saeuientibus, ut eorum faciant uoluntatem. Firmamentum est enim caelum, cuius firmitate illi cruciabuntur ardentissimo zelo, quoniam non poterunt adtrahere in partes Antichristi sanctos Christi. Et ipse erit ignis, qui comedet eos, et hoc a Deo, quia Dei munere insuperabiles fiunt sancti, unde excruciantur inimici. Sicut enim in bono positum est: Zelus domus tuae comedit me: ita e contrario: Zelus occupauit plebem ineruditam, et nunc ignis contrarios comedet. Et nunc utique, excepto scilicet ultimi illius igne iudicii. Aut si eam plagam, qua percutiendi sunt ecclesiae persecutores ueniente iam Christo, quos uiuentes inueniet super terram, quando interficiet Antichristum spiritu oris sui, ignem appellauit descendentem de caelo eosque comedentem: neque hoc ultimum supplicium erit inpiorum, sed illud quod facta corporum resurrectione passuri sunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. Whether the fire said to have come down from heaven and devoured them belongs to the final punishment of the ungodly.

As for his saying, “And fire came down from heaven and devoured them,” this is not to be thought the final punishment which will come when it is said, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire.” For then they themselves will be sent into the fire, not fire come from heaven upon them. Here, rather, the fire from heaven is well understood of the very steadfastness of the saints, by which they will not yield to those who rage so as to do their will. For heaven is the firmament, and by its firmness they will be tormented with most burning zeal, because they will not be able to draw the saints of Christ over to the side of Antichrist. And this will be the fire that devours them, and it is “from God,” because it is by God's gift that the saints become unconquerable, and by this their enemies are tormented. For as it is said in a good sense, “Zeal for your house has devoured me,” so on the contrary: “Zeal has seized the untaught people, and now fire will devour the adversaries.” “And now,” of course, meaning apart from the fire of that last judgment. Or, if he has called “fire coming down from heaven and devouring them” that blow by which the persecutors of the church whom Christ will find alive on earth are to be struck when he comes, when he will slay Antichrist with the breath of his mouth, even this will not be the final punishment of the ungodly; that will be what they are to suffer after the resurrection of bodies has taken place.

### Scripture references

- Rev 20:9: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 25:41: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 69:9 (68:10 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Isa 26:11: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Thess 2:8: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Revelation 20:9; Matthew 25:41; Psalm 69:9 (LXX/Vulgate 68:10); Isaiah 26:11 in the Old Latin/LXX form; 2 Thessalonians 2:8. Augustine plays on firmamentum (“firmament”, heaven) and firmitas (“firmness”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.12 (CSEL 40:457–458; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-8/#p-20-12).

## City of God 20.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-8/#p-20-13
- Source: CSEL 40:458–460
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that the saints reign with Christ even during Antichrist's three-and-a-half-year persecution, so the thousand years either measure the devil's binding only or round off that short span.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. An tempus persecutionis Antichristi mille annis adnumerandum sit. Haec persecutio nouissima, quae futura est ab Antichristo (sicut iam diximus, quia et in hoc libro superius et aput Danielem prophetam positum est), tribus annis et sex mensibus erit. Quod tempus, quamuis exiguum, utrum ad mille annos pertineat, quibus et diabolum ligatum dicit et sanctos regnare cum Christo, an eisdem annis hoc paruum spatium superaddatur adque extra sit, merito ambigitur; quia, si dixerimus ad eosdem annos hoc pertinere, non tanto tempore, sed prolixiore cum Christo regnum sanctorum reperietur extendi quam diabolus adligari. Profecto enim sancti cum suo rege etiam in ipsa praecipue persecutione regnabunt mala tanta uincentes, quando iam diabolus non erit adligatus, ut eos persequi omnibus uiribus possit. Quo modo ergo ista scriptura eisdem mille annis utrumque determinat, diaboli scilicet adligationem regnumque sanctorum, cum trium annorum et sex mensum interuallo prius desinat adligatio diaboli quam regnum sanctorum in his annis mille cum Christo? Si autem dixerimus paruum persecutionis huius hoc spatium non conputandum in mille annis, sed eis inpletis potius adiciendum, ut proprie possit intellegi, quod, cum dixisset: Sacerdotes Dei et Christi regnabunt cum eo mille annis, adiecit: Et cum finiti fuerint mille anni, soluetur satanas de custodia sua; isto enim modo et regnum sanctorum et uinculum diaboli simul cessatura esse significat, ut deinde persecutionis illius tempus nec ad sanctorum regnum nec ad custodiam satanae, quorum utrumque in mille annis est, pertinere, sed superadditum et extra conputandum esse credatur: cogemur fateri sanctos in illa persecutione regnaturos non esse cum Christo; sed quis audeat tunc cum illo non regnatura sua membra, quando ei maxime adque fortissime cohaerebunt, et quo tempore, quanto erit acrior inpetus belli, tanto maior gloria non cedendi, tanto densior corona martyrii? Aut si propter tribulationes, quas passuri sunt, non dicendi sunt regnaturi: consequens erit, ut etiam superioribus diebus in eisdem mille annis, quicumque tribulabantur sanctorum, eo ipso tempore tribulationis suae cum Christo non regnasse dicantur; ac per hoc et illi, quorum animas auctor libri huius uidisse se scribit occisorum propter testimonium Iesu et propter uerbum Dei, non regnabant cum Christo, quando patiebantur persecutionem, et ipsi regnum Christi non erant, quos Christus excellentius possidebat. Absurdissimum id quidem et omni modo auersandum. Sed certe animae uictrices gloriosissimorum martyrum omnibus doloribus ac laboribus superatis adque finitis, postea quam mortalia membra posuerunt, cum Christo utique regnauerunt et regnant, donec finiantur mille anni, ut postea receptis etiam corporibus iam inmortalibus regnent. Proinde tribus illis annis adque dimidio animae occisorum pro eius martyrio, et quae antea de corporibus exierunt, et quae ipsa nouissima persecutione sunt exiturae, regnabunt cum illo, donec finiatur mortale saeculum et ad illud regnum, ubi mors non erit, transeatur. Quocirca cum Christo regnantium sanctorum plures anni erunt quam uinculi diaboli adque custodiae, quia illi cum suo rege Dei filio iam diabolo non ligato etiam per tres illos annos ac semissem regnabunt. Remanet igitur, ut, cum audimus: Sacerdotes Dei et Christi regnabunt cum eo mille annis. et cum finiti fuerint mille anni, soluetur satanas de custodia sua, aut non regni huius sanctorum intellegamus annos mille finiri, sed uinculi diaboli adque custodiae, ut annos mille, id est annos omnes suos, quaeque pars habeat diuersis ac propriis prolixitatibus finiendos, ampliore sanctorum regno, breuiore diaboli uinculo; aut certe, quoniam trium annorum et sex mensum breuissimum spatium est, conputari noluisse credatur, siue quod minus satanae uinculum, siue quod amplius uidetur regnum habere sanctorum, sicut de quadringentis annis in sexto decimo huius operis uolumine disputaui; quoniam plus aliquid erant, et tamen quadringenti sunt nuncupati; et talia saepe reperiuntur in litteris sacris. si quis aduertat.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. Whether the time of Antichrist's persecution is to be counted in the thousand years.

This last persecution, which is to come from Antichrist, will last, as we have already said, three years and six months, since this is stated both above in this book and in the prophet Daniel. Whether this time, short as it is, belongs to the thousand years in which he says both that the devil is bound and that the saints reign with Christ, or whether this small span is added on to those years and lies outside them, is rightly questioned. For if we say that it belongs to those same years, the reign of the saints with Christ will be found to extend over a longer time, not an equal one, than the binding of the devil. For surely the saints will reign with their King especially in that very persecution, overcoming such great evils, when the devil will no longer be bound, so that he can persecute them with all his forces. How then does this Scripture set the same thousand years as the limit of both, namely the binding of the devil and the reign of the saints, when the binding of the devil ends three years and six months before the reign of the saints with Christ in these thousand years?

If, on the other hand, we say that this short span of this persecution is not to be counted in the thousand years but rather added after they are completed, so that we may take in its proper sense his adding, after he had said, “The priests of God and of Christ will reign with him for a thousand years,” the words, “And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be loosed from his prison” (for in this way he signifies that both the reign of the saints and the chain of the devil will end together, so that the time of that persecution would be believed to belong neither to the reign of the saints nor to the imprisonment of Satan, both of which are within the thousand years, but to be added on and counted outside them): then we shall be forced to admit that the saints will not reign with Christ in that persecution. But who would dare to say that his members will not reign with him then, when they will cleave to him most of all and most strongly, and at a time when, the fiercer the onslaught of the war, the greater will be the glory of not yielding and the thicker the crown of martyrdom? Or, if they are not to be said to reign because of the tribulations they will suffer, it will follow that in earlier days too, within these same thousand years, any of the saints who were afflicted must be said not to have reigned with Christ during the very time of their affliction; and so even those whose souls the author of this book writes that he saw, of those slain for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, were not reigning with Christ when they were suffering persecution, and were not themselves the kingdom of Christ, whom Christ possessed in a more excellent way. That is utterly absurd and to be rejected in every way. But certainly the victorious souls of the most glorious martyrs, all their pains and labors overcome and ended, after they laid aside their mortal members, have reigned and do reign with Christ until the thousand years are ended, so that afterwards, having received their bodies too, now immortal, they may reign. Accordingly, during those three and a half years, the souls of those slain for his testimony, both those which left their bodies before and those which are to leave them in that very last persecution, will reign with him until the mortal age is ended and there is a passing over to that kingdom where there will be no death. Therefore the years of the saints reigning with Christ will be more than those of the devil's chain and imprisonment, because they will reign with their King, the Son of God, for those three and a half years as well, when the devil is no longer bound.

It remains, then, that when we hear, “The priests of God and of Christ will reign with him for a thousand years, and when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be loosed from his prison,” we understand either that it is not the thousand years of this reign of the saints that end but those of the devil's chain and imprisonment, so that each party has its thousand years, that is, all its own years, ending at different and proper lengths, the reign of the saints longer, the chain of the devil shorter; or else, since the span of three years and six months is very short, it is to be believed that he did not wish to count it, whether because the chain of Satan seems to have less, or because the reign of the saints seems to have more; just as I discussed in the sixteenth book of this work concerning the four hundred years, which were something more and yet were called four hundred. And such things are often found in the sacred writings, if one pays attention.

### Scripture references

- Rev 20:4: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 20:6–7: quotation, high confidence
- Dan 7:25: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 13:5: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 15:13: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Augustine, Civ. 16.24 (City of God): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Revelation 20:4, 6–7; Daniel 7:25; 12:7; Revelation 12:14; 13:5. The four hundred years are those of Genesis 15:13, discussed in City of God 16.24 (Augustine calls it the sixteenth book).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.13 (CSEL 40:458–460; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-8/#p-20-13).

## City of God 20.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-14/#p-20-14
- Source: CSEL 40:460–463
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains Revelation 20:10–13: the devil's condemnation, the passing of the world's form, the books opened at judgment, and the book of life as God's power recalling each person's deeds.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. De damnatione diaboli cum suis et per recapitulationem de resurrectione corporea omnium mortuorum et de iudicio ultimae retributionis. Post hanc autem commemorationem nouissimae persecutionis breuiter conplectitur totum, quod ultimo iam iudicio diabolus et cum suo principe ciuitas inimica passura est. Dicit enim: Et diabolus, qui seducebat eos, missus est in stagnum ignis et sulphuris, quo et bestia et pseudopropheta; et cruciabuntur die ac nocte in saecula saeculorum. Bestiam bene intellegi ipsam inpiam ciuitatem supra diximus. Pseudopropheta uero eius aut Antichristus est aut imago illa, id est figmentum, de quo ibi locuti sumus. Post haec ipsum nouissimum iudicium, quod erit in secunda resurrectione mortuorum, quae corporum est, recapitulando narrans quo modo sibi fuerit reuelatum: Et uidi. inquit, thronum magnum et candidum et sedentem super eum, cuius a facie fugit caelum et terra, et locus eorum inuentus non est. Non ait: Vidi thronum magnum et candidum et sedentem super eum, et ab eius facie fugit caelum et terra, quoniam non tunc factum est, id est, antequam esset de uiuis et mortuis iudicatum; sed eum se uidisse dixit in throno sedentem, a cuius facie fugit caelum et terra, sed postea. Peracto quippe iudicio, tunc esse desinet hoc caelum et haec terra, quando incipiet esse caelum nouum et terra noua. Mutatione namque rerum, non omni modo interitu transibit hic mundus. Unde et apostolus dicit: Praeterit enim figura huius mundi, uolo uos sine sollicitudine esse. Figura ergo praeterit, non natura. Cum ergo se Iohannes uidisse dixisset sedentem super thronum, cuius a facie, quod postea futurum est, fugit caelum et terra: Et uidi, inquit, mortuos magnos et pusillos, et aperti sunt libri; et alius liber apertus est, qui est uitae uniuscuiusque; et iudicati sunt mortui ex ipsis scripturis librorum secundum facta sua. Libros dixit esse apertos et librum; sed librum cuius modi non tacuit: Qui est, inquit, uitae uniuscuiusque. Ergo illi libri, quos priore loco posuit, intellegendi sunt sancti, et ueteres et noui, ut in illis ostenderetur, quae Deus fieri sua mandata iussisset; in illo autem, qui est uitae uniuscuiusque, quid horum quisque non fecisset siue fecisset. Qui liber si carnaliter cogitetur, quis eius magnitudinem aut longitudinem ualeat aestimare? Aut quanto tempore legi poterit liber, in quo scriptae sunt uniuersae uitae uniuersorum? An tantus angelorum numerus aderit, quantus hominum erit, et uitam suam quisque ab angelo sibi adhibito audiet recitari? Non ergo unus liber erit omnium, sed singuli singulorum. Scriptura uero ista unum uolens intellegi: Et alius, inquit, liber apertus est. Quaedam igitur uis est intellegenda diuina, qua fiet, ut cuique opera sua, uel bona uel mala, cuncta in memoriam reuocentur et mentis intuitu mira celeritate cernantur, ut accuset uel excuset scientia conscientiam adque ita simul et omnes et singuli iudicentur. Quae nimirum uis diuina libri nomen accepit. In ea quippe quodam modo legitur, quidquid ea faciente recolitur. Ut autem ostendat, qui mortui iudicandi sint, pusilli et magni, recapitulando dicit tamquam ad id rediens, quod praeterierat potiusue distulerat: Et exhibuit mortuos mare, qui in eo erant, et mors et infernus reddiderunt mortuos, quos in se habebant. Hoc procul dubio prius factum est, quam essent mortui iudicati; et tamen illud prius dictum est. Hoc est ergo quod dixi, recapitulando eum ad id redisse quod intermiserat. Nunc autem ordinem tenuit, adque ut explicaretur ipse ordo, commodius etiam de iudicatis mortuis, quod iam dixerat, suo repetiuit loco. Cum enim dixisset: Et exhibuit mortuos mare, qui in eo erant, et mors et infernus reddiderunt mortuos, quos in se habebant: mox addidit quod paulo ante posuerat: Et iudicati sunt singuli secundum facta sua. Hoc est enim quod supra dixerat: Et iudicati sunt mortui secundum facta sua.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. On the condemnation of the devil with his followers, and, by way of recapitulation, on the bodily resurrection of all the dead and the judgment of final retribution.

After this mention of the last persecution, he briefly sums up all that the devil, and the enemy city with its prince, will suffer at the last judgment. For he says: “And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet also are; and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” We said above that the beast is well understood as the ungodly city itself. Its false prophet is either Antichrist or that image, that is, the pretense, of which we spoke there. After this, recapitulating, he describes the last judgment itself, which will be at the second resurrection of the dead, the resurrection of bodies, as it was revealed to him: “And I saw,” he says, “a great white throne and one seated on it, from whose face heaven and earth fled away, and no place was found for them.” He does not say, “I saw a great white throne and one seated on it, and heaven and earth fled from his face,” because it did not happen then, that is, before judgment had been given on the living and the dead; but he said that he saw him sitting on the throne from whose face heaven and earth fled, but afterwards. For when the judgment has been completed, then this heaven and this earth will cease to be, when a new heaven and a new earth begin to be. For this world will pass away by a change of things, not by utter destruction. Hence the apostle too says: “For the form of this world is passing away; I want you to be free from anxiety.” It is the form, then, that passes away, not the nature.

When, then, John had said that he saw one seated on the throne, from whose face (which is to happen afterwards) heaven and earth fled, he says: “And I saw the dead, great and small, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of the life of each one; and the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to their deeds.” He said that books were opened, and a book; but he did not leave unsaid what sort of book: “which is,” he says, “of the life of each one.” So those books which he put first are to be understood as the holy books, both old and new, so that in them it might be shown what commandments God had ordered to be done; and in that one which is of the life of each one, which of these each person had not done or had done. If this book is conceived of carnally, who could estimate its size or length? Or how long would it take to read a book in which are written all the lives of all people? Or will as great a number of angels be present as there will be of human beings, and will each hear his own life recited by an angel assigned to him? Then it will not be one book for all, but one for each. But this Scripture wishes one to be understood: “And another book,” it says, “was opened.” We must therefore understand a certain divine power, by which it will come about that each person's works, good or evil, are all recalled to memory and seen by the mind's gaze with marvelous swiftness, so that knowledge accuses or excuses conscience, and so all and each are judged at once. It is this divine power, surely, that has received the name of a book. For in it, in a way, is read whatever is recalled by its action.

Then, to show which dead are to be judged, small and great, he says by recapitulation, as though returning to what he had passed over or rather put off: “And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and death and hell gave back the dead whom they had in them.” This undoubtedly took place before the dead were judged; and yet that was said first. This, then, is what I meant: that by recapitulation he returned to what he had left out. But now he kept to the order, and, to set out that order, he fittingly repeated in its own place what he had already said about the judging of the dead. For when he had said, “And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and death and hell gave back the dead whom they had in them,” he at once added what he had put a little before: “And they were judged, each one according to his deeds.” For this is what he had said above: “And the dead were judged according to their deeds.”

### Scripture references

- Rev 20:10–13: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 21:1: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 7:31–32: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 2:15: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Revelation 20:10–13; 21:1; 1 Corinthians 7:31–32; Romans 2:15 (“accuse or excuse”). “Hell” renders “infernus”. Augustine holds that the world passes by transformation, not annihilation.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.14 (CSEL 40:460–463; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-14/#p-20-14).

## City of God 20.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-14/#p-20-15
- Source: CSEL 40:463–464
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The sea that gives up its dead is this world, giving up those still alive at Christ's coming; death and hell give back the departed; the book of life is God's infallible foreknowledge of the predestined.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. Qui sint mortui, quos ad iudicium exhibuit mare, uel quos mors et inferi reddiderunt. Sed qui sunt mortui, quos exhibuit mare, qui in eo erant? Neque enim qui in mari moriuntur, non sunt in inferno, aut corpora eorum seruantur in mari, aut, quod est absurdius, mare habebat bonos mortuos et infernus malos. Quis hoc putauerit? Sed profecto conuenienter quidam hoc loco mare pro isto saeculo positum accipiunt. Cum ergo et quos hic inueniet Christus in corpore constitutos simul significaret cum eis, qui resurrecturi sunt, iudicandos, etiam ipsos mortuos appellauit, et bonos, quibus dicitur: Mortui enim estis, et uita uestra abscondita est cum Christo in Deo, et malos, de quibus dicitur: Sine mortuos sepelire mortuos suos. Possunt mortui etiam propter hoc dici, quod mortalia gerunt corpora; unde apostolus: Corpus quidem, inquit, mortuum est propter peccatum; spiritus autem uita est propter iustitiam, utrumque in homine uiuente adque in hoc corpore constituto esse demonstrans, et corpus mortuum et spiritum uitam. Nec tamen dixit corpus mortale, sed mortuum, quamuis eadem paulo post etiam mortalia corpora, sicut usitatius uocantur, appellet. Hos ergo mortuos exhibuit mare, qui in eo erant, id est, exhibuit homines hoc saeculum, quicumque in eo erant, quia nondum obierant. Et mors et infernus, inquit, reddiderunt mortuos, quos in se habebant. Mare exhibuit, quia, sicut inuenti sunt, adfuerunt; mors uero et infernus reddiderunt, quoniam uitae, de qua iam exierant, reuocarunt. Nec frustra fortasse non satis fuit ut diceret mors aut infernus, sed utrumque dictum est: mors propter bonos, qui tantummodo mortem perpeti potuerunt, non et infernum; infernus autem propter malos, qui etiam poenas aput inferos pendunt. Si enim non absurde credi uidetur antiquos etiam sanctos, qui uenturi Christi tenuerunt fidem, locis quidem a tormentis inpiorum remotissimis, sed aput inferos fuisse, donec eos inde Christi sanguis et ad ea loca descensus erueret, profecto deinceps boni fideles effuso illo pretio iam redemti prorsus inferos nesciunt, donec etiam receptis corporibus bona recipiant, quae merentur. Cum autem dixisset: Et iudicati sunt singuli secundum facta sua, breuiter subiecit, quem ad modum fuerint iudicati: Et mors et infernus, inquit, missi sunt in stagnum ignis, his nominibus significans diabolum, quoniam mortis est auctor infernarumque poenarum, uniuersamque simul daemonum societatem. Hoc est enim quod supra euidentius praeoccupando iam dixerat: Et diabolus, qui seducebat eos, missus est in stagnum ignis et sulphuris. Quod uero ibi obscurius adiunxerat dicens: Quo et bestia et pseudopropheta, hic apertius: Et qui non sunt, inquit, inuenti in libro uitae scripti, missi sunt in stagnum ignis. Non Deum liber iste commemorat, ne obliuione fallatur; sed praedestinationem significat eorum, quibus aeterna dabitur uita. Neque enim nescit eos Deus et in hoc libro legit, ut sciat; sed potius ipsa eius praescientia de illis, quae falli non potest, liber est uitae, in quo sunt scripti, id est ante praecogniti.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. Who the dead are whom the sea gave up to judgment, or whom death and the underworld gave back.

But who are the dead whom the sea gave up, who were in it? For it is not the case that those who die at sea are not in hell, or that their bodies are kept in the sea, or, what is more absurd, that the sea held the good dead and hell the wicked. Who would think this? But some, surely, fittingly take the sea in this place to stand for this world. Since, then, he wished to signify that those whom Christ will find here still in the body will be judged together with those who are to rise again, he called them too “dead”: both the good, to whom it is said, “For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God,” and the wicked, of whom it is said, “Let the dead bury their own dead.” They can also be called dead because they bear mortal bodies; hence the apostle says: “The body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness,” showing that both are in a human being who is alive and still in this body, a dead body and a living spirit. And yet he did not say “mortal” body, but “dead,” although a little later he calls the same bodies “mortal,” as they are more commonly called. These dead, then, the sea gave up, who were in it; that is, this world gave up the human beings who were in it, whoever they were, because they had not yet died. “And death and hell,” he says, “gave back the dead whom they had in them.” The sea “gave up,” because they were present just as they were found; but death and hell “gave back,” because they called them back to the life from which they had already departed. And perhaps not without reason it was not enough to say “death” or “hell,” but both were said: “death” because of the good, who could suffer only death and not hell as well; “hell” because of the wicked, who also pay penalties in the underworld. For if it seems not absurd to believe that even the ancient saints who held the faith of Christ who was to come were in the underworld, though in places far removed from the torments of the ungodly, until the blood of Christ and his descent into those places rescued them from there, then surely from that time good believers, redeemed by that price once it had been poured out, know nothing at all of the underworld, until, having received their bodies too, they receive the good things they deserve.

When he had said, “And they were judged, each one according to his deeds,” he briefly added how they were judged: “And death and hell,” he says, “were thrown into the lake of fire,” signifying by these names the devil, since he is the author of death and of the punishments of hell, and together with him the whole society of demons. For this is what he had said more plainly above, anticipating: “And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur.” And what he had added there more obscurely, saying, “where the beast and the false prophet also are,” he says here more openly: “And those who were not found written in the book of life were thrown into the lake of fire.” This book is not a reminder to God, lest he be misled by forgetfulness; it signifies the predestination of those to whom eternal life will be given. For it is not that God does not know them and reads in this book in order to know; rather, his very foreknowledge of them, which cannot be deceived, is the book of life in which they are written, that is, known beforehand.

### Scripture references

- Rev 20:13–15: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 20:10: quotation, high confidence
- Col 3:3: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 8:22: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:10–11: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Pet 3:19: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Revelation 20:13–15, 10; Colossians 3:3; Matthew 8:22; Romans 8:10–11. “Hell” and “the underworld” render “infernus” and “inferi”. Augustine presents the view that the Old Testament saints were in a separate part of the underworld until Christ's descent as one that “seems not absurd”, not as certain.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.15 (CSEL 40:463–464; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-14/#p-20-15).

## City of God 20.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-14/#p-20-16
- Source: CSEL 40:464–466
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: After the judgment the present world will be transformed by fire into a new heaven and earth fitted to immortal bodies; the vanished sea may figure the stormy life of this world.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. De caelo nouo et terra noua. Finito autem iudicio, quo praenuntiauit iudicandos malos, restat ut etiam de bonis dicat. Iam enim explicauit quod breuiter a Domino dictum est: Sic ibunt isti in supplicium aeternum; sequitur ut explicet, quod etiam ibi conectitur: Iusti autem in uitam aeternam. Et uidi, inquit, caelum nouum et terram nouam. Nam primum caelum et terra recesserunt, et mare iam non est. Isto fiet ordine, quod superius praeoccupando iam dixit, uidisse se super thronum sedentem, cuius a facie fugit caelum et terra. Iudicatis quippe his, qui scripti non sunt in libro uitae, et in aeternum ignem missis (qui ignis cuius modi et in qua mundi uel rerum parte futurus sit, hominem scire arbitror neminem, nisi forte cui Spiritus diuinus ostendit), tunc figura huius mundi mundanorum ignium conflagratione praeteribit, sicut factum est mundanarum aquarum inundatione diluuium. Illa itaque, ut dixi, conflagratione mundana elementorum corruptibilium qualitates, quae corporibus nostris corruptibilibus congruebant, ardendo penitus interibunt. adque ipsa substantia eas qualitates habebit, quae corporibus inmortalibus mirabili mutatione conueniant; ut scilicet mundus in melius innouatus apte adcommodetur hominibus etiam carne in melius innouatis. Quod autem ait: Et mare iam non est: utrum maximo illo ardore siccetur an et ipsum uertatur in melius, non facile dixerim. Caelum quippe nouum et terram nouam futuram legimus, de mari autem nouo aliquid me uspiam legisse non recolo; nisi quod in hoc eodem libro reperitur: Tamquam mare uitreum simile crystallo. Sed tunc non de isto fine saeculi loquebatur, nec proprie dixisse uidetur mare, sed tamquam mare. Quamuis et nunc, sicut amat prophetica locutio propriis uerbis translata miscere ac sic quodam modo uelare quod dicitur, potuit de illo mari dicere: Et mare iam non est, de quo supra dixerat: Et exhibuit mortuos mare, qui in eo erant. Iam enim tunc non erit hoc saeculum uita mortalium turbulentum et procellosum, quod maris nomine figurauit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. On the new heaven and the new earth.

Now that the judgment is finished in which he foretold that the wicked would be judged, it remains for him to speak of the good as well. For he has already explained what was said briefly by the Lord: “So these will go away into eternal punishment”; it follows that he should explain what is joined to it there: “But the righteous into eternal life.” “And I saw,” he says, “a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and earth have passed away, and the sea is no more.” This will take place in the order he had already stated above by anticipation, when he said he saw one seated on the throne, from whose face heaven and earth fled. For when those who are not written in the book of life have been judged and sent into the eternal fire (what kind of fire this is, and in what part of the world or of things it will be, I think no one knows, unless perhaps one to whom the divine Spirit has shown it), then the form of this world will pass away by a conflagration of worldly fires, just as the flood took place by an inundation of worldly waters. By that worldly conflagration, then, as I said, the qualities of the corruptible elements, which were suited to our corruptible bodies, will utterly perish by burning, and the substance itself will have those qualities that fit immortal bodies by a wonderful change; so that, of course, the world, renewed for the better, may be fitly adapted to human beings who have also been renewed for the better in the flesh. As for his saying, “And the sea is no more,” whether it will be dried up by that great heat or be itself changed for the better, I could not easily say. For we read that there will be a new heaven and a new earth, but I do not recall having read anywhere of a new sea; except that in this same book there is found, “as it were a sea of glass like crystal.” But there he was not speaking of this end of the world, and he does not seem to have said “a sea” in the proper sense, but “as it were a sea.” Yet here too, as prophetic speech loves to mix figurative words with literal ones and so in a way to veil what is said, he may have spoken of that sea, “And the sea is no more,” of which he had said above, “And the sea gave up the dead who were in it.” For then this world, turbulent and stormy with the life of mortals, which he figured by the name of the sea, will no longer be.

### Scripture references

- Matt 25:46: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 21:1: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 20:11: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 4:6: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 20:13: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 7:31: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Pet 3:6–7: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Matthew 25:46; Revelation 21:1; 20:11, 13; 4:6; 1 Corinthians 7:31; 2 Peter 3:6–7, 10–13 lies behind the parallel of flood and fire. Augustine says no one knows what kind of fire the eternal fire is or where it will be.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.16 (CSEL 40:464–466; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-14/#p-20-16).

## City of God 20.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-14/#p-20-17
- Source: CSEL 40:466–468
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The new Jerusalem without tears or death belongs to the world to come, not to the present reign of the church, whose saints still weep and sin.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. De ecclesiae glorificatione sine fine post finem. Et ciuitatem, inquit, magnam Hierusalem nouam uidi descendentem de caelo a Deo, aptatam, quasi nouam nuptam ornatam marito suo. Et audiui uocem magnam de throno dicentem: Ecce tabernaculum Dei cum hominibus, et habitabit cum eis. et erunt ipsi populus eius, et ipse Deus erit cum eis. Et absterget omnem lacrimam ab oculis eorum: et mors iam non erit neque luctus neque clamor. sed nec dolor ullus, quia priora abierunt. Et dixit sedens in throno: Ecce noua facio omnia. De caelo descendere ista ciuitas dicitur, quoniam caelestis est gratia. qua Deus eam fecit. Propter quod ei dicit etiam per Esaiam: Ego sum Dominus faciens te. Et de caelo quidem ab initio sui descendit, ex quo per huius saeculi tempus gratia Dei desuper ueniente per lauacrum regenerationis in Spiritu sancto misso de caelo subinde ciues eius adcrescunt. Sed per iudicium Dei, quod erit nouissimum per eius filium Iesum Christum, tanta eius et tam noua de Dei munere claritas apparebit, ut nulla remaneant uestigia uetustatis; quando quidem et corpora ad incorruptionem adque inmortalitatem nouam ex uetere corruptione ac mortalitate transibunt. Nam hoc de isto tempore accipere, quo regnat cum rege suo mille annis, inpudentiae nimiae mihi uidetur, cum apertissime dicat: Absterget omnem lacrimam ab oculis eorum; et mors iam non erit neque luctus neque clamor, sed nec dolor ullus. Quis uero tam sit absurdus et obstinatissima contentione uesanus, qui audeat adfirmare in huius mortalitatis aerumnis, non dico populum sanctum, sed unumquemque sanctorum, qui hanc uel ducat uel ducturus sit uel duxerit uitam, nullas habentem lacrimas et dolores; cum potius quanto est quisque sanctior et desiderii sancti plenior, tanto sit eius in orando fletus uberior? An non est uox ciuitatis supernae Hierusalem: Factae sunt mihi lacrimae meae panis die ac nocte, et: Lauabo per singulas noctes lectum meum, in lacrimis meis stratum meum rigabo, et: Gemitus meus non est absconditus a te, et: Dolor meus renouatus est? Aut uero non eius filii sunt, qui ingemescunt grauati, in quo nolunt spoliari, sed superuestiri, ut absorbeatur mortale a uita? Nonne ipsi sunt, qui primitias habentes Spiritus in semet ipsis ingemescunt, adoptionem exspectantes, redemtionem corporis sui? An ipse apostolus Paulus non erat supernus Hierosolymitanus. uel non multo magis hoc erat, quando pro Israelitis carnalibus fratribus suis tristitia illi erat magna et continuus dolor cordi eius? Quando autem mors non erit in ista ciuitate, nisi quando dicetur: Ubi est, mors, contentio tua? Ubi est, mors, aculeus tuus? Aculeus autem mortis est peccatum. Quod tunc utique non erit, quando dicetur: Ubi est? Nunc uero non quilibet infimus ciuis illius ciuitatis, sed idem iste Iohannes in epistula sua clamat: Si dixerimus, quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus, et ueritas in nobis non est. Et in hoc quidem libro, cuius nomen est apocalypsis, obscure multa dicuntur, ut mentem legentis exerceant, et pauca in eo sunt, ex quorum manifestatione indagentur cetera cum labore; maxime quia sic eadem multis modis repetit, ut alia adque alia dicere uideatur, cum aliter adque aliter haec ipsa dicere uestigetur. Verum in his uerbis, ubi ait: Absterget omnem lacrimam ab oculis eorum, et mors iam non erit neque luctus neque clamor, sed nec dolor ullus, tanta luce dicta sunt de saeculo futuro et de inmortalitate adque aeternitate sanctorum (tunc enim solum adque ibi solum ista non erunt), ut nulla debeamus in litteris sacris quaerere uel legere manifesta, si haec putauerimus obscura.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. On the glorification of the church without end after the end.

“And I saw,” he says, “the great city, the new Jerusalem, coming down from heaven from God, made ready like a newly married bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying: ‘Behold, the dwelling of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them. And he will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death will be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor any pain, because the former things have passed away.’ And he who sat on the throne said: ‘Behold, I make all things new.’” This city is said to come down from heaven because the grace by which God made it is heavenly. That is why he says to it also through Isaiah: “I am the Lord who makes you.” It has indeed been coming down from heaven since its beginning, since its citizens continually increase through the time of this world by the grace of God that comes from above through the washing of regeneration in the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. But through God's judgment, which will be the last, through his Son Jesus Christ, so great and so new a splendor of it will appear by God's gift that no traces of the old will remain; since even bodies will pass from their old corruption and mortality to a new incorruption and immortality. For to take this of the present time, in which it reigns with its King for a thousand years, seems to me excessively shameless, when he says most plainly: “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death will be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor any pain.” Who would be so absurd and so crazed with most obstinate contentiousness as to dare to assert that, amid the troubles of this mortality, not to say the holy people, but any single one of the saints, is leading, or will lead, or has led this life without tears and pains; when rather the holier each one is and the fuller of holy longing, the more abundant is his weeping in prayer? Is it not the voice of the citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem: “My tears have been my bread day and night,” and: “Every night I will wash my bed; I will drench my couch with my tears,” and: “My groaning is not hidden from you,” and: “My sorrow was renewed”? Or are they not its children who groan, being burdened, because they do not wish to be unclothed but further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life? Are they not the very ones who, having the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan within themselves, waiting for adoption, the redemption of their body? Was not the apostle Paul himself a citizen of the Jerusalem above, and was he not so all the more when he had great sorrow and unceasing pain in his heart for the Israelites, his brothers according to the flesh? But when will there be no death in that city, except when it will be said: “Where, O death, is your contention? Where, O death, is your sting? The sting of death is sin”? This certainly will not exist then, when it will be said, “Where is it?” But now it is not some lowly citizen of that city, but this same John who cries out in his letter: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” In this book, indeed, whose name is the Apocalypse, many things are said obscurely to exercise the mind of the reader, and there are few things in it from whose clarity the rest may be tracked down with labor; especially because it repeats the same things in many ways, so that it seems to be saying one thing after another, when it is found to be saying these same things in one way after another. But in these words, where he says, “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor any pain,” things are said with such light about the world to come and the immortality and eternity of the saints (for only then and only there will these things not exist) that we ought not to look for or read anything plain in the sacred writings if we think these words obscure.

### Scripture references

- Rev 21:2–5: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 45:8: quotation, medium confidence
- Titus 3:5: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 42:3 (41:4 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 6:6 (6:7 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 38:9 (37:10 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 39:2 (38:3 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 5:4: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:23: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 4:26: allusion, medium confidence
- Rom 9:2–3: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:55–56: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 1:8: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Revelation 21:2–5; Isaiah 45:8 in the Old Latin/LXX form (“I am the Lord who made you”); Titus 3:5; Psalm 42:3 (LXX/Vulgate 41:4); 6:6 (6:7); 38:9 (37:10); 39:2 (38:3); 2 Corinthians 5:4; Romans 8:23; Galatians 4:26; Romans 9:2–3; 1 Corinthians 15:55–56 (“contention” reflects the Old Latin reading); 1 John 1:8.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.17 (CSEL 40:466–468; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-14/#p-20-17).

## City of God 20.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-14/#p-20-18
- Source: CSEL 40:468–470
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Peter's second letter foretells that the present heavens and earth, restored after the flood, will be destroyed by fire at the judgment; the saints, immortal, will be untouched by that fire.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. Quid apostolus Petrus de nouissimo Dei iudicio praedicarit. Nunc iam uideamus, quid etiam apostolus Petrus de hoc iudicio scripserit: Venient, inquit, in nouissimo dierum inlusione inludentes, secundum proprias concupiscentias suas euntes et dicentes: Ubi est promissum praesentiae ipsius? Ex quo enim patres dormierunt, sic omnia perseuerant ab initio creaturae. Latet enim illos hoc uolentes, quia caeli erant olim et terra de aqua, et per aquam constituta Dei uerbo, per quae. qui tunc erat mundus, aqua inundatus deperiit. Qui autem nunc sunt caeli et terra, eodem uerbo repositi sunt, igni reseruandi in diem iudicii et perditionis hominum inpiorum. Hoc unum uero non lateat uos, carissimi, quia unus dies aput Dominum sicut mille anni et mille anni sicut dies unus. Non tardat Dominus promissum, sicut quidam tarditatem existimant; sed patienter fert propter uos, nolens aliquem perire, sed omnes in paenitentiam conuerti. Veniet autem dies Domini ut fur, in quo caeli magno inpetu transcurrent, elementa autem ardentia resoluentur et terra et quae in ipsa sunt opera exurentur. His ergo omnibus pereuntibus quales oportet esse uos in sanctis conuersationibus exspectantes et properantes ad praesentiam diei Domini, per quam caeli ardentes soluentur et elementa ignis ardore decoquentur? Nouos uero caelos et terram nouam secundum promissa ipsius exspectamus, in quibus iustitia inhabitat. Nihil hic dixit de resurrectione mortuorum, sed sane de perditione mundi huius satis. Ubi etiam commemorans factum ante diluuium uidetur admonuisse quodam modo, quatenus in fine huius saeculi mundum istum periturum esse credamus. Nam et illo tempore perisse dixit, qui tunc erat, mundum; nec solum orbem terrae, uerum etiam caelos, quos utique istos aenos intellegimus, quorum locum ac spatium tunc aqua crescendo superauerat. Ergo totus aut paene totus aer iste uentosus (quod caelum uel potius caelos uocat, sed utique istos imos, non illos supremos, ubi sol et luna et sidera constituta sunt) conuersus fuerat in umidam qualitatem adque hoc modo cum terra perierat, cuius terrae utique prior facies fuerat deleta diluuio. Qui autem nunc sunt, inquit, caeli et terra, eodem uerbo repositi sunt, igni reseruandi in diem iudicii et perditionis hominum inpiorum. Proinde qui caeli et quae terra, id est, qui mundus pro eo mundo, qui diluuio periit, ex eadem aqua repositus est, ipse igni nouissimo reseruatur in diem iudicii et perditionis hominum inpiorum. Nam et hominum propter magnam quandam commutationem non dubitat dicere perditionem futuram, cum tamen eorum quamuis in aeternis poenis sit mansura natura. Quaerat forsitan aliquis, si post factum iudicium iste mundus ardebit, antequam pro illo caelum nouum et terra noua reponatur, eo ipso tempore conflagrationis eius ubi erunt sancti, cum eos habentes corpora in aliquo corporali loco esse necesse sit. Possumus respondere futuros eos esse in superioribus partibus, quo ita non adscendet flamma illius incendii, quem ad modum nec unda diluuii. Talia quippe illis inerunt corpora, ut illic sint, ubi esse uoluerint. Sed nec ignem conflagrationis illius pertimescent inmortales adque incorruptibiles facti, si uirorum trium corruptibilia corpora adque mortalia in camino ardenti inlaesa uiuere potuerunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. What the apostle Peter proclaimed about God's last judgment.

Let us now see what the apostle Peter also wrote about this judgment. “In the last days,” he says, “scoffers will come with scoffing, following their own desires and saying: ‘Where is the promise of his presence? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.’ For they willingly overlook this, that there were heavens of old, and an earth formed out of water and through water by the word of God, through which the world that then existed was flooded with water and perished. But the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up by the same word, kept for fire until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not let this one thing escape you, beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some count slowness, but is patient for your sake, not wishing any to perish but all to turn to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a great rush, and the elements will be dissolved with burning, and the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Since all these things are thus to perish, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct, waiting for and hastening to the presence of the day of the Lord, through which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the elements will melt with the heat of fire? But according to his promises we wait for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.” He said nothing here about the resurrection of the dead, but certainly enough about the destruction of this world. And by recalling there what happened before the flood he seems in a way to have warned us to what extent we should believe that this world will perish at the end of this age. For he said that the world which then existed perished at that time too; and not only the globe of the earth but also the heavens, by which we understand, of course, these airy heavens, whose place and space the water then overtopped as it rose. So the whole, or almost the whole, of this windy air (which he calls heaven, or rather heavens, but certainly these lowest ones, not those highest ones where the sun and moon and stars are set) had been turned into a moist quality and in this way had perished with the earth, whose former face had certainly been destroyed by the flood. “But the heavens and earth that now exist,” he says, “have been stored up by the same word, kept for fire until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.” Therefore the heavens and the earth, that is, the world which was restored out of the same water in place of the world that perished in the flood, is itself kept for the last fire until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. For he does not hesitate to speak of a future destruction of men too, because of a certain great change, although their nature will remain, even though in eternal punishments.

Someone may perhaps ask: if this world will burn after the judgment has taken place, before a new heaven and a new earth are put in its place, where will the saints be at the very time of its conflagration, since, having bodies, they must be in some bodily place? We can answer that they will be in the upper regions, to which the flame of that fire will not rise, just as the wave of the flood did not. For they will have such bodies that they can be wherever they wish. But having become immortal and incorruptible, they will not fear the fire of that conflagration either, if the corruptible and mortal bodies of the three men were able to live unharmed in the burning furnace.

### Scripture references

- 2 Pet 3:3–13: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 7:17–20: allusion, medium confidence
- Dan 3:25: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- 2 Peter 3:3–13; Daniel 3:19–27 (the three young men in the furnace). The digital text reads “istos aenos” for the heavens destroyed in the flood, probably for “aerios” (“airy”); translated by that sense. Augustine distinguishes the lower, airy heavens from the upper heavens of the stars.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.18 (CSEL 40:468–470; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-14/#p-20-18).

## City of God 20.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-14/#p-20-19
- Source: CSEL 40:470–475
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reads 2 Thessalonians 2 as foretelling Antichrist before the day of the Lord, confesses he does not know what “holds him back”, and reports without endorsing the views that it is the Roman empire or hidden evil within the church.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. Quid apostolus Paulus Thessalonicensibus scripserit de manifestatione Antichristi, cuius tempus dies Domini subsequetur. Multas euangelicas apostolicasque sententias de diuino isto iudicio nouissimo uideo mihi esse praetereundas, ne hoc uolumen in nimiam longitudinem prouoluatur; sed nullo modo est praetereundus apostolus Paulus, qui scribens ad Thessalonicenses: Rogamus, inquit, uos, fratres, per aduentum Domini nostri Iesu Christi et nostrae congregationis in ipsum, ut non cito moueamini mente neque terreamini neque per spiritum neque per uerbum neque per epistulam tamquam per nos, quasi instet dies Domini, ne quis uos seducat ullo modo; quoniam nisi uenerit refuga primum et reuelatus fuerit homo peccati, filius interitus, qui aduersatur et superextollitur supra omne, quod dicitur Deus aut quod colitur, ita ut in templo dei sedeat, ostentans se tamquam sit Deus. Non retinetis in memoria, quod adhuc cum essem aput uos haec dicebantur uobis? et nunc quid. detineat scitis, ut reueletur in suo tempore. Iam enim mysterium iniquitatis operatur. Tantum qui modo tenet teneat, donec de medio fiat; et tunc reuelabitur iniquus, quem Dominus Iesus interficiet spiritu oris sui, et euacuabit inluminatione praesentiae suae eum, cuius est praesentia secundum operationem satanae, in omni uirtute et signis et prodigiis mendacii et in omni seductione iniquitatis his, qui pereunt, pro eo quod dilectionem ueritatis non receperunt, ut salui fierent. Et ideo mittet illis Deus operationem erroris, ut credant mendacio et iudicentur omnes, qui non crediderunt ueritati, sed consenserunt iniquitati. Nulli dubium est eum de Antichristo ista dixisse, diemque iudicii (hunc enim appellat diem Domini) non esse uenturum, nisi ille prior uenerit, quem refugam uocat, utique a Domino Deo. Quod si de omnibus inpiis merito dici potest, quanto magis de isto! Sed in quo templo Dei sit sessurus, incertum est; utrum in illa ruina templi, quod a Salomone rege constructum est, an uero in ecclesia. Non enim templum alicuius idoli aut daemonis templum Dei apostolus diceret. Unde nonnulli non ipsum principem, sed uniuersum quodam modo corpus eius, id est ad eum pertinentem hominum. multitudinem, simul cum ipso suo principe hoc loco intellegi Antichristum uolunt; rectiusque putant etiam Latine dici, sicut in Graeco est, non in templo Dei, sed in templum Dei sedeat, tamquam ipse sit templum Dei, quod est ecclesia; sicut dicimus; Sedet in amicum, id est uelut amicus, uel si quid aliud isto locutionis genere dici solet. Quod autem ait: Et nunc quid detineat scitis, id est, quid sit in mora, quae causa sit dilationis eius, ut reueletur in suo tempore, scitis: quoniam scire illos dixit, aperte hoc dicere noluit. Et ideo nos, qui nescimus quod illi sciebant, peruenire cum labore ad id, quod sensit apostolus, cupimus nec ualemus; praesertim quia et illa, quae addidit, hunc sensum faciunt obscuriorem. Nam quid est: Iam enim mysterium iniquitatis operatur. Tantum qui modo tenet teneat, donec de medio fiat; et tunc reuelabitur iniquus? Ego prorsus quid dixerit me fateor ignorare. Suspiciones tamen hominum, quas uel audire uel legere potui, non tacebo. Quidam putant hoc de imperio dictum fuisse Romano. et propterea Paulum apostolum non id aperte scribere uoluisse. ne calumniam uidelicet incurreret, quod Romano imperio male optauerit, cum speraretur aeternum; ut hoc quod dixit: Iam enim mysterium iniquitatis operatur, Neronem uoluerit intellegi, cuius iam facta uelut Antichristi uidebantur. Unde nonnulli ipsum resurrecturum et futurum Antichristum suspicantur; alii uero nec occisum putant, sed subtractum potius, ut putaretur occisus, et uiuum occultari in uigore ipsius aetatis, in qua fuit, cum crederetur exstinctus, donec suo tempore reueletur et restituatur in regnum. Sed multum mihi mira est haec opinantium tanta praesumtio. Illud tamen, quod ait apostolus: Tantum qui modo tenet teneat, donec de medio fiat, non absurde de ipso Romano imperio creditur dictum, tamquam dictum sit: Tantum qui modo imperat imperet, donec de medio fiat, id est de medio tollatur. Et tunc reuelabitur iniquus, quem significari Antichristum nullus ambigit. Alii uero et quod ait: Quid detineat scitis et mysterium operari iniquitatis non putant dictum nisi de malis et fictis, qui sunt in ecclesia, donec perueniant ad tantum numerum, qui Antichristo magnum populum faciat; et hoc esse mysterium iniquitatis, quia uidetur occultum; hortari autem apostolum fideles, ut in fide quam tenent tenaciter perseuerent, dicendo: Tantum qui modo tenet teneat, donec de medio fiat, hoc. est, donec exeat de medio ecclesiae mysterium iniquitatis, quod nunc occultum est. Ad ipsum enim mysterium pertinere arbitrantur, quod ait in epistula sua Iohannes euangelista: Pueri, nouissima hora est; et sicut audistis, quod Antichristus sit uenturus, nunc autem Antichristi multi facti sunt; unde cognoscimus quod nouissima sit hora. Ex nobis exierunt; sed non erant ex nobis. Quod si fuissent ex nobis, permansissent utique nobiscum. Sicut ergo ante finem in hac hora, inquiunt, quam Iohannes nouissimam dicit, exierunt multi haeretici de medio ecclesiae, quos multos dicit Antichristos: ita omnes tunc inde exibunt, qui non ad Christum, sed ad illum nouissimum Antichristum pertinebunt, et tunc reuelabitur. Alius ergo sic, alius autem sic apostoli obscura uerba coniectant; quod tamen eum dixisse non dubium est: non ueniet ad uiuos et mortuos iudicandos Christus, nisi prius uenerit ad seducendos in anima mortuos aduersarius eius Antichristus; quamuis ad occultum iam iudicium Dei pertineat, quod ab illo seducentur. Praesentia quippe eius erit, sicut dictum est, secundum operationem satanae in omni uirtute et signis et prodigiis mendacii et in omni seductione iniquitatis his, qui pereunt. Tunc enim soluetur satanas et per illum Antichristum in omni sua uirtute mirabiliter quidem, sed mendaciter operabitur. Quae solet ambigi utrum propterea dicta sint signa et prodigia mendacii, quoniam mortales sensus per phantasmata decepturus est, ut quod non facit facere uideatur, an quia illa ipsa, etiamsi erunt uera prodigia, ad mendacium pertrahent credituros non ea potuisse nisi diuinitus fieri, uirtutem diaboli nescientes, maxime quando tantam, quantam numquam habuit, acceperit potestatem. Non enim quando de caelo ignis cecidit et tantam familiam cum tantis gregibus pecorum sancti Iob uno inpetu absumsit et turbo inruens et domum deiciens filios eius occidit, phantasmata fuerunt; quae tamen fuerunt opera satanae, cui Deus dederat hanc potestatem. Propter quid horum ergo dicta sint prodigia et signa mendacii, tunc potius apparebit. Sed propter quodlibet horum dictum sit. seducentur eis signis adque prodigiis. qui seduci merebuntur, pro eo quod dilectionem, inquit, ueritatis non receperunt, ut salui fierent. Nec dubitauit apostolus addere ac dicere: Ideo mittet illis Deus operationem erroris ut credant mendacio. Deus enim mittet, quia Deus diabolum facere ista permittet, iusto ipse iudicio, quamuis faciat ille iniquo malignoque consilio: Ut iudicentur, inquit, omnes, qui non crediderunt ueritati, sed consenserunt iniquitati. Proinde iudicati seducentur et seducti iudicabuntur. Sed iudicati seducentur illis iudiciis Dei occulte iustis, iuste occultis, quibus ab initio peccati rationalis creaturae numquam iudicare cessauit; seducti autem iudicabuntur nouissimo manifestoque iudicio per Christum Iesum, iustissime iudicaturum, iniustissime iudicatum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. What the apostle Paul wrote to the Thessalonians about the revealing of Antichrist, whose time the day of the Lord will follow.

I see that I must pass over many sayings of the Gospels and the apostles about this last divine judgment, so that this volume does not run on to excessive length; but in no way must I pass over the apostle Paul, who, writing to the Thessalonians, says: “We ask you, brothers, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering to him, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or by a word or by a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no one deceive you in any way; for unless the deserter comes first and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God, displaying himself as if he were God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you these things were told you? And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of iniquity is already at work. Only let him who now holds hold on, until he is out of the way; and then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will slay with the breath of his mouth and will destroy by the brightness of his presence; the one whose presence is by the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all the deception of iniquity for those who are perishing, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. And therefore God will send them a working of error, so that they believe a lie, and that all may be judged who did not believe the truth but consented to iniquity.”

No one doubts that he said these things of Antichrist, and that the day of judgment (for he calls this the day of the Lord) will not come unless he comes first whom he calls a deserter, a deserter, that is, from the Lord God. If this can rightly be said of all the ungodly, how much more of him! But in what temple of God he will sit is uncertain: whether in the ruin of the temple which was built by King Solomon, or in the church. For the apostle would not call the temple of some idol or demon the temple of God. Hence some would have Antichrist in this place understood to be not the prince himself alone, but in a way his whole body, that is, the multitude of people belonging to him, together with their prince; and they think it would be more correct to say in Latin too, as it is in the Greek, not “in the temple of God” but “he sits as the temple of God,” as if he himself were the temple of God, which is the church; as we say “he sits as a friend,” that is, like a friend, or anything else that is usually said with this kind of expression.

As to his saying, “And now you know what is holding him back,” that is, what the delay is, what the cause of his postponement is, “so that he may be revealed in his own time”: since he said they knew, he did not wish to say it openly. And so we, who do not know what they knew, desire to reach with labor what the apostle meant, and cannot; especially because what he added makes this sense more obscure. For what does this mean: “For the mystery of iniquity is already at work. Only let him who now holds hold on, until he is out of the way; and then the lawless one will be revealed”? I confess that I do not know at all what he meant. Yet I will not keep silent about the conjectures of people which I have been able to hear or read. Some think this was said of the Roman empire, and that the apostle Paul did not wish to write it openly so as not to incur the charge of wishing ill to the Roman empire, which was hoped to be eternal; so that by his saying, “For the mystery of iniquity is already at work,” he meant Nero to be understood, whose deeds already seemed like those of Antichrist. Hence some suspect that Nero himself will rise again and be Antichrist; others, however, think that he was not even killed, but rather withdrawn so that he might be thought killed, and that he is hidden alive in the vigor of the very age he was when he was believed dead, until he is revealed in his own time and restored to his kingdom. But the great presumption of those who hold this opinion is very strange to me. Yet what the apostle says, “Only let him who now holds hold on, until he is out of the way,” is not absurdly believed to have been said of the Roman empire itself, as if it were said: “Only let him who now rules rule on, until he is out of the way,” that is, removed. “And then the lawless one will be revealed,” by whom no one doubts that Antichrist is signified.

Others, however, think that both “you know what is holding him back” and “the mystery of iniquity is at work” were said only of the wicked and the pretenders who are in the church, until they reach so great a number as to make a great people for Antichrist; and that this is the mystery of iniquity because it seems hidden; and that the apostle exhorts the faithful to persevere tenaciously in the faith they hold by saying, “Only let him who now holds hold on, until he is out of the way,” that is, until the mystery of iniquity, which is now hidden, goes out from the midst of the church. For they think that what John the evangelist says in his letter belongs to this same mystery: “Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have arisen; by this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us. If they had been of us, they would surely have remained with us.” “As, then, before the end, in this hour which John calls the last,” they say, “many heretics went out from the midst of the church, whom he calls many antichrists, so then all will go out from there who belong not to Christ but to that last Antichrist, and then he will be revealed.”

So one conjectures the apostle's obscure words in one way, another in another; yet what he undoubtedly said is this: Christ will not come to judge the living and the dead unless his adversary Antichrist first comes to deceive those who are dead in soul; although that they will be deceived by him already belongs to the hidden judgment of God. For his presence will be, as was said, “by the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all the deception of iniquity for those who are perishing.” For then Satan will be loosed, and through that Antichrist he will work in all his power, marvelously indeed, but deceitfully. It is commonly questioned whether these are called signs and lying wonders because he will deceive mortal senses by phantasms, so that he seems to do what he does not do, or because these very things, even if they are true wonders, will draw to a lie those who will believe that they could only have been done by God, not knowing the power of the devil, especially when he has received such power as he never had before. For when fire fell from heaven and in one assault consumed the great household of holy Job with his great flocks and herds, and a whirlwind rushed in and threw down the house and killed his children, these were not phantasms; yet they were works of Satan, to whom God had given this power. For which of these reasons, then, they are called lying wonders and signs will rather appear at that time. But for whichever of these reasons it is said, those will be deceived by these signs and wonders who will deserve to be deceived, “because,” he says, “they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.” Nor did the apostle hesitate to go on and say: “Therefore God will send them a working of error, so that they believe a lie.” God will send it, because God will permit the devil to do these things, he himself by a just judgment, although the devil does them with an unjust and malicious purpose; “so that,” he says, “all may be judged who did not believe the truth but consented to iniquity.” Therefore, having been judged, they will be deceived, and having been deceived, they will be judged. But having been judged, they will be deceived by those judgments of God which are hiddenly just and justly hidden, by which he has never ceased to judge since the first sin of the rational creation; and having been deceived, they will be judged by the last and open judgment through Christ Jesus, who will judge most justly, who was judged most unjustly.

### Scripture references

- 2 Thess 2:1–11: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 2:18–19: quotation, high confidence
- Job 1:16: allusion, high confidence
- Job 1:19: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- 2 Thessalonians 2:1–11; 1 John 2:18–19; Job 1:16, 19. Augustine says plainly that he does not know what Paul meant by what “holds back”; he reports the views that it is the Roman empire and that it is the hidden wicked within the church, and rejects as presumptuous the legend that Nero will return as Antichrist. “Deserter” renders “refuga” (Greek apostasia, “the apostasy”). “He sits as the temple of God” renders “in templum Dei sedeat” (Greek eis ton naon).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.19 (CSEL 40:470–475; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-14/#p-20-19).

## City of God 20.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-20/#p-20-20
- Source: CSEL 40:475–479
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Commenting on 1 Thessalonians 4, Augustine suggests that those alive at Christ's coming will die and rise in an instant as they are caught up, so that all die and rise; how it will happen is known only then.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. Quid idem apostolus in prima ad eosdem epistula de resurrectione docuerit mortuorum. Sed hic apostolus tacuit de resurrectione mortuorum; ad eosdem autem scribens in epistula prima: Nolumus, inquit, ignorare uos, fratres, de dormientibus, ut non contristemini, sicut et ceteri, qui spem non habent. Nam si credimus, quod Iesus mortuus est et resurrexit: ita et Deus eos, qui dormierunt per Iesum, adducet cum illo. Hoc enim uobis dicimus in uerbo Domini, quia nos uiuentes, qui reliqui sumus in aduentum Domini, non praeueniemus eos, qui ante dormierunt; quoniam ipse Dominus in iussu et in uoce archangeli et in tuba Dei descendet de caelo, et mortui in Christo resurgent primo; deinde nos uiuentes, qui reliqui sumus, simul cum illis rapiemur in nubibus in obuiam Christi in aera, et ita semper cum Domino erimus. Haec uerba apostolica resurrectionem mortuorum futuram, quando ueniet Christus, utique ad uiuos et mortuos iudicandos, praeclarissime ostendunt. Sed quaeri solet, utrum illi, quos hic uiuentes inuenturus est Christus, quorum personam in se adque illos, qui tunc secum uiuebant, transfigurabat apostolus, numquam omnino morituri sint, an ipso temporis puncto, quo cum resurgentibus rapientur in nubibus in obuiam Christo in aera, ad inmortalitatem per mortem mira celeritate transibunt. Neque enim dicendum est fieri non posse, ut, dum per aera in sublime portantur, in illo spatio et moriantur et reuiuescant. Quod enim ait: Et ita semper cum Domino erimus, non sic accipiendum est, tamquam in aere nos dixerit semper cum Domino esse mansuros; quia nec ipse utique ibi manebit. quia ueniens transiturus est; uenienti quippe ibitur obuiam, non manenti; sed ita cum Domino erimus, id est, sic erimus habentes corpora sempiterna, ubicumque cum illo fuerimus. Ad hunc autem sensum, quo existimemus etiam illos, quos hic uiuos inuenturus est Dominus, in ipso paruo spatio et passuros mortem et accepturos inmortalitatem, ipse apostolus nos uidetur urgere, ubi dicit: In Christo omnes uiuificabuntur; cum alio loco de ipsa loquens resurrectione corporum dicat: Tu quod seminas, non uiuificatur. nisi moriatur. Quo modo igitur, quos uiuentes hic Christus inueniet, per inmortalitatem in illo uiuificabuntur, etsi non moriantur, cum uideamus propter hoc esse dictum: Tu quod seminas, non uiuificatur, nisi moriatur? Aut si recte non dicimus seminari nisi ea corpora hominum, quae moriendo quoquo modo reuertuntur in terram (sicut sese habet etiam illa in transgressorem patrem generis humani diuinitus prolata sententia: Terra es, et in terram ibis): fatendum est istos, quos nondum de corporibus egressos cum ueniet Christus inueniet, et istis uerbis apostoli et illis de genesi non teneri; quoniam sursum in nubibus rapti non utique seminantur, quia nec eunt in terram nec redeunt, siue nullam prorsus experiantur mortem siue paululum in aere moriantur. Sed aliud rursus occurrit, quod idem dixit apostolus, cum de resurrectione corporum ad Corinthios loqueretur: Omnes resurgemus, uel sicut alii codices habent: Omnes dormiemus. Cum ergo nec resurrectio fieri, nisi mors praecesserit, possit, nec dormitionem possimus illo loco intellegere nisi mortem: quo modo omnes uel dormient uel resurgent, si tam multi, quos in corpore inuenturus est Christus, nec dormient nec resurgent? Si ergo sanctos, qui reperientur Christo ueniente uiuentes eique in obuiam rapientur, crediderimus in eodem raptu de mortalibus corporibus exituros et ad eadem mox inmortalia redituros, nullas in uerbis apostoli patiemur angustias, siue ubi dicit: Tu quod seminas, non uiuificatur, nisi moriatur, siue ubi dicit: Omnes resurgemus aut: Omnes dormiemus; quia nec illi per inmortalitatem uiuificabuntur, nisi, quamlibet paululum, tamen ante moriantur, ac per hoc et a resurrectione non erunt alieni, quam dormitione praecedunt, quamuis breuissima, non tamen nulla. Quur autem nobis incredibile uideatur illam multitudinem corporum in aere quodam modo seminari adque ibi protinus inmortaliter adque incorruptibiliter reuiuescere, cum credamus, quod idem ipse apostolus apertissime dicit, in ictu oculi futuram resurrectionem et in membra sine fine uictura tanta facilitate tamque inaestimabili uelocitate rediturum antiquissimorum cadauerum puluerem? Nec ab illa sententia, qua homini dictum est: Terra es et in terram ibis, futuros illos sanctos arbitremur inmunes, si eorum morientium in terram non recident corpora, sed, sicut in ipso raptu morientur, ita et resurgent, dum ferentur in aera. In terram quippe ibis est in hoc ibis amissa uita, quod eras antequam sumeres uitam: id est, hoc eris exanimatus, quod eras antequam esses animatus (terrae quippe insufflauit Deus in faciem flatum uitae. cum factus est homo in animam uiuam); tamquam diceretur: Terra es animata, quod non eras: terra eris exanimis, sicut eras; quod sunt et antequam putrescant omnia corpora mortuorum; quod erunt et illa. si morientur. ubicumque moriantur, cum uita carebunt, quam continuo receptura sunt. Sic ergo ibunt in terram, quia ex uiuis hominibus terra erunt. quem ad modum it in cinerem, quod fit cinis; it in uetustatem, quod fit uetus; it in testam, quod ex luto fit testa: et alia sescenta sic loquimur. Quo modo autem sit futurum. quod nunc pro nostrae ratiunculae uiribus utcumque conicimus, tunc erit potius, ut nosse possimus. Resurrectionem quippe mortuorum futuram et in carne, quando Christus uenturus est uiuos iudicaturus et mortuos, oportet, si Christiani esse uolumus, ut credamus; sed non ideo de hac re inanis est fides nostra, si, quem ad modum futura sit, perfecte conprehendere non ualemus. Verum iam, sicut supra promisimus, de hoc iudicio Dei nouissimo etiam prophetici ueteres libri quid praenuntiauerint, quantum satis esse uidebitur, debemus ostendere; quae, sicut arbitror, non tanta mora necesse erit tractari et exponi, si istis. quae praemisimus, lector curauerit adiuuari.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. What the same apostle taught about the resurrection of the dead in his first letter to the same people.

But here the apostle said nothing about the resurrection of the dead; writing to the same people in his first letter, however, he says: “We do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, about those who are asleep, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, so too God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus. For this we tell you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep; for the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.” These apostolic words show most clearly that the resurrection of the dead will take place when Christ comes, that is, to judge the living and the dead.

But it is commonly asked whether those whom Christ will find alive here, whose person the apostle was representing in himself and in those who were living with him then, will never die at all, or whether in the very moment of time in which they are caught up with those who rise in the clouds to meet Christ in the air, they will pass through death to immortality with wonderful speed. For it should not be said that it is impossible for them both to die and to come to life again in that space while they are being carried aloft through the air. For his saying, “And so we shall always be with the Lord,” is not to be taken as though he said that we shall remain always in the air with the Lord; for he himself certainly will not remain there, since he will pass through as he comes; for one goes to meet someone who is coming, not someone who is staying; but “so we shall be with the Lord” means that we shall be with him having everlasting bodies, wherever we are with him. The apostle himself seems to press us to this sense, so that we think that even those whom the Lord will find alive here will both suffer death and receive immortality in that short space, where he says, “In Christ all will be made alive,” while in another place, speaking of the resurrection of bodies itself, he says, “What you sow is not made alive unless it dies.” How, then, will those whom Christ finds alive here be made alive in him through immortality, even if they do not die, when we see that it was for this reason said, “What you sow is not made alive unless it dies”? Or, if we do not rightly speak of sowing except for those human bodies which by dying in some way return to earth (as is also the case with that sentence divinely pronounced against the transgressing father of the human race: “You are earth, and to earth you shall go”), it must be admitted that those whom Christ, when he comes, will find not yet gone out of their bodies are bound neither by these words of the apostle nor by those from Genesis; since, being caught up in the clouds, they are certainly not sown, for they neither go to earth nor return to it, whether they experience no death at all or die for a little while in the air.

But again something else occurs to us, which the same apostle said when he was speaking to the Corinthians about the resurrection of bodies: “We shall all rise,” or, as other manuscripts have it, “We shall all sleep.” Since, then, there can be no resurrection unless death has gone before, and we cannot understand sleep in that place as anything but death, how will all either sleep or rise, if so many whom Christ will find in the body will neither sleep nor rise? If, then, we believe that the saints who will be found alive when Christ comes and are caught up to meet him will leave their mortal bodies in that same rapture and return to the same bodies, now immortal, at once, we shall meet with no difficulties in the apostle's words, whether where he says, “What you sow is not made alive unless it dies,” or where he says, “We shall all rise,” or “We shall all sleep”; because they too will not be made alive through immortality unless they first die, however briefly; and so they will not be strangers to the resurrection either, which they precede by a sleep that is very short, but not none. And why should it seem incredible to us that that multitude of bodies should in a way be sown in the air and there at once come to life again immortal and incorruptible, when we believe what the same apostle says most plainly, that the resurrection will take place in the twinkling of an eye, and that the dust of the most ancient corpses will return with such ease and such inestimable speed to limbs that will live without end? Nor should we think that those saints will be exempt from that sentence in which it was said to man, “You are earth, and to earth you shall go,” if their bodies, when they die, do not fall to earth, but just as they die in the very rapture, so also rise again while they are carried into the air. For “to earth you shall go” means: you will go, when life is lost, into what you were before you took up life; that is, you will be, when lifeless, what you were before you were given life (for God breathed the breath of life into the face of earth when man was made a living soul); as if it were said: “You are earth given life, which you were not; you will be earth without life, as you were.” This is what all the bodies of the dead are even before they decay; this is what those bodies too will be, if they die, wherever they die, when they lack life, which they will at once receive again. So they will go to earth because from living human beings they will become earth, just as that goes into ash which becomes ash; that goes into old age which becomes old; that goes into a pot which from clay becomes a pot; and we speak in this way of six hundred other things. But how it will come about, which we now conjecture as best we can with the strength of our little reasoning, it will rather be possible for us to know then. For we must believe, if we wish to be Christians, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and in the flesh, when Christ comes to judge the living and the dead; but our faith on this matter is not therefore empty if we cannot fully comprehend how it will be.

But now, as we promised above, we must show, as far as seems enough, what the old prophetic books too foretold about this last judgment of God; and I think it will not be necessary to treat and explain them at such length, if the reader takes care to be helped by what we have set out beforehand.

### Scripture references

- 1 Thess 4:13–17: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:22: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:36: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 3:19: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:51–52: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:7: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- 1 Thessalonians 4:13–17; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 36; Genesis 3:19; 1 Corinthians 15:51 (Augustine knows two readings, “we shall all rise” and “we shall all sleep”); 15:52; Genesis 2:7. Augustine offers his view that the living will briefly die in the air as a conjecture, not as settled doctrine; the resurrection of the flesh itself he calls necessary belief for Christians.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.20 (CSEL 40:475–479; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-20/#p-20-20).

## City of God 20.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-20/#p-20-21
- Source: CSEL 40:479–485
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reads Isaiah 26 and 65–66 as foretelling the resurrection of good and wicked, the comfort of the heavenly Jerusalem, the gathering of the nations into the church, and eternal punishment.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. Quid Esaias propheta de mortuorum resurrectione et de retributione iudicii sit locutus. Propheta Esaias: Resurgent, inquit, mortui et resurgent qui erant in sepulcris, et laetabuntur omnes qui sunt in terra; ros enim, qui abs te est, sanitas illis est; terra uero inpiorum cadet. Totum illud superius ad resurrectionem pertinet beatorum. Quod autem ait: Terra uero inpiorum cadet, bene intellegitur dictum: Corpora uero inpiorum ruina damnationis excipiet. Iam porro si de bonorum resurrectione quod dictum est diligentius et distinctius uelimus intueri, ad primam referendum est quod dictum est: Resurgent mortui; ad secundam uero quod sequitur: Et resurgent qui erant in sepulcris. Iam si et illos inquiramus sanctos, quos hic uiuos inuenturus est Dominus, eis congrue deputabitur quod adiunxit: Et laetabuntur omnes qui sunt in terra; ros enim, qui abs te est, sanitas illis est. Sanitatem loco isto inmortalitatem rectissime accipimus; ea namque est plenissima sanitas, quae non reficitur alimentis tamquam cottidianis medicamentis. Item de iudicii die spem prius dans bonis, deinde terrens malos idem propheta sic loquitur: Haec dicit Dominus: Ecce ego declino in eos ut flumen pacis et ut torrens inundans gloriam gentium. Filii eorum super umeros portabuntur et super genua consolabuntur. Quem ad modum si quem mater consoletur, ita ego uos consolabor; et in Hierusalem consolabimini, et uidebitis, et gaudebit cor uestrum et ossa uestra ut herba exorientur. Et cognoscetur manus Domini colentibus eum, et comminabitur contumacibus. Ecce enim Dominus ut ignis ueniet, et ut tempestas currus eius, reddere in indignatione uindictam et uastationem in flamma ignis. In igne enim Domini iudicabitur omnis terra et in gladio eius omnis caro; multi uulnerati erunt a Domino. In bonorum promissione flumen pacis profecto abundantiam pacis illius debemus accipere, qua maior esse non possit. Hac utique in fine rigabimur; de qua in praecedenti libro abundanter locuti sumus. Hoc flumen se in eos declinare dicit, quibus tantam beatitudinem pollicetur, ut intellegamus in illius felicitatis regione, quae in caelis est. hoc flumine omnia satiari; sed quia et terrenis corporibus pax incorruptionis adque inmortalitatis inde influet, ideo declinare se dixit hoc flumen, ut de supernis quodam modo etiam inferiora perfundat et homines aequales angelis reddat. Hierusalem quoque, non illam quae seruit cum filiis suis, sed liberam matrem nostram intellegamus secundum apostolum aeternam in caelis. Ibi post labores aerumnarum curarumque mortalium consolabimur, tamquam paruuli eius in umeris genibusque portati. Rudes enim nos et nouos blandissimis adiutoriis insolita nobis beatitudo illa suscipiet. Ibi uidebimus, et gaudebit cor nostrum. Nec expressit quid uidebimus; sed quid nisi Deum? ut inpleatur in nobis promissum euangelicum: Beati mundicordes, quoniam ipsi Deum uidebunt, et omnia illa, quae nunc non uidemus, credentes autem pro modulo capacitatis humanae longe minus quam sunt adque incomparabiliter cogitamus. Et uidebitis, inquit, et gaudebit cor uestrum. Hic creditis, ibi uidebitis. Sed quoniam dixit: Et gaudebit cor uestrum, ne putaremus illa bona Hierusalem ad nostrum tantummodo spiritum pertinere: Et ossa, inquit, uestra ut herba exorientur; ubi resurrectionem corporum strinxit, uelut quod non dixerat reddens; neque enim cum uiderimus fiet. sed cum fuerit facta uidebimus. Nam et de caelo nouo ac terra noua iam supra dixerat, dum ea, quae sanctis promittuntur in fine, saepe ac multiformiter diceret. Erit, inquit, caelum nouum et terra noua, et non erunt memores priorum, nec adscendet in cor ipsorum, sed laetitiam et exsultationem inuenient in ea. Ecce ego faciam Hierusalem exsultationem et populum meum laetitiam; et exsultabo in Hierusalem et laetabor in populo meo; et ultra non audietur in illa uox fletus, et cetera, quae quidam ad illos carnales mille annos referre conantur. Locutiones enim tropicae propriis prophetico more miscentur, ut ad intellectum spiritalem intentio sobria cum quodam utili ac salubri labore perueniat; pigritia uero carnalis uel ineruditae adque inexercitatae tarditas mentis contenta litterae superficie nihil putat interius requirendum. Haec de propheticis uerbis, quae ante istum locum scripta sunt, satis dixerim. In hoc autem loco, unde ad illa digressi sumus, cum dixisset: Et ossa uestra ut herba exorientur, ut resurrectionem carnis quidem, sed tamen bonorum se nunc commemorare monstraret, adiunxit: Et cognoscetur manus Domini colentibus eum. Quid est hoc nisi manus distinguentis cultores suos a contemtoribus suis? De quibus sequentia contexens: Et comminabitur, inquit. contumacibus, siue, ut ait alius interpres, incredulis. Nec tunc comminabitur, sed quae nunc dicuntur minaciter, tunc efficaciter inplebuntur. Ecce enim Dominus, inquit, ut ignis ueniet et ut tempestas currus eius, reddere in indignatione uindictam et uastationem in flamma ignis. In igne enim Domini iudicabitur omnis terra et in gladio eius omnis caro; multi uulnerati erunt a Domino. Siue igne, siue tempestate, siue gladio poenam iudicii significat: quando quidem ipsum Dominum quasi ignem dicit esse uenturum, eis profecto quibus poenalis erit eius aduentus. Currus uero eius (nam pluraliter dicti sunt) angelica ministeria non inconuenienter accipimus. Quod autem ait omnem terram et omnem carnem in eius igne et gladio iudicari, non etiam hic spiritales intellegamus et sanctos, sed terrenos adque carnales, de qualibus dictum est: Qui terrena sapiunt. et: Sapere secundum carnem mors est; et quales omnino caro appellantur a Domino, ubi dicit: Non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus istis, quoniam caro sunt. Quod uero hic positum est: Multi uulnerati erunt a Domino, isto fiet uulnere mors secunda. Potest quidem et ignis et gladius et uulnus accipi in bono. Nam et ignem Dominus uelle se dixit mittere in mundum, et uisae sunt illis linguae diuisae uelut ignis, quando uenit Spiritus sanctus: et: Non ueni, inquit idem Dominus, pacem mittere in terram, sed gladium, et sermonem Dei dicit scriptura gladium bis acutum propter aciem geminam testamentorum duorum, et in cantico canticorum caritate se dicit sancta ecclesia uulneratam, uelut amoris inpetu sagittatam. Sed hic cum legimus uel audimus ultorem Dominum esse uenturum, quem ad modum haec intellegenda sint, clarum est. Deinde breuiter commemoratis eis, qui per hoc iudicium consumentur, sub figura ciborum in lege uetere uetitorum, a quibus se non abstinuerunt, peccatores inpiosque significans recapitulat ab initio gratiam noui testamenti a primo Saluatoris aduentu usque ad ultimum iudicium, de quo nunc agimus, perducens finiensque sermonem. Narrat namque Dominum dicere se uenire, ut congreget omnes gentes, easque uenturas et uisuras eius gloriam. Omnes enim, sicut dicit apostolus, peccauerunt et egent gloria Dei. Et relicturum se dicit super eos signa, quae utique mirantes credant in eum: et emissurum ex illis saluatos in gentes diuersas et in longinquas insulas, quae non audierunt nomen eius neque uiderunt eius gloriam; et adnuntiaturos gloriam eius in gentibus et adducturos fratres istorum, quibus loquebatur, id est in fide sub Deo Patre fratres Israelitarum electorum; adducturos autem ex omnibus gentibus munus Domino in iumentis et uehiculis (quae iumenta et uehicula bene intelleguntur adiutoria esse diuina per cuiusque generis ministeria Dei, uel angelica uel humana) in sanctam ciuitatem Hierusalem, quae nunc in sanctis fidelibus est diffusa per terras. Ubi enim diuinitus adiuuantur, ibi credunt, et ubi credunt, ibi ueniunt. Conparauit autem illos Dominus tamquam per similitudinem filiis Israel offerentibus ei suas hostias cum psalmis in domo eius, quod ubique iam facit ecclesia: et promisit ab ipsis se accepturum sibi sacerdotes et Leuitas; quod nihilo minus fieri nunc uidemus. Non enim ex genere carnis et sanguinis, sicut erat primum secundum ordinem Aaron; sed, sicut oportebat in testamento nouo, ubi secundum ordinem Melchisedech summus sacerdos est Christus, pro cuiusque merito, quod in eum gratia diuina contulerit, sacerdotes et Leuitas eligi nunc uidemus; qui non isto nomine, quod saepe adsequuntur indigni, sed ea, quae non est bonis malisque communis, sanctitate pensandi sunt. Haec cum de ista. quae nunc inpertitur ecclesiae, perspicua nobisque notissima Dei miseratione dixisset, promisit et fines, ad quos per ultimum iudicium facta bonorum malorumque discretione uenietur, dicens per prophetam, uel de Domino dicens ipse propheta: Quo modo enim caelum nouum et terra noua manebit coram me, dicit Dominus, sic stabit semen uestrum et nomen uestrum, et erit mensis ex mense et sabbatum ex sabbato. Veniet omnis caro in conspectu meo adorare in Hierusalem! dixit Dominus; et egredientur et uidebunt membra hominum, qui praeuaricati sunt in me. Vermis eorum non morietur, et ignis eorum non exstinguetur. et erunt uisui omni carni. Ad hoc iste propheta terminauit librum, ad quod terminabitur saeculum. Quidam sane non interpretati sunt: Membra hominum, sed cadauera uirorum, per cadauera significantes euidentem corporum poenam; quamuis cadauer nisi caro exanimis non soleat nuncupari, illa uero animata erunt corpora, alioquin nulla poterunt sentire tormenta; nisi forte, quia mortuorum erunt corpora, id est eorum, qui in secundam mortem cadent, ideo non absurde etiam cadauera dici possunt. Unde est et illud, quod ab eodem propheta dictum iam supra posui: Terra uero inpiorum cadet. Quis autem non uideat a cadendo esse appellata cadauera? Virorum autem pro eo posuisse illos interpretes, quod est hominum,\ manifestum est. Neque enim quisquam dicturus est praeuaricatrices feminas in illo supplicio non futuras; sed ex potiore, praesertim de quo femina facta est, uterque sexus accipitur. Verum, quod ad rem maxime pertinet, cum et in bonis dicitur: Veniet omnis caro, quia ex omni genere hominum populus ille constabit (non enim omnes homines ibi erunt, quando in poenis plures erunt), — sed, ut dicere coeperam, cum et in bonis caro et in malis membra uel cadauera nominantur: profecto post resurrectionem carnis, cuius fides his rerum uocabulis omnino firmatur, illud, quo boni et mali suis finibus dirimentur, futurum esse iudicium declaratur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. What the prophet Isaiah said about the resurrection of the dead and the retribution of the judgment.

The prophet Isaiah says: “The dead will rise, and those who were in the tombs will rise, and all who are on the earth will rejoice; for the dew that comes from you is health to them; but the land of the ungodly will fall.” All the first part of this belongs to the resurrection of the blessed. But his saying, “But the land of the ungodly will fall,” is well understood to mean: “But the ruin of damnation will receive the bodies of the ungodly.” Further, if we wish to look more carefully and distinctly at what was said about the resurrection of the good, “The dead will rise” is to be referred to the first resurrection, and what follows, “and those who were in the tombs will rise,” to the second. And if we also ask about those saints whom the Lord will find alive here, what he added will fittingly be assigned to them: “And all who are on the earth will rejoice; for the dew that comes from you is health to them.” By “health” in this place we most rightly understand immortality; for that is the fullest health, which is not restored by food as by daily medicines.

Likewise the same prophet, first giving hope to the good about the day of judgment and then terrifying the wicked, speaks thus: “Thus says the Lord: Behold, I turn toward them like a river of peace and like a torrent flooding the glory of the nations. Their children will be carried on the shoulders and comforted on the knees. As a mother comforts someone, so I will comfort you; and you will be comforted in Jerusalem, and you will see, and your heart will rejoice, and your bones will spring up like grass. And the hand of the Lord will be known to those who worship him, and he will threaten the stubborn. For behold, the Lord will come like fire, and his chariots like a storm, to render vengeance in indignation and devastation in a flame of fire. For by the fire of the Lord all the earth will be judged, and by his sword all flesh; many will be wounded by the Lord.” In the promise to the good, by the river of peace we must surely understand the abundance of that peace than which there can be none greater. With this certainly we shall be watered at the end; of it we spoke abundantly in the preceding book. He says that he turns this river toward those to whom he promises so great a blessedness, so that we may understand that in the region of that happiness which is in heaven all things are filled by this river; but since the peace of incorruption and immortality will flow from there into earthly bodies too, he said that he turns this river, so that from the heights it may in a way pour over the lower things as well and make human beings equal to angels. By Jerusalem, too, let us understand not that which is in slavery with her children, but, according to the apostle, our free mother, eternal in heaven. There, after the labors of mortal troubles and cares, we shall be comforted, carried on her shoulders and knees like her little ones. For that blessedness, unaccustomed to us, will receive us, untutored and new as we are, with the tenderest help. There we shall see, and our heart will rejoice. He did not say what we shall see; but what, if not God? so that the promise of the Gospel may be fulfilled in us: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God,” and all those things which we do not see now, but, believing, conceive according to the small measure of human capacity, far less than they are and beyond comparison. “And you will see,” he says, “and your heart will rejoice.” Here you believe; there you will see. But since he had said, “And your heart will rejoice,” so that we should not think that those goods of Jerusalem belong only to our spirit, he says, “And your bones will spring up like grass”; here he touched on the resurrection of bodies, as though supplying what he had not said; for it will not take place when we see, but when it has taken place we shall see. For he had also spoken above of the new heaven and new earth, when he was speaking often and in many forms of the things promised to the saints at the end: “There will be a new heaven and a new earth, and they will not remember the former things, nor will they come into their heart, but they will find joy and gladness in it. Behold, I will make Jerusalem a gladness and my people a joy; and I will rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in my people; and the voice of weeping will no longer be heard in her,” and the rest, which some try to refer to those carnal thousand years. For figurative expressions are mixed with literal ones in the prophetic manner, so that a sober mind may arrive at the spiritual understanding with a certain useful and wholesome labor; but carnal sloth, or the slowness of an untaught and unexercised mind, content with the surface of the letter, thinks that nothing more inward need be sought. Let this be enough about the prophetic words written before this place.

In this place, from which we digressed to them, when he had said, “And your bones will spring up like grass,” to show that he was now speaking of the resurrection of the flesh, but of the good, he added: “And the hand of the Lord will be known to those who worship him.” What is this but the hand of one who distinguishes his worshipers from those who despise him? Of these he goes on, joining what follows: “And he will threaten the stubborn,” or, as another translator puts it, “the unbelieving.” Nor will he threaten then; rather, what is now said threateningly will then be effectively fulfilled. “For behold,” he says, “the Lord will come like fire, and his chariots like a storm, to render vengeance in indignation and devastation in a flame of fire. For by the fire of the Lord all the earth will be judged, and by his sword all flesh; many will be wounded by the Lord.” Whether by fire, or storm, or sword, he signifies the punishment of the judgment; since he says that the Lord himself will come like fire, to those, surely, for whom his coming will be penal. His chariots (for they are spoken of in the plural) we not unfittingly take to be the ministries of angels. And as to his saying that all the earth and all flesh will be judged by his fire and sword, let us not understand here the spiritual and the saints too, but the earthly and carnal, of whom it is said, “who set their minds on earthly things,” and, “To set the mind on the flesh is death,” and such as are called simply flesh by the Lord where he says, “My spirit will not remain in these men, because they are flesh.” And as to what is set down here, “Many will be wounded by the Lord,” by this wound the second death will come about. Fire and sword and wound can indeed also be taken in a good sense. For the Lord said that he wished to send fire on the world, and divided tongues as of fire appeared to them when the Holy Spirit came; and the same Lord says, “I did not come to bring peace on earth, but a sword”; and Scripture calls the word of God a two-edged sword because of the double edge of the two testaments; and in the Song of Songs the holy church says that she is wounded with love, as if pierced by the arrow of love. But here, when we read or hear that the Lord will come as avenger, it is clear how these things are to be understood.

Then, having briefly mentioned those who will be consumed by this judgment, signifying sinners and the ungodly under the figure of the foods forbidden in the old law, from which they did not abstain, he recapitulates the grace of the New Testament from the beginning, from the first coming of the Savior to the last judgment, which we are now dealing with, carrying his discourse through to its end. For he relates that the Lord says that he is coming to gather all nations, and that they will come and see his glory. For, as the apostle says, all have sinned and lack the glory of God. And he says that he will leave signs among them, so that, marveling at them, they may believe in him; and that he will send some of them who are saved to various nations and to far-off islands which have not heard his name or seen his glory; and that they will proclaim his glory among the nations and bring the brothers of those to whom he was speaking, that is, brothers in the faith, under God the Father, of the chosen Israelites; and that they will bring them from all nations as an offering to the Lord on beasts of burden and in carriages (which beasts and carriages are well understood as divine aids through God's ministries of every kind, whether angelic or human) to the holy city Jerusalem, which is now spread throughout the earth in its holy believers. For where they are helped by God, there they believe, and where they believe, there they come. And the Lord compared them, as by a likeness, to the children of Israel offering him their sacrifices with psalms in his house, which the church now does everywhere; and he promised that he would take for himself from among them priests and Levites; which we see being done no less now. For we now see priests and Levites chosen not by descent of flesh and blood, as it was first according to the order of Aaron, but, as was fitting in the New Testament, where Christ is high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, according to the merit which divine grace has conferred on each; and they are to be weighed not by that name, which the unworthy often obtain, but by that holiness which is not common to good and bad.

When he had said these things of that mercy of God which is now granted to the church, clear and very well known to us, he promised also the ends to which one will come through the last judgment, when the separation of the good and the wicked has been made, speaking through the prophet, or the prophet himself speaking of the Lord: “For as the new heaven and the new earth will remain before me, says the Lord, so your seed and your name will stand; and there will be month after month and sabbath after sabbath. All flesh will come to worship before me in Jerusalem, says the Lord; and they will go out and see the limbs of the men who have transgressed against me. Their worm will not die, and their fire will not be quenched, and they will be a sight to all flesh.” The prophet ended his book with this, with which the world will end. Some, indeed, have translated not “the limbs of men” but “the corpses of men,” meaning by corpses the evident punishment of bodies; although only lifeless flesh is usually called a corpse, whereas those bodies will be alive, otherwise they could feel no torments; unless perhaps, because they will be the bodies of the dead, that is, of those who will fall into the second death, they can for this reason not absurdly be called corpses too. Hence also that saying of the same prophet which I have already set down above: “But the land of the ungodly will fall.” And who does not see that cadavera, “corpses,” are named from cadere, “to fall”? It is plain that those translators put “men” (virorum) for “human beings” (hominum). For no one will say that transgressing women will not be in that punishment; but both sexes are understood by the more prominent one, especially that from which woman was made. But what matters most is this: since in the case of the good it is said, “All flesh will come,” because that people will be made up of every kind of human being (for not all human beings will be there, since more will be in punishment), but, as I had begun to say, since “flesh” is named in the case of the good, and “limbs” or “corpses” in the case of the wicked, it is surely declared that the judgment by which the good and the wicked will be separated to their ends will take place after the resurrection of the flesh, belief in which is fully confirmed by these words.

### Scripture references

- Isa 26:19: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 66:12–16: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 65:17–19: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 66:17–24: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 4:25–26: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 5:8: quotation, high confidence
- Phil 3:19: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:6: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 6:3: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 12:49: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 2:3: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 10:34: quotation, high confidence
- Heb 4:12: allusion, high confidence
- Song 2:5: allusion, medium confidence
- Rom 3:23: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 110:4 (109:4 LXX): allusion, medium confidence
- Mark 9:48: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Isaiah 26:19 (LXX form); 66:12–16; 65:17–19; 66:18–24, in the Old Latin/LXX wording; Galatians 4:25–26; Matthew 5:8; Philippians 3:19; Romans 8:6; Genesis 6:3; Luke 12:49; Acts 2:3; Matthew 10:34; Hebrews 4:12; Song of Songs 2:5 (LXX/Vulgate “wounded with love”); Romans 3:23; Psalm 110:4 (LXX/Vulgate 109:4). The “preceding book” is Book 19 (on peace). The “other translator” and “some” who render “corpses” refer to Latin versions (Jerome's has “cadauera uirorum”). Augustine rejects referring Isaiah 65 to a carnal millennium. The worm and fire of Isa 66:24 are cited in Mark 9:48.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.21 (CSEL 40:479–485; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-20/#p-20-21).

## City of God 20.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-20/#p-20-22
- Source: CSEL 40:485–487
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The saints will “go out” to see the punishment of the wicked not by moving bodily but by knowledge; Augustine notes different views on the fire and the worm and defers the question.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. Qualis futura sit egressio sanctorum ad uidendas poenas malorum. Sed quo modo egredientur boni ad uidendas poenas malorum? Numquid corporis motu beatas illas relicturi sunt sedes et ad loca poenalia perrecturi, ut malorum tormenta conspiciant praesentia corporali? Absit; sed egredientur per scientiam. Hoc enim uerbo significatum est eos qui cruciabuntur extra futuros. Propter quod et Dominus ea loca tenebras exteriores uocat, quibus contrarius est ille ingressus, de quo dicitur seruo bono: Intra in gaudium Domini tui; ne illuc mali putentur ingredi, ut sciantur, sed ad illos potius uelut egredi scientia, qua eos cognituri sunt, boni, quia id quod extra est cognituri sunt. Qui enim erunt in poenis, quid agatur intus in gaudio Domini nescient; qui uero erunt in illo gaudio, quid agatur foris in illis tenebris exterioribus scient. Ideo dictum est: Egredientur, quia eos etiam qui foris ab eis erunt utique non latebunt. Si enim haec prophetae nondum facta nosse potuerunt per hoc, quod erat Deus, quantulumcumque erat, in eorum mortalium mentibus: quo modo inmortales sancti iam facta tunc nescient, cum Deus erit omnia in omnibus? Stabit ergo in illa beatitudine sanctorum semen et nomen; semen scilicet de quo Iohannes ait: Et semen eius in ipso manet; nomen uero de quo per hunc Esaiam dictum est: Nomen aeternum dabo eis Erit eis et mensis ex mense et sabbatum ex sabbato, tamquam luna ex luna et requies ex requie, quorum utrumque ipsi erunt cum ex his umbris ueteribus et temporalibus in illa lumina noua ac sempiterna transibunt. In poenis autem malorum et inexstinguibilis ignis et uiuacissimus uermis ab aliis adque aliis aliter adque aliter est expositus. Alii quippe utrumque ad corpus, alii utrumque ad animum rettulerunt; alii proprie ad corpus ignem, tropice ad animum uermem, quod esse credibilius uidetur. Sed nunc de hac differentia non est temporis disputare. De iudicio namque ultimo, quo fiet diremtio bonorum et malorum, hoc uolumen inplere suscepimus; de ipsis uero praemiis et poenis alias diligentius disserendum est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. What the going out of the saints to see the punishments of the wicked will be like.

But how will the good go out to see the punishments of the wicked? Will they leave those blessed abodes by bodily movement and proceed to the places of punishment, to behold the torments of the wicked in bodily presence? Far from it; they will go out by knowledge. For by this word it is signified that those who will be tormented will be outside. That is why the Lord too calls those places the outer darkness; the opposite of it is that entering of which it is said to the good servant: “Enter into the joy of your Lord”; so that the wicked should not be thought to enter there in order to be known, but rather the good, as it were, to go out to them by the knowledge by which they will know them, because what they will know is outside. For those who will be in punishment will not know what is happening within, in the joy of the Lord; but those who will be in that joy will know what is happening outside, in that outer darkness. That is why it was said, “They will go out,” because even those who will be outside them will certainly not be hidden from them. For if the prophets could know these things before they happened, because God was in the minds of those mortals, however little, how will the immortal saints not know them when they have happened then, when God will be all in all?

So in that blessedness the seed and the name of the saints will stand: the seed, namely, of which John says, “And his seed remains in him”; the name, of which it was said through this same Isaiah, “I will give them an everlasting name.” For them there will be month after month and sabbath after sabbath, as it were moon after moon and rest after rest; both of which they themselves will be, when they pass from these old and temporal shadows into those new and everlasting lights. In the punishments of the wicked, however, both the unquenchable fire and the ever-living worm have been explained differently by different people. Some have referred both to the body, others both to the mind; others the fire literally to the body and the worm figuratively to the mind, which seems more credible. But now is not the time to discuss this difference. For we undertook to fill this volume with the last judgment, by which the separation of the good and the wicked will be made; the rewards and punishments themselves must be discussed more carefully elsewhere.

### Scripture references

- Isa 66:22–24: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 8:12: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 25:21: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:28: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 3:9: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 56:5: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Isaiah 66:22–24; Matthew 8:12; 25:21, 30; 1 Corinthians 15:28; 1 John 3:9; Isaiah 56:5. On the fire and the worm Augustine inclines to the fire being bodily and the worm figurative, and returns to the question in 21.9.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.22 (CSEL 40:485–487; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-20/#p-20-22).

## City of God 20.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-20/#p-20-23
- Source: CSEL 40:487–490
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Daniel foretells Antichrist's short and savage reign of three and a half years before the judgment and the saints' everlasting kingdom, and the resurrection of many to life or to shame.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. Quid prophetauerit Daniel de persecutione Antichristi et de iudicio Dei regnoque sanctorum. Daniel de hoc ultimo iudicio sic prophetat, ut Antichristum quoque prius uenturum esse praenuntiet adque ad aeternum regnum sanctorum perducat narrationem suam. Cum enim uisione prophetica quattuor bestias significantes quattuor regna uidisset, ipsumque quartum a quodam rege superatum, qui Antichristus agnoscitur, et post haec aeternum regnum filii hominis, qui intellegitur Christus: Horruit, inquit, spiritus meus, ego Daniel, in habitudine mea, et uisus capitis mei conturbabant me. Et accessi, inquit, ad unum de stantibus, et ueritatem quaerebam ab eo de omnibus his, et dixit mihi ueritatem. Deinde, quid audierit ab illo, a quo de omnibus his quaesiuit, tamquam eo sibi exponente sic loquitur: Hae bestiae magnae quattuor quattuor regna surgent in terra, quae auferentur, et accipient regnum sancti Altissimi et obtinebunt illud usque in saeculum et usque in saeculum saeculorum. Et quaerebam, inquit, diligenter de bestia quarta, quae erat differens prae omni bestia, terribilis amplius — dentes eius ferrei et ungues eius aerei, manducans et comminuens et reliqua pedibus suis conculcans —, et de cornibus eius decem, quae, erant in capite eius, et de altero, quod adscendit et excussit de prioribus tria; cornu illud in quo erant oculi et os loquens magna, et uisus eius maior ceteris. Videbam, et cornu illud faciebat bellum cum sanctis, et praeualebat ad ipsos, donec uenit uetustus dierum, et regnum dedit sanctis Altissimi; et tempus peruenit, et regnum obtinuerunt sancti. Haec Daniel quaesisse se dixit. Deinde quid audierit continuo subiungens: Et dixit, inquit (id est ille, a quo quaesierat. respondit et dixit): Bestia quarta quartum regnum erit in terra, quod praeualebit omnibus regnis; et manducabit omnem terram, et conculcabit eam et concidet. Et decem cornua eius decem reges surgent; et post eos surget alius, qui superabit malis omnes, qui ante eum fuerunt; et tres reges humiliabit et uerba aduersus Altissimum loquetur et sanctos Altissimi conteret et suspicabitur mutare tempora et legem: et dabitur in manu eius usque ad tempus et tempora et dimidium tempus. Et iudicium sedebit, et principatum remouebunt ad exterminandum et perdendum usque in finem; et regnum et potestas et magnitudo regum, qui sub omni caelo sunt, data est sanctis Altissimi. Et regnum eius regnum sempiternum; et omnes principatus ipsi seruient et obaudient. Huc usque, inquit, finis sermonis. Ego Daniel; multum cogitationes meae conturbabant me, et forma mea inmutata est super me, et uerbum in corde meo conseruaui. Quattuor illa regna exposuerunt quidam Assyriorum, Persarum, Macedonum et Romanorum. Quam uero conuenienter id fecerint, qui nosse desiderant, legant presbyteri Hieronymi librum in Danielem satis erudite diligenterque conscriptum. Antichristi tamen aduersus ecclesiam saeuissimum regnum licet exiguo spatio temporis sustinendum, donec Dei ultimo iudicio regnum sancti accipiant sempiternum, qui uel dormitans haec legit, dubitare non sinitur. Tempus quippe et tempora et dimidium temporis unum annum esse et duo et dimidium ac per hoc tres annos et semissem etiam numero dierum posterius posito dilucescit, aliquando in scripturis et mensum numero declaratur. Videntur enim tempora indefinite hic dicta lingua Latina; sed per dualem numerum dicta sunt, quem Latini non habent. Sicut autem Graeci, ita hunc dicuntur habere et Hebraei. Sic ergo dicta sunt tempora, tamquam dicerentur duo tempora. Vereri me sane fateor, ne in decem regibus, quos tamquam decem homines uidetur inuenturus Antichristus, forte fallamur, adque ita [ne] ille inopinatus adueniat, non exsistentibus tot regibus in orbe Romano. Quid si enim numero isto denario uniuersitas regum significata est. post quos ille uenturus est; sicut millenario, centenario, septenario significatur plerumque uniuersitas, et aliis adque aliis numeris, quos nunc commemorare non est necesse? Alio loco idem Daniel: Et erit, inquit, tempus tribulationis, qualis non fuit ex quo nata est gens super terram usque ad tempus illud. Et in tempore illo saluabitur populus tuus omnis, qui inuentus fuerit scriptus in libro. Et multi dormientium in terrae aggere exsurgent: hi in uitam aeternam, et hi in obprobrium et in confusionem aeternam. Et intellegentes fulgebunt sicut claritas firmamenti, et ex iustis multi sicut stellae in saecula et adhuc. Sententiae illi euangelicae est locus iste simillimus de resurrectione dumtaxat corporum mortuorum. Nam qui illic dicti sunt esse in monumentis, ipsi hic dormientes in terrae aggere, uel, sicut alii interpretati sunt, in terrae puluere; et sicut ibi procedent dictum est, ita hic exsurgent; sicut ibi qui bona. fecerunt, in resurrectionem uitae; qui autem mala egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii: ita et isto loco hi in uitam aeternam, et hi in obprobrium et in confusionem aeternam. Non autem diuersum putetur, quod, cum ibi positum sit omnes qui sunt in monumentis, hic non ait propheta omnes, sed multi dormientium in terrae aggere. Ponit enim aliquando scriptura pro omnibus multos. Propterea et Abrahae dictum est: Patrem multarum gentium posui te, cui tamen alio loco: In semine, inquit, tuo benedicentur omnes gentes. De tali autem resurrectione huic quoque ipsi prophetae Danieli paulo post dicitur: Et tu ueni et requiesce; adhuc enim dies in conpletionem consummationis, et requiesces et resurges in sorte tua in fine dierum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. What Daniel prophesied about the persecution of Antichrist, the judgment of God, and the kingdom of the saints.

Daniel prophesies about this last judgment in such a way as to foretell that Antichrist will come first, and he carries his account through to the eternal kingdom of the saints. For when in a prophetic vision he had seen four beasts signifying four kingdoms, and the fourth overcome by a certain king, who is recognized as Antichrist, and after this the eternal kingdom of the Son of Man, who is understood to be Christ, he says: “My spirit shuddered, I, Daniel, within my frame, and the visions of my head troubled me. And I approached,” he says, “one of those standing there, and asked him the truth about all this, and he told me the truth.” Then he tells what he heard from the one of whom he asked about all these things, as that one explained it to him: “These four great beasts are four kingdoms that will arise on the earth, which will be taken away; and the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and possess it for ever and for ever and ever. And I inquired,” he says, “carefully about the fourth beast, which was different from every beast, more terrible, its teeth of iron and its claws of bronze, devouring and crushing and trampling the rest with its feet; and about its ten horns, which were on its head, and about the other, which came up and shook out three of the earlier ones; that horn in which were eyes and a mouth speaking great things, and its appearance was greater than the rest. I watched, and that horn made war with the saints and prevailed against them, until the Ancient of Days came and gave the kingdom to the saints of the Most High; and the time came, and the saints possessed the kingdom.” This is what Daniel said he asked. Then he at once adds what he heard: “And he said” (that is, the one of whom he had asked answered and said): “The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will prevail over all kingdoms; and it will devour the whole earth and trample it and cut it down. And its ten horns are ten kings who will arise; and after them another will arise, who will surpass in evils all who were before him; and he will humble three kings, and will speak words against the Most High, and will wear down the saints of the Most High, and will think to change times and law; and it will be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time. And the judgment will sit, and they will remove his dominion, to destroy and ruin it to the end; and the kingdom and the power and the greatness of the kings who are under the whole heaven have been given to the saints of the Most High. And his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions will serve and obey him. Here,” he says, “is the end of the account. I, Daniel: my thoughts greatly troubled me, and my appearance was changed upon me, and I kept the matter in my heart.”

Some have explained those four kingdoms as those of the Assyrians, Persians, Macedonians, and Romans. How fittingly they have done so, let those who wish to know read the presbyter Jerome's book on Daniel, written with enough learning and care. But that the most savage reign of Antichrist against the church is to be endured, though for a short space of time, until by God's last judgment the saints receive the everlasting kingdom, no one who reads this, even half asleep, is allowed to doubt. For that “a time and times and half a time” is one year and two and a half, and so three and a half years, becomes clear also from the number of days given later, and is sometimes declared in the Scriptures by the number of months as well. For “times” seems here to be said indefinitely in the Latin language; but it is said in the dual number, which the Latins do not have. As the Greeks have it, so too the Hebrews are said to have it. So “times” is said as if “two times” were said. I confess that I fear we may be mistaken about the ten kings whom Antichrist seems likely to find as ten individual men, and so he may come unexpectedly, there not being so many kings in the Roman world. For what if by this number ten is signified the whole number of kings after whom he is to come, just as totality is frequently signified by a thousand, a hundred, and seven, and by various other numbers which it is not necessary to mention now?

In another place the same Daniel says: “And there will be a time of tribulation such as has not been since a nation was born on earth until that time. And at that time all your people will be saved who are found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the mound of the earth will arise, these to eternal life, and those to reproach and to eternal confusion. And those who understand will shine like the brightness of the firmament, and many of the righteous like the stars for ever and beyond.” This place is very like that saying of the Gospel, at least about the resurrection of the bodies of the dead. For those who there are said to be in the tombs are here those sleeping in the mound of the earth, or, as others have translated, in the dust of the earth; and as it was said there, “they will come forth,” so here, “they will arise”; as there, “those who have done good to the resurrection of life, but those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment,” so also in this place, “these to eternal life, and those to reproach and to eternal confusion.” Nor should it be thought different that, whereas there it is put “all who are in the tombs,” here the prophet does not say “all,” but “many of those who sleep in the mound of the earth.” For Scripture sometimes puts “many” for “all.” Hence it was said to Abraham, “I have made you the father of many nations,” to whom nevertheless it is said in another place, “In your seed all nations will be blessed.” And of such a resurrection it is said a little later to this same prophet Daniel: “And you, come and rest; for there are still days until the completion of the consummation; and you will rest, and rise in your lot at the end of days.”

### Scripture references

- Dan 7:15–28: quotation, high confidence
- Dan 12:1–3: quotation, high confidence
- Dan 12:13: quotation, high confidence
- John 5:28–29: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 17:5: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 22:18: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Daniel 7:15–28; 12:1–3, 13; John 5:28–29; Genesis 17:5; 22:18. Augustine refers readers to Jerome's Commentary on Daniel for the four kingdoms. He cautions that the ten kings may be a figure for all kings rather than ten individuals. The editor deletes “ne” before “ille inopinatus adueniat” (no change in the sense rendered).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.23 (CSEL 40:487–490; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-20/#p-20-23).

## City of God 20.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-24/#p-20-24
- Source: CSEL 40:490–495
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Psalm 102 foretells the perishing of the heavens, against Porphyry's mockery of the Christian belief in the world's end; Psalm 50 foretells Christ's open coming to judge and gather the righteous.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIIII. In psalmis Dauidicis, quae de fine saeculi huius et nouissimo Dei iudicio prophetentur. Multa de iudicio nouissimo dicuntur in psalmis, sed eorum plura transeunter et strictim. Hoc tamen quod de fine huius saeculi apertissime ibi dictum est, nequaquam silentio praeteribo. Principio terram tu fundasti, Domine, et opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli. Ipsi peribunt, tu autem permanes; et omnes sicut uestimentum ueterescent, et sicut opertorium mutabis eos, et mutabuntur: tu autem idem ipse es, et anni tui non deficient. Quid est quod Porphyrius, cum pietatem laudet Hebraeorum, qua magnus et uerus et ipsis numinibus terribilis ab eis colitur Deus, Christianos ob hoc arguit maximae stultitiae etiam ex oraculis deorum suorum, quod istum mundum dicunt esse periturum? Ecce in litteris pietatis Hebraeorum dicitur Deo. quem confitente tanto philosopho etiam ipsa numina perhorrescunt: Opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli, ipsi peribunt. Numquid quando caeli peribunt, mundus, cuius idem caeli superior pars est et tutior, non peribit? Si haec sententia Ioui displicet, cuius, ut scribit iste philosophus, uelut grauioris auctoritatis oraculo in Christianorum credulitate culpatur: quur non similiter sapientiam tamquam stultitiam culpat Hebraeorum, in quorum libris piissimis inuenitur? Porro si in illa sapientia, quae Porphyrio tam multum placet, ut eam deorum quoque suorum uocibus praedicet, legitur caelos esse perituros: quur usque adeo uana est ista fallacia, ut in fide Christianorum uel inter cetera uel prae ceteris hoc detestentur, quod in ea periturus creditur mundus, quo utique nisi pereunte caeli perire non possunt? Et in litteris quidem sacris, quae proprie nostrae sunt, non Hebraeis nobisque communes, id est in euangelicis et apostolicis libris legitur: Praeterit figura huius mundi; legitur: Mundus transit: legitur: Caelum et terra transibunt. Sed puto. quod praeterit, transit, transibunt aliquanto mitius dicta sunt quam peribunt. In epistula quoque apostoli Petri. ubi aqua inundatus qui tunc erat perisse dictus est mundus, satis clarum est, et quae pars mundi a toto significata. et quatenus perisse sit dicta, et qui caeli repositi igni reseruandi in diem iudicii et perditionis hominum inpiorum; et in eo quod paulo post ait: Veniet dies Domini ut fur, in quo caeli magno inpetu transcurrent, elementa autem ardentia resoluentur. et terra et quae in ipsa sunt opera exurentur: ac deinde subiecit: His omnibus pereuntibus quales oportet esse uos? possunt illi caeli intellegi perituri. quos dixit repositos igni reseruandos, et [ea] elementa accipi arsura. quae in hac ima mundi parte subsistunt procellosa et turbulenta, in qua eosdem caelos dixit esse repositos, saluis illis superioribus et in sua integritate manentibus, in quorum firmamento sunt sidera constituta. Nam et illud quod scriptum est, stellas de caelo esse casuras, praeter quod potest multo probabilius et aliter intellegi, magis ostendit mansuros esse illos caelos, si tamen stellae inde casurae sunt; cum uel tropica sit locutio, quod est credibilius, uel in isto imo caelo futurum sit, utique mirabilius quam nunc fit. Unde et illa stella Vergiliana facem ducens multa cum luce cucurrit, et Idaea se condidit silua. Hoc autem quod de psalmo commemoraui, nullum caelorum uidetur relinquere, quod periturum esse non dixerit. Ubi enim dicitur: Opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli, ipsi peribunt. quam nullum eorum ab opere Dei, tam nullum eorum a perditione secernitur. Non enim dignabuntur de Petri apostoli locutione, quem uehementer oderunt, Hebraeorum defendere pietatem, deorum suorum oraculis adprobatam, ut saltem, ne totus mundus periturus esse credatur, sic a toto pars accipiatur in eo, quod dictum est: Ipsi peribunt, cum soli caeli infimi perituri sint, quem ad modum in apostolica illa epistula a toto pars accipitur, quod diluuio perisse dictus est mundus, quamuis sola eius cum suis caelis pars ima perierit. Sed quia hoc, ut dixi, non dignabuntur, ne uel apostoli Petri adprobent sensum, uel tantum concedant conflagrationi nouissimae, quantum dicimus ualuisse diluuium, qui nullis aquis, nullis flammis totum genus humanum perire posse contendunt: restat ut dicant, quod propterea di eorum Hebraeam sapientiam laudauerunt, quia istum psalmum non legerant. In psalmo etiam quadragensimo nono de iudicio Dei nouissimo intellegitur dictum: Deus manifestus ueniet, Deus noster, et non silebit. Ignis in conspectu eius ardebit, et in circuitu eius tempestas ualida. Aduocabit caelum sursum et terram discernere populum suum. Congregate illi iustos eius, qui disponunt testamento eius super sacrificia. Hoc nos de Domino Iesu Christo intellegimus, quem speramus de caelo esse uenturum ad uiuos et mortuos iudicandos. Manifestus enim ueniet inter iustos et iniustos iudicaturus iuste, qui prius uenit occultus ab iniustis iudicandus iniuste. Ipse, inquam, manifestus ueniet et non silebit, id est, in uoce iudicis euidens apparebit, qui prius cum uenisset occultus, ante iudicem siluit, quando sicut ouis ad immolandum ductus est et sicut agnus coram tondente fuit sine uoce, quem ad modum de illo per Esaiam legimus prophetatum et in euangelio uidemus inpletum. De igne uero et tempestate, cum in Esaiae prophetia tale aliquid tractaremus, quo modo essent haec intellegenda, iam diximus. Quod uero dictum est: Aduocabit caelum sursum: quoniam sancti et iusti recte caelum appellantur, nimirum hoc est, quod ait apostolus: Simul cum illis rapiemur in nubibus in obuiam Christo in aera. Nam secundum litterae superficiem, quo modo aduocatur caelum sursum, quasi possit esse nisi sursum? Quod autem adiunctum est: Et terram discernere populum suum, si tantummodo subaudiatur aduocabit, id est aduocabit et terram, nec subaudiatur sursum, hunc uidetur habere sensum secundum rectam fidem, ut caelum intellegatur in eis, qui cum illo iudicaturi sunt, et terra in eis, qui iudicandi sunt; ut aduocabit caelum sursum non hic intellegamus rapiet in aera, sed in iudiciarias eriget sedes. Potest et illud intellegi aduocabit caelum sursum aduocabit angelos in supernis et excelsis locis, cum quibus descendat ad faciendum iudicium; aduocabit et terram, id est homines in terra utique iudicandos. Si autem utrumque subaudiendum est, cum dicitur et terram, id est et aduocabit. et sursum, ut iste sit sensus: Aduocabit caelum sursum, et terram aduocabit sursum: nihil melius intellegi existimo quam omnes qui rapientur in obuiam Christo in aera, sed caelum dictum propter animas, terram propter corpora. Discernere porro populum suum, quid est nisi per iudicium separare bonos a malis, tamquam oues ab haedis? Deinde conuersio sermonis ad angelos facta est: Congregate illi iustos eius; profecto enim per angelicum ministerium res tanta peragenda est. Si autem quaerimus, quos iustos ei congregaturi sunt angeli: Qui disponunt, inquit, testamentum eius super sacrificia. Haec est omnis uita iustorum: disponere testamentum Dei super sacrificia. Aut enim opera misericordiae sunt super sacrificia, id est sacrificiis praeponenda, iuxta sententiam Dei dicentis: Misericordiam uolo quam sacrificium; aut si super sacrificia (in sacrificiis) intellegitur dictum, quo modo super terram fieri dicitur quod fit utique in terra: profecto ipsa opera misericordiae sunt sacrificia, quibus placetur Deo, sicut in libro huius operis decimo me disseruisse reminiscor; in quibus operibus disponunt iusti testamentum Dei, quia propter promissiones, quae nouo eius testamento continentur, haec faciunt. Unde congregatis sibi iustis suis et ad suam dexteram constitutis nouissimo utique iudicio dicturus est Christus: Venite, benedicti patris mei, possidete paratum uobis regnum a constitutione mundi. Esuriui enim, et dedistis mihi manducare. et cetera quae ibi proferuntur de bonorum operibus bonis et eorum praemiis sempiternis per ultimam sententiam iudicantis.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 24. What is prophesied in the Psalms of David about the end of this world and the last judgment of God.

Many things are said about the last judgment in the Psalms, but most of them in passing and briefly. Yet what is said there most plainly about the end of this world I will by no means pass over in silence: “In the beginning you founded the earth, O Lord, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; and they will all grow old like a garment, and like a covering you will change them, and they will be changed; but you are the same, and your years will not fail.” Why is it that Porphyry, while he praises the piety of the Hebrews, by which the God who is great and true and terrible even to their own deities is worshiped by them, accuses the Christians of the greatest folly, even on the basis of the oracles of his gods, because they say that this world will perish? See, in the writings of the Hebrews' piety it is said to God, before whom, as so great a philosopher admits, even their deities tremble: “The heavens are the works of your hands; they will perish.” When the heavens perish, will not the world perish, of which those same heavens are the higher and safer part? If this opinion displeases Jupiter, by whose oracle, as of weightier authority, this is blamed in the credulity of the Christians, as this philosopher writes, why does he not likewise blame as folly the wisdom of the Hebrews, in whose most pious books it is found? Further, if in that wisdom which pleases Porphyry so much that he proclaims it even through the voices of his gods, we read that the heavens will perish, why is this deceit so empty that in the faith of the Christians they detest this, among other things or above other things, that in it the world is believed to be going to perish, when certainly the heavens cannot perish unless it perishes?

In the sacred writings which are properly ours, not common to the Hebrews and us, that is, in the books of the Gospels and the apostles, we read: “The form of this world is passing away”; we read: “The world passes away”; we read: “Heaven and earth will pass away.” But I think that “is passing away,” “passes away,” “will pass away” are said somewhat more mildly than “will perish.” In the letter of the apostle Peter too, where the world that then existed is said to have perished when flooded with water, it is clear enough both what part of the world is signified by the whole and to what extent it is said to have perished, and what heavens have been stored up, kept for fire until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. And in what he says a little later, “The day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a great rush, and the elements will be dissolved with burning, and the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up,” and then added, “Since all these things are perishing, what sort of people ought you to be?”, those heavens can be understood to be about to perish which he said were stored up and kept for fire, and the elements taken to be about to burn which exist in this lowest, stormy, and turbulent part of the world, in which he said those same heavens were stored up, while those higher heavens, in whose firmament the stars are set, remain safe and in their integrity. For the saying that the stars will fall from heaven, besides the fact that it can be understood much more probably in another way too, rather shows that those heavens will remain, if indeed the stars are to fall from there; since either it is a figurative expression, which is more credible, or it will happen in this lowest heaven, certainly more wonderfully than it happens now. Hence also that star of Virgil, “trailing a torch, ran with much light, and hid itself in the forest of Ida.” But the passage I have cited from the psalm seems to leave none of the heavens which it did not say will perish. For where it is said, “The heavens are the works of your hands; they will perish,” just as none of them is excluded from being the work of God, so none of them is excluded from destruction. For they will not deign to defend the piety of the Hebrews, approved by the oracles of their gods, by the manner of speaking of the apostle Peter, whom they vehemently hate, so that at least, lest the whole world be believed to be going to perish, the part may be taken for the whole in the words “they will perish,” since only the lowest heavens will perish, just as in that apostolic letter the part is taken for the whole when the world is said to have perished in the flood, although only its lowest part with its heavens perished. But since, as I said, they will not deign to do this, lest they either approve the meaning of the apostle Peter or grant as much to the final conflagration as we say the flood accomplished, they who contend that the whole human race cannot perish by any waters or any flames, it remains for them to say that their gods praised the Hebrew wisdom because they had not read this psalm.

In the forty-ninth psalm too it is understood to be said of God's last judgment: “God will come openly, our God, and will not keep silence. Fire will burn before him, and round about him a mighty storm. He will call the heaven above, and the earth, to separate his people. Gather to him his righteous ones, who set his covenant above sacrifices.” We understand this of the Lord Jesus Christ, whom we hope will come from heaven to judge the living and the dead. For he will come openly among the righteous and the unrighteous to judge justly, who first came hidden to be judged unjustly by the unrighteous. He, I say, will come openly and will not keep silence; that is, he will appear plainly in the voice of a judge, who before, when he had come hidden, kept silence before the judge, when he was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and like a lamb before its shearer was without voice, as we read was prophesied of him through Isaiah and see fulfilled in the Gospel. As for the fire and the storm, we have already said how these are to be understood when we were treating something similar in the prophecy of Isaiah. And as to what was said, “He will call the heaven above”: since the saints and the righteous are rightly called heaven, this is, of course, what the apostle says: “We shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ in the air.” For according to the surface of the letter, how is heaven called “above,” as if it could be anywhere but above? And as to what was added, “and the earth, to separate his people”: if only “he will call” is supplied, that is, “he will call the earth too,” and “above” is not supplied, it seems to have this sense in accordance with right faith, that heaven is understood in those who are to judge with him and earth in those who are to be judged; so that we do not here understand “he will call the heaven above” as “he will catch it up into the air,” but as “he will raise it to the seats of judgment.” It can also be understood that “he will call the heaven above” means he will call the angels in the high and lofty places, with whom he may descend to execute judgment; “he will call the earth too,” that is, human beings on earth who are certainly to be judged. But if both are to be supplied when it is said “and the earth,” that is, both “he will call” and “above,” so that this is the sense: “He will call the heaven above, and he will call the earth above,” I think nothing is better understood than all those who will be caught up to meet Christ in the air, but called heaven because of their souls and earth because of their bodies. Further, what is “to separate his people” but to separate the good from the wicked by judgment, like sheep from goats? Then the discourse turns to the angels: “Gather to him his righteous ones”; for surely so great a matter is to be carried out by the ministry of angels. If we ask which righteous ones the angels are to gather to him, he says: “Who set his covenant above sacrifices.” This is the whole life of the righteous: to set God's covenant above sacrifices. For either the works of mercy are above sacrifices, that is, to be preferred to sacrifices, according to the saying of God, “I desire mercy rather than sacrifice”; or, if “above sacrifices” is understood as “in sacrifices,” as a thing is said to be done “upon the earth” which is certainly done on the earth, then surely the works of mercy themselves are the sacrifices by which God is pleased, as I remember discussing in the tenth book of this work; and in these works the righteous set God's covenant, because they do them for the sake of the promises contained in his new covenant. Hence, when his righteous ones have been gathered to him and set at his right hand, Christ will say in the last judgment: “Come, you blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me to eat,” and the rest that is set out there about the good works of the good and their everlasting rewards through the final sentence of the judge.

### Scripture references

- Ps 102:25–27 (101:26-Ps LXX): quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 7:31: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 2:17: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 24:35: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Pet 3:6–7: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Pet 3:10–11: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 24:29: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 50:3–5 (49:3-Ps LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:7: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Thess 4:17: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 25:32: allusion, high confidence
- Hos 6:6: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 25:34–35: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Porphyry, Porphyry, Phil. orac. (Porphyry, Philosophy from Oracles (fragments)): allusion, medium confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 2.694–696 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Psalm 102:25–27 (LXX/Vulgate 101:26–28); 1 Corinthians 7:31; 1 John 2:17; Matthew 24:35; 2 Peter 3:6–7, 10–11; Matthew 24:29; Psalm 50:3–5 (LXX/Vulgate 49:3–5), called by Augustine the forty-ninth psalm; Isaiah 53:7; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; Matthew 25:32–35; Hosea 6:6 (Matthew 9:13). Porphyry's oracle of Jupiter against the Christians is from his Philosophy from Oracles (cf. City of God 19.23). Virgil, Aeneid 2.694–696. The discussion of sacrifice is City of God 10.5–6. The editor deletes “ea” before “elementa” (no change in sense).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.24 (CSEL 40:490–495; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-24/#p-20-24).

## City of God 20.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-24/#p-20-25
- Source: CSEL 40:495–498
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Malachi 3 foretells the last judgment and seems to indicate purifying punishments for some, which will cleanse the church so that it offers itself to God in perfect righteousness; Augustine defers the question.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXV. De prophetia Malachielis, qua Dei iudicium ultimum declaratur et quorundam dicitur per purificatorias poenas facienda mundatio. Propheta Malachiel siue Malachi, qui et angelus dictus est, qui etiam Esdras sacerdos, cuius alia in canonem scripta recepta sunt, ab aliquibus creditur (nam de illo hanc esse Hebraeorum opinionem dicit Hieronymus), iudicium nouissimum prophetat dicens: Ecce uenit, dicit Dominus omnipotens; et quis sustinebit diem introitus eius, aut quis ferre poterit ut adspiciat eum? Quia ipse ingreditur quasi ignis conflatorii et quasi herba lauantium; et sedebit conflans et emundans sicut argentum et sicut aurum, et emundabit filios Leui, et fundet eos sicut aurum et argentum; et erunt Domino offerentes hostias in iustitia, et placebit Domino sacrificium Iudae et Hierusalem, sicut diebus pristinis et sicut annis prioribus. Et accedam ad uos in iudicio, et ero testis uelox super maleficos et super adulteros et super eos, qui iurant in nomine meo mendaciter, et qui fraudant mercedem mercennario et obprimunt per potentiam uiduas et percutiunt pupillos et peruertunt iudicium aduenae, et qui non timent me, dicit Dominus omnipotens; quoniam ego Dominus Deus uester, et non mutor. Ex his quae dicta sunt uidetur euidentius apparere in illo iudicio quasdam quorundam purgatorias poenas futuras. Ubi enim dicitur: Quis sustinebit diem introitus eius, aut quis ferre poterit, ut adspiciat eum? Quia ipse ingreditur quasi ignis conflatorii et quasi herba lauantium; et sedebit conflans et emundans sicut argentum et sicut aurum et emundabit filios Leui, et fundet eos sicut aurum et argentum: quid aliud intellegendum est? Dicit tale aliquid et Esaias: Lauabit Dominus sordes filiorum et filiarum Sion, et sanguinem emundabit de medio eorum spiritu iudicii et spiritu combustionis. Nisi forte sic eos dicendum est emundari a sordibus et eliquari quodam modo, cum ab eis mali per poenale iudicium separantur, ut illorum segregatio adque damnatio purgatio sit istorum, quia sine talium de cetero permixtione uicturi sunt. Sed cum dicit: Et emundabit filios Leui et fundet eos sicut aurum et argentum; et erunt Domino offerentes hostias in iustitia, et placebit Domino sacrificium Iudae et Hierusalem, utique ostendit eos ipsos, qui emundabuntur, deinceps in sacrificiis iustitiae Domino esse placituros, ac per hoc ipsi a sua iniustitia mundabuntur, in qua Domino displicebant. Hostiae porro in plena perfectaque iustitia, cum mundati fuerint, ipsi erunt. Quid enim acceptius Deo tales offerunt quam se ipsos? Verum ista quaestio de purgatoriis poenis, ut diligentius pertractetur, in tempus aliud differenda est. Filios autem Leui et Iudam et Hierusalem ipsam Dei ecclesiam debemus accipere, non ex Hebraeis tantum, sed ex aliis etiam gentibus congregatam; nec talem, qualis nunc est, ubi, si dixerimus, quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus, et ueritas in nobis non est; sed qualis tunc erit, uelut area per uentilationem, ita per iudicium purgata nouissimum, eis quoque igne mundatis, quibus talis mundatio necessaria est, ita ut nullus omnino sit, qui offerat sacrificium pro peccatis suis. Omnes enim qui sic offerunt, profecto in peccatis sunt, pro quibus dimittendis offerunt, ut, cum obtulerint acceptumque Deo fuerit, tunc dimittantur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 25. On the prophecy of Malachi, in which God's last judgment is declared and a cleansing of some through purifying punishments is said to be carried out.

The prophet Malachi, or Malachias, who was also called “angel,” and is believed by some to be also Ezra the priest, other writings of whom have been received into the canon (for Jerome says that this is the opinion of the Hebrews about him), prophesies the last judgment, saying: “Behold, he comes, says the Lord almighty; and who will endure the day of his coming, or who will be able to bear to look on him? For he comes in like a refiner's fire and like fullers' herb; and he will sit refining and purifying as silver and as gold, and he will purify the sons of Levi and pour them out like gold and silver; and they will offer sacrifices to the Lord in righteousness, and the sacrifice of Judah and Jerusalem will please the Lord as in the days of old and as in former years. And I will draw near to you in judgment, and I will be a swift witness against evildoers and against adulterers and against those who swear falsely in my name, and those who defraud the hired man of his wages and oppress widows by their power and strike orphans and pervert the judgment of the stranger, and who do not fear me, says the Lord almighty; for I am the Lord your God, and I do not change.” From what has been said it seems to appear more evidently that in that judgment there will be certain purifying punishments for some. For when it is said, “Who will endure the day of his coming, or who will be able to bear to look on him? For he comes in like a refiner's fire and like fullers' herb; and he will sit refining and purifying as silver and as gold, and he will purify the sons of Levi and pour them out like gold and silver,” what else is to be understood? Isaiah too says something of the kind: “The Lord will wash away the filth of the sons and daughters of Zion, and cleanse the blood from their midst by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of burning.” Unless perhaps it should be said that they are cleansed from filth and in a way refined in this sense, that the wicked are separated from them by the penal judgment, so that the segregation and condemnation of the one is the purification of the other, because they will live henceforth without any mixture of such people. But when he says, “And he will purify the sons of Levi and pour them out like gold and silver; and they will offer sacrifices to the Lord in righteousness, and the sacrifice of Judah and Jerusalem will please the Lord,” he certainly shows that the very ones who will be purified will thereafter please the Lord in sacrifices of righteousness, and so they themselves will be cleansed from their own unrighteousness, in which they displeased the Lord. Moreover, when they have been cleansed, they themselves will be the sacrifices in full and perfect righteousness. For what more acceptable thing do such people offer to God than themselves? But this question of purifying punishments must be put off to another time to be treated more carefully.

By the sons of Levi and Judah and Jerusalem we must understand the church of God itself, gathered not from the Hebrews only but from other nations as well; and not such as it is now, when “if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us,” but such as it will be then, purged by the last judgment as a threshing floor by winnowing, those too being cleansed by fire for whom such cleansing is necessary, so that there is no one at all who offers sacrifice for his sins. For all who offer in this way are surely in sins, for the forgiveness of which they offer, so that, when they have offered and it has been accepted by God, they may then be forgiven.

### Scripture references

- Mal 3:1–6: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 4:4: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 1:8: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 3:12: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Malachi 3:1–6 (LXX form); Isaiah 4:4; 1 John 1:8; Matthew 3:12. Augustine reports, from Jerome, the Jewish opinion identifying Malachi with Ezra. He says the passage seems to indicate “purifying punishments” (purgatoriae poenae) for some at the judgment, offers an alternative reading (purification by separation from the wicked), and postpones the question; he takes it up in Book 21 (esp. 21.13, 21.24, 21.26).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.25 (CSEL 40:495–498; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-24/#p-20-25).

## City of God 20.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-24/#p-20-26
- Source: CSEL 40:498–501
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The sacrifices “as in the days of old” that the purified saints will offer are themselves, sinless as in paradise before the Fall, not a return to the animal sacrifices of the Law; the Lord will be a swift witness against the wicked.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVI. De sacrificiis, quae sancti offerent Deo sic placitura. quo modo in diebus pristinis et annis prioribus placuerunt. Volens autem Deus ostendere ciuitatem suam tunc in ista consuetudine non futuram dixit filios Leui oblaturos hostias in iustitia; non ergo in peccato ac per hoc non pro peccato. Unde intellegi potest in eo quod secutus adiunxit adque ait: Et placebit Domino sacrificium Iudae et Hierusalem. sicut diebus pristinis et sicut annis prioribus, frustra sibi Iudaeos secundum legem ueteris testamenti sacrificiorum suorum praeterita tempora polliceri. Non enim tunc in iustitia, sed in peccatis hostias offerebant, quando pro peccatis praecipue ac primitus offerebant, usque adeo ut sacerdos ipse. quem debemus utique credere ceteris fuisse iustiorem, secundum Dei mandatum soleret pro suis primum offerre peccatis. deinde pro populi. Quapropter exponere nos oportet, quo modo sit accipiendum quod dictum est: Sicut diebus pristinis et sicut annis prioribus. Fortassis enim tempus illud commemorat, quo primi homines in paradiso fuerunt. Tunc enim puri adque integri ab omni sorde ac labe peccati se ipsos Deo mundissimas hostias offerebant; ceterum ex quo commissae praeuaricationis causa inde dimissi sunt adque humana in eis natura damnata est, excepto uno Mediatore et post lauacrum regenerationis quibusque adhuc paruulis nemo mundus a sorde, sicut scriptum est, nec infans. cuius est unius diei uita super terram. Quod si respondetur etiam eos merito dici posse offerre hostias in iustitia, qui offerunt in fide (iustus enim ex fide uiuit; quamuis se ipsum seducat, si dixerit se non habere peccatum, et ideo non dicat, quia ex fide uiuit): numquid dicturus est quispiam hoc fidei tempus illi fini esse coaequandum, quando igne iudicii nouissimi mundabuntur, qui offerant hostias in iustitia? Ac per hoc quoniam post talem mundationem nullum peccatum iustos habituros esse credendum est, profecto illud tempus, quantum adtinet ad non habere peccatum, nulli tempori conparandum est, nisi quando primi homines in paradiso ante praeuaricationem innocentissima felicitate uixerunt. Recte itaque intellegitur hoc significatum esse, cum dictum est: Sicut diebus pristinis et sicut annis prioribus. Nam et per Esaiam postea quam caelum nouum et terra noua promissa est, inter cetera, quae ibi de sanctorum beatitudine per allegorias et aenigmata exsequitur, quibus expositionem congruam reddere nos prohibuit uitandae longitudinis cura: Secundum dies, inquit, ligni uitae erunt dies populi mei. Quis autem sacras litteras adtigit et ignorat ubi Deus plantauerit lignum uitae, a cuius cibo separatis illis hominibus, quando eos sua de paradiso eiecit iniquitas, eidem ligno circumposita est ignea terribilisque custodia? Quod si quisquam illos dies ligni uitae, quos commemorauit propheta Esaias, istos qui nunc aguntur ecclesiae Christi dies esse contendit ipsumque Christum lignum uitae prophetice dictum, quia ipse est sapientia Dei, de qua Salomon ait: Lignum uitae est omnibus amplectentibus eam; nec annos egisse aliquos in paradiso illos primos homines, unde tam cito eiecti sunt, ut nullum ibi gignerent filium, et ideo non posse illud tempus intellegi in eo quod dictum est: Sicut diebus pristinis et sicut annis prioribus: istam praetereo quaestionem, ne cogar, quod prolixum est, cuncta discutere, ut aliquid horum ueritas manifesta confirmet. Video quippe alterum sensum, ne dies pristinos et annos priores carnalium sacrificiorum nobis pro magno munere per prophetam promissos fuisse credamus. Hostiae namque illae ueteris legis in quibusque pecoribus inmaculatae ac sine ullo prorsus uitio iubebantur offerri, et significabant homines sanctos, qualis solus inuentus est Christus, sine ullo omnino peccato. Proinde quia post iudicium, cum fuerint etiam igne mundati, qui eius modi mundatione sunt digni, in omnibus sanctis nullum inuenietur omnino peccatum, adque ita se ipsos offerent in iustitia, ut tales hostiae omni modo inmaculatae ac sine ullo uitio sint futurae, erunt profecto sicut pristinis diebus et sicut annis prioribus, quando in umbra huius rei futurae mundissimae offerebantur hostiae. Haec erit namque munditia tunc in inmortali carne ac mente sanctorum, quae figurabatur in illarum corporibus hostiarum. Deinde propter eos, qui non mundatione, sed damnatione sunt digni: Et accedam, inquit. ad uos in iudicium, et ero testis uelox super maleficos et super adulteros. et cetera, quibus damnabilibus enumeratis criminibus addidit: Quoniam ego Dominus Deus uester, et non mutor; tamquam diceret: Cum uos mutauerit et in deterius culpa uestra et in melius gratia mea, ego non mutor. Testem uero se dicit futurum, quia in iudicio suo non indiget testibus, eumque uelocem, siue quia repente uenturus est eritque iudicium ipso inopinato eius aduentu celerrimum, quod tardissimum uidebatur, siue quia ipsas conuincet sine ulla sermonis prolixitate conscientias. In cogitationibus enim, sicut scriptum est, inpii interrogatio erit; et apostolus: Cogitationibus, inquit, accusantibus uel etiam excusantibus in die, qua iudicabit Deus occulta hominum secundum euangelium meum per Iesum Christum. Etiam sic ergo Dominus futurus testis intellegendus est uelox, cum sine mora reuocaturus est in memoriam, unde conuincat puniatque conscientiam.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 26. On the sacrifices which the saints will offer to God, which will please him as they pleased him in the days of old and in former years.

Wishing to show that his city will not then be in this present condition, God said that the sons of Levi would offer sacrifices in righteousness; not, therefore, in sin, and so not for sin. Hence it can be understood from what he went on to add, “And the sacrifice of Judah and Jerusalem will please the Lord as in the days of old and as in former years,” that the Jews promise themselves in vain the past times of their sacrifices according to the law of the old covenant. For they did not then offer sacrifices in righteousness but in sins, since they offered chiefly and first of all for sins, so much so that the priest himself, whom we must certainly believe to have been more righteous than the rest, was accustomed by God's command to offer first for his own sins and then for the people's. We must therefore explain how what was said, “As in the days of old and as in former years,” is to be taken. Perhaps it recalls the time when the first human beings were in paradise. For then, pure and untouched by any filth or stain of sin, they offered themselves to God as the purest sacrifices; but since they were sent out from there because of the transgression they committed and human nature was condemned in them, apart from the one Mediator, and, after the washing of regeneration, any who are still little children, no one is clean from filth, as it is written, “not even an infant whose life on earth is one day.” But if it is answered that those too can rightly be said to offer sacrifices in righteousness who offer in faith (for “the righteous lives by faith,” although he deceives himself if he says that he has no sin, and therefore, because he lives by faith, he does not say it), will anyone say that this time of faith is to be made equal to that end, when those who offer sacrifices in righteousness will be cleansed by the fire of the last judgment? And so, since it is to be believed that after such cleansing the righteous will have no sin, surely that time, as far as having no sin is concerned, is to be compared with no other time except when the first human beings lived in paradise in most innocent happiness before the transgression. So it is rightly understood that this is what was signified when it was said, “As in the days of old and as in former years.” For through Isaiah too, after a new heaven and a new earth had been promised, among other things which he sets out there about the blessedness of the saints through allegories and enigmas, to which concern for avoiding length has prevented us from giving a fitting explanation, he says: “As the days of the tree of life, so will be the days of my people.” Who has touched the sacred writings and does not know where God planted the tree of life, from whose food those human beings were cut off when their iniquity cast them out of paradise, and a fiery and terrible guard was set around that tree?

But if anyone contends that those days of the tree of life which the prophet Isaiah mentioned are these days of the church of Christ which are now passing, and that Christ himself is prophetically called the tree of life because he is the wisdom of God, of whom Solomon says, “She is a tree of life to all who embrace her”; and that those first human beings did not spend any years in paradise, from which they were cast out so quickly that they begot no son there, and that therefore that time cannot be understood in what was said, “As in the days of old and as in former years”: I pass over this question, so as not to be forced, which would be lengthy, to discuss everything in order that the manifest truth may confirm one of these views. For I see another sense, so that we should not believe that the days of old and former years of carnal sacrifices were promised to us through the prophet as a great gift. For those victims of the old law were commanded to be offered, in all kinds of animals, unblemished and wholly without any defect, and they signified holy human beings, such as Christ alone has been found to be, entirely without any sin. Accordingly, since after the judgment, when those who are worthy of such cleansing have also been cleansed by fire, no sin at all will be found in any of the saints, and so they will offer themselves in righteousness, such victims will be altogether unblemished and without any defect; they will surely be as in the days of old and as in former years, when the purest victims were offered in the shadow of this thing to come. For this purity will then be in the immortal flesh and mind of the saints, which was figured in the bodies of those victims.

Then, because of those who are worthy not of cleansing but of condemnation, he says: “And I will draw near to you in judgment, and I will be a swift witness against evildoers and against adulterers,” and the rest; and when these damnable crimes have been listed, he added: “For I am the Lord your God, and I do not change”; as if he said: “Though your guilt has changed you for the worse and my grace for the better, I do not change.” He says he will be a witness because in his judgment he does not need witnesses; and a swift one, either because he will come suddenly and the judgment, which seemed very slow, will be very quick by his unexpected coming, or because he will convict consciences themselves without any length of speech. For, as it is written, “In the thoughts of the ungodly there will be an examination”; and the apostle says: “Their thoughts accusing or even excusing them, on the day when God will judge the secrets of men according to my gospel through Jesus Christ.” In this way too, then, the Lord is to be understood as a swift witness, since he will recall to memory without delay that by which he may convict and punish the conscience.

### Scripture references

- Mal 3:3–6: quotation, high confidence
- Lev 16:6: allusion, high confidence
- Heb 7:27: allusion, medium confidence
- Titus 3:5: allusion, high confidence
- Job 14:4–5: quotation, high confidence
- Hab 2:4: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 1:17: quotation, medium confidence
- 1 John 1:8: allusion, high confidence
- Isa 65:17: allusion, high confidence
- Isa 65:22: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:9: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 3:24: allusion, high confidence
- Prov 3:18: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:24: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 2:15–16: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 1:9 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Malachi 3:3–6; Leviticus 16:6, 15 (Hebrews 7:27); Titus 3:5; Job 14:4–5 in the LXX/Old Latin form (“not even an infant whose life on earth is one day”); Habakkuk 2:4 (Romans 1:17); 1 John 1:8; Isaiah 65:17, 22 (LXX “tree of life”); Genesis 2:9; 3:24; Proverbs 3:18; 1 Corinthians 1:24; Wisdom 1:9 (“in the thoughts of the ungodly there will be an examination”); Romans 2:15–16. Augustine again speaks of some being “cleansed by fire” after the judgment. His remark on the Jews' hopes concerns the restoration of Levitical sacrifice, stated as his reading of Malachi.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.26 (CSEL 40:498–501; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-24/#p-20-26).

## City of God 20.27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-24/#p-20-27
- Source: CSEL 40:501–502
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Malachi's day burning like an oven, when the sun of righteousness rises on those who fear God, shows the final separation of the righteous and the wicked.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVII. De separatione bonorum et malorum, per quam nouissimi iudicii discretio declaratur. Illud etiam, quod aliud agens in octauo decimo libro ex isto propheta posui, ad iudicium nouissimum pertinet, ubi ait: Erunt mihi, dicit Dominus omnipotens, in die qua ego facio in adquisitionem, et eligam eos sicut eligit homo filium suum qui seruit ei; et conuertar et uidebitis quid sit inter iustum et iniquum, et inter seruientem Deo et eum qui non seruit ei. Quia ecce dies uenit ardens sicut clibanus et conburet eos, et erunt omnes alienigenae et uniuersi, qui faciunt iniquitatem, stipula, et succendet eos dies ueniens, dicit Dominus omnipotens, et non relinquetur in eis radix neque ramus. Et orietur uobis, qui timetis nomen meum, sol iustitiae, et sanitas in pinnis eius, et egrediemini et salietis sicut uituli de uinculis relaxati; et conculcabitis iniquos, et erunt cinis sub pedibus uestris, dicit Dominus omnipotens. Haec distantia praemiorum adque poenarum iustos dirimens ab iniustis, quae sub isto sole in huius uitae uanitate non cernitur, quando sub illo sole iustitiae in illius uitae manifestatione clarebit, tunc profecto erit iudicium quale numquam fuit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 27. On the separation of the good and the wicked, by which the discrimination of the last judgment is declared.

That passage too which I set down from this prophet in the eighteenth book, while dealing with something else, belongs to the last judgment, where he says: “They will be mine, says the Lord almighty, on the day when I make them my possession, and I will choose them as a man chooses his son who serves him; and I will turn, and you will see what the difference is between the righteous and the unrighteous, and between one who serves God and one who does not serve him. For behold, the day comes, burning like an oven, and it will burn them up, and all foreigners and all who do iniquity will be stubble, and the coming day will set them on fire, says the Lord almighty, and neither root nor branch will be left in them. And for you who fear my name the sun of righteousness will rise, and healing in its wings, and you will go out and leap like calves loosed from their bonds; and you will trample the unrighteous, and they will be ashes under your feet, says the Lord almighty.” This difference of rewards and punishments separating the righteous from the unrighteous, which is not discerned under this sun in the vanity of this life, when it shines out under that sun of righteousness in the manifestation of that life, then indeed there will be a judgment such as there has never been.

### Scripture references

- Mal 3:17–4:3: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Augustine, Civ. 18.35 (City of God): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Malachi 3:17–4:3 (Hebrew 3:17–21), LXX form. Augustine had cited it in City of God 18.35.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.27 (CSEL 40:501–502; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-24/#p-20-27).

## City of God 20.28

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-24/#p-20-28
- Source: CSEL 40:502–503
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Those who read the law of Moses carnally murmured that serving God was useless; the last judgment will openly show the misery of the wicked and the happiness of the righteous.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIII. De lege Moysi spiritaliter intellegenda, ne in damnabilia murmura carnalis sensus incurrat. Quod uero subiungit idem propheta: Mementote legis Moysi serui mei, quam mandaui ei in Choreb ad omnem Israel, praecepta et iudicia opportune commemorat post declaratum futurum tam magnum inter obseruatores legis contemtoresque discrimen; simul etiam ut discant legem spiritaliter intellegere et inueniant in ea Christum, per quem iudicem facienda est inter bonos et malos ipsa discretio. Non enim frustra idem Dominus ait Iudaeis: Si crederetis Moysi, crederetis et mihi; de me enim ille scripsit. Carnaliter quippe accipiendo legem et eius promissa terrena rerum caelestium figuras esse nescientes in illa murmura conruerunt. ut dicere auderent: Vanus est qui seruit Deo, et quid amplius, quia custodiuimus mandata eius et quia ambulauimus supplices ante faciem Domini omnipotentis? Et nunc nos beatos dicimus alienos, et aedificantur omnes qui faciunt iniquitatem. Quibus eorum uerbis quodam modo propheta conpulsus est nouissimum praenuntiare iudicium, ubi mali nec saltem falso sint beati. sed apertissime miserrimi appareant, et boni nulla temporali saltem miseria laborent, sed clara ac sempiterna beatitudine perfruantur. Dixerat quippe istorum talia quaedam uerba etiam superius dicentium: Omnis, qui facit malum, bonus est in conspectu Domini, et tales ei placent. Ad haec, inquam, contra Deum murmura peruenerunt legem Moysi accipiendo carnaliter. Unde et ille in psalmo septuagensimo secundo paene commotos dicit fuisse pedes suos et effusos gressus suos, utique in lapsum, quia zelauit in peccatoribus, pacem peccatorum intuens; ita ut inter cetera diceret: Quo modo sciuit Deus, et si est scientia in Altissimo? diceret etiam: Numquid uano iustificaui cor meum et laui in innocentibus manus meas? Ut autem solueret hanc difficillimam quaestionem, quae fit, cum uidentur boni esse miseri et felices mali: Hoc, inquit, labor est ante me, donec introeam in sanctuarium Dei et intellegam in nouissima. Iudicio quippe nouissimo non sic erit; sed in aperta iniquorum miseria et aperta felicitate iustorum longe quam nunc est aliud apparebit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 28. That the law of Moses is to be understood spiritually, so as not to fall into the damnable murmurings of carnal understanding.

What the same prophet adds, “Remember the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel, statutes and judgments,” he fittingly recalls after declaring that there will be so great a difference between those who keep the law and those who despise it; and at the same time so that they may learn to understand the law spiritually and find Christ in it, through whom as judge that very separation between the good and the wicked is to be made. For not in vain does the same Lord say to the Jews: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me also; for he wrote of me.” For by taking the law carnally, and not knowing that its earthly promises are figures of heavenly things, they fell into those murmurings, so that they dared to say: “He who serves God is a fool; and what more have we gained because we have kept his commandments and walked as suppliants before the face of the Lord almighty? And now we call strangers blessed, and all who do iniquity are built up.” By these words of theirs the prophet was in a way compelled to foretell the last judgment, where the wicked will not be happy even falsely, but will appear most plainly wretched, and the good will not suffer even temporal misery, but will enjoy clear and everlasting blessedness. For he had quoted above certain such words of theirs as well, when they said: “Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and such people please him.” To these murmurings against God, I say, they came by taking the law of Moses carnally. Hence the man in the seventy-second psalm too says that his feet were almost moved and his steps poured out, that is, to a fall, because he was envious of sinners, seeing the peace of sinners; so that among other things he said: “How does God know, and is there knowledge in the Most High?” and said also: “Have I justified my heart in vain and washed my hands among the innocent?” But to solve this most difficult question, which arises when the good seem to be wretched and the wicked happy, he says: “This is a labor before me, until I enter into the sanctuary of God and understand the last things.” For in the last judgment it will not be so; but in the open misery of the unrighteous and the open happiness of the righteous something far different from what is now will appear.

### Scripture references

- Mal 4:4: quotation, high confidence
- John 5:46: quotation, high confidence
- Mal 3:14–15: quotation, high confidence
- Mal 2:17: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 73:2–3 (72:2-Ps LXX): allusion, high confidence
- Ps 73:11 (72:11 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 73:13 (72:13 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 73:16–17 (72:16-Ps LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Malachi 4:4 (Hebrew 3:22); John 5:46; Malachi 3:14–15; 2:17; Psalm 73:2–3, 11, 13, 16–17 (LXX/Vulgate 72), which Augustine calls the seventy-second psalm. His remark on the Jews concerns a carnal reading of the law, stated in the terms of his argument.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.28 (CSEL 40:502–503; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-24/#p-20-28).

## City of God 20.29

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-24/#p-20-29
- Source: CSEL 40:503–505
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Elijah, who is still living, will come before the judgment and, by expounding the law spiritually, will bring the Jews to believe in Christ.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIIII. De aduentu Heliae ante iudicium, cuius praedicatione scripturarum secreta reserante Iudaei conuertentur ad Christum. Cum autem admonuisset, ut meminissent legis Moysi (quoniam praeuidebat eos multo adhuc tempore non eam spiritaliter, sicut oportuerat, accepturos), continuo subiecit: Et ecce ego mittam uobis Heliam Thesbiten, antequam ueniat dies Domini magnus et inlustris, qui conuertet cor patris ad filium et cor hominis ad proximum suum, ne forte ueniens percutiam terram penitus. Per hunc Heliam magnum mirabilemque prophetam exposita sibi lege ultimo tempore ante iudicium Iudaeos in Christum uerum, id est in Christum nostrum, esse credituros, celeberrimum est in sermonibus cordibusque fidelium. Ipse quippe ante aduentum iudicis Saluatoris non inmerito speratur esse uenturus, quia etiam nunc uiuere non inmerito creditur. Curru namque igneo raptus est de rebus humanis, quod euidentissime sancta scriptura testatur. Cum uenerit ergo, exponendo legem spiritaliter, quam nunc Iudaei carnaliter sapiunt, conuertet cor patris ad filium, id est cor patrum ad filios: singularem quippe pro numero plurali interpretes septuaginta posuerunt; et est sensus, ut etiam filii sic intellegant legem, id est Iudaei, quem ad modum eam patres intellexerunt. id est prophetae, in quibus erat et ipse Moyses; sic enim cor patrum conuertetur ad filios, cum intellegentia patrum perducetur ad intellegentiam filiorum; et cor filiorum ad patres eorum, dum in id, quod senserunt illi, consentiunt et isti; ubi Septuaginta dixerunt: Et cor hominis ad proximum suum. Sunt enim inter se ualde proximi patres et filii. Quamquam in uerbis septuaginta interpretum, qui prophetice interpretati sunt. potest alius sensus idemque electior inueniri. ut intellegatur Helias cor Dei Patris conuersurus ad Filium: non utique agendo ut Pater diligat Filium, sed docendo quod Pater diligat Filium; ut et Iudaei, quem prius oderant, diligant eundem, qui noster est, Christum. Iudaeis enim nunc auersum cor habet Deus a Christo nostro, quia hoc putant. Eis ergo tunc cor eius conuertetur ad Filium, cum ipsi conuerso corde didicerint dilectionem Patris in Filium. Quod uero sequitur: Et cor hominis ad proximum suum, id est, conuertet Helias et cor hominis ad proximum suum: quid melius intellegitur quam cor hominis ad hominem Christum? Cum enim sit in forma Dei Deus noster, formam serui accipiens esse dignatus est etiam proximus noster. Hoc ergo faciet Helias. Ne forte, inquit, ueniam et percutiam terram penitus. Terra sunt enim, qui terrena sapiunt, sicut Iudaei carnales usque nunc; ex quo uitio contra Deum murmura illa uenerunt: Quia mali ei placent, et: Vanus est qui seruit Deo.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 29. On the coming of Elijah before the judgment, by whose preaching, which will open the secrets of the Scriptures, the Jews will be converted to Christ.

When he had admonished them to remember the law of Moses (since he foresaw that for a long time yet they would not take it spiritually, as they ought), he at once added: “And behold, I will send you Elijah the Tishbite before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes, who will turn the heart of the father to the son and the heart of a man to his neighbor, lest when I come I strike the earth utterly.” That through this Elijah, the great and wonderful prophet, when the law has been expounded to them in the last time before the judgment, the Jews will believe in the true Christ, that is, in our Christ, is a very common theme in the talk and hearts of the faithful. For he is not without reason hoped to come before the coming of the Savior as judge, since he is not without reason believed to be living even now. For he was taken up from human affairs in a fiery chariot, as holy Scripture most plainly testifies. When he comes, then, by expounding spiritually the law which the Jews now understand carnally, he will turn the heart of the father to the son, that is, the heart of the fathers to the sons; for the Seventy translators put the singular for the plural. And the sense is that the sons also, that is, the Jews, will understand the law as the fathers, that is, the prophets, among whom was Moses himself, understood it. For so the heart of the fathers will be turned to the sons, when the understanding of the fathers is brought to the understanding of the sons; and the heart of the sons to their fathers, when the latter agree with what the former thought; where the Seventy said, “and the heart of a man to his neighbor.” For fathers and sons are very near neighbors to one another. Yet in the words of the Seventy translators, who translated prophetically, another sense, and a more choice one, can be found: that Elijah is to be understood as turning the heart of God the Father to the Son; not, of course, by causing the Father to love the Son, but by teaching that the Father loves the Son, so that the Jews too may love the same Christ, who is ours, whom they had hated before. For to the Jews God now has his heart turned away from our Christ, since that is what they think. To them, then, his heart will be turned to the Son when they themselves, with their hearts turned, have learned the Father's love for the Son. And as to what follows, “and the heart of a man to his neighbor,” that is, Elijah will also turn the heart of a man to his neighbor, what is better understood than the heart of a man to the man Christ? For though in the form of God he is our God, taking the form of a servant he deigned to become our neighbor too. This, then, Elijah will do. “Lest,” he says, “I come and strike the earth utterly.” For they are earth who set their minds on earthly things, as the carnal Jews do until now; from this fault came those murmurings against God: “The wicked please him,” and, “He who serves God is a fool.”

### Scripture references

- Mal 4:5–6: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Kgs 2:11: allusion, high confidence
- Phil 2:6–7: allusion, high confidence
- Phil 3:19: allusion, medium confidence
- Mal 2:17: allusion, high confidence
- Mal 3:14: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 17:11: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Malachi 4:5–6 (Hebrew 3:23–24), LXX form; 2 Kings 2:11; Philippians 2:6–7; Philippians 3:19; Malachi 2:17; 3:14. Augustine's expectation of the conversion of the Jews through Elijah before the end is stated as a common belief of the faithful; his statements about the Jews of his day are translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.29 (CSEL 40:503–505; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-24/#p-20-29).

## City of God 20.30

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-30/#p-20-30
- Source: CSEL 40:505–512
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Old Testament passages where the Lord God speaks as judge are shown, from Isaiah and Zechariah, to refer to Christ; Augustine lists the events of the end: Elijah, the Jews' faith, Antichrist, Christ's judgment, resurrection, separation, and the world's burning and renewal.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXX. Quod in libris ueteris testamenti, cum Deus legitur iudicaturus, non euidenter Christi persona monstretur, sed ex quibusdam testimoniis, ubi Dominus Deus loquitur, appareat non dubie, quod ipse sit Christus. Multa alia sunt scripturarum testimonia diuinarum de nouissimo iudicio Dei, quae si omnia colligam, nimis longum erit. Satis ergo sit, quod et nouis et ueteribus litteris sacris hoc praenuntiatum esse probauimus. Sed ueteribus per Christum futurum esse iudicium, id est iudicem Christum de caelo esse uenturum, non tam, quam nouis, euidenter expressum est, propterea quia, cum ibi dicit Dominus Deus se esse uenturum uel Dominum Deum dicitur esse uenturum, non consequenter intellegitur Christus. Dominus enim Deus et Pater est et Filius et Spiritus sanctus; neque hoc tamen intestatum relinquere nos oportet. Primo itaque demonstrandum est, quem ad modum Iesus Christus tamquam Dominus Deus loquatur in propheticis libris, et tamen Iesus Christus euidenter appareat, ut et quando non sic apparet et tamen ad illud ultimum iudicium Dominus Deus dicitur esse uenturus, possit Iesus Christus intellegi. Est locus aput Esaiam prophetam, qui hoc quod dico euidenter ostendit. Deus enim per prophetam: Audi me, inquit, Iacob et Israel quem ego uoco. Ego sum primus et ego in sempiternum, et manus mea fundauit terram, et dextera mea firmauit caelum. Vocabo eos, et stabunt simul, et congregabuntur omnes et audient. Quis ei nuntiauit haec? Diligens te feci uoluntatem tuam super Babylonem, ut auferrem semen Chaldaeorum. Et locutus sum et ego uocaui; adduxi eum et prosperam feci uiam eius. Accedite ad me et audite haec. Non a principio in abscondito locutus sum; quando fiebant, ibi eram. Et nunc Dominus Deus misit me et Spiritus eius. Nempe ipse est, qui loquebatur sicut Dominus Deus; nec tamen intellegeretur Iesus Christus, nisi addidisset: Et nunc Dominus Deus misit me et Spiritus eius. Dixit hoc enim secundum formam serui, de re futura utens praeteriti temporis uerbo, quem ad modum aput eundem prophetam legitur: Sicut ouis ad immolandum ductus est. Non enim ait: ducetur, sed pro eo, quod futurum erat, praeteriti temporis uerbum posuit. Et adsidue prophetia sic loquitur. Est [et] alius locus aput Zachariam, qui hoc euidenter ostendit, quod omnipotentem misit omnipotens: quis quem. nisi Deus Pater Deum Filium? Nam ita scriptum est: Haec dicit Dominus omnipotens: Post gloriam misit me super gentes, quae spoliauerunt uos; quia qui tetigerit uos, quasi [qui] tangit pupillam oculi eius. Ecce ego inferam manum meam super eos, et erunt spolia his, qui seruierant eis;et cognoscetis quia Dominus omnipotens misit me. Ecce dicit Dominus omnipotens a Domino omnipotente se missum. Quis hic audeat intellegere nisi Christum loquentem, scilicet ouibus quae perierant domus Israel? Ait namque in euangelio: Non sum missus nisi ad oues quae perierunt domus Israel; quas hic comparauit pupillae oculi Dei propter excellentissimum dilectionis adfectum; ex quo genere ouium etiam ipsi apostoli fuerunt. Sed post gloriam resurrectionis utique suae (quae antequam fieret, ait euangelista: Iesus nondum erat glorificatus) etiam super gentes missus est in apostolis suis, ac sic inpletum est quod in psalmo legitur: Erues me de contradictionibus populi, constitues me in caput gentium, ut, qui spoliauerant Israelitas quibusque Israelitae seruierant, quando sunt gentibus subditi, non uicissim eodem modo spoliarentur, sed ipsi spolia fierent Israelitarum (hoc enim apostolis promiserat dicens: Faciam uos piscatores hominum, et uni eorum: Ex hoc iam, inquit, homines eris capiens); spolia ergo fierent, sed in bonum, tamquam erepta uasa illi forti, sed fortius adligato. Item per eundem prophetam Dominus loquens: Et erit, inquit, in die illa quaeram auferre omnes gentes quae ueniunt contra Hierusalem, et effundam super domum Dauid et super habitatores Hierusalem spiritum gratiae et misericordiae; et adspicient ad me pro eo quod insultauerunt, et plangent super eo planctum quasi super carissimum, et dolebunt dolore quasi super unigenitum. Numquid nisi Dei est auferre omnes gentes inimicas sanctae ciuitatis Hierusalem, quae ueniunt contra eam, id est contrariae sunt ei, uel, sicut alii sunt interpretati, ueniunt super eam, id est, ut eam sibi subiciant; aut effundere super domum Dauid et super habitatores eiusdem ciuitatis spiritum gratiae et misericordiae? Hoc utique Dei est, et ex persona Dei dicitur per prophetam; et tamen hunc Deum haec tam magna et tam diuina facientem se Christus ostendit adiungendo adque dicendo: Et adspicient ad me pro eo quod insultauerunt, et plangent super eo planctum quasi super carissimum (siue dilectum) et dolebunt dolore quasi super unigenitum. Paenitebit quippe Iudaeos in die illa, etiam eos, qui accepturi sunt spiritum gratiae et misericordiae, quod in eius passione insultauerint Christo, cum ad eum adspexerint in sua maiestate uenientem eumque esse cognouerint, quem prius humilem in suis parentibus inluserunt; quamuis et ipsi parentes eorum tantae illius inpietatis auctores resurgentes uidebunt eum, sed puniendi iam. non adhuc corrigendi. Non itaque hoc loco ipsi intellegendi sunt, ubi dictum est: Et effundam super domum Dauid et super habitatores Hierusalem spiritum gratiae et misericordiae; et adspicient ad me pro eo quod insultauerunt; sed tamen de illorum stirpe uenientes, qui per Heliam illo tempore credituri sunt. Sed sicut dicimus Iudaeis: Vos occidistis Christum, quamuis hoc parentes eorum fecerint: sic et isti se dolebunt fecisse quodam modo, quod fecerunt illi, ex quorum stirpe descendunt. Quamuis ergo accepto spiritu gratiae et misericordiae iam fideles non damnabuntur cum inpiis parentibus suis, dolebunt tamen tamquam ipsi fecerint, quod ab illis factum est. Non igitur dolebunt reatu criminis, sed pietatis adfectu. Sane ubi dixerunt septuaginta interpretes: Et adspicient ad me pro eo quod insultauerunt, sic interpretatum est ex Hebraeo: Et adspicient ad me, quem confixerunt; quo quidem uerbo euidentius Christus crucifixus apparet. Sed illa insultatio, quam septuaginta ponere maluerunt, eius uniuersae non defuit passioni. Nam et detento et adligato et adiudicato et obprobrio ignominiosae uestis induto et spinis coronato et calamo in capite percusso et inridenter fixis genibus adorato et crucem suam portanti et in ligno iam pendenti utique insultauerunt. Proinde interpretationem non sequentes unam, sed utramque iungentes, cum et insultauerunt et confixerunt legimus, plenius ueritatem dominicae passionis agnoscimus. Cum ergo in propheticis litteris ad nouissimum iudicium faciendum Deus legitur esse uenturus, etsi eius alia distinctio non ponatur, tantummodo propter ipsum iudicium Christus debet intellegi, quia etsi Pater iudicabit, per aduentum filii hominis iudicabit. Nam ipse per suae praesentiae manifestationem non iudicat quemquam, sed omne iudicium dedit Filio, qui manifestabitur homo iudicaturus, sicut homo est iudicatus. Quis est enim alius, de quo item Deus loquitur per Esaiam sub nomine Iacob et Israel, de cuius semine corpus accepit? quod ita scriptum est: Iacob puer meus, suscipiam illum; Israel electus meus, adsumsit eum anima mea. Dedi Spiritum meum in illum, iudicium gentibus proferet. Non clamabit neque cessabit neque audietur foris uox eius. Calamum quassatum non conteret et linum fumans non exstinguet; sed in ueritate proferet iudicium. Refulgebit et non confringetur, donec ponat in terra iudicium; et in nomine eius gentes sperabunt. In Hebraeo non legitur Iacob et Israel: sed quod ibi legitur seruus meus, nimirum septuaginta interpretes uolentes admonere quatenus id accipiendum sit, quia scilicet propter formam serui dictum est, in qua se Altissimus humillimum praebuit, ipsius hominis nomen ad eum significandum posuerunt, de cuius genere eadem serui forma suscepta est. Datus est in eum Spiritus sanctus, quod et columbae specie euangelio teste monstratum est; iudicium gentibus protulit, quia praenuntiauit futurum, quod gentibus erat occultum; mansuetudine non clamauit, nec tamen in praedicanda ueritate cessauit; sed non est audita foris uox eius nec auditur, quando quidem ab eis, qui foris ab eius corpore praecisi sunt, non illi oboeditur; ipsosque suos persecutores Iudaeos, qui calamo quassato perdita integritate [et] lino fumanti amisso lumine conparati sunt, non contriuit, non exstinxit, quia pepercit eis, qui nondum uenerat eos iudicare, sed iudicari ab eis. In ueritate sane protulit iudicium praedicens eis, quando puniendi essent, si in sua malignitate persisterent. Refulsit in monte facies eius, in orbe fama eius; nec confractus siue contritus est, quia neque in se neque in ecclesia sua, ut esse desisteret, persecutoribus cessit; et ideo non est factum nec fiet, quod inimici eius dixerunt uel dicunt: Quando morietur et peribit nomen eius? donec ponat in terra iudicium. Ecce manifestatum est quod absconditum quaerebamus; hoc enim est nouissimum iudicium, quod ponet in terra, cum uenerit ipse de caelo, de quo iam uidemus inpletum, quod hic ultimum positum est: Et nomine eius gentes sperabunt. Per hoc certe quod negari non potest etiam illud credatur quod inpudenter negatur. Quis enim speraret, quod etiam hi, qui nolunt adhuc credere in Christum, iam nobiscum uident et. quoniam negare non possunt, dentibus suis frendent et tabescunt? Quis, inquam, speraret gentes in Christi nomine speraturas, quando tenebatur ligabatur, caedebatur inludebatur, crucifigebatur, quando et ipsi discipuli spem perdiderant, quam in illo habere iam coeperant? Quod tunc uix unus latro sperauit in cruce, nunc. sperant gentes longe lateque diffusae, et ne in aeternum moriantur, ipsa in qua ille mortuus est cruce signantur. Nullus igitur uel negat uel dubitat per Christum Iesum tale, quale istis sacris litteris praenuntiatur, nouissimum futurum esse iudicium, nisi qui eisdem litteris nescio qua incredibili animositate seu caecitate non credit, quae iam ueritatem suam orbi demonstrauere terrarum. In illo itaque iudicio uel circa illud iudicium has res didicimus esse uenturas, Heliam Thesbiten, fidem Iudaeorum, Antichristum persecuturum, Christum iudicaturum, mortuorum resurrectionem, bonorum malorumque diremtionem, mundi conflagrationem eiusdemque renouationem. Quae omnia quidem uentura esse credendum est; sed quibus modis et quo ordine ueniant, magis tunc docebit rerum experientia, quam nunc ad perfectum hominum intellegentia ualet consequi. Existimo tamen eo quo a me commemorata sunt ordine esse uentura. Duo nobis ad hoc opus pertinentes reliqui sunt libri, ut adiuuante Domino promissa conpleamus; quorum erit unus de malorum supplicio, alius de felicitate iustorum; in quibus maxime, sicut Deus donauerit, argumenta refellentur humana, quae contra praedicta ac promissa diuina sapienter sibi miseri rodere uidentur et salubris fidei nutrimenta uelut falsa et ridenda contemnunt. Qui uero secundum Deum sapiunt, omnia, quae incredibilia uidentur hominibus et tamen scripturis sanctis, quarum iam ueritas multis modis adserta est, continentur, maximum argumentum tenent ueracem Dei omnipotentiam, quem certum habent nullo modo in eis potuisse mentiri et posse facere quod inpossibile est infideli.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 30. That in the books of the Old Testament, where we read that God will judge, the person of Christ is not plainly shown, but from certain testimonies in which the Lord God speaks it appears without doubt that it is Christ himself.

There are many other testimonies of the divine Scriptures about the last judgment of God, which it would take too long to collect. Let it be enough, then, that we have proved that this was foretold in both the new and the old sacred writings. But in the old writings it is not so plainly expressed as in the new that the judgment will be through Christ, that is, that Christ will come from heaven as judge, because when the Lord God says there that he will come, or the Lord God is said to be coming, it does not follow that Christ is understood. For the Lord God is Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Yet we must not leave this without evidence. First, then, it must be shown how Jesus Christ speaks as the Lord God in the prophetic books and yet Jesus Christ plainly appears, so that also when he does not so appear and yet the Lord God is said to be coming to that last judgment, Jesus Christ can be understood.

There is a place in the prophet Isaiah which plainly shows what I am saying. For God says through the prophet: “Hear me, Jacob, and Israel whom I call. I am the first and I am for ever, and my hand founded the earth, and my right hand made firm the heaven. I will call them, and they will stand together, and they will all be gathered and will hear. Who has announced these things to him? Loving you, I have done your will upon Babylon, to take away the seed of the Chaldeans. I have spoken, and I have called; I have brought him and made his way prosperous. Come near to me and hear these things. From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; when they were being done, I was there. And now the Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit.” Surely it is he who was speaking as the Lord God; and yet Jesus Christ would not be understood had he not added, “And now the Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit.” For he said this according to the form of a servant, using a verb in the past tense of a thing to come, as we read in the same prophet: “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter.” For he did not say “he will be led,” but put a past-tense verb for what was to come. And prophecy constantly speaks this way.

There is another place in Zechariah which plainly shows that the Almighty sent the Almighty: who sent whom, if not God the Father God the Son? For thus it is written: “Thus says the Lord almighty: After the glory he has sent me against the nations which plundered you; for he who touches you touches as it were the pupil of his eye. Behold, I will bring my hand upon them, and they will be spoil for those who had served them; and you will know that the Lord almighty has sent me.” See, the Lord almighty says that he has been sent by the Lord almighty. Who would dare to understand here anyone but Christ speaking, namely to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? For he says in the Gospel: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” whom here he compared to the pupil of God's eye because of the most excellent affection of love; and of this kind of sheep were the apostles themselves too. But after the glory of his resurrection, certainly (before which the evangelist says, “Jesus was not yet glorified”), he was sent against the nations too in his apostles; and so was fulfilled what we read in the psalm: “You will deliver me from the contradictions of the people; you will make me head of the nations”; so that those who had plundered the Israelites, and whom the Israelites had served when they were subject to the nations, should not be plundered in turn in the same way, but should themselves become the spoil of the Israelites (for this he had promised the apostles, saying, “I will make you fishers of men,” and to one of them, “From now on,” he says, “you will be catching men”); they were to become spoil, then, but for their good, like goods snatched from that strong man, but from a strong man more strongly bound.

Likewise, the Lord speaking through the same prophet says: “And it will be on that day that I will seek to take away all the nations that come against Jerusalem, and I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and mercy; and they will look on me because they mocked, and they will mourn over him with a mourning as over one most dear, and they will grieve with grief as over an only son.” Does it belong to anyone but God to take away all the nations hostile to the holy city Jerusalem, which come against it, that is, are opposed to it, or, as others have translated, come upon it, that is, to subject it to themselves; or to pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of that same city the spirit of grace and mercy? This certainly belongs to God and is said in the person of God through the prophet; and yet Christ shows that he is this God who does such great and divine things, by adding and saying: “And they will look on me because they mocked, and they will mourn over him with a mourning as over one most dear (or beloved), and they will grieve with grief as over an only son.” For on that day the Jews will repent, even those who are to receive the spirit of grace and mercy, that they mocked Christ in his passion, when they look on him coming in his majesty and recognize that he is the one whom they formerly mocked in his humility, in the persons of their forebears; although their forebears too, the authors of that great impiety, will see him when they rise again, but now to be punished, no longer to be corrected. So it is not they who are to be understood in this place where it is said, “And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and mercy; and they will look on me because they mocked”; but rather those coming from their stock who will believe through Elijah at that time. But just as we say to Jews, “You killed Christ,” although it was their forebears who did it, so these too will grieve that they did in a way what those did from whose stock they descend. Although, then, having received the spirit of grace and mercy, now believers, they will not be condemned with their ungodly forebears, they will nevertheless grieve as if they had themselves done what was done by those. So they will grieve not from the guilt of the crime but from the affection of godliness. Indeed, where the Seventy translators said, “And they will look on me because they mocked,” it has been translated from the Hebrew thus: “And they will look on me whom they pierced”; by which word Christ crucified appears more plainly. But the mockery which the Seventy preferred to set down was not lacking in his whole passion. For they mocked him when he was seized, and bound, and condemned, and dressed in the shameful robe of reproach, and crowned with thorns, and struck on the head with a reed, and worshiped in derision on bent knees, and when he was carrying his cross, and when he was already hanging on the tree. Therefore, following not one translation but joining both, when we read both “they mocked” and “they pierced,” we recognize the truth of the Lord's passion more fully.

When, then, we read in the prophetic writings that God will come to hold the last judgment, even if no other distinction is set down, Christ must be understood, simply because of the judgment itself; for even if the Father will judge, he will judge through the coming of the Son of Man. For he himself, by the manifestation of his own presence, judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, who will be manifested as a man to judge, as he was judged as a man. For who else is it of whom God likewise speaks through Isaiah under the name of Jacob and Israel, of whose seed he took a body? For it is written thus: “Jacob my servant, I will uphold him; Israel my chosen, my soul has taken him up. I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth judgment to the nations. He will not cry out nor cease, nor will his voice be heard outside. A crushed reed he will not break, and smoking flax he will not quench; but he will bring forth judgment in truth. He will shine and not be broken, until he sets judgment on the earth; and in his name the nations will hope.” In the Hebrew we do not read “Jacob” and “Israel,” but what is read there is “my servant.” The Seventy translators, of course, wishing to indicate how far this is to be taken, namely that it was said because of the form of a servant, in which the Most High showed himself most lowly, put the name of that very man to signify him, from whose race that same form of a servant was taken. The Holy Spirit was given upon him, which was shown also in the appearance of a dove, as the Gospel testifies; he brought forth judgment to the nations, because he foretold what was to come, which was hidden from the nations; in his gentleness he did not cry out, and yet he did not cease from preaching the truth; but his voice was not heard outside, nor is it heard, since he is not obeyed by those who have been cut off outside his body; and the Jews themselves, his persecutors, who are compared to a crushed reed because they have lost their integrity and to smoking flax because they have lost their light, he did not break, did not quench, because he spared them, since he had not yet come to judge them but to be judged by them. Indeed, he brought forth judgment in truth by foretelling to them when they would be punished if they persisted in their malice. His face shone on the mountain, his fame in the world; nor was he broken or crushed, because neither in himself nor in his church did he yield to his persecutors so as to cease to exist; and therefore what his enemies said or say has not happened and will not happen: “When will he die and his name perish?” “until he sets judgment on the earth.” See, what we were looking for as hidden has been made plain; for this is the last judgment, which he will set on the earth when he himself comes from heaven; of which we already see fulfilled what is put last here: “And in his name the nations will hope.” By this, certainly, which cannot be denied, let that also be believed which is shamelessly denied. For who would have hoped for what even those who still refuse to believe in Christ now see with us, and, since they cannot deny it, gnash their teeth and waste away? Who, I say, would have hoped that the nations would hope in the name of Christ when he was being seized, bound, beaten, mocked, crucified, when even the disciples themselves had lost the hope which they had begun to have in him? What then scarcely one thief hoped for on the cross, the nations spread far and wide now hope for, and so that they may not die for ever they are signed with the very cross on which he died.

No one, therefore, denies or doubts that there will be a last judgment through Christ Jesus such as is foretold in these sacred writings, except one who, by I know not what incredible animosity or blindness, does not believe those same writings, which have already shown their truth to the whole world. In that judgment, then, or in connection with that judgment, we have learned that these things will come: Elijah the Tishbite; the faith of the Jews; Antichrist, who will persecute; Christ, who will judge; the resurrection of the dead; the separation of the good and the wicked; the burning of the world and its renewal. All these things must be believed to be coming; but in what ways and in what order they will come, the experience of the events will then teach better than human understanding can now attain perfectly. Yet I think that they will come in the order in which I have mentioned them.

Two books pertaining to this work remain for us, so that with the Lord's help we may complete what we promised: one of them will be about the punishment of the wicked, the other about the happiness of the righteous. In them above all, as God grants, human arguments will be refuted which the wretched seem to themselves to gnaw on wisely against the divine predictions and promises, and by which they despise the nourishment of saving faith as false and laughable. But those who are wise according to God hold as the greatest argument for all the things which seem incredible to human beings, and yet are contained in the holy Scriptures, whose truth has already been asserted in many ways, the truthful omnipotence of God, who they hold for certain could in no way lie in them, and can do what is impossible to the unbeliever.

### Scripture references

- Isa 48:12–16: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 53:7: quotation, high confidence
- Zech 2:8–9: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 15:24: quotation, high confidence
- John 7:39: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 18:43 (17:44 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Matt 4:19: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 5:10: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 12:29: allusion, high confidence
- Zech 12:9–10: quotation, high confidence
- John 19:37: echo, medium confidence
- John 5:22: allusion, high confidence
- Isa 42:1–4: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 12:18–21: echo, medium confidence
- Matt 3:16: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 17:2: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 41:5 (40:6 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 112:10 (111:10 LXX): allusion, medium confidence
- Luke 23:42: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Isaiah 48:12–16; 53:7; Zechariah 2:8–9 (Hebrew 2:12–13); Matthew 15:24; John 7:39; Psalm 18:43 (LXX/Vulgate 17:44); Matthew 4:19; Luke 5:10; Matthew 12:29; Zechariah 12:9–10, in the LXX (“because they mocked”) and Hebrew (“whom they pierced”) forms; John 5:22; Isaiah 42:1–4 (LXX, with “Jacob” and “Israel”; Matthew 12:18–21); Matthew 3:16; 17:2; Psalm 41:5 (LXX/Vulgate 40:6); Psalm 112:10 (LXX/Vulgate 111:10); Luke 23:42. The editor deletes “et” twice and “qui” once (no change in sense). Augustine's statements about the Jews, including their future repentance at Christ's coming and the phrase “we say to Jews, ‘You killed Christ,’” are translated as written; he adds that those who believe will grieve “not from the guilt of the crime but from the affection of godliness.” He offers his order of the last events as his opinion.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 20.30 (CSEL 40:505–512; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-30/#p-20-30).

## City of God 21.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-30/#p-21-1
- Source: CSEL 40:512–513
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine explains that he will treat the eternal punishment of the wicked before the happiness of the saints, since bodily endurance in torment seems harder to believe.

### Latin text

De ordine disputationis, qua prius disserendum est de perpetuo supplicio damnatorum cum diabolo quam de aeterna felicitate sanctorum. Cum per Christum Dominum nostrum, iudicem uiuorum adque mortuorum, ad debitos fines ambae peruenerint ciuitates, quarum est una Dei, altera diaboli, cuius modi supplicium sit futurum diaboli et omnium ad eum pertinentium. in hoc libro nobis, quantum ope diuina ualebimus, diligentius disputandum est. Ideo autem hunc tenere ordinem malui, ut postea disseram de felicitate sanctorum, quoniam utrumque cum corporibus erit et incredibilius uidetur esse in aeternis corpora durare cruciatibus quam sine dolore ullo in aeterna beatitudine permanere; ac per hoc cum illam poenam non debere esse incredibilem demonstrauero, adiuuabit me plurimum, ut multo facilius omni carens molestia inmortalitas corporum in sanctis futura credatur. Nec a diuinis ordo iste abhorret eloquiis, ubi aliquando quidem bonorum beatitudo prius ponitur, ut est illud: Qui bona fecerunt, in resurrectionem uitae; qui autem mala egerunt, in resurrectionem iudicii; sed aliquando et posterius, ut est: Mittet filius hominis angelos suos, et colligent de regno eius omnia scandala et mittent in caminum ignis ardentem; illic erit fletus et stridor dentium; tunc iusti fulgebunt sicut sol in regno Patris sui, et illud: Sic ibunt isti in supplicium aeternum, iusti autem in uitam aeternam; et in prophetis, quod commemorare longum est, nunc ille, nunc iste ordo, si quis inspiciat, inuenitur. Sed ego istum qua causa elegerim, dixi.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 1. On the order of the discussion, by which the everlasting punishment of the damned with the devil must be discussed before the eternal happiness of the saints.

Since, through Christ our Lord, the judge of the living and the dead, both cities, one of which is God's and the other the devil's, will have reached their due ends, we must discuss more carefully in this book, as far as we are able with divine help, what kind of punishment there will be for the devil and all who belong to him. I have preferred to keep this order, and to discuss the happiness of the saints afterwards, because both will be with bodies, and it seems more incredible that bodies should endure in eternal torments than that they should remain without any pain in eternal blessedness; and so, when I have shown that that punishment ought not to be incredible, it will help me very much in making it far easier to believe that the saints will have an immortality of bodies free from all distress. Nor is this order foreign to the divine words, where sometimes the blessedness of the good is put first, as in this: “Those who have done good to the resurrection of life, but those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment”; but sometimes it is put after, as in this: “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and throw them into the burning furnace of fire; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth; then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father,” and this: “So these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life”; and in the prophets, which it would take long to recount, now the one order and now the other is found, if one looks. But I have said why I chose this one.

### Scripture references

- John 5:29: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 13:41–43: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 25:46: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- John 5:29; Matthew 13:41–43; 25:46. The chapter headings are printed with the text in this edition and are translated with it.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.1 (CSEL 40:512–513; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-30/#p-21-1).

## City of God 21.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-30/#p-21-2
- Source: CSEL 40:513–514
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: To unbelievers who demand examples, Augustine points to creatures that live in fire and hot springs: if living in fire without pain is believed, living in pain is not harder to believe.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. An possint corpora in ustione ignis esse perpetua. Quid igitur ostendam, unde conuincantur increduli, posse humana corpora animata adque uiuentia non solum numquam morte dissolui, sed in aeternorum quoque ignium durare tormentis? Nolunt enim hoc ad Omnipotentis nos referre potentiam, sed aliquo exemplo persuaderi sibi flagitant. Quibus si respondebimus esse animalia profecto corruptibilia, quia mortalia. quae tamen in mediis ignibus uiuant; nonnullum etiam genus uermium in aquarum calidarum scaturrigine reperiri, quarum feruorem nemo inpune contrectat; illos autem non solum sine ulla sui laesione ibi esse, sed extra esse non posse: aut nolunt credere, si ostendere non ualemus; aut, si ualuerimus siue oculis demonstrare res ipsas siue per testes idoneos edocere, non satis esse hoc ad exemplum rei, de qua quaestio est, eadem infidelitate contendent, quia haec animalia nec semper uiuunt et in illis feruoribus sine doloribus uiuunt: suae quippe naturae conuenientibus uegetantur illis, non cruciantur elementis; quasi non incredibilius sit uegetari quam cruciari talibus rebus. Mirabile est enim dolere in ignibus et tamen uiuere, sed mirabilius uiuere in ignibus nec dolere. Si autem hoc creditur, quur non et illud?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. Whether bodies can last for ever in the burning of fire.

What, then, shall I show, by which unbelievers may be convinced that human bodies, animated and living, can not only never be dissolved by death, but can also endure in the torments of eternal fires? For they will not have us refer this to the power of the Almighty, but demand to be persuaded by some example. If we answer them that there are animals, certainly corruptible because mortal, which nevertheless live in the midst of fires; and that a certain kind of worm is also found in the bubbling of hot springs, whose heat no one touches with impunity, and that these not only live there without any harm to themselves but cannot live outside: either they will not believe it, if we cannot show it, or, if we are able to demonstrate the things themselves either to their eyes or to inform them through suitable witnesses, they will contend with the same unbelief that this is not enough as an example of the thing in question, because these animals do not live for ever and live in those heats without pain; for they are nourished by those elements as suited to their nature, not tormented by them; as if it were not more incredible to be nourished by such things than to be tormented by them. For it is wonderful to feel pain in fires and yet to live, but more wonderful to live in fires and not to feel pain. If this is believed, why not the other?

### Translation notes

- Augustine's natural examples (creatures living in fire, worms in hot springs) come from the natural lore of his time.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.2 (CSEL 40:513–514; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-30/#p-21-2).

## City of God 21.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-30/#p-21-3
- Source: CSEL 40:514–517
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Pain is a sign of life, not proof of death: the soul feels pain yet is immortal, and so the risen bodies of the damned can suffer without dying.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. An consequens sit, ut corporeum dolorem sequatur carnis interitus. Sed nullum est, inquiunt, corpus, quod dolere possit nec possit mori. Et hoc unde scimus? Nam de corporibus quis certus est daemonum, utrum in eis doleant, quando se adfligi magnis cruciatibus confitentur? Quod si respondetur terrenum corpus solidum scilicet adque conspicuum nullum esse, adque ut uno potius nomine id explicem, nullam esse carnem, quae dolere possit morique non possit: quid aliud dicitur, nisi quod sensu corporis homines et experientia collegerunt? Nullam namque carnem nisi mortalem sciunt; et haec est eorum tota ratio, ut, quod experti non sunt, nequaquam esse posse arbitrentur. Nam cuius rationis est dolorem facere mortis argumentum, cum uitae potius sit indicium? Etsi enim quaerimus, utrum semper possit uiuere: certum tamen est uiuere omne quod dolet doloremque omnem nisi in re uiuente esse non posse. Necesse est ergo ut uiuat dolens, non est necesse ut occidat dolor, quia nec corpora ista mortalia et utique moritura omnis dolor occidit, et ut dolor aliquis possit occidere. illa causa est, quoniam sic est anima conexa huic corpori, ut summis doloribus cedat adque discedat; quoniam et ipsa conpago membrorum adque uitalium sic infirma est, ut eam uim, quae magnum uel summum dolorem facit, non ualeat sustinere. Tunc autem tali corpori anima et eo conectetur modo, ut illud uinculum, sicut nulla temporis longitudine soluetur, ita nullo dolore rumpatur. Proinde etiamsi caro nunc talis nulla est, quae sensum doloris perpeti possit mortemque non possit: erit tamen tunc talis caro, qualis nunc non est, sicut talis erit et mors qualis nunc non est. Non enim nulla, sed sempiterna mors erit, quando nec uiuere anima poterit Deum non habendo nec doloribus corporis carere moriendo. Prima mors animam nolentem pellit e corpore, secunda mors animam nolentem tenet in corpore; ab utraque morte communiter id habetur, ut quod non uult anima de suo corpore patiatur. Adtendunt autem isti contradictores nullam esse nunc carnis, quae dolorem pati possit mortemque non possit, et non adtendunt esse tamen aliquid tale quod corpore maius sit. Ipse quippe animus, cuius praesentia corpus uiuit et regitur, et dolorem pati potest et mori non potest. Ecce inuenta res est, quae, cum sensum doloris habeat, inmortalis est. Hoc igitur erit tunc etiam in corporibus damnatorum, quod nunc esse scimus in animis omnium. Si autem consideremus diligentius, dolor, qui dicitur corporis, magis ad animam pertinet. Animae est enim dolere, non corporis, etiam quando ei dolendi causa exsistit a corpore, cum in eo loco dolet, ubi laeditur corpus. Sicut ergo dicimus corpora sentientia et corpora uiuentia, cum ab anima sit corpori sensus et uita: ita corpora dicimus et dolentia, cum dolor corpori nisi ab anima esse non possit. Dolet itaque anima cum corpore in eo loco eius, ubi aliquid contingit ut doleat; dolet et sola, quamuis sit in corpore, cum aliqua causa etiam inuisibili tristis est ipsa corpore incolumi; dolet etiam non in corpore constituta; nam utique dolebat diues ille aput inferos, quando dicebat: Crucior in hac flamma. Corpus autem nec exanime dolet nec animatum sine anima dolet. Si ergo a dolore argumentum recte sumeretur ad mortem, ut ideo mors possit accidere. quia potuit accidere et dolor, magis ad animam pertineret mori, ad quam magis pertinet et dolere. Cum uero illa, quae magis dolere potest, non possit mori, quid momenti adfert quur illa corpora, quoniam futura sunt in doloribus, ideo etiam moritura esse credamus? Dixerunt quidem Platonici ex terrenis corporibus moribundisque membris esse animae et metuere et cupere et dolere adque gaudere; unde Vergilius: Hinc, inquit, (id est ex moribundis terreni corporis membris) metuunt cupiuntque, dolent gaudentque. Sed conuicimus eos in duodecimo huius operis libro, habere animas secundum ipsos ab omni etiam corporis labe purgatas diram cupiditatem. quae rursus incipiunt in corpora uelle reuerti. Ubi autem potest esse cupiditas, profecto etiam dolor potest. Frustrata quippe cupiditas, siue non perueniendo quo tendebat, siue amittendo quo peruenerat, uertitur in dolorem. Quapropter si anima, quae uel sola uel maxime dolet, habet tamen quandam pro suo modo inmortalitatem suam, non ideo mori poterunt illa corpora, quia dolebunt. Postremo si corpora faciunt, ut animae doleant, quur eis dolorem possunt. mortem uero inferre non possunt, nisi quia non est consequens, ut mortem faciat quod dolorem facit? Quur ergo incredibile est ita ignes illis corporibus dolorem posse inferre, non mortem, sicut ipsa corpora dolere animas faciunt, quas tamen non ideo mori cogunt? Non est igitur necessarium futurae mortis argumentum dolor.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. Whether the destruction of the flesh necessarily follows bodily pain.

“But there is no body,” they say, “that can feel pain and cannot die.” And how do we know this? For who is certain about the bodies of demons, whether they feel pain in them when they confess that they are afflicted with great torments? But if it is answered that there is no earthly body, that is, solid and visible, or, to put it rather in one word, no flesh, which can feel pain and cannot die, what else is being said but what people have gathered from bodily sense and experience? For they know no flesh except mortal flesh; and this is their whole reasoning, that what they have not experienced they think cannot possibly be. For what reasoning is it to make pain an argument for death, when it is rather an indication of life? For even if we ask whether it can live for ever, it is certain that everything that feels pain is alive, and that no pain can exist except in a living thing. It is necessary, then, that one who feels pain is alive; it is not necessary that pain kills, since not every pain kills even these mortal bodies that are certainly going to die; and the reason why some pain can kill is that the soul is so joined to this body that it gives way and departs under the greatest pains, since the very framework of the limbs and vital parts is so weak that it cannot endure the force that causes great or extreme pain. But then the soul will be joined to such a body, and in such a way, that this bond, just as it will be loosed by no length of time, so will be broken by no pain. Accordingly, even if there is now no flesh of such a kind that it can suffer the sensation of pain and cannot suffer death, yet there will then be such flesh as there is not now, just as there will also be such a death as there is not now. For death will not be none, but everlasting, when the soul will neither be able to live, not having God, nor to be free of the pains of the body by dying. The first death drives the unwilling soul out of the body; the second death holds the unwilling soul in the body; common to both deaths is this, that the soul suffers from its own body what it does not will.

These objectors notice that there is now no flesh which can suffer pain and cannot suffer death, and they do not notice that there is nevertheless something of this kind that is greater than the body. For the mind itself, by whose presence the body lives and is ruled, can both suffer pain and cannot die. See, a thing has been found which, though it has the sensation of pain, is immortal. This, then, will be true then in the bodies of the damned too, which we know to be true now in the souls of all. And if we consider more carefully, the pain that is called bodily belongs rather to the soul. For it is the soul that feels pain, not the body, even when the cause of its pain arises from the body, when it feels pain in the place where the body is injured. Just as we speak of sentient bodies and living bodies, though sensation and life come to the body from the soul, so we also speak of bodies in pain, though pain can come to the body only from the soul. The soul, then, feels pain with the body in that place of it where something happens to cause pain; it feels pain alone too, though it is in the body, when it is itself sad from some cause, even an invisible one, while the body is unharmed; it feels pain even when it is not in the body; for certainly that rich man in the underworld was in pain when he said, “I am tormented in this flame.” But the body neither feels pain when lifeless nor, when animated, feels pain without the soul. If, then, an argument from pain to death were rightly drawn, so that death could befall because pain could also befall, dying would belong rather to the soul, to which feeling pain also belongs rather. But since the soul, which can feel pain more, cannot die, what weight does it carry, that we should believe that those bodies, because they will be in pains, will therefore also die?

The Platonists indeed said that it is from earthly bodies and dying limbs that the soul has its fearing and desiring, its grieving and rejoicing; hence Virgil says: “Hence,” that is, from the dying limbs of the earthly body, “they fear and desire, grieve and rejoice.” But we proved against them in the twelfth book of this work that, according to them, souls purified from every stain of the body have a dire desire by which they begin again to wish to return into bodies. And where there can be desire, there can surely be pain as well. For frustrated desire, whether by not reaching what it was striving for or by losing what it had reached, turns into pain. Therefore, if the soul, which feels pain alone or chiefly, has nevertheless in its own way a certain immortality of its own, those bodies will not be able to die because they will feel pain. Finally, if bodies cause souls to feel pain, why can they inflict pain on them but not death, unless because it does not follow that what causes pain causes death? Why, then, is it incredible that fires can inflict pain on those bodies but not death, just as bodies themselves cause souls to feel pain, yet do not therefore force them to die? Pain, then, is not a necessary argument for death to come.

### Scripture references

- Luke 16:24: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 20:14: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 6.733 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Augustine, Civ. 14.5 (City of God): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Luke 16:24; Virgil, Aeneid 6.733. The edition reads “in the twelfth book”; the argument that, on the Platonists' own view, purified souls desire to return to bodies is made in City of God 14.5 (other editions read “fourteenth”). Augustine defines the second death as the soul held unwilling in the body in torment, without God.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.3 (CSEL 40:514–517; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-30/#p-21-3).

## City of God 21.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-30/#p-21-4
- Source: CSEL 40:517–521
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine gathers natural wonders, the salamander, Etna, incorruptible peacock flesh, fire, charcoal, quicklime, the diamond and the magnet, to show that what seems impossible can be true.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. De naturalibus exemplis, quorum consideratio doceat posse inter cruciatus uiuentia corpora permanere. Quapropter si, ut scripserunt qui naturas animalium curiosius indagarunt, salamandra in ignibus uiuit et quidam notissimi Siciliae montes, qui tanta temporis diuturnitate ac uetustate usque nunc ac deinceps flammis aestuant adque integri perseuerant, satis idonei testes sunt non omne, quod ardet, absumi et anima indicat non omne, quod dolere potest, posse etiam mori: quid adhuc a nobis rerum poscuntur exempla, quibus doceamus non esse incredibile, ut hominum corpora sempiterno supplicio punitorum et in igne animam non amittant et sine detrimento ardeant et sine interitu doleant? Habebit enim tunc istam carnis substantia qualitatem ab illo inditam, qui tam miras et uarias tot rebus indidit, quas uidemus, ut eas, quia multae sunt, non miremur. Quis enim nisi Deus creator omnium dedit carni pauonis mortui ne putesceret? Quod cum auditum incredibile uideretur, euenit ut aput Carthaginem nobis cocta adponeretur haec auis, de cuius pectore pulparum, quantum uisum est, decerptum seruari iussimus; quod post dierum tantum spatium, quanto alia caro quaecumque cocta putesceret, prolatum adque oblatum nihilo nostrum offendit olfactum. Itemque repositum post dies amplius quam triginta idem quod erat inuentum est, idemque post annum, nisi quod aliquantum corpulentiae siccioris et contractioris fuit. Quis paleae dedit uel tam frigidam uim, ut obrutas niues seruet, uel tam feruidam, ut poma inmatura maturet? De ipso igne mira quis explicet, quo quaeque adusta nigrescunt, cum ipse sit lucidus, et paene omnia, quae ambit et lambit, colore pulcherrimus decolorat adque ex pruna fulgida carbonem taeterrimum reddit? Neque id quasi regulariter definitum est; nam e contrario lapides igne candente percocti et ipsi fiunt candidi, et quamuis magis ille rubeat, illi albicent, congruit tamen luci quod album est, sicut nigrum tenebris. Cum itaque ignis in lignis ardeat, ut lapides coquat, contrarios habet non in contrariis rebus effectus. Etsi enim lapides et ligna diuersa sunt, contraria tamen non sunt, sicut album et nigrum, quorum in lapidibus unum facit, alterum in lignis, clarus illos clarificans, haec obfuscans, cum in illis deficeret, nisi in istis uiueret. Quid, in carbonibus nonne miranda est et tanta infirmitas, ut ictu leuissimo frangantur, pressu facillimo conterantur, et tanta firmitas, ut nullo umore corrumpantur, nulla aetate uincantur, usque adeo ut eos substernere soleant, qui limites figunt, ad conuincendum litigatorem, quisquis post quantalibet tempora exstiterit fixumque lapidem limitem non esse contenderit? Quis eos in terra umida infossos, ubi ligna putescerent, tamdiu durare incorruptibiliter posse nisi rerum ille corruptor ignis effecit? Intueamur etiam miraculum calcis. Excepto eo, de quo iam satis diximus, quod igne candicat, quo alia taetra redduntur, etiam occultissime ab igne ignem concipit eumque iam gleba tangentibus frigida tam latenter seruat, ut nulli nostro sensui prorsus appareat, sed conpertus experimento. etiam dum non apparet, sciatur inesse sopitus. Propter quod eam uiuam calcem loquimur, uelut ipse ignis latens anima sit inuisibilis uisibilis corporis. Iam uero quam mirum est, quod, cum exstinguitur, tunc accenditur! Ut enim occulto igne careat, aquae infunditur aquaue perfunditur, et cum ante sit frigida, inde feruescit, unde feruentia cuncta frigescunt. Velut exspirante ergo illa gleba discedens ignis, qui latebat, apparet, ac deinde tamquam morte sic frigida est, ut adiecta unda non sit arsura et quam calcem uocabamus uiuam, uocemus exstinctam. Quid est quod huic miraculo addi posse uideatur? et tamen additur. Nam si non adhibeas aquam, sed oleum, quod magis fomes est ignis, nulla eius perfusione uel infusione feruescit. Hoc miraculum si de aliquo Indico lapide legeremus siue audiremus et in nostrum experimentum uenire non posset, profecto aut mendacium putaremus aut certe granditer miraremur. Quarum uero rerum ante nostros oculos cottidiana documenta uersantur, non genere minus mirabili, sed ipsa adsiduitate uilescunt, ita ut ex ipsa India, quae remota est pars orbis a nobis, desierimus nonnulla mirari, quae ad nos potuerunt miranda perduci. Adamantem lapidem multi aput nos habent et maxime aurifices insignitoresque gemmarum, qui lapis nec ferro nec igni nec alia ui ulla perhibetur praeter hircino sanguine uinci. Sed qui eum habent adque nouerunt, numquid ita mirantur ut hi, quibus primum potentia eius ostenditur? Quibus autem non ostenditur, fortasse nec credunt; aut si credunt, inexperta mirantur; et si contigerit experiri, adhuc quidem mirantur insolita, sed adsiduitas experiendi paulatim subtrahit admirationis incitamentum. Magnetem lapidem nouimus mirabilem ferri esse raptorem; quod cum primum uidi, uehementer inhorrui. Quippe cernebam a lapide ferreum anulum raptum adque suspensum; deinde tamquam ferro, quod rapuerat, uim dedisset suam communemque fecisset, idem anulus alteri admotus est eundemque suspendit, adque ut ille prior lapidi, sic alter anulus priori anulo cohaerebat; accessit eodem modo tertius, accessit et quartus; iamque sibi per mutua circulis nexis non inplicatorum intrinsecus, sed extrinsecus adhaerentium quasi catena pependerat anulorum. Quis istam uim lapidis non stuperet, quae illi non solum inerat, uerum etiam per tot suspensa transibat et inuisibilibus ea uinculis subligabat? Sed multo est mirabilius, quod a fratre et coepiscopo meo Seuero Mileuitano de isto lapide comperi. Se ipsum namque uidisse narrauit, quem ad modum Bathanarius quondam comes Africae, cum aput eum conuiuaretur episcopus, eundem protulerit lapidem et tenuerit sub argento ferrumque super argentum posuerit; deinde sicut subter mouebat manum, qua lapidem tenebat, ita ferrum desuper mouebatur, adque argento medio nihilque patiente concitatissimo cursu ac recursu infra lapis ab homine, supra ferrum rapiebatur a lapide. Dixi quod ipse conspexi, dixi quod ab illo audiui, cui tamquam ipse uiderim credidi. Quid etiam de isto magnete legerim dicam. Quando iuxta eum ponitur adamans, non rapit ferrum. et si iam rapuerat, ut ei propinquauerit, mox remittit. India mittit hos lapides; sed si eos nos cognitos iam desistimus admirari, quanto magis illi, a quibus ueniunt, si eos facillimos habent, sic forsitan habent, ut nos calcem, quam miro modo aqua feruescentem, qua solet ignis exstingui, et oleo non feruescentem, quo solet ignis accendi, quia in promtu nobis est, non miramur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. On examples from nature, the consideration of which teaches that living bodies can endure amid torments.

Therefore, if, as those have written who have investigated the natures of animals with special care, the salamander lives in fires, and if certain very well-known mountains of Sicily, which have been seething with flames for so long a time and age until now and henceforth, and yet remain intact, are sufficiently fit witnesses that not everything which burns is consumed; and if the soul shows that not everything which can feel pain can also die: why are examples of things still demanded of us, by which to teach that it is not incredible that the bodies of human beings punished with everlasting punishment should both not lose their soul in the fire, and burn without loss, and feel pain without perishing? For the substance of the flesh will then have this quality implanted by him who implanted such wonderful and various qualities in so many things we see, that we do not wonder at them because they are many. For who but God, the creator of all things, gave to the flesh of the dead peacock the property of not decaying? When this, on hearing it, seemed incredible, it happened that at Carthage this bird was served to us cooked, and I had as much of the flesh of its breast as seemed good taken and kept. When it was brought out and set before us after as long a space of days as any other cooked flesh would decay in, it did not offend our sense of smell at all. And put away again, after more than thirty days it was found to be the same as it was, and the same after a year, except that it was somewhat drier and more shrunken in bulk. Who gave straw either so cold a power that it keeps snow buried in it, or so warm a power that it ripens unripe fruit?

Who could explain the wonders of fire itself, by which everything that is scorched turns black, though fire itself is bright, and though most beautiful in color it discolors almost everything it surrounds and licks, and turns a glowing ember into a most ugly coal? Nor is this laid down as a rule, as it were; for on the contrary stones baked in glowing fire themselves become white, and although fire is rather red and they whitish, yet what is white agrees with light, as black with darkness. So when fire burns in wood to bake stones, it has contrary effects on things that are not contraries. For although stones and wood are different, they are not contraries, as white and black are, of which it makes one in stones and the other in wood, brightening the former and darkening the latter, though it would fail in the stones unless it lived in the wood. What of coals? Is not both so great a weakness wonderful in them, that they are broken by the lightest blow and crushed by the easiest pressure, and so great a strength, that they are corrupted by no moisture and overcome by no age, so much so that those who set up boundary stones usually put them underneath, to convict any litigant who may appear after however long a time and contend that the fixed stone is not a boundary? Who caused them, buried in damp earth where wood would rot, to be able to last so long without corruption, but that corrupter of things, fire?

Let us look also at the wonder of lime. Apart from what we have already said enough about, that it grows white in the fire by which other things are made black, it also conceives fire from fire in a most hidden way and keeps it, when the lump is already cold to the touch, so secretly that it does not appear to any of our senses at all, but, discovered by experiment, it is known to be in it, asleep, even while it does not appear. That is why we call it quicklime, as if the hidden fire itself were the invisible soul of a visible body. And now how wonderful it is that it is kindled when it is quenched! For to rid it of its hidden fire, it is soaked in water or water is poured over it, and whereas before it was cold, it boils up from that by which all hot things grow cold. So, as if the lump were expiring, the fire that lay hidden appears as it departs, and then, as if by death, it is so cold that if water is added it will not burn, and what we used to call quicklime we may call slaked lime. What is there that could seem able to be added to this wonder? And yet something is added. For if you apply not water but oil, which is rather the fuel of fire, it does not boil up however much it is soaked or drenched with it. If we read or heard of this wonder about some Indian stone and it could not come to our own experience, we would surely think it either a lie or at least marvel at it greatly. But things whose proofs pass daily before our eyes grow cheap, not because they are less wonderful in kind, but by their very constancy; so that we have ceased to marvel even at some things from India itself, a distant part of the world from us, which could be brought to us to be marveled at.

Many among us have the diamond, and especially goldsmiths and gem-engravers; this stone, it is said, is overcome neither by iron nor by fire nor by any other force except the blood of a goat. But do those who have it and know it wonder at it as those do to whom its power is shown for the first time? Those to whom it is not shown perhaps do not even believe it; or, if they believe, they wonder at what they have not experienced; and if they happen to experience it, they still wonder at the unaccustomed, but constant experience gradually removes the stimulus of wonder. We know that the magnet is a wonderful snatcher of iron; when I first saw it I was greatly astonished. For I saw an iron ring snatched and held suspended by the stone; then, as if it had given its own power to the iron it had snatched and made it shared, the same ring was brought near another and held it suspended, and just as the first clung to the stone, so the second ring clung to the first; a third was added in the same way, and a fourth too; and now, as if a chain of rings, linked not by being interlaced within but by adhering to one another without, hung suspended. Who would not be amazed at this power of the stone, which was not only in it but passed through so many suspended things and bound them with invisible bonds?

But much more wonderful is what I learned about this stone from my brother and fellow bishop Severus of Milevis. He told me that he himself had seen how Bathanarius, once count of Africa, when the bishop was dining with him, brought out this same stone and held it under a silver plate and put iron on top of the silver; then, as he moved the hand in which he held the stone underneath, so the iron was moved above, and with the silver in between and quite unaffected, the stone below was moved by the man and the iron above was snatched along by the stone, back and forth, with the greatest speed. I have told what I saw myself; I have told what I heard from him, whom I believed as if I had seen it myself. Let me say also what I have read about this magnet. When a diamond is placed near it, it does not snatch iron, and if it had already snatched it, as soon as the diamond comes near, it lets it go at once. India sends these stones; but if we, having come to know them, now cease to marvel at them, how much more those from whom they come, if they have them very readily; perhaps they regard them as we regard lime, which, since it is at hand for us, we do not marvel at, though in a wonderful way it boils with water, by which fire is usually put out, and does not boil with oil, by which fire is usually kindled.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Pliny the Elder, Pliny, Nat. (Pliny the Elder, Natural History): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- The salamander living in fire and the diamond overcome only by goat's blood are commonplaces of ancient natural history (Pliny, Natural History). The Sicilian mountains are Etna. Severus was bishop of Milevis in Numidia and Augustine's friend; Bathanarius was count of Africa (ca. 401–408). The peacock experiment is Augustine's own report.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.4 (CSEL 40:517–521; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/20-30/#p-21-4).

## City of God 21.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-5/#p-21-5
- Source: CSEL 40:521–524
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Unbelievers who demand reasons for the eternal punishment cannot explain the many marvels of nature recorded by writers; God's power and truthfulness are reason enough to believe what he foretells.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. Quanta sint, quorum ratio nequeat agnosci, et tamen eadem uera esse non sit ambiguum. Verum tamen homines infideles, qui, cum diuina uel praeterita uel futura miracula praedicamus, quae illis experienda non ualemus ostendere, rationem a nobis earum flagitant rerum, quam quoniam non possumus reddere (excedunt enim uires mentis humanae), existimant falsa esse quae dicimus, ipsi de tot mirabilibus rebus, quas uel uidere possumus uel uidemus, debent reddere rationem. Quod si fieri ab homine non posse peruiderint, fatendum est eis non ideo aliquid non fuisse uel non futurum esse, quia ratio inde non potest reddi. quando quidem sunt ista, de quibus similiter non potest. Non itaque pergo per plurima, quae mandata sunt litteris, non gesta adque transacta, sed in locis quibusque manentia; quo si quisquam ire uoluerit et potuerit, utrum uera sint, explorabit; sed pauca commemoro. Agrigentinum Siciliae salem perhibent, cum fuerit admotus igni, uelut in aqua fluescere; cum uero ipsi aquae, uelut in igne crepitare. Aput Garamantas quendam fontem tam frigidum diebus, ut non bibatur, tam feruidum noctibus, ut non tangatur. In Epiro alium fontem, in quo faces, ut in ceteris, exstinguuntur accensae, sed, non ut in ceteris, accenduntur exstinctae. Asbeston Arcadiae lapidem propterea sic uocari, quod accensus semel iam non possit exstingui. Lignum cuiusdam ficus Aegyptiae, non ut ligna cetera in aquis natare, sed mergi; et, quod est mirabilius, cum in imo aliquamdiu fuerit, inde ad aquae superficiem rursus emergere, quando madefactum debuit umoris pondere praegrauari. Poma in terra Sodomorum gigni quidem et ad maturitatis faciem peruenire; sed morsu pressuue tentata in fumum ac fauillam corio fatiscente uanescere. Pyriten lapidem Persicum tenentis manum, si uehementius prematur, adurere, propter quod ab igne nomen accepit. In eadem Perside gigni etiam lapidem seleniten, cuius interiorem candorem cum luna crescere adque deficere. In Cappadocia etiam uento equas concipere, eosdemque fetus non amplius triennio uiuere. Tylon Indiae insulam eo praeferri ceteris terris, quod omnis arbor, quae in ea gignitur, numquam nudatur tegmine foliorum. De his adque aliis innumerabilibus mirabilibus, quae historia non factorum et transactorum, sed manentium locorum tenet, mihi autem aliud agenti ea persequi nimis longum est, reddant rationem, si possunt, infideles isti, qui nolunt diuinis litteris credere; quid aliud quam non putantes eas esse diuinas, eo quod res habeant incredibiles, sicuti hoc est unde nunc agimus. Non enim admittit, inquiunt, ulla ratio, ut caro ardeat nec absumatur, doleat neque moriatur; ratiocinatores uidelicet magni, qui de omnibus rebus, quas esse mirabiles constat, possint reddere rationem. Reddant ergo de his, quae pauca posuimus, quae procul dubio si esse nescirent et ea futura esse diceremus, multo minus crederent quam quod nunc dicentibus nobis nolunt credere aliquando uenturum. Quis enim eorum nobis crederet, si, quem ad modum dicimus futura hominum uiua corpora, quae semper arsura adque dolitura nec tamen aliquando moritura sint, ita diceremus in futuro saeculo futurum salem, quem faceret ignis uelut in aqua fluescere, eundemque faceret aqua uelut in igne crepitare; aut futurum fontem, cuius aqua in refrigerio noctis sic ardeat, ut non possit tangi, in aestibus uero diei sic algeat, ut non possit bibi; aut futurum lapidem, uel eum qui suo calore manum constringentis adureret, uel eum qui undecumque accensus exstingui omnino non posset, et cetera quae praetermissis aliis innumeris commemoranda interim duxi? Haec ergo in illo saeculo, quod futurum est, si diceremus futura nobisque increduli responderent: Si uultis ut ea credamus, de singulis reddite rationem: nos non posse confiteremur, eo quod istis et similibus Dei miris operibus infirma mortalium ratiocinatio uinceretur; fixam tamen aput nos esse rationem, non sine ratione Omnipotentem facere, unde animus humanus infirmus rationem non potest reddere; et in multis quidem rebus incertum nobis esse quid uelit, illud tamen esse certissimum, nihil eorum illi esse inpossibile, quaecumque uoluerit; eique nos credere praedicenti, quem neque inpotentem neque mentientem possumus credere. Hi tamen fidei reprehensores exactoresque rationis quid ad ista respondent, de quibus ratio reddi ab homine non potest, et tamen sunt, et ipsi rationi naturae uidentur esse contraria? Quae si futura esse diceremus, similiter a nobis, sicut eorum quae futura esse dicimus, ab infidelibus ratio posceretur. Ac per hoc, cum in talibus operibus Dei deficiat ratio cordis et sermonis humani, sicut ista non ideo non sunt, sic non ideo etiam illa non erunt, quoniam ratio de utrisque ab homine non potest reddi.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. How many things there are whose reason cannot be known, and yet it is not doubtful that they are true.

But unbelievers who, when we proclaim divine miracles, either past or future, which we cannot show them to experience, demand from us an account of these things, and, because we cannot give it (for they surpass the powers of the human mind), think that what we say is false: they themselves ought to give an account of so many wonderful things which we either can see or do see. And if they see clearly that this cannot be done by man, they must admit that something has not failed to be, or will not fail to be, just because no account of it can be given, since there are these things of which likewise none can be given. So I do not go through the very many things committed to writing, not events done and past, but things that remain in particular places, where, if anyone wishes and is able to go, he may find out whether they are true; I mention only a few. They say that the salt of Agrigentum in Sicily, when brought near fire, melts as if in water, but when brought to water, crackles as if in fire. Among the Garamantes, they say, there is a certain spring so cold by day that it cannot be drunk, so hot by night that it cannot be touched. In Epirus there is another spring in which lighted torches are put out, as in others, but, unlike others, extinguished torches are lit. The Arcadian stone asbestos is so called because, once lit, it can no longer be put out. The wood of a certain Egyptian fig does not float in water like other wood, but sinks; and, what is more wonderful, when it has been at the bottom for some time it rises again from there to the surface of the water, when, being soaked, it ought to be weighed down by the weight of the moisture. Fruit grows in the land of Sodom and reaches the look of ripeness; but when tried by a bite or a squeeze, the skin bursts and it vanishes into smoke and ash. The Persian stone pyrites burns the hand of one who holds it if it is squeezed too hard, which is why it takes its name from fire. In the same Persia is found also the stone selenite, whose inner whiteness waxes and wanes with the moon. In Cappadocia mares conceive by the wind, and their foals live no longer than three years. Tylos, an island of India, is preferred to other lands because every tree that grows on it is never stripped of its covering of leaves.

Of these and innumerable other wonders, which history records not of deeds done and past but of places that remain, and which it would take me too long to pursue, since I am about something else, let these unbelievers who refuse to believe the divine writings give an account, if they can; for what else is their refusal but thinking that these writings are not divine because they contain incredible things, such as this which we are now dealing with? “For no reason,” they say, “admits that flesh should burn and not be consumed, feel pain and not die.” Great reasoners, to be sure, who can give an account of all the things known to be wonderful! Let them give an account, then, of these few that we have set down, which, no doubt, if they did not know them to exist and we said they would come to be, they would believe much less than what they now refuse to believe when we say it will come some day. For which of them would believe us if, just as we say that there will be living human bodies which will burn and feel pain for ever and yet never die, we said that in the world to come there would be salt which fire would make melt as if in water, and which water would make crackle as if in fire; or a spring whose water in the cool of night would be so hot that it could not be touched, but in the heat of the day so cold that it could not be drunk; or a stone which would burn the hand of one gripping it by its own heat, or one which, lit from any part, could not be put out at all, and the other things which, passing over countless others, I have thought meanwhile worth mentioning? If, then, we said that these things would exist in that world to come, and the unbelievers answered us, “If you want us to believe them, give an account of each one,” we would confess that we could not, because the weak reasoning of mortals is overcome by these and similar wonderful works of God; but that we hold firmly this reason, that the Almighty does not act without reason in things of which the weak human mind cannot give an account; and that, though in many things it is uncertain to us what he wills, this is most certain, that none of these things is impossible to him, whatever he wills; and that we believe him when he foretells, whom we can believe to be neither powerless nor lying. Yet what do these critics of faith and exactors of reasons answer about these things, of which no account can be given by man, and yet they exist, and seem contrary to the very reason of nature? If we said that they would come to be, an account would be demanded of us by unbelievers just as it is for the things we say will come to be. And so, since in such works of God the reasoning of the human heart and speech fails, just as these things do not fail to exist on that account, so neither will those things fail to exist on that account, because no account of either can be given by man.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Pliny the Elder, Pliny, Nat. (Pliny the Elder, Natural History): allusion, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Augustine's list of marvels (salt of Agrigentum, spring of the Garamantes, spring in Epirus, asbestos, the Egyptian fig, the apples of Sodom, pyrites, selenite, the Cappadocian mares, Tylos) comes from ancient compilations of wonders such as Pliny's Natural History and Solinus; he reports them as what others say, not as his own observation.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.5 (CSEL 40:521–524; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-5/#p-21-5).

## City of God 21.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-5/#p-21-6
- Source: CSEL 40:524–526
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Some marvels, such as the inextinguishable lamp of Venus, may be human contrivance, magic, or the work of demons; if demons and human art can do such things, God can do far more.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. Quod non omnia miracula naturalia sint, sed pleraque humano ingenio modificata, pleraque autem daemonum arte conposita. Hic forte respondeant: Prorsus nec ista sunt nec ista credimus; falsa de his dicta, falsa conscripta sunt; et adiciant ratiocinantes adque dicentes: Si talia credenda sunt, credite et uos quod in easdem litteras est relatum, fuisse uel esse quoddam Veneris fanum adque ibi candelabrum et in eo lucernam sub diuo sic ardentem, ut eam nulla tempestas, nullus imber exstingueret, unde sicut ille lapis, ita ista λύχνος ἄσβεστος, id est lucerna inexstinguibilis, nominata est. Quod propterea poterunt dicere, ut respondendi nobis angustias ingerant; quia si dixerimus non esse credendum, scripta illa miraculorum infirmabimus; si autem credendum esse concesserimus, firmabimus numina paganorum. Sed nos, sicut iam in libro duodeuicensimo huius operis dixi, non habemus necesse omnia credere, quae historia continet gentium, cum et ipsi inter se historici, sicut ait Varro, quasi data opera et quasi ex industria per multa dissentiant; sed ea, si uolumus. credimus, quae non aduersantur libris, quibus non dubitamus oportere nos credere. De his autem miraculorum locis nobis ad ea, quae futura persuadere incredulis uolumus, satis illa sufficiunt, quae nos quoque possumus experiri, et eorum testes idoneos non difficile est inuenire. De isto autem fano Veneris et lucerna inexstinguibili non solum in nullas coartamur angustias, uerum etiam latitudinis nobis campus aperitur. Addimus enim ad istam lucernam inexstinguibilem et humanarum et magicarum, id est per homines daemonicarum artium et ipsorum per se ipsos daemonum multa miracula; quae si negare uoluerimus, eidem ipsi cui credimus sacrarum litterarum aduersabimur ueritati. Aut ergo in lucerna illa mechanicum aliquid de lapide asbesto ars humana molita est aut arte magica factum est, quod homines illo mirarentur in templo, aut daemon quispiam sub nomine Veneris tanta se efficacia praesentauit, ut hoc ibi prodigium et appareret hominibus et diutius permaneret. Inliciuntur autem daemones ad inhabitandum per creaturas, quas non ipsi, sed Deus condidit, delectabilibus pro sua diuersitate diuersis, non ut animalia cibis, sed ut spiritus signis, quae cuiusque delectationi congruunt, per uaria genera lapidum herbarum, lignorum animalium, carminum rituum. Ut autem inliciantur ab hominibus, prius eos ipsi astutissima calliditate seducunt, uel inspirando eorum cordibus uirus occultum uel etiam fallacibus amicitiis apparendo, eorumque paucos discipulos suos faciunt plurimorumque doctores. Neque enim potuit, nisi primum ipsis docentibus, disci quid quisque illorum adpetat, quid exhorreat, quo inuitetur nomine, quo cogatur; unde magicae artes earumque artifices exstiterunt. Maxime autem possident corda mortalium, qua potissimum possessione gloriantur, cum se transfigurant in angelos lucis. Sunt ergo facta eorum plurima, quae quanto magis mirabilia confitemur, tanto cautius uitare debemus; sed ad hoc, unde nunc agimus, nobis etiam ipsa proficiunt. Si enim haec inmundi daemones possunt, quanto potentiores sunt sancti angeli, quanto potentior est his omnibus Deus, qui tantorum miraculorum effectores etiam ipsos angelos fecit! Quam ob rem si tot et tanta mirifica, quae μηχανήματα appellant, Dei creatura utentibus humanis artibus fiunt, ut ea qui nesciunt opinentur esse diuina (unde factum est, ut in quodam templo lapidibus magnetibus in solo et camera proportione magnitudinis positis simulacrum ferreum aeris illius medio inter utrumque lapidem ignorantibus, quid sursum esset ac deorsum, quasi numinis potestate penderet: quale aliquid etiam in illa lucerna Veneris de lapide asbesto ab artifice fieri potuisse iam diximus); si magorum opera, quos nostra scriptura ueneficos et incantatores uocat, in tantum daemones extollere potuerunt, ut congruere hominum sensibus sibi nobilis poeta uideretur, de quadam femina, quae tali arte polleret, dicens: Haec se carminibus promittit soluere mentes Quas uelit, ast aliis duras inmittere curas, Sistere aquam fluuiis et uertere sidera retro; Nocturnosque ciet manes: mugire uidebis Sub pedibus terram et descendere montibus ornos: quanto magis Deus potens est facere quae infidelibus sunt incredibilia, sed illius facilia potestati; quando quidem ipse lapidum aliarumque uim rerum et hominum ingenia, qui ea miris utuntur modis, angelicasque naturas omnibus terrenis potentiores animantibus condidit, uniuersa mirabilia mirabili uincente uirtute et operandi iubendi sinendique sapientia, utens omnibus tam mirabiliter, quam creauit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. That not all marvels are natural, but that many are contrived by human ingenuity and many put together by the art of demons.

Here perhaps they may answer: “These things do not exist at all, and we do not believe them; what is said of them is false, what is written of them is false.” And they may add, reasoning and saying: “If such things are to be believed, then you too believe what is related in the same writings, that there was, or is, a certain shrine of Venus, and there a lampstand, and on it a lamp burning in the open air in such a way that no storm, no rain could put it out; hence, like that stone, it was named lychnos asbestos, that is, the inextinguishable lamp.” They may say this in order to push us into a tight corner in answering; because if we say it is not to be believed, we shall weaken those writings about marvels; but if we grant that it is to be believed, we shall strengthen the deities of the pagans. But, as I have already said in the eighteenth book of this work, we are not obliged to believe everything that the history of the nations contains, since, as Varro says, the historians themselves disagree among themselves on many points, as if on purpose and deliberately; but we believe, if we wish, those things which are not opposed to the books which we do not doubt we ought to believe. As for these marvels of places, for the things to come of which we wish to persuade unbelievers those suffice which we too can test, and for which it is not hard to find suitable witnesses. But as for that shrine of Venus and the inextinguishable lamp, not only are we not pushed into any tight corner, but a broad field is opened to us. For to this inextinguishable lamp we add many marvels of human and magical arts, that is, of demonic arts worked through human beings, and of demons themselves by themselves; and if we wished to deny these, we should be opposing the very truth of the sacred writings which we believe. Either, then, human art contrived something mechanical in that lamp from the stone asbestos, or it was done by magic art so that people might marvel in that temple, or some demon under the name of Venus presented himself with such effect that this prodigy both appeared to people there and lasted a long time.

Demons are enticed to dwell in places by means of creatures, which not they but God created, by various delights suited to their various natures, not as animals are by food but as spirits are by signs which suit the delight of each, through various kinds of stones, herbs, woods, animals, charms, and rites. But in order to be enticed by human beings, they first seduce them with most subtle cunning, either by breathing a hidden poison into their hearts or even by appearing to them in deceitful friendships, and they make a few of them their disciples and the teachers of very many. For it could not have been learned, unless they themselves first taught it, what each of them desires, what each shrinks from, by what name each is invited, by what name compelled; hence the magic arts and their practitioners arose. But above all they possess the hearts of mortals, a possession in which they chiefly glory, when they transform themselves into angels of light. So there are very many deeds of theirs which, the more wonderful we admit them to be, the more carefully we ought to avoid; but for what we are now dealing with they are even useful to us. For if unclean demons can do these things, how much more powerful are the holy angels, how much more powerful than all these is God, who made the angels themselves the workers of such great miracles!

Therefore, if so many and such marvelous things, which they call mechanemata, “contrivances,” are done by using God's creation with human arts, that those who do not know about them think them divine (so it came about that in a certain temple, with magnets placed in the floor and in the ceiling in proportion to their size, an iron image hung in the middle of the air between the two stones, as if by the power of the deity, to people who did not know what was above and below; something of this kind, as we have already said, could also have been done by a craftsman with the stone asbestos in that lamp of Venus); if the works of magicians, whom our Scripture calls sorcerers and enchanters, could exalt demons so much that a noble poet thought it agreeable to people's sense of things to say of a certain woman who was powerful in that art: “She promises by her charms to free the minds of whom she will, but to send hard cares on others, to stop the water in rivers and turn the stars backward; and she summons the ghosts of night: you will see the earth bellow under your feet and the ash trees come down from the mountains”: how much more is God able to do what is incredible to unbelievers but easy to his power, since he himself created the power of stones and other things, and the ingenuity of human beings who use them in wonderful ways, and the natures of angels, more powerful than all earthly living things; his wonderful power surpassing all wonders, and his wisdom in working, commanding, and permitting, using all things as wonderfully as he created them.

### Scripture references

- 2 Cor 11:14: allusion, high confidence
- Deut 18:10–11: allusion, low confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 4.487–491 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Varro (Varro): allusion, medium confidence
- Augustine, Civ. 18.18 (City of God): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- 2 Corinthians 11:14; Deuteronomy 18:10–11. Virgil, Aeneid 4.487–491. Augustine refers to City of God 18.18 and to Varro on the disagreements of historians. Greek in the text: λύχνος ἄσβεστος (“inextinguishable lamp”) and μηχανήματα (“contrivances”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.6 (CSEL 40:524–526; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-5/#p-21-6).

## City of God 21.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-5/#p-21-7
- Source: CSEL 40:526–530
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Unbelievers explain marvels simply as “nature”; Augustine answers that God's will and omnipotence is the stronger reason, and he distinguishes the marvels he has tested himself from those he only read.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. Quod in rebus miris summa credendi ratio sit omnipotentia Creatoris. Quur itaque facere non possit Deus, ut et resurgant corpora mortuorum et igne aeterno crucientur corpora damnatorum, qui fecit mundum in caelo in terra, in aere in aquis innumerabilibus miraculis plenum, cum sit omnibus quibus plenus est procul dubio maius et excellentius etiam mundus ipse miraculum? Sed isti, cum quibus uel contra quos agimus, qui et Deum esse credunt, a quo factus est mundus, et deos ab illo factos, per quos ab illo administratur mundus, et miraculorum effectrices siue spontaneorum siue cultu et ritu quolibet inpetratorum siue etiam magicorum mundanas uel non negant uel insuper et praedicant potestates, quando eis rerum uim mirabilem proponimus aliarum, quae nec animalia sunt rationalia nec ulla ratione praediti spiritus, sicut sunt ea, quorum pauca commemorauimus, respondere adsolent: Vis est ista naturae, natura eorum sic se habet, propriarum sunt istae efficaciae naturarum. Tota itaque ratio est, quur Agrigentinum salem flamma fluere faciat, aqua crepitare, quia haec est natura eius. At hoc esse potius contra naturam uidetur, quae non igni, sed aquae dedit salem soluere, torrere autem igni, non aquae. Sed ista, inquiunt, salis huius naturalis est uis, ut his contraria patiatur. Haec igitur ratio redditur et de illo fonte Garamantico, ubi una uena friget diebus, noctibus feruet, ui utraque molesta tangentibus; haec et de illo alio, qui cum sit contrectantibus frigidus et facem sicut alii fontes exstinguat accensam, dissimiliter tamen adque mirabiliter idem ipse accendit exstinctam; haec et de lapide asbesto, qui cum ignem nullum habeat proprium, accepto tamen sic ardet alieno, ut non possit exstingui; haec de ceteris, quae piget retexere, quibus licet uis insolita contra naturam inesse uideatur, alia tamen de illis non redditur ratio, nisi ut dicatur hanc eorum esse naturam. Breuis sane ista est ratio, fateor, sufficiensque responsio. Sed cum Deus auctor sit naturarum omnium, quur nolunt fortiorem nos reddere rationem, quando aliquid uelut inpossibile nolunt credere eisque redditionem rationis poscentibus respondemus hanc esse uoluntatem omnipotentis Dei? qui certe non ob aliud uocatur omnipotens, nisi quoniam quidquid uult potest, qui potuit creare tam multa, quae nisi ostenderentur aut a credendis hodieque dicerentur testibus, profecto inpossibilia putarentur, non solum quae ignotissima aput nos, uerum etiam quae notissima posui. Illa enim quae [aput nos] praeter eos, quorum de his libros legimus, non habent testem et ab eis conscripta sunt, qui non sunt diuinitus docti adque humanitus falli forte potuerunt, licet cuique sine recta reprehensione non credere. Nam nec ego uolo temere credi cuncta quae posui, quia nec a me ipso ita creduntur, tamquam nulla de illis sit in mea cogitatione dubitatio, exceptis his, quae uel ipse sum expertus et cuiuis facile est experiri; sicut de calce, quod feruet in aqua, in oleo frigida est; de magnete lapide, quod nescio qua sorbitione insensibili stipulam non moueat et ferrum rapiat; de carne non putescente pauonis, cum putuerit et Platonis; de palea sic frigente, ut Suescere niuem non sinat, sic calente ut maturescere poma conpellat; de igne fulgido, quod secundum suam fulgorem lapides coquendo candificet et contra eundem suum fulgorem urendo plurima obfuscet. Tale est et quod nigrae maculae offunduntur ex oleo splendido, similiter nigrae lineae de candido inprimuntur argento, de carbonibus etiam, quod accendente igne sic uertantur in contrarium, ut de lignis pulcherrimis taetri, fragiles de duris, inputribiles de putribilibus fiant. Haec ipse quaedam cum multis, quaedam cum omnibus noui, et alia plurima, quae huic libro inserere longum fuit. De his autem, quae posui non experta, sed lecta, praeter de fonte illo, ubi faces exstinguuntur ardentes et accenduntur exstinctae, et de pomis terrae Sodomorum forinsecus quasi maturis, intrinsecus fumeis, nec testes aliquos idoneos, a quibus utrum uera essent audirem, potui reperire. Et illum quidem fontem non inueni qui in Epiro uidisse se dicerent, sed qui in Gallia similem nossent non longe a Gratianopoli ciuitate. De fructibus autem arborum Sodomitarum non tantum litterae fide dignae indicant, uerum etiam tam multi se loquuntur expertos, ut hinc dubitare non possim. Cetera uero sic habeo, ut neque neganda neque adfirmanda decreuerim; sed ideo etiam ipsa posui, quoniam aput eorum, contra quos agimus, historicos legi, ut ostenderem qualia multa multique illorum nulla reddita ratione in suorum litteratorum scripta litteris credant, qui nobis credere, quando id, quod eorum experientiam sensumque transgreditur, omnipotentem Deum dicimus esse facturum, nec reddita ratione dignantur. Nam quae melior et ualidior ratio de rebus talibus redditur, quam cum Omnipotens ea posse facere perhibetur et facturus dicitur, quae praenuntiasse ibi legitur, ubi alia multa praenuntiauit, quae fecisse monstratur? Ipse quippe faciet, quia se facturum esse praedixit, quae inpossibilia putantur, qui promisit et fecit ut ab incredulis gentibus incredibilia crederentur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. That in marvelous things the highest reason for belief is the omnipotence of the Creator.

Why, then, should God not be able to make both the bodies of the dead rise and the bodies of the damned be tormented in eternal fire, he who made the world full of innumerable marvels in heaven, on earth, in the air, and in the waters, when the world itself is without doubt a marvel greater and more excellent than all the things with which it is filled? But these people with whom, or against whom, we are dealing, who both believe that there is a God by whom the world was made, and gods made by him through whom the world is administered by him, and who do not deny, but even proclaim, worldly powers that produce marvels, whether spontaneous, or obtained by some worship and rite, or even magical: when we set before them the marvelous power of other things, which are neither rational animals nor spirits endowed with any reason, such as those of which we have mentioned a few, they usually answer: “That is a power of nature; their nature is such; these are the effects proper to their natures.” So the whole reason why the salt of Agrigentum is made to melt by flame and to crackle in water is that this is its nature. And yet this seems rather to be against nature, which has given to water, not to fire, the power of dissolving salt, and to fire, not water, the power of roasting it. “But this,” they say, “is the natural power of this salt, that it undergoes the contrary of these.” This reason, then, is given also for that spring of the Garamantes, where one vein is cold by day and hot by night, troublesome to the touch either way; this also for that other spring, which, though cold to those who handle it and though it puts out a lighted torch like other springs, yet, unlike them and wonderfully, the same spring lights an extinguished one; this also for the stone asbestos, which, though it has no fire of its own, yet when it has received fire from elsewhere burns so that it cannot be put out; this for the rest, which it is tedious to go through again, in which, although an unaccustomed power against nature seems to be present, no other reason is given for them except to say that this is their nature.

A brief reason indeed, I admit, and a sufficient answer. But since God is the author of all natures, why do they refuse to let us give a stronger reason when they will not believe something as impossible, and, when they demand an account, we answer that this is the will of almighty God? He is certainly called almighty for no other reason than that he can do whatever he wills, he who was able to create so many things which, unless they were shown or were told even today by witnesses to be believed, would surely be thought impossible; not only the things I have set down which are very little known among us, but also those very well known. For as to those which have no witness besides those whose books about them we read, and which were written by men who were not divinely taught and, being human, may perhaps have been deceived, anyone may, without just reproach, not believe them. For I do not wish all the things I have set down to be believed rashly, since I do not believe them myself as if there were no doubt about them in my mind, except those which I have tested myself and which anyone can easily test: such as that lime boils in water and is cold in oil; that the magnet, by some imperceptible attraction, does not move a straw but snatches iron; that the flesh of the peacock does not decay, when even Plato's has decayed; that straw is so cold that it does not let snow melt, and so warm that it forces fruit to ripen; that bright fire, in keeping with its brightness, whitens stones by baking them, and against that same brightness darkens very many things by burning them. Of the same kind is the fact that black stains are spread by bright oil, and likewise black lines are drawn by white silver; and about coals, that when the fire kindles them they are turned into the contrary, so that from the most beautiful wood they become ugly, brittle from hard, incorruptible from corruptible. Some of these I know myself with many others, some with everyone, and many other things which it would have been lengthy to insert in this book.

But of those which I have set down not as tested but as read, except for that spring where burning torches are put out and extinguished ones lit, and for the fruits of the land of Sodom, ripe as it were outside and smoky inside, I have not been able to find any suitable witnesses from whom I might hear whether they were true. And indeed I did not find anyone who said he had seen that spring in Epirus, but I found people who knew a similar one in Gaul not far from the city of Grenoble. As for the fruits of the trees of Sodom, not only do trustworthy writings report it, but so many people say they have tested it that I cannot doubt it. The rest I hold in such a way that I have decided they are neither to be denied nor affirmed; but I set them down too because I read them in the historians of those against whom we are arguing, to show what kind of things, and how many, many of them believe written in the writings of their learned men without any reason given, who do not deign to believe us even when a reason is given, when we say that almighty God will do something which surpasses their experience and sense. For what better and stronger reason is given for such things than when the Almighty is declared able to do them and is said to be going to do what we read he foretold there where he foretold many other things which he is shown to have done? For he will do the things that are thought impossible, because he foretold that he would do them, he who promised and brought it about that incredible things should be believed by unbelieving nations.

### Translation notes

- The spring near Grenoble (Gratianopolis) and the apples of Sodom are the two reported marvels for which Augustine says he found witnesses; the others he neither denies nor affirms. “When even Plato's has decayed” is Augustine's jest about the philosopher's flesh. The digital text reads “Suescere niuem non sinat”, probably a corruption of a verb meaning “melt” (e.g. “liquescere”); translated by that sense. The editor deletes “aput nos” in “quae [aput nos] praeter eos” (no change in the sense rendered).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.7 (CSEL 40:526–530; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-5/#p-21-7).

## City of God 21.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-5/#p-21-8
- Source: CSEL 40:530–534
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: A portent is not against nature but against what is known of nature; God, who changed the course of Venus, stopped the sun, and turned Sodom into a waste, can change the nature of human bodies as he has foretold.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. Non esse contra naturam, cum in aliqua re, cuius natura innotuit, aliquid ab eo quod erat notum incipit esse diuersum. Si autem respondent propterea se non credere quae de humanis semper arsuris nec umquam morituris corporibus dicimus, quia humanorum corporum naturam nouimus longe aliter institutam, unde nec illa ratio hinc reddi potest, quae de illis naturis mirabilibus reddebatur, ut dici possit: Vis ista naturalis est, rei huius ista natura est; quoniam scimus humanae carnis istam non esse naturam: habemus quidem quod respondeamus de litteris sacris, hanc ipsam scilicet humanam carnem aliter institutam fuisse ante peccatum, id est, ut posset numquam perpeti mortem; aliter autem post peccatum, qualis in aerumna huius mortalitatis innotuit, ut perpetem uitam tenere non possit; sic ergo aliter, quam nobis nota est, instituetur in resurrectione mortuorum. Sed quoniam istis non credunt litteris, ubi legitur qualis in paradiso uixerit homo quantumque fuerit a necessitate mortis alienus (quibus utique si crederent, non cum illis de poena damnatorum, quae futura est, operosius ageremus): de litteris eorum. qui doctissimi aput illos fuerunt, aliquid proferendum est, quo appareat posse fieri, ut aliter se habeat quaeque res, quam prius in rebus innotuerat suae determinatione naturae. Est in Marci Varronis libris, quorum inscriptio est: De gente populi Romani, quod eisdem uerbis, quibus ibi legitur, et hic ponam: In caelo, inquit, mirabile exstitit portentum: nam stellam Veneris nobilissimam, quam Plautus Vesperuginem, Homerus Hesperon appellat, pulcherrimam dicens, Castor scribit tantum portentum exstitisse, ut mutaret colorem, magnitudinem, figuram, cursum; quod factum ita neque antea nec postea sit. Hoc factum Ogygo rege dicebant Adrastos Cyzicenos et Dion Neapolites, mathematici nobiles. Hoc certe Varro tantus auctor portentum non appellaret, nisi esse contra naturam uideretur. Omnia quippe portenta contra naturam dicimus esse; sed non sunt. Quo modo est enim contra naturam, quod Dei fit uoluntate, cum uoluntas tanti utique conditoris conditae rei cuiusque natura sit? Portentum ergo fit non contra naturam, sed contra quam est nota natura. Quis autem portentorum numerat multitudinem, quae historia gentium continetur? Sed nunc in hoc uno adtendamus, quod ad rem, de qua agimus, pertinet. Quid ita dispositum est ab auctore naturae caeli et terrae, quem ad modum cursus ordinatissimus siderum? Quid tam ratis legibus fixisque firmatum? Et tamen, quando ille uoluit, qui summo regit imperio ac potestate quod condidit. stella prae ceteris magnitudine ac splendore notissima colorem, magnitudinem, figuram et (quod est mirabilius) sui cursus ordinem legemque mutauit. Turbauit profecto tunc, si ulli iam fuerunt, canones astrologorum, quos uelut inerrabili conputatione de praeteritis ac futuris astrorum motibus conscriptos habent, quos canones sequendo ausi sunt dicere. hoc, quod de Lucifero contigit, nec antea nec postea contigisse. Nos autem in diuinis libris legimus etiam solem ipsum et stetisse, cum hoc a Domino Deo petiuisset uir sanctus Iesus Naue, donec coeptum proelium uictoria terminaret, et retrorsum redisse, ut regi Ezechiae quindecim anni ad uiuendum additi hoc etiam prodigio promissioni Dei significarentur adiuncto. Sed ista quoque miracula, quae meritis sunt concessa sanctorum, quando credunt isti facta, magicis artibus tribuunt. Unde illud est, quod superius commemoraui dixisse Vergilium: Sistere aquam fluuiis et uertere sidera retro. Nam et fluuium stetisse superius inferiusque fluxisse, cum populus Dei ductore supra memorato Iesu Naue uiam carperet, et Helia propheta transeunte ac postea discipulo eius Helisaeo id esse factum in sacris litteris legimus, et retro uersum fuisse maximum sidus regnante Ezechia modo commemorauimus. Quod uero de Lucifero Varro scripsit, non est illic dictum alicui petenti homini id fuisse concessum. Non ergo de notitia naturarum caliginem sibi faciant infideles, quasi non possit in aliqua re diuinitus fieri aliud, quamdiu eius natura per humanam suam experientiam cognouerunt; quamuis et ipsa, quae in rerum natura omnibus nota sunt, non minus mira sint, essentque stupenda considerantibus cunctis, si, solerent homines mirari mira nisi rara. Quis enim consulta ratione non uideat in hominum innumerabili numerositate et tanta naturae similitudine ualde mirabiliter sic habere singulos singulas facies, ut nisi inter se similes essent, non discerneretur species eorum ab animalibus ceteris; et rursus nisi inter se dissimiles essent, non discernerentur singuli ab hominibus ceteris? Quos ergo similes confitemur, eosdem dissimiles inuenimus. Sed mirabilior est consideratio dissimilitudinis, quoniam similitudinem iustius uidetur exposcere natura communis. Et tamen quoniam quae sunt rara ipsa sunt mira, multo amplius admiramur quando duos ita similes reperimus, ut in eis discernendis aut semper aut frequenter erremus. Sed quod dixi scriptum a Varrone, licet eorum sit historicus idemque doctissimus, fortasse uere factum esse non credunt; aut quia non diu mansit alius eiusdem sideris cursus, sed reditum est ad solitum, minus isto mouentur exemplo. Habent ergo aliud, quod etiam nunc possit ostendi eisque puto debere sufficere, quo commoneantur, cum aliquid aduerterint in aliqua institutione naturae eamque sibi notissimam fecerint, non se inde Deo debere praescribere, quasi eam non possit in longe aliud, quam eis cognita est, uertere adque mutare. Terra Sodomorum non fuit utique ut nunc est, sed iacebat simili ceteris facie eademque uel etiam uberiore fecunditate pollebat; nam Dei paradiso in diuinis eloquiis conparata est. Haec postea quam tacta de caelo est, sicut illorum quoque adtestatur historia et nunc ab eis qui ueniunt ad loca illa conspicitur, prodigiosa fuligine horrori est et poma eius interiorem fauillam mendaci superficie maturitatis includunt. Ecce non erat talis, et talis est. Ecce a conditore naturarum natura eius in hanc foedissimam diuersitatem mirabili mutatione conuersa est; et quod post tam longum accidit tempus, tam longo tempore perseuerat. Sicut ergo non fuit inpossibile Deo, quas uoluit instituere, sic ei non est inpossibile, in quidquid uoluerit, quas instituit, mutare naturas. Unde illorum quoque miraculorum multitudo siluescit, quae monstra ostenta, portenta prodigia nuncupantur; quae recolere et commemorare si uelim, huius operis quis erit finis? Monstra sane dicta perhibent a monstrando, quod aliquid significando demonstrent, et ostenta ab ostendendo, et portenta a portendendo, id est praeostendendo, et prodigia, quod porro dicant, id est futura praedicant. Sed uiderint eorum coniectores, quo modo ex eis siue fallantur siue instinctu spirituum, quibus cura est tali poena dignos animos hominum noxiae curiositatis retibus inplicare, etiam uera praedicant, siue multa dicendo aliquando in aliquid ueritatis incurrant. Nobis tamen ista, quae uelut contra naturam fiunt et contra naturam fieri dicuntur (quo more hominum locutus est et apostolus dicendo contra naturam in olea insitum oleastrum factum esse participem pinguedinis oleae) et monstra ostenta, portenta prodigia nuncupantur, hoc monstrare debent, hoc ostendere uel praeostendere, hoc praedicere, quod facturus sit Deus, quae de corporibus hominum se praenuntiauit esse facturum, nulla inpediente difficultate, nulla praescribente lege naturae. Quo modo autem praenuntiauerit, satis in libro superiore docuisse me existimo, decerpendo de scripturis sanctis et nouis et ueteribus non quidem omnia ad hoc pertinentia, sed quae sufficere huic operi iudicaui.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. That it is not against nature when, in some thing whose nature has become known, something begins to be different from what was known.

But suppose they answer that they do not believe what we say about human bodies that will always burn and never die because we know the nature of human bodies to be constituted far otherwise; so that the reason that was given for those marvelous natures cannot be given here, namely, that it can be said, “This is a natural power, this is the nature of this thing,” since we know that this is not the nature of human flesh. We have indeed an answer from the sacred writings: that this very human flesh was constituted otherwise before sin, namely, so that it could never suffer death, and otherwise after sin, such as it has become known in the troubles of this mortality, so that it cannot keep a perpetual life; so, then, it will be constituted otherwise than it is known to us in the resurrection of the dead. But since they do not believe these writings, where we read how man lived in paradise and how far he was from the necessity of death (and certainly, if they believed them, we would not be dealing at such pains with them about the punishment of the damned that is to come), something must be brought forward from the writings of those who were most learned among them, by which it may appear that it can happen that a thing is otherwise than it was previously known to be, among things, by the determination of its nature.

In the books of Marcus Varro entitled On the Race of the Roman People there is a passage which I will set down here in the same words in which it is read there: “In the sky,” he says, “a wonderful portent occurred: for Castor writes that in the most renowned star of Venus, which Plautus calls Vesperugo and Homer Hesperos, calling it most beautiful, so great a portent occurred that it changed its color, size, shape, and course; which has never happened thus before or since. Adrastus of Cyzicus and Dion of Naples, famous mathematicians, said that this happened in the reign of King Ogyges.” So great an authority as Varro would certainly not call this a portent unless it seemed to be against nature. For we say that all portents are against nature; but they are not. For how is that against nature which happens by the will of God, since the will of so great a Creator is certainly the nature of each created thing? A portent, then, happens not against nature, but against what is known of nature. And who can count the multitude of portents contained in the history of the nations? But let us now attend to this one, which bears on the matter we are dealing with. What has been so arranged by the author of the nature of heaven and earth as the most orderly course of the stars? What has been so firmly established by fixed and settled laws? And yet, when he willed who rules with supreme command and power what he created, a star, the best known of all for its size and brightness, changed its color, size, shape, and (what is more wonderful) the order and law of its course. Surely it then upset the tables of the astrologers, if there were any yet, which they keep as written with unerring computation about the past and future motions of the stars, following which tables they have dared to say that what happened to Lucifer never happened before or since. But we read in the divine books that the sun itself both stood still, when the holy man Joshua son of Nun had asked this of the Lord God, until he should finish with victory the battle he had begun, and went back, so that the fifteen years added to King Hezekiah's life might be signified by this prodigy too, joined to God's promise. But these miracles too, granted to the merits of the saints, when these people believe they happened, they attribute to magic arts. Hence what I mentioned above that Virgil said: “to stop the water in rivers and turn the stars backward.” For we read in the sacred writings both that a river stood still above and flowed on below, when the people of God were making their way under the leader mentioned above, Joshua son of Nun, and that this was done when the prophet Elijah crossed, and afterwards his disciple Elisha; and we have just mentioned that the greatest star turned back in the reign of Hezekiah. But what Varro wrote about Lucifer does not say there that it was granted to any man who asked for it.

Let unbelievers not make a fog for themselves out of their knowledge of natures, as though something other could not happen by God's power in some thing, since they have come to know its nature by their human experience; although the very things that are known to all in the nature of things are no less wonderful, and would be astonishing to all who considered them, if people were accustomed to wonder at wonders other than rare ones. For who, on reflection, does not see that in the innumerable multitude of human beings, with so great a likeness of nature, each one very wonderfully has his own face, so that, if they were not like one another, their species would not be distinguished from the other animals, and again, if they were not unlike one another, individuals would not be distinguished from other human beings? Those whom we acknowledge to be alike, then, we find to be unlike. But the consideration of unlikeness is the more wonderful, since a common nature seems more rightly to demand likeness. And yet, since rare things are the wonderful ones, we marvel much more when we find two so alike that we always or often make mistakes in telling them apart.

But what I said was written by Varro, though he is their historian and the most learned of them, perhaps they do not believe actually happened; or, because the different course of that star did not last long, but it returned to its usual one, they are less moved by this example. They have, then, another, which can be shown even now and which I think ought to be enough for them, to remind them that when they have noticed something in some constitution of nature and have come to know it very well, they ought not on that account to lay down the law to God, as if he could not turn and change it into something far other than what is known to them. The land of Sodom was certainly not as it is now, but lay with a face like the rest and flourished with the same or even richer fertility; for in the divine words it is compared to the paradise of God. After it was struck from heaven, as their history too testifies and as is now seen by those who come to those places, it is a horror with its prodigious soot, and its fruits enclose ash within under a lying surface of ripeness. See, it was not such, and it is such. See, its nature was turned by the Creator of natures, by a wonderful change, into this most foul difference; and what happened after so long a time has persisted for so long a time. As, then, it was not impossible for God to establish the natures he willed, so it is not impossible for him to change the natures he established into whatever he wills.

Hence too the multitude of those miracles grows like a forest which are called monsters, signs, portents, and prodigies; if I wished to recall and mention them, what end would there be to this work? They say that monsters (monstra) are so called from “showing” (monstrare), because they show something by signifying it; and signs (ostenta) from “displaying” (ostendere); and portents (portenta) from “portending” (portendere), that is, showing beforehand; and prodigies (prodigia) because they “speak forth” (porro dicere), that is, foretell things to come. But let their interpreters see how by them they are either deceived, or even foretell true things by the prompting of spirits whose concern is to entangle human minds deserving such a penalty in the nets of harmful curiosity, or by saying many things sometimes stumble on some truth. For us, however, these things which happen as if against nature and are said to happen against nature (in which human way of speaking the apostle too spoke, when he said that the wild olive grafted against nature into the olive became a sharer of the olive's richness), and which are called monsters, signs, portents, and prodigies, ought to show this, display or show beforehand this, foretell this: that God will do what he foretold he would do with the bodies of human beings, no difficulty hindering, no law of nature prescribing to him. How he foretold it I think I have shown sufficiently in the previous book, by gathering from the holy Scriptures, both new and old, not indeed everything pertaining to this, but what I judged enough for this work.

### Scripture references

- Josh 10:12–14: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Kgs 20:8–11: allusion, high confidence
- Josh 3:16: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Kgs 2:8: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Kgs 2:14: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 13:10: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 19:24–25: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 11:24: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Varro (Varro): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 4.489 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence
- Plautus, Amph. 275 (Plautus, Comedies): allusion, medium confidence
- Homer, Il. 22.318 (Homer, Iliad): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Varro, De gente populi Romani, quoting Castor on a change in the planet Venus in the reign of Ogyges (Plautus, Amphitruo 275; Homer, Iliad 22.318); Joshua 10:12–14; 2 Kings 20:8–11 (Isaiah 38:8); Virgil, Aeneid 4.489; Joshua 3:16; 2 Kings 2:8, 14; Genesis 13:10; 19:24–25; Romans 11:24. Augustine's etymologies of monstrum, ostentum, portentum, and prodigium follow Latin grammarians. The key definition: a portent “happens not against nature, but against what is known of nature”.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.8 (CSEL 40:530–534; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-5/#p-21-8).

## City of God 21.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-5/#p-21-9
- Source: CSEL 40:534–537
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The unquenchable fire and undying worm of Gehenna may both be bodily, or the fire bodily and the worm the mind's grief; Augustine leaves the choice open but insists that the bodies of the damned will truly feel the fire.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. De gehenna et aeternarum qualitate poenarum. Quod igitur de sempiterno supplicio damnatorum per suum prophetam Deus dixit, fiet, omnino fiet: Vermis eorum non morietur et ignis eorum non exstinguetur. Ad hoc enim uehementius commendandum etiam Dominus Iesus, cum membra quae hominem scandalizant pro his hominibus poneret, quos ut sua membra dextra quis diligit, eaque praeciperet amputari: Bonum est tibi, inquit, debilem introire in uitam quam duas manus habentem ire in gehennam, in ignem inexstinguibilem, ubi uermis eorum non morietur et ignis non exstinguetur. Similiter de pede: Bonum est tibi, inquit, claudum introire in uitam aeternam quam duos pedes habentem mitti in gehennam ignis inexstinguibilis, ubi uermis eorum non moritur et ignis non exstinguitur. Non aliter ait et de oculo: Bonum est tibi luscum introire in regnum Dei quam duos oculos habentem mitti in gehennam ignis, ubi uermis eorum non moritur et ignis non exstinguitur. Non eum piguit uno loco eadem uerba ter dicere. Quem non terreat ista repetitio et illius poenae commonitio tam uehemens ore diuino? Utrumque autem horum, ignem scilicet adque uermem, qui uolunt ad animi poenas, non ad corporis pertinere, dicunt etiam uri dolore animi sero adque infructuose paenitentes eos, qui fuerint a regno Dei separati, et ideo ignem pro isto dolore urente non incongrue poni potuisse contendunt; unde illud apostoli est: Quis scandalizatur, et non ego uror? Eundem etiam uermem putant intellegendum esse. Nam scriptum est, inquiunt: Sicut tinea uestimentum et uermis lignum, sic maeror excruciat cor uiri. Qui uero poenas et animi et corporis in illo supplicio futuras esse non dubitant, igne uri corpus, animum autem rodi quodam modo uerme maeroris adfirmant. Quod etsi credibilius dicitur, quia utique absurdum est ibi dolorem aut corporis aut animi defuturum: ego tamen facilius est ut ad corpus dicam utrumque pertinere quam neutrum, et ideo tacitum in illis diuinae scripturae uerbis animi dolorem, quoniam consequens esse intellegitur, etiamsi non dicatur, ut corpore sic dolente animus quoque sterili paenitentia crucietur. Legitur quippe et in ueteribus scripturis: Vindicta carnis inpii, ignis et uermis. Potuit breuius dici: Vindicta inpii. Quur ergo dictum est: carnis inpii, nisi quia utrumque, id est et ignis et uermis, poena erit carnis? Aut si uindictam carnis propterea dicere uoluit, quia hoc in homine uindicabitur, quod secundum carnem uixerit (propter hoc enim ueniet in mortem secundam, quam significauit apostolus dicens: Si enim secundum carnem uixeritis, moriemini), eligat quisque quod placet, aut ignem tribuere corpori, animo uermem, hoc proprie, illud tropice, aut utrumque proprie corpori. Iam enim satis superius disputaui posse animalia etiam in ignibus uiuere, in ustione sine consumtione, in dolore sine morte. per miraculum omnipotentissimi Creatoris; cui hoc possibile esse qui negat, a quo sit quidquid in naturis omnibus miratur ignorat. Ipse est enim Deus, qui omnia in hoc mundo magna et parua miracula, quae commemorauimus, et inconparabiliter plura, quae non commemorauimus, fecit eademque ipso mundo uno adque omnium maximo miraculo inclusit. Eligat ergo unum e duobus quisque quod placet, utrum et uermem ad corpus proprie an ad animum translato a corporalibus ad incorporalia uocabulo existimet pertinere. Quid autem horum uerum sit, res ipsa expeditius indicabit, quando erit scientia tanta sanctorum, ut eis cognoscendarum illarum poenarum necessaria non sit experientia, sed ea, quae tunc erit plena adque perfecta, ad hoc quoque sciendum sapientia sola sufficiat (nunc enim ex parte scimus, donec ueniat quod perfectum est); dum tamen nullo modo illa corpora talia futura esse credamus, ut nullis ab igne adficiantur doloribus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. On Gehenna and the nature of the eternal punishments.

What God said, then, through his prophet about the everlasting punishment of the damned will come to pass, will certainly come to pass: “Their worm will not die, and their fire will not be quenched.” For to impress this more forcefully, the Lord Jesus too, when he set the members that cause a person to stumble for those persons whom one loves as one's own right-hand members, and commanded that they be cut off, said: “It is better for you to enter into life maimed than having two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire, where their worm will not die and the fire will not be quenched.” Likewise of the foot: “It is better for you,” he says, “to enter lame into eternal life than having two feet to be cast into the Gehenna of unquenchable fire, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.” He speaks no differently of the eye: “It is better for you to enter one-eyed into the kingdom of God than having two eyes to be cast into the Gehenna of fire, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.” He was not reluctant to say the same words three times in one place. Whom would this repetition not terrify, and so forceful a warning of that punishment from the divine mouth?

Those who want both of these, the fire and the worm, to belong to the punishments of the mind and not of the body, say that those who have been separated from the kingdom of God are burned by the pain of a mind that repents too late and fruitlessly, and so they contend that fire could not unfittingly have been put for this burning pain; hence the apostle's saying: “Who is made to stumble, and I do not burn?” They think the worm too is to be understood the same way. “For it is written,” they say, “As the moth a garment and the worm wood, so grief torments the heart of a man.” But those who do not doubt that there will be punishments of both mind and body in that torment affirm that the body is burned by fire, while the mind is in a way gnawed by the worm of grief. Although this is said more credibly, since it is certainly absurd that pain of either body or mind should be absent there, yet I would more readily say that both belong to the body than that neither does; and that the pain of the mind is not mentioned in those words of divine Scripture because it is understood to follow, even if it is not said, that while the body is in such pain the mind too is tormented by a barren repentance. For we read in the old Scriptures too: “The vengeance on the flesh of the ungodly is fire and worm.” It could have been said more briefly: “The vengeance on the ungodly.” Why, then, was it said “on the flesh of the ungodly,” unless because both, that is, the fire and the worm, will be a punishment of the flesh? Or if he wished to say “vengeance on the flesh” because what will be avenged in man is that he lived according to the flesh (for this is why he will come into the second death, which the apostle signified when he said, “For if you live according to the flesh, you will die”), let each choose what he pleases: either to assign the fire to the body and the worm to the mind, the one literally and the other figuratively, or both literally to the body. For I have already argued sufficiently above that animals can live even in fires, in burning without being consumed, in pain without death, by a miracle of the most almighty Creator; and whoever denies that this is possible for him does not know from whom comes whatever he marvels at in all natures. For it is God himself who made all the miracles in this world, great and small, which we have mentioned, and incomparably more which we have not mentioned, and enclosed them in the world itself, the one and greatest miracle of all. Let each, then, choose one of the two as he pleases, whether he thinks that the worm too belongs literally to the body, or to the mind, by a word transferred from bodily to incorporeal things. Which of these is true, the reality itself will show more readily, when the knowledge of the saints will be so great that they will not need experience to know those punishments, but their wisdom, which will then be full and perfect, will suffice by itself to know this too (for now we know in part, until what is perfect comes); provided that we in no way believe that those bodies will be such as to be affected by no pains from the fire.

### Scripture references

- Isa 66:24: quotation, high confidence
- Mark 9:43–48: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 11:29: quotation, high confidence
- Prov 25:20: quotation, medium confidence
- Rom 8:13: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 13:9–10: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sir 7:17 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Isaiah 66:24; Mark 9:43–48 (with the Old Latin repetition of verse 48); 2 Corinthians 11:29; Proverbs 25:20 in the LXX/Old Latin addition (“As the moth a garment and the worm wood…”); Sirach 7:17 in the Latin form (“The vengeance on the flesh of the ungodly is fire and worm”); Romans 8:13; 1 Corinthians 13:9–10. Augustine leaves open whether the worm is literal or figurative, but holds that the fire will cause real bodily pain.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.9 (CSEL 40:534–537; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-5/#p-21-9).

## City of God 21.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-10
- Source: CSEL 40:537–539
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The bodily fire of Gehenna can torment demons, whether they have airy bodies or are incorporeal spirits bound to the fire in a wonderful way, just as souls are bound to bodies.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. An ignis gehennae, si corporalis est, possit malignos spiritus, id est daemones incorporeos, tactu suo adurere. Hic occurrit quaerere: Si non erit ignis incorporalis, sicut est animi dolor, sed corporalis, tactu noxius, ut eo possint corpora cruciari: quo modo in eo erit etiam poena spirituum malignorum? Idem quippe ignis erit, supplicio scilicet hominum adtributus et daemonum, dicente Christo: Discedite a me. maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius. Nisi quia sunt quaedam sua etiam daemonibus corpora, sicut doctis hominibus uisum est, ex isto aere crasso adque umido, cuius inpulsus uento flante sentitur. Quod genus elementi si nihil igne perpeti posset, non ureret feruefactus in balneis. Ut enim urat, prior uritur facitque cum patitur. Si autem quisquam nulla habere corpora daemones adseuerat, non est de hac re aut laborandum operosa inquisitione aut contentiosa disputatione certandum. Quur enim non dicamus, quamuis miris, tamen ueris modis etiam spiritus incorporeos posse poena corporalis ignis adfligi, si spiritus hominum, etiam ipsi profecto incorporei, et nunc potuerunt includi corporalibus membris et tunc poterunt corporum suorum uinculis insolubiliter adligari? Adhaerebunt ergo, si eis nulla sunt corpora, spiritus daemonum, immo spiritus daemones, licet incorporei corporeis ignibus cruciandi, non ut ignes ipsi, quibus adhaerebunt, eorum iunctura inspirentur et animalia fiant, quae constent spiritu et corpore, sed, ut dixi, miris et ineffabilibus modis adhaerendo, accipientes ex ignibus poenam, non dantes ignibus uitam; quia et iste alius modus, quo corporibus adhaerent spiritus et animalia fiunt, omnino mirus est nec conprehendi ab homine potest, et hoc ipse homo est. Dicerem quidem sic arsuros sine ullo suo corpore spiritus, sicut ardebat aput inferos ille diues, quando dicebat: Crucior in hac flamma, nisi conuenienter responderi cernerem talem fuisse illam flammam, quales oculi quos leuauit et Lazarum uidit, qualis lingua cui umorem exiguum desiderauit infundi, qualis digitus Lazari de quo id sibi fieri postulauit; ubi tamen erant sine corporibus animae. Sic ergo incorporalis et illa flamma qua exarsit et illa guttula quam poposcit, qualia sunt etiam uisa dormientium siue in ecstasi cernentium res incorporales, habentes tamen similitudinem corporum. Nam et ipse homo cum spiritu, non corpore, sit in talibus uisis, ita se tamen tunc similem suo corpori uidet. ut discernere omnino non possit. At uero gehenna illa, quod etiam stagnum ignis et sulphuris dictum est, corporeus ignis erit et cruciabit corpora damnatorum, aut et hominum et daemonum, solida hominum, aeria daemonum, aut tantum hominum corpora cum spiritibus, daemones autem spiritus sine corporibus haerentes sumendo poenam, non inpertiendo uitam corporalibus ignibus. Unus quippe utrisque ignis erit, sicut Veritas dixit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. Whether the fire of Gehenna, if it is bodily, can burn evil spirits, that is, incorporeal demons, by its touch.

Here the question arises: if the fire is not incorporeal, like the pain of the mind, but bodily, harmful to the touch, so that bodies can be tormented by it, how will the punishment of evil spirits also be in it? For it will be the same fire, assigned, that is, to the punishment of human beings and of demons, since Christ says: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire, which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.” Unless it is because demons too have certain bodies of their own, as learned men have thought, made of this thick and moist air whose impact is felt when the wind blows. If this kind of element could suffer nothing from fire, it would not burn when heated in the baths. For in order to burn, it is first burned, and it acts when it is acted upon. But if anyone asserts that demons have no bodies, there is no need either to labor over the matter with painstaking inquiry or to contend over it with contentious dispute. For why should we not say that, in ways that are wonderful but true, even incorporeal spirits can be afflicted by the punishment of bodily fire, if the spirits of human beings, which are themselves certainly incorporeal, both could now be enclosed in bodily members and will then be able to be bound indissolubly by the bonds of their bodies? So the spirits of demons, or rather the demons as spirits, even if they have no bodies, though incorporeal, will cleave to the bodily fires to be tormented; not so that the fires themselves to which they will cleave are animated by their union and become living beings composed of spirit and body, but, as I said, cleaving in wonderful and ineffable ways, receiving punishment from the fires, not giving life to the fires; because that other way too, by which spirits cleave to bodies and become living beings, is altogether wonderful and cannot be comprehended by man, and this is man himself.

I would indeed say that spirits will burn without any body of their own, just as that rich man was burning in the underworld when he said, “I am tormented in this flame,” except that I see that it could fittingly be answered that that flame was of the same kind as the eyes which he lifted up and with which he saw Lazarus, the tongue on which he longed to have a little moisture poured, and the finger of Lazarus by which he asked this to be done for him; and yet there they were souls without bodies. So that flame too, in which he burned, and that little drop which he asked for, were incorporeal, like the things seen by people asleep or by those who see incorporeal things in ecstasy, which nevertheless have a likeness of bodies. For the man himself, though he is present in such visions in spirit and not in body, sees himself so like his body then that he cannot tell the difference at all. But that Gehenna, which is also called the lake of fire and sulfur, will be a bodily fire and will torment the bodies of the damned, either both of human beings and of demons, the solid bodies of human beings and the airy ones of demons, or only the bodies of human beings with their spirits, while the demons, spirits without bodies, cleave to the bodily fires, receiving punishment and not imparting life. For there will be one fire for both, as the Truth has said.

### Scripture references

- Matt 25:41: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 16:23–24: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 20:10: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Matthew 25:41; Luke 16:23–24; Revelation 20:10. The view that demons have bodies of thick air is that of “learned men” (Platonist demonology); Augustine does not decide it. He leaves open whether the flame of the rich man was incorporeal, like things seen in dreams, but holds that the fire of Gehenna will be bodily.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.10 (CSEL 40:537–539; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-10).

## City of God 21.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-11
- Source: CSEL 40:539–541
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Punishments in human law are not measured by the time a crime took but by its gravity, so eternal punishment for sins done in time is not unjust; “the same measure” means requital, not equal duration.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. An hoc ratio iustitiae habeat, ut non sint extensiora poenarum tempora, quam fuerint peccatorum. Sic autem quidam eorum, contra quos defendimus ciuitatem Dei, iniustum putant, ut pro peccatis quamlibet magnis, paruo scilicet tempore perpetratis, poena quisque damnetur aeterna, quasi ullius id umquam iustitia legis adtendat, ut tanta mora temporis quisque puniatur, quanta mora temporis unde puniretur admisit. Octo genera poenarum in legibus esse scribit Tullius, damnum, uincla, uerbera, talionem, ignominiam, exsilium, mortem, seruitutem. Quid horum est quod in breue tempus pro cuiusque peccati celeritate coartetur, ut tanta uindicetur morula, quanta deprehenditur perpetratum, nisi forte talio? Id enim agit, ut hoc patiatur quisque quod fecit. Unde illud est legis: Oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente. Fieri enim potest, ut tam breui tempore quisque amittat oculum seueritate uindictae, quam tulit ipse alteri inprobitate peccati. Porro autem si alienae feminae osculum infixum rationis sit uerbere uindicare, nonne qui illud puncto temporis fecerit, inconparabili horarum spatio uerberatur et suauitas uoluptatis exiguae diuturno dolore punitur? Quid, in uinculis numquid tamdiu quisque iudicandus est esse debere, quamdiu fecit unde meruit adligari; cum iustissime annosas poenas seruus in conpedibus pendat, qui uerbo aut ictu celerrime transeunte uel lacessiuit dominum uel plagauit? Iam uero damnum, ignominia, exsilium, seruitus cum plerumque sic infliguntur, ut nulla uenia relaxentur, nonne pro huius uitae modo similia poenis uidentur aeternis? Ideo quippe aeterna esse non possunt, quia nec ipsa uita, quae his plectitur, porrigitur in aeternum; et tamen peccata, quae uindicantur longissimi temporis poenis, breuissimo tempore perpetrantur; nec quisquam exstitit qui censeret tam cito nocentium finienda esse tormenta, quam cito factum est uel homicidium uel adulterium uel sacrilegium uel quodlibet aliud scelus non temporis longitudine, sed iniquitatis et inpietatis magnitudine metiendum. Qui uero pro aliquo grandi crimine morte multatur, numquid mora qua occiditur, quae perbreuis est, eius supplicium leges aestimant et non quod eum in sempiternum auferunt de societate uiuentium? Quod est autem de ista ciuitate mortali homines supplicio primae mortis, hoc est de illa ciuitate inmortali homines supplicio secundae mortis auferre. Sicut enim non efficiunt leges huius ciuitatis, ut in eam quisque reuocetur occisus: sic nec illius, ut in uitam reuocetur aeternam secunda morte damnatus. Quo modo ergo uerum est, inquiunt, quod ait Christus uester: In qua mensura mensi fueritis, in ea remetietur uobis. si temporale peccatum supplicio punitur aeterno? Nec adtendunt non propter aequale temporis spatium, sed propter uicissitudinem mali, id est ut qui mala fecerit mala patiatur, eandem dictam fuisse mensuram. Quamuis hoc in ea re proprie possit accipi, de qua Dominus cum hoc diceret loquebatur, id est de iudiciis et condemnationibus. Proinde qui iudicat et condemnat iniuste, si iudicatur et condemnatur iuste, in eadem mensura recipit, quamuis non hoc quod dedit. Iudicio enim fecit, iudicio patitur; quamuis fecerit damnatione quod iniquum est, patiatur damnatione quod iustum est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. Whether the principle of justice requires that the times of punishment be no longer than the times of the sins were.

Now some of those against whom we are defending the city of God think it unjust that anyone should be condemned to eternal punishment for sins, however great, committed in a short time; as if the justice of any law ever took care that each person should be punished for as long a time as he spent committing what he is punished for. Tully writes that there are eight kinds of punishment in the laws: fine, chains, beating, retaliation, disgrace, exile, death, slavery. Which of these is compressed into a short time to match the speed of each sin, so that it is avenged by as short a delay as the time in which it is found to have been committed, except perhaps retaliation? For this brings it about that each person suffers what he has done. Hence that saying of the law: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” For it can happen that someone loses an eye through the severity of the penalty in as short a time as he took it from another through the wickedness of his sin. But further, if it is reasonable to punish a kiss forced on another man's wife with a beating, does not the one who did it in a moment of time suffer a beating for an incomparably longer space of hours, and the sweetness of a slight pleasure is punished with long pain? What about chains? Is anyone to be judged to deserve to be in them only as long as he took to do what earned him being bound, when a slave in fetters most justly pays penalties lasting years because by a word or a blow, passing very quickly, he either provoked or struck his master? And now fines, disgrace, exile, and slavery, when they are commonly inflicted in such a way that they are relaxed by no pardon, do they not seem, by the measure of this life, like eternal punishments? For they cannot be eternal only because the life itself which is punished by them does not stretch into eternity; and yet the sins which are avenged with punishments of very long duration are committed in a very short time; nor has anyone ever been found who thought that the torments of the guilty should be ended as quickly as a murder or an adultery or a sacrilege was done, or any other crime, which is to be measured not by the length of time but by the greatness of the iniquity and impiety. And when someone is punished with death for some great crime, do the laws reckon his punishment by the delay in which he is killed, which is very short, and not by the fact that they remove him for ever from the society of the living? What removing human beings from this mortal city by the punishment of the first death is, removing human beings from that immortal city by the punishment of the second death is. For just as the laws of this city do not bring it about that anyone who has been killed is recalled into it, so neither do the laws of that city bring it about that one who has been condemned by the second death is recalled into eternal life.

“How, then,” they say, “is it true, what your Christ says: ‘With the measure you have measured, it will be measured back to you,’ if a temporal sin is punished with eternal punishment?” They do not notice that the same measure was spoken of not because of an equal space of time but because of the requital of evil, that is, that he who has done evil should suffer evil. Although this can be taken properly of the matter the Lord was speaking about when he said this, that is, of judgments and condemnations. So the one who judges and condemns unjustly, if he is judged and condemned justly, receives in the same measure, although not the same thing that he gave. For he acted by a judgment, and he suffers by a judgment; although by condemnation he did what is unjust, by condemnation he suffers what is just.

### Scripture references

- Exod 21:24: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 7:2: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero (Cicero): quotation, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Cicero (Tully) on eight kinds of legal punishment, in a lost passage quoted also by later writers; Exodus 21:24 (Matthew 5:38); Matthew 7:2 (Luke 6:38). Augustine's argument is that the second death excludes from the eternal city as the death penalty excludes from the earthly one.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.11 (CSEL 40:539–541; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-11).

## City of God 21.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-12
- Source: CSEL 40:541–542
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Eternal punishment seems unjust only because we cannot perceive how great the first sin was; the whole human race is a condemned mass, from which some are freed by undeserved grace to show both mercy and justice.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. De magnitudine praeuaricationis primae, ob quam aeterna poena omnibus debeatur, qui extra gratiam fuerint Saluatoris. Sed poena aeterna ideo dura et iniusta sensibus uidetur humanis, quia in hac infirmitate moribundorum sensuum deest ille sensus altissimae purissimaeque sapientiae, quo sentiri possit quantum nefas in illa prima praeuaricatione commissum sit. Quanto enim magis homo fruebatur Deo, tanto maiore inpietate dereliquit Deum et factus est malo dignus aeterno, qui hoc in se peremit bonum, quod esse posset aeternum. Hinc est uniuersa generis humani massa damnata; quoniam, qui hoc primus admisit, cum ea quae in illo fuerat radicata sua stirpe punitus est, ut nullus ab hoc iusto debitoque supplicio nisi misericordi et indebita gratia liberetur adque ita dispertiatur genus humanum, ut in quibusdam demonstretur quid ualeat misericors gratia, in ceteris quid iusta uindicta. Neque enim utrumque demonstraretur in omnibus, quia, si omnes remanerent in poenis iustae damnationis, in nullo appareret misericors gratia; rursus si omnes a tenebris transferrentur in lucem, in nullo appareret ueritas ultionis. In qua propterea multo plures quam in illa sunt, ut sic ostendatur, quid omnibus deberetur. Quod si omnibus redderetur, iustitiam uindicantis iuste nemo reprehenderet; quia uero tam multi exinde liberantur, est unde agantur maximae gratiae gratuito muneri liberantis.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. On the greatness of the first transgression, because of which eternal punishment is owed to all who are outside the Savior's grace.

But eternal punishment seems harsh and unjust to human senses because in the weakness of these dying senses there is lacking that sense of the highest and purest wisdom by which one could perceive how great a wickedness was committed in that first transgression. For the more man enjoyed God, the greater the impiety with which he abandoned God, and he became worthy of eternal evil who destroyed in himself the good which could have been eternal. Hence the whole mass of the human race is condemned; since the one who first committed this was punished together with his stock, which had been rooted in him, so that no one is set free from this just and deserved punishment except by merciful and undeserved grace; and the human race is so divided that in some is shown what merciful grace can do, in the rest what just vengeance can do. For both could not be shown in all; because if all remained in the punishments of just condemnation, merciful grace would appear in none; again, if all were transferred from darkness into light, the truth of retribution would appear in none. And there are many more in that than in this, so that it may thus be shown what was owed to all. If it were rendered to all, no one could justly find fault with the justice of the avenger; but because so many are set free from it, there is cause for giving the greatest thanks to the free gift of the deliverer.

### Scripture references

- Col 1:13: echo, medium confidence
- Rom 5:12: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Colossians 1:13 and 1 Peter 2:9 lie behind “transferred from darkness into light.” Augustine's doctrine of the “condemned mass” (massa damnata) of humanity and the division of grace and justice is translated as written; that more are in punishment than are saved is his stated view.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.12 (CSEL 40:541–542; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-12).

## City of God 21.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-13
- Source: CSEL 40:542–543
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Against the Platonist view that all punishment after death purifies, Augustine holds that some punishments purify and others do not, that some suffer temporary punishments after death before the judgment, and that not all of these come to eternal punishment.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII. Contra opinionem eorum, qui putant criminosis supplicia post mortem causa purgationis adhiberi. Platonici quidem, quamuis inpunita nulla uelint esse peccata, tamen omnes poenas emendationi adhiberi putant, uel humanis inflictas legibus uel diuinis, siue in hac uita siue post mortem, si aut parcatur hic cuique aut ita plectatur ut hic non corrigatur. Hinc est Maronis illa sententia, ubi, cum dixisset de terrenis corporibus moribundisque membris, quod animae Hinc metuunt cupiuntque, dolent gaudentque, nec auras Suspiciunt, clausae tenebris et carcere caeco, secutus adiunxit adque ait: Quin et supremo cum lumine uita reliquit (id est cum die nouissimo reliquit eas ista uita), Non tamen (inquit) omne malum miseris, nec funditus omnes Corporeae excedunt pestes, penitusque necesse est Multa diu concreta modis inolescere miris. Ergo exercentur poenis ueterumque malorum Supplicia expendunt; aliae panduntur inanes Suspensae ad uentos, aliis sub gurgite uasto Infectum eluitur scelus aut exuritur igni. Qui hoc opinantur, nullas poenas nisi purgatorias uolunt esse post mortem, ut, quoniam terris superiora sunt elementa aqua, aer, ignis, ex aliquo istorum mundetur per expiatorias poenas, quod terrena contagione contractum est. Aer quippe accipitur in eo quod ait: Suspensae ad uentos; aqua in eo quod ait: Sub gurgite uasto; ignis autem suo nomine expressus est, cum dixit: Aut exuritur igni. Nos uero etiam in hac quidem mortali uita esse quasdam poenas purgatorias confitemur, non quibus adfliguntur, quorum uita uel non inde fit melior, uel potius inde fit peior; sed illis sunt purgatoriae, qui eis coherciti corriguntur. Ceterae omnes poenae, siue temporariae siue sempiternae, sicut unusquisque diuina prouidentia tractandus est, inferuntur uel pro peccatis siue praeteritis siue in quibus adhuc uiuit ille qui plectitur, uel pro exercendis declarandisque uirtutibus per homines et angelos seu bonos seu malos. Nam etsi quisque mali aliquid alterius inprobitate uel errore patiatur, peccat quidem homo, qui uel ignorantia uel iniustitia cuiquam mali aliquid facit; sed non peccat Deus, qui iusto, quamuis occulto, iudicio fieri sinit. Sed temporarias poenas alii in hac uita tantum, alii post mortem, alii et nunc et tunc, uerum tamen ante iudicium illud seuerissimum nouissimumque patiuntur. Non autem omnes ueniunt in sempiternas poenas, quae post illud iudicium sunt futurae, qui post mortem sustinent temporales. Nam quibusdam, quod in isto non remittitur, remitti in futuro saeculo, id est, ne futuri saeculi aeterno supplicio puniantur, iam supra diximus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. Against the opinion of those who think that punishments are applied to the guilty after death for the sake of purification.

The Platonists, indeed, although they will have no sins go unpunished, think that all punishments, whether inflicted by human or divine laws, whether in this life or after death, are applied for amendment, if a person is either spared here or punished in such a way that he is not corrected here. Hence that saying of Maro, where, having said of earthly bodies and dying limbs that souls “hence fear and desire, grieve and rejoice, nor look up to the air, shut in darkness and a blind prison,” he went on to add: “Nay, even when on the last day life has left them” (that is, when this life has left them on the final day), “not all evil,” he says, “nor all the plagues of the body wholly depart from the wretched, and it must be that many things long grown in should become deeply ingrained in wondrous ways. So they are exercised with punishments and pay the penalties of old evils: some are spread out, hung empty to the winds; for others the stain of guilt is washed out under a vast whirlpool, or burned out by fire.” Those who hold this opinion will have no punishments after death except purifying ones, so that, since the elements water, air, and fire are higher than earth, what has been contracted by earthly contagion is cleansed by one of these through expiatory punishments. For air is understood in his saying, “hung to the winds”; water in his saying, “under a vast whirlpool”; and fire is expressed by its own name when he said, “or burned out by fire.”

We, however, acknowledge that even in this mortal life there are indeed some purifying punishments; not those by which people are afflicted whose life is either not made better by them or is rather made worse, but they are purifying for those who are corrected by being restrained by them. All other punishments, whether temporary or everlasting, as each person is to be dealt with by divine providence, are inflicted either for sins, whether past or those in which the one punished is still living, or to exercise and display virtues, through human beings and angels, good or evil. For even if someone suffers some evil through another's wickedness or error, the man who does evil to anyone through ignorance or injustice sins; but God, who permits it to happen by a just though hidden judgment, does not sin. But some suffer temporary punishments in this life only, others after death, others both now and then, yet before that most severe and final judgment. Not all, however, who endure temporal punishments after death come into the everlasting punishments which will be after that judgment. For we have already said above that for some what is not forgiven in this age is forgiven in the age to come, that is, so that they are not punished with the eternal punishment of the age to come.

### Scripture references

- Matt 12:32: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Virgil, Aen. 6.733–742 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Virgil, Aeneid 6.733–734, 735–742. Matthew 12:32 lies behind “forgiven in the age to come.” Augustine here affirms temporary punishments after death, before the final judgment, for some who will not suffer eternal punishment; this passage is often cited in later discussions of purgatory. Translated as written, without later terminology.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.13 (CSEL 40:542–543; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-13).

## City of God 21.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-14
- Source: CSEL 40:543–545
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The whole of human life is a trial and punishment, from the infant's first cry and the child's schooling onward; even baptized infants suffer, though this does not harm them if they die.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. De poenis temporalibus istius uitae, quibus subiecta est humana condicio. Rarissimi sunt autem qui nullas in hac uita, sed tantum post eam poenas luunt. Fuisse tamen aliquos, qui usque ad decrepitam senectutem ne leuissimam quidem febriculam senserint quietamque duxerint uitam, et ipsi nouimus et audiuimus; quamquam uita ipsa mortalium tota poena sit, quia tota tentatio est, sicut sacrae litterae personant, ubi scriptum est: Numquid non tentatio est uita humana super terram? Non enim parua poena est ipsa insipientia uel inperitia, quae usque adeo fugienda merito iudicatur, ut per poenas doloribus plenas pueri cogantur quaeque artificia uel litteras discere; ipsumque discere, ad quod poenis adiguntur, tam poenale est eis, ut nonnumquam ipsas poenas, per quas conpelluntur discere, malint ferre quam discere. Quis autem non exhorreat et mori eligat, si ei proponatur aut mors perpetienda aut rursus infantia? Quae quidem quod non a risu, sed a fletu orditur hanc lucem, quid malorum ingressa sit nesciens prophetat quodam modo. Solum, quando natus est. ferunt risisse Zoroastrem, nec ei boni aliquid monstruosus risus ille portendit. Nam magicarum artium fuisse perhibetur inuentor; quae quidem illi nec ad praesentis uitae uanam felicitatem contra suos inimicos prodesse potuerunt; a Nino quippe rege Assyriorum. cum esset ipse Bactrianorum, bello superatus est. Prorsus quod scriptum est: Graue iugum super filios Adam a die exitus de uentre matris eorum usque in diem sepulturae in matrem omnium, usque adeo inpleri necesse est, ut ipsi paruuli per lauacrum regenerationis ab originalis peccati, quo solo tenebantur, uinculo iam soluti mala multa patientes nonnulli et incursus spirituum malignorum aliquando patiantur. Quae quidem passio absit ut eis obsit, si hanc uitam in illa aetate etiam ipsa passione ingrauescente et animam de corpore excludente finierint.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. On the temporal punishments of this life, to which the human condition is subject.

Very rare are those who pay no penalties in this life, but only after it. Yet that there have been some who, even to decrepit old age, did not feel even the slightest little fever and led a quiet life, we ourselves both know and have heard; although the whole life of mortals is itself a punishment, because it is all temptation, as the sacred writings proclaim, where it is written: “Is not human life on earth a temptation?” For ignorance itself or lack of skill is no small punishment; it is so rightly judged a thing to be fled that children are forced by punishments full of pain to learn some craft or letters; and learning itself, to which they are driven by punishments, is so painful to them that they sometimes prefer to bear the very punishments by which they are compelled to learn rather than to learn. And who would not shudder and choose to die, if he were offered either to suffer death or to be an infant again? Infancy, indeed, since it begins this light not with laughter but with weeping, in a way prophesies, without knowing it, what evils it has entered. Zoroaster alone, they say, laughed when he was born, and that monstrous laughter portended nothing good for him. For he is said to have been the inventor of the magic arts; and these could not help him even to the vain happiness of the present life against his enemies; for he was defeated in war by Ninus, king of the Assyrians, when he himself was king of the Bactrians. In short, what is written, “A heavy yoke is upon the sons of Adam from the day they come forth from their mother's womb until the day of their burial in the mother of all,” must be fulfilled to such an extent that even little ones, already set free through the washing of regeneration from the bond of original sin, by which alone they were held, suffer many evils, and some sometimes even suffer the assaults of evil spirits. Far be it that this suffering should harm them, if they end this life at that age, even when that very suffering grows worse and drives the soul out of the body.

### Scripture references

- Job 7:1: quotation, high confidence
- Titus 3:5: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sir 40:1 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence
- Pliny the Elder, Pliny, Nat. 7.72 (Pliny the Elder, Natural History): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Job 7:1 (LXX/Old Latin “Is not human life on earth a temptation?”); Sirach 40:1; Titus 3:5. The story of Zoroaster laughing at birth is from Pliny, Natural History 7.72; his defeat by Ninus is from Justin's epitome of Trogus (1.1). Augustine reports these as “they say”.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.14 (CSEL 40:543–545; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-14).

## City of God 21.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-15
- Source: CSEL 40:545–546
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The trials of this life teach that all the grace of the New Testament looks to the world to come; the present war of spirit against flesh is better than surrender to vice.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. Quod omne opus gratiae Dei eruentis nos de profunditate ueteris mali ad futuri saeculi pertineat nouitatem. Verum tamen in graui iugo, quod positum est super filios Adam a die exitus de uentre matris eorum usque in diem sepulturae in matrem omnium, etiam hoc malum mirabile reperitur, ut sobrii simus adque intellegamus hanc uitam de peccato illo nimis nefario, quod in paradiso perpetratum est, factam nobis esse poenalem totumque, quod nobiscum agitur per testamentum nouum, non pertinere nisi ad noui saeculi hereditatem nouam, ut hic pignore accepto illud cuius hoc pignus est suo tempore consequamur, nunc autem ambulemus in spe et proficientes de die in diem spiritu facta carnis mortificemus. Nouit enim Dominus qui sunt eius; et quotquot spiritu Dei aguntur, hi filii sunt Dei, sed gratia, non natura. Unicus enim natura Dei filius propter nos misericordia factus est hominis filius, ut nos, natura filii hominis, filii Dei per illum gratia fieremus. Manens quippe ille inmutabilis naturam nostram, in qua nos susciperet, suscepit a nobis et tenax diuinitatis suae nostrae infirmitatis particeps factus est; ut nos in melius commutati, quod peccatores mortalesque sumus, eius inmortalis et iusti participatione amittamus et, quod in natura nostra bonum fecit, inpletum summo bono in eius naturae bonitate seruemus. Sicut enim per unum hominem peccantem in hoc tam graue malum deuenimus, ita per unum hominem eundemque Deum iustificantem ad illud bonum tam sublime ueniemus. Nec quisquam se debet ab isto ad illum transisse confidere, nisi cum ibi fuerit, ubi tentatio nulla erit; nisi pacem tenuerit, quam belli huius, in quo caro concupiscit aduersus spiritum et spiritus aduersus carnem, multis et uariis certaminibus quaerit. Hoc autem bellum numquam ullum esset, si natura humana per liberum arbitrium in rectitudine, in qua facta est, perstitisset. Nunc uero, quae pacem felix cum Deo habere noluit, secum pugnat infelix, et cum sit hoc malum miserabile, melius est tamen quam priora uitae huius. Melius confligitur quippe cum uitiis, quam sine ulla conflictione dominantur. Melius est, inquam, bellum cum spe pacis aeternae quam sine ulla liberationis cogitatione captiuitas. Cupimus quidem etiam hoc bello carere et ad capessendam ordinatissimam pacem, ubi firmissima stabilitate potioribus inferiora subdantur, igne diuini amoris accendimur. Sed si (quod absit) illius tanti boni spes nulla esset, malle debuimus in huius conflictationis molestia remanere quam uitiis in nos dominationem non eis resistendo permittere.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. That the whole work of God's grace, which rescues us from the depth of the old evil, belongs to the newness of the world to come.

Yet in the heavy yoke that is laid on the sons of Adam from the day they come forth from their mother's womb until the day of their burial in the mother of all, even this wonderful thing is found, that it makes us sober and brings us to understand that this life has become penal for us because of that exceedingly wicked sin committed in paradise, and that all that is done with us through the New Testament pertains only to the new inheritance of the new world; so that, having received the pledge here, we may in its own time obtain that of which this is the pledge; and now let us walk in hope, and, advancing from day to day, put to death the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit. For the Lord knows those who are his; and as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God, but by grace, not by nature. For the only Son of God by nature became, out of mercy, the son of man for our sake, so that we, sons of man by nature, might become sons of God by grace through him. For remaining himself unchangeable, he took from us our nature, in which to take us up, and, holding fast to his divinity, became a partaker of our weakness; so that we, changed for the better, might lose what we are, sinful and mortal, by sharing in his immortality and righteousness, and might keep what he made good in our nature, filled with the highest good in the goodness of his nature. For just as through one sinning man we came into this so grievous evil, so through one justifying man, who is also God, we shall come to that so sublime good. Nor should anyone be confident that he has passed from the one to the other until he is where there will be no temptation; until he holds the peace which he seeks through the many and various struggles of this war, in which the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh. This war would never have existed if human nature had stood fast by free choice in the uprightness in which it was made. But now, having been unwilling to have peace with God when it was happy, it fights with itself in its unhappiness; and though this is a pitiable evil, it is nevertheless better than the earlier stages of this life. For it is better to struggle with vices than that they should rule without any struggle. Better, I say, is war with the hope of eternal peace than captivity without any thought of deliverance. We long, indeed, to be without even this war, and we are kindled by the fire of divine love to lay hold of that most ordered peace, where the lower is subjected to the higher with the firmest stability. But if (God forbid) there were no hope of so great a good, we ought to have preferred to remain in the trouble of this conflict rather than, by not resisting them, to allow vices dominion over us.

### Scripture references

- 2 Cor 1:22: allusion, medium confidence
- Rom 8:13–14: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Tim 2:19: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 5:12–19: allusion, high confidence
- Gal 5:17: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sir 40:1 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Sirach 40:1; 2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; Romans 8:13–14; 2 Timothy 2:19; Romans 5:12–19; Galatians 5:17.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.15 (CSEL 40:545–546; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-15).

## City of God 21.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-16
- Source: CSEL 40:546–548
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Baptized children who die before the age of reason suffer no punishment after death; older believers must fight their vices by grace; purifying punishments occur only before the last judgment, and eternal fire varies with deserts.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. Sub quibus gratiae legibus omnes regeneratorum habeantur aetates. Verum tamen tanta est Dei misericordia in uasa misericordiae, quae praeparauit in gloriam, ut etiam prima hominis aetas, id est infantia, quae sine ullo renisu subiacet carni. et secunda, quae pueritia nuncupatur, ubi nondum ratio suscepit hanc pugnam et fere sub omnibus uitiosis delectationibus iacet, quia, licet fari iam ualeat et ideo infantiam transisse uideatur, nondum in ea est praecepti capax infirmitas mentis, si sacramenta Mediatoris acceperit, etiamsi hanc in eis annis uitam finiat, translata scilicet a potestate tenebrarum in regnum Christi non solum poenis non praeparetur aeternis, sed ne ulla quidem post mortem purgatoria tormenta patiatur. Sufficit enim sola spiritalis regeneratio, ne post mortem obsit quod carnalis generatio cum morte contraxit. Cum autem uentum fuerit ad aetatem, quae praeceptum iam capit et subdi potest legis imperio, suscipiendum est bellum contra uitia et gerendum acriter, ne ad damnabilia peccata perducat. Et si quidem nondum uictoriarum consuetudine roborata sunt, facilius uincuntur et cedunt; si autem uincere adque imperare consuerunt, laboriosa difficultate superantur. Neque id fit ueraciter adque sinceriter nisi uerae delectatione iustitiae; haec est autem in fide Christi. Nam si lex iubens adsit et spiritus iuuans desit, per ipsam prohibitionem desiderio crescente adque uincente peccati etiam reatus praeuaricationis accedit. Nonnumquam sane apertissima uitia aliis uitiis uincuntur occultis, quae putantur esse uirtutes, in quibus regnat superbia et quaedam sibi placendi altitudo ruinosa. Tunc itaque uicta uitia deputanda sunt, cum Dei amore uincuntur, quem nisi Deus ipse non donat nec aliter nisi per mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem Christum Iesum, qui factus est particeps mortalitatis nostrae, ut nos participes faceret diuinitatis suae. Paucissimi autem sunt tantae felicitatis, ut ab ipsa ineunte adulescentia nulla damnabilia peccata committant uel in flagitiis uel in facinoribus uel in nefariae cuiusquam inpietatis errore, sed magna spiritus largitate obprimant, quidquid eis posset carnali delectatione dominari. Plurimi uero praecepto legis accepto, cum prius uicti fuerint praeualentibus uitiis et praeuaricatores eius effecti, tunc ad gratiam confugiunt adiuuantem, qua fiant et amarius paenitendo et uehementius pugnando prius Deo subdita adque ita carni praeposita mente uictores. Quisquis igitur cupit poenas euadere sempiternas, non solum baptizetur, uerum etiam iustificetur in Christo, ac sic uere transeat a diabolo ad Christum. Purgatorias autem poenas nullas futuras opinetur, nisi ante illud ultimum tremendumque iudicium. Nequaquam tamen negandum est etiam ipsum aeternum ignem pro diuersitate meritorum quamuis malorum aliis leuiorem, aliis futurum esse grauiorem, siue ipsius uis adque ardor pro poena digna cuiusque uarietur, siue ipse aequaliter ardeat, sed non aequali molestia sentiatur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. By what laws of grace all the ages of the regenerate are governed.

Yet so great is God's mercy toward the vessels of mercy which he has prepared for glory that even the first age of man, that is, infancy, which is subject to the flesh without any resistance, and the second, which is called childhood, in which reason has not yet taken up this fight and lies subject to almost all sinful delights, because, although it is already able to speak and so seems to have passed infancy, the weakness of the mind in it is not yet capable of a commandment: if it has received the sacraments of the Mediator, even if it ends this life in those years, then, having been transferred from the power of darkness into the kingdom of Christ, not only is it not prepared for eternal punishments, but it does not even suffer any purifying torments after death. For spiritual regeneration alone suffices, so that what carnal generation contracted with death may not harm it after death. But when one has come to the age which is already capable of a commandment and can be subjected to the rule of the law, war must be undertaken against vices and waged fiercely, lest it lead to damnable sins. And if the vices have not yet been strengthened by the habit of victory, they are more easily overcome and give way; but if they have become accustomed to conquer and rule, they are overcome with laborious difficulty. Nor is this done truly and sincerely except by delight in true righteousness; and this is in the faith of Christ. For if the law is present commanding and the Spirit is absent helping, then, as desire for sin grows and conquers through the very prohibition, the guilt of transgression is added as well. Sometimes, indeed, the most open vices are overcome by other hidden vices which are thought to be virtues, in which pride reigns and a certain ruinous loftiness of self-satisfaction. Vices are to be counted overcome, then, when they are overcome by the love of God, which God himself alone gives, and not otherwise than through the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who became a partaker of our mortality to make us partakers of his divinity.

Very few, however, are of such great happiness that from the very beginning of youth they commit no damnable sins, either in shameful acts or in crimes or in the error of some wicked impiety, but by a great bounty of the Spirit suppress whatever could have dominion over them by carnal delight. Most people, having received the commandment of the law, after first being overcome by prevailing vices and becoming transgressors of it, then flee to the helping grace, by which, repenting more bitterly and fighting more vigorously, they become victors, with the mind first made subject to God and so set over the flesh. Whoever, then, wishes to escape everlasting punishments, let him not only be baptized but also be justified in Christ, and so truly pass from the devil to Christ. And let him think that there will be no purifying punishments except before that last and dreadful judgment. Yet it is by no means to be denied that the eternal fire itself will be lighter for some and heavier for others, according to the difference of their deserts, evil though they are; whether its force and heat are varied according to the punishment each deserves, or it burns equally but is not felt with equal pain.

### Scripture references

- Rom 9:23: allusion, high confidence
- Col 1:13: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 7:7–11: allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Tim 2:5: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Pet 1:4: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Romans 9:23; Colossians 1:13; Romans 7:7–11; 1 Timothy 2:5; 2 Peter 1:4. Augustine states that the baptized who die in infancy or childhood suffer no “purifying torments” after death, and that any purifying punishments are before the last judgment; eternal punishment differs in severity according to deserts. Translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.16 (CSEL 40:546–548; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-16).

## City of God 21.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-17
- Source: CSEL 40:548–549
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine turns to “tender-hearted” Christians who think the punishment of the damned will end; he notes that the church rejected Origen's view that even the devil would be restored and that souls cycle endlessly between bliss and misery.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. De his, qui putant nullorum hominum poenas in aeternum esse mansuras. Nunc iam cum misericordibus nostris agendum esse uideo et pacifice disputandum, qui uel omnibus illis hominibus. quos iustissimus iudex dignos gehennae supplicio iudicabit, uel quibusdam eorum nolunt credere poenam sempiternam futuram, sed post certi temporis metas pro cuiusque peccati quantitate longioris siue breuioris eos inde existimant liberandos. Qua in re misericordior profecto fuit Origenes, qui et ipsum diabolum adque angelos eius post grauiora pro meritis et diuturniora supplicia ex illis cruciatibus eruendos et sociandos sanctis angelis credidit. Sed illum et propter hoc et propter alia nonnulla et maxime propter alternantes sine cessatione beatitudines et miserias et statutis saeculorum interuallis ab istis ad illas adque ab illis ad istas itus ac reditus interminabiles non inmerito reprobauit ecclesia; quia et hoc, quod misericors uidebatur, amisit faciendo sanctis ueras miserias, quibus poenas luerent. et falsas beatitudines, in quibus uerum ac securum, hoc est sine timore certum, sempiterni boni gaudium non haberent. Longe autem aliter istorum misericordia humano errat adfectu, qui hominum illo iudicio damnatorum miserias temporales, omnium uero qui uel citius uel tardius liberantur aeternam felicitatem putant. Quae sententia si propterea bona et uera quia misericors est, tanto erit melior et uerior quanto misericordior. Extendatur ergo ac profundatur fons huius misericordiae usque ad damnatos angelos saltem post multa adque prolixa quantumlibet saecula liberandos. Quur usque uniuersam naturam manat humanam, et cum ad angelicam uentum fuerit, mox arescit? Non audent tamen se ulterius miserando porrigere et ad liberationem ipsius quoque diaboli peruenire. Verum si aliquis audeat, uincit nempe istos. Et tamen tanto inuenitur errare deformius et contra recta Dei uerba peruersius, quanto sibi uidetur sentire clementius.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. On those who think that the punishments of no human beings will last for ever.

I see that I must now deal with our tender-hearted friends, and argue peaceably with those who refuse to believe that everlasting punishment will come either to all those human beings whom the most just judge will judge worthy of the punishment of Gehenna, or to some of them, but think that they will be set free from there after the limits of a fixed time, longer or shorter according to the magnitude of each one's sin. In this matter Origen was certainly more merciful, who believed that even the devil himself and his angels, after more severe and longer punishments according to their deserts, would be rescued from those torments and joined to the holy angels. But the church has not without reason rejected him, both for this and for some other things, and especially for his alternating, without cease, of blessedness and misery, and endless goings and returnings from the one to the other and from the other to the one at fixed intervals of ages; because he lost even this appearance of mercy by making for the saints true miseries in which to pay penalties, and false blessednesses in which they would not have the true and secure joy of everlasting good, that is, joy certain and without fear.

Far otherwise, however, does the mercy of these people err with a human feeling, who think that the miseries of human beings condemned in that judgment are temporal, while the happiness of all who are set free, sooner or later, is eternal. If this opinion is good and true because it is merciful, it will be the better and truer the more merciful it is. Let the fountain of this mercy, then, be extended and poured out even to the damned angels, to be set free at least after many and prolonged ages, however many. Why does it flow as far as the whole of human nature, and then, when it comes to the angelic, at once dry up? Yet they do not dare to stretch themselves further in pity and come to the liberation of the devil himself as well. But if anyone dares, he surely outdoes them. And yet he is found to err all the more unbecomingly and all the more perversely against the right words of God, the more mercifully he seems to himself to think.

### Translation notes

- Augustine refers to Origen's teaching on the restoration of all things (apokatastasis), including the devil, and on the endless cycles of souls; he states that the church rejected it. He reports the milder views of his contemporaries on the limited punishment of human beings and answers them in 21.23–27. Translated as written; “our tender-hearted friends” renders “misericordibus nostris”.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.17 (CSEL 40:548–549; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-17).

## City of God 21.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-18
- Source: CSEL 40:549–552
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reports the view of some that at the judgment the saints' intercession will obtain mercy for all human beings, with their arguments from Psalm 77, Nineveh, Psalm 31, and Romans 11, and notes that they are pleading their own case.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. De his. qui nouissimo iudicio propter intercessionem sanctorum neminem hominum putant esse damnandum. Sunt etiam, quales in conlocutionibus nostris ipse sum expertus, qui, cum uenerari uideantur scripturas sanctas, moribus inprobandi sunt et agendo causam suam multo maiorem quam isti misericordiam Deo tribuunt erga humanum genus. Dicunt enim de malis et infidelibus hominibus diuinitus quidem uerum praedictum esse, quod digni sunt; sed cum ad iudicium uentum fuerit, misericordiam esse superaturam. Donabit enim eos, inquiunt, misericors Deus precibus et intercessionibus sanctorum suorum. Si enim orabant pro illis, quando eos patiebantur inimicos, quanto magis quando uidebunt humiles supplicesque prostratos! Neque enim credendum est, aiunt, tunc amissuros sanctos uiscera misericordiae, cum fuerint plenissimae ac perfectissimae sanctitatis, ut, qui tunc orabant pro inimicis suis, quando et ipsi sine peccato non erant, tunc non orent pro supplicibus suis, quando nullum coeperint habere peccatum. Aut uero Deus tunc eos non exaudiet tot et tales filios suos, quando in tanta eorum sanctitate nullum inueniet orationis inpedimentum? Testimonium uero psalmi et illi quidem, qui permittunt infideles adque inpios homines saltem longo tempore cruciari et postea de malis omnibus erui, sed magis isti pro se dicunt esse, ubi legitur: Numquid obliuiscetur misereri Deus aut continebit in ira sua miserationes suas? Ira eius est, inquiunt, ut omnes indigni beatitudine sempiterna ipso iudicante puniantur supplicio sempiterno. Sed si uel longum uel prorsus ullum esse permiserit, profecto, ut possit hoc fieri, continebit in ira sua miserationes suas, quod eum psalmus dicit non esse facturum. Non enim ait: Numquid diu continebit in ira sua miserationes suas?) sed quod prorsus non continebit ostendit. Sic ergo isti uolunt iudicii Dei comminationem non esse mendacem, quamuis sit neminem damnaturus, quem ad modum eius comminationem, qua dixit euersurum se esse Nineuen ciuitatem, mendacem non possumus dicere; et tamen factum non est, inquiunt, quod sine ulla condicione praedixit. Non enim ait: Nineue euertetur, si non egerint paenitentiam seque correxerint); sed hoc non addito praenuntiauit futuram euersionem illius ciuitatis. Quam comminationem propterea ueracem putant, quia hoc praedixit Deus quod uere digni erant pati, quamuis hoc non esset ipse facturus. Nam etsi paenitentibus pepercit, inquiunt, utique illos paenitentiam non ignorabat acturos, et tamen absolute ac definite eorum euersionem futuram esse praedixit. Hoc ergo erat, inquiunt, in ueritate seueritatis, quia id erant digni; sed in ratione miserationis non erat, quam non continuit in ira sua, ut ab ea poena supplicibus parceret, quam fuerat contumacibus comminatus. Sic ergo tunc pepercit, aiunt, quando sanctum suum prophetam fuerat parcendo contristaturus, quanto magis tunc miserabilius supplicantibus parcet, quando ut parcat omnes sancti eius orabunt! Sed hoc, quod ipsi suis cordibus suspicantur, ideo putant scripturas tacuisse diuinas, ut multi se corrigant uel prolixarum uel aeternarum timore poenarum, et sint qui possint orare pro eis, qui non se correxerint; nec tamen opinantur omni modo id eloquia diuina tacuisse. Nam quo pertinet, inquiunt, quod scriptum est: Quam multa multitudo dulcedinis tuae, Domine, quam abscondisti timentibus te, nisi ut intellegamus propter timorem fuisse absconditam misericordiae diuinae tam multam secretamque dulcedinem? Addunt etiam propterea dixisse apostolum: Conclusit enim Deus omnes in infidelitate, ut omnium misereatur, quo significaret, quod ab illo nemo damnabitur. Nec isti tamen, qui hoc sentiunt, hanc opinionem suam usque ad liberationem uel nullam damnationem diaboli adque angelorum eius extendunt; humana quippe circa solos homines mouentur misericordia et causam maxime agunt suam, per generalem in genus humanum quasi Dei miserationem inpunitatem falsam suis perditis moribus pollicentes; ac per hoc superabunt eos in praedicanda Dei misericordia, qui hanc inpunitatem etiam principi daemonum et eius satellitibus pollicentur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. On those who think that no human being will be condemned in the last judgment because of the intercession of the saints.

There are also some, as I have found in my own conversations, who, while they seem to revere the holy Scriptures, are to be disapproved of in their conduct, and who, pleading their own case, attribute to God a much greater mercy toward the human race than these do. For they say that what was divinely foretold about wicked and unbelieving human beings is true, namely that they deserve it; but that when it comes to the judgment, mercy will prevail. “For the merciful God,” they say, “will grant them to the prayers and intercessions of his saints. For if the saints prayed for them when they suffered them as enemies, how much more when they see them humbled and prostrate as suppliants! For it is not to be believed,” they say, “that the saints will then lose their bowels of mercy, when they will be of the fullest and most perfect holiness; so that those who prayed for their enemies then, when they themselves too were not without sin, will not pray for their suppliants then, when they will have begun to have no sin at all. Or will God not hear then so many and such children of his, when in their great holiness he will find no hindrance to their prayer?”

The testimony of the psalm, which those who allow that unbelieving and ungodly people will be tormented for a long time and afterwards rescued from all evils also claim, but these claim much more for themselves, is where we read: “Will God forget to be merciful, or will he shut up his compassions in his anger?” “His anger,” they say, “is that all who are unworthy of everlasting blessedness are punished, by his own judgment, with everlasting punishment. But if he allows any punishment at all, whether long or short, then, for this to be able to happen, he will certainly shut up his compassions in his anger, which the psalm says he will not do. For it does not say, ‘Will he shut up his compassions in his anger for a long time?’ but shows that he will not shut them up at all.”

So these people will have it that God's threat of judgment is not a lie, even though he will condemn no one, just as we cannot call his threat by which he said that he would overthrow the city of Nineveh a lie; “and yet,” they say, “what he foretold without any condition did not happen. For he did not say, ‘Nineveh will be overthrown if they do not repent and correct themselves’; but without adding this he foretold the future overthrow of that city.” They think this threat was truthful because God foretold what they truly deserved to suffer, although he himself was not going to do it. “For even though he spared them when they repented,” they say, “he certainly was not ignorant that they would repent, and yet he foretold absolutely and definitely that their overthrow would come. So it was,” they say, “in the truth of severity, because they deserved it; but it was not in the reckoning of compassion, which he did not shut up in his anger, so as to spare the suppliants the punishment he had threatened against the defiant. If, then, he spared them then,” they say, “when by sparing he was going to grieve his holy prophet, how much more will he spare those who then supplicate more pitiably, when all his saints will pray that he may spare!” But what they suspect in their own hearts they think the divine Scriptures kept silent about so that many may correct themselves out of fear of either prolonged or eternal punishments, and so that there may be people who can pray for those who have not corrected themselves; and yet they do not think that the divine words have kept silent about it altogether. “For what is the point,” they say, “of what is written: ‘How great is the multitude of your sweetness, O Lord, which you have hidden for those who fear you,’ unless we are to understand that so great and secret a sweetness of divine mercy has been hidden because of fear?” They add that the apostle said, “For God has shut up all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all,” to signify that no one will be condemned by him.

Yet those who hold this opinion do not extend it as far as the liberation, or the non-condemnation, of the devil and his angels; for they are moved by human mercy only toward human beings, and they plead their own case above all, promising a false impunity to their own depraved conduct through a supposed general compassion of God toward the human race; and so they will be outdone in proclaiming God's mercy by those who promise this impunity even to the prince of demons and his attendants.

### Scripture references

- Ps 77:9 (76:10 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Jonah 3:4: allusion, high confidence
- Jonah 3:10: allusion, high confidence
- Jonah 4:1: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 31:19 (30:20 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 11:32: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Psalm 77:9 (LXX/Vulgate 76:10); Jonah 3:4–10; 4:1; Psalm 31:19 (LXX/Vulgate 30:20); Romans 11:32. Augustine sets out the arguments of those he opposes in their own words; his answers come in 21.24.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.18 (CSEL 40:549–552; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-18).

## City of God 21.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-19
- Source: CSEL 40:552
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reports the view that all the baptized who have received Christ's body, even heretics, will eventually be saved.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. De his, qui inpunitatem omnium peccatorum promittunt etiam haereticis propter participationem corporis Christi. Item sunt alii ab aeterno supplicio liberationem nec ipsis saltem omnibus hominibus promittentes, sed tantummodo Christi baptismate ablutis, qui participes fiunt corporis eius. quomodolibet uixerint, in quacumque haeresi uel inpietate fuerint, propter illud quod ait Iesus: Hic est panis qui de caelo descendit, ut, si quis ex ipso manducauerit, non moriatur. Ego sum panis uiuus, qui de caelo descendi. Si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane, uiuet in aeternum. Ab aeterna ergo morte, inquiunt, necesse est istos erui et ad uitam aeternam quandocumque perduci.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. On those who promise impunity for all sins even to heretics, because of their sharing in the body of Christ.

Again, there are others who promise deliverance from eternal punishment not even to all human beings, but only to those washed by the baptism of Christ, who become partakers of his body, however they have lived and in whatever heresy or impiety they have been, because of what Jesus says: “This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that if anyone eats of it he may not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever.” “It is necessary, then,” they say, “that these be rescued from eternal death and at some time brought to eternal life.”

### Scripture references

- John 6:50–51: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- John 6:50–51. Augustine answers this view in 21.25.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.19 (CSEL 40:552; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-19).

## City of God 21.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-20
- Source: CSEL 40:552–553
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reports the view that those baptized in the catholic church, even if they later fall into heresy or idolatry, will eventually be saved.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. De his, qui non omnibus, sed eis tantum qui aput catholicos sunt renati, etiamsi postea in multa crimina erroresque proruperint, indulgentiam pollicentur. Item sunt, qui hoc nec omnibus habentibus baptismatis Christi et eius corporis sacramentum, sed solis catholicis quamuis male uiuentibus pollicentur, quia non solo sacramento, sed re ipsa manducauerunt corpus Christi, in ipso eius corpore constituti, de quo dicit apostolus: Unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus; ut, etiamsi postea in aliquam haeresim uel etiam in gentilium idolatriam lapsi fuerint, tantum quia in corpore Christi, id est in catholica ecclesia, sumserunt baptismum Christi et manducauerunt corpus Christi, non moriantur in aeternum, sed uitam quandoque consequantur aeternam; adque illa omnis inpietas, quanto maior fuerit, non eis ualeat ad aeternitatem, sed ad diuturnitatem magnitudinemque poenarum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. On those who promise pardon not to all, but only to those who have been reborn among the catholics, even if they have afterwards broken out into many crimes and errors.

Again, there are those who promise this not even to all who have the sacrament of the baptism of Christ and of his body, but only to catholics, even if they live wickedly; because they have eaten the body of Christ not only in the sacrament but in reality, being set in his very body, of which the apostle says, “We who are many are one bread, one body”; so that, even if they afterwards fall into some heresy or even into the idolatry of the gentiles, simply because they received the baptism of Christ and ate the body of Christ in the body of Christ, that is, in the catholic church, they will not die for ever, but will at some time attain eternal life; and all that impiety, however great it has been, will avail not to make their punishments eternal, but to make them longer and greater.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 10:17: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- 1 Corinthians 10:17. The distinction between eating the body of Christ “in the sacrament” and “in reality” (by belonging to his body, the church) is developed in 21.25.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.20 (CSEL 40:552–553; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-20).

## City of God 21.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-21
- Source: CSEL 40:553–554
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reports the view that catholics who persevere in the church, however wicked their lives, will be saved “through fire” because they have Christ as their foundation.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. De his, qui eos, qui permanent in catholica fide, etiamsi pessime uixerint et ob hoc uri meruerint, tamen propter fidei fundamentum saluandos esse definiunt. Sunt autem, qui propter id quod scriptum est: Qui perseuerauerit usque in finem, hic saluus erit, non nisi in ecclesia catholica perseuerantibus, quamuis in ea male uiuentibus, hoc promittunt, per ignem uidelicet saluandis merito fundamenti, de quo ait apostolus: Fundamentum enim aliud nemo potest ponere praeter id, quod positum est, quod est Christus Iesus. Si quis autem aedificat super fundamentum aurum, argentum, lapides pretiosos, ligna, fenum, stipulam: uniuscuiusque opus manifestabitur; dies enim declarabit, quoniam in igne reuelabitur, et uniuscuiusque opus quale sit ignis probabit. Si cuius opus permanserit quod superaedificauit, mercedem accipiet. Si cuius autem opus arserit, damnum patietur; ipse autem saluus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem. Dicunt ergo cuiuslibet uitae catholicum Christianum Christum habere in fundamento, quod fundamentum nulla haeresis habet a corporis eius unitate praecisa; et ideo propter hoc fundamentum, etiamsi malae uitae fuerit catholicus Christianus, uelut qui superaedificauerit ligna, fenum, stipulam, putant eum saluum fieri per ignem, id est post poenas ignis illius liberari, quo igne in ultimo iudicio punientur mali.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. On those who hold that those who remain in the catholic faith, even if they have lived very wickedly and so have deserved to be burned, will nevertheless be saved because of the foundation of faith.

There are some, however, who, because of what is written, “He who perseveres to the end will be saved,” promise this only to those who persevere in the catholic church, even if they live wickedly in it: that they are to be saved through fire, namely by the merit of the foundation of which the apostle says: “For no one can lay another foundation than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. Now if anyone builds on the foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one's work will become manifest; for the day will disclose it, because it will be revealed in fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one's is. If anyone's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.” They say, then, that a catholic Christian, of whatever life, has Christ in the foundation, a foundation which no heresy cut off from the unity of his body has; and therefore, because of this foundation, even if the catholic Christian has been of wicked life, like one who has built wood, hay, straw on it, they think he is saved through fire, that is, set free after the punishments of that fire by which the wicked will be punished at the last judgment.

### Scripture references

- Matt 10:22: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 3:11–15: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Matthew 10:22; 24:13; 1 Corinthians 3:11–15. Augustine answers this reading of 1 Corinthians 3 in 21.26.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.21 (CSEL 40:553–554; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-10/#p-21-21).

## City of God 21.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-22/#p-21-22
- Source: CSEL 40:554–555
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine reports the view that those who give alms and forgive others, however wicked their lives, will escape eternal punishment, relying on James 2:13, Matthew 25, and the Lord's Prayer.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. De his, qui putant ea crimina, quae inter elemosynarum opera committuntur, ad damnationis iudicium non uocari. Comperi etiam quosdam putare eos tantummodo arsuros illius aeternitate supplicii, qui pro peccatis suis facere dignas elemosynas neglegunt, iuxta illud apostoli Iacobi: Iudicium autem sine misericordia illi, qui non fecit misericordiam. Qui ergo fecit, inquiunt, quamuis mores in melius non mutauerit, sed inter ipsas suas elemosynas nefarie ac nequiter uixerit, iudicium illi cum misericordia futurum est, ut aut nulla damnatione plectatur aut post aliquod tempus siue paruum siue prolixum ab illa damnatione liberetur. Ideo iudicem ipsum uiuorum adque mortuorum noluisse existimant aliud commemorare se esse dicturum siue dextris, quibus est uitam daturus aeternam, siue sinistris, quos aeterno supplicio damnaturus, nisi elemosynas siue factas siue non factas. Ad hoc pertinere aiunt et in oratione Dominica cottidianam postulationem: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Quisquis enim illi. qui in eum peccauit, dimittit ignoscendo peccatum, procul dubio elemosynam facit. Quam rem Dominus ipse sic commendauit, ut diceret: Si enim dimiseritis peccata hominibus, dimittet uobis et pater uester peccata uestra; si autem non dimiseritis hominibus, neque pater uester, qui in caelis est, dimittet uobis. Ergo et ad hoc genus elemosynarum pertinet quod ait apostolus Iacobus iudicium futurum sine misericordia ei, qui non fecit misericordiam. Nec dixit Dominus, inquiunt, magna uel parua, sed: Dimittet uobis pater uester peccata uestra, si et uos dimiseritis hominibus. Ac per hoc putant etiam eis, qui perdite uixerint, donec claudant diem uitae huius extremum, per hanc orationem, qualiacumque et quantacumque fuerint, omnia cottidie peccata dimitti, sicut ipsa cottidie frequentatur oratio, si hoc tantummodo custodire meminerint, ut, quando ab eis ueniam petunt, qui eos peccato qualicumque laeserunt, ex corde dimittant. Cum ad haec omnia Deo donante respondero, liber iste claudendus est.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. On those who think that the crimes committed amid the works of almsgiving are not called to the judgment of condemnation.

I have also found that some think that only those will burn in the eternity of that punishment who neglect to give worthy alms for their sins, according to that saying of the apostle James: “For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy.” “So he who has shown mercy,” they say, “even if he has not changed his conduct for the better, but has lived wickedly and viciously amid his very almsgiving, will have judgment with mercy, so that either he is struck with no condemnation or is set free from that condemnation after some time, short or long.” For this reason they think that the judge of the living and the dead himself willed to mention nothing else that he would say, either to those on the right, to whom he will give eternal life, or to those on the left, whom he will condemn to eternal punishment, except alms, done or not done. To this, they say, the daily petition in the Lord's Prayer also belongs: “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.” For whoever forgives by pardoning the sin of one who has sinned against him undoubtedly gives alms. The Lord himself commended this so strongly as to say: “For if you forgive men their sins, your Father will also forgive you your sins; but if you do not forgive men, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive you.” So, then, what the apostle James says, that judgment will be without mercy to one who has shown no mercy, also belongs to this kind of alms. “Nor did the Lord say,” they say, “great or small, but, ‘Your Father will forgive you your sins, if you also forgive men.’” And so they think that even for those who have lived abandoned lives until they close the last day of this life, all their sins, whatever and however great, are forgiven daily through this prayer, as the prayer itself is said daily, provided only that they remember to observe this: when those who have injured them by any sin ask their pardon, they forgive from the heart. When, with God's gift, I have answered all these views, this book must be closed.

### Scripture references

- Jas 2:13: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 25:34–46: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 6:12: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 6:14–15: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- James 2:13; Matthew 25:34–46; 6:12, 14–15. Augustine answers this view in 21.27.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.22 (CSEL 40:554–555; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-22/#p-21-22).

## City of God 21.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-22/#p-21-23
- Source: CSEL 40:555–557
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The church rejected the restoration of the devil because Scripture calls his punishment eternal and “for ever and ever”; the same word “eternal” in Matthew 25:46 must mean the same for punishment as for life.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. Contra opinionem eorum, qui dicunt nec diaboli nec hominum malorum perpetua futura supplicia. Ac primum quaeri oportet adque cognosci, quur ecclesia ferre nequiuerit hominum disputationem diabolo etiam post maximas et diuturnissimas poenas purgationem uel indulgentiam pollicentem. Neque enim tot sancti et sacris ueteribus ac nouis litteris eruditi mundationem et regni caelorum beatitudinem post qualiacumque et quantacumque supplicia qualibuscumque et quantiscumque angelis inuiderunt, sed potius uiderunt diuinam uacuari uel infirmari non posse sententiam, quam se Dominus praenuntiauit in iudicio prolaturum adque dicturum: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius (sic quippe ostendit aeterno igne diabolum et angelos eius arsuros); et quod scriptum est in apocalypsi: Diabolus, qui seducebat eos, missus est in stagnum ignis et sulphuris, quo et bestia et pseudopropheta; et cruciabuntur die ac nocte in saecula saeculorum. Quod ibi dictum est aeternum, hic dictum est in saecula saeculorum, quibus uerbis nihil scriptura diuina significare consueuit, nisi quod finem non habet temporis. Quam ob rem prorsus nec alia causa nec iustior adque manifestior inueniri potest, quur uerissima pietate teneatur fixum et inmobile nullum regressum ad iustitiam uitamque sanctorum diabolum et angelos eius habituros, nisi quia scriptura, quae neminem fallit, dicit eis Deum non pepercisse. et sic ab illo esse interim praedamnatos, ut carceribus caliginis inferi retrusi traderentur seruandi adque ultimo iudicio puniendi, quando eos aeternus ignis accipiet, ubi cruciabuntur in saecula saeculorum. Quod si ita est, quo modo ab huius aeternitate poenae uel uniuersi uel quidam homines post quantumlibet temporis subtrahentur, ac non statim eneruabitur fides, qua creditur sempiternum daemonum futurum esse supplicium? Si enim quibus dicetur: Discedite a me. maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius, uel uniuersi uel aliqui eorum non semper ibi erunt, quid causae est quur diabolus et angeli eius semper ibi futuri esse credantur? An forte Dei sententia. quae in malos et angelos et homines proferetur, in angelos uera erit, in homines falsa? Ita plane hoc erit, si non quod Deus dixit, sed quod suspicantur homines plus ualebit. Quod fieri quia non potest, non argumentari aduersus Deum, sed diuino potius, dum tempus est, debent parere praecepto, qui sempiterno cupiunt carere supplicio. Deinde quale est aeternum supplicium pro igne diuturni temporis existimare et uitam aeternam credere sine fine, cum Christus eodem ipso loco, in una eademque sententia dixerit utrumque conplexus: Sic ibunt isti in supplicium aeternum, iusti autem in uitam aeternam? Si utrumque aeternum, profecto aut utrumque cum fine diuturnum aut utrumque sine fine perpetuum debet intellegi. Par pari enim relata sunt, hinc supplicium aeternum, inde uita aeterna. Dicere autem in hoc uno eodemque sensu: Vita aeterna sine fine erit, supplicium aeternum finem habebit multum absurdum est. Unde, quia uita aeterna sanctorum sine fine erit, supplicium quoque aeternum quibus erit finem procul dubio non habebit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. Against the opinion of those who say that the punishments neither of the devil nor of wicked human beings will be everlasting.

First, it must be asked and understood why the church could not bear the argument of people who promise the devil purification or pardon even after the greatest and longest punishments. For it was not that so many saints, learned in the sacred writings old and new, begrudged cleansing and the blessedness of the kingdom of heaven, after punishments of whatever kind and extent, to angels of whatever kind and number; rather, they saw that the divine sentence cannot be made void or weakened which the Lord foretold that he would pronounce and say at the judgment: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels” (for so he showed that the devil and his angels will burn in eternal fire); and what is written in the Apocalypse: “The devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet also are; and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” What was called “eternal” there is here called “for ever and ever,” words by which divine Scripture is accustomed to signify nothing but what has no end in time. Therefore absolutely no other reason, nor one more just and plain, can be found why it is held fixed and unmovable by most true piety that the devil and his angels will have no return to the righteousness and life of the saints, except that Scripture, which deceives no one, says that God did not spare them, and that they have meanwhile been condemned beforehand by him in such a way as to be thrust into the prisons of the darkness of the lower world and handed over to be kept and punished at the last judgment, when the eternal fire will receive them, where they will be tormented for ever and ever.

If this is so, how will either all or some human beings be withdrawn from the eternity of this punishment after any length of time, and the faith by which the punishment of demons is believed to be everlasting not be weakened at once? For if, of those to whom it will be said, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels,” either all or some will not be there for ever, what reason is there why the devil and his angels should be believed to be going to be there for ever? Or will God's sentence, which will be pronounced on evil angels and human beings alike, be true of the angels and false of the human beings? That is plainly what will happen, if not what God has said but what human beings suspect is to prevail. Since this cannot happen, those who wish to be free of everlasting punishment ought not to argue against God, but rather, while there is time, to obey the divine command.

Then, what sort of thing is it to reckon eternal punishment as a fire of long duration and to believe eternal life to be without end, when Christ, in the very same place, in one and the same sentence, said, including both: “So these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life”? If both are eternal, then surely both must be understood either as long-lasting with an end or as perpetual without end. For like is set against like: on the one hand eternal punishment, on the other eternal life. And to say in one and the same sense, “Eternal life will be without end, eternal punishment will have an end,” is utterly absurd. Hence, since the eternal life of the saints will be without end, eternal punishment too will undoubtedly have no end for those who suffer it.

### Scripture references

- Matt 25:41: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 20:10: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Pet 2:4: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 25:46: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Matthew 25:41, 46; Revelation 20:10; 2 Peter 2:4 (Jude 6). Augustine argues from the parallel of “eternal punishment” and “eternal life” in Matthew 25:46 that both are without end. Translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.23 (CSEL 40:555–557; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-22/#p-21-23).

## City of God 21.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-22/#p-21-24
- Source: CSEL 40:557–564
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The saints will not pray for the damned at the judgment, as the church does not pray for the devil or for the ungodly dead; some of the regenerate dead are helped by prayer, but the threat of eternal punishment is true, and Psalm 77, Nineveh, Psalm 31, and Romans 11 do not teach otherwise.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIIII. Contra eorum sensum, qui in iudicio Dei omnibus reis propter sanctorum preces putant esse parcendum. Hoc autem et aduersus eos ualet, qui suas agentes causas contra Dei uenire uerba uelut misericordia maiore conantur, ut ideo uidelicet uera sint, quia ea, quae dixit homines esse passuros, pati digni sunt, non quia passuri sunt. Donabit enim eos, inquiunt, precibus sanctorum suorum, etiam tunc tanto magis orantium pro inimicis suis, quanto sunt utique sanctiores, eorumque efficacior est oratio et exauditione Dei dignior, iam nullum habentium omnino peccatum. Quur ergo eadem perfectissima sanctitate et cuncta inpetrare ualentibus mundissimis et misericordissimis precibus etiam pro angelis non orabunt, quibus paratus est ignis aeternus, ut Deus sententiam suam mitiget et reflectat in melius eosque ab illo igne faciat alienos? An erit forsitan quisquam, qui et hoc futurum esse praesumat adfirmans etiam sanctos angelos simul cum sanctis hominibus, qui tunc aequales erunt angelis Dei, pro damnandis et angelis et hominibus oraturos, ut misericordia non patiantur, quod ueritate merentur pati? Quod nemo sanae fidei dixit, nemo dicturus est. Alioquin nulla causa est, quur non etiam nunc pro diabolo et angelis eius oret ecclesia, quam magister Deus pro inimicis suis iussit orare. Haec igitur causa, qua fit ut nunc ecclesia non oret pro malis angelis, quos suos esse nouit inimicos, eadem ipsa causa est, qua fiet ut in illo tunc iudicio etiam pro hominibus aeterno igne cruciandis, quamuis perfecta sit sanctitate. non oret. Nunc enim propterea pro eis orat, quos in genere humano habet inimicos, quia tempus est paenitentiae fructuosae. Nam quid maxime pro eis orat, nisi ut det illis Deus, sicut dicit apostolus, paenitentiam et resipiscant de diaboli laqueis, a quo captiui tenentur secundum ipsius uoluntatem? Denique si de aliquibus ita certa esset, ut qui sint illi etiam nosset, qui licet adhuc in hac uita sint constituti, tamen praedestinati sunt in aeternum ignem ire cum diabolo: tam pro eis non oraret, quam nec pro ipso. Sed quia de nullo certa est, orat pro omnibus dumtaxat hominibus inimicis suis in hoc corpore constitutis; nec tamen pro omnibus exauditur. Pro his enim solis exauditur. qui, etsi aduersantur ecclesiae, ita sunt tamen praedestinati. ut pro eis exaudiatur ecclesia et filii efficiantur ecclesiae. Si qui autem usque ad mortem habebunt cor inpaenitens nec ex inimicis conuertentur in filios, numquid tamen pro eis, id est pro talium defunctorum spiritibus, orat ecclesia? Quid ita, nisi quia in parte iam diaboli conputatur, qui cum esset in corpore non est translatus ad Christum? Eadem itaque causa est, quur non oretur tunc pro hominibus aeterno igne puniendis, quae causa est, ut neque nunc neque tunc oretur pro angelis malis; quae itidem causa est, ut, quamuis pro hominibus, tamen iam nec nunc oretur pro infidelibus inpiisque defunctis. Nam pro defunctis quibusdam uel ipsius ecclesiae uel quorundam piorum exauditur oratio, sed pro his, quorum in Christo regeneratorum nec usque adeo uita in corpore male gesta est, ut tali misericordia iudicentur digni non esse, nec usque adeo bene, ut talem misericordiam reperiantur necessariam non habere; sicut etiam facta resurrectione mortuorum non deerunt, quibus post poenas, quas patiuntur spiritus mortuorum, inpertiatur misericordia, ut in ignem non mittantur aeternum. Neque enim de quibusdam ueraciter diceretur, quod non eis remittatur neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro, nisi essent quibus, etsi non in isto, tamen remittitur in futuro. Sed cum dictum fuerit a iudice uiuorum adque mortuorum: Venite, benedicti patris mei, possidete paratum uobis regnum a constitutione mundi, et aliis e contrario: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est diabolo et angelis eius, et ierint isti in supplicium aeternum, iusti autem in uitam aeternam: nimiae praesumtionis est dicere cuiquam eorum aeternum supplicium non futurum, quos Deus ituros in supplicium dixit aeternum, et per huius praesumtionis persuasionem facere, ut de ipsa quoque uita uel desperetur uel dubitetur aeterna. Nemo itaque sic intellegat psalmum canentem: Numquid obliuiscetur misereri Deus, aut continebit in ira sua miserationes suas? ut opinetur de hominibus bonis ueram. de malis falsam, aut de bonis hominibus et malis angelis ueram, de malis autem hominibus falsam Dei esse sententiam. Hoc enim, quod ait psalmus, ad uasa misericordiae pertinet et ad filios promissionis, quorum erat unus etiam ipse propheta, qui cum dixisset: Numquid obliuiscetur misereri Deus aut continebit in ira sua miserationes suas? continuo subiecit: Et dixi: Nunc coepi, haec est inmutatio dexterae Excelsi. Exposuit profecto quid dixerit: Numquid continebit in ira sua miserationes suas? Ira enim Dei est etiam ista uita mortalis, ubi homo uanitati similis factus est: dies eius uelut umbra praetereunt. In qua tamen ira non obliuiscitur misereri Deus, faciendo solem suum oriri super bonos et malos et pluendo super iustos et iniustos, ac sic non continet in ira sua miserationes suas; maximeque in eo, quod expressit hic psalmus dicendo: Nunc coepi, haec est inmutatio dexterae Excelsi, quoniam in hac ipsa aerumnosissima uita, quae ira Dei est, uasa misericordiae mutat in melius, quamuis adhuc in huius corruptionis miseria maneat ira eius, quia nec in ipsa ira sua continet miserationes suas. Cum ergo isto modo conpleatur diuini illius cantici ueritas, non est eam necesse etiam illic intellegi, ubi non pertinentes ad ciuitatem Dei sempiterno supplicio punientur. Sed quibus placet istam sententiam usque ad illa inpiorum tormenta protendere, saltem sic intellegant. ut manente in eis ira Dei, quae in aeterno est praenuntiata supplicio, non contineat Deus in hac ira sua miserationes suas et faciat eos non tanta quanta digni sunt poenarum atrocitate cruciari; non ut eas poenas uel numquam subeant uel aliquando finiant, sed ut eas mitiores quam merita sunt eorum leuioresque patiantur. Sic enim et ira Dei manebit, et in ipsa ira sua miserationes suas non continebit. Quod quidem non ideo confirmo, quoniam non resisto. Ceterum eos, qui putant minaciter potius quam ueraciter dictum: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, et: Ibunt isti in supplicium aeternum, et: Cruciabuntur in saecula saeculorum, et: Vermis eorum non morietur et ignis non exstinguetur, et cetera huius modi, non tam ego, quam ipsa scriptura diuina planissime adque plenissime redarguit ac refellit. Nineuitae quippe in hac uita egerunt paenitentiam et ideo fructuosam, uelut in hoc agro seminantes, in quo Deus uoluit cum lacrimis seminari, quod postea cum laetitia meteretur; et tamen quis negabit, quod Dominus praedixit in eis fuisse conpletum, nisi parum aduertat, quem ad modum peccatores Deus non solum iratus, uerum etiam miseratus euertat? Euertuntur enim peccatores duobus modis, aut sicut Sodomitae, ut pro peccatis suis ipsi homines puniantur, aut sicut Nineuitae, ut ipsa hominum peccata paenitendo destruantur. Factum est ergo quod praedixit Deus; euersa est Nineue quae mala erat, et bona aedificata est quae non erat. Stantibus enim moenibus adque domibus euersa est ciuitas in perditis moribus. Ac sic, quamuis propheta fuerit contristatus, quia non est factum quod illi homines timuerunt illo prophetante uenturum, factum est tamen quod fuerat Deo praesciente praedictum, quoniam nouerat qui praedixit, quo modo in melius esset inplendum. Ut autem nouerint isti in peruersum misericordes quo pertineat quod scriptum est: Quam multa multitudo dulcedinis tuae, Domine, quam abscondisti timentibus te! legant quod sequitur: Perfecisti autem sperantibus in te. Quid est abscondisti timentibus, perfecisti sperantibus, nisi quia illis, qui timore poenarum suam iustitiam uolunt constituere quae in lege est, non est iustitia Dei dulcis, quia nesciunt eam? Non enim gustauerunt eam. In se namque sperant, non in ipso, et ideo eis absconditur multitudo dulcedinis Dei; quoniam timent quidem Deum, sed illo timore seruili, qui non est in caritate, quia perfecta caritas foras mittit timorem. Ideo sperantibus in eum perficit dulcedinem suam inspirando eis caritatem suam, ut timore casto, non quem caritas foras mittit, sed permanente in saeculum saeculi, cum gloriantur, in Domino glorientur. Iustitia quippe Dei Christus est, qui factus est nobis, sicut dicit apostolus, sapientia a Deo et iustitia et sanctificatio et redemtio, ut, quem ad modum scriptum est, qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur. Hanc Dei iustitiam, quam donat gratia sine meritis, nesciunt illi, qui suam iustitiam uolunt constituere, et ideo iustitiae Dei, quod est Christus. non sunt subiecti. In qua iustitia est multa multitudo dulcedinis Dei, propter quam dicitur in psalmo: Gustate et uidete quam dulcis est Dominus. Et hanc quidem in hac peregrinatione gustantes, non ad satietatem sumentes, esurimus eam potius ac sitimus, ut ea postea saturemur, cum uidebimus eum, sicuti est, et inplebitur quod scriptum est: Saturabor, cum manifestabitur gloria tua. Ita perficit Christus multam multitudinem dulcedinis suae sperantibus in eum. Porro autem si eam, quam illi putant, dulcedinem suam Deus abscondit timentibus eum, qua non est inpios damnaturus, ut hoc nescientes et damnari timentes recte uiuant ac sic possint esse qui orent pro non recte uiuentibus: quo modo eam perficit sperantibus in eum, quando quidem, sicut somniant, per hanc dulcedinem non damnaturus est eos, qui non sperant in eum? Illa igitur eius dulcedo quaeratur, quam perficit sperantibus in eum, non quam perficere putatur contemnentibus et blasphemantibus eum. Frustra itaque homo post hoc corpus inquirit, quod in hoc corpore sibi conparare neglexit. Illud quoque apostolicum: Conclusit enim Deus omnes in infidelitate, ut omnium misereatur, non ideo dictum est, quod sit neminem damnaturus, sed superius apparet unde sit dictum. Nam cum de Iudaeis postea credituris apostolus loqueretur ad gentes, ad quas utique iam credentes conscribebat epistulas: Sicut enim uos, inquit, aliquando non credidistis Deo, nunc autem misericordiam consecuti estis illorum incredulitate: sic et hi nunc non crediderunt in uestram misericordiam, ut et ipsi misericordiam consequantur. Deinde subiecit, unde isti sibi errando blandiuntur, adque ait: Conclusit enim Deus omnes in infidelitate, ut omnium misereatur. Quos omnes, nisi de quibus loquebatur, tamquam dicens: Et uos et illos? Deus ergo et gentiles et Iudaeos, quos praesciuit et praedestinauit conformes imaginis filii sui, omnes in infidelitate conclusit, ut de amaritudine infidelitatis suae paenitendo confusi et ad dulcedinem misericordiae Dei credendo conuersi clamarent illud in psalmo: Quam multa multitudo dulcedinis tuae, Domine, quam abscondisti timentibus te. perfecisti autem sperantibus, non in se, sed in te! Omnium itaque miseretur uasorum misericordiae. Quid est omnium? Et eorum scilicet quos ex gentibus, et eorum quos ex Iudaeis praedestinauit uocauit, iustificauit glorificauit, non hominum omnium, sed istorum omnium neminem damnaturus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 24. Against the view of those who think that in God's judgment all the guilty will be spared because of the prayers of the saints.

This argument also holds against those who, pleading their own causes, try to go against God's words as if with greater mercy, so that these words are true, namely, in the sense that human beings deserve to suffer what he said they would suffer, not that they will suffer it. “For he will grant them,” they say, “to the prayers of his saints, who will then pray for their enemies all the more, the holier they certainly are, and whose prayer is the more effective and more worthy of being heard by God, since they will then have no sin at all.” Why, then, with that same most perfect holiness and with their most pure and most merciful prayers, able to obtain everything, will they not pray also for the angels for whom the eternal fire has been prepared, that God may soften his sentence and turn it to something better and keep them out of that fire? Or will there perhaps be someone who presumes that this too will happen, asserting that even the holy angels, together with holy human beings, who will then be equal to the angels of God, will pray for both angels and human beings who are to be condemned, so that by mercy they may not suffer what by truth they deserve to suffer? No one of sound faith has said this, and no one will say it. Otherwise there is no reason why the church should not pray even now for the devil and his angels, since God her master commanded her to pray for her enemies. The reason, then, why the church does not now pray for the evil angels, whom she knows to be her enemies, is the very same reason why at that judgment she will not pray, however perfect her holiness, even for the human beings who are to be tormented in eternal fire. For she prays now for those in the human race whom she has as enemies because it is the time of fruitful repentance. For what does she pray for them above all, if not that God may grant them, as the apostle says, repentance, and that they may come to their senses out of the snares of the devil, by whom they are held captive at his will? Finally, if she were so certain about some that she even knew who they are who, although still living in this life, are nevertheless predestined to go into the eternal fire with the devil, she would no more pray for them than for him. But since she is certain about no one, she prays for all her enemies, at least for human beings set in this body; and yet she is not heard for all. For she is heard only for those who, although they oppose the church, are nevertheless predestined in such a way that the church is heard for them and they become sons of the church. But if any will have an impenitent heart until death and will not be converted from enemies into sons, does the church then still pray for them, that is, for the spirits of such dead? Why is this, unless because one who, while he was in the body, was not transferred to Christ is now counted as belonging to the devil's side?

The reason, then, why prayer will not be made then for human beings who are to be punished with eternal fire is the same reason why prayer is made neither now nor then for the evil angels; and it is likewise the same reason why, though prayer is made for human beings, it is not made even now for unbelieving and ungodly dead. For the prayer either of the church itself or of certain godly people is heard for certain of the dead; but for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not live so evilly in the body as to be judged unworthy of such mercy, nor so well as to be found not to need such mercy. So too, after the resurrection of the dead has taken place, there will not be lacking those to whom, after the punishments which the spirits of the dead suffer, mercy is granted, so that they are not sent into the eternal fire. For it would not be truly said of some that it is not forgiven them either in this age or in the age to come, unless there were some to whom, though not in this age, it is forgiven in the age to come. But when the judge of the living and the dead has said, “Come, you blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world,” and to the others, on the contrary, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels,” and these have gone away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life, it is excessive presumption to say that there will not be eternal punishment for any of those of whom God has said that they will go away into eternal punishment, and by persuading people of this presumption to cause eternal life itself too to be either despaired of or doubted.

Let no one, then, understand the psalm that sings, “Will God forget to be merciful, or will he shut up his compassions in his anger?” so as to think that God's sentence is true of good human beings and false of the wicked, or true of good human beings and evil angels but false of wicked human beings. For what the psalm says belongs to the vessels of mercy and to the children of the promise, of whom the prophet himself was one; who, when he had said, “Will God forget to be merciful, or will he shut up his compassions in his anger?”, at once added: “And I said: Now I have begun; this is the change of the right hand of the Most High.” He surely explained what he meant by “Will he shut up his compassions in his anger?” For this mortal life too is God's anger, in which man has become like vanity, his days pass away like a shadow. Yet in this anger God does not forget to be merciful, making his sun rise on the good and the evil and sending rain on the just and the unjust; and so he does not shut up his compassions in his anger; and especially in what this psalm expressed when it said, “Now I have begun; this is the change of the right hand of the Most High,” since in this very most troubled life, which is God's anger, he changes the vessels of mercy for the better, although his anger still remains in the misery of this corruption, because even in his anger he does not shut up his compassions. Since, then, the truth of that divine song is fulfilled in this way, it need not be understood to apply also there, where those who do not belong to the city of God will be punished with everlasting punishment. But those who like to extend this saying to those torments of the ungodly, let them at least understand it in this way: that while the anger of God remains on them, which has been foretold in eternal punishment, God does not shut up his compassions in this anger of his, and causes them to be tormented not with such severity of punishment as they deserve; not so that they either never undergo those punishments or at some time end them, but so that they suffer them milder and lighter than their deserts. For so both God's anger will remain, and in his anger he will not shut up his compassions. I do not affirm this, however, just because I do not resist it.

But those who think that “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire,” and “These will go away into eternal punishment,” and “They will be tormented for ever and ever,” and “Their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched,” and other things of this kind, were said threateningly rather than truthfully, are refuted and rebutted most plainly and fully not so much by me as by divine Scripture itself. For the Ninevites repented in this life, and so fruitfully, sowing as it were in this field in which God willed that there should be sowing with tears, to be reaped afterwards with joy; and yet who will deny that what the Lord foretold was fulfilled in them, unless he fails to notice how God overthrows sinners not only in anger but also in mercy? For sinners are overthrown in two ways: either like the Sodomites, so that the human beings themselves are punished for their sins, or like the Ninevites, so that the sins of the human beings themselves are destroyed by repentance. What God foretold, then, came to pass: the Nineveh that was evil was overthrown, and a good one was built that had not existed. For while the walls and houses stood, the city was overthrown in its depraved conduct. And so, although the prophet was grieved because what those people feared would come by his prophesying did not happen, yet what had been foretold by God's foreknowledge did happen, since he who foretold it knew how it was to be fulfilled for the better.

And so that these perversely merciful people may know what is meant by what is written, “How great is the multitude of your sweetness, O Lord, which you have hidden for those who fear you!”, let them read what follows: “But you have perfected it for those who hope in you.” What is “you have hidden it for those who fear, you have perfected it for those who hope,” unless that to those who, through fear of punishments, wish to establish their own righteousness which is in the law, the righteousness of God is not sweet, because they do not know it? For they have not tasted it. For they hope in themselves, not in him, and therefore the multitude of God's sweetness is hidden from them; for they do fear God, but with that servile fear which is not in love, because perfect love casts out fear. So for those who hope in him he perfects his sweetness by breathing his love into them, so that with a chaste fear, not the fear which love casts out, but that which endures for ever and ever, when they glory, they may glory in the Lord. For the righteousness of God is Christ, who has become for us, as the apostle says, wisdom from God and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, he who glories may glory in the Lord. This righteousness of God, which grace gives without merits, is unknown to those who wish to establish their own righteousness, and therefore they have not submitted to the righteousness of God, which is Christ. In this righteousness is the great multitude of God's sweetness, because of which it is said in the psalm: “Taste and see how sweet the Lord is.” And tasting it in this pilgrimage, not taking it to the full, we rather hunger and thirst for it, so that we may be filled with it afterwards, when we see him as he is, and what is written will be fulfilled: “I shall be satisfied when your glory is revealed.” So Christ perfects the great multitude of his sweetness for those who hope in him. But further, if God has hidden from those who fear him that sweetness of his which they suppose, by which he will not condemn the ungodly, so that, not knowing this and fearing to be condemned, they may live rightly and so there may be people who can pray for those who do not live rightly, how does he perfect it for those who hope in him, since, as they dream, by this sweetness he will not condemn those who do not hope in him? Let that sweetness of his be sought, then, which he perfects for those who hope in him, not that which he is thought to perfect for those who despise and blaspheme him. In vain, then, does a man look after this body for what he neglected to obtain for himself in this body.

That apostolic saying too, “For God has shut up all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all,” was not said because he will condemn no one; what it was said about appears from what goes before. For when the apostle was speaking about the Jews who would later believe, to the gentiles, to whom, already believing, he was writing his letter, he said: “For just as you once did not believe God, but now have obtained mercy through their unbelief, so they too have now not believed in your mercy, that they too may obtain mercy.” Then he added the words with which these people flatter themselves in their error, and said: “For God has shut up all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all.” Which “all,” if not those of whom he was speaking, as if to say, “both you and them”? So God has shut up in unbelief all, both gentiles and Jews, whom he foreknew and predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, so that, confounded by repenting of the bitterness of their unbelief and turned by believing to the sweetness of God's mercy, they might cry out that saying in the psalm: “How great is the multitude of your sweetness, O Lord, which you have hidden for those who fear you, but have perfected for those who hope,” not in themselves, but “in you!” He has mercy, then, on all the vessels of mercy. What does “all” mean? All those, of course, both from the gentiles and from the Jews, whom he predestined, called, justified, glorified; not all human beings, but all of these, of whom he will condemn none.

### Scripture references

- Matt 22:30: allusion, medium confidence
- Matt 5:44: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Tim 2:25–26: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 12:32: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 25:34: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 25:41: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 25:46: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 77:9–10 (76:10-Ps LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 144:4 (143:4 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Matt 5:45: allusion, high confidence
- Rev 20:10: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 66:24: quotation, high confidence
- Jonah 3:4: allusion, high confidence
- Jonah 4:1: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 126:5 (125:5 LXX): allusion, high confidence
- Ps 31:19 (30:20 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 10:3: allusion, high confidence
- 1 John 4:18: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 19:9 (18:10 LXX): allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 1:30–31: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 34:8 (33:9 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 3:2: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 17:15 (16:15 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 11:30–32: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:29–30: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Matthew 22:30; 5:44; 2 Timothy 2:25–26; Matthew 12:32; 25:34, 41, 46; Psalm 77:9–10 (LXX/Vulgate 76:10–11); Psalm 144:4 (LXX/Vulgate 143:4); Matthew 5:45; Revelation 20:10; Isaiah 66:24; Jonah 3–4; Psalm 126:5 (LXX/Vulgate 125:5); Psalm 31:19 (LXX/Vulgate 30:20); Romans 10:3; 1 John 4:18; Psalm 19:9 (LXX/Vulgate 18:10); 1 Corinthians 1:30–31; Psalm 34:8 (LXX/Vulgate 33:9); 1 John 3:2; Psalm 17:15 (LXX/Vulgate 16:15); Romans 11:30–32; 8:29–30. Augustine states that the prayers of the church and of godly people help certain of the regenerate dead who lived neither very badly nor very well, and that some will receive mercy after the punishments of the dead so as not to be sent into eternal fire; he argues from Matthew 12:32. He allows, without affirming it, that the punishments of the damned may be milder than deserved, but not that they end. Translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.24 (CSEL 40:557–564; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-22/#p-21-24).

## City of God 21.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-22/#p-21-25
- Source: CSEL 40:564–567
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Neither heretics nor lapsed catholics nor catholics living wickedly will be saved by the sacraments alone: those who do the works of the flesh will not inherit the kingdom, and only those who abide in Christ truly eat his body.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXV. An hi, qui inter haereticos baptizati sunt et deteriores postea male uiuendo sunt facti, uel hi, qui aput catholicos renati ad haereses aut schismata transierunt, uel hi, qui a catholicis aput quos renati sunt non recedentes criminose uiuere perstiterunt. possint priuilegio sacramentorum remissionem aeterni sperare supplicii. Sed iam respondeamus etiam illis, qui non solum diabolo et angelis eius, sicut nec isti, sed ne ipsis quidem omnibus hominibus liberationem ab aeterno igne promittunt, uerum eis tantum, qui Christi baptismate abluti et corporis eius et sanguinis participes facti sunt, quomodolibet uixerint, in quacumque haeresi uel inpietate fuerint. Sed contradicit eis apostolus dicens: Manifesta autem sunt opera carnis, quae sunt fornicatio, inmunditia, luxuria, idolorum seruitus, ueneficia, inimicitiae, contentiones, aemulationes, animositates, dissensiones, haereses, inuidiae, ebrietates, comisationes et his similia; quae praedico uobis, sicut praedixi, quoniam qui talia agunt regnum Dei non possidebunt. Haec profecto apostolica falsa sententia est, si tales post quantalibet tempora liberati regnum Dei possidebunt. Sed quoniam falsa non est, profecto regnum Dei non possidebunt. Et si in regni Dei possessione numquam erunt, aeterno supplicio tenebuntur; quoniam non est medius locus, ubi non sit in supplicio, qui illo non fuerit constitutus in regno. Quam ob rem quod ait Dominus Iesus: Hic est panis qui de caelo descendit, ut, si quis ex ipso manducauerit, non moriatur. Ego sum panis uiuus, qui de caelo descendi; si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane, uiuet in aeternum, quo modo sit accipiendum, merito quaeritur. Et ab istis quidem, quibus nunc respondemus, hunc intellectum auferunt illi, quibus deinde respondendum est; hi sunt autem, qui hanc liberationem nec omnibus habentibus sacramentum baptismatis et corporis Christi, sed solis catholicis, quamuis male uiuentibus, pollicentur, quia non solo, inquiunt, sacramento, sed re ipsa manducauerunt corpus Christi, in ipso scilicet eius corpore constituti; de quo corpore ait apostolus: Unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus. Qui ergo est in eius corporis unitate, id est in Christianorum conpage membrorum, cuius corporis sacramentum fideles communicantes de altari sumere consuerunt, ipse uere dicendus est manducare corpus Christi et bibere sanguinem Christi. Ac per hoc haeretici et schismatici ab huius unitate corporis separati possunt idem percipere sacramentum, sed non sibi utile, immo uero etiam noxium, quo iudicentur grauius. quam uel tardius liberentur. Non sunt quippe in eo uinculo pacis, quod illo exprimitur sacramento. Sed rursus etiam isti, qui recte intellegunt, non dicendum esse manducare corpus Christi, qui in corpore non est Christi. non recte promittunt eis, qui uel in haeresim uel etiam in gentilium superstitionem ex illius corporis unitate labuntur, liberationem quandoque ab aeterni igne supplicii; primum. quia debent adtendere, quam sit intolerabile adque a sana doctrina nimis deuium, ut multi ac paene omnes, qui haereses inpias condiderunt exeuntes de catholica ecclesia et facti sunt haeresiarchae. meliores habeant causas, quam hi, qui numquam fuerunt catholici, cum in eorum laqueos incidissent. si illos haeresiarchas hoc facit liberari a supplicio sempiterno. quod in catholica ecclesia baptizati sunt et sacramentum corporis Christi in uero Christi corpore primitus acceperunt; cum peior sit utique desertor fidei et ex desertore obpugnator eius effectus quam ille, qui non deseruit quod numquam tenuit; deinde quia et his occurrit apostolus eadem uerba proferens et enumeratis illis carnis operibus eadem ueritate praedicens: Quoniam qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non possidebunt. Unde nec illi in perditis et damnabilibus moribus debent esse securi, qui usque in finem quidem uelut in communione ecclesiae catholicae perseuerant, intuentes quod dictum est: Qui perseuerauerit usque in finem, hic saluus erit. et per uitae iniquitatem ipsam uitae iustitiam, quod eis Christus est, deserunt, siue fornicando siue alias inmunditias flagitiorum, quas nec exprimere apostolus uoluit, in suo corpore perpetrando, siue turpitudine luxuriae diffluendo siue aliquid aliud eorum agendo, de quibus ait: Quoniam qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non possidebunt; ac per hoc, quicumque agunt talia, nisi in sempiterno supplicio non erunt, quia in Dei regno esse non poterunt. In his enim perseuerando usque in huius uitae finem non utique dicendi sunt in Christo perseuerasse usque in finem, quia in Christo perseuerare est in eius fide perseuerare; quae fides, ut eam definit idem apostolus, per dilectionem operatur; dilectio autem, sicut ipse alibi dicit, malum non operatur. Nec isti ergo dicendi sunt manducare corpus Christi, quoniam nec in membris conputandi sunt Christi. Ut enim alia taceam, non possunt simul esse et membra Christi et membra meretricis. Denique ipse dicit: Qui manducat carnem meam et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet, et ego in eo. Ostendit quid sit non sacramento tenus, sed re uera corpus Christi manducare et eius sanguinem bibere; hoc est enim in Christo manere, ut in illo maneat et Christus. Sic enim hoc dixit, tamquam diceret: Qui non in me manet, et in quo ego non maneo, non se dicat aut existimet manducare corpus meum aut bibere sanguinem meum. Non itaque manent in Christo, qui non sunt membra eius. Non sunt autem membra Christi, qui se faciunt membra meretricis, nisi malum illud paenitendo esse destiterint et ad hoc bonum reconciliatione redierint.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 25. Whether those who have been baptized among heretics and have afterwards become worse by living evilly, or those who, reborn among catholics, have gone over to heresies or schisms, or those who, not leaving the catholics among whom they were reborn, have persisted in living criminally, can hope for remission of eternal punishment by the privilege of the sacraments.

But now let us answer also those who promise deliverance from the eternal fire not only not to the devil and his angels (nor do the others), but not even to all human beings, but only to those who have been washed by the baptism of Christ and made partakers of his body and blood, however they have lived and in whatever heresy or impiety they have been. The apostle contradicts them, saying: “Now the works of the flesh are plain: sexual immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, dissensions, heresies, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, as I told you before, that those who do such things will not possess the kingdom of God.” This apostolic sentence is surely false if such people, set free after however long a time, will possess the kingdom of God. But since it is not false, they will surely not possess the kingdom of God. And if they will never be in possession of the kingdom of God, they will be held in eternal punishment; for there is no middle place where one who has not been set in that kingdom is not in punishment.

For this reason it is rightly asked how what the Lord Jesus says is to be taken: “This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that if anyone eats of it he may not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever.” This understanding, indeed, is taken away from those whom we are now answering by those whom we must answer next; and these are those who promise this deliverance not to all who have the sacrament of baptism and of the body of Christ, but only to catholics, even if they live evilly, because, they say, they have eaten the body of Christ not only in the sacrament but in reality, being set, that is, in his very body; of which body the apostle says, “We who are many are one bread, one body.” He, then, who is in the unity of his body, that is, in the joined fabric of Christian members, the sacrament of which body the faithful are accustomed to receive from the altar when they communicate, is truly to be said to eat the body of Christ and to drink the blood of Christ. And so heretics and schismatics, separated from the unity of this body, can receive the same sacrament, but not to their benefit, indeed even to their harm, so that they are judged more severely rather than set free even at a later time. For they are not in that bond of peace which is expressed by that sacrament.

But again, even these, who rightly understand that one who is not in the body of Christ is not to be said to eat the body of Christ, wrongly promise deliverance at some time from the fire of eternal punishment to those who fall away from the unity of that body either into heresy or even into the superstition of the gentiles. First, because they ought to consider how intolerable and how far astray from sound doctrine it is that many, indeed almost all, who have founded ungodly heresies, going out from the catholic church and becoming heresiarchs, should have a better case than those who were never catholics but fell into their snares, if what brings it about that those heresiarchs are set free from everlasting punishment is that they were baptized in the catholic church and first received the sacrament of the body of Christ in the true body of Christ; since a deserter of the faith who from a deserter has become its assailant is certainly worse than one who has not deserted what he never held. Then, because the apostle meets these too, bringing forward the same words and, having listed those works of the flesh, foretelling with the same truth: “Those who do such things will not possess the kingdom of God.”

Hence those too ought not to feel secure in depraved and damnable conduct who persevere to the end indeed, as it were, in the communion of the catholic church, looking at what was said, “He who perseveres to the end will be saved,” and who through the iniquity of their life desert the very righteousness of life which Christ is to them, whether by committing sexual immorality, or by perpetrating in their own body other impurities of shameful acts which the apostle did not even wish to name, or by dissolving in the foulness of licentiousness, or by doing any other of those things of which he says, “Those who do such things will not possess the kingdom of God”; and so whoever do such things will be nowhere but in everlasting punishment, because they will not be able to be in the kingdom of God. For by persevering in these things to the end of this life they are certainly not to be said to have persevered in Christ to the end, since to persevere in Christ is to persevere in faith in him; and this faith, as the same apostle defines it, works through love; and love, as he says elsewhere, does no evil. Nor, then, are these to be said to eat the body of Christ, since they are not even to be counted among the members of Christ. For, to say nothing else, they cannot be at once members of Christ and members of a prostitute. Finally, he himself says: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” He shows what it is to eat the body of Christ and to drink his blood not merely as far as the sacrament goes but in reality; for this is to abide in Christ, that Christ also abides in him. For he said this as if he were saying: “Let him who does not abide in me, and in whom I do not abide, not say or think that he eats my body or drinks my blood.” So those who are not his members do not abide in Christ. And those are not members of Christ who make themselves members of a prostitute, unless they have ceased from that evil by repenting and have returned to this good by reconciliation.

### Scripture references

- Gal 5:19–21: quotation, high confidence
- John 6:50–51: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 10:17: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:3: allusion, medium confidence
- Matt 10:22: quotation, high confidence
- Gal 5:6: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 13:10: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 6:15: allusion, high confidence
- John 6:56: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Galatians 5:19–21; John 6:50–51; 1 Corinthians 10:17; Ephesians 4:3; Matthew 10:22; Galatians 5:6; Romans 13:10; 1 Corinthians 6:15; John 6:56. “Sexual immorality” renders “fornicatio”, “licentiousness” “luxuria”. Augustine distinguishes eating the body of Christ “in the sacrament” from eating it “in reality” by abiding in Christ and in the unity of his body, the church; he says there is “no middle place” between the kingdom and punishment. “Reconciliation” refers to the church's reconciliation of penitents. Translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.25 (CSEL 40:564–567; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-22/#p-21-25).

## City of God 21.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-26/#p-21-26
- Source: CSEL 40:567–573
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: To have Christ as foundation is to put nothing before him; those who love lawful earthly things without preferring them to Christ are saved “through fire,” the fire of tribulation, while those who live wickedly have no such foundation; Augustine does not rule out a purifying fire for some spirits between death and judgment.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVI. Quid sit in fundamento habere Christum et quibus spondeatur salus quasi per ignis usturam. Sed habent, inquiunt, Christiani catholici in fundamento Christum, a cuius unitate non recesserunt, tametsi huic fundamento superaedificauerunt quamlibet pessimam uitam, uelut ligna, fenum, stipulam; recta itaque fides, per quam Christus est fundamentum, quamuis cum damno, quoniam illa, quae superaedificata sunt, exurentur, tamen poterit eos quandoque ab illius ignis perpetuitate saluare. Respondeat eis breuiter apostolus Iacobus: Si quis dicat se fidem habere, opera autem non habeat, numquid poterit fides saluare eum? Et quis est, inquiunt, de quo dicit apostolus Paulus: Ipse autem saluus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem? Simul quis iste sit, inquiramus; hunc tamen non esse certissimum est, ne duorum apostolorum sententias mittamus in rixam, si unus dicit: Etiamsi mala opera quis habuerit, saluabit eum per ignem fides; alius autem: Si opera non habeat, numquid poterit fides saluare eum? Inueniemus ergo quis possit saluari per ignem, si prius inuenerimus quid sit habere in fundamento Christum. Quod ut de ipsa similitudine quantocius aduertamus: nihil in aedificio praeponitur fundamento; quisquis itaque sic habet in corde Christum, ut ei terrena et temporalia nec ea quae licita sunt adque concessa praeponat, fundamentum habet Christum: si autem praeponit, etsi uideatur habere fidem Christi, non est tamen in eo fundamentum Christus, cui talia praeponuntur: quanto magis, si salutaria praecepta contemnens committat inlicita, non praeposuisse Christum, sed postposuisse conuincitur, quem posthabuit imperantem siue concedentem, dum contra eius imperata siue concessa suam per flagitia delegit explere libidinem! Si quis itaque Christianus diligit meretricem eique adhaerens unum corpus efficitur. iam in fundamento non habet Christum. Si quis autem diligit uxorem suam, si secundum Christum, quis ei dubitet in fundamento esse Christum? si uero secundum hoc saeculum, si carnaliter, si in morbo concupiscentiarum, sicut et gentes quae ignorant Deum, etiam hoc secundum ueniam concedit apostolus, immo per apostolum Christus. Potest ergo et iste in fundamento habere Christum. Si enim nihil ei talis adfectionis uoluptatisque praeponat, quamuis superaedificet ligna. fenum, stipulam, Christus est fundamentum, propter hoc saluus erit per ignem. Delicias quippe huius modi amoresque terrenos, propter coniugalem quidem copulam non damnabiles, tribulationis ignis exuret; ad quem pertinent ignem et orbitates et quaecumque calamitates quae auferunt haec. Ac per hoc ei, qui aedificauit, erit aedificatio ista damnosa, quia non habebit, quod superaedificauit, et eorum amissione cruciabitur, quibus fruendo utique laetabatur; sed per hunc ignem saluus erit merito fundamenti, quia, etsi utrum id habere mallet an Christum a persecutore proponeretur, illud Christo non praeponeretur. Vide in apostoli uerbis hominem aedificantem super fundamentum aurum, argentum, lapides pretiosos: Qui sine uxore est, inquit, cogitat quae sunt Dei, quo modo placeat Deo. Vide alium aedificantem ligna, fenum, stipulam: Qui autem matrimonio iunctus est, inquit, cogitat quae sunt mundi, quo modo placeat uxori. Uniuscuiusque opus manifestabitur; dies enim declarabit (dies utique tribulationis), quoniam in igne, inquit, reuelabitur. Eandem tribulationem ignem uocat. sicut alibi legitur: Vasa figuli probat fornax et homines iustos tentatio tribulationis. Et uniuscuiusque opus quale sit, ignis probabit. Si cuius opus permanserit (permanet enim quod quisque cogitat quae sunt Dei, quo modo placeat Deo), quod superaedificauit mercedem accipiet (id est, unde cogitauit, hoc sumet); si cuius autem opus arserit, damnum patietur (quoniam quod dilexerat non habebit), ipse autem saluus erit (quia nulla eum tribulatio ab illius fundamenti stabilitate semouit); sic tamen quasi per ignem (quod enim sine inliciente amore non habuit, sine urente dolore non perdit). Ecce, quantum mihi uidetur, inuentus est ignis, qui nullum eorum damnet, sed unum ditet, alterum damnificet, ambos probet. Si autem ignem illum loco isto uoluerimus accipere, de quo Dominus dicet sinistris: Discedite a me, maledicti. in ignem aeternum; ut in eis etiam isti esse credantur. qui aedificant super fundamentum ligna, fenum, stipulam, eosque ex illo igne post tempus pro malis meritis inpertitum liberet boni meritum fundamenti: quid arbitrabimur dextros quibus dicetur: Venite, benedicti patris mei, possidete paratum uobis regnum, nisi eos, qui aedificauerunt super fundamentum aurum, argentum, lapides pretiosos? Sed in illum ignem, de quo dictum est: Sic tamen quasi per ignem, si hoc modo est intellegendus, utrique mittendi sunt, et dextri scilicet et sinistri. Illo quippe igne utrique probandi sunt, de quo dictum est: Dies enim declarabit, quoniam in igne reuelabitur, et uniuscuiusque opus quale sit, ignis probabit. Si ergo utrumque probabit ignis, ut, si cuius opus permanserit, id est non fuerit igne consumtum, quod superaedificauit mercedem accipiat; si cuius autem opus arserit, damnum patiatur: profecto non est ipse aeternus ille ignis. In illum enim soli sinistri nouissima et perpetua damnatione mittentur, iste autem dextros probat. Sed alios eorum sic probat, ut aedificium, quod super Christum fundamentum ab eis inuenerit esse constructum, non exurat adque consumat; alios autem aliter, id est, ut quod superaedificauerunt ardeat damnumque inde patiantur, salui fiant autem, quoniam Christum in fundamento stabiliter positum praecellenti caritate tenuerunt. Si autem salui fient, profecto et ad dexteram stabunt et cum ceteris audient: Venite, benedicti patris mei, possidete paratum uobis regnum, non ad sinistram, ubi illi erunt, qui salui non erunt et ideo audient: Discedite a me, maledicti, in ignem aeternum. Nemo quippe ab illo igne saluabitur, quia in supplicium aeternum ibunt illi omnes, ubi uermis eorum non moritur et ignis non exstinguitur, quo cruciabuntur die ac nocte in saecula saeculorum. Post istius sane corporis mortem, donec ad illum ueniatur, qui post resurrectionem corporum futurus est damnationis et remunerationis ultimus dies, si hoc temporis interuallo spiritus defunctorum eius modi ignem dicuntur perpeti, quem non sentiant illi, qui non habuerunt tales mores et amores in huius corporis uita, ut eorum ligna, fenum, stipula consumatur; alii uero sentiant, qui eius modi secum aedificia portauerunt, siue ibi tantum, siue et hic et ibi, siue ideo hic ut non ibi saecularia, quamuis a damnatione uenialia. concremantem ignem transitoriae tribulationis inueniant: non redarguo, quia forsitan uerum est. Potest quippe ad istam tribulationem pertinere etiam mors ipsa carnis, quae de primi peccati perpetratione concepta est, ut secundum cuiusque aedificium tempus quod eam sequitur ab unoquoque sentiatur. Persecutiones quoque, quibus martyres coronati sunt et quas patiuntur quicumque Christiani, probant utraque aedificia uelut ignis et alia consumunt cum ipsis aedificatoribus, si Christum in eis non inueniunt fundamentum; alia sine ipsis. si inueniunt, quia licet cum damno salui erunt ipsi; alia uero non consumunt, quia talia reperiunt quae maneant in aeternum. Erit etiam in fine saeculi tribulatio tempore Antichristi, qualis numquam antea fuit. Quam multa erunt tunc aedificia, siue aurea siue fenea, super optimum fundamentum. quod est Christus Iesus, ut ignis ille probet utraque et de aliis gaudium, de aliis inferat damnum, neutros tamen perdat, in quibus haec inueniet, propter stabile fundamentum! Quicumque autem, non dico uxorem, cuius etiam commixtione carnis ad carnalem utitur uoluptatem, sed ipsa quae ab eius modi delectationibus aliena sunt nomina pietatis humano more carnaliter diligendo Christo anteponit, non eum habet in fundamento et ideo non per ignem saluus erit, sed saluus non erit, quia esse cum Saluatore non poterit, qui de hac re apertissime loquens ait: Qui amat patrem aut matrem plus quam me, non est me dignus; et qui amat filium aut filiam super me, non est me dignus. Verum qui has necessitudines sic amat carnaliter ut tamen eas Christo Domino non praeponat, malitque ipsis. carere quam Christo, si ad hunc fuerit articulum tentationis adductus, per ignem erit saluus, quia et earum amissione tantum necesse est urat dolor, quantum haeserat amor. Porro qui patrem matrem, filios filias secundum Christum dilexerit. ut ad eius regnum obtinendum eique cohaerendum illis consulat, uel hoc in eis diligat, quod membra sunt Christi: absit ut ista dilectio reperiatur in lignis, feno, stipula consumenda. sed prorsus aedificio aureo, argenteo, gemmeo deputabitur. Quo modo autem potest eos plus amare quam Christum, quos amat utique propter Christum?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 26. What it is to have Christ as the foundation, and to whom salvation is promised as through the burning of fire.

“But catholic Christians,” they say, “have Christ as their foundation, from whose unity they have not withdrawn, even if they have built on this foundation a life however wicked, like wood, hay, straw; so right faith, through which Christ is the foundation, will be able at some time to save them from the perpetuity of that fire, though with loss, since the things built on it will be burned up.” Let the apostle James answer them briefly: “If anyone says he has faith but does not have works, can faith save him?” “And who is it, then,” they say, “of whom the apostle Paul says, ‘But he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire’?” Let us inquire together who this is; yet it is most certain that it is not this man, lest we set the sayings of two apostles at odds, if one says, “Even if someone has evil works, faith will save him through fire,” and the other, “If he does not have works, can faith save him?”

We shall find, then, who can be saved through fire if we first find what it is to have Christ as the foundation. To notice this as quickly as possible from the very comparison: nothing in a building is put before the foundation. Whoever, then, has Christ in his heart in such a way that he does not put earthly and temporal things before him, not even those that are lawful and permitted, has Christ as his foundation; but if he puts them before him, even if he seems to have faith in Christ, Christ is still not the foundation in him, since such things are put before him; how much more, if, despising the saving commandments, he commits unlawful things, is he convicted of not having put Christ first but of having put him last, since he has set him aside, whether commanding or permitting, when he chose to satisfy his lust through shameful acts against what Christ commanded or permitted! If, then, any Christian loves a prostitute and, cleaving to her, becomes one body with her, he no longer has Christ as his foundation. But if anyone loves his wife, if according to Christ, who would doubt that Christ is his foundation? But if according to this world, if carnally, if in the disease of lusts, like the gentiles who do not know God, even this the apostle, or rather Christ through the apostle, allows by way of concession. So this man too can have Christ as his foundation. For if he puts nothing of such affection and pleasure before him, even though he builds on it wood, hay, straw, Christ is the foundation; because of this he will be saved through fire. For the fire of tribulation will burn up delights of this kind and earthly loves, which are not damnable because of the marriage bond; and to this fire belong both bereavements and whatever calamities take these things away. And so this building will be a loss to the one who built it, because he will not have what he built on it and will be tormented by the loss of the things he certainly rejoiced to enjoy; but through this fire he will be saved by the merit of the foundation, because, if a persecutor put before him whether he would rather have that or Christ, he would not put it before Christ.

See in the apostle's words a man building on the foundation gold, silver, precious stones: “He who is without a wife,” he says, “thinks of the things of God, how to please God.” See another building wood, hay, straw: “But he who is joined in marriage,” he says, “thinks of the things of the world, how to please his wife.” “Each one's work will become manifest; for the day will disclose it” (the day, that is, of tribulation), “because,” he says, “it will be revealed in fire.” He calls that same tribulation fire, as we read elsewhere: “The furnace tests the potter's vessels, and the trial of tribulation tests righteous men.” “And the fire will test what sort of work each one's is. If anyone's work remains” (for it remains that one thinks of the things of God, how to please God) “which he has built on it, he will receive a reward” (that is, he will take what he thought about); “but if anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss” (since he will not have what he loved); “but he himself will be saved” (because no tribulation moved him from the firmness of that foundation), “yet so as through fire” (for what he did not have without enticing love, he does not lose without burning pain). See, as far as it seems to me, a fire has been found which condemns neither of them, but enriches the one, causes loss to the other, and tests both.

But if we wish to take that fire in this place as the one of which the Lord will say to those on the left, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire,” so that these too who build on the foundation wood, hay, straw are believed to be among them, and the merit of the good foundation frees them from that fire after a time allotted for their evil deserts: whom shall we think those on the right are, to whom it will be said, “Come, you blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you,” if not those who have built on the foundation gold, silver, precious stones? But into that fire of which it was said, “yet so as through fire,” if it is to be understood in this way, both are to be sent, those on the right and those on the left. For both are to be tested by that fire of which it was said, “For the day will disclose it, because it will be revealed in fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one's is.” If, then, the fire will test both, so that if anyone's work remains, that is, is not consumed by the fire, he will receive a reward for what he built on it, but if anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, then surely this is not that eternal fire itself. For into that only those on the left will be sent by the last and perpetual condemnation, whereas this one tests those on the right. But it tests some of them in such a way that it does not burn up and consume the building which it finds they have built on Christ the foundation; and others otherwise, that is, so that what they have built on it burns and they suffer loss from it, but they are saved, because they held Christ, set firmly in the foundation, with a surpassing love. And if they are saved, they will certainly stand on the right and hear with the rest, “Come, you blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you,” not on the left, where those will be who will not be saved and therefore will hear, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire.” For no one will be saved from that fire, because all those will go into eternal punishment, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched, by which they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

After the death of this body, until one comes to that day which, after the resurrection of bodies, will be the last day of condemnation and reward, if in this interval of time the spirits of the dead are said to suffer a fire of this kind, which those do not feel who in the life of this body did not have such conduct and loves that their wood, hay, straw should be consumed, but which others do feel who carried such buildings with them, whether only there, or both here and there, or here so that not there, finding a fire of passing tribulation that burns up worldly things which, though worldly, are pardonable and not condemned: I do not refute it, because perhaps it is true. Indeed, even the death of the flesh itself, which was conceived from the committing of the first sin, can belong to this tribulation, so that the time which follows it is felt by each according to his building. The persecutions too, by which martyrs were crowned and which all Christians suffer, test both buildings like fire; and some they consume together with the builders themselves, if they do not find Christ as the foundation in them; others without the builders, if they find him, because they themselves will be saved, though with loss; and others they do not consume, because they find such things as remain for ever. There will also be at the end of the world, in the time of Antichrist, a tribulation such as there has never been before. How many buildings will there then be, whether of gold or of hay, on the best foundation, which is Christ Jesus, so that that fire may test both and bring joy to some and loss to others, yet destroy neither of those in whom it finds these things, because of the firm foundation!

But whoever puts before Christ, I do not say his wife, whose carnal union he uses for carnal pleasure, but even those names of dutiful affection which are free from delights of this kind, loving them carnally in a human way, does not have him as his foundation, and therefore will not be saved through fire, but will not be saved, because he will not be able to be with the Savior, who, speaking most plainly on this matter, says: “He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter above me is not worthy of me.” But one who loves these near relations carnally in such a way that he does not put them before Christ the Lord, and would rather be without them than without Christ if he were brought to this crisis of temptation, will be saved through fire, because at their loss the pain must burn as much as the love had clung. Further, one who has loved father and mother, sons and daughters, according to Christ, so as to care for them for obtaining his kingdom and cleaving to him, or loves in them this, that they are members of Christ: God forbid that this love should be found among the wood, hay, straw to be consumed; rather, it will be reckoned wholly to the building of gold, silver, and gems. And how can he love them more than Christ, whom he certainly loves for Christ's sake?

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 3:11–15: quotation, high confidence
- Jas 2:14: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 6:16: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Thess 4:5: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 7:6: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 7:32–33: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 25:34: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 25:41: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 25:46: allusion, high confidence
- Mark 9:48: quotation, high confidence
- Rev 20:10: quotation, high confidence
- Dan 12:1: allusion, medium confidence
- Matt 24:21: allusion, medium confidence
- Matt 10:37: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sir 27:5 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- 1 Corinthians 3:11–15; James 2:14; 1 Corinthians 6:16; 1 Thessalonians 4:5; 1 Corinthians 7:6, 32–33; Sirach 27:5 (“The furnace tests the potter's vessels…”); Matthew 25:34, 41, 46; Mark 9:48; Revelation 20:10; Daniel 12:1 (Matthew 24:21); Matthew 10:37. Augustine interprets the fire of 1 Corinthians 3 as the fire of tribulation, not the eternal fire. On the fire suffered by spirits between death and the judgment he says only “I do not refute it, because perhaps it is true.” He treats carnal but lawful marital love as “wood, hay, straw” that does not destroy the foundation; the concession of 1 Corinthians 7:6 is applied to it. Translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.26 (CSEL 40:567–573; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-26/#p-21-26).

## City of God 21.27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-26/#p-21-27
- Source: CSEL 40:573–581
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Almsgiving and the Lord's Prayer forgive daily sins of those who are changing their lives, but cannot buy impunity for continued crimes; there is a hidden class of lesser sins pardoned through the intercession of holy friends, but deliverance keeps one from eternal fire, never releases one from it.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVII. Contra eorum persuasionem, qui putant sibi non obfutura peccata, in quibus, cum elemosynas facerent, permanserunt. Restat eis respondere, qui dicunt aeterno igne illos tantummodo arsuros, qui pro peccatis suis facere dignas elemosynas neglegunt, propter illud quod ait apostolus Iacobus: Iudicium autem sine misericordia illi, qui non fecit misericordiam. Qui ergo fecit, inquiunt, quamuis non correxerit perditos mores, sed nefarie ac nequiter inter ipsas suas elemosynas uixerit, cum misericordia illi futurum est iudicium, ut aut non damnetur omnino aut post aliquod tempus a damnatione nouissima liberetur. Nec ob aliud existimant Christum de solo dilectu adque neglectu elemosynarum discretionem inter dextros et sinistros esse facturum, quorum alios in regnum, alios in supplicium mittat aeternum. Ut autem cottidiana sibi opinentur, quae facere omnino non cessant, qualiacumque et quantacumque sint, per elemosynas dimitti posse peccata, orationem, quam docuit ipse Dominus, et suffragatricem sibi adhibere conantur et testem. Sicut enim nullus est, inquiunt, dies, quo a Christianis haec oratio non dicatur: ita nullum est cottidianum qualecumque peccatum, quod per illam non dimittatur, cum dicimus: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, si quod sequitur facere curemus: Sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Non enim ait Dominus, inquiunt: Si dimiseritis peccata hominibus, dimittet uobis Pater uester cottidiana parua peccata, sed: Dimittet, inquit, uobis peccata uestra. Qualicumque ergo uel quantacumque sint, etiamsi cottidie perpetrentur nec ab eis uita discedat in melius commutata: per elemosynam ueniae non negatae remitti sibi posse praesumunt. Sed bene, quod isti dignas pro peccatis elemosynas commonent esse faciendas; quoniam si dicerent qualescumque elemosynas pro peccatis et cottidianis et magnis et quantacumque scelerum consuetudine misericordiam posse inpetrare diuinam. ut ea cottidiana remissio sequeretur, uiderent se rem dicere absurdam adque ridiculam. Sic enim cogerentur fateri fieri posse, ut opulentissimus homo decem nummulis diurnis in elemosynas inpensis homicidia et adulteria et nefaria quaeque facta redimeret. Quod si absurdissimum adque insanissimum est dicere, profecto si quaeratur, quae dignae sint pro peccatis elemosynae, de quibus etiam Christi praecursor ille dicebat: Facite ergo fructus dignos paenitentiae, procul dubio non inuenientur eas facere, qui uitam suam usque ad mortem cottidianorum criminum perpetratione confodiunt: primum, quia in auferendis rebus alienis longe plura diripiunt, ex quibus perexigua pauperibus largiendo Christum se ad hoc pascere existimant, ut licentiam malefactorum ab illo se emisse uel cottidie potius emere credentes securi damnabilia tanta committant. Qui si pro uno scelere omnia sua distribuerent indigentibus membris Christi, nisi desisterent a talibus factis habendo caritatem, quae non agit perperam, aliquid eis prodesse non potest. Qui ergo dignas pro suis peccatis elemosynas facit, prius eas facere incipit a se ipso. Indignum est enim, ut in se non faciat, qui facit in proximum, cum audiat dicentem Deum: Diliges proximum tuum tamquam te ipsum: itemque audiat: Miserere animae tuae placens Deo. Hanc elemosynam, id est, ut Deo placeat, non faciens animae suae quo modo dignas pro peccatis suis elemosynas facere dicendus est? Ad hoc enim et illud scriptum est: Qui sibi malignus est, cui bonus erit? Orationes quippe adiuuant elemosynae; et utique intuendum est quod legimus: Fili, peccasti, ne adicias iterum et de praeteritis deprecare, ut tibi dimittantur. Propter hoc ergo elemosynae faciendae sunt, ut, cum de praeteritis peccatis deprecamur, exaudiamur; non ut in eis perseuerantes licentiam malefaciendi nos per elemosynas conparare credamus. Ideo autem Dominus et dextris elemosynas ab eis factas et sinistris non factas se inputaturum esse praedixit, ut hinc ostenderet quantum ualeant elemosynae ad priora delenda, non ad perpetua inpune committenda peccata. Tales autem elemosynas non dicendi sunt facere, qui uitam nolunt a consuetudine scelerum in melius commutare. Quia et in hoc quod ait: Quando uni ex minimis meis non fecistis, mihi non fecistis. ostendit eos non facere etiam quando se facere existimant. Si enim Christiano esurienti panem tamquam Christiano darent, profecto sibi panem iustitiae, quod ipse Christus est, non negarent; quoniam Deus, non cui detur, sed quo animo detur, adtendit. Qui ergo Christum diligit in Christiano, hoc animo ei porrigit elemosynam, quo accedit ad Christum, non quo uult recedere inpunitus a Christo. Tanto enim magis quisque deserit Christum, quanto magis diligit quod inprobat Christus. Nam quid cuiquam prodest, quod baptizatur, si non iustificatur? Nonne qui dixit: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non intrabit in regnum Dei, ipse etiam dixit: Nisi abundauerit iustitia uestra super scribarum et Pharisaeorum, non intrabitis in regnum caelorum? Quur illud timendo multi currunt baptizari, et hoc non timendo non multi curant iustificari? Sicut ergo non fratri suo dicit: Fatue. qui cum hoc dicit non ipse fraternitati, sed peccato eius infensus est (alioquin reus erit gehennae ignis): ita e contrario, qui porrigit elemosynam Christiano, non Christiano porrigit, qui non in eo diligit Christum; non autem diligit Christum, qui iustificari recusat in Christo. Et quem ad modum si quis praeoccupatus fuerit hoc delicto, ut fratri suo dicat: Fatue, id est, non eius peccatum nolens auferre conuicietur iniuste, parum est illi ad hoc redimendum elemosynas facere, nisi etiam quod ibi sequitur remedium reconciliationis adiungat (ibi enim sequitur: Si ergo offeres munus tuum ad altare et ibi recordatus fueris, quia frater tuus habet aliquid aduersum te, relinque ibi munus tuum ad altare et uade prius, reconciliari fratri tuo, et tunc ueniens offeres munus tuum): ita parum est elemosynas quantaslibet facere pro quocumque scelere et in consuetudine scelerum permanere, Oratio uero cottidiana, quam docuit ipse Iesus, unde et dominica nominatur, delet quidem cottidiana peccata, cum cottidie dicitur: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, adque id quod sequitur non solum dicitur, sed etiam fit: Sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris; sed quia fiunt peccata, ideo dicitur, non ut ideo fiant, quia dicitur. Per hanc enim nobis uoluit Saluator ostendere, quantumlibet iuste in huius uitae caligine adque infirmitate uiuamus, non nobis deesse peccata, pro quibus dimittendis debeamus orare et eis, qui in nos peccant, ut et nobis ignoscatur, ignoscere. Non utique propterea Dominus ait: Si dimiseritis peccata hominibus, dimittet uobis et Pater uester peccata uestra, ut de hac oratione confisi securi cottidiana scelera faceremus, uel potentia qua non timeremus hominum leges uel astutia qua ipsos homines falleremus; sed ut per illam disceremus non putare nos esse sine peccatis, etiamsi a criminibus essemus inmunes; sicut etiam legis ueteris sacerdotes hoc ipsum Deus de sacrificiis admonuit, quae iussit eos primum pro suis, deinde pro populi offerre peccatis. Nam et ipsa uerba tanti magistri et Domini nostri uigilanter intuenda sunt. Non enim ait: (Si dimiseritis peccata hominibus, et Pater uester dimittet uobis qualiacumque peccata, sed ait: Peccata uestra. Cottidianam quippe orationem docebat et iustificatis utique discipulis loquebatur. Quid est ergo: Peccata uestra nisi peccata sine quibus nec uos eritis, qui iustificati et sanctificati estis? Ubi ergo illi, qui per hanc orationem occasionem perpetrandorum cottidie scelerum quaerunt, dicunt Dominum significasse etiam magna peccata, quoniam non dixit: Dimittet uobis parua\\ sed peccata uestra: ibi nos considerantes qualibus loquebatur et audientes dictum peccata uestra nihil aliud debemus existimare quam parua, quoniam talium iam non erant magna. Verum tamen nec ipsa magna, a quibus omnino mutatis in melius moribus recedendum est, dimittuntur orantibus, nisi fiat quod ibi dicitur: Sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Si enim minima peccata, sine quibus non est etiam uita iustorum, aliter non remittuntur: quanto magis multis et magnis criminibus inuoluti, etiamsi ea perpetrare iam desinant, nullam indulgentiam consequuntur. si ad remittendum aliis, quod in eis quisque peccauerit, inexorabiles fuerint, cum dicat Dominus: Si autem non dimiseritis hominibus, neque Pater uester dimittet uobis. Ad hoc enim ualet quod etiam Iacobus apostolus ait, iudicium futurum sine misericordia illi, qui non fecit misericordiam. Venire quippe debet in mentem etiam seruus ille. cui debitori dominus eius relaxauit decem milia talentorum. quae postea iussit ut redderet, quia ipse non misertus est conserui sui, qui ei debebat centum denarios. In his ergo, qui filii sunt promissionis et uasa misericordiae. ualet quod ait idem apostolus consequenter adiungens: Superexsultat autem misericordia iudicio, quoniam et illi iusti. qui tanta sanctitate uixerunt, ut alios quoque recipiant in tabernacula aeterna, a quibus amici facti sunt de mammona iniquitatis, ut tales essent, misericordia liberati sunt ab eo, qui iustificat inpium, inputans mercedem secundum gratiam, non secundum debitum. In eorum quippe numero est apostolus. qui dicit: Misericordiam consecutus sum, ut fidelis essem. Illi autem, qui recipiuntur a talibus in tabernacula aeterna, fatendum est quod non sint his moribus praediti, ut eis liberandis sine suffragio sanctorum sua possit uita sufficere, ac per hoc multo amplius in eis superexsultat misericordia iudicio. Nec tamen ideo putandus est quisquam sceleratissimus, nequaquam uita uel bona uel tolerabiliore mutatus, recipi in tabernacula aeterna, quoniam obsecutus est sanctis de mammona iniquitatis, id est de pecunia uel diuitiis, quae male fuerant adquisitae, aut etiamsi bene, non tamen ueris, sed quas iniquitas putat esse diuitias, quoniam nescit quae sint uerae diuitiae, quibus illi abundant, qui et alios recipiunt in tabernacula aeterna. Est itaque quidam uitae modus nec tam malae, ut his qui eam uiuunt nihil prosit ad capessendum regnum caelorum largitas elemosynarum, quibus etiam iustorum sustentatur inopia et fiunt amici qui in tabernacula aeterna suscipiant, nec tam bonae, ut ad tantam beatitudinem adipiscendam eis ipsa sufficiat, nisi eorum meritis, quos amicos fecerint, misericordiam consequantur. (Mirari autem soleo etiam aput Vergilium reperiri istam Domini sententiam, ubi ait: Facite uobis amicos de mammona iniquitatis, ut et ipsi recipiant uos in tabernacula aeterna; cui est et illa simillima: Qui recipit prophetam in nomine prophetae, mercedem prophetae accipiet; et qui recipit iustum in nomine iusti, mercedem iusti accipiet. Nam cum Elysios campos poeta ille describeret, ubi putant habitare animas beatorum, non solum ibi posuit eos, qui propriis meritis ad illas sedes peruenire potuerunt, sed adiecit adque ait: Quique sui memores alios fecere merendo, id est, qui promeruerunt alios eosque sui memores promerendo fecerunt; prorsus tamquam eis dicerent, quod frequentatur ore Christiano, cum se cuique sanctorum humilis quisque commendat et dicit: Memor mei esto, adque id ut esse possit promerendo efficit.) Sed quis iste sit modus, et quae sint ipsa peccata, quae ita inpediunt peruentionem ad regnum Dei. ut tamen sanctorum amicorum meritis inpetrent indulgentiam, difficillimum est inuenire, periculosissimum definire. Ego certe usque ad hoc tempus cum inde satagerem ad eorum indaginem peruenire non potui. Et fortassis propterea latent, ne studium proficiendi ad omnia cauenda peccata pigrescat. Quoniam si scirentur quae uel qualia sint delicta. pro quibus etiam permanentibus nec prouectu uitae melioris absumtis intercessio sit inquirenda et speranda iustorum, eis secura se obuolueret humana segnitia, nec euolui talibus inplicamentis ullius uirtutis expeditione curaret, sed tantummodo quaereret aliorum meritis liberari, quos amicos sibi de mammona iniquitatis elemosynarum largitate fecisset. Nunc uero dum uenialis iniquitatis, etiamsi perseueret, ignoratur modus, profecto et studium in meliora proficiendi orando et instando uigilantius adhibetur et faciendi de mammona iniquitatis sanctos amicos cura non spernitur. Verum ista liberatio, quae fit siue suis quibusque orationibus siue intercedentibus sanctis, id agit ut in ignem quisque non mittatur aeternum, non ut, cum fuerit missus, post quantumcumque inde tempus ematur. Nam et illi, qui putant sic intellegendum esse quod scriptum est, adferre terram bonam uberem fructum, aliam tricenum, aliam sexagenum, aliam centenum, ut sancti pro suorum diuersitate meritorum alii tricenos homines liberent, alii sexagenos, alii centenos, hoc in die iudicii futurum suspicari solent, non post iudicium. Qua opinione quidam cum uideret homines inpunitatem sibi peruersissime pollicentes, eo quod omnes isto modo ad liberationem pertinere posse uideantur, elegantissime respondisse perhibetur, bene potius esse uiuendum, ut inter eos quisque reperiatur, qui pro aliis intercessuri sunt liberandis, ne tam pauci sint, ut cito ad numerum suum uel tricenum uel sexagenum uel centenum unoquoque eorum perueniente multi remaneant, qui erui iam de poenis illorum intercessione non possint et in eis inueniatur quisquis sibi spem fructus alieni temeritate uanissima pollicetur. Haec me illis respondisse suffecerit, qui sacrarum litterarum, quas communes habemus, auctoritatem non spernunt, sed eas male intellegendo non quod illae loquuntur, sed hoc potius putant futurum esse quod ipsi uolunt. Hac itaque responsione reddita librum, sicut promisimus, terminamus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 27. Against the conviction of those who think that the sins in which they have remained while giving alms will not harm them.

It remains to answer those who say that only those will burn in eternal fire who neglect to give worthy alms for their sins, because of what the apostle James says: “For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy.” “So he who has shown mercy,” they say, “even if he has not corrected his depraved conduct but has lived wickedly and viciously amid his very almsgiving, will have judgment with mercy, so that either he is not condemned at all or is freed from the final condemnation after some time.” For no other reason, they think, will Christ make the separation between those on the right and those on the left, sending the one into the kingdom and the other into eternal punishment, solely on the ground of almsgiving chosen or neglected. And to hold that their daily sins, which they never cease to commit, whatever and however great, can be forgiven through alms, they try to bring in the prayer which the Lord himself taught as their supporter and witness. “For as there is no day,” they say, “on which this prayer is not said by Christians, so there is no daily sin of any kind which is not forgiven through it, when we say, ‘Forgive us our debts,’ provided we take care to do what follows: ‘as we also forgive our debtors.’ For the Lord did not say,” they say, “‘If you forgive men their sins, your Father will forgive you your small daily sins,’ but, ‘He will forgive you your sins.’” So, whatever and however great they are, even if they are committed daily and life does not depart from them changed for the better, they presume that they can be forgiven them through the almsgiving of not refusing pardon.

But it is well that they remind us that worthy alms must be given for sins; for if they said that any alms whatever could obtain divine mercy for sins, both daily and great, and for any habit of crimes however great, so that daily forgiveness would follow them, they would see that they were saying something absurd and ridiculous. For then they would be forced to admit that it could happen that a very rich man, by spending ten little coins a day on alms, could redeem murders and adulteries and all sorts of wicked deeds. But if it is most absurd and most insane to say this, then surely, if it is asked what alms are worthy for sins, of which the forerunner of Christ also said, “Bear fruits worthy of repentance,” those will without doubt not be found to give them who pierce their life through, until death, with the committing of daily crimes. First, because in taking away others' goods they plunder far more, of which they give a very small part to the poor and think that they thereby feed Christ, so that, believing they have bought from him, or rather buy daily, a license for misdeeds, they commit such great damnable things securely. If for a single crime they distributed all they have to the needy members of Christ, it could not profit them anything unless they ceased from such deeds by having the love which does not act wrongly. He, then, who gives worthy alms for his sins first begins to give them from himself. For it is unfitting that one who gives to his neighbor should not give to himself, when he hears God saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” and hears likewise, “Have mercy on your own soul by pleasing God.” How can he who does not give this alms to his own soul, namely to please God, be said to give worthy alms for his sins? For this is also why it is written: “He who is evil to himself, to whom will he be good?” For alms help prayers; and certainly we must attend to what we read: “Son, you have sinned; do not do so again, and pray about your past sins, that they may be forgiven you.” Alms, then, are to be given for this purpose, that when we pray about past sins we may be heard; not that, persevering in them, we may believe that we are buying a license to do evil through alms.

The Lord foretold that he would reckon to those on the right the alms they gave and to those on the left the alms they did not give precisely to show how much alms avail for blotting out former sins, not for committing perpetual sins with impunity. And those who refuse to change their life for the better from the habit of crimes are not to be said to give such alms. For by what he says, “When you did not do it to one of the least of mine, you did not do it to me,” he shows that they do not do it even when they think they are doing it. For if they gave bread to a hungry Christian as to a Christian, they would certainly not deny themselves the bread of righteousness, which is Christ himself; since God looks not at the one to whom it is given but at the spirit in which it is given. He, then, who loves Christ in a Christian gives him alms in the spirit in which he draws near to Christ, not in that in which he wishes to depart from Christ unpunished. For the more anyone loves what Christ disapproves, the more he deserts Christ. For what does it profit anyone to be baptized if he is not justified? Did not he who said, “Unless one is reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of God,” also say, “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven”? Why do many run to be baptized for fear of the one, and not many take care to be justified, not fearing the other? Just as one who says to his brother “Fool” is not saying it to his brother, when in saying it he is hostile not to his brotherhood but to his sin (otherwise he will be liable to the Gehenna of fire), so, on the contrary, one who gives alms to a Christian does not give to a Christian if he does not love Christ in him; and he does not love Christ who refuses to be justified in Christ. And just as, if someone has been caught in this fault of saying to his brother “Fool,” that is, of insulting him unjustly without wishing to remove his sin, it is not enough for him to give alms to redeem this unless he also adds the remedy of reconciliation which follows there (for there follows: “So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there at the altar and go first to be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift”), so it is not enough to give alms, however great, for any crime whatever and to remain in the habit of crimes.

The daily prayer, however, which Jesus himself taught, and from which it is also called the Lord's Prayer, does blot out daily sins, when “Forgive us our debts” is said daily, and what follows, “as we also forgive our debtors,” is not only said but also done; but it is said because sins are committed, not so that they may be committed because it is said. For by it the Savior wished to show us that, however righteously we live in the darkness and weakness of this life, we are not without sins, for the forgiveness of which we ought to pray, and to forgive those who sin against us so that we too may be pardoned. The Lord certainly did not say, “If you forgive men their sins, your Father will also forgive you your sins,” so that, trusting in this prayer, we might securely commit daily crimes, either by a power through which we would not fear human laws or by a cunning through which we would deceive human beings themselves; but so that through it we might learn not to think ourselves without sins, even if we were free from crimes; just as God reminded the priests of the old law of this very thing concerning the sacrifices, which he commanded them to offer first for their own sins and then for those of the people. For the very words of so great a Master and our Lord are to be carefully looked at. He did not say, “If you forgive men their sins, your Father too will forgive you any sins whatever,” but he said, “your sins.” For he was teaching a daily prayer and was certainly speaking to disciples already justified. What, then, is “your sins,” but the sins without which not even you will be, who are justified and sanctified? Where, then, those who seek in this prayer an occasion for committing crimes daily say that the Lord meant great sins too, since he did not say “He will forgive you your small sins,” but “your sins,” there we, considering to what sort of people he was speaking and hearing the words “your sins,” ought to think of nothing but small ones, since the sins of such people were no longer great. And yet not even the great ones themselves, from which one must withdraw altogether with conduct changed for the better, are forgiven to those who pray unless what is said there is done: “as we also forgive our debtors.” For if the least sins, without which even the life of the righteous is not, are not forgiven otherwise, how much more will those involved in many and great crimes, even if they now cease to commit them, obtain no pardon if they are inexorable in forgiving others what each has sinned against them, since the Lord says: “But if you do not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you.” For this is the force of what the apostle James too says, that judgment will be without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. For that servant too ought to come to mind, whose master remitted his debt of ten thousand talents, which he afterwards ordered him to repay because he himself had no mercy on his fellow servant who owed him a hundred denarii.

In those, then, who are children of the promise and vessels of mercy, what the same apostle adds next holds good: “But mercy triumphs over judgment”; since even those righteous ones who have lived with such holiness that they also receive others into the eternal dwellings, by whom they were made friends by means of the mammon of iniquity, were set free by mercy to become such, by him who justifies the ungodly, reckoning the reward according to grace, not according to debt. For among their number is the apostle who says: “I obtained mercy to be faithful.” But those who are received by such into the eternal dwellings, it must be admitted, are not endowed with such conduct that their own life could suffice to set them free without the support of the saints; and so in them mercy triumphs over judgment much more. Yet no one who is most wicked, not changed at all to a good or a more tolerable life, is therefore to be thought to be received into the eternal dwellings because he has served the saints by means of the mammon of iniquity, that is, of money or riches which were wrongly acquired, or, even if rightly, yet are not true riches but what iniquity thinks riches, since it does not know what true riches are, with which they abound who also receive others into the eternal dwellings. There is, then, a certain manner of life neither so bad that the generosity of alms, by which even the poverty of the righteous is supported and friends are made who may receive them into the eternal dwellings, is of no use to those who live it for gaining the kingdom of heaven, nor so good that it suffices by itself for them to attain such great blessedness, unless they obtain mercy through the merits of those whom they have made their friends. (I am accustomed to wonder that this saying of the Lord is found even in Virgil, the saying where he says, “Make friends for yourselves by means of the mammon of iniquity, so that they too may receive you into the eternal dwellings”; and that other saying is very like it: “He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet's reward; and he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward.” For when that poet was describing the Elysian fields, where they think the souls of the blessed dwell, he placed there not only those who were able to reach those abodes by their own merits, but added and said: “and those who by deserving made others mindful of them,” that is, who deserved well of others and by deserving made them mindful of them; exactly as if they were saying to them what is often in Christian mouths, when each humble person commends himself to one of the saints and says, “Remember me,” and brings it about by deserving that he may be remembered.)

But what that manner of life is, and what those sins are which so hinder arrival at the kingdom of God that they nevertheless obtain pardon through the merits of holy friends, is most difficult to discover and most dangerous to define. I, certainly, though I have been busy about it up to this time, have not been able to arrive at tracking them down. And perhaps they are hidden for this reason, so that zeal for advancing to guard against all sins may not grow slack. For if it were known what or what kind of offenses those are for which, even though they remain and are not removed by progress to a better life, the intercession of the righteous is to be sought and hoped for, human sloth would wrap itself securely in them, and would not take care to be unwrapped from such entanglements by the readiness of any virtue, but would seek only to be freed by the merits of others whom it had made its friends by means of the mammon of iniquity through generous almsgiving. But as it is, since the measure of pardonable iniquity, even if it persists, is unknown, surely both zeal for advancing to better things by praying and striving is applied more watchfully, and care to make holy friends by means of the mammon of iniquity is not despised.

But this deliverance, which comes about either by each one's own prayers or by the intercession of the saints, brings it about that one is not sent into the eternal fire, not that, once he has been sent, he is bought out from there after any length of time. For even those who think that what is written, that the good ground brings forth abundant fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixtyfold, some a hundredfold, is to be understood so that the saints, according to the difference of their merits, set free some thirty people, some sixty, some a hundred, usually suppose that this will happen on the day of judgment, not after the judgment. When someone saw people most perversely promising themselves impunity by this opinion, because it seemed that all might be able to come to deliverance in this way, he is said to have answered most elegantly that one should rather live well, so that each may be found among those who will intercede for the deliverance of others; lest they be so few that, each of them quickly reaching his number of thirty or sixty or a hundred, many remain who can no longer be rescued from punishment by their intercession, and among them is found whoever promises himself, with most empty rashness, the hope of another's fruit.

Let it suffice that I have given this answer to those who do not despise the authority of the sacred writings, which we hold in common, but, by misunderstanding them, think that what will come to be is not what they say, but rather what they themselves wish. With this answer given, then, we end the book, as we promised.

### Scripture references

- Jas 2:13: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 25:31–46: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 6:12: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 6:14–15: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 3:8: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 13:4: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 22:39: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 25:45: quotation, high confidence
- John 3:5: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 5:20: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 5:22–24: quotation, high confidence
- Lev 16:6: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 18:23–35: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 16:9: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 4:4–5: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 7:25: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 10:41: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 13:8: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sir 30:24 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence
- Sir 14:5 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence
- Sir 21:1 (Sirach): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 6.664 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- James 2:13; Matthew 25:31–46; 6:12, 14–15; Luke 3:8; 1 Corinthians 13:4; Matthew 22:39; Sirach 30:24 (Latin; “Have mercy on your own soul by pleasing God”); Sirach 14:5 (“He who is evil to himself, to whom will he be good?”); Sirach 21:1 (“Son, you have sinned; do not do so again…”); Matthew 25:45; John 3:5; Matthew 5:20; 5:22–24; Leviticus 16:6; Matthew 18:23–35; James 2:13; Luke 16:9; Romans 4:4–5; 1 Corinthians 7:25; Matthew 10:41; Virgil, Aeneid 6.664; Matthew 13:8, 23. Augustine admits he has not been able to determine which sins are pardoned through the intercession of the saints, and suggests this is hidden to keep believers from slackness. The unnamed author of the “elegant” reply is not identified. Translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 21.27 (CSEL 40:573–581; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-26/#p-21-27).

## City of God 22.1

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-26/#p-22-1
- Source: CSEL 40:581–583
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine introduces the last book on the eternal blessedness of the city of God, founded by God, who allowed angels and men free choice and gathers a people by grace to restore the number of the fallen angels.

### Latin text

Sicut in proximo libro superiore promisimus, iste huius totius operis ultimus disputationem de ciuitatis Dei aeterna beatitudine continebit, quae non propter aetatis per multa saecula longitudinem tamen quandocumque finiendam aeternitatis nomen accepit, sed quem ad modum scriptum est in euangelio, regni eius non erit finis; nec ita ut aliis moriendo decedentibus, aliis succedentibus oriendo species in ea perpetuitatis appareat, sicut in arbore, quae perenni fronde uestitur, eadem uidetur uiriditas permanere, dum labentibus et cadentibus foliis subinde alia, quae nascuntur. faciem conseruant opacitatis; sed omnes in ea ciues inmortales erunt. adipiscentibus et hominibus, quod numquam sancti angeli perdiderunt. Faciet hoc Deus omnipotentissimus eius conditor. Promisit enim nec mentiri potest, et quibus fidem hinc quoque faceret, multa sua et non promissa et promissa iam fecit. Ipse est enim, qui in principio condidit mundum, plenum bonis omnibus uisibilibus adque intellegibilibus rebus, in quo nihil melius instituit quam spiritus, quibus intellegentiam dedit et suae contemplationis habiles capacesque sui praestitit adque una societate deuinxit, quam sanctam et supernam dicimus ciuitatem, in qua res, qua sustententur beatique sint, Deus ipse illis est, tamquam uita uictusque communis: qui liberum arbitrium eidem intellectuali naturae tribuit tale, ut, si uellet deserere Deum, beatitudinem scilicet suam, continuo miseria sequeretur; qui cum praesciret angelos quosdam per elationem, qua ipsi sibi ad beatam uitam sufficere uellent, tanti boni desertores futuros, non eis ademit hanc potestatem, potentius et melius esse iudicans etiam de malis bene facere quam mala esse non sinere. Quae omnino nulla essent. nisi natura mutabilis, quamuis bona et a summo Deo adque incommutabili bono, qui bona omnia condidit, instituta, peccando ea sibi ipsa fecisset; quo etiam peccato suo teste conuincitur bonam conditam se esse naturam. Nisi enim magnum et ipsa, licet non aequale Conditori, bonum esset, profecto desertio Dei tamquam luminis sui malum eius esse non posset. Nam sicut caecitas oculi uitium est et idem ipsum indicat ad lumen uidendum esse oculum creatum ac per hoc etiam ipso uitio suo excellentius ostenditur ceteris membris membrum capax luminis (non enim alia causa esset uitium eius carere lumine): ita natura. quae fruebatur Deo, optimam se institutam docet etiam ipso uitio, quo ideo misera est quia non fruitur Deo; qui casum angelorum uoluntarium iustissima poena sempiternae infelicitatis obstrinxit adque in eo summo bono permanentibus ceteris, ut de sua sine fine permansione certi essent, tamquam ipsius praemium permansionis dedit. Qui fecit hominem etiam ipsum rectum cum eodem libero arbitrio, terrenum quidem animal, sed caelo dignum, si suo cohaereret auctori, miseria similiter, si eum desereret, secutura, qualis naturae huius modi conueniret. Quem similiter cum praeuaricatione legis Dei per Dei desertionem peccaturum esse praesciret, nec illi ademit liberi arbitrii potestatem, simul praeuidens, quid boni de malo eius esset ipse facturus: qui de mortali progenie merito iusteque damnata tantum populum gratia sua colligit, ut inde subpleat et instauret partem, quae lapsa est angelorum, ac sic illa dilecta et superna ciuitas non fraudetur suorum numero ciuium, quin etiam fortassis et uberiore laetetur.

### English translation (Claude)

As we promised in the preceding book, this last book of the whole work will contain the discussion of the eternal blessedness of the city of God. It is called eternal not because of a length of age stretching over many centuries yet destined at some point to end, but, as it is written in the Gospel, “of his kingdom there will be no end”; nor is it eternal in the sense that an appearance of permanence is kept up in it while some depart by dying and others succeed them by being born, as in a tree clothed with perennial foliage the same greenness seems to remain, while, as the leaves fall away and drop, others that grow in their place preserve the look of shade. No: all its citizens will be immortal, men too attaining what the holy angels never lost. God, its most almighty founder, will do this. For he has promised, and he cannot lie; and to give men confidence on this account too, he has already done many things of his own, both unpromised and promised.

For it is he who in the beginning founded the world, full of all good things visible and intelligible, in which he made nothing better than the spirits to whom he gave understanding, made them fit for contemplating him and capable of receiving him, and bound them together in one fellowship, which we call the holy and heavenly city. In it the thing by which they are sustained and made blessed is God himself, as their common life and food. He gave to this intellectual nature a free choice of such a kind that, if it chose to abandon God, that is, its own blessedness, misery would follow at once. And when he foreknew that certain angels, through the pride in which they wished to be sufficient to themselves for the blessed life, would desert so great a good, he did not take this power from them, judging it more powerful and better to bring good even out of evils than not to allow evils to exist. These evils would not exist at all had not a changeable nature, though good and established by the supreme God, the unchangeable good who created all good things, made them for itself by sinning. By its very sin it is convicted, on its own testimony, of having been created a good nature. For unless it were itself a great good, though not equal to its Creator, desertion of God as its light could not be an evil for it. For just as blindness is a defect of the eye, and that very fact shows that the eye was created to see light, so that by its very defect the member capable of light is shown to be more excellent than the other members (for there would be no other reason why lacking light should be its defect), so the nature that enjoyed God teaches, even by the very defect through which it is miserable because it does not enjoy God, that it was established as supremely good. God bound the voluntary fall of the angels with the most just penalty of everlasting unhappiness; and to the others, who remained in that supreme good, he gave as the reward, so to speak, of their remaining, the certainty that they would remain in it without end.

He also made man himself upright, with the same free choice: an earthly animal, indeed, but worthy of heaven if he held fast to his maker, while misery of a kind fitting such a nature would likewise follow if he deserted him. And when he foreknew that man too would sin by transgressing God's law through deserting God, he did not take from him the power of free choice either, foreseeing at the same time what good he himself would make of man's evil. From this mortal race, deservedly and justly condemned, he gathers by his grace so great a people that from it he may supply and restore the part of the angels that fell, and so that beloved and heavenly city may not be cheated of the number of its citizens, but may perhaps even rejoice in a more abundant number.

### Scripture references

- Luke 1:33: quotation, high confidence
- Titus 1:2: echo, low confidence
- Eccl 7:29: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- “Of his kingdom there will be no end” is Luke 1:33. The thought that redeemed humanity replaces the fallen angels, perhaps in greater number, repeats Augustine's view elsewhere (e.g. Enchiridion 29); he gives it as a “perhaps”.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.1 (CSEL 40:581–583; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/21-26/#p-22-1).

## City of God 22.2

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-2/#p-22-2
- Source: CSEL 40:583–585
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God's will is eternal and unchangeable; when he is said to change or to will what does not happen, the change lies in creatures or refers to the will he produces in his saints.

### Latin text

CAPUT II. De aeterna Dei et incommutabili uoluntate. Multa enim fiunt quidem a malis contra uoluntatem Dei; sed tantae est ille sapientiae tantaeque uirtutis, ut in eos exitus siue fines, quos bonos et iustos ipse praesciuit, tendant omnia, quae uoluntati eius uidentur aduersa. Ac per hoc cum Deus mutare dicitur uoluntatem, ut quibus lenis erat uerbi gratia reddatur iratus, illi potius quam ipse mutantur et eum quodam modo mutatum in his quae patiuntur inueniunt; sicut mutatur sol oculis sauciatis et asper quodam modo ex miti et ex delectabili molestus efficitur, cum ipse aput se ipsum maneat idem qui fuit. Dicitur etiam uoluntas Dei, quam facit in cordibus oboedientium mandatis eius, de qua dicit apostolus: Deus est enim, qui operatur in uobis et uelle. Sicut iustitia Dei non solum qua ipse iustus est dicitur, sed illa etiam quam in homine, qui ab illo iustificatur. facit: sic et lex eius uocatur, quae potius est hominum, sed ab ipso data; nam utique homines erant, quibus ait Iesus: In lege uestra scriptum est, cum alio loco legamus: Lex Dei eius in corde eius. Secundum hanc uoluntatem quam Deus operatur in hominibus, etiam uelle dicitur, quod non ipse uult, sed suos id uolentes facit; sicut dicitur cognouisse, quod ut cognosceretur fecit, a quibus ignorabatur. Neque enim dicente apostolo: Nunc autem cognoscentes Deum, immo cogniti a Deo, fas est ut credamus, quod eos tunc cognouerit Deus praecognitos ante constitutionem mundi; sed tunc cognouisse dictus est, quod tunc ut cognosceretur effecit. De his locutionum modis iam et in superioribus libris memini disputatum. Secundum hanc ergo uoluntatem, qua Deum uelle dicimus quod alios efficit uelle, quibus futura nesciuntur, multa uult nec facit. Multa enim uolunt fieri sancti eius ab illo inspirata sancta uoluntate, nec fiunt, sicut orant pro quibusdam pie sancteque. et quod orant non facit, cum ipse in eis hanc orandi uoluntatem sancto Spiritu suo fecerit. Ac per hoc, quando secundum Deum uolunt et orant sancti, ut quisque sit saluus, possumus illo modo locutionis dicere: Vult Deus et non facit; ut ipsum dicamus uelle, qui ut uelint isti facit. Secundum illam uero uoluntatem suam, quae cum eius praescientia sempiterna est, profecto in caelo et in terra omnia quaecumque uoluit non solum praeterita uel praesentia, sed etiam futura iam fecit. Verum antequam ueniat tempus, quo uoluit ut fieret, quod ante tempora uniuersa praesciuit adque disposuit, dicimus: Fiet quando Deus uoluerit; si autem non solum tempus quo futurum est, uerum etiam utrum futurum sit ignoramus, dicimus: Fiet, si Deus uoluerit; non quia Deus nouam uoluntatem, quam non habuit, tunc habebit; sed quia id, quod ex aeternitate in eius inmutabili praeparatum est uoluntate, tunc erit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 2. On the eternal and unchangeable will of God.

Many things are indeed done by the wicked against God's will; but he is of such wisdom and such power that all things which seem opposed to his will tend toward those outcomes or ends which he himself foreknew as good and just. Accordingly, when God is said to change his will, so that, for example, he becomes angry with those to whom he was gentle, it is they rather than he who are changed, and they find him in a manner changed in what they suffer; just as the sun is changed for injured eyes and in a manner becomes harsh instead of mild, and painful instead of delightful, though in itself it remains the same as it was.

The name “will of God” is also given to the will he produces in the hearts of those who obey his commandments, of which the apostle says, “For it is God who works in you even to will.” Just as “the righteousness of God” is used not only of that by which he himself is righteous but also of that which he produces in the man who is justified by him, so also that is called his law which is rather men's, though given by him. For certainly they were men to whom Jesus said, “In your law it is written,” while in another place we read, “The law of his God is in his heart.” According to this will, which God works in men, he is also said to will what he does not himself will but makes his people will; just as he is said to have known what he caused to be known by those who did not know it. For when the apostle says, “But now that you know God, or rather are known by God,” it is not right for us to believe that God came to know them only then, when they were foreknown before the foundation of the world; he is said to have known them then because he then brought it about that he was known. I remember that these ways of speaking were discussed already in earlier books.

According to this will, then, by which we say that God wills what he makes others will, to whom the future is unknown, he wills many things and does not do them. For his saints, with a holy will inspired by him, will many things to be done which are not done; for example, they pray for certain people piously and holily, and he does not do what they pray for, although he himself has produced in them this will to pray by his Holy Spirit. And so, when the saints will and pray according to God that each person may be saved, we can say, in that manner of speaking, “God wills and does not do,” meaning that he wills who makes them will. But according to that will of his which is eternal together with his foreknowledge, he has certainly already done in heaven and on earth all things whatever he willed, not only things past or present, but also things to come. But before the time comes in which he willed that what he foreknew and arranged before all times should happen, we say, “It will happen when God wills.” And if we do not know not only the time when it will be but even whether it will be, we say, “It will happen, if God wills”; not because God will then have a new will which he did not have, but because what has been prepared from eternity in his unchangeable will shall then come to pass.

### Scripture references

- Phil 2:13: quotation, high confidence
- John 8:17: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 37:31 (36:31 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Gal 4:9: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 135:6 (134:6 LXX): allusion, medium confidence
- 1 Tim 2:4: echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Phil 2:13; John 8:17 (or 10:34); Ps 37:31 (LXX 36:31); Gal 4:9. The phrase “in heaven and on earth all things whatever he willed” echoes Ps 115:3 and 135:6.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.2 (CSEL 40:583–585; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-2/#p-22-2).

## City of God 22.3

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-2/#p-22-3
- Source: CSEL 40:585–586
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: As God's promise to Abraham is now seen fulfilled in Christ, so his prophetic promises of resurrection, a new heaven and earth, and the everlasting kingdom will also be fulfilled.

### Latin text

CAPUT III. De promissione aeternae beatitudinis sanctorum et perpetuis suppliciis inpiorum. Quapropter, ut cetera tam multa praeteream, sicut nunc: in Christo uidemus inpleri quod promisit Abrahae dicens: In semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes: ita quod eidem semini eius promisit inplebitur, ubi ait per prophetam: Resurgent qui erant in monumentis, et quod ait: Erit caelum nouum et terra noua, et non erunt memores priorum, nec adscendet in cor ipsorum. sed laetitiam et exsultationem inuenient in ea. Ecce ego faciam Hierusalem exsultationem et populum meum laetitiam; et exsultabo in Hierusalem et laetabor in populo meo, et ultra non audietur in illa uox fletus; et per alium prophetam quod praenuntiauit dicens eidem prophetae: In tempore illo saluabitur populus tuus omnis qui inuentus fuerit scriptus in libro. et multi dormientium in terrae puluere (siue. ut quidam interpretati sunt, aggere) exsurgent, hi in uitam aeternam et hi in obprobrium et in confusionem aeternam; et alio loco per eundem prophetam: Accipient regnum sancti Altissimi et obtinebunt illud usque in saeculum et usque in saeculum saeculorum; et paulo post: Regnum, inquit. eius regnum sempiternum: et alia quae ad hoc pertinentia in libro uicensimo posui, siue quae non posui et tamen in eisdem litteris scripta sunt, uenient et haec, sicut ista uenerunt, quae increduli non putabant esse uentura. Idem quippe Deus utraque promisit, utraque uentura esse praedixit. quem perhorrescunt numina paganorum, etiam teste Porphyrio, nobilissimo philosopho paganorum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 3. On the promise of the eternal blessedness of the saints and the everlasting punishments of the wicked.

Therefore, to pass over so many other things: just as we now see fulfilled in Christ what he promised Abraham when he said, “In your seed all nations shall be blessed,” so what he promised to that same seed of his will be fulfilled, where he says through the prophet, “Those who were in the tombs shall rise again,” and where he says, “There shall be a new heaven and a new earth, and they shall not remember the former things, nor shall they come into their heart; but they shall find gladness and exultation in it. Behold, I will make Jerusalem an exultation, and my people a gladness; and I will exult in Jerusalem and be glad in my people, and the voice of weeping shall no more be heard in her”; and what he foretold through another prophet, saying to that prophet, “At that time your people shall be saved, every one who is found written in the book; and many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth” (or, as some have translated it, “in the mound”) “shall rise, some to eternal life and some to reproach and to eternal shame”; and in another place through the same prophet, “The saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and shall possess it for ever, and for ever and ever”; and a little later, “His kingdom,” he says, “is an everlasting kingdom.” These, and the other things belonging to this subject that I set down in the twentieth book, or that I did not set down and yet are written in the same Scriptures, will come as those things came which unbelievers thought would not come. For it is the same God who promised both and foretold that both would come, the God before whom the deities of the pagans tremble, as even Porphyry, the most renowned philosopher of the pagans, testifies.

### Scripture references

- Gen 22:18: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 26:19: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 65:17: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 65:18: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 65:19: quotation, high confidence
- Dan 12:1: quotation, high confidence
- Dan 12:2: quotation, high confidence
- Dan 7:18: quotation, high confidence
- Dan 7:27: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Porphyry, Porphyry, Phil. orac. (Porphyry, Philosophy from Oracles (fragments)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Gen 22:18; Isa 26:19 (in the Old Latin form “those who were in the tombs,” following the Septuagint); Isa 65:17–19; Dan 12:1–2; Dan 7:18; Dan 7:27. For Porphyry's testimony Augustine refers back to Book 19.23, citing Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.3 (CSEL 40:585–586; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-2/#p-22-3).

## City of God 22.4

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-2/#p-22-4
- Source: CSEL 40:586–588
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Against Cicero's claim that earthly bodies cannot be in heaven, Augustine argues that the union of incorporeal souls with earthly bodies is a greater wonder than the raising of earthly bodies to heaven.

### Latin text

CAPUT IIII. Contra sapientes mundi, qui putant terrena hominum corpora ad caeleste habitaculum non posse transferri. Sed uidelicet homines docti adque sapientes contra uim tantae auctoritatis, quae omnia genera hominum, sicut tanto ante praedixit, in hoc credendum sperandumque conuertit. acute sibi argumentari uidentur aduersus corporum resurrectionem et dicere quod in tertio de re publica libro a Cicerone commemoratum est. Nam cum Herculem et Romulum ex hominibus deos esse factos adseueraret: Quorum non corpora, inquit, sunt in caelum elata; neque enim natura pateretur, ut id quod esset e terra nisi in terra maneret. Haec est magna ratio sapientium, quorum Dominus nouit cogitationes, quoniam uanae sunt. Si enim animae tantummodo essemus, id est sine ullo corpore spiritus, et in caelo habitantes terrena animalia nesciremus nobisque futurum esse diceretur, ut terrenis corporibus animandis quodam uinculo mirabili necteremur: nonne multo fortius argumentaremur id credere recusantes et diceremus naturam non pati, ut res incorporea ligamento corporeo uinciretur? Et tamen plena est terra uegetantibus animis haec membra terrena, miro sibi modo conexa et inplicita. Quur ergo eodem uolente Deo, qui fecit hoc animal, non poterit terrenum corpus in caeleste corpus adtolli, si animus omni ac per hoc etiam caelesti corpore praestabilior terreno corpori potuit inligari? An terrena particula tam exigua potuit aliquid caelesti corpore melius aput se tenere, ut sensum haberet et uitam, et eam sentientem adque uiuentem dedignabitur caelum suscipere aut susceptam non poterit sustinere, cum de re sentiat et uiuat ista meliore, quam est corpus omne caeleste? Sed ideo nunc non fit, quia nondum est tempus quo id fieri uoluit, qui hoc, quod uidendo iam uiluit, multo mirabilius quam illud, quod ab istis non creditur, fecit. Quur enim non uehementius admiramur incorporeos animos, caelesti corpore potiores, terrenis inligari corporibus quam corpora licet terrena sedibus quamuis caelestibus. tamen corporeis sublimari, nisi quia hoc uidere consueuimus et hoc sumus, illud uero nondum sumus nec aliquando adhuc uidimus? Nam profecto sobria ratione consulta mirabilioris esse diuini operis reperitur incorporalibus corporalia quodam modo adtexere quam licet diuersa, quia illa caelestia, ista terrestria, tamen corpora et corpora copulare.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 4. Against the wise men of the world, who think that the earthly bodies of human beings cannot be transferred to a heavenly dwelling.

But learned and wise men, forsooth, against the force of so great an authority, which, as it long ago foretold, has turned every kind of people to believe and hope for this, think they argue acutely against the resurrection of bodies, and cite what Cicero records in the third book of his Republic. For when he was asserting that Hercules and Romulus had been made gods from men, he said, “Their bodies were not borne up into heaven; for nature would not allow what came from the earth to remain anywhere but on the earth.” This is the great reasoning of the wise, whose thoughts the Lord knows, that they are futile.

For if we were souls only, that is, spirits without any body, and dwelt in heaven with no knowledge of earthly animals, and we were told that it would come about that we should be bound by a wonderful bond to animate earthly bodies, would we not argue much more strongly in refusing to believe it, and say that nature does not allow an incorporeal thing to be bound by a bodily tie? And yet the earth is full of souls giving life to these earthly members, connected and entwined with them in a wonderful way. Why, then, by the will of the same God who made this living creature, will an earthly body not be able to be raised up into a heavenly body, if a soul, more excellent than every body and therefore than a heavenly body too, could be bound to an earthly body? Could so small an earthly particle hold within it something better than a heavenly body, so as to have sensation and life, and will heaven disdain to receive it, sentient and living, or be unable to hold it once received, when it perceives and lives by this thing which is better than any heavenly body?

The reason it does not happen now is that the time has not yet come when he who willed it wishes it to happen, he who made this thing, which has grown cheap to us through being seen, far more wonderful than the thing they do not believe. For why do we not marvel more that incorporeal souls, which are superior to a heavenly body, are bound to earthly bodies, than that bodies, even though earthly, are raised to dwellings which, though heavenly, are still bodily, except that we are used to seeing the one, and are it, whereas the other we are not yet and have never yet seen? Surely, if sober reason is consulted, it is found to be a more wonderful divine work to weave bodily things in some fashion into incorporeal ones, than to join bodies to bodies, however different, the one heavenly and the other earthly, but bodies nonetheless.

### Scripture references

- Ps 94:11 (93:11 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 3:20: quotation, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Rep. 3.40 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The Cicero quotation is from Republic 3 (a fragment preserved here; frg. 3.40 in modern editions). “Whose thoughts the Lord knows, that they are futile” is Ps 94:11 (LXX 93:11) as cited in 1 Cor 3:20.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.4 (CSEL 40:586–588; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-2/#p-22-4).

## City of God 22.5

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-2/#p-22-5
- Source: CSEL 40:588–590
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues from three “incredible” facts, Christ's bodily resurrection and ascension, the world's belief in it, and its persuasion by a few unlearned fishermen, backed by the apostles' miracles, that the promised resurrection of the flesh is credible.

### Latin text

CAPUT V. De resurrectione carnis, quam quidam mundo credente non credunt. Sed hoc incredibile fuerit aliquando: ecce iam credidit mundus sublatum terrenum Christi corpus in caelum; resurrectionem carnis et adscensionem in supernas sedes, paucissimis remanentibus adque stupentibus uel doctis uel indoctis. iam crediderunt et docti et indocti. Si rem credibilem crediderunt, uideant quam sint stolidi, qui non credunt; si autem res incredibilis credita est, etiam hoc utique incredibile est. sic creditum esse, quod incredibile est. Haec igitur duo incredibilia, resurrectionem scilicet nostri corporis in aeternum et rem tam incredibilem mundum esse crediturum, idem Deus, antequam uel unum horum fieret, ambo futura esse praedixit. Unum duorum incredibilium iam factum uidemus, ut, quod erat incredibile, crederet mundus: quur id quod reliquum est desperatur, ut etiam hoc ueniat, quod incredibile credidit mundus, sicut iam uenit, quod similiter incredibile fuit, ut rem tam incredibilem crederet mundus, quando quidem hoc utrumque incredibile, quorum uidemus unum, alterum credimus, in eisdem litteris praedictum sit, per quas credidit mundus? Et ipse modus, quo mundus credidit, si consideretur. incredibilior inuenitur. Ineruditos liberalibus disciplinis et omnino, quantum ad istorum doctrinas adtinet, inpolitos, non peritos grammatica, non armatos dialectica, non rhetorica inflatos, piscatores Christus cum retibus fidei ad mare huius saeculi paucissimos misit adque ita et ex omni genere tam multos pisces et tanto mirabiliores, quanto rariores, etiam. ipsos philosophos cepit. Duobus illis incredibilibus, si placet, immo quia placere debet, addamus hoc tertium. Iam ergo tria sunt incredibilia, quae tamen facta sunt. Incredibile est Christum resurrexisse in carne et in caelum adscendisse cum carne; incredibile est mundum rem tam incredibilem credidisse; incredibile est homines ignobiles, infimos, paucissimos, inperitos rem tam incredibilem tam efficaciter mundo et in illo etiam doctis persuadere potuisse. Horum trium incredibilium primum nolunt isti, cum quibus agimus, credere; secundum coguntur et cernere: quod non inueniunt unde sit factum, si non credunt tertium. Resurrectio certe Christi et in caelum cum carne in qua resurrexit adscensio toto iam mundo praedicatur et creditur; si credibilis non est, unde toto terrarum orbe iam credita est? Si multi, nobiles, sublimes. docti eam se uidisse dixerunt et quod uiderunt diffamare curarunt, eis mundum credidisse non mirum est sed istos adhuc credere nolle perdurum est; si autem, ut uerum est, paucis, obscuris, minimis, indoctis eam se uidisse dicentibus et scribentibus credidit mundus, quur pauci obstinatissimi, qui remanserunt, ipsi mundo iam credenti adhuc usque non credunt? qui propterea numero exiguo ignobilium, infimorum, inperitorum hominum credidit, quia in tam contemtibilibus testibus multo mirabilius diuinitas se ipsa persuasit. Eloquia namque persuadentium, quae dicebant, mira fuerunt facta, non uerba Qui enim Christum in carne resurrexisse et cum illa in caelum adscendisse non uiderant, id se uidisse narrantibus non loquentibus tantum, sed etiam mirifica facientibus signa credebant. Homines quippe, quos unius uel, ut multum, duarum linguarum fuisse nouerant, repente linguis omnium gentium loquentes mirabiliter audiebant; claudum ab uberibus matris ad eorum uerbum in Christi nomine post quadraginta annos incolumem constitisse, sudaria de corporibus eorum ablata sanandis profuisse languentibus, in uia qua fuerant transituri positos in ordine innumerabiles morbis uariis laborantes, ut ambulantium super eos umbra transiret, continuo salutem solere recipere et alia multa stupenda in Christi nomine per eos facta, postremo etiam mortuos resurrexisse cernebant, Quae si, ut leguntur, gesta esse concedunt, ecce tot incredibilia tribus illis incredibilibus addimus, et ut credatur unum incredibile, quod de carnis resurrectione adque in caelum adscensione dicitur, multorum incredibilium testimonia tanta congerimus et nondum ad credendum horrenda duritia incredulos flectimus. Si uero per apostolos Christi, ut eis crederetur resurrectionem adque adscensionem praedicantibus Christi, etiam ista miracula facta esse non credunt, hoc nobis unum grande miraculum sufficit, quod eam terrarum orbis sine ullis miraculis credidit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 5. On the resurrection of the flesh, which some do not believe though the world believes it.

But suppose this was once incredible: see, the world has now believed that the earthly body of Christ was taken up into heaven. Learned and unlearned alike have now believed the resurrection of the flesh and its ascension to the heavenly seats, with very few, whether learned or unlearned, remaining in astonishment. If they believed something credible, let those who do not believe see how dull they are; but if an incredible thing has been believed, this too is certainly incredible, that what is incredible has been so believed. So the same God, before either of these happened, foretold that both would happen: these two incredible things, namely the resurrection of our body into eternity, and that the world would believe so incredible a thing. One of the two incredible things we already see accomplished, that the world should believe what was incredible. Why is the remaining one despaired of, that this too should come which the world believed though incredible, as that has already come which was likewise incredible, that the world should believe so incredible a thing? For both these incredible things, one of which we see and the other we believe, were foretold in the same writings through which the world believed.

And the very way in which the world believed is found, if it is considered, to be still more incredible. Christ sent out a very few fishermen with the nets of faith into the sea of this world, men untaught in the liberal disciplines and wholly unpolished as far as these people's learning is concerned, not skilled in grammar, not armed with dialectic, not puffed up with rhetoric; and so he caught fish of every kind, and so many, and the more wonderful the rarer they were, even the philosophers themselves. To those two incredible things let us, if you please, or rather because it ought to please, add this third. So there are now three incredible things which have nevertheless happened. It is incredible that Christ rose in the flesh and ascended into heaven with the flesh; it is incredible that the world believed so incredible a thing; it is incredible that obscure, lowly, very few and unskilled men could persuade the world, and the learned in it, of so incredible a thing so effectively. Of these three incredible things, the people we are dealing with refuse to believe the first; the second they are forced even to see, and they cannot find how it came about unless they believe the third.

Certainly the resurrection of Christ and his ascension into heaven with the flesh in which he rose is now preached and believed throughout the whole world. If it is not credible, how has it come to be believed throughout the whole world? If many noble, eminent, and learned men had said they saw it and had taken care to spread abroad what they saw, it would be no wonder that the world believed them, but it would be very hard that these people still refuse to believe. But if, as is true, the world believed a few obscure, very lowly, unlearned men who said and wrote that they had seen it, why do the few most obstinate people who remain still not believe the world itself, which now believes? The world believed a small number of obscure, lowly, unskilled men precisely because in such despised witnesses the divinity persuaded far more wonderfully on its own behalf. For the eloquence of those who persuaded, in what they said, consisted of wonderful deeds, not words. Those who had not seen Christ rise in the flesh and ascend into heaven with it believed those who told of having seen it, not because they only spoke but because they also did wonderful signs. For men whom they knew to have had one language or at most two they heard suddenly and wonderfully speaking in the languages of all nations; they saw a man lame from his mother's womb stand up whole at their word in the name of Christ after forty years; handkerchiefs taken from their bodies avail to heal the sick; countless people suffering from various diseases, laid in a row on the road by which they were to pass so that the shadow of the walkers might pass over them, regularly receive health at once; and many other astounding things done by them in the name of Christ; and finally they saw even the dead rise again. If these critics grant that these things were done as they are read, see, we add all these incredible things to those three incredible things, and to have one incredible thing believed, what is said of the resurrection of the flesh and its ascension into heaven, we amass such testimony from so many incredible things, and still we do not bend the unbelievers to belief from their dreadful hardness. But if they do not believe that these miracles too were done by Christ's apostles so that they would be believed when they preached Christ's resurrection and ascension, this one great miracle suffices us, that the whole earth believed it without any miracles.

### Scripture references

- Matt 4:19: allusion, medium confidence
- Acts 2:4: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 3:2: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 4:22: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 19:12: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 5:15: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 9:40: allusion, medium confidence
- Acts 20:9: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The apostles' miracles are from Acts: tongues (Acts 2:4–11), the man lame from birth, over forty years old (Acts 3:2–8; 4:22), handkerchiefs (Acts 19:12), Peter's shadow (Acts 5:15), the raising of the dead (Acts 9:36–41; 20:9–12). The “fishermen” image recalls Matt 4:19. The digital text opens an unmatched square bracket before “sed istos”; it is treated as a stray mark, since the words belong to the sentence.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.5 (CSEL 40:588–590; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-2/#p-22-5).

## City of God 22.6

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-2/#p-22-6
- Source: CSEL 40:590–594
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Contrasting Rome's belief in Romulus with the church's faith in Christ, Augustine argues that Rome made its founder a god by love, while the church, persuaded by miracles and prophecy, loved Christ by believing him God, and its martyrs died rather than deny him.

### Latin text

CAPUT VI. Quod Roma conditorem suum Romulum diligendo deum fecerit, ecclesia autem Christum Deum credendo dilexerit. Recolamus etiam hoc loco illud, quod de Romuli credita diuinitate Tullius admiratur. Verba eius ut scripta sunt inseram. Magis est, inquit, in Romulo admirandum, quod ceteri. qui di ex hominibus facti esse dicuntur, minus eruditis hominum saeculis fuerunt, ut fingendi procliuis esset ratio. cum inperiti facile ad credendum inpellerentur; Romuli autem aetatem minus his sescentis annis iam inueteratis litteris adque doctrinis omnique illo antiquo ex inculta hominum uita errore sublato fuisse cernimus. Et paulo post de eodem Romulo ita loquitur, quod ad hunc pertinet sensum: Ex quo intellegi potest, inquit, permultis annis ante Homerum fuisse quam Romulum. ut iam doctis hominibus ac temporibus ipsis eruditis ad fingendum uix quicquam esset loci. Antiquitas enim recipit fabulas, fictas etiam nonnumquam incondite; haec aetas autem iam exculta, praesertim eludens omne quod fieri non potest, respuit. Unus e numero doctissimorum hominum idemque eloquentissimus omnium Marcus Tullius Cicero propterea dicit diuinitatem Romuli mirabiliter creditam. quod erudita iam tempora fuerunt, quae falsitatem non reciperent fabularum. Quis autem Romulum deum nisi Roma credidit, adque id parua et incipiens? Tum deinde posteris seruare fuerat necesse quod acceperant a maioribus, ut cum ista superstitione in lacte quodam modo matris ebibita cresceret ciuitas adque ad tam magnum perueniret imperium, ut ex eius fastigio, uelut ex altiore quodam loco, alias quoque gentes, quibus dominaretur, hac sua opinione perfunderet, ut non quidem crederent, sed tamen dicerent deum Romulum, ne ciuitatem, cui seruiebant, de conditore eius offenderent. aliter eum nominando quam Roma, quae id non amore quidem huius erroris, sed tamen amoris errore crediderat. Christum autem quamquam sit caelestis et sempiternae conditor ciuitatis, non tamen eum, quoniam ab illo condita est, Deum credidit, sed ideo potius est condenda, quia credidit. Roma conditorem suum iam constructa et dedicata tamquam deum coluit in templo; haec autem Hierusalem conditorem suum Deum Christum, ut construi posset et dedicari, posuit in fidei fundamento. Illa illum amando esse deum credidit, ista istum Deum esse credendo amauit. Sicut ergo praecessit unde amaret illa et de amato iam libenter etiam falsum bonum crederet: ita praecessit unde ista crederet, ut recta fide non temere quod falsum, sed quod uerum erat amaret. Exceptis enim tot et tantis miraculis, quae persuaserunt Deum esse Christum. prophetiae quoque diuinae fide dignissimae praecesserunt, quae in illo non sicut a patribus adhuc creduntur inplendae, sed iam demonstrantur inpletae; de Romulo autem, quia condidit Romam in eaque regnauit, auditur legiturue quod factum est. non quod antequam fieret prophetatum; sed quod sit receptus in deos, creditum tenent litterae, non factum docent. Nullis quippe rerum mirabilium signis id ei uere prouenisse monstratur. Lupa quippe illa nutrix, quod uidetur quasi magnum exstitisse portentum, quale aut quantum est ad demonstrandum deum? Certe enim etsi non meretrix fuit lupa illa, sed bestia. cum commune fuerit ambobus, frater tamen eius non habetur deus. Quis autem prohibitus est aut Romulum aut Herculem aut alios tales homines deos dicere et mori maluit quam non dicere? Aut uero aliqua gentium coleret inter deos suos Romulum, nisi Romani nominis metus cogeret? Quis porro numeret, quam multi quantalibet saeuitia crudelitatis occidi quam Christum Deum negare maluerunt? Proinde metus quamlibet leuis indignationis, quae ab animis Romanorum, si non fieret, posse putabatur exsistere, conpellebat aliquas ciuitates positas sub iure Romano tamquam deum colere Romulum; a Christo autem Deo non solum colendo, uerum etiam confitendo tantam per orbis terrae populos martyrum multitudinem metus reuocare non potuit non leuis offensionis animorum, sed inmensarum uariarumque poenarum et ipsius mortis, quae plus ceteris formidatur. Neque tunc ciuitas Christi, quamuis adhuc peregrinaretur in terris et haberet tamen magnorum agmina populorum, aduersus inpios persecutores suos pro temporali salute pugnauit; sed potius, ut obtineret aeternam, non repugnauit. Ligabantur includebantur, caedebantur torquebantur, urebantur laniabantur, trucidabantur — et multiplicabantur. Non erat eis pro salute pugnare nisi salutem pro Saluatore contemnere. Scio in libro Ciceronis tertio, nisi fallor, de re publica disputari nullum bellum suscipi a ciuitate optima, nisi aut pro fide aut pro salute. Quid autem dicat pro salute uel intellegi quam salutem uelit, alio loco demonstrans: Sed his poenis, inquit, quas etiam stultissimi sentiunt, egestate exsilio, uinculis uerberibus, elabuntur saepe priuati oblata mortis celeritate; ciuitatibus autem mors ipsa poena est, quae uidetur a poena singulos uindicare. Debet enim constituta sic esse ciuitas, ut aeterna sit. Itaque nullus interitus est rei publicae naturalis, ut hominis, in quo mors non modo necessaria est, uerum etiam optanda persaepe. Ciuitas autem cum tollitur, deletur, exstinguitur: simile est quodam modo, ut parua magnis conferamus, ac si omnis hic mundus intereat et concidat. Hoc ideo dixit Cicero, quia mundum non interiturum cum Platonicis sentit. Constat ergo eum pro ea salute uoluisse bellum suscipi a ciuitate, qua fit ut maneat hic ciuitas, sicut dicit, aeterna, quamuis morientibus et nascentibus singulis. sicut perennis est opacitas oleae uel lauri adque huius modi ceterarum arborum singulorum lapsu ortuque foliorum. Mors quippe, ut dicit, non hominum singulorum, sed uniuersae poena est ciuitatis, quae a poena plerumque singulos uindicat. Unde merito quaeritur, utrum recte fecerint Saguntini, quando uniuersam ciuitatem suam interire maluerunt quam fidem frangere, qua cum ipsa Romana re publica tenebantur; in quo suo facto laudantur ab omnibus terrenae rei publicae ciuibus. Sed quo modo huic disputationi possent oboedire, non uideo. ubi dicitur nullum suscipiendum esse bellum nisi aut pro fide aut pro salute, nec dicitur, si in unum simul periculum ita duo ista concurrerint, ut teneri alterum sine alterius amissione non possit, quid sit potius eligendum. Profecto enim Saguntini si salutem eligerent, fides eis fuerat deserenda: si fides tenenda, amittenda utique salus, sicut factum est. Salus, autem ciuitatis Dei talis est, ut cum fide ac per fidem teneri uel potius adquiri possit; fide autem perdita ad eam quisque uenire non possit. Quae cogitatio firmissimi ac patientissimi cordis tot ac tantos martyres fecit, qualem ne unum quidem habuit uel habere potuit quando est deus creditus Romulus.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 6. That Rome made its founder Romulus a god by loving him, whereas the church loved Christ by believing him to be God.

Let us recall here too what Tullius says in wonder about the belief in Romulus's divinity. I shall insert his words as they are written. “What is more to be wondered at in Romulus,” he says, “is that the others who are said to have been made gods from men lived in less educated ages of mankind, when there was a ready ground for invention, since the unskilled were easily moved to believe; but we see that Romulus's age was less than six hundred years ago, when letters and learning had already grown old and all the old error arising from the uncultivated life of men had been removed.” And a little later he speaks thus of the same Romulus, to this effect: “From this it can be understood,” he says, “that Homer lived very many years before Romulus, so that, as men were now learned and the times themselves educated, there was scarcely any room for invention. For antiquity accepted fables, sometimes even crudely invented; but this age, already cultivated, especially mocking everything that cannot happen, rejected them.” One of the most learned of men, and at the same time the most eloquent of all, Marcus Tullius Cicero, says that the divinity of Romulus was believed in a wonderful way because the times were already educated and would not accept the falsehood of fables.

But who believed Romulus a god except Rome, and that when it was small and just beginning? After that, later generations had to keep what they had received from their forefathers, so that, with this superstition drunk in, as it were, with its mother's milk, the city grew and came to so great an empire that from its summit, as from a higher place, it poured this opinion of its own over the other nations too that it ruled, so that they did not indeed believe, but still said, that Romulus was a god, so as not to offend the city they served by naming its founder otherwise than Rome did, which had believed it not indeed from love of this error, but still by the error of love. Christ, however, though he is the founder of the heavenly and everlasting city, was not believed God by it because it was founded by him; rather, it is to be founded because it believed. Rome, already built and dedicated, worshipped its founder as a god in a temple; but this Jerusalem set Christ its founder, God, in the foundation of faith, so that it could be built and dedicated. The one believed him a god by loving him; the other loved him by believing him God. As, then, there went before the one a reason for loving, so that it then gladly believed even a false good of the one it loved, so there went before the other a reason for believing, so that by right faith it might love not rashly what was false but what was true.

For apart from so many great miracles which persuaded men that Christ is God, divine prophecies too, most worthy of belief, went before, which in him are not believed as still to be fulfilled, as they were by the fathers, but are now shown to be fulfilled. Of Romulus, however, we hear or read that he founded Rome and reigned in it, which is what happened, not what was prophesied before it happened; but as for his being received among the gods, the records hold that it was believed, not that it happened. For by no signs of wonders is it shown that this truly befell him. That she-wolf, his nurse, which seems to have been a great portent of a sort, what or how much does it amount to for showing him a god? Certainly, even if that she-wolf was not a harlot but a beast, yet since she was common to both, his brother is not held to be a god. And who was ever forbidden to call Romulus or Hercules or other such men gods, and chose to die rather than not say it? Or would any of the nations worship Romulus among its gods unless fear of the Roman name compelled it? But who can count how many chose to be killed with any degree of cruel savagery rather than deny that Christ is God? So fear of indignation, however slight, which it was thought could arise in Roman minds if this were not done, drove certain cities under Roman rule to worship Romulus as a god; but from worshipping Christ as God, and even from confessing him, fear could not call back so great a multitude of martyrs among the peoples of the whole world, fear not of slight offence of minds but of immense and varied punishments and of death itself, which is dreaded more than the rest.

Nor did the city of Christ at that time, though it was still a pilgrim on earth and yet had hosts of great peoples, fight against its ungodly persecutors for its temporal safety; rather, to obtain eternal safety, it did not resist. They were bound, shut up, beaten, tortured, burned, torn, slaughtered, and they multiplied. For them to fight for their safety was nothing other than to despise safety for the Saviour. I know that in the third book of Cicero's Republic, unless I am mistaken, it is argued that no war is undertaken by the best city except either for good faith or for safety. What he means by “for safety,” or what safety he intends us to understand, he shows in another place: “But from these punishments,” he says, “which even the most foolish feel, poverty, exile, chains, and beatings, private persons often escape by the swiftness of death offered them; but for cities death itself is a punishment, though it seems to free individuals from punishment. For a city ought to be so established that it is eternal. So there is no natural death for a commonwealth, as there is for a man, in whom death is not only necessary but often even desirable. But when a city is destroyed, blotted out, extinguished, it is in a way as if (to compare small things with great) this whole world were to perish and collapse.” Cicero said this because he held with the Platonists that the world will not perish. It is clear, then, that he wished war to be undertaken by a city for that safety by which a city remains here, as he says, eternal, though individuals die and are born, just as the shade of an olive or laurel and other such trees is perennial through the falling and growing of individual leaves. For death, as he says, is the punishment not of individual men but of the whole city, and it often frees individuals from punishment.

Hence one may rightly ask whether the Saguntines acted rightly when they chose that their whole city should perish rather than break the faith by which they were bound to the Roman commonwealth itself, a deed for which they are praised by all the citizens of the earthly commonwealth. But I do not see how they could have obeyed this argument, in which it is said that no war should be undertaken except for good faith or for safety, and it is not said which should be preferred if the two meet in one danger at once, so that one cannot be kept without losing the other. For clearly, if the Saguntines chose safety, they would have had to abandon faith; if faith was to be kept, safety certainly had to be lost, as happened. But the safety of the city of God is such that it can be kept, or rather gained, with faith and through faith; once faith is lost, no one can come to it. It is this thought of a most steadfast and patient heart that made so many great martyrs, such as Romulus neither had nor could have had even one when he was believed to be a god.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Rep. 2.18–19 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence
- Cicero, Rep. 3.34 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The Cicero quotations are from Republic 2.18–19 and 3.34 (the latter as preserved here). The Saguntines (219 BC) chose destruction by Hannibal rather than break their alliance with Rome. “Not a harlot but a beast” plays on lupa, which also meant a prostitute (the rationalizing account of Romulus's nurse).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.6 (CSEL 40:590–594; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-2/#p-22-6).

## City of God 22.7

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-2/#p-22-7
- Source: CSEL 40:594–595
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: In more educated times than Romulus's, the world could have come to believe Christ's bodily resurrection and ascension only through divine power, prophecy, and miracles, despite persecution.

### Latin text

CAPUT VII. Quod ut mundus in Christum crederet, uirtutis fuerit diuinae, non persuasionis humanae. Sed ualde ridiculum est de Romuli falsa diuinitate, cum de Christo loquimur, facere mentionem. Verum tamen cum sescentis ferme annis ante Ciceronem Romulus fuerit adque illa aetas iam fuisse doctrinis dicatur exculta, ut quod fieri non potest omne respueret: quanto magis post sescentos annos ipsius tempore Ciceronis maximeque postea sub Augusto adque Tiberio, eruditioribus utique temporibus, resurrectionem carnis Christi adque in caelum adscensionem, tamquam id quod fieri non potest, mens humana ferre non posset eludensque ab auribus cordibusque respueret, nisi eam fieri potuisse adque factam esse diuinitas ipsius ueritatis uel diuinitatis ueritas et contestantia miraculorum signa monstrarent; ut terrentibus et contradicentibus tam multis tamque magnis persecutionibus praecedens in Christo, deinde in ceteris ad nouum saeculum secutura resurrectio adque inmortalitas carnis et fidelissime crederetur et praedicaretur intrepide et per orbem terrae pullulatura fecundius cum martyrum sanguine sereretur. Legebantur enim praeconia praecedentia prophetarum, concurrebant ostenta uirtutum, et persuadebatur ueritas noua consuetudini. non contraria rationi, donec orbis terrae, qui persequebatur furore, sequeretur fide.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 7. That the world's belief in Christ was the work of divine power, not of human persuasion.

But it is quite ridiculous to mention the false divinity of Romulus when we are speaking of Christ. Yet if Romulus lived almost six hundred years before Cicero, and that age is said to have been already so cultivated by learning that it rejected everything that cannot happen, how much more, six hundred years later, in Cicero's own time, and above all afterwards under Augustus and Tiberius, in times certainly more educated, would the human mind have been unable to bear the resurrection of Christ's flesh and its ascension into heaven, as something that cannot happen, and would have mocked it and rejected it from ears and hearts, had not the divinity of the truth itself, or the truth of the divinity, and the attesting signs of miracles shown that it could happen and had happened. So, while so many great persecutions terrified and opposed it, the resurrection and immortality of the flesh, first in Christ and afterwards to follow in the rest for the new age, was most faithfully believed and fearlessly preached, and was sown throughout the world with the blood of the martyrs, to spring up more fruitfully. For the foregoing proclamations of the prophets were read, displays of power concurred, and the truth persuaded, new to custom but not contrary to reason, until the world, which persecuted it in fury, followed it in faith.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.7 (CSEL 40:594–595; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-2/#p-22-7).

## City of God 22.8

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-8/#p-22-8
- Source: CSEL 40:595–612
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine argues that miracles attested Christ's resurrection and ascension and still occur, and he recounts healings and raisings he witnessed or verified in Milan, Carthage, Hippo, Calama, and Uzalis, many at shrines holding relics of Stephen.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIII. De miraculis, quae ut mundus in Christum crederet facta sunt et fieri mundo credente non desinunt. Quur, inquiunt, nunc illa miracula, quae praedicatis facta esse, non fiunt? Possem quidem dicere necessaria fuisse. priusquam crederet mundus, ad hoc ut crederet mundus. Quisquis adhuc prodigia ut credat inquirit, magnum est ipse prodigium, qui mundo credente non credit. Verum hoc ideo dicunt, ut nec tunc illa miracula facta fuisse credantur. Unde ergo tanta fide Christus usquequaque cantatur in caelum cum carne sublatus? Unde temporibus eruditis et omne quod fieri non potest respuentibus sine ullis miraculis nimium mirabiliter incredibilia credidit mundus? An forte credibilia fuisse et ideo credita esse dicturi sunt? Quur ergo ipsi non credunt? Breuis est igitur nostra conplexio: Aut incredibilis rei, quae non uidebatur, alia incredibilia, quae tamen fiebant et uidebantur, fecerunt fidem; aut certe res ita credibilis, ut nullis quibus persuaderetur miraculis indigeret, istorum nimiam redarguit infidelitatem. Hoc ad refellendos uanissimos dixerim. Nam facta esse multa miracula, quae adtestarentur illi uni grandi salubrique miraculo, quo Christus in caelum cum carne in qua resurrexit adscendit, negare non possumus. In eisdem quippe ueracissimis libris cuncta conscripta sunt, et quae facta sunt, et propter quod credendum facta sunt. Haec, ut fidem facerent, innotuerunt; haec per fidem, quam fecerunt, multo clarius innotescunt. Leguntur quippe in populis, ut credantur; nec in populis tamen nisi credita legerentur. Nam etiam nunc fiunt miracula in eius nomine, siue per sacramenta eius siue per orationes uel memorias sanctorum eius; sed non eadem claritate inlustrantur, ut tanta quanta illa gloria diffamentur. Canon quippe sacrarum litterarum, quem definitum esse oportebat, illa facit ubique recitari et memoriae cunctorum inhaerere populorum; haec autem ubicumque fiunt. ibi sciuntur uix a tota ipsa ciuitate uel quocumque commanentium loco. Nam plerumque etiam ibi paucissimi sciunt ignorantibus ceteris, maxime si magna sit ciuitas; et quando alibi aliisque narrantur, non tanta ea commendat auctoritas. ut sine difficultate uel dubitatione credantur, quamuis Christianis fidelibus a fidelibus indicentur. Miraculum, quod Mediolani factum est, cum illic essemus, quando inluminatus est caecus, ad multorum notitiam potuit peruenire, quia et grandis est ciuitas et ibi erat tunc imperator et inmenso populo teste res gesta est concurrente ad corpora martyrum Protasii et Geruasii; quae cum laterent et penitus nescirentur, episcopo Ambrosio per somnium reuelata reperta sunt; ubi caecus ille depulsis ueteribus tenebris diem uidit. Aput Carthaginem autem quis nouit praeter admodum paucissimos salutem, quae facta est Innocentio, ex aduocato uicariae praefecturae, ubi nos interfuimus et oculis adspeximus nostris? Venientes enim de transmarinis me et fratrem meum Alypium, nondum quidem clericos, sed iam Deo seruientes, ut erat cum tota domo sua religiosissimus, ipse susceperat, et aput eum tunc habitabamus. Curabatur a medicis fistulas, quas numerosas adque perplexas habuit in posteriore adque ima corporis parte. Iam secuerant eum et artis suae cetera medicamentis agebant. Passus autem fuerat in sectione illa et diuturnos et acerbos dolores. Sed unus inter multos sinus fefellerat medicos adque ita latuerat, ut eum non tangerent, quem ferro aperire debuerant. Denique sanatis omnibus, quae aperta curabant, iste remanserat solus, cui frustra inpendebatur labor. Quas moras ille suspectas habens multumque formidans, ne iterum secaretur (quod ei praedixerat alius medicus domesticus eius, quem non admiserant illi, ut saltem uideret, cum primum sectus est, quo modo id facerent, iratusque illum domo abiecerat uixque receperat), erupit adque ait: Iterum me secturi estis? Ad illius, quem noluistis esse praesentem, uerba uenturus sum? Inridere illi medicum inperitum metumque hominis bonis uerbis promissionibusque lenire. Praeterierunt alii dies plurimi nihilque proficiebat omne quod fiebat. Medici tamen in sua pollicitatione persistebant, non se illum sinum ferro, sed medicamentis esse clausuros. Adhibuerunt et alium grandaeuum iam medicum satisque in illa arte laudatum (adhuc enim uiuebat), Ammonium, qui loco inspecto idem quod illi ex eorum diligentia peritiaque promisit. Cuius ille factus auctoritate securus domestico suo medico, qui futuram praedixerat aliam sectionem, faceta hilaritate, uelut iam saluus, inlusit. Quid plura? Tot dies postea inaniter consumti transierunt, ut fessi adque confusi faterentur eum nisi ferro nullo modo posse sanari. Expauit, expalluit nimio timore turbatus, adque ubi se collegit farique potuit, abire illos iussit et ad se amplius non accedere; nec aliud occurrit fatigato lacrimis et illa iam necessitate constricto. nisi ut adhiberet Alexandrinum quendam, qui tunc chirurgus mirabilis habebatur, ut ipse faceret quod ab illis fieri nolebat iratus. Sed postea quam uenit ille laboremque illorum in cicatricibus sicut artifex uidit, boni uiri functus officio persuasit homini, ut illi potius, qui in eo tantum laborauerant, quantum ipse inspiciens mirabatur, suae curationis fine fruerentur, adiciens, quod re uera nisi sectus esset saluus esse non posset; ualde abhorrere a suis moribus, ut hominibus, quorum artificiosissimam operam industriam diligentiam mirans in cicatricibus eius uideret, propter exiguum quod remansit palmam tanti laboris auferret. Redditi sunt animo eius, et placuit ut eodem Alexandrino adsistente ipsi sinum illum ferro, qui iam consensu omnium aliter insanabilis putabatur, aperirent. Quae res dilata est in consequentem diem. Sed cum abissent illi, ex maerore nimio domini tantus est in domo illa exortus dolor, ut tamquam funeris planctus uix conprimeretur a nobis. Visitabant eum cottidie sancti uiri. episcopus tunc Uzalensis, beatae memoriae Saturninus, et presbyter Gulosus ac diaconi Carthaginensis ecclesiae; in quibus erat et is qui solus est nunc in rebus humanis iam episcopus cum honore a nobis debito nominandus Aurelius, cum quo recordantes mirabilia operum Dei de hac re saepe conlocuti sumus eumque ualde meminisse, quod commemoramus, inuenimus. Qui cum eum, sicut solebant, uespere uisitarent, rogauit eos miserabilibus lacrimis, ut mane dignarentur esse praesentes suo funeri potius quam dolori. Tantus enim eum metus ex prioribus inuaserat poenis, ut se inter medicorum manus non dubitaret esse moriturum. Consolati sunt eum illi et hortati, ut in Deo fideret eiusque uoluntatem uiriliter ferret. Inde ad orationem ingressi sumus; ubi nobis ex more genua figentibus adque incumbentibus terrae ille se ita proiecit, tamquam fuisset aliquo grauiter inpellente prostratus, et coepit orare: quibus modis, quo adfectu, quo motu animi, quo fluuio lacrimarum, quibus gemitibus adque singultibus subcutientibus omnia membra eius et paene intercludentibus spiritum, quis ullis explicet uerbis? Utrum orarent alii nec in haec eorum auerteretur intentio, nesciebam. Ego tamen prorsus orare non poteram; hoc tantummodo breuiter in corde meo dixi: Domine, quas tuorum preces exaudis, si has non exaudis? Nihil enim mihi uidebatur addi iam posse, nisi ut exspiraret orando. Surreximus et accepta ab episcopo benedictione discessimus. rogante illo ut mane adessent, illis ut aequo animo esset hortantibus. Inluxit dies qui metuebatur, aderant serui Dei, sicut se adfuturos esse promiserant, ingressi sunt medici, parantur omnia quae hora illa poscebat, tremenda ferramenta proferuntur adtonitis suspensisque omnibus. Eis autem, quorum erat maior auctoritas, defectum animi eius consolando erigentibus ad manus sectoris membra in lectulo conponuntur, soluuntur nodi ligamentorum, nudatur locus, inspicit medicus et secandum illum sinum armatus adque intentus inquirit Scrutatur oculis digitisque contrectat, tentat denique modis omnibus: inuenit firmissimam cicatricem. Iam laetitia illa et laus adque gratiarum actio misericordi et omnipotenti Deo, quae fusa est ore omnium lacrimantibus gaudiis, non est committenda meis uerbis: cogitetur potius quam dicatur. In eadem Carthagine Innocentia, religiosissima femina, de primariis ipsius ciuitatis, in mamilla cancrum habebat, rem. sicut medici dicunt, nullis medicamentis sanabilem. Aut ergo praecidi solet et a corpore separari membrum ubi nascitur, aut, ut aliquanto diutius homo uiuat, tamen inde morte quamlibet tardius adfutura, secundum Hippocratis ut ferunt sententiam omnis est omittenda curatio. Hoc illa a perito medico et suae domui familiarissimo acceperat et ad solum Deum se orando conuerterat. Admonetur in somnis propinquante Pascha, ut in parte feminarum obseruanti ad baptisterium, quaecumque illi baptizata primitus occurrisset. signaret ei locum signo Christi. Fecit, confestim sanitas consecuta est. Medicus sane, qui ei dixerat ut nihil curationis adhiberet. si paulo diutius uellet uiuere, cum inspexisset eam postea et sanissimam conperisset, quam prius habere illud malum tali inspectione cognouerat, quaesiuit ab ea uehementer quid adhibuisset [curationis], cupiens, quantum intellegi datur. nosse medicamentum, quo Hippocratis definitio uinceretur. Cumque ab ea quid factum esset audisset, uoce uelut contemnentis et uultu, ita ut illa metueret, ne aliquod contumeliosum uerbum proferret in Christum, religiosa urbanitate respondisse fertur: Putabam, inquit, magnum aliquid te mihi fuisse dicturam. Adque illa iam exhorrescente, mox addidit: Quid grande fecit Christus sanare cancrum, qui quadriduanum mortuum suscitauit? Hoc ego cum audissem et uehementer stomacharer in illa ciuitate adque in illa persona non utique obscura factum tam ingens miraculum sic latere, hinc eam et admonendam et paene obiurgandam putaui. Quae cum mihi respondisset non se inde tacuisse, quaesiui ab eis, quas forte tunc matronas amicissimas secum habebat, utrum hoc antea scissent. Responderunt se omnino nescisse. Ecce, inquam, quo modo non taces, ut nec istae audiant, quae tibi tanta familiaritate iunguntur. Et quia breuiter ab ea quaesiueram, feci ut, illis audientibus multumque mirantibus et glorificantibus Deum, totum ex ordine, quem ad modum gestum fuerit, indicaret. Medicum quendam podagrum in eadem urbe fuisse scimus; qui cum dedisset nomen ad baptismum et pridie quam baptizaretur in somnis a pueris nigris cirratis, quos intellegebat daemones, baptizari eodem anno prohibitus fuisset eisque non obtemperans etiam conculcantibus pedes eius in dolorem acerrimum, qualem numquam expertus est, aestuasset, magisque eos uincens lauacro regenerationis, ut uouerat, ablui non distulisset, in baptismate ipso non solum dolore, quo ultra solitum cruciabatur, uerum etiam podagra caruisse nec amplius, cum diu postea uixisset, pedes doluisse quis nouit? Nos tamen nouimus et paucissimi fratres ad quos id potuit peruenire. Ex mimo quidam Curubitanus non solum a paralysi, uerum etiam ab informi pondere genitalium, cum baptizaretur, saluus effectus est et liberatus utraque molestia, tamquam mali nihil habuisset in corpore, de fonte regenerationis adscendit. Quis hoc praeter Curubim nouit et praeter rarissimos aliquos, qui hoc ubicumque audire potuerunt? Nos autem cum hoc conperissemus, iubente sancto episcopo Aurelio etiam ut ueniret Carthaginem fecimus, quamuis a talibus prius audierimus, de quorum fide dubitare non possemus. Vir tribunicius Hesperius aput nos est; habet in territorio Fussalensi fundum (Zubedi appellatur); ubi cum adflictione animalium et seruorum suorum domum suam spirituum malignorum uim noxiam perpeti conperisset, rogauit nostros me absente presbyteros, ut aliquis eorum illo pergeret, cuius orationibus cederent. Perrexit unus, obtulit ibi sacrificium corporis Christi, orans quantum potuit, ut cessaret illa uexatio: Deo protinus miserante cessauit. Acceperat autem ab amico suo terram sanctam de Hierosolymis adlatam, ubi sepultus Christus die tertio resurrexit, eamque suspenderat in cubiculo suo, ne quid mali etiam ipse pateretur. Ast ubi domus eius ab illa infestatione purgata est, quid de illa terra fieret, cogitabat, quam diutius in cubiculo suo reuerentiae causa habere nolebat. Forte accidit, ut ego et collega tunc meus, episcopus Sinitensis ecclesiae Maximinus, in proximo essemus; ut ueniremus rogauit, et uenimus. Cumque nobis omnia rettulisset. etiam hoc petiuit, ut infoderetur alicubi adque ibi orationum locus fieret, ubi etiam Christiani possent ad celebranda quae Dei sunt congregari. Non restitimus; factum est. Erat ibi iuuenis paralyticus rusticanus. Hoc audito petiuit a parentibus suis, ut illum ad eum locum sanctum non cunctanter adferrent. Quo cum fuisset adlatus, orauit, adque inde continuo pedibus suis saluus abscessit. Victoriana dicitur uilla, ab Hippone Regio minus triginta milibus abest. Memoria martyrum ibi est Mediolanensium Protasii et Geruasii. Portatus est eo quidam adulescens, qui cum die medio tempore aestatis equum ablueret in fluminis gurgite, daemonem incurrit. Ibi cum iaceret uel morti proximus uel simillimus mortuo, ad uespertinos illuc hymnos et orationes cum ancillis suis et quibusdam sanctimonialibus ex more domina possessionis intrauit adque hymnos cantare coeperunt. Qua uoce ille quasi percussus excussus est et cum terribili fremitu altare adprehensum mouere non audens siue non ualens, tamquam eo fuerit adligatus aut adfixus, tenebat et cum grandi eiulatu parci sibi rogans confitebatur, ubi adulescentem et quando et quo modo inuaserit. Postremo se exiturum esse denuntians membra eius singula nominabat, quae se amputaturum exiens minabatur, adque inter haec uerba discessit ab homine. Sed oculus eius in maxillam fusus tenui uenula ab interiore quasi radice pendebat, totumque eius medium, quod nigellum fuerat, albicauerat. Quo uiso qui aderant (concurrerant autem etiam alii uocibus eius acciti et se omnes in orationem pro illo strauerant), quamuis eum sana mente stare gauderent, rursus tamen propter eius oculum contristati medicum quaerendum esse dicebant. Ibi maritus sororis eius, qui eum illo detulerat: Potens est, inquit, Deus sanctorum orationibus, qui fugauit daemonem, lumen reddere. Tum, sicut potuit, oculum lapsum adque pendentem loco suo reuocatum ligauit orario nec nisi post septem dies putauit esse soluendum. Quod cum fecisset, sanissimum inuenit. Sanati sunt illic et alii, de quibus dicere longum est. Hipponiensem quandam uirginem scio, cum se oleo perunxisset, cui pro illa orans presbyter instillauerat lacrimas suas, mox a daemonio fuisse sanatam. Scio etiam episcopum semel pro adulescente, quem non uidit, orasse illumque ilico daemone caruisse. Erat quidam senex Florentius Hipponiensis noster, homo religiosus et pauper; sartoris se arte pascebat; casulam perdiderat et unde sibi emeret non habebat; ad uiginti martyres. quorum memoria est aput nos celeberrima, clara uoce ut uestiretur orauit. Audierunt eum adulescentes qui forte aderant inrisores eumque discedentem exagitantes prosequebantur: quasi a martyribus quinquagenos folles, unde uestimentum emeret, petiuisset. At ille tacitus ambulans eiectum grandem piscem palpitantem uidit in litore eumque illis fauentibus adque adiuuantibus adprehendit et cuidam coquo, Catoso nomine, bene Christiano, ad coquinam conditariam,. indicans quid gestum sit, trecentis follibus uendidit, lanam conparare inde disponens, ut uxor eius quo modo posset ei quo indueretur efficeret. Sed coquus concidens piscem anulum aureum in uentriculo eius inuenit moxque miseratione flexus et religione perterritus homini eum reddidit dicens: Ecce quo modo te uiginti martyres uestierunt. Ad aquas Tibilitanas episcopo adferente Praeiecto martyris gloriosissimi Stephani memoria ueniebat magnae multitudinis concursu et occursu. Ibi caeca mulier, ut ad episcopum portantem duceretur, orauit; flores, quos ferebat, dedit, recepit. oculis admouit, protinus uidit. Stupentibus qui aderant praeibat exsultans, uiam carpens et uiae ducem ulterius non requirens. Memorati memoriam martyris, quae posita est in castello Sinitensi, quod Hipponiensi coloniae uicinum est, eiusdem loci Lucilius episcopus populo praecedente adque sequente portabat. Fistula, cuius molestia iam diu laborauerat et familiarissimi sui medici, qui eum secaret, opperiebatur manus, illius piae sarcinae uectatione repente sanata est; nam deinceps eam in suo corpore non inuenit. Eucharius est presbyter ex Hispania, Calamae habitat, uetere morbo calculi laborabat; per memoriam supradicti martyris, quam Possidius illo aduexit episcopus, saluus factus est. Idem ipse postea morbo alio praeualescente mortuus sic iacebat, ut ei iam pollices ligarentur; opitulatione memorati martyris, cum de memoria eius reportata esset et super iacentis corpus missa ipsius presbyteri tunica, suscitatus est. Fuit ibi uir in ordine suo primarius, nomine Martialis, aeuo iam grauis et multum abhorrens a religione Christiana. Habebat sane fidelem filiam et generum eodem anno baptizatum. Qui cum eum aegrotantem multis et magnis lacrimis rogarent, ut fieret Christianus, prorsus abnuit eosque a se turbida indignatione submouit. Visum est genero eius, ut iret ad memoriam sancti Stephani et illic pro eo quantum posset oraret, ut Deus illi daret mentem bonam, qua credere non differret in Christum. Fecit hoc ingenti gemitu et fletu et sinceriter ardente pietatis adfectu; deinde abscedens aliquid de altari florum, quod occurrit, tulit eique, cum iam nox esset, ad caput posuit; tum dormitum est. Et ecce ante diluculum clamat, ut ad episcopum curreretur, qui mecum forte tunc erat aput Hipponem. Cum ergo eum audisset absentem, uenire presbyteros postulauit. Venerunt, credere se dixit, admirantibus adque gaudentibus omnibus baptizatus est. Hoc, quamdiu uixit, in ore habebat: Christe, accipe spiritum meum; cum haec uerba beatissimi Stephani, quando lapidatus est a Iudaeis, ultima fuisse nesciret; quae huic quoque ultima fuerunt; nam non multo post etiam ipse defunctus est. Sanati sunt illic per eundem martyrem etiam podagri duo ciues, peregrinus unus: sed ciues omni modo; peregrinus autem per reuelationem, quid adhiberet quando doleret, audiuit; et cum hoc fecerit, dolor continuo conquiescit Audurus nomen est fundi, ubi ecclesia et in ea memoria martyris Stephani. Puerum quendam paruulum, cum in area luderet, exorbitantes boues, qui uehiculum trahebant, rota obtriuerunt, et confestim palpitauit exspirans. Hunc mater arreptum ad eandem memoriam posuit, et non solum reuixit. uerum etiam inlaesus apparuit. Sanctimonialis quaedam in uicina possessione, quae Caspaliana dicitur, cum aegritudine laboraret ac desperaretur, ad eandem memoriam tunica eius adlata est; quae antequam reuocaretur, illa defuncta est. Hac tamen tunica operuerunt cadauer eius parentes, et recepto spiritu salua facta est. Aput Hipponem Bassus quidam Syrus ad memoriam eiusdem martyris orabat pro aegrotante et periclitante filia eoque secum uestem eius adtulerat, cum ecce pueri de domo cucurrerunt, qui ei mortuam nuntiarent. Sed cum orante illo ab amicis eius exciperentur, prohibuerunt eos illi dicere, ne per publicum plangeret. Qui cum domum redisset iam suorum eiulatibus personantem et uestem filiae, quam ferebat, super eam proiecisset, reddita est uitae. Rursus ibidem aput nos Irenaei cuiusdam collectarii filius aegritudine exstinctus est. Cumque corpus iaceret exanime adque a lugentibus et lamentantibus exsequiae pararentur, amicorum eius quidam inter aliorum consolantium uerba suggessit, ut eiusdem martyris oleo corpus perungueretur. Factum est, et reuixit. Itemque aput nos uir tribunicius Eleusinus super memoriam martyrum, quae in suburbano eius est, aegritudine exanimatum posuit infantulum filium, et post orationem, quam multis cum lacrimis ibi fudit, uiuentem leuauit. Quid faciam? Urget huius operis inplenda promissio, ut non hic possim omnia commemorare quae scio; et procul dubio plerique nostrorum, cum haec legent, dolebunt me praetermisisse tam multa, quae utique mecum sciunt. Quos iam nunc, ut ignoscant, rogo, et cogitent quam prolixi laboris sit facere. quod me hic non facere suscepti operis necessitas cogit. Si enim miracula sanitatum, ut alia taceam, ea tantummodo uelim scribere, quae per hunc martyrem, id est gloriosissimum Stephanum, facta sunt in colonia Calamensi et in nostra, plurimi conficiendi sunt libri, nec tamen omnia colligi poterunt, sed tantum de quibus libelli dati sunt, qui recitarentur in populis. Id namque fieri uoluimus, cum uideremus antiquis similia diuinarum signa uirtutum etiam nostris temporibus frequentari et ea non debere multorum notitiae deperire. Nondum est autem biennium, ex quo aput Hipponem Regium coepit esse ista memoria, et multis, quod nobis certissimum est, non datis libellis de his, quae mirabiliter facta sunt, illi ipsi qui dati sunt ad septuaginta ferme numerum peruenerant, quando ista conscripsi. Calamae uero, ubi et ipsa memoria prius esse coepit et crebrius dantur, inconparabili multitudine superant. Uzali etiam, quae colonia Uticae uicina est, multa praeclara per eundem martyrem facta cognouimus; cuius ibi memoria longe prius quam aput nos ab episcopo Euodio constituta est. Sed libellorum dandorum ibi consuetudo non est uel potius non fuit; nam fortasse nunc esse iam coepit. Cum enim nuper illic essemus, Petroniam, clarissimam feminam. quae ibi mirabiliter ex magno adque diuturno, in quo medicorum adiutoria cuncta defecerant, languore sanata est, hortati sumus, uolente supradicto loci episcopo, ut libellum daret, qui recitaretur in populo, et oboedientissime paruit. In quo. posuit etiam, quod hic reticere non possum, quamuis ad ea, quae hoc opus urgent, festinare conpellar. A quodam Iudaeo dixit sibi fuisse persuasum, ut anulum capillacio uinculo insereret, quo sub omni ueste ad nuda corporis cingeretur; qui anulus haberet sub gemma lapidem in renibus inuentum bouis. Hoc adligata quasi remedio ad sancti martyris limina ueniebat. Sed profecta a Carthagine, cum in confinio fluminis Bagradae in sua possessione mansisset, surgens ut iter perageret ante pedes suos illum iacentem anulum uidit et capillaciam zonam, qua fuerat adligatus, mirata tentauit. Quam cum omnino suis nodis firmissimis, sicut erat, conperisset adstrictam, crepuisse adque exsiluisse anulum suspicata est; qui etiam ipse cum integerrimus fuisset inuentus, futurae salutis quodam modo pignus de tanto miraculo se accepisse praesumsit adque illud uinculum soluens simul cum eodem anulo proiecit in flumen. Non credant hoc, qui etiam Dominum Iesum per integra matris uirginalia enixum et ad discipulos ostiis clausis ingressum fuisse non credunt; sed hoc certe quaerant et, si uerum inuenerint, illa credant. Clarissima femina est, nobiliter nata, nobiliter nupta, Carthagini habitat; ampla ciuitas, ampla persona rem quaerentes latere non sinit. Martyr certe ipse, quo inpetrante illa sanata est, in filium permanentis uirginis credidit: in eum, qui ostiis clausis ad discipulos ingressus est, credidit; postremo. propter quod omnia ista dicuntur a nobis, in eum, qui adscendit in caelum cum carne, in qua resurrexerat, credidit; et ideo per eum tanta fiunt, quia pro ista fide animam posuit. Fiunt ergo etiam nunc multa miracula eodem Deo faciente per quos uult et quem ad modum uult, qui et illa quae legimus fecit: sed ista nec similiter innotescunt neque, ut non excidant animo, quasi glarea memoriae, crebra lectione tunduntur. Nam et ubi diligentia est, quae nunc aput nos esse coepit, ut libelli eorum, qui beneficia percipiunt, recitentur in populo, semel hoc audiunt qui adsunt pluresque non adsunt, ut nec illi, qui adfuerunt, post aliquot dies quod audierunt mente retineant et uix quisque reperiatur illorum, qui ei, quem non adfuisse cognouerit, indicet quod audiuit. Unum est aput nos factum, non maius quam illa quae dixi, sed tam clarum adque inlustre miraculum, ut nullum arbitrer esse Hipponiensium, qui hoc non uel uiderit uel didicerit, nullum qui obliuisci ulla ratione potuerit. Decem quidam fratres (quorum septem sunt mares, tres feminae) de Caesarea Cappadociae, suorum ciuium non ignobiles, maledicto matris recenti patris eorum obitu destitutae, quae iniuriam sibi ab eis factam acerbissime tulit, tali poena sunt diuinitus coherciti, ut horribiliter quaterentur omnes tremore membrorum; in qua foedissima specie oculos suorum ciuium non ferentes, quaqua uersum cuique ire uisum est, toto paene uagabantur orbe Romano. Ex his etiam ad nos uenerunt duo, frater et soror, Paulus et Palladia, multis aliis locis miseria diffamante iam cogniti. Venerunt autem ante Pascha ferme dies quindecim, ecclesiam cottidie et in ea memoriam gloriosissimi Stephani frequentabant, orantes ut iam sibi placaretur Deus et salutem pristinam redderet. Et illic et quacumque ibant conuertebant in se ciuitatis adspectum. Nonnulli. qui eos alibi uiderant causamque tremoris eorum nouerant, aliis. ut cuique poterant, indicabant. Venit et Pascha, adque ipso die dominico mane, cum iam frequens populus praesens esset et loci sancti cancellos, ubi martyrium erat, idem iuuenis orans teneret, repente prostratus est et dormienti simillimus iacuit, non tamen tremens, sicut etiam per somnum solebant. Stupentibus qui aderant adque aliis pauentibus, aliis dolentibus, cum eum quidam uellent erigere, nonnulli prohibuerunt et potius exitum exspectandum esse dixerunt. Et ecce surrexit, et non tremebat, quoniam sanatus erat, et stabat incolumis, intuens intuentes. Quis ergo se tenuit a laudibus Dei? Clamantium gratulantiumque uocibus ecclesia usquequaque conpleta est. Inde ad me curritur, ubi sedebam iam processurus; inruit alter quisque post alterum, omnis posterior quasi nouum, quod alius prior dixerat, nuntiantes; meque gaudente et aput me Deo gratias agente ingreditur etiam ipse cum pluribus, inclinatur ad genua mea, erigitur ad osculum meum. Procedimus ad populum, plena erat ecclesia, personabat uocibus gaudiorum: Deo gratias, Deo laudes! nemine tacente hinc adque inde clamantium. Salutaui populum, et rursus eadem feruentiore uoce clamabant. Facto tandem silentio scripturarum diuinarum sunt lecta sollemnia. Ubi autem uentum est ad mei sermonis locum, dixi pauca pro tempore et pro illius iucunditate laetitiae. Magis enim eos in opere diuino quandam Dei eloquentiam non audire, sed considerare permisi. Nobiscum homo prandit et diligenter nobis omnem suae fraternaeque ac maternae calamitatis indicauit historiam. Sequenti itaque die post sermonem redditum narrationis eius libellum in crastinum populo recitandum promisi. Quod cum ex dominico Paschae die tertio fieret in gradibus exedrae, in qua de superiore loquebar loco, feci stare ambos fratres, cum eorum legeretur libellus. Intuebatur populus uniuersus sexus utriusque unum stantem sine deformi motu, alteram membris omnibus contrementem. Et qui ipsum non uiderant, quid in eo diuinae misericordiae factum esset, in eius sorore cernebant. Videbant enim quid in illo gratulandum, quid pro illa esset orandum. Inter haec recitato eorum libello de conspectu populi eos abire praecepi, et de tota ipsa causa aliquanto diligentius coeperam disputare, cum ecce me disputante uoces aliae de memoria martyris nouae gratulationis audiuntur. Conuersi sunt eo, qui me audiebant, coeperuntque concurrere. Illa enim, ubi de gradibus descendit in quibus steterat, ad sanctum martyrem orare perrexerat; quae mox ut cancellos adtigit, conlapsa similiter uelut in somnum sana surrexit. Dum ergo requireremus quid factum fuerit, unde iste strepitus laetus exstiterit, ingressi sunt cum illa in basilicam, ubi eramus, adducentes eam sanam de martyris loco. Tum uero tantus ab utroque sexu admirationis clamor exortus est, ut uox continuata cum lacrimis non uideretur posse finiri. Perducta est ad eum locum. ubi paulo ante steterat tremens. Exsultabant eam similem fratri, cui doluerant remansisse dissimilem, et nondum fusas preces suas pro illa, iam tamen praeuiam uoluntatem tam cito exauditam esse cernebant. Exsultabant in Dei laudem uoce sine uerbis, tanto sonitu, quantum nostrae aures ferre uix possent. Quid erat in cordibus exsultantium nisi fides Christi, pro qua Stephani sanguis effusus est?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 8. On the miracles that were done so that the world might believe in Christ, and that do not cease to be done now that the world believes.

“Why,” they say, “are those miracles that you proclaim were done not done now?” I could say, indeed, that they were necessary before the world believed, in order that the world might believe. Whoever still looks for wonders in order to believe is himself a great wonder, since he does not believe when the world believes. But they say this so that it may not be believed that those miracles were done even then. Where, then, does it come from that Christ is everywhere sung with such faith as taken up into heaven with his flesh? How is it that, in educated times that rejected everything that cannot happen, the world, without any miracles, has so exceedingly wonderfully believed incredible things? Or will they perhaps say that these things were credible and were therefore believed? Why, then, do they themselves not believe? Our reasoning, then, is short: either other incredible things, which nevertheless happened and were seen, produced faith in an incredible thing that was not seen; or else the thing was so credible that it needed no miracles to persuade men of it, and it refutes the excessive unbelief of these people. This I would say to refute the most frivolous.

For we cannot deny that many miracles were done to attest that one great and saving miracle by which Christ ascended into heaven with the flesh in which he rose. For in the same most truthful books everything is written down, both what was done and for what purpose, to be believed, it was done. These things became known in order to produce faith; through the faith they produced they become known much more clearly. They are read among the peoples so that they may be believed; and yet they would not be read among the peoples unless they were believed. For even now miracles are done in his name, whether through his sacraments or through the prayers or the memorials of his saints; but they are not made so illustrious as to be spread abroad with glory as great as those. For the canon of the sacred writings, which had to be fixed, causes those to be recited everywhere and to cling to the memory of all peoples; but these, wherever they happen, are known there scarcely to the whole city itself or to whatever place people live in together. For generally even there very few know, while the rest are unaware, especially if the city is large; and when they are told elsewhere and to others, no such authority commends them that they are believed without difficulty or doubt, even though they are reported to faithful Christians by the faithful.

The miracle that was done at Milan when we were there, when a blind man received his sight, could come to the knowledge of many, because it is a great city, and the emperor was there at the time, and the thing was done with an immense crowd as witness, which had flocked to the bodies of the martyrs Protasius and Gervasius. These had lain hidden and were wholly unknown, and they were revealed to Bishop Ambrose in a dream and found; and there that blind man, his old darkness driven away, saw the day.

But at Carthage, who except a very few knows of the healing that was given to Innocentius, formerly an advocate in the vicar's prefecture, where we were present and saw it with our own eyes? For when my brother Alypius and I came from across the sea, not yet clergy but already serving God, he had received us, for he was, with his whole household, most devout, and we were then living with him. He was being treated by physicians for fistulas, which he had, many and intricate, in the lower rear part of his body. They had already operated on him and were doing the rest of their art with medicines. In that operation he had suffered long and bitter pains. But one sinus among many had escaped the physicians and lay so hidden that they did not touch it, though they ought to have opened it with the knife. At length, when all the rest that they had opened were healed, this alone remained, and labour was spent on it in vain. He suspected these delays and was much afraid he would be operated on again (another physician, one of his household, had foretold this to him; the others had not admitted this man even to watch how they did it when he was first operated on, and in anger he had turned him out of the house and scarcely taken him back), and he burst out and said, “Are you going to cut me again? Am I to come to what that man said, whom you would not have present?” They laughed at the unskilled physician and soothed the man's fear with fair words and promises. Many more days passed, and nothing that was done did any good. Still the physicians persisted in their promise that they would close that sinus not with the knife but with medicines. They also called in another physician, already very old and much praised in that art (for he was still living), Ammonius, who, when he had examined the place, promised the same as they, relying on their care and skill. Made confident by his authority, Innocentius mocked his household physician, who had foretold another operation, with witty cheerfulness, as though already well.

What more? So many days passed afterwards, spent in vain, that, weary and confounded, they admitted that he could in no way be healed except by the knife. He was terrified, turned pale, disturbed by excessive fear, and when he had collected himself and could speak, he told them to go away and come to him no more. Worn out with tears and now held fast by that necessity, nothing else occurred to him than to call in a certain Alexandrian, who was then held to be a wonderful surgeon, so that he might do what Innocentius in his anger would not have them do. But when this man came and saw, as a craftsman does, their work in the scars, he did the part of a good man and persuaded him to let those who had laboured so much on him, which he wondered at as he examined it, rather enjoy the completion of their cure, adding that in truth he could not be well unless he were operated on; it was very contrary to his own ways to take the palm of so much labour, for the little that remained, from men whose most skilful work, industry, and care he saw with admiration in his scars. They were restored to his favour, and it was agreed that they themselves, with the same Alexandrian present, should open with the knife that sinus which by the consent of all was now thought incurable otherwise. The matter was put off to the following day.

But when they had gone away, such grief arose in that house from the master's excessive sorrow that it was scarcely restrained by us, like the lamentation at a funeral. Holy men visited him daily: Saturninus of blessed memory, then bishop of Uzalis, and the presbyter Gulosus, and the deacons of the church of Carthage; among whom was also Aurelius, now bishop, the only one of them still among the living, to be named by us with due honour, with whom we have often talked of this matter, recalling the wonderful works of God, and we found that he remembers very well what we are recounting. When they visited him in the evening, as they used to, he begged them with pitiable tears to be so good as to be present in the morning at his funeral rather than at his pain. For such fear had seized him from his earlier sufferings that he did not doubt he would die in the physicians' hands. They comforted him and urged him to trust in God and to bear his will manfully. Then we went in to prayer; and while we knelt and bent to the ground as usual, he threw himself down as though he had been struck down by someone pushing him violently, and began to pray. In what manner, with what feeling, with what stirring of soul, with what flood of tears, with what groans and sobs, shaking all his limbs and almost cutting off his breath, who could set it out in any words? Whether the others were praying, and their attention was not turned away to this, I did not know. I at any rate could not pray at all; I only said this briefly in my heart: “Lord, what prayers of your people do you hear, if you do not hear these?” For it seemed to me that nothing more could now be added except that he should breathe his last in praying. We rose, received the bishop's blessing, and departed, he begging them to be present in the morning, they urging him to be of calm mind.

The dreaded day dawned. The servants of God were there, as they had promised they would be; the physicians came in; everything that hour required was prepared; the fearful instruments were brought out, while all were astonished and in suspense. While those of greater authority raised up his fainting spirit with comfort, his limbs were arranged on the couch for the surgeon's hands, the knots of the bandages were undone, the place was laid bare. The physician looks, and, armed and intent, searches for the sinus to be cut. He scrutinizes it with his eyes, feels it with his fingers, tries it finally in every way: he finds a perfectly firm scar. The gladness, the praise and thanksgiving to the merciful and almighty God that poured from the mouths of all, with tears of joy, is not to be entrusted to my words; let it be imagined rather than told.

In the same city of Carthage, Innocentia, a most devout woman of the first rank in that city, had a cancer in her breast, a thing, as the physicians say, curable by no medicines. So either the member in which it arises is usually cut off and separated from the body, or, so that the person may live a little longer, though death will come from it however slowly, all treatment is to be omitted, according to the opinion, they say, of Hippocrates. She had received this from a skilled physician very close to her household, and she had turned to God alone in prayer. As Easter approached she was told in a dream that, watching at the baptistery on the women's side, she should have whatever newly baptized woman first met her sign the place with the sign of Christ. She did so; health followed at once. The physician, of course, who had told her to apply no treatment if she wished to live a little longer, when he examined her afterward and found her entirely sound, whom by that same examination he had known to have that disease before, eagerly asked her what she had applied, wishing, as one may understand, to learn of the remedy by which the rule of Hippocrates had been overcome. And when he had heard from her what had happened, it is said that he replied, in the tone and with the look of someone showing contempt, so that she feared he would utter some insulting word against Christ, with devout courtesy: “I thought,” he said, “you were going to tell me something great.” And while she was already shuddering, he quickly added, “What great thing did Christ do in healing a cancer, he who raised a man four days dead?”

When I had heard this, and was strongly indignant that so great a miracle, done in that city and to that person, who was certainly not obscure, should remain so hidden, I thought she should be admonished and almost rebuked for it. When she answered that she had not kept silent about it, I asked the ladies who happened to be with her at the time, her closest friends, whether they had known of it before. They answered that they had not known it at all. “There,” I said, “is how you do not keep silent: not even these women, who are bound to you by such close friendship, hear of it.” And because I had asked her only briefly, I made her relate the whole thing in order, as it had happened, while they listened, marvelling greatly and glorifying God.

We know that there was a physician with gout in the same city, who had given in his name for baptism. The day before he was to be baptized he was forbidden in a dream, by black curly-haired boys whom he understood to be demons, to be baptized that year; and when he did not obey them, and they even trampled on his feet, he burned with the sharpest pain he had ever felt. Overcoming them all the more, he did not put off being washed in the bath of regeneration, as he had vowed; and in baptism itself he was rid not only of the pain with which he was tormented beyond the usual, but of the gout too, and though he lived long afterwards, his feet never pained him again. Who knows of this? Yet we know it, and the very few brothers whom it could reach.

A certain man of Curubis, a former actor of mimes, was made whole when he was baptized, not only of a paralysis but also of a shapeless swelling of his genitals, and, freed from both troubles, he came up from the font of regeneration as if he had had nothing wrong in his body. Who knew this except at Curubis, and except a very few others who could hear of it anywhere? When we learned it, at the order of the holy bishop Aurelius we even had him come to Carthage, though we had first heard it from people whose good faith we could not doubt.

Hesperius, a man of tribunician rank, lives among us; he has an estate in the territory of Fussala, called Zubedi. When he learned that his house was suffering the harmful power of evil spirits, with affliction of his animals and his slaves, he asked our presbyters, in my absence, that one of them should go there, to whose prayers the spirits would yield. One went, offered there the sacrifice of the body of Christ, praying as hard as he could that that harassment might cease; by God's mercy it ceased at once. Now he had received from a friend some holy earth brought from Jerusalem, where Christ was buried and rose on the third day, and he had hung it up in his bedroom so that he himself might suffer no harm. But when his house had been cleansed of that infestation, he was considering what should be done with the earth, which out of reverence he did not wish to keep any longer in his bedroom. It happened that I and my colleague at the time, Maximinus, bishop of the church of Sinitum, were nearby; he asked us to come, and we came. When he had told us everything, he also asked that the earth be buried somewhere and that a place of prayer be made there, where Christians too could gather to celebrate the things of God. We did not refuse; it was done. There was there a young countryman who was paralysed. On hearing this, he asked his parents to carry him to that holy place without delay. When he had been carried there, he prayed, and at once went away from there whole, on his own feet.

There is a country house called Victoriana, less than thirty miles from Hippo Regius. There is a memorial there of the Milanese martyrs Protasius and Gervasius. A certain young man was carried there who, while washing his horse in a deep pool of the river at midday in summer, had fallen foul of a demon. As he lay there, either near to death or very like a dead man, the lady of the estate came in, as was her custom, for the evening hymns and prayers with her maidservants and some consecrated virgins, and they began to sing the hymns. At that sound he was jolted as if struck, and with a terrible roar he seized the altar and held it, not daring or not able to move it, as if he were tied or fastened to it, and with loud wailing, begging to be spared, the demon confessed where, when, and how it had seized the young man. At last, declaring that it would go out, it named each of his members that it threatened to cut off as it went, and with these words it departed from the man. But his eye, fallen onto his cheek, hung by a slender vein as by an inner root, and all its centre, which had been dark, had turned white. When those present saw this (others too had run up, called by his cries, and all had prostrated themselves in prayer for him), though they were glad that he stood there in his right mind, they were saddened again because of his eye and said that a physician must be sent for. At that, his sister's husband, who had brought him there, said, “The God who put the demon to flight at the prayers of the saints is able to restore the sight.” Then, as best he could, he put the fallen, hanging eye back in its place and bound it with a handkerchief, and did not think it should be untied until after seven days. When he did so, he found it perfectly sound. Others too were healed there, of whom it would take long to speak.

I know that a certain virgin of Hippo, when she had anointed herself with oil into which the presbyter praying for her had let his tears drop, was soon healed of a demon. I know too that a bishop once prayed for a young man whom he did not see, and that he was at once rid of a demon.

There was a certain old man of our Hippo, Florentius, a devout and poor man; he supported himself by the tailor's trade. He had lost his cloak and had nothing with which to buy another; at the shrine of the Twenty Martyrs, whose memorial is very celebrated among us, he prayed in a clear voice to be clothed. Some young men, mockers, who happened to be there, heard him and followed him as he left, taunting him as though he had asked the martyrs for fifty folles to buy a garment. But he, walking on in silence, saw a great fish cast up and gasping on the shore, and with their good will and help he took hold of it and sold it for three hundred folles to a cook named Catosus, a good Christian, for his pickling kitchen, telling him what had happened; he planned to buy wool with the money, so that his wife might make him something to wear as best she could. But the cook, cutting up the fish, found a gold ring in its belly, and at once, moved by compassion and struck with religious awe, gave it to the man, saying, “See how the Twenty Martyrs have clothed you!”

At Aquae Tibilitanae, when Bishop Praeiectus was bringing a relic of the most glorious martyr Stephen, it was coming with a great crowd flocking to meet it. There a blind woman asked to be led to the bishop who was carrying it; she gave the flowers she was carrying, received them back, put them to her eyes, and at once she saw. While those present were amazed, she went on ahead rejoicing, taking the road and no longer needing a guide on the way.

Lucilius, bishop of the place, was carrying the relic of the same martyr, which is kept in the fortified town of Sinitum, near the colony of Hippo, with the people going before and following. A fistula, from whose trouble he had long suffered, and for which he was waiting for the hands of a physician very close to him to operate, was suddenly healed through his carrying that holy burden; for from then on he did not find it in his body.

Eucharius is a presbyter from Spain, living at Calama, who suffered from an old disease of the stone; through the relic of the same martyr, which Bishop Possidius brought there, he was made well. Later, when another disease overcame him, the same man lay dead, so that his thumbs were already being tied; through the help of the martyr, when the presbyter's own tunic had been brought back from his memorial and laid over the body as it lay, he was raised up.

There was a man there of the first rank in his order, named Martialis, already advanced in years and very averse to the Christian religion. He had, indeed, a believing daughter and a son-in-law baptized that same year. When they begged him, while he was ill, with many and great tears to become a Christian, he refused outright and drove them from him in stormy indignation. His son-in-law decided to go to the memorial of Saint Stephen and pray there for him as much as he could, that God might give him a good mind, so that he would not put off believing in Christ. He did this with great groaning and weeping and with a sincerely burning feeling of devotion; then, as he left, he took some of the flowers from the altar, whatever came to hand, and, since it was now night, laid them at the old man's head; then they went to sleep. And see, before dawn he cries out for someone to run to the bishop, who happened then to be with me at Hippo. When he heard that the bishop was away, he asked for the presbyters to come. They came; he said he believed; he was baptized, to the wonder and joy of all. As long as he lived he had these words on his lips: “Christ, receive my spirit,” though he did not know that these had been the last words of the most blessed Stephen when he was stoned by the Jews; they were his last words too, for not long afterwards he himself died.

Two citizens with gout were also healed there through the same martyr, and one stranger; the citizens completely, but the stranger learned by a revelation what to apply when he was in pain, and when he did so the pain ceased at once.

Audurus is the name of an estate where there is a church, and in it a memorial of the martyr Stephen. A small boy was playing in the yard when oxen drawing a cart ran off the track and crushed him with a wheel, and at once he lay gasping, breathing his last. His mother snatched him up and laid him at that memorial, and he not only came back to life but was seen to be unhurt.

A consecrated virgin on a neighbouring estate called Caspaliana was ill and her life was despaired of; her tunic was brought to the same memorial, but before it was brought back she died. Her parents, however, covered her corpse with this tunic, and her breath returned and she was made well.

At Hippo a certain Bassus, a Syrian, was praying at the memorial of the same martyr for his sick daughter, who was in danger, and had brought her dress with him there; and see, servants ran from the house to tell him she was dead. But while he was praying they were met by his friends, who stopped them from telling him, so that he would not lament in public. When he had returned home, which was already ringing with the wailing of his household, and had thrown his daughter's dress, which he was carrying, over her, she was restored to life.

Again, there among us, the son of a certain Irenaeus, a tax collector, died of an illness. While the body lay lifeless, and the funeral was being prepared amid mourning and lamentation, one of his friends suggested, among the words of the others who consoled him, that the body should be anointed with the oil of the same martyr. It was done, and he revived.

Likewise among us, Eleusinus, a man of tribunician rank, laid his little son, who had died of an illness, on the memorial of the martyrs which is on his suburban estate, and after the prayer that he poured out there with many tears, he lifted him up alive.

What am I to do? The promise to finish this work presses me, so that I cannot recount here everything I know; and no doubt many of our people, when they read this, will be sorry that I have passed over so many things that they certainly know as well as I. I ask them now to forgive me, and to consider how long a labour it would be to do what the necessity of the work I have undertaken compels me not to do here. For if I wished to write down only the miracles of healing, to say nothing of others, that have been done through this martyr, the most glorious Stephen, in the colony of Calama and in ours, many books would have to be made, and yet not all of them could be collected, but only those for which written statements have been given in, to be read out to the people. For we wanted this done when we saw that signs of divine power like those of old were frequent in our times too, and that they ought not to be lost from the knowledge of many. It is not yet two years since that memorial began to be at Hippo Regius, and though many statements have not been given in about the wonderful things done, as we know for certain, those that have been given in had reached almost seventy when I wrote this. At Calama, where the memorial began earlier and statements are given in more often, they are beyond comparison more numerous.

At Uzalis too, a colony near Utica, we have learned that many remarkable things were done through the same martyr; his memorial was set up there by Bishop Evodius long before ours. But there the custom of giving in statements does not exist, or rather did not; for perhaps it has now begun. For when we were there recently, we urged Petronia, a lady of senatorial rank, who had been wonderfully healed there of a great and long illness in which all the aid of physicians had failed, with the consent of the bishop of the place mentioned above, to give in a statement to be read to the people, and she most obediently complied. In it she also set down something I cannot pass over here, though I am compelled to hasten to what this work presses on to. She said that she had been persuaded by a certain Jew to insert a ring into a cord of hair, to be worn under all her clothing, girded next to her bare body; the ring had under its gem a stone found in the kidneys of an ox. Bound with this as a remedy, she was coming to the holy martyr's threshold. But after setting out from Carthage, when she had stopped at her own estate near the river Bagradas, on getting up to continue her journey she saw that ring lying before her feet, and in amazement she examined the girdle of hair with which it had been tied. When she found it still tied, just as it had been, with its own very firm knots, she supposed the ring had cracked and jumped off; but when that too was found perfectly whole, she took it that she had received, from so great a miracle, a kind of pledge of her future healing, and untying that cord she threw it into the river together with the ring.

Let those not believe this who also do not believe that the Lord Jesus was born through the unbroken virginity of his mother and entered to his disciples when the doors were shut; but let them at least investigate this, and if they find it true, let them believe those things. She is a lady of senatorial rank, nobly born, nobly married, and lives at Carthage; a great city and a great person do not allow the matter to be hidden from those who inquire. Certainly the martyr himself, at whose intercession she was healed, believed in the Son of the ever-virgin; he believed in him who entered to his disciples when the doors were shut; and lastly, which is why we are saying all this, he believed in him who ascended into heaven with the flesh in which he had risen; and so great things are done through him because he laid down his life for this faith.

Many miracles, then, are done even now, the same God doing them through whom he will and as he will, who also did those we read of; but these do not become known in the same way, nor are they beaten into memory, like gravel, by frequent reading, so as not to slip from the mind. For even where there is the care, which has now begun among us, that the statements of those who receive benefits are read out to the people, those present hear it once, and more are not present; so that even those who were present do not retain after a few days what they heard, and scarcely anyone of them is found who tells what he heard to someone he knows was not present.

One miracle was done among us, not greater than those I have mentioned, but so clear and conspicuous that I think there is no one in Hippo who has not either seen it or learned of it, and no one who could by any means have forgotten it. Ten brothers and sisters (seven of them male and three female) from Caesarea in Cappadocia, not undistinguished among their fellow citizens, were cursed by their mother, who had lately been left alone by their father's death and took very bitterly a wrong they had done her; they were punished by God with such a penalty that all of them were horribly shaken with a trembling of the limbs. In this most unsightly condition, unable to bear the eyes of their fellow citizens, they wandered over almost the whole Roman world, wherever each thought fit to go. Two of them came to us too, a brother and sister, Paulus and Palladia, already known in many other places through the report of their misery. They came about fifteen days before Easter, and daily frequented the church and in it the memorial of the most glorious Stephen, praying that God might now be appeased toward them and restore their former health. Both there and wherever they went they drew the attention of the city. Some who had seen them elsewhere and knew the cause of their trembling told others as they could.

Easter came, and on the Lord's day itself, in the morning, when a crowded congregation was already present, and the young man was holding the rails of the holy place where the martyr's shrine was, praying, he suddenly fell prostrate and lay very like one sleeping, yet not trembling, as they used to do even in sleep. Those present were amazed, some afraid, some grieved; and when some wanted to raise him up, others prevented them and said they should rather wait for the outcome. And see, he rose, and did not tremble, for he had been healed, and stood sound, looking at those who looked at him. Who then held back from praising God? The church was filled throughout with the voices of people crying out and rejoicing. Then they run to me, where I was sitting, about to come out; one after another rushes in, each later one announcing as news what an earlier one had said; and while I was rejoicing and thanking God within myself, the man himself also comes in with several others, bows at my knees, and is raised to my kiss. We go out to the people; the church was full and ringing with shouts of joy, “Thanks be to God! Praise be to God!” with no one silent, as they cried out on this side and that. I greeted the people, and again they cried out the same words with more fervent voice. When at last there was silence, the appointed readings of the divine Scriptures were read. When the place for my sermon came, I said a few words suited to the occasion and to the delight of that joy. For I let them not so much hear a kind of eloquence of God in the divine work as contemplate it. The man dined with us and told us carefully the whole story of his own, his brothers' and sisters', and his mother's calamity.

So on the following day, after my sermon, I promised that a written statement of his account would be read to the people the next day. When this was done on the third day after Easter Sunday, I had both, brother and sister, stand on the steps of the apse from whose raised place I was speaking, while their statement was read. The whole people, of both sexes, saw the one standing without unsightly movement, and the other trembling in every limb. And those who had not seen him saw in his sister what divine mercy had done in him. For they saw what there was to give thanks for in him, and what to pray for on her behalf. Meanwhile, when their statement had been read, I told them to leave the sight of the people, and I had begun to discuss the whole matter rather more carefully, when, see, while I was discussing it, other voices of new rejoicing are heard from the martyr's memorial. Those who were listening to me turned that way and began to run together. For she, when she came down from the steps on which she had stood, had gone to pray to the holy martyr; and as soon as she touched the rails she likewise collapsed as if into sleep and rose healed. While we were asking what had happened, and what that joyful uproar was, they came into the basilica where we were, bringing her healed from the martyr's place. Then such a shout of wonder arose from both sexes that the sound, kept up with tears, seemed as if it could not end. She was led to the place where a little before she had stood trembling. They rejoiced that she was like her brother, whereas they had grieved that she remained unlike him; and they saw that their prayers for her, not yet poured out, but their will going before them, had been heard so soon. They rejoiced in the praise of God with voices without words, with such a noise as our ears could scarcely bear. What was in the hearts of those rejoicing but the faith of Christ, for which Stephen's blood was shed?

### Scripture references

- John 11:39: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 7:59: allusion, high confidence
- John 20:19: allusion, high confidence
- John 20:26: allusion, medium confidence
- Titus 3:5: echo, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Augustine reports these accounts as events he saw or verified through witnesses and the written statements (libelli) read in church; they are translated exactly as he tells them. The discovery of Protasius and Gervasius at Milan was in 386. Stephen's relics came to Africa after their discovery in Palestine in 415. “A man four days dead” is Lazarus (John 11:39); “Christ, receive my spirit” echoes Stephen's words (Acts 7:59); the entry through shut doors is John 20:19, 26. The digital text brackets “curationis” (“what [treatment] she had applied”), which the editor deletes; the sense is unchanged. Passages read by sense: the instruction to Innocentia at the baptistery (the form obseruanti is uncertain). The folles were small copper coins. In the Innocentia account the Latin (mox addidit, after an ablative absolute referring to her) most naturally makes the physician say the words about Lazarus; some translators (e.g. NPNF) give them to Innocentia.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.8 (CSEL 40:595–612; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-8/#p-22-8).

## City of God 22.9

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-9
- Source: CSEL 40:612–613
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The miracles done through the martyrs, however God works them, bear witness to the faith for which they died, the faith in Christ's bodily resurrection and ours.

### Latin text

CAPUT VIIII. Quod uniuersa miracula, quae per martyres in Christi nomine fiunt, ei fidei testimonium ferant, qua in Christum martyres crediderunt. Cui, nisi huic fidei adtestantur ista miracula, in qua praedicatur Christus resurrexisse in carne et in caelum adscendisse cum carne? quia et ipsi martyres huius fidei martyres. id est huius fidei testes, fuerunt; huic fidei testimonium perhibentes mundum inimicissimum et crudelissimum pertulerunt, eumque non repugnando, sed moriendo uicerunt; pro ista fide mortui sunt, qui haec a Domino inpetrare possunt, propter cuius nomen occisi sunt; pro hac fide praecessit eorum mira patientia, ut in his miraculis tanta ista potentia sequeretur. Nam si carnis in aeternum resurrectio uel non praeuenit in Christo uel non uentura est, sicut praenuntiatur a Christo uel sicut praenuntiata est a prophetis, a quibus praenuntiatus est Christus: quur et mortui tanta possunt, qui pro ea fide, qua haec resurrectio praedicatur, occisi sunt? Siue enim Deus ipse per se ipsum miro modo, quo res temporales operatur aeternus, siue per suos ministros ista faciat; et eadem ipsa, quae per ministros facit, siue quaedam faciat etiam per martyrum spiritus, sicut per homines adhuc in corpore constitutos, siue omnia ista per angelos, quibus inuisibiliter, incorporaliter, inmutabiliter imperat, operetur, ut, quae per martyres fieri dicuntur, eis orantibus tantum et inpetrantibus, non etiam operantibus fiant; siue alia istis, alia illis modis, qui nullo modo conprehendi a mortalibus possunt: ei tamen adtestantur haec fidei, in qua carnis in aeternum resurrectio praedicatur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 9. That all the miracles done through the martyrs in the name of Christ bear witness to the faith in which the martyrs believed in Christ.

To what do these miracles bear witness, if not to this faith, in which Christ is preached as having risen in the flesh and ascended into heaven with the flesh? For the martyrs themselves were martyrs of this faith, that is, witnesses of this faith; bearing witness to this faith they endured a world most hostile and most cruel, and they overcame it not by resisting but by dying. For this faith they died who can obtain these things from the Lord, for whose name they were slain. For this faith their wonderful endurance went before, so that such great power might follow in these miracles. For if the resurrection of the flesh to eternity either did not take place beforehand in Christ, or is not to come as it is foretold by Christ, or as it was foretold by the prophets by whom Christ was foretold, why can even the dead do such great things, who were slain for the faith in which this resurrection is preached? Whether God himself does these things by himself, in the wonderful way in which, being eternal, he works things in time, or through his ministers; and whether the very things he does through ministers he does in some cases through the spirits of the martyrs, as through men still living in the body, or does all of them through angels, whom he commands invisibly, incorporeally, unchangeably, so that what is said to be done through the martyrs is done only by their praying and obtaining, not also by their working; or whether some are done in these ways and some in those, ways that mortals can in no way comprehend: still these things bear witness to the faith in which the resurrection of the flesh to eternity is preached.

### Translation notes

- Augustine leaves open whether God works such miracles directly, through the martyrs' spirits, or through angels at the martyrs' prayer; the translation keeps his alternatives.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.9 (CSEL 40:612–613; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-9).

## City of God 22.10

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-10
- Source: CSEL 40:613–615
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The martyrs are not gods; Christians build memorials, not temples, for them and offer the sacrifice, which is the body of Christ, to the one God at their shrines, whereas the demons work wonders to be worshipped.

### Latin text

CAPUT X. Quanto dignius honorentur martyres, qui ideo multa mira obtinent, ut Deus uerus colatur, quam daemones, qui ob hoc quaedam faciunt, ut ipsi di esse credantur. Hic forte dicturi sunt etiam deos suos aliqua mira fecisse. Bene, si iam incipiunt deos suos nostris mortuis hominibus conparare. An dicent etiam se habere deos ex hominibus mortuis, sicut Herculem, sicut Romulum, sicut alios multos, quos in deorum numerum receptos opinantur? Sed nobis martyres non sunt di, quia unum eundemque Deum et nostrum scimus et martyrum. Nec tamen miraculis, quae per memorias nostrorum martyrum fiunt, ullo modo sunt conparanda miracula, quae facta per templa perhibentur illorum. Verum si qua similia uidentur, sicut a Moyse magi Pharaonis, sic eorum di uicti sunt a martyribus nostris. Fecerunt autem illa daemones eo fastu inpurae superbiae, quo eorum di esse uoluerunt; faciunt autem ista martyres uel potius Deus aut cooperantibus aut orantibus eis, ut fides illa proficiat, qua eos non deos nostros esse, sed unum Deum nobiscum habere credamus. Denique illi talibus dis suis et templa aedificauerunt et statuerunt aras, et sacerdotes instituerunt et sacrificia fecerunt; nos autem martyribus nostris non templa sicut dis, sed memorias sicut hominibus mortuis. quorum aput Deum uiuunt spiritus, fabricamus; nec ibi erigimus altaria, in quibus sacrificemus martyribus, sed uni Deo et martyrum et nostro; ad quod sacrificium sicut homines Dei, qui mundum in eius confessione uicerunt, suo loco et ordine nominantur, non tamen a sacerdote, qui sacrificat, inuocantur. Deo quippe, non ipsis sacrificat, quamuis in memoria sacrificet eorum, quia Dei sacerdos est, non illorum. Ipsum uero sacrificium corpus est Christi, quod non offertur ipsis, quia hoc sunt et ipsi. Quibus igitur potius credendum est miracula facientibus? Eisne qui se ipsos uolunt haberi deos ab his quibus ea faciunt, an eis qui, ut in Deum credatur, quod et Christus est, faciunt quidquid mirabile faciunt? Eisne qui sacra sua etiam crimina sua esse uoluerunt, an eis qui nec laudes suas uolunt esse sacra sua, sed totum, quod ueraciter laudantur, ad eius gloriam proficere in quo laudantur? in Domino quippe laudantur animae eorum. Credamus ergo eis et uera dicentibus et mira facientibus. Dicendo enim uera passi sunt, ut possint facere mira. In eis ueris est praecipuum, quod Christus resurrexit a mortuis et inmortalitatem resurrectionis in sua carne primus ostendit, quam nobis adfuturam uel in principio noui saeculi uel in huius fine promisit.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 10. How much more worthily the martyrs are honoured, who obtain many wonders so that the true God may be worshipped, than the demons, who do certain things so that they themselves may be believed to be gods.

Here perhaps they will say that their gods too have done some wonders. Good, if they are now beginning to compare their gods with our dead men. Or will they say that they too have gods made from dead men, like Hercules, like Romulus, like many others whom they suppose received into the number of the gods? But for us the martyrs are not gods, because we know that one and the same God is both ours and the martyrs'. Nor can the miracles said to have been done through their temples be compared in any way with the miracles that are done through the memorials of our martyrs. But if some seem similar, their gods have been overcome by our martyrs as Pharaoh's magicians were by Moses. The demons did those things with the arrogance of unclean pride with which they wished to be their gods; but the martyrs do these things, or rather God does them, with the martyrs either co-operating or praying, so that the faith may advance by which we believe that they are not our gods but have one God with us.

In short, those people built temples to such gods of theirs, set up altars, instituted priests, and made sacrifices; but we build for our martyrs not temples as to gods, but memorials as to dead men whose spirits live with God. Nor do we raise altars there on which to sacrifice to the martyrs, but to the one God, both the martyrs' and ours. At this sacrifice they are named in their place and order, as men of God who overcame the world in confessing him, but they are not invoked by the priest who offers the sacrifice. For he sacrifices to God, not to them, though he sacrifices at their memorial, because he is God's priest, not theirs. And the sacrifice itself is the body of Christ, which is not offered to them, because they themselves too are this body.

Which workers of miracles, then, are rather to be believed? Those who want to be held gods by those for whom they do them, or those who do whatever wonderful thing they do so that men may believe in God, who is also Christ? Those who wanted even their own crimes to be their sacred rites, or those who do not want even their own praises to be their sacred rites, but want all for which they are truly praised to serve the glory of him in whom they are praised? For “in the Lord” their souls are praised. Let us believe them, then, both when they speak the truth and when they do wonders. For by speaking the truth they suffered, so that they might be able to do wonders. Chief among those truths is that Christ rose from the dead and was the first to show in his flesh the immortality of the resurrection, which he promised would come to us either at the beginning of the new age or at the end of this one.

### Scripture references

- Exod 7:11: allusion, high confidence
- Exod 8:18: allusion, medium confidence
- Ps 34:2 (33:3 LXX): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The magicians of Pharaoh: Exod 7–8. “In the Lord their souls are praised” adapts Ps 34:2 (LXX 33:3). On the martyrs' being named but not invoked at the eucharistic sacrifice, and the sacrifice as the body of Christ, compare Book 10.6 and 10.20; the translation follows Augustine's wording.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.10 (CSEL 40:613–615; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-10).

## City of God 22.11

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-11
- Source: CSEL 40:615–618
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine answers the Platonist argument from the natural order and weights of the elements, showing from birds, the soul's union with the body, Varro's story of the Vestal's sieve, and fire on earth that God can make risen bodies fit to dwell in heaven.

### Latin text

CAPUT XI. Contra Platonicos, qui de naturalibus elementorum ponderibus argumentantur terrenum corpus in caelo esse non posse. Contra quod magnum Dei donum ratiocinatores isti, quorum cogitationes nouit Dominus quoniam uanae sunt, de ponderibus elementorum argumentantur; quoniam scilicet magistro Platone didicerunt mundi duo corpora maxima adque postrema duobus mediis, aere scilicet et aqua, esse copulata adque coniuncta. Ac per hoc, inquiunt, quoniam terra abhinc sursum uersus est prima, secunda aqua super terram, tertius aer super aquam, quartum super aera caelum, non potest esse terrenum corpus in caelo; momentis enim propriis, ut ordinem suum teneant, singula elementa librantur. Ecce qualibus argumentis omnipotentiae Dei humana contradicit infirmitas, quam possidet uanitas. Quid ergo faciunt in aere terrena tot corpora, cum a terra sit aer tertius? Nisi forte, qui per plumarum et pennarum leuitatem donauit auium terrenis corporibus, ut portentur in aere, inmortalibus factis corporibus hominum non poterit donare uirtutem, qua etiam in summo caelo ualeant habitare. Animalia quoque ipsa terrena, quae uolare non possunt, in quibus et homines sunt, sicut sub aqua pisces, quae sunt aquarum animalia, ita sub terra uiuere debuerunt. Quur ergo non saltem de secundo. id est de aquis, sed de elemento tertio terrenum animal carpit hanc uitam? Quare, cum pertineat ad terram, in secundo, quod super terram est, elemento uiuere si cogatur, continuo suffocatur et ut uiuat uiuit in tertio? An errat hic ordo elementorum, uel potius non in natura rerum, sed in istorum argumentationibus deficit? Omitto dicere, quod iam in tertio decimo libro dixi, quam multa grauia terrena sint corpora, sicut plumbum, et formam tamen ab artifice accipiant. qua natare ualeant super aquam; et ut accipiat qualitatem corpus humanum, qua ferri in caelum et esse possit in caelo. omnipotenti artifici contradicitur?. Iam uero contra illud, quod dixi superius, etiam istum considerantes adque tractantes elementorum ordinem, quo confidunt, non inueniunt omnino quod dicant. Sic est enim hinc sursum uersus terra prima, aqua secunda, tertius aer, quartum caelum, ut super omnia sit animae natura. Nam et Aristoteles quintum corpus eam dixit esse et Plato nullum. Si quintum esset, certe superius esset ceteris; cum uero nullum est, multo magis superat omnia. In terreno ergo quid facit corpore? In hac mole quid agit subtilior omnibus? In hoc pondere quid agit leuior omnibus? In hac tarditate quid agit celerior omnibus? Itane per huius tam excellentis naturae meritum non poterit effici, ut corpus eius leuetur in caelum, et cum ualeat nunc natura corporum terrenorum deprimere animas deorsum, aliquando et animae leuare sursum terrena corpora non ualebunt? Iam si ad eorum miracula ueniamus, quae facta a dis suis obponunt martyribus nostris, nonne etiam ipsa pro nobis facere et nobis reperientur omnino proficere? Nam inter magna miracula deorum suorum profecto magnum illud est, quod Varro commemorat, Vestalem uirginem, cum periclitaretur falsa suspicione de stupro, cribrum inplesse aqua de Tiberi et ad suos iudices nulla eius parte stillante portasse. Quis aquae pondus supra cribrum tenuit? Quis tot cauernis patentibus nihil inde in terram cadere permisit? Responsuri sunt: Aliquis deus aut aliquis daemon. Si deus, numquid maior est Deo, qui fecit hunc mundum? Si daemon, numquid potentior est angelo, qui Deo seruit, a quo factus est mundus? Si ergo deus minor uel angelus uel daemon potuit pondus umidi elementi sic suspendere, ut aquarum uideatur mutata fuisse natura: itane Deus omnipotens, qui omnia ipsa creauit elementa, terreno corpori graue pondus auferre non poterit, ut in eodem elemento habitet uiuificatum corpus, in quo uoluerit uiuificans spiritus? Deinde cum aera medium ponant inter ignem desuper et aquam subter, quid est quod eum inter aquam et aquam et inter aquam et terram saepe inuenimus? Quid enim uolunt esse aquosas nubes, inter quas et maria aer medius reperitur? Quonam, quaeso, elementorum pondere adque ordine efficitur, ut torrentes uiolentissimi adque undosissimi, antequam sub aere in terris currant, super aera in nubibus pendeant? Quur denique aer est medius inter summa caeli et nuda terrarum, quaqua uersum orbis extenditur, si locus eius inter caelum et aquas, sicut aquarum inter ipsum et terras est constitutus? Postremo si ita est elementorum ordo dispositus, ut secundum Platonem duobus mediis, id est aere et aqua, duo extrema, id est ignis et terra, iungantur caelique obtineat ille summi locum, haec autem imi uelut fundaminis mundi. et ideo in caelo esse non potest terra: quur est ipse ignis in terra? Secundum hanc quippe rationem ita ista duo elementa in locis propriis, imo ac summo, terra et ignis esse debuerunt, ut, quem ad modum nolunt in summo esse posse quod imi est, ita nec in imo posset esse quod summi est. Sicut ergo nullam putant uel esse uel futuram esse terrae particulam in caelo, ita nullam particulam uidere debuimus ignis in terra. Nunc uero non solum in terris, uerum etiam sub terris ita est, ut eum eructent uertices montium, praeter quod in usibus hominum et esse ignem in terra et eum nasci uidemus ex terra; quando quidem et de lignis et de lapidibus nascitur, quae sunt corpora sine dubitatione terrena. Sed ille, inquiunt, ignis est tranquillus, purus, innoxius, sempiternus; iste autem turbidus, fumeus, corruptibilis adque corruptor. Nec tamen corrumpit montes, in quibus iugiter aestuat. cauernasque terrarum. Verum esto, sit illi iste dissimilis, ut terrenis habitationibus congruat: quur ergo nolunt, ut credamus naturam corporum terrenorum aliquando incorruptibilem factam caelo conuenientem futuram, sicut nunc ignis corruptibilis his conuenit terris? Nihil igitur adferunt ex ponderibus adque ordine elementorum, unde omnipotenti Deo, quominus faciat corpora nostra talia, ut etiam in caelo possint habitare, praescribant.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 11. Against the Platonists, who argue from the natural weights of the elements that an earthly body cannot be in heaven.

Against this great gift of God these reasoners, whose thoughts the Lord knows, that they are futile, argue from the weights of the elements; for they have learned from their master Plato that the two greatest and outermost bodies of the world are coupled and joined by two in between, namely air and water. “And therefore,” they say, “since earth is first counting upward from here, water second above the earth, air third above the water, and heaven fourth above the air, an earthly body cannot be in heaven; for each element is balanced by its own weight so as to keep its own order.” See with what arguments human weakness, which vanity possesses, contradicts the omnipotence of God! What, then, are so many earthly bodies doing in the air, when air is the third from earth? Unless perhaps he who by the lightness of feathers and wings has granted to the earthly bodies of birds to be carried in the air will not be able to grant to the bodies of men, once made immortal, the power to dwell even in the highest heaven. Earthly animals too that cannot fly, among whom are men, ought to have lived under the earth, as fish, the animals of the waters, live under water. Why, then, does an earthly animal draw this life not even from the second element, that is, from the waters, but from the third? Why is it that, though it belongs to the earth, if it is forced to live in the second element, which is above the earth, it is at once suffocated, and lives in the third in order to live? Is the order of the elements wrong here, or rather is it wanting not in the nature of things but in these people's arguments?

I will not repeat what I said in the thirteenth book, how many earthly bodies are heavy, like lead, and yet receive from a craftsman a form by which they can float on water; and is it denied to the almighty craftsman that the human body may receive a quality by which it can be borne into heaven and be in heaven? Further, against what I said above, even when they consider and handle this order of the elements on which they rely, they find nothing at all to say. For if earth is first counting upward from here, water second, air third, heaven fourth, the nature of the soul is above all. For Aristotle said it was a fifth body, and Plato that it was no body. If it were a fifth, it would surely be higher than the rest; but since it is no body, all the more does it surpass all. What, then, is it doing in an earthly body? What is it, the subtlest of all, doing in this mass? What is it, the lightest of all, doing in this weight? What is it, the swiftest of all, doing in this slowness? Will it not be possible, then, through the merit of so excellent a nature, for its body to be raised into heaven; and while the nature of earthly bodies can now press souls downward, will souls not be able one day to raise earthly bodies upward?

Now if we come to their miracles, which they set against our martyrs as done by their gods, will even these not be found to act for us and to serve us entirely? For among the great miracles of their gods, that is surely a great one which Varro records: a Vestal virgin, when she was in danger through a false suspicion of unchastity, filled a sieve with water from the Tiber and carried it to her judges without any part of it dripping. Who held the weight of the water above the sieve? Who allowed nothing to fall from it to the ground through so many open holes? They will answer, “Some god, or some demon.” If a god, is he greater than God who made this world? If a demon, is he more powerful than an angel who serves God, by whom the world was made? If, then, a lesser god, or an angel, or a demon could so suspend the weight of the liquid element that the nature of water seemed to have been changed, will almighty God, who created all the elements themselves, be unable to take away from an earthly body its heavy weight, so that the body, made alive, may dwell in whatever element the life-giving spirit wills?

Then, since they place air in the middle between fire above and water below, how is it that we often find it between water and water, and between water and earth? For what do they take the watery clouds to be, between which and the seas air is found in the middle? By what weight and order of the elements, I ask, does it come about that the most violent and billowing torrents, before they run on the earth under the air, hang in the clouds above the air? Why, finally, is air in the middle between the heights of heaven and the bare earth, wherever the world extends, if its place is set between heaven and the waters, as that of the waters is between it and the earth? Lastly, if the order of the elements is so arranged that, according to Plato, the two extremes, fire and earth, are joined by two means, air and water, and fire holds the place of the highest heaven, and earth that of the lowest, as the foundation of the world, and for that reason earth cannot be in heaven, why is fire itself on earth? For by this reasoning these two elements, earth and fire, ought to have been in their own places, the lowest and the highest, in such a way that, as they will not allow that what belongs to the lowest can be in the highest, so what belongs to the highest could not be in the lowest. As, then, they think that no particle of earth either is or will be in heaven, so we ought to see no particle of fire on earth. But in fact it is not only on the earth but even under the earth, so that the peaks of mountains belch it out; besides which we see that fire is on the earth for the uses of men and is born from the earth, since it is born from wood and from stones, which are without doubt earthly bodies. “But that fire,” they say, “is tranquil, pure, harmless, everlasting; this one is turbid, smoky, corruptible and corrupting.” Yet it does not corrupt the mountains and the caverns of the earth in which it rages continually. But let it be granted that this fire is unlike that one, so as to suit earthly dwellings; why, then, will they not let us believe that the nature of earthly bodies, once made incorruptible, will one day suit heaven, as corruptible fire now suits this earth? They bring forward nothing, then, from the weights and order of the elements by which to set limits to almighty God, to prevent him from making our bodies such that they can dwell even in heaven.

### Scripture references

- Ps 94:11 (93:11 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Tim. 32b (Plato (works)): allusion, high confidence
- Aristotle (Aristotle (works)): allusion, medium confidence
- Varro (Varro): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The four elements joined by two means: Plato, Timaeus 32b. Aristotle's “fifth body” (the quinta essentia) and Plato's incorporeal soul are cited from general report. The story of the Vestal (Tuccia) is attributed to Varro; the work is lost. On lead made to float, Augustine refers back to Book 13.18. “Whose thoughts the Lord knows” is Ps 94:11 (LXX 93:11).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.11 (CSEL 40:615–618; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-11).

## City of God 22.12

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-12
- Source: CSEL 40:618–621
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine sets out the pagans' mocking questions about the resurrection of the flesh: aborted fetuses, infants, stature, hair and nails, fatness, dissolved bodies, deformities, and flesh eaten by others.

### Latin text

CAPUT XII. Contra calumnias infidelium, quibus Christianos de credita carnis resurrectione inrident. Sed scrupulosissime quaerere et fidem, qua credimus resurrecturam carnem, ita quaerendo adsolent inridere: utrum fetus abortiui resurgant; et quoniam Dominus ait: Amen, dico uobis, capillus capitis uestri non peribit, utrum statura et robur aequalia futura sint omnibus an diuersae corporum quantitates. Si enim aequalitas erit corporum, unde habebunt quod hic non habuerunt in mole corporis illi abortiui, si resurgent et ipsi? Aut si non resurgent, quia nec nati sunt, sed effusi, eandem quaestionem de paruulis uersant, unde illis mensura corporis, quam nunc defuisse uidemus, accedat, cum in hac aetate moriuntur. Neque enim dicturi sumus eos non resurrecturos, qui non solum generationis, uerum etiam regenerationis capaces sunt. Deinde interrogant, quem modum ipsa aequalitas habitura sit. Si enim tam magni et tam longi erunt omnes, quam fuerunt quicumque hic fuerunt maximi adque longissimi, non solum de paruulis, sed de plurimis quaerunt, unde illis accessurum sit, quod hic defuit, si hoc quisque recipiat, quod hic habuit; si autem, quod ait apostolus, occursuros nos omnes in mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi, et illud alterum: Quos praedestinauit conformes imaginis filii sui, sic intellegendum est, ut statura et modus corporis Christi omnium, qui in regno eius erunt, humanorum corporum sit futurus: Multis erit, inquiunt, de magnitudine et longitudine corporis detrahendum; et ubi iam erit: capillus capitis uestri non peribit, si de ipsa corporis quantitate tam multum peribit? Quamuis et de ipsis capillis possit inquiri, utrum redeat quidquid tondentibus decidit. Quod si rediturum est, quis non exhorreat illam deformitatem? Nam hoc et de unguibus uidetur necessario secuturum, ut redeat tam multum quod corporis curatura desecuit. Et ubi erit decus, quod certe maius, quam in ista esse corruptione potuit, in illa iam inmortalitate esse debebit? Si autem non redibit, ergo peribit Quo modo igitur, inquiunt, capillus capitis non peribit? De macie quoque uel pinguedine similiter disputant. Nam si aequales omnes erunt, non utique alii macri, alii pingues erunt. Accedet ergo aliis aliquid, aliis minuetur; ac per hoc non, quod erat, recipiendum, sed alicubi addendum est, quod non fuit, et alicubi perdendum, quod fuit. De ipsis etiam corruptionibus et dilapsionibus corporum mortuorum, cum aliud uertatur in puluerem, in auras aliud exhaletur, sint quos bestiae, sint quos ignis absumit, naufragio uel quibuscumque aquis ita quidam pereant, ut eorum carnes in umorem putredo dissoluat, non mediocriter permouentur adque omnia ista recolligi in carnem et redintegrari posse non credunt. Consectantur etiam quasque foeditates et uitia, siue accidant siue nascantur, ubi et monstrosos partus cum horrore adque inrisione commemorant, et requirunt, quaenam cuiusque deformitatis resurrectio sit futura. Si enim nihil tale redire in corpus hominis dixerimus, responsionem nostram de locis uulnerum, cum quibus Dominum Christum resurrexisse praedicamus, se confutaturos esse praesumunt. Sed inter haec omnia quaestio difficillima illa proponitur, in cuius carnem reditura sit caro, qua corpus alterius uescentis humana uiscera fame conpellente nutritur. In carnem quippe conuersa est eius, qui talibus uixit alimentis, et ea, quae macies ostenderat, detrimenta subpleuit. Utrum ergo illi redeat homini cuius caro prius fuit, an illi potius cuius postea facta est, ad hoc percontantur, ut fidem resurrectionis inludant ac sic animae humanae aut alternantes, sicut Plato, ueras infelicitates falsasque promittant beatitudines aut post multas itidem per diuersa corpora reuolutiones aliquando tamen eam, sicut Porphyrius, finire miserias et ad eas numquam redire fateantur; non tamen corpus habendo inmortale, sed corpus omne fugiendo.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 12. Against the slanders of unbelievers, with which they ridicule Christians for believing in the resurrection of the flesh.

But they are in the habit of inquiring most scrupulously, and by inquiring of ridiculing the faith by which we believe that the flesh will rise: whether aborted fetuses rise; and, since the Lord says, “Truly I say to you, not a hair of your head shall perish,” whether stature and strength will be equal for all, or bodies will be of different sizes. For if bodies are to be equal, where will those aborted ones, if they too rise, get what they did not have here in bodily bulk? Or if they will not rise, because they were not born but cast out, they turn the same question to little children: where will the measure of body come to them that we now see they lacked, when they die at that age? For we are not going to say that they will not rise who are capable not only of generation but also of regeneration.

Then they ask what standard this equality will have. For if all are to be as big and as tall as the biggest and tallest who ever lived here, they ask, not only about little children but about most people, where what they lacked here will come to them from, if each one receives what he had here. But if what the apostle says, that we shall all come “to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ,” and that other saying, “Those whom he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son,” are to be understood to mean that the stature and measure of Christ's body will be that of all human bodies that will be in his kingdom, then “much,” they say, “will have to be taken away from the size and height of many bodies; and where then will be ‘not a hair of your head shall perish,’ if so much of the very size of the body perishes?” Although a question might be raised about the hairs themselves too, whether everything that fell away under the barber returns. If it is to return, who would not shudder at that deformity? For the same would seem necessarily to follow for the nails, so that all that the care of the body has cut away would return. And where will the comeliness be which in that immortality ought surely to be greater than it could be in this corruption? But if it does not return, then it will perish. How then, they say, will a hair of the head not perish?

They argue similarly about thinness and fatness. For if all are to be equal, surely some will not be thin and others fat. Something, then, will be added to some and taken from others; and so what was is not to be received back, but in some places what was not is to be added, and in others what was is to be lost. They are also greatly troubled about the very decay and dissolution of dead bodies, since some are turned to dust, some breathed out into the air, some consumed by beasts, some by fire, and some perish by shipwreck or in any waters in such a way that decay dissolves their flesh into liquid; and they do not believe that all these can be gathered back into flesh and made whole again. They also pursue every ugliness and defect, whether it happens by accident or from birth, recalling monstrous births with horror and ridicule, and asking what resurrection each deformity will have. For if we say that nothing of the kind returns to a man's body, they presume that they will refute our answer by the places of the wounds with which we preach that the Lord Christ rose.

But among all these, the most difficult question is put forward: into whose flesh will that flesh return by which the body of another man is nourished when hunger drives him to eat human flesh? For it has been turned into the flesh of him who lived on such food, and has made up the losses that his thinness had shown. Whether, then, it returns to the man whose flesh it was first, or rather to the one whose flesh it became later, they ask in order to mock the faith in the resurrection, and so either promise the human soul, as Plato does, an alternation of true unhappiness and false blessedness, or admit, as Porphyry does, that after many revolutions likewise through different bodies it nevertheless at last ends its miseries and never returns to them; not, however, by having an immortal body, but by fleeing every body.

### Scripture references

- Luke 21:18: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:13: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:29: quotation, high confidence
- John 20:27: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence
- Porphyry, Regr. (Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Luke 21:18; Eph 4:13; Rom 8:29. Christ's wounds after the resurrection: John 20:27. Plato's cycle of souls (e.g. Phaedrus, Republic 10) and Porphyry's view that the purified soul escapes all bodies (On the Return of the Soul) are cited from earlier books (10.30, 12.21, 13.19).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.12 (CSEL 40:618–621; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-12).

## City of God 22.13

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-13
- Source: CSEL 40:621–622
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine neither affirms nor denies that fetuses who died in the womb will rise, though he cannot see why they would be excluded from the resurrection of the dead.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIII An abortiui non pertineant ad resurrectionem, si pertinent ad numerum mortuorum. Ad haec ergo, quae ab eorum parte contraria me digerente mihi uidentur obposita, misericordia Dei meis nisibus opem ferente respondeam. Abortiuos fetus, qui, cum iam uixissent in utero, ibi sunt mortui, resurrecturos ut adfirmare, ita negare non audeo; quamuis non uideam quo modo ad eos non pertineat resurrectio mortuorum, si non eximuntur de numero mortuorum. Aut enim non omnes mortui resurgent et erunt aliquae humanae animae sine corporibus in aeternum, quae corpora humana, quamuis intra uiscera materna, gestarunt; aut si omnes animae humanae recipient resurgentia sua corpora, quae habuerunt, ubicumque uiuentia et morientia reliquerunt, non inuenio quem ad modum dicam ad resurrectionem non pertinere mortuorum quoscumque mortuos etiam in uteris matrum. Sed utrumlibet de his quisque sentiat., quod de iam natis infantibus dixerimus, hoc etiam de illis intellegendum est, si resurgent.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 13. Whether aborted fetuses do not belong to the resurrection, if they belong to the number of the dead.

To these objections, then, which seem to me, as I set them out, to be raised by the opposing side, let me answer, the mercy of God aiding my efforts. As for aborted fetuses, which, having already lived in the womb, died there, I dare neither affirm nor deny that they will rise; though I do not see how the resurrection of the dead does not belong to them, if they are not excluded from the number of the dead. For either not all the dead will rise, and there will be some human souls without bodies for ever, which bore human bodies, though within their mothers' wombs; or, if all human souls will receive their bodies rising again, the bodies they had, wherever they left them living and dying, I do not find how I can say that the resurrection of the dead does not belong to any who died, even in their mothers' wombs. But whichever view anyone holds of these, what we shall say of infants already born is to be understood of them too, if they rise.

### Translation notes

- Augustine explicitly leaves the question undecided (“I dare neither affirm nor deny”); the translation keeps his hesitation.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.13 (CSEL 40:621–622; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-13).

## City of God 22.14

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-14
- Source: CSEL 40:622–623
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Infants will rise with the full stature they would have reached, since the measure of each body is present in principle from conception and God can supply whatever is lacking.

### Latin text

CAPUT XIIII. An infantes in ea sint resurrecturi habitudine corporis, quam habituri erant aetatis accessu. Quid ergo de infantibus dicturi sumus, nisi quia non in ea resurrecturi sunt corporis exiguitate, qua mortui, sed quod eis tardius accessurum erat tempore, hoc sunt illo Dei opere miro adque celerrimo recepturi? In sententia quippe Domini, ubi ait: Capillus capitis uestri non peribit, dictum est non defuturum esse quod fuit, non autem negatum est adfuturum esse quod defuit. Defuit autem infanti mortuo perfecta quantitas sui corporis; perfecto quippe infanti deest utique perfectio magnitudinis corporalis, quae cum accesserit, iam statura longior esse non possit. Hunc perfectionis modum sic habent omnes, ut cum illo concipiantur adque nascantur; sed habent in ratione, non mole; sicut ipsa membra omnia iam sunt latenter in semine, cum etiam natis nonnulla adhuc desint, sicut dentes ac si quid eius modi. In qua ratione uniuscuiusque materiae indita corporali iam quodam modo, ut ita dicam, liciatum uidetur esse, quod nondum est, immo quod latet, sed accessu temporis erit uel potius apparebit. In hac ergo infans iam breuis aut longus est, qui breuis longusue futurus est. Secundum hanc rationem profecto in resurrectione corporis detrimenta corporis non timemus, quia. etsi aequalitas futura esset omnium, ita ut omnes usque ad giganteas magnitudines peruenirent. ne illi, qui maximi fuerunt, minus haberent aliquid in statura, quod eis contra sententiam Christi periret, qui dixit nec capillum capitis esse periturum, Creatori utique, qui creauit cuncta de nihilo, quo modo deesse posset unde adderet quod addendum esse mirus artifex nosset?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 14. Whether infants will rise in the bodily condition they would have had with the growth of age.

What, then, shall we say of infants, except that they will not rise in the smallness of body in which they died, but will receive by that wonderful and most swift work of God what time would have given them more slowly? For in the Lord's saying, “Not a hair of your head shall perish,” it is said that what was will not be lacking; it is not denied that what was lacking will be present. Now the infant who died lacked the full size of his body; for even a perfect infant lacks, of course, the perfection of bodily size, which, once added, allows no further growth in stature. All have this measure of perfection in such a way that they are conceived and born with it; but they have it in principle, not in bulk, just as all the members themselves are already hidden in the seed, even though some are still lacking in those already born, such as teeth and anything of that kind. In this principle, implanted in the bodily matter of each one, what does not yet exist, or rather what is hidden but will exist, or rather appear, with the passage of time, seems already, so to speak, woven into the warp. In this principle, then, an infant who is to be short or tall is already short or tall.

According to this principle we certainly do not fear losses of the body in the resurrection of the body; because, even if all were to be equal, so that all reached giant size, lest those who were largest should have anything less in stature which would perish for them against the saying of Christ, who said that not even a hair of the head would perish, how could the Creator, who created all things from nothing, lack the means of adding what he, the wonderful craftsman, knew must be added?

### Scripture references

- Luke 21:18: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotation: Luke 21:18. “Principle” renders ratio, the seminal principle of growth; liciatum (“woven into the warp”) is Augustine's rare metaphor from weaving.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.14 (CSEL 40:622–623; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-14).

## City of God 22.15

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-15
- Source: CSEL 40:623–624
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The dead will not all rise to the size of Christ's body; each will receive the stature of his own youth, and Paul's “measure of the age of Christ's fullness” refers either to the whole church or to the age of about thirty.

### Latin text

CAPUT XV. An ad dominici corporis modum omnium mortuorum resurrectura sint corpora. Sed utique Christus in ea mensura corporis, in qua mortuus est, resurrexit, nec fas est dicere, cum resurrectionis omnium tempus uenerit, accessuram corpori eius eam magnitudinem, quam non habuit, quando in ea discipulis, in qua illis erat notus, apparuit, ut longissimis fieri possit aequalis. Si autem dixerimus ad dominici corporis modum etiam quorumque maiora corpora redigenda, peribit de multorum corporibus plurimum, cum ipse nec capillum periturum esse promiserit. Restat ergo, ut suam recipiat quisque mensuram, quam uel habuit in iuuentute, etiamsi senex est mortuus, uel fuerat habiturus, si est ante defunctus, adque illud, quod commemorauit apostolus de mensura aetatis plenitudinis Christi, aut propter aliud intellegamus dictum esse, id est. ut illi capiti in populis Christianis accedente omnium perfectione membrorum aetatis eius mensura conpleatur, aut, si hoc de resurrectione corporum dictum est, sic accipiamus dictum, ut nec infra nec ultra iuuenalem formam resurgant corpora mortuorum, sed in eius aetate et robore, usque ad quam Christum hic peruenisse cognouimus (circa triginta quippe annos definierunt esse etiam saeculi huius doctissimi homines iuuentutem; quae cum fuerit spatio proprio terminata, inde iam hominem in detrimenta uergere grauioris ac senilis aetatis); et ideo non esse dictum in mensuram corporis uel in mensuram staturae. sed in mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 15. Whether the bodies of all the dead will rise to the measure of the Lord's body.

But certainly Christ rose in the measure of body in which he died, and it is not right to say that, when the time of the resurrection of all has come, a size will be added to his body that it did not have when he appeared to the disciples in the body in which he was known to them, so that he could become equal to the tallest. But if we say that the larger bodies of any people are to be reduced to the measure of the Lord's body, a great deal will perish from the bodies of many, though he promised that not even a hair would perish. It remains, then, that each will receive his own measure, the one he either had in youth, even if he died an old man, or would have had, if he died before. And as for what the apostle mentioned about “the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ,” we must understand either that it was said with another meaning, namely, that the measure of his age is completed when the perfection of all the members among the Christian peoples is added to that head; or, if it was said of the resurrection of bodies, we should take it to mean that the bodies of the dead will rise neither below nor beyond the form of youth, but in the age and strength to which we know that Christ came here (for even the most learned men of this world have set youth at about thirty years; and when it has run its proper span, a man from then on declines toward the losses of heavier old age). And so it was said not “to the measure of the body” or “to the measure of the stature,” but “to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ.”

### Scripture references

- Eph 4:13: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 21:18: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Eph 4:13; Luke 21:18.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.15 (CSEL 40:623–624; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-15).

## City of God 22.16

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-16
- Source: CSEL 40:624–625
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Being “conformed to the image of the Son” refers to inner renewal or to immortality, and if to the risen body, to the age of youth, though Augustine will not contend with those who think each rises at the age of death.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVI. Qualis intellegenda sit sanctorum conformatio ad imaginem filii Dei. Illud etiam, quod ait praedestinatos conformes imaginis filii Dei. potest et secundum interiorem hominem intellegi (unde nobis alio loco dicit: Nolite conformari huic saeculo, sed reformamini in nouitate mentis uestrae; ubi ergo reformamur, ne conformemur huic saeculo, ibi conformamur Dei filio); potest et sic accipi, ut, quem ad modum nobis ille mortalitate, ita nos illi efficiamur inmortalitate conformes; quod quidem et ad ipsam resurrectionem corporum pertinet. Si autem etiam in his uerbis, qua forma resurrectura sint corpora, sumus admoniti, sicut illa mensura, ita et ista conformatio non quantitatis intellegenda est, sed aetatis. Resurgent itaque omnes tam magni corpore, quam uel erant uel futuri erant aetate iuuenali; quamuis nihil oberit, etiamsi erit infantilis uel senilis corporis forma, ubi nec mentis, nec ipsius corporis ulla remanebit infirmitas. Unde etiam si quis in eo corporis modo, in quo defunctus est, resurrecturum unumquemque contendit, non est cum illo laboriosa contradictione pugnandum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 16. How the conforming of the saints to the image of the Son of God is to be understood.

What he says, too, that the predestined are “conformed to the image of the Son of God,” can also be understood of the inner man (hence he says to us in another place, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be reformed in the newness of your mind”; where, then, we are reformed so as not to be conformed to this world, there we are conformed to the Son of God). It can also be taken to mean that, as he was made conformed to us in mortality, so we are made conformed to him in immortality; and this indeed belongs to the resurrection of bodies itself. But if these words too teach us in what form bodies will rise, then, like that “measure,” this “conforming” is to be understood not of size but of age. So all will rise as large in body as they either were or would have been in the age of youth; though it will do no harm even if the form of the body is that of an infant or an old man, where no weakness of mind or of the body itself will remain. So even if anyone maintains that each will rise in the measure of body in which he died, we need not fight him with laborious contradiction.

### Scripture references

- Rom 8:29: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 12:2: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Rom 8:29; Rom 12:2 (in the Old Latin form “be reformed”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.16 (CSEL 40:624–625; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-16).

## City of God 22.17

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-17
- Source: CSEL 40:625–626
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Against the view that all will rise male, Augustine holds that both sexes will rise, without lust, marriage, or childbearing, since woman is God's creature and Christ denied marriage, not women, in the resurrection.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVII. An in suo sexu resuscitanda adque mansura sint corpora feminarum. Nonnulli propter hoc, quod dictum est: Donec occurramus omnes in uirum perfectum, in mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi, et: Conformes imaginis filii Dei, nec in sexu femineo resurrecturas feminas credunt, sed in uirili omnes aiunt, quoniam Deus solum uirum fecit ex limo, feminam ex uiro. Sed mihi melius sapere uidentur, qui utrumque sexum resurrecturum esse non dubitant. Non enim libido ibi erit, quae confusionis est causa. Nam priusquam peccassent, nudi erant, et non confundebantur uir et femina. Corporibus ergo illis uitia detrahentur, natura seruabitur. Non est autem uitium sexus femineus, sed natura, quae tunc quidem et a concubitu et a partu inmunis erit; erunt tamen membra feminea non adcommodata usui ueteri, sed decori nouo, quo non adliciatur adspicientis concupiscentia, quae nulla erit, sed Dei laudetur sapientia adque clementia, qui et quod non erat fecit et liberauit a corruptione quod fecit. Ut enim in exordio generis humani de latere uiri dormientis costa detracta femina fieret, Christum et ecclesiam tali facto iam tunc prophetari oportebat. Sopor quippe ille uiri mors erat Christi, cuius exanimis in cruce pendentis latus lancea perforatum est adque inde sanguis et aqua profluxit; quae sacramenta esse nouimus, quibus aedificatur ecclesia. Nam hoc etiam uerbo scriptura usa est, ubi non legitur Formauit aut Finxit, sed: Aedificauit eam in mulierem; unde et apostolus aedificationem dicit corporis Christi, quod est ecclesia. Creatura est ergo Dei femina sicut uir; sed ut de uiro fieret, unitas commendata; ut autem illo modo fieret, Christus, ut dictum est, et ecclesia figurata est. Qui ergo utrumque sexum instituit, utrumque restituet. Denique ipse Iesus interrogatus a Sadducaeis, qui negabant resurrectionem, cuius septem fratrum erit uxor, quam singuli habuerunt, dum quisque eorum uellet defuncti semen, sicut lex praeceperat, excitare: Erratis, inquit, nescientes scripturas, neque uirtutem Dei; et cum locus esset, ut diceret: De qua enim me interrogatis, uir erit etiam ipsa, non mulier, non hoc dixit, sed dixit: In resurrectione enim neque nubent neque uxores ducent, sed sunt sicut angeli Dei in caelo; aequales utique angelis inmortalitate ac felicitate, non carne; sicut nec resurrectione. qua non indiguerunt angeli, quoniam nec mori potuerunt Nuptias ergo Dominus futuras negauit esse in resurrectione, non feminas, et ibi negauit, ubi talis quaestio uertebatur, ut eam negato sexu muliebri celeriore facilitate dissolueret, si eum ibi praenosceret non futurum; immo etiam futurum esse firmauit dicendo: Non nubent, quod ad feminas pertinet nec uxores ducent, quod ad uiros. Erunt ergo, quae uel nubere hic solent, uel ducere uxores; sed ibi hoc non facient.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 17. Whether the bodies of women will be raised and remain in their own sex.

Some, because it is said, “until we all come to the perfect man, to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ,” and, “conformed to the image of the Son of God,” believe that women will not rise in the female sex, but say that all will rise in the male, since God made only the man from clay, and the woman from the man. But those seem to me wiser who do not doubt that both sexes will rise. For there will be no lust there, which is the cause of shame. For before they sinned, they were naked, and the man and the woman were not ashamed. So defects will be taken away from those bodies, and nature preserved. The female sex is not a defect but nature, which will then be free both from intercourse and from childbearing; yet the female members will remain, suited not to their old use but to a new beauty, by which the lust of the beholder, which will not exist, is not enticed, but the wisdom and mercy of God is praised, who both made what was not and freed from corruption what he made.

For that at the beginning of the human race the woman was made from a rib taken from the side of the man while he slept was fitting, since by such a deed Christ and the church were even then to be prophesied. For that sleep of the man was the death of Christ, whose side, as he hung lifeless on the cross, was pierced with a lance, and from it flowed blood and water, which we know to be the sacraments by which the church is built up. For Scripture used this very word, where we read not “he formed” or “he fashioned,” but “he built it into a woman”; hence the apostle too speaks of the building up of the body of Christ, which is the church. The woman, then, is God's creature just as the man is; but her being made from the man commends unity, and her being made in that way, as has been said, prefigured Christ and the church. He, then, who established both sexes will restore both.

Finally, Jesus himself, when he was asked by the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, whose wife the woman would be whom the seven brothers had each had, while each of them wished to raise up seed for the deceased, as the law had commanded, said, “You are wrong, knowing neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” And though there was an opening for him to say, “For she about whom you ask me will herself be a man, not a woman,” he did not say this, but said, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor take wives, but are like the angels of God in heaven”: equal to the angels, that is, in immortality and happiness, not in flesh; nor in resurrection either, which the angels did not need, since they could not die. So the Lord denied that there would be marriages in the resurrection, not women; and he denied it where such a question was being discussed that he would have settled it more quickly and easily by denying the female sex, if he foreknew that it would not exist there. Indeed, he even affirmed that it would exist, by saying, “they do not marry,” which refers to women, “nor take wives,” which refers to men. There will be, then, those who here are accustomed either to be married or to take wives; but there they will not do so.

### Scripture references

- Eph 4:13: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:29: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:7: allusion, medium confidence
- Gen 2:25: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:21: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 2:22: quotation, high confidence
- John 19:34: allusion, high confidence
- Eph 4:12: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 22:29: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 22:30: quotation, high confidence
- Deut 25:5: allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: Eph 4:13; Rom 8:29; Gen 2:7, 21–22, 25; John 19:34; Eph 4:12; Matt 22:23–30 (the levirate law, Deut 25:5). Blood and water as the sacraments (baptism and eucharist) that build the church is Augustine's typology; “he built it into a woman” is the literal sense of Gen 2:22 (Latin aedificauit).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.17 (CSEL 40:625–626; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-17).

## City of God 22.18

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-18
- Source: CSEL 40:626–628
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: From the context of Eph 4, the “perfect man” is Christ with his body the church, whose fullness is completed in its members; even if it referred to the resurrection, “man” would include women.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIII. De uiro perfecto, id est Christo, et corpore eius. id est ecclesia, quae est ipsius plenitudo. Proinde quod ait apostolus, occursuros nos omnes in uirum perfectum, totius ipsius circumstantiam lectionis considerare debemus, quae ita se habet: Qui descendit, inquit, ipse est et qui adscendit super omnes caelos, ut adinpleret omnia. Et ipse dedit quosdam quidem apostolos, quosdam autem prophetas, quosdam uero euangelistas, quosdam autem pastores et doctores ad consummationem sanctorum in opus ministerii, in aedificationem corporis Christi, donec occurramus omnes in unitatem fidei et agnitionem filii Dei, in uirum perfectum, in mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi; ut ultra non simus paruuli iactati et circumlati omni uento doctrinae, in inlusione hominum, in astutia ad machinationem erroris, ueritatem autem facientes in caritate augeamur in illo per omnia, qui est caput Christus; ex quo totum corpus conexum et conpactum per omnem tactum subministrationis secundum operationem in mensuram uniuscuiusque partis incrementum corporis facit in aedificationem sui in caritate. Ecce qui est uir perfectus, caput et corpus, quod constat omnibus membris, quae suo tempore conplebuntur, cottidie tamen eidem corpori accedunt, dum aedificatur ecclesia, cui dicitur: Vos autem estis corpus Christi et membra, et alibi: Pro corpore, inquit, eius quod est ecclesia, itemque alibi: Unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus. De cuius corporis aedificatione et hic dictum est: Ad consummationem sanctorum in opus ministerii, in aedificationem corporis Christi ac deinde subiectum unde nunc agimus: Donec occurramus omnes in unitatem fidei et agnitionem filii Dei, in uirum perfectum, in mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi, et cetera; donec eadem mensura in quo corpore intellegenda esset, ostenderet dicens: Augeamur in illo per omnia, qui est caput Christus; ex quo totum corpus conexum et conpactum per omnem tactum subministrationis secundum operationem in mensuram uniuscuiusque partis. Sicut ergo est mensura uniuscuiusque partis, ita totius corporis, quod omnibus suis partibus constat, est utique mensura plenitudinis, de qua dictum est: In mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi. Quam plenitudinem etiam illo commemorauit loco, ubi ait de Christo: Et ipsum dedit caput super omnia ecclesiae, quae est corpus eius, plenitudo eius, qui omnia in omnibus inpletur. Verum si hoc ad resurrectionis formam, in qua erit unusquisque, referendum esset, quid nos inpediret nominato uiro intellegere et feminam, ut uirum pro homine positum acciperemus? sicut in eo quod dictum est: Beatus uir qui timet Dominum, utique ibi sunt et feminae, quae timent Dominum.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 18. On the perfect man, that is, Christ, and his body, that is, the church, which is his fullness.

Accordingly, as for the apostle's saying that we shall all come to the perfect man, we must consider the context of the whole reading, which runs thus: “He who descended is the same who also ascended above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, some as pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ, until we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to the perfect man, to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in the scheming of error; but, doing the truth in love, we may grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint of supply, according to the working in the measure of each part, makes the growth of the body for its own building up in love.” See who the perfect man is: head and body, which consists of all the members, which will be complete in their own time, yet are daily being added to the same body while the church is being built, to which it is said, “But you are the body of Christ and its members,” and elsewhere, “For his body,” he says, “which is the church,” and likewise elsewhere, “We, though many, are one bread, one body.”

Of the building up of this body it is said here too, “for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ”; and then is added what we are now dealing with, “until we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to the perfect man, to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ,” and so on, until he showed in what body that measure was to be understood, saying, “that we may grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint of supply, according to the working in the measure of each part.” As there is, then, a measure of each part, so there is surely a measure of the fullness of the whole body, which consists of all its parts, of which it is said, “to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ.” He mentioned this fullness also in the place where he says of Christ, “And he gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who is filled all in all.” But if this were to be referred to the form of the resurrection in which each will be, what would prevent us from understanding the woman too when “man” is named, taking “man” as put for “human being”? As in the saying, “Blessed is the man who fears the Lord,” women who fear the Lord are certainly included.

### Scripture references

- Eph 4:10: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:11: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:12: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:13: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:14: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:15: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 4:16: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 12:27: quotation, high confidence
- Col 1:24: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 10:17: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 1:22: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 1:23: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 112:1 (111:1 LXX): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Eph 4:10–16; 1 Cor 12:27; Col 1:24; 1 Cor 10:17; Eph 1:22–23; Ps 112:1 (LXX 111:1).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.18 (CSEL 40:626–628; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-9/#p-22-18).

## City of God 22.19

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-19/#p-22-19
- Source: CSEL 40:628–631
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: In the resurrection deformities will be removed without loss of substance, all bodies will have beauty of proportion and radiance, and the martyrs may bear their scars as marks of honour, with lost members restored.

### Latin text

CAPUT XVIIII. Quod omnia corporis uitia, quae in hac uita humano contraria sunt decori, in resurrectione non sint futura, ubi manente naturali substantia in unam pulchritudinem et qualitas concurret et quantitas. Quid iam respondeam de capillis adque unguibus? Semel quippe intellecto ita nihil periturum esse de corpore. ut deforme nihil sit in corpore, simul intellegitur ea, quae deformem factura fuerant enormitatem, massae ipsi accessura esse, non locis in quibus membrorum forma turpetur. Velut si de limo uas fieret, quod rursus in eundem limum redactum totum de toto iterum fieret, non esset necesse ut illa pars limi, quae in ansa fuerat, ad ansam rediret, aut quae fundum fecerat, ipsa rursus faceret fundum, dum tamen totum reuerteretur in totum, id est, totus ille limus in totum uas nulla sui perdita parte remearet. Quapropter si capilli totiens tonsi unguesue desecti ad sua loca deformiter redeunt, non redibunt; nec tamen cuique resurgenti peribunt, quia in eandem carnem, ut quemcumque ibi locum corporis teneant, seruata partium congruentia materiae mutabilitate uertentur. Quamuis quod ait Dominus: Capillus capitis uestri non peribit, non de longitudine, sed de numero capillorum dictum multo aptius possit intellegi; unde et alibi dicit: Capilli capitis uestri numerati sunt. Neque hoc ideo dixerim, quod aliquid existimem corpori cuique periturum, quod naturaliter inerat; sed quod deforme natum fuerat (non utique ob aliud, nisi ut hinc quoque ostenderetur, quam sit poenalis condicio ista mortalium), sic esse rediturum, ut seruata integritate substantiae deformitas pereat. Si enim statuam potest artifex homo, quam propter aliquam causam deformem fecerat, conflare et pulcherrimam reddere, ita ut nihil inde substantiae, sed sola deformitas pereat, ac si quid in illa figura priore indecenter exstabat nec parilitate partium congruebat, non de toto, unde fecerat, amputare adque separare, sed ita conspergere uniuerso adque miscere, ut nec foeditatem faciat nec minuat quantitatem: quid de omnipotenti artifice sentiendum est? Ergone non poterit quasque deformitates humanorum corporum, non modo usitatas, uerum etiam raras adque monstrosas, quae huic miserae uitae congruunt, abhorrent autem ab illa futura felicitate sanctorum, sic auferre ac perdere, ut, quascumque earum faciunt etsi naturalia, tamen indecora excrementa substantiae corporalis, nulla eius deminutione tollantur? Ac per hoc non est macris pinguibusque metuendum, ne ibi etiam tales sint, quales si possent nec hic esse uoluissent. Omnis enim corporis pulchritudo est partium congruentia cum quadam coloris suauitate. Ubi autem non est partium congruentia, aut ideo quid offendit quia prauum est, aut ideo quia parum, aut ideo quia nimium. Proinde nulla erit deformitas, quam facit incongruentia partium, ubi et quae praua sunt corrigentur, et quod minus est quam decet, unde Creator nouit, inde subplebitur, et quod plus est quam decet, materiae seruata integritate detrahetur. Coloris porro suauitas quanta erit, ubi iusti fulgebunt sicut sol in regno Patris sui! Quae claritas in Christi corpore, cum resurrexit, ab oculis discipulorum potius abscondita fuisse quam defuisse credenda est. Non enim eam ferret humanus adque infirmus adspectus, quando ille a suis ita deberet adtendi, ut posset agnosci. Quo pertinuit etiam, ut contrectantibus ostenderet suorum uulnerum cicatrices, ut etiam cibum potumque sumeret, non alimentorum indigentia, sed ea qua et hoc poterat potestate. Cum autem aliquid non uidetur, quamuis adsit, a quibus alia, quae pariter adsunt, uidentur, sicut illam claritatem dicimus adfuisse non uisam, a quibus alia uidebantur: ἀορασία Graece dicitur, quod nostri interpretes Latine dicere non ualentes in libro geneseos caecitatem interpretati sunt. Hanc enim sunt passi Sodomitae, quando quaerebant ostium iusti uiri nec poterant inuenire. Quae si caecitas fuisset, qua fit ut nihil possit uideri, non ostium qua ingrederentur, sed duces itineris a quibus inde abducerentur, inquirerent. Nescio quo autem modo sic adficimur amore martyrum beatorum, ut uelimus in illo regno in eorum corporibus uidere uulnerum cicatrices, quae pro Christi nomine pertulerunt; et fortasse uidebimus. Non enim deformitas in eis, sed dignitas erit, et quaedam, quamuis in corpore, non corporis, sed uirtutis pulchritudo fulgebit. Nec ideo tamen si aliqua martyribus amputata et ablata sunt membra, sine ipsis membris erunt in resurrectione mortuorum, quibus dictum est: Capillus capitis uestri non peribit Sed si hoc decebit in illo nouo saeculo, ut indicia gloriosorum uulnerum in illa inmortali carne cernantur, ubi membra, ut praeciderentur, percussa uel secta sunt, ibi cicatrices, sed tamen eisdem membris redditis, non perditis, apparebunt. Quamuis itaque omnia quae acciderunt corpori uitia tunc non erunt, non sunt tamen deputanda uel appellanda uitia uirtutis indicia.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 19. That all bodily defects contrary to human beauty in this life will not exist in the resurrection, where, the natural substance remaining, quality and quantity will combine in one beauty.

What am I now to answer about hair and nails? Once it is understood that nothing of the body will perish in such a way that nothing in the body is deformed, it is understood at the same time that whatever would have made a deforming excess will be added to the mass as a whole, not to the places where the form of the members would be disfigured. As if a vessel were made of clay, and was reduced again to the same clay and made again, whole from whole, it would not be necessary that the part of the clay that had been in the handle should return to the handle, or that what had made the bottom should make the bottom again, as long as the whole returned into the whole, that is, all that clay returned into the whole vessel with no part of it lost. So if hair cut so often, or nails pared, would return to their places in a deforming way, they will not return; and yet they will not perish for anyone who rises, because they will be turned into the same flesh, to hold whatever place in the body, the proportion of the parts being preserved, by the changeableness of matter. Although what the Lord says, “Not a hair of your head shall perish,” could much more fittingly be understood as said of the number of hairs, not their length; hence he also says elsewhere, “The hairs of your head are numbered.”

Nor would I say this because I think that anything that was naturally present will perish from any body, but that whatever was born deformed (for no other reason, surely, than that from this too it might be shown how penal this condition of mortals is) will be restored in such a way that the deformity perishes while the whole substance is preserved. For if a human craftsman can melt down a statue which for some reason he had made deformed, and make it most beautiful, so that nothing of its substance perishes but only the deformity, and, if anything in that former figure stuck out unbecomingly and did not agree with the proportion of the parts, he can, without cutting it off and separating it from the whole he had made it from, sprinkle and mix it through the whole so as neither to make ugliness nor lessen the quantity, what are we to think of the almighty craftsman? Will he not be able to take away and do away with every deformity of human bodies, not only the usual ones but also the rare and monstrous, which suit this miserable life but are abhorrent to that future happiness of the saints, so that whatever excrescences of bodily substance they produce, natural though unbecoming, are removed without any lessening of it?

And so the thin and the fat need not fear that there too they will be such as, if they could, they would not have wished to be even here. For all beauty of body is a proportion of the parts together with a certain sweetness of colour. Where there is no proportion of the parts, something offends either because it is crooked, or too little, or too much. So there will be no deformity caused by lack of proportion of the parts, where what is crooked will be corrected, and what is less than is fitting will be supplied from where the Creator knows, and what is more than is fitting will be taken away while the whole of the matter is preserved. And how great will the sweetness of colour be where “the righteous shall shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father”! This brightness in Christ's body when he rose must be believed to have been hidden from the eyes of the disciples rather than to have been lacking. For human and weak sight could not have borne it, when he had to be looked at by his own in such a way that he could be recognized. To this purpose also belonged his showing the scars of his wounds to those who touched him, and even taking food and drink, not from need of nourishment, but by the power by which he could do this too.

When something is not seen, though it is present, by those by whom other things equally present are seen, as we say that brightness was present but not seen by those by whom other things were seen, it is called in Greek aorasia, which our translators, not being able to say it in Latin, rendered in the book of Genesis as “blindness.” For the Sodomites suffered this when they looked for the righteous man's door and could not find it. If it had been the blindness by which nothing can be seen, they would have looked not for a door by which to enter but for guides to lead them away from there.

But somehow we are so moved by love of the blessed martyrs that we would wish to see in that kingdom, on their bodies, the scars of the wounds they endured for the name of Christ; and perhaps we shall see them. For there will be no deformity in them, but dignity, and a certain beauty will shine, of virtue, not of the body, though in the body. Yet it does not follow that if any members were cut off and taken away from martyrs, they will be without those members in the resurrection of the dead, to whom it was said, “Not a hair of your head shall perish.” But if it is fitting in that new age that the marks of glorious wounds be seen in that immortal flesh, then where members were struck or cut so as to be cut off, there the scars will appear, but with the same members restored, not lost. So although all the defects that befell the body will not exist then, the marks of virtue are not to be reckoned or called defects.

### Scripture references

- Luke 21:18: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 10:30: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 13:43: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 24:39: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 24:43: allusion, high confidence
- John 20:27: allusion, high confidence
- Gen 19:11: allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: Luke 21:18 (twice); Matt 10:30; Matt 13:43. The risen Christ's scars and eating: Luke 24:39–43; John 20:27. The Sodomites' “blindness”: Gen 19:11, where the Septuagint has ἀορασία (inability to see). Augustine offers the martyrs' scars as a “perhaps.”

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.19 (CSEL 40:628–631; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-19/#p-22-19).

## City of God 22.20

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-19/#p-22-20
- Source: CSEL 40:631–634
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: God can recall all scattered matter of dead bodies; flesh eaten by another will be restored to its first owner, and all will rise with the proportions of youth, free of every deformity and corruption.

### Latin text

CAPUT XX. Quod in resurrectione mortuorum natura corporum quibuslibet modis dissipatorum in integrum undecumque reuocanda sit. Absit autem, ut ad resuscitanda corpora uitaeque reddenda non possit omnipotentia Creatoris omnia reuocare, quae uel bestiae uel ignis absumsit, uel in puluerem cineremue conlapsum uel in umorem solutum uel in auras est exhalatum. Absit ut sinus ullus secretumque naturae ita recipiat aliquid subtractum sensibus nostris, ut omnium Creatoris aut cognitionem lateat aut effugiat potestatem. Deum certe uolens, sicut poterat, definire Cicero, tantus auctor ipsorum: Mens quaedam est, inquit, soluta et libera, secreta ab omni concretione mortali, omnia sentiens et mouens ipsaque praedita motu sempiterno. Hoc autem repperit in doctrinis magnorum philosophorum. Ut igitur secundum ipsos loquar, quo modo aliquid uel latet omnia sentientem uel inreuocabiliter fugit omnia mouentem? Unde iam etiam quaestio illa soluenda est, quae difficilior uidetur ceteris, ubi quaeritur, cum caro mortui hominis etiam alterius fit uiuentis caro, cui potius eorum in resurrectione reddatur. Si enim quispiam confectus fame adque conpulsus uescatur cadaueribus hominum, quod malum aliquotiens accidisse et uetus testatur historia et nostrorum temporum infelicia experimenta docuerunt: num quisquam ueridica ratione contendet totum digestum fuisse per imos meatus, nihil inde in eius carnem mutatum adque conuersum, cum ipsa macies, quae fuit et non est, satis indicet quae illis escis detrimenta subpleta sint? Iam itaque aliqua paulo ante praemisi, quae ad istum quoque nodum soluendum ualere debebunt. Quidquid enim carnium exhausit fames, utique in auras est exhalatum, unde diximus omnipotentem Deum posse reuocare. quod fugit. Reddetur ergo caro illa homini, in quo esse caro humana primitus coepit. Ab illo quippe altero tamquam mutuo sumta deputanda est; quae sicut aes alienum ei redhibenda est, unde sumta est. Sua uero illi, quem fames exinanierat, ab eo. qui potest etiam exhalata reuocare, reddetur. Quamuis etsi omnibus perisset modis nec ulla eius materies in ullis naturae latebris remansisset, unde uellet, eam repararet Omnipotens. Sed propter sententiam Veritatis, qua dictum est: Capillus capitis uestri non peribit, absurdum est, ut putemus, cum capillus hominis perire non possit, tantas carnes fame depastas adque consumtas perire potuisse. Quibus omnibus pro nostro modulo consideratis adque tractatis haec summa conficitur, ut in resurrectione carnis in aeternum eas mensuras habeat corporum magnitudo, quas habebat perficiendae siue perfectae cuiusque indita corpori ratio iuuentutis, in membrorum quoque omnium modulis congruo decore seruato. Quod decus ut seruetur, si aliquid demtum fuerit indecenti alicui granditati in parte aliqua constitutae, quod per totum spargatur, ut neque id pereat et congruentia partium ubique teneatur: non est absurdum, ut aliquid inde etiam staturae corporis addi posse credamus, cum omnibus partibus, ut decorem custodiant, id distribuitur, quod si enormiter in una esset, utique non deceret. Aut si contenditur in ea quemque statura corporis resurrecturum esse, in qua defunctus est, non pugnaciter resistendum est; tantum absit omnis deformitas, omnis infirmitas, omnis tarditas omnisque corruptio, et si quid aliud illud non decet regnum, in quo resurrectionis et promissionis filii aequales erunt angelis Dei, si non corpore, non aetate, certe felicitate.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 20. That in the resurrection of the dead the nature of bodies, however scattered, will be recalled whole from wherever it is.

Far be it from us to think that the omnipotence of the Creator cannot, in order to raise bodies and restore them to life, recall all that beasts or fire have consumed, or that has fallen into dust or ashes, or been dissolved into liquid, or breathed out into the air. Far be it from us to think that any recess or hiding place of nature receives anything withdrawn from our senses in such a way that it is hidden from the knowledge or escapes the power of the Creator of all things. Cicero, so great an authority of theirs, wishing to define God as best he could, says, “He is a certain mind, unfettered and free, separated from all mortal combination, perceiving and moving all things, and itself endowed with everlasting motion.” This he found in the teachings of great philosophers. To speak, then, in their own terms, how can anything either be hidden from him who perceives all things, or escape irrecoverably from him who moves all things?

Hence that question too is now to be solved which seems more difficult than the rest, where it is asked, when the flesh of a dead man becomes also the flesh of another who is living, to which of them it is to be restored in the resurrection. For if someone, worn out and driven by hunger, eats the corpses of men, an evil that has happened at times, as both ancient history testifies and the unhappy experiences of our own times have taught, will anyone contend with truthful reasoning that it was all digested and passed through the lower passages, with nothing of it changed and turned into his flesh, when the very thinness that was and is no longer shows well enough what losses were made up by that food? I have already put forward a little earlier some things that ought to serve to untie this knot too. For whatever flesh hunger has wasted has certainly been breathed out into the air, from which, we said, almighty God can recall what has escaped. That flesh, then, will be restored to the man in whom it first began to be human flesh. For it must be reckoned as borrowed, as it were, by that other man; and like a debt it must be paid back to him from whom it was taken. And his own flesh, which hunger had wasted, will be restored to the second man by him who can recall even what has been breathed away. And even if it had perished in every way, and none of its matter remained in any hiding place of nature, the Almighty would restore it from wherever he willed. But because of the saying of the Truth, “Not a hair of your head shall perish,” it is absurd to think that, when a man's hair cannot perish, so much flesh eaten and consumed by hunger could perish.

When all this has been considered and handled according to our small capacity, the conclusion is this: in the resurrection of the flesh to eternity the size of bodies will have the measurements that the principle of youth, implanted in each body, had, whether it was yet to be completed or already complete, with fitting beauty preserved also in the proportions of all the members. And if, to preserve this beauty, something is taken from some unbecoming largeness set in some part, to be spread over the whole, so that it does not perish and the proportion of the parts is kept everywhere, it is not absurd to believe that something may thereby be added even to the stature of the body, when what would certainly be unbecoming if it were excessive in one part is distributed among all the parts to keep their beauty. Or if it is contended that each will rise in the stature of body in which he died, we need not resist it combatively; only let there be absent all deformity, all weakness, all slowness and all corruption, and anything else that does not befit that kingdom in which the children of the resurrection and of the promise will be equal to the angels of God, if not in body, not in age, certainly in happiness.

### Scripture references

- Luke 21:18: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 20:36: allusion, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Cicero, Tusc. 1.66 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The definition of God is Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 1.66 (1.27.66). “Not a hair of your head shall perish” is Luke 21:18; “equal to the angels” echoes Luke 20:36. Cannibalism in famine is mentioned from ancient history and from recent events (possibly the famine during Alaric's siege of Rome, 409–410); the translation gives it as stated.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.20 (CSEL 40:631–634; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-19/#p-22-20).

## City of God 22.21

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-19/#p-22-21
- Source: CSEL 40:634–635
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The risen flesh will be spiritual, wholly subject to the spirit yet still flesh; to glimpse its glory Augustine proposes to consider God's gifts even in this troubled life.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXI. De nouitate corporis spiritalis, in quam sanctorum caro mutabitur. Restituetur ergo quidquid de corporibus uiuis uel post mortem de cadaueribus periit, et simul cum eo, quod in sepulcris remansit, in spiritalis corporis nouitatem ex animalis corporis uetustate mutatum resurget incorruptione adque inmortalitate uestitum. Sed etsi uel casu aliquo graui uel inimicorum inmanitate totum penitus conteratur in puluerem adque in auras uel in aquas dispersum, quantum fieri potest. nusquam esse sinatur omnino: nullo modo subtrahi poterit omnipotentiae Creatoris, sed capillus in eo capitis non peribit. Erit ergo spiritui subdita caro spiritalis, sed tamen caro, non spiritus; sicut carni subditus fuit spiritus ipse carnalis, sed tamen spiritus, non caro. Cuius rei habemus experimentum in nostrae poenae deformitate. Non enim secundum carnem, sed utique secundum spiritum carnales erant, quibus ait apostolus: Non potui uobis loqui quasi spiritalibus, sed quasi carnalibus; et homo spiritalis sic in hac uita dicitur, ut tamen corpore adhuc carnalis sit et uideat aliam legem in membris suis repugnantem legi mentis suae; erit autem etiam corpore spiritalis, cum eadem caro sic resurrexerit, ut fiat quod scriptum est: Seminatur corpus animale, resurget corpus spiritale. Quae sit autem et quam magna spiritalis corporis gratia, quoniam nondum uenit in experimentum, uereor ne temerarium sit omne, quod de illa profertur, eloquium. Verum tamen quia spei nostrae gaudium propter Dei laudem non est tacendum et de intimis ardentis sancti amoris medullis dictum est: Domine, dilexi decorem domus tuae: de donis eius, quae in hac aerumnosissima uita bonis malisque largitur, ipso adiuuante coniciamus, ut possumus, quantum sit illud, quod nondum experti utique digne eloqui non ualemus. Omitto enim, quando fecit hominem rectum; omitto uitam illam duorum coniugum in paradisi fecunditate felicem, quoniam tam breuis fuit, ut ad nascentium sensum nec ipsa peruenerit: in hac, quam nouimus, in qua adhuc sumus, cuius tentationes, immo quam totam tentationem, quamdiu in ea sumus, quantumlibet proficiamus, perpeti non desinimus, quae sint indicia circa genus humanum bonitatis Dei, quis poterit explicare?

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 21. On the newness of the spiritual body into which the flesh of the saints will be changed.

So whatever has perished from living bodies, or after death from corpses, will be restored, and together with what remained in the tombs it will rise, changed from the oldness of the natural body into the newness of the spiritual body, clothed with incorruption and immortality. But even if by some grave accident or by the savagery of enemies it is wholly ground to dust and scattered into the air or the waters, so that, as far as possible, it is allowed to be nowhere at all, it can in no way be withdrawn from the omnipotence of the Creator; but not a hair of its head shall perish. The spiritual flesh, then, will be subject to the spirit, but it will still be flesh, not spirit; just as the carnal spirit itself was subject to the flesh, but was still spirit, not flesh. Of this we have experience in the deformity of our punishment. For those to whom the apostle says, “I could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal,” were carnal not according to the flesh but certainly according to the spirit; and a man is called spiritual in this life in such a way that he is still carnal in body and sees another law in his members warring against the law of his mind; but he will be spiritual in body too when the same flesh has risen in such a way that what is written comes to pass: “It is sown a natural body, it will rise a spiritual body.”

But what the grace of the spiritual body is, and how great, I fear that every word spoken about it may be rash, since it has not yet come into experience. Yet because the joy of our hope is not to be kept silent, for the praise of God, and it was said from the inmost marrow of burning holy love, “Lord, I have loved the beauty of your house,” let us, with his help, infer as we can, from the gifts he bestows on good and bad in this most troubled life, how great that thing is which, not having experienced it, we certainly cannot worthily express. For I pass over the time when he made man upright; I pass over that happy life of the two spouses in the fruitfulness of paradise, since it was so short that it did not even reach the awareness of those born afterwards. In this life which we know, in which we still are, whose temptations, or rather which, as a whole, is one temptation, we do not cease to endure as long as we are in it, however much we advance, who can set out what signs of the goodness of God there are toward the human race?

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 15:53: allusion, high confidence
- Luke 21:18: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 3:1: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 7:23: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:44: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 26:8 (25:8 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Eccl 7:29: allusion, medium confidence
- Job 7:1: echo, low confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations: 1 Cor 3:1; Rom 7:23; 1 Cor 15:44; Ps 26:8 (LXX 25:8). “Clothed with incorruption and immortality” echoes 1 Cor 15:53–54; “made man upright” Eccl 7:29; the life that is one long temptation recalls Job 7:1 in the Old Latin (“the life of man on earth is a temptation”).

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.21 (CSEL 40:634–635; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-19/#p-22-21).

## City of God 22.22

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-19/#p-22-22
- Source: CSEL 40:635–640
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The countless evils of this life, from ignorance and vice to accidents, diseases, demons, and famine, show that the human race is condemned through the first sin, and only the grace of Christ frees from it.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXII. De miseriis ac malis, quibus humanum genus merito primae praeuaricationis obnoxium est et a quibus nemo nisi per Christi gratiam liberatur. Nam quod ad primam originem pertinet, omnem mortalium progeniem fuisse damnatam, haec ipsa uita, si uita dicenda est, tot et tantis malis plena testatur. Quid enim aliud indicat horrenda quaedam profunditas ignorantiae, ex qua omnis error exsistit, qui omnes filios Adam tenebroso quodam sinu suscipit, ut homo ab illo liberari sine labore dolore timore non possit? Quid amor ipse tot rerum uanarum adque noxiarum et ex hoc mordaces curae, perturbationes, maerores, formidines, insana gaudia, discordiae, lites, bella, insidiae, iracundiae, inimicitiae, fallacia, adulatio, fraus, furtum, rapina, perfidia, superbia, ambitio, inuidentia, homicidia, parricidia, crudelitas, saeuitia, nequitia, luxuria, petulantia, inpudentia, inpudicitia. fornicationes, adulteria, incesta et contra naturam utriusque sexus tot stupra adque inmunditiae, quas turpe est etiam dicere, sacrilegia, haereses, blasphemiae, periuria, obpressiones innocentium, calumniae, circumuentiones, praeuaricationes, falsa testimonia, iniqua iudicia, uiolentiae, latrocinia et quidquid talium malorum in mentem non uenit et tamen de uita ista hominum non recedit? Verum haec hominum sunt malorum, ab illa tamen erroris et peruersi amoris radice uenientia, cum qua omnis filius Adam nascitur. Nam quis ignorat cum quanta ignorantia ueritatis, quae iam in infantibus manifesta est, et cum quanta abundantia uanae cupiditatis, quae in pueris incipit apparere, homo ueniat in hanc uitam, ita ut, si dimittatur uiuere ut uelit et facere quidquid uelit, in haec facinora et flagitia, quae commemoraui et quae commemorare non potui, uel cuncta uel multa perueniat? Sed diuina gubernatione non omni modo deserente damnatos et Deo non continente in ira sua miserationes suas in ipsis sensibus generis humani prohibitio et eruditio contra istas, cum quibus nascimur, tenebras uigilant et contra hos inpetus obponuntur, plenae tamen etiam ipsae laborum et dolorum. Quid enim sibi uolunt multimodae formidines, quae cohibendis paruulorum uanitatibus adhibentur? Quid paedagogi, quid magistri, quid ferulae, quid lora, quid uirgae, quid disciplina illa, qua scriptum sancta dicit dilecti filii latera esse tundenda, ne crescat indomitus domarique iam durus aut uix possit aut fortasse nec possit? Quid agitur his poenis omnibus, nisi ut debelletur inperitia et praua cupiditas infrenetur, cum quibus malis in hoc saeculum uenimus? Quid est enim, quod cum labore meminimus, sine labore obliuiscimur; cum labore discimus, sine labore nescimus: cum labore strenui, sine labore inertes sumus? Nonne hinc apparet, in quid uelut pondere suo quam procliuis et prona sit uitiosa natura et quanta ope, ut hinc liberetur, indigeat? Desidia segnitia, pigritia neglegentia uitia sunt utique quibus labor fugitur, cum labor ipse, etiam qui est utilis, poena sit. Sed praeter pueriles poenas. sine quibus disci non potest quod maiores uolunt, qui uix aliquid utiliter uolunt, quot et quantis poenis genus agitetur humanum, quae non ad malitiam nequitiamque iniquorum, sed ad condicionem pertinent miseriamque communem, quis ullo sermone digerit? quis ulla cogitatione conprehendit? Quantus est metus, quanta calamitas ab orbitatibus adque luctu, a damnis et damnationibus, a deceptionibus et mendaciis hominum, a suspicionibus falsis, ab omnibus uiolentis facinoribus et sceleribus alienis! quando quidem ab eis et depraedatio et captiuitas, et uincula et carceres, et exsilia et cruciatus, et amputatio membrorum et priuatio sensuum, et obpressio corporis ad obscenam libidinem obprimentis explendam et alia multa horrenda saepe contingunt. Quid? ab innumeris casibus quae forinsecus corpori formidantur, aestibus et frigoribus, tempestatibus imbribus adluuionibus, coruscatione tonitru. grandine fulmine, motibus hiatibusque terrarum. obpressionibus ruinarum, ab offensionibus et pauore uel etiam malitia iumentorum, a tot uenenis fruticum aquarum, aurarum bestiarum, a ferarum uel tantummodo molestis uel etiam mortiferis morsibus, a rabie quae contingit ex rabido cane, ut etiam blanda et amica suo domino bestia nonnumquam uehementius et amarius quam leones draconesque metuatur faciatque hominem, quem forte adtaminauerit, contagione pestifera ita rabiosum, ut a parentibus coniuge filiis peius omni bestia formidetur! Quae mala patiuntur nauigantes! quae terrena itinera gradientes! Quis ambulat ubicumque non inopinatis subiacens casibus? De foro quidam rediens domum sanis pedibus suis cecidit. pedem fregit et ex illo uulnere finiuit hanc uitam. Quid uidetur sedente securius? De sella, in qua sedebat, cecidit Heli sacerdos et mortuus est. Agricolae, immo uero omnes homines, quot et quantos a caelo et terra uel a perniciosis animalibus casus metuunt agrorum fructibus! Solent tamen de frumentis tandem collectis et reconditis esse securi. Sed quibusdam, quod nouimus, prouentum optimum frumentorum fluuius inprouisus fugientibus hominibus de horreis eiecit adque abstulit. Contra milleformes daemonum incursus quis innocentia sua fidit? quando quidem, ne quis fideret, etiam paruulos baptizatos, quibus certe nihil est innocentius, aliquando sic uexant, ut in eis maxime Deo ista sinente monstretur huius uitae flenda calamitas et alterius desideranda felicitas. Iam uero de ipso corpore tot exsistunt morborum mala, ut nec libris medicorum cuncta conprehensa sint; in quorum pluribus ac paene omnibus etiam ipsa adiumenta et medicamenta tormenta sunt, ut homines a poenarum exitio poenali eruantur auxilio. Nonne ad hoc perduxit sitientes homines ardor inmanis, ut urinam quoque humanam uel etiam suam biberent? nonne ad hoc fames, ut a carnibus hominum se abstinere non possent nec inuentos homines mortuos, sed propter hoc a se occisos, nec quoslibet alienos, uerum etiam filios matres incredibili crudelitate, quam rabida esuries faciebat, absumerent? Ipse postremo somnus, qui proprie quietis nomen accepit, quis uerbis explicet. saepe somniorum uisis quam sit inquietus et quam magnis, licet falsarum rerum, terroribus, quas ita exhibet et quodam modo exprimit, ut a ueris eas discernere nequeamus, animam miseram sensusque perturbet? Qua falsitate uisorum etiam uigilantes in quibusdam morbis et uenenis miserabilius agitantur; quamuis multimoda uarietate fallaciae homines etiam sanos maligni daemones nonnumquam decipiant talibus uisis, ut, etiamsi eos per haec ad sua traducere non potuerint, sensus tamen eorum solo adpetitu qualitercumque persuadendae falsitatis inludant. Ab huius tam miserae quasi quibusdam inferis uitae non liberat nisi gratia Saluatoris Christi, Dei ac Domini nostri (hoc enim nomen est ipse Iesus; interpretatur quippe Saluator), maxime ne post hanc miserior ac sempiterna suscipiat, non uita, sed mors. Nam in ista quamuis sint per sancta et sanctos curationum magna solacia, tamen ideo non semper etiam ipsa beneficia tribuuntur petentibus, ne propter hoc religio quaeratur, quae propter aliam magis uitam, ubi mala non erunt omnino ulla, quaerenda est; et ad hoc meliores quosque in his malis adiuuat gratia, ut quanto fideliore, tanto fortiore corde tolerentur. Ad quam rem etiam philosophiam prodesse dicunt docti huius saeculi, quam di quibusdam paucis, ait Tullius, ueram dederunt; nec hominibus, inquit, ab his aut datum est donum maius aut potuit ullum dari: usque adeo et ipsi, contra quos agimus, quoquo modo conpulsi sunt in habenda non quacumque, sed uera philosophia diuinam gratiam confiteri. Porro si paucis diuinitus datum est uerae philosophiae contra miserias huius uitae unicum auxilium, satis et hinc apparet humanum genus ad luendas miseriarum poenas esse damnatum. Sicut autem hoc, ut fatentur, nullum diuinum maius est donum. sic a nullo deo dari credendum est nisi ab illo, quo et ipsi qui multos deos colunt nullum dicunt esse maiorem.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 22. On the miseries and evils to which the human race is subject by the deserving of the first transgression, and from which no one is freed except by the grace of Christ.

For as to the first origin, that the whole progeny of mortals was condemned, this life itself, if it is to be called life, filled with so many and such great evils, bears witness. For what else is shown by a certain dreadful depth of ignorance, from which all error arises, which receives all the sons of Adam into a kind of dark bosom, so that a man cannot be freed from it without toil, pain, and fear? What else is shown by the very love of so many vain and harmful things, and from it gnawing cares, disturbances, griefs, fears, mad joys, discords, lawsuits, wars, plots, angers, enmities, deceit, flattery, fraud, theft, robbery, treachery, pride, ambition, envy, murders, parricides, cruelty, savagery, wickedness, luxury, insolence, shamelessness, unchastity, acts of sexual immorality, adulteries, incests, and so many acts of sexual immorality and uncleanness against nature by both sexes, which it is shameful even to name, sacrileges, heresies, blasphemies, perjuries, oppressions of the innocent, slanders, circumventions, collusions, false witness, unjust judgments, violence, robberies, and whatever evils of this kind do not come to mind and yet do not depart from this life of men? These, indeed, belong to wicked men, yet they come from that root of error and perverse love with which every son of Adam is born. For who does not know with how great an ignorance of the truth, already plain in infants, and with how great an abundance of vain desire, which begins to appear in boys, a man comes into this life, so that, if he were left to live as he likes and do whatever he likes, he would come to all or many of these crimes and outrages which I have mentioned and which I could not mention?

But because the divine government does not wholly desert the condemned, and God does not shut up his mercies in his anger, prohibition and instruction keep watch in the very senses of the human race against these darknesses with which we are born, and are set against these impulses, though they themselves too are full of toil and pain. For what is the purpose of the many kinds of fears that are used to restrain the follies of little children? What of tutors, masters, canes, straps, rods, and that discipline by which, as holy Scripture says, the sides of a beloved son are to be beaten, lest he grow up untamed and, once hardened, can scarcely be tamed or perhaps not at all? What is done by all these punishments except that ignorance may be overcome and depraved desire bridled, the evils with which we come into this world? For why is it that we remember with toil and forget without toil; learn with toil and are ignorant without toil; are energetic with toil and idle without toil? Does it not appear from this to what, as by its own weight, our flawed nature is inclined and prone, and how much help it needs to be freed from it? Sloth, sluggishness, laziness, negligence are surely vices by which toil is avoided, since toil itself, even useful toil, is a punishment.

But besides the punishments of childhood, without which what their elders want cannot be learned, elders who scarcely want anything useful, by how many and how great punishments is the human race harassed, punishments that belong not to the malice and wickedness of the unjust but to the common condition and misery, who can set them out in any speech? Who can grasp them in any thought? How great is the fear, how great the calamity, from bereavements and mourning, from losses and condemnations, from the deceptions and lies of men, from false suspicions, from all the violent crimes and wickedness of others! For from these often come plundering and captivity, chains and prisons, exile and tortures, the cutting off of limbs and the loss of the senses, the violation of the body to satisfy the obscene lust of the violator, and many other horrible things. What of the countless accidents feared for the body from without: heat and cold, storms, rains, floods, lightning, thunder, hail, thunderbolts, earthquakes and chasms, being crushed by falling buildings; from the stumbling or fright or even the viciousness of beasts of burden; from so many poisons of plants, waters, airs, animals; from the merely troublesome or even deadly bites of wild beasts; from the madness that comes from a rabid dog, so that even a creature gentle and friendly to its master is sometimes feared more violently and bitterly than lions and serpents, and makes a man it happens to infect, by its pestilent contagion, so rabid that he is dreaded by parents, wife, and children worse than any beast! What evils sailors suffer! And those who travel by land! Who walks anywhere without being exposed to unexpected accidents? A man returning home from the forum on his sound feet fell, broke his foot, and from that injury ended this life. What seems safer than a man sitting? Eli the priest fell from the chair on which he sat and died. How many and how great accidents from sky and earth, or from destructive animals, do farmers, or rather all men, fear for the crops of their fields! Yet they are usually secure about their grain once it is at last harvested and stored. But for some, as we know, an unexpected river swept away and carried off an excellent harvest of grain from the granaries, while the men fled.

Against the thousand-formed assaults of demons, who trusts in his own innocence? For, so that no one should trust in it, they sometimes so harass even baptized little children, than whom certainly nothing is more innocent, that in them especially, God permitting it, the lamentable calamity of this life and the desirable happiness of the other is shown. Further, from the body itself arise so many evils of diseases that not all are contained even in the books of physicians; and in many, indeed almost all of them, the very aids and medicines are tortures, so that men are rescued from the destruction of punishments by a help that is itself punishment. Has not burning thirst driven men to drink even human urine, even their own? Has not hunger driven them to be unable to keep from human flesh, and to devour not men found dead but men killed by them for this purpose, and not strangers only, but mothers their own children, with an incredible cruelty which ravenous hunger produced? Finally, sleep itself, which has properly received the name of rest, who could explain in words how often it is unquiet with the visions of dreams, and with what great terrors, though of false things, it troubles the wretched soul and senses, presenting and in a way expressing them so that we cannot distinguish them from real things? By such false visions even the waking are more miserably agitated in certain diseases and from poisons; though malignant demons sometimes deceive even healthy men with such visions, with manifold varieties of deception, so that, even if they could not lead them over to their side by these means, they still delude their senses by the mere desire of persuading them of falsehood in any way at all.

From this so miserable life, a kind of hell, nothing frees us but the grace of the Saviour Christ, our God and Lord (for this is the very name Jesus; it means Saviour), above all so that after this life we may not receive a more miserable and everlasting one, which is not life but death. For in this life, though there are great consolations of healing through holy things and holy people, still these benefits are not always given to those who ask for them, lest religion be sought for their sake, when it ought rather to be sought for the sake of the other life, where there will be no evils at all; and grace helps the better people in these evils so that they may be endured with a heart the stronger the more faithful it is. For this purpose, the learned of this world say, philosophy too is of use, the true philosophy which, as Tullius says, the gods have given to a few; and no greater gift, he says, has been given to men by them, or could be given. So far even those against whom we argue have been compelled in some fashion to acknowledge divine grace in having, not any philosophy whatever, but true philosophy. Further, if the only help of true philosophy against the miseries of this life has been given by divine gift to a few, it is clear enough from this too that the human race has been condemned to pay the penalties of miseries. And as, by their own admission, there is no greater divine gift than this, so it must be believed that it is given by no god except by him than whom even those who worship many gods say none is greater.

### Scripture references

- Ps 77:9 (76:10 LXX): allusion, high confidence
- 1 Sam 4:18: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 1:21: allusion, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Sir 30:12 (Sirach): allusion, high confidence
- Cicero, Acad. 1.7 (Cicero): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Allusions: Ps 77:9 (LXX 76:10), God does not shut up his mercies in his anger; Sir 30:12, beating a son's sides; 1 Sam 4:18, Eli's fall; Matt 1:21, the name Jesus. The Cicero reference is Academica 1.7 (posterior version). The account of baptized infants harassed by demons and of cannibalism in famine is translated as written. “Sexual immorality” renders both fornicationes and stupra.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.22 (CSEL 40:635–640; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-19/#p-22-22).

## City of God 22.23

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-19/#p-22-23
- Source: CSEL 40:640–642
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Besides the common evils, the righteous must fight constantly against their own vices by God's grace, and still pray for forgiveness, until in the kingdom there will be neither battles nor debts.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIII. De his, quae praeter illa mala, quae bonis malisque communia sunt, ad iustorum laborem specialiter pertinent. Praeter haec autem mala huius uitae bonis malisque communia habent in ea iusti etiam proprios quosdam labores suos, quibus aduersus uitia militant et in talium proeliorum tentationibus periculisque uersantur. Aliquando enim concitatius, aliquando remissius, non tamen desinit caro concupiscere aduersus spiritum et spiritus aduersus carnem, ut non ea quae uolumus faciamus, omnem malam concupiscentiam consumendo, sed eam nobis, quantum diuinitus adiuti possumus. non ei consentiendo subdamus, uigiliis continuis excubantes. ne opinio ueri similis fallat, ne decipiat sermo uersutus, ne se tenebrae alicuius erroris offundant, ne quod bonum est malum aut quod malum est bonum esse credatur, ne ab his quae agenda sunt metus reuocet, ne in ea quae agenda non sunt cupido praecipitet, ne super iracundiam sol occidat, ne inimicitiae prouocent ad retributionem mali pro malo, ne absorbeat inhonesta uel inmoderata tristitia, ne inpertiendorum beneficiorum ingerat mens ingrata torporem, ne maledicis rumoribus bona conscientia fatigetur, ne temeraria de alio suspicio nos nostra decipiat, ne aliena de nobis falsa nos frangat, ne regnet peccatum in nostro mortali corpore ad oboediendum desideriis eius, ne membra nostra exhibeantur iniquitatis arma peccato, ne oculus sequatur concupiscentiam, ne uindicandi cupiditas uincat, ne in eo quod male delectat uel uisio uel cogitatio remoretur, ne inprobum aut indecens uerbum libenter audiatur, ne fiat quod non licet etiamsi libet, ne in hoc bello laborum periculorumque plenissimo uel de uiribus nostris speretur facienda uictoria uel uiribus nostris facta tribuatur, sed eius gratiae, de quo ait apostolus: Gratias autem Deo, qui dat nobis uictoriam per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum; qui et alio loco: In his, inquit, omnibus superuincimus per eum qui dilexit nos. Sciamus tamen, quantalibet uirtute proeliandi uitiis repugnemus uel etiam uitia superemus et subiugemus, quamdiu sumus in hoc corpore, nobis deesse non posse unde dicamus Deo: Dimitte nobis debita nostra. In illo autem regno, ubi semper cum corporibus inmortalibus erimus, nec proelia nobis erunt ulla nec debita; quae nusquam et numquam essent, si natura nostra, sicut recta creata est, permaneret. Ac per hoc etiam noster iste conflictus, in quo periclitamur et de quo nos uictoria nouissima cupimus liberari, ad uitae huius mala pertinet, quam tot tantorumque testimonio malorum probamus esse damnatam.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 23. On the things that belong specially to the toil of the righteous, besides the evils common to good and bad.

Besides these evils of this life, common to good and bad, the righteous also have in it certain toils of their own, in which they fight against vices and are involved in the temptations and dangers of such battles. For sometimes more violently, sometimes more slackly, yet without ceasing, the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh, so that we do not do what we would, by consuming all evil desire; but we subdue it to ourselves, as far as we can with divine help, by not consenting to it, keeping watch with continual vigilance: lest an opinion that looks like the truth deceive us, lest crafty speech mislead us, lest the darkness of some error spread over us, lest what is good be believed evil or what is evil good, lest fear call us back from what should be done, lest desire hurl us into what should not be done, lest the sun go down upon our anger, lest enmities provoke us to render evil for evil, lest unseemly or immoderate sadness swallow us up, lest an ungrateful mind bring on sluggishness in bestowing kindnesses, lest a good conscience be worn out by slanderous rumours, lest our own rash suspicion of another deceive us, lest another's false suspicion of us break us, lest sin reign in our mortal body so that we obey its desires, lest our members be offered to sin as weapons of iniquity, lest the eye follow lust, lest the desire for revenge overcome us, lest sight or thought linger on what gives evil delight, lest a wicked or indecent word be willingly heard, lest what is not lawful be done even if it is pleasing; lest in this war, so full of toils and dangers, we either hope that victory will be won by our own strength or attribute it, once won, to our own strength, rather than to the grace of him of whom the apostle says, “But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ”; who also says in another place, “In all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.”

Yet let us know that, with whatever courage in battle we resist vices, or even overcome and subjugate them, as long as we are in this body we cannot lack reason to say to God, “Forgive us our debts.” But in that kingdom where we shall be for ever with immortal bodies, we shall have neither battles nor debts; and these would exist nowhere and never, had our nature remained as it was created, upright. And so even this conflict of ours, in which we are in danger and from which we long to be freed by a final victory, belongs to the evils of this life, which we prove to be condemned by the testimony of so many and such great evils.

### Scripture references

- Gal 5:17: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 5:20: echo, medium confidence
- Eph 4:26: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 12:17: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 6:12: allusion, high confidence
- Rom 6:13: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:57: quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:37: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 6:12: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: Gal 5:17; Isa 5:20; Eph 4:26; Rom 12:17; Rom 6:12–13; 1 Cor 15:57; Rom 8:37; Matt 6:12.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.23 (CSEL 40:640–642; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-19/#p-22-23).

## City of God 22.24

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-24/#p-22-24
- Source: CSEL 40:642–650
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Even in condemned humanity God preserves fruitfulness, forms each body, and endows the mind and body with gifts and the world with beauty; if these console the condemned, the rewards of the blessed will be far greater.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXIIII. De bonis, quibus etiam hanc uitam damnationi obnoxiam Creator inpleuit. Iam nunc considerandum est hanc ipsam miseriam generis humani, in qua laudatur iustitia punientis, qualibus et quam multis inpleuerit bonis eiusdem bonitas cuncta quae creauit administrantis. Primum benedictionem illam, quam protulerat ante peccatum dicens: Crescite et multiplicamini et inplete terram, nec post peccatum uoluit inhibere mansitque in stirpe damnata donata fecunditas; nec illam uim mirabilem seminum, immo etiam mirabiliorem qua efficiuntur et semina, inditam corporibus humanis et quodam modo intextam peccati uitium potuit auferre, quo nobis inpacta est etiam necessitas mortis; sed utrumque simul currit isto quasi fluuio adque torrente generis humani, malum quod a parente trahitur, et bonum quod a creante tribuitur. In originali malo duo sunt, peccatum adque supplicium; in originali bono alia duo, propagatio et conformatio. Sed quantum ad praesentem pertinet intentionem nostram, de malis, quorum unum de nostra uenit audacia, id est peccatum, alterum de iudicio Dei, id est supplicium, iam satis diximus. Nunc de bonis Dei, quae ipsi quoque uitiatae damnataeque naturae contulit siue usque nunc confert, dicere institui. Neque enim damnando aut totum abstulit quod dederat, alioquin nec esset omnino; aut eam remouit a sua potestate, etiam cum diabolo poenaliter subdidit, cum nec ipsum diabolum a suo alienauit imperio; quando quidem, ut ipsius quoque diaboli natura subsistat, ille facit qui summe est et facit esse quidquid aliquo modo est. Duorum igitur illorum, quae diximus bona etiam in naturam peccato uitiatam supplicioque damnatam de bonitatis eius quodam ueluti fonte manare, propagationem in primis mundi operibus benedictione largitus est, a quibus operibus die septimo requieuit; conformatio uero in illo eius est opere, quo usque nunc operatur. Efficacem quippe potentiam suam si rebus subtrahat, nec progredi poterunt et suis dimensis motibus peragere tempora nec prorsus in eo quod creatae sunt aliquatenus permanebunt. Sic ergo creauit hominem Deus, ut ei adderet fertilitatem quandam, qua homines alios propagaret, congenerans eis etiam ipsam propagandi possibilitatem, non necessitatem: quibus tamen uoluit hominibus abstulit eam Deus, et steriles fuerunt; non tamen generi humano abstulit semel datam primis duobus coniugibus benedictione generali. Haec ergo propagatio quamuis peccato ablata non fuerit, non tamen etiam ipsa talis est, qualis fuisset, si nemo peccasset. Ex quo enim homo in honore positus, postea quam deliquit, conparatus est pecoribus, similiter generat; non in eo tamen penitus exstincta est quaedam uelut scintilla rationis, in qua factus est ad imaginem Dei. Huic autem propagationi si conformatio non adhiberetur, nec ipsa in sui generis formas modosque procederet. Si enim non concubuissent homines et nihilo minus Deus uellet inplere terras hominibus: quo modo creauit unum sine commixtione maris et feminae, sic posset omnes; concumbentes uero nisi illo creante generantes esse non possunt. Sicut ergo ait apostolus de institutione spiritali, qua homo ad pietatem iustitiamque formatur: Neque qui plantat, est aliquid, neque qui rigat, sed qui incrementum dat Deus: ita etiam hic dici potest: Nec qui concumbit nec qui seminat, est aliquid, sed qui format Deus; nec mater, quae conceptum portat et partum nutrit, est aliquid, sed qui incrementum dat Deus. Ipsa namque operatione, qua usque nunc operatur, facit ut numeros suos explicent semina et a quibusdam latentibus adque inuisibilibus inuolucris in formas uisibiles huius quod adspicimus decoris euoluant; ipse incorpoream corporeamque naturam, illam praepositam, istam subiectam. miris modis copulans et conectens animantem facit. Quod opus eius tam magnum et mirabile est, ut non solum in homine, quod est animal rationale et ex hoc cunctis terrenis animantibus excellentius adque praestantius, sed in qualibet minutissima muscula bene consideranti stuporem mentis ingerat laudemque pariat Creatoris. Ipse itaque animae humanae mentem dedit, ubi ratio et intellegentia in infante sopita est quodam modo; quasi nulla sit, excitanda scilicet adque exserenda aetatis accessu, qua sit scientiae capax adque doctrinae et habilis perceptioni ueritatis et amoris boni; qua capacitate hauriat sapientiam uirtutibusque sit praedita, quibus prudenter, fortiter, temperanter et iuste aduersus errores et cetera ingenerata uitia dimicet eaque nullius rei desiderio nisi boni illius summi adque inmutabilis uincat. Quod etsi non faciat, ipsa talium bonorum capacitas in natura rationali diuinitus instituta quantum sit boni, quam mirabile opus Omnipotentis, quis conpetenter effatur aut cogitat? Praeter enim artes bene uiuendi et ad inmortalem perueniendi felicitatem, quae uirtutes uocantur et sola Dei gratia, quae in Christo est, filiis promissionis regnique donantur, nonne humano ingenio tot tantaeque artes sunt inuentae et exercitae, partim necessariae partim uoluptariae, ut tam excellens uis mentis adque rationis in his etiam rebus, quas superfluas, immo et periculosas perniciosasque adpetit. quantum bonum habeat in natura, unde ista potuit uel inuenire uel discere uel exercere. testetur? Vestimentorum et aedificiorum ad opera quam mirabilia, quam stupenda industria humana peruenerit; quo in agricultura, quo in nauigatione profecerit; quae in fabricatione quorumque uasorum uel etiam statuarum et picturarum uarietate excogitauerit et inpleuerit; quae in theatris mirabilia spectantibus, audientibus incredibilia facienda et exhibenda molita sit; in capiendis occidendis domandis inrationalibus animantibus quae et quanta reppererit; aduersus ipsos homines tot genera uenenorum, tot armorum. tot machinamentorum, et pro salute mortali tuenda adque reparanda quot medicamenta adque adiumenta conprehenderit: pro uoluptate faucium quot condimenta et gulae inritamenta reppererit; ad indicandas et suadendas cogitationes quam multitudinem uarietatemque signorum, ubi praecipuum locum uerba et litterae tenent; ad delectandos animos quos elocutionis ornatus, quam diuersorum carminum copiam; ad mulcendas aures quot organa musica, quos cantilenae modos excogitauerit; quantam peritiam dimensionum adque numerorum, meatusque et ordines siderum quanta sagacitate conprehenderit; quam multa rerum mundanarum cognitione se inpleuerit, quis possit eloqui, maxime si uelimus non aceruatim cuncta congerere, sed in singulis inmorari? In ipsis postremo erroribus et falsitatibus defendendis quam magna claruerint ingenia philosophorum adque haereticorum, quis aestimare sufficiat? Loquimur enim nunc de natura mentis humanae, qua ista uita mortalis ornatur, non de fide adque itinere ueritatis, qua illa inmortalis adquiritur. Huius tantae naturae conditor cum sit utique Deus uerus et summus, ipso cuncta quae fecit administrante et summam potestatem summamque habente iustitiam numquam profecto in has miserias decidisset adque ex his praeter eos solos qui liberabuntur in aeternas esset itura, nisi nimis grande peccatum in homine primo, de quo ceteri exorti sunt, praecessisset. Iam uero in ipso corpore, quamuis nobis sit cum beluis mortalitate commune multisque earum reperiatur infirmius, quanta Dei bonitas, quanta prouidentia tanti Creatoris apparet! Nonne ita sunt in eo loca sensuum et cetera membra disposita speciesque ipsa ac figura et statura totius corporis ita modificata, ut ad ministerium animae rationalis se indicet factum? Non enim ut animalia rationis expertia prona esse uidemus in terram, ita creatus est homo; sed erecta in caelum corporis forma admonet eum quae sursum sunt sapere. Porro mira mobilitas, quae linguae ac manibus adtributa est, ad loquendum et scribendum apta adque conueniens et ad opera artium plurimarum officiorumque conplenda, nonne satis ostendit, quali animae ut seruiret tale sit corpus adiunctum? quamquam et detractis necessitatibus operandi ita omnium. partium congruentia numerosa sit et pulchra sibi parilitate respondeat, ut nescias utrum in eo condendo maior sit utilitatis habita ratio quam decoris. Certe enim nihil creatum uidemus in corpore utilitatis causa, quod non habeat etiam decoris locum. Plus autem nobis id appareret, si numeros mensurarum, quibus inter se cuncta conexa sunt et coaptata, nossemus; quos forsitan data opera in his, quae foris eminent, humana posset uestigare sollertia; quae uero tecta sunt adque a nostris remota conspectibus, sicuti est tanta perplexitas uenarum adque neruorum et uiscerum, secreta uitalium, inuenire nullus potest. Quia etsi medicorum diligentia nonnulla crudelis, quos anatomicos appellant, laniauit corpora mortuorum siue etiam inter manus secantis perscrutantisque morientium adque in carnibus humanis satis inhumane abdita cuncta rimata est, ut quid et quo modo quibus locis curandum esset addisceret: numeros tamen de quibus loquor, quibus coaptatio, quae ἁρμονία Graece dicitur, tamquam cuiusdam organi, extrinsecus adque intrinsecus totius corporis constat, quid dicam, nemo ualuit inuenire, quos nemo ausus est quaerere? qui si noti esse potuissent, in interioribus quoque uisceribus, quae nullum ostentant decus, ita delectaret pulchritudo rationis, ut omni formae apparenti, quae oculis placet, ipsius mentis, quae oculis utitur, praeferretur arbitrio. Sunt uero quaedam ita posita in corpore, ut tantummodo decorem habeant, non et usum; sicut habet pectus uirile mamillas, sicut facies barbam, quam non esse munimento, sed uirili ornamento indicant purae facies feminarum, quas utique infirmiores muniri tutius conueniret. Si ergo nullum membrum est, in his quidem conspicuis (unde ambigit nemo), quod ita sit alicui operi adcommodatum, ut non etiam sit decorum; sunt autem nonnulla, quorum solum decus et nullus est usus: puto facile intellegi in condicione corporis dignitatem necessitati fuisse praelatam. Transitura est quippe necessitas tempusque uenturum, quando sola inuicem pulchritudine sine ulla libidine perfruamur: quod maxime ad laudem referendum est Conditoris, cui dicitur in psalmo: Confessionem et decorem induisti. Iam cetera pulchritudo et utilitas creaturae, quae homini, licet in istos labores miseriasque proiecto adque damnato, spectanda adque sumenda diuina largitate concessa est, quo sermone terminari potest? in caeli et terrae et maris multimoda et uaria pulchritudine, in ipsius lucis tanta copia tamque mirabili specie, in sole ac luna et sideribus, in opacitatibus nemorum, in coloribus et odoribus florum, in diuersitate ac multitudine uolucrum garrularum adque pictarum. in multiformi specie tot tantarumque animantium, quarum illae plus habent admirationis, quae molis minimum (plus enim formicularum et apicularum opera stupemus quam inmensa corpora balaenarum), in ipsius quoque maris tam grandi spectaculo, cum sese diuersis coloribus uelut uestibus induit et aliquando uiride adque hoc multis modis, aliquando purpureum, aliquando caeruleum est. Quam porro delectabiliter spectatur etiam quandocumque turbatur, et fit inde maior suauitas, quia sic demulcet intuentem, ut non iactet et quatiat nauigantem! Quid ciborum usquequaque copia contra famem? quid saporum diuersitas contra fastidium, naturae diffusa diuitiis, non coquorum arte ac labore quaesita? quid in tam multis rebus tuendae aut recuperandae salutis auxilia! Quam grata uicissitudo diei alternantis et noctis! Aurarum quam blanda temperies! In fruticibus et pecoribus indumentorum conficiendorum quanta materies! Omnia commemorare quis possit? Haec autem sola, quae a me uelut in quendam sunt aggerem coartata, si uellem uelut conligata inuolucra soluere adque discutere, quanta mihi mora esset in singulis. quibus plurima continentur! Et haec omnia miserorum sunt damnatorumque solacia, non praemia beatorum. Quae igitur illa sunt, si tot et talia ac tanta sunt ista? Quid dabit eis quos praedestinauit ad uitam, qui haec dedit etiam eis quos praedestinauit ad mortem? Quae bona in illa beata uita faciet eos sumere, pro quibus in hac misera unigenitum suum filium uoluit usque ad mortem mala tanta perferre? Unde apostolus de ipsis in illud regnum praedestinatis loquens: Qui proprio, inquit, filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum, quo modo non et cum illo omnia nobis donabit? Cum haec promissio conplebitur, quid erimus! quales erimus! Quae bona in illo regno accepturi sumus, quando quidem Christo moriente pro nobis tale iam pignus accepimus! Qualis erit spiritus hominis nullum omnino habens uitium, nec sub quo iaceat, nec cui cedat, nec contra quod saltem laudabiliter dimicet, pacatissima uirtute perfectus! Rerum ibi omnium quanta, quam speciosa, quam certa scientia, sine errore aliquo uel labore, ubi Dei sapientia de ipso suo fonte potabitur, cum summa felicitate, sine ulla difficultate!. Quale erit corpus, quod omni modo spiritui subditum et eo sufficienter uiuificatum nullis alimoniis indigebit! Non enim animale, sed spiritale erit, habens quidem carnis. sed sine ulla carnali corruptione substantiam.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 24. On the good things with which the Creator has filled even this life, subject though it is to condemnation.

Now we must consider with what good things, and how many, the goodness of him who governs all that he created has filled this very misery of the human race, in which the justice of the punisher is praised. First, the blessing he had pronounced before sin, saying, “Increase and multiply and fill the earth,” he did not wish to withhold even after sin, and the fruitfulness granted remained in the condemned stock. Nor could the fault of sin, through which the necessity of death too was thrust upon us, take away that wonderful power of seeds, or rather that still more wonderful power by which seeds too are produced, which is implanted in human bodies and in a way woven into them. Both run together in this river, as it were, this torrent of the human race: the evil that is derived from the parent and the good that is given by the Creator. In the original evil there are two things, sin and punishment; in the original good two others, propagation and formation. But as far as our present purpose is concerned, we have already said enough about the evils, one of which, sin, came from our own audacity, and the other, punishment, from the judgment of God. Now I have undertaken to speak of the good things of God which he has conferred, or still confers, even on our flawed and condemned nature.

For in condemning it he did not take away all that he had given, or it would not exist at all; nor did he remove it from his power, even when he subjected it in punishment to the devil, since he did not estrange even the devil himself from his rule; for even the devil's nature subsists because he makes it who supremely is and makes to be whatever in any way is. Of those two goods, then, which we said flow as from a fountain of his goodness even into a nature flawed by sin and condemned to punishment, propagation he bestowed by his blessing in the first works of the world, from which works he rested on the seventh day; but formation belongs to that work of his by which he works until now. For if he withdrew his effective power from things, they could neither advance and run their times in their measured movements nor would they continue at all in what they were created. So God created man in such a way as to add to him a certain fertility by which he might propagate other men, generating along with them also the possibility, not the necessity, of propagating. From such men as he willed, however, God took it away, and they were barren; but he did not take away from the human race what had once been given to the first two spouses by the general blessing. This propagation, then, though it was not taken away by sin, is still not such as it would have been had no one sinned. For since man, placed in honour, after he transgressed was compared to the beasts, he generates in like manner; yet there was not wholly extinguished in him a kind of spark, as it were, of reason, in which he was made to the image of God.

But if formation were not applied to this propagation, it would not advance into the forms and measures of its kind. For if men had not had intercourse and God nonetheless willed to fill the earth with men, as he created one without the union of male and female, so he could create all; but those who have intercourse cannot generate unless he creates. As, then, the apostle says of the spiritual forming by which a man is formed to godliness and righteousness, “Neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the growth,” so here too it can be said: neither he who has intercourse nor he who sows is anything, but God who forms; nor is the mother who carries what is conceived and nourishes the child born anything, but God who gives the growth. For by that very working by which he works until now, he makes seeds unfold their numbers and develop from certain hidden and invisible wrappings into the visible forms of this beauty that we see; he himself makes a living being by coupling and connecting in wonderful ways an incorporeal and a corporeal nature, the one set over, the other set under. This work of his is so great and wonderful that, not only in man, who is a rational animal and therefore more excellent and outstanding than all earthly living things, but in any tiniest fly, it strikes amazement into the mind of one who considers it well and brings forth praise of the Creator.

He, then, gave the human soul a mind, in which reason and understanding lie in a way asleep in the infant, as if they did not exist, to be awakened, that is, and brought out with the advance of age, so that it may be capable of knowledge and learning and fit to perceive truth and love the good. By this capacity it may drink in wisdom and be endowed with virtues by which to fight prudently, courageously, temperately, and justly against errors and the other inborn vices, and to overcome them by desire for nothing but that supreme and unchangeable good. And even if it does not do this, who can worthily express or think how great a good this very capacity for such goods is, divinely established in the rational nature, how wonderful a work of the Almighty? For besides the arts of living well and of arriving at immortal happiness, which are called virtues and are given only by the grace of God which is in Christ to the children of the promise and of the kingdom, have not so many great arts been invented and practised by human genius, some necessary, some for pleasure, that this so excellent power of mind and reason, even in the things it seeks that are superfluous, or indeed dangerous and ruinous, testifies how great a good it has in its nature, from which it could invent, learn, or practise them?

To what wonderful, what astonishing works of clothing and building has human industry attained! What progress it has made in agriculture, in navigation! What it has devised and accomplished in the making of all sorts of vessels, and in the variety of statues and paintings! What things, wonderful to spectators and incredible to hearers, it has contrived to do and show in the theatres! What and how many things it has discovered for capturing, killing, and taming irrational animals! Against men themselves, so many kinds of poisons, of weapons, of engines; and for protecting and restoring mortal health, how many medicines and remedies it has found! For the pleasure of the palate, how many seasonings and stimulants of appetite it has discovered! For indicating and persuading thoughts, what a multitude and variety of signs, in which words and letters hold the chief place! For delighting minds, what ornaments of speech, what abundance of various poems; for soothing the ears, how many musical instruments, what modes of song it has devised! What skill in measurements and numbers, with what sagacity it has grasped the courses and orders of the stars! With how much knowledge of worldly things it has filled itself! Who could express it, especially if we wished not to heap everything together but to dwell on each? Finally, in defending errors and falsehoods themselves, how great have been the geniuses of philosophers and heretics that have shone out, who is able to estimate? For we are speaking now of the nature of the human mind, with which this mortal life is adorned, not of faith and the way of truth, by which that immortal life is gained. Since the founder of so great a nature is certainly the true and supreme God, and he governs all he has made and has supreme power and supreme justice, it would surely never have fallen into these miseries, nor would it, except for those alone who will be freed, be going from them into eternal ones, had not an exceedingly great sin gone before in the first man, from whom the rest sprang.

In the body itself, too, though we share mortality with the beasts and it is found weaker than many of them, how great a goodness of God, how great a providence of so great a Creator appears! Are not the places of the senses and the other members so arranged in it, and the appearance, shape, and stature of the whole body so proportioned, that it shows itself made for the service of a rational soul? For man was not created bent toward the earth, as we see irrational animals are; but the form of his body, erect toward heaven, admonishes him to set his mind on the things that are above. Further, does not the wonderful mobility given to the tongue and the hands, apt and suited for speaking and writing and for performing the works of so many arts and duties, show clearly enough to what kind of soul such a body was joined to serve? And yet, even apart from the needs of work, the proportion of all the parts is so harmonious and answers itself with such beautiful symmetry that you would not know whether utility or beauty was more considered in making it. Certainly we see nothing created in the body for the sake of utility that does not also have a place for beauty. And this would be even plainer to us if we knew the numbers of the measurements by which all its parts are connected and fitted to one another. Human skill could perhaps trace these with effort in the parts that stand out on the surface; but in those that are covered and hidden from our sight, such as the great intricacy of veins, nerves, and inward parts, the secrets of the vital organs, no one can find them. For even if the diligence of physicians called anatomists, with a certain cruelty, has dissected the bodies of the dead, and even of the dying under the hands of those who cut and examined them, and has, inhumanly enough, searched out all that is hidden in human flesh, to learn what should be treated and how and where, yet the numbers I speak of, by which the fitting together, called harmonia in Greek, of the whole body, outside and inside, is constituted as of an instrument, why should I say that no one has been able to find them, when no one has dared to look for them? If they could have been known, then even in the inner organs, which display no beauty, the beauty of the design would so delight us that it would be preferred, by the judgment of the mind that uses the eyes, to every visible form that pleases the eyes.

There are some things placed in the body so as to have only beauty, not use as well, as a man's chest has nipples, and the face a beard, which is shown to be not a defence but a manly ornament by the smooth faces of women, whom, as the weaker, it would surely have been more fitting to protect. If, then, there is no member, among these visible ones at least (about which no one is in doubt), so suited to some work that it is not also beautiful, and there are some which have beauty only and no use, I think it is easily understood that in the creation of the body dignity was preferred to necessity. For necessity will pass away, and the time will come when we shall enjoy one another's beauty alone, without any lust; and this is above all to be referred to the praise of the Creator, to whom it is said in the psalm, “You have put on confession and beauty.”

And the rest of the beauty and usefulness of creation, which divine generosity has granted man to behold and use, though he is cast down and condemned to these toils and miseries, in what words can it be summed up? In the manifold and varied beauty of sky and earth and sea; in the abundance and wonderful appearance of light itself; in sun and moon and stars; in the shade of woods; in the colours and scents of flowers; in the variety and multitude of birds, chattering and brightly coloured; in the manifold forms of so many great living creatures, of which those have more to wonder at which have least bulk (for we are more astonished at the works of little ants and bees than at the immense bodies of whales); in the great spectacle of the sea itself, when it clothes itself in different colours as in garments, and is sometimes green, and that in many shades, sometimes purple, sometimes blue. And how delightfully it is watched even whenever it is stormy, and the pleasure is greater because it soothes the beholder without tossing and shaking the sailor! What of the abundance of food everywhere against hunger? What of the variety of flavours against distaste, poured out by the riches of nature, not sought by the art and toil of cooks? What of the aids in so many things for keeping or recovering health! How welcome the alternation of day and night! How gentle the temperate breezes! How much material in plants and flocks for making clothing! Who could mention everything? If I wished to untie and examine only these things, which I have crowded together as into a heap, like bundles tied up, how much time I should spend on each, since each contains so many things! And all these are consolations of the wretched and condemned, not rewards of the blessed.

What, then, are those things, if these are so many, of such a kind, and so great? What will he give to those whom he has predestined to life, who has given these even to those whom he has predestined to death? What good things will he make them receive in that blessed life, for whom in this miserable one he willed that his only-begotten Son should endure such great evils, even to death? Hence the apostle, speaking of those predestined to that kingdom, says, “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him give us all things?” When this promise is fulfilled, what shall we be! What kind of people shall we be! What good things shall we receive in that kingdom, since, with Christ dying for us, we have already received such a pledge! What will the spirit of man be, having no vice at all, neither one under which it lies, nor one to which it yields, nor one against which, even laudably, it must fight, perfect in most peaceful virtue! How great, how beautiful, how certain will be the knowledge of all things there, without any error or toil, where the wisdom of God will be drunk from its own fountain, with supreme happiness and without any difficulty! What will the body be, which, subject to the spirit in every way and sufficiently given life by it, will need no nourishment! For it will not be natural but spiritual, having indeed the substance of flesh, but without any fleshly corruption.

### Scripture references

- Gen 1:28: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:2: allusion, high confidence
- John 5:17: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 49:12 (48:13 LXX): allusion, high confidence
- Gen 1:27: allusion, high confidence
- 1 Cor 3:7: quotation, high confidence
- Col 3:2: allusion, high confidence
- Ps 104:1 (103:1 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Rom 8:32: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: Gen 1:28; Gen 2:2; John 5:17 (“works until now”); Ps 49:12, 20 (LXX 48:13, 21), man in honour compared to the beasts; Gen 1:27; 1 Cor 3:7 (applied by Augustine to generation); Col 3:1–2; Ps 104:1 (LXX 103:1), in the Old Latin “confession and beauty”; Rom 8:32. “Those whom he has predestined to death” is Augustine's wording and is translated as written.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.24 (CSEL 40:642–650; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-24/#p-22-24).

## City of God 22.25

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-24/#p-22-25
- Source: CSEL 40:650–651
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: The world has believed the resurrection of the flesh as God foretold; since God cannot lie, what he promised will happen, and nothing in it is evil or unworthy of him.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXV. De peruicacia quorundam, qui resurrectionem carnis, quam sicut praedictum est, totus mundus credit, inpugnant. Verum de animi bonis, quibus post hanc uitam beatissimus perfruetur, non a nobis dissentiunt philosophi nobiles: de carnis resurrectione contendunt, hanc quantum possunt negant. Sed credentes multi negantes paucissimos reliquerunt et ad Christum, qui hoc quod istis uidetur absurdum in sua resurrectione monstrauit, fideli corde conuersi sunt, docti et indocti, sapientes mundi et insipientes. Hoc enim credidit mundus. quod praedixit Deus, qui etiam hoc praedixit, quod hanc rem mundus fuerat crediturus; neque enim Petri maleficiis eam cum laude credentium tanto ante praenuntiare conpulsus est. Ille est enim Deus, quem (sicut iam dixi aliquotiens, nec commonere me piget) confitente Porphyrio adque id oraculis deorum suorum probare cupiente ipsa numina perhorrescunt; quem sic laudauit, ut eum et Deum patrem et regem uocaret. Absit enim, ut sic intellegenda sint quae praedixit. quo modo uolunt hi, qui hoc cum mundo non crediderunt. quod mundum crediturum esse praedixit. Quur enim non potius ita, sicut crediturus tanto ante praedictus est mundus, non sicut paucissimi garriunt, qui hoc cum mundo, quod crediturus praedictus est, credere noluerunt? Si enim propterea dicunt alio modo esse credenda, ne, si dixerint uana esse conscripta, iniuriam faciant illi Deo, cui tam magnum perhibent testimonium: tantam prorsus ei uel etiam grauiorem faciunt iniuriam, si aliter dicunt esse intellegenda, non sicut mundus ea credidit, quem crediturum ipse laudauit, ipse promisit, ipse conpleuit. Utrum enim non potest facere ut resurgat caro et uiuat in aeternum, an propterea credendum non est id eum esse facturum, quia malum est adque indignum Deo? Sed de omnipotentia eius, qua tot et tanta facit incredibilia, iam multa diximus. Si uolunt inuenire quod omnipotens non potest, habent prorsus; ego dicam, mentiri non potest. Credamus ergo quod potest non credendo quod non potest. Non itaque credentes quod mentiri possit credant esse facturum quod se facturum esse promisit, et sic credant sicut id credidit mundus, quem crediturum esse praedixit, quem crediturum esse laudauit, quem crediturum esse promisit, quem credidisse iam ostendit. Hoc autem malum esse unde demonstrant? Non erit illic ulla corruptio, quod est corporis malum. De ordine elementorum iam disputauimus; de aliis hominum coniecturis satis diximus; quanta sit futura in corpore incorruptibili facilitas motus, de praesentis bonae ualetudinis temperamento, quae utique nullo modo illi conparanda est inmortalitati, in libro tertio decimo satis, ut opinor, ostendimus. Legant superiora huius operis, qui uel non legerunt uel uolunt recolere quod legerunt.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 25. On the obstinacy of certain people who attack the resurrection of the flesh, which the whole world believes, as was foretold.

About the goods of the soul which it will enjoy in supreme blessedness after this life, the renowned philosophers do not disagree with us; it is about the resurrection of the flesh that they contend, and this they deny as far as they can. But the many who believe have left very few who deny it, and have turned with faithful hearts to Christ, who showed in his own resurrection what seems absurd to these people: learned and unlearned, the wise of the world and the unwise. For the world has believed what God foretold, who also foretold that the world would believe this; for he was certainly not compelled by Peter's sorceries to foretell it so long before, with praise of those who would believe. For he is the God before whom, as I have said several times already and am not ashamed to repeat, the deities themselves tremble, as Porphyry acknowledges, and wishes to prove from the oracles of his own gods; whom he praised so highly as to call him both God the Father and King.

Far be it from us, then, to understand what he foretold in the way these people wish, who have not believed with the world what he foretold the world would believe. For why not rather in the way in which the world, foretold so long before as going to believe, believed it, and not as the very few chatter who refused to believe with the world what the world was foretold to believe? For if they say that these things are to be believed in another sense, so as not to insult that God to whom they bear such great testimony by saying that what was written is empty, they do him quite as great an insult, or even a graver one, if they say they are to be understood otherwise, and not as the world believed them, the world that he himself praised as going to believe, promised would believe, and brought to belief. Is it that he cannot make the flesh rise and live for ever? Or is it not to be believed that he will do so because it is evil and unworthy of God? But of his omnipotence, by which he does so many great and incredible things, we have already said much. If they want to find something the Almighty cannot do, they have it: I will say it, he cannot lie. Let us, then, believe what he can do by not believing what he cannot. So, not believing that he can lie, let them believe that he will do what he promised he would do, and let them believe it as the world believed it, which he foretold would believe, praised as going to believe, promised would believe, and has now shown to have believed.

And how do they prove that this is evil? There will be no corruption there, which is the evil of the body. We have already discussed the order of the elements; we have said enough about men's other conjectures; how great the ease of movement will be in an incorruptible body we have shown sufficiently, I think, in the thirteenth book, from the balance of present good health, which is certainly in no way to be compared with that immortality. Let those read the earlier parts of this work who either have not read them or wish to recall what they have read.

### Scripture references

- Titus 1:2: echo, medium confidence
- 2 Tim 2:13: echo, medium confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Porphyry, Porphyry, Phil. orac. (Porphyry, Philosophy from Oracles (fragments)): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The pagan claim that Peter's sorceries secured the worship of Christ for 365 years is reported in Book 18.53–54. Porphyry's testimony from oracles: Book 19.23 (Philosophy from Oracles). “He cannot lie” echoes Titus 1:2; 2 Tim 2:13. Ease of movement in the risen body: Book 13.18.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.25 (CSEL 40:650–651; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-24/#p-22-25).

## City of God 22.26

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-24/#p-22-26
- Source: CSEL 40:651–653
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Against Porphyry's demand that the blessed soul flee all bodies, Augustine cites Plato's Timaeus, where the supreme God promises the created gods an impossible immortality in their bodies, so God can likewise raise incorruptible flesh.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVI. Quo modo Porphyrii definitio, qua beatis animis putat corpus omne fugiendum, ipsius Platonis sententia destruatur, qui dicit summum Deum dis promisisse, ut numquam corporibus exuerentur. Sed Porphyrius ait, inquiunt, ut beata sit anima, corpus esse omne fugiendum. Nihil ergo prodest, quia incorruptibile diximus futurum corpus, si anima beata non erit, nisi omne corpus effugerit. Sed iam et hinc in libro memorato quantum oportuit disputaui; uerum hic unum inde tantum commemorabo. Emendet libros suos istorum omnium magister Plato et dicat eorum deos, ut beati sint, sua corpora fugituros, id est esse morituros, quos in caelestibus corporibus dixit inclusos; quibus tamen Deus, a quo facti sunt, quo possent esse securi, inmortalitatem. id est in eisdem corporibus aeternam permansionem, non eorum natura id habente, sed suo consilio praeualente, promisit. Ubi etiam illud euertit quod dicunt. quoniam est inpossibilis, ideo resurrectionem carnis non esse credendam. Apertissime quippe iuxta eundem philosophum. ubi dis a se factis promisit Deus non factus inmortalitatem, quod inpossibile est se dixit esse facturum. Sic enim eum locutum narrat Plato: Quoniam estis orti, inquit, inmortales esse et indissolubiles non potestis; non tamen dissoluemini neque uos ulla mortis fata periment nec erunt ualentiora quam consilium meum, quod maius est uinculum ad perpetuitatem uestram quam illa quibus estis conligati. Si non solum absurdi, sed surdi non sunt qui haec audiunt non utique dubitant dis factis ab illo Deo qui eos fecit secundum Platonem quod est inpossibile fuisse promissum. Qui enim dicit: Vos quidem inmortales esse non potestis, sed mea uoluntate inmortales eritis, quid aliud dicit quam id quod fieri non potest me faciente tamen eritis? Ille igitur carnem incorruptibilem, inmortalem, spiritalem resuscitabit, qui iuxta Platonem id quod inpossibile est se facturum esse promisit. Quid adhuc, quod promisit Deus, quod Deo promittenti credidit mundus, qui etiam ipse promissus est crediturus, esse inpossibile clamant, quando quidem nos Deum, qui etiam secundum Platonem facit inpossibilia, id facturum esse clamamus? Non ergo, ut beatae sint animae, corpus est omne fugiendum, sed corpus incorruptibile recipiendum. Et in quo conuenientius incorruptibili corpore laetabuntur, quam in quo corruptibili gemuerunt? Sic enim non in eis erit illa dira cupiditas, quam posuit ex Platone Vergilius, ubi ait: Rursus et incipiant in corpora uelle reuerti; sic, inquam, cupiditatem reuertendi ad corpora non habebunt, cum corpora, in quae reuerti cupiunt, secum habebunt et sic habebunt, ut numquam non habeant, numquam ea prorsus uel ad exiguum quamlibet tempus ulla morte deponant.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 26. How Porphyry's maxim, by which he thinks that blessed souls must flee every body, is overturned by the view of Plato himself, who says that the supreme God promised the gods that they would never be stripped of their bodies.

“But Porphyry says,” they reply, “that for the soul to be blessed, every body must be fled.” It is no use, then, our saying that the body will be incorruptible, if the soul will not be blessed unless it escapes every body. But I have already argued this in the book mentioned as far as was needed; here I will recall only one point from it. Let Plato, the master of all of them, correct his books and say that their gods, whom he said were enclosed in heavenly bodies, will flee their bodies, that is, will die, in order to be blessed; to whom, nevertheless, the God by whom they were made, so that they might be secure, promised immortality, that is, eternal continuance in the same bodies, not because their nature has this, but because his counsel prevails. There he also overturns their saying that the resurrection of the flesh is not to be believed because it is impossible. For, quite plainly according to the same philosopher, when the unmade God promised immortality to the gods made by him, he said he would do what is impossible. For Plato reports him as speaking thus: “Since you have come into being,” he says, “you cannot be immortal and indissoluble; yet you shall not be dissolved, nor shall any fates of death destroy you, nor shall they be stronger than my counsel, which is a greater bond for your perpetuity than those by which you are bound together.” If those who hear this are not only not absurd but not deaf, they surely do not doubt that, according to Plato, what is impossible was promised to the gods made by the God who made them. For he who says, “You cannot be immortal, but by my will you shall be immortal,” what else does he say than, “You shall be what cannot be, since I make it so”? He, then, will raise flesh incorruptible, immortal, spiritual, who, according to Plato, promised that he would do what is impossible.

Why do they still cry out that what God has promised, what the world has believed on God's promise, the world that was itself promised as going to believe, is impossible, when we cry out that God will do it, who even according to Plato does impossible things? So, for souls to be blessed, it is not every body that must be fled, but an incorruptible body that must be received. And in what incorruptible body will they more fittingly rejoice than in that in which, when it was corruptible, they groaned? For so there will not be in them that dire desire which Virgil took from Plato, where he says, “and they may begin to wish to return into bodies again”; so, I say, they will not have the desire to return to bodies, when they have with them the bodies to which they desire to return, and have them in such a way that they will never not have them, never lay them down by any death even for the briefest time.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Porphyry, Regr. (Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul): allusion, high confidence
- Plato, Tim. 41a–b (Plato (works)): quotation, high confidence
- Virgil, Aen. 6.751 (Virgil): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- The Plato quotation is Timaeus 41a–b, in a Latin version (probably Cicero's translation of the Timaeus). Virgil, Aeneid 6.751. Porphyry's maxim (“every body must be fled”) is from On the Return of the Soul, discussed in Books 10.29 and 13.19.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.26 (CSEL 40:651–653; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-24/#p-22-26).

## City of God 22.27

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-24/#p-22-27
- Source: CSEL 40:653–654
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: If Plato's view that souls return to bodies were combined with Porphyry's that purified souls never return to evils, both would reach the Christian faith in the eternal, evil-free resurrection body.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVII. De contrariis definitionibus Platonis adque Porphyrii, in quibus si uterque alteri cederet, a ueritate neuter deuiaret. Singula quaedam dixerunt Plato adque Porphyrius, quae si inter se communicare potuissent, facti essent fortasse Christiani. Plato dixit sine corporibus animas in aeternum esse non posse. Ideo enim dixit etiam sapientum animas post quamlibet longum tempus, tamen ad corpora redituras. Porphyrius autem dixit animam purgatissimam, cum redierit ad Patrem, ad haec mala mundi numquam esse redituram. Ac per hoc, quod uerum uidit Plato, si dedisset Porphyrio. etiam iustorum adque sapientum purgatissimas animas ad humana corpora redituras; rursus quod uerum uidit Porphyrius, si dedisset Plato. numquam redituras ad miserias corruptibilis corporis animas sanctas; ut non singuli haec singula, sed ambo et singuli utrumque dicerent: puto quod uiderent esse iam consequens, ut et redirent animae ad corpora et talia reciperent corpora, in quibus beate adque inmortaliter uiuerent. Quoniam secundum Platonem etiam sanctae animae ad humana corpora redibunt; secundum Porphyrium ad mala mundi huius sanctae animae non redibunt: dicat itaque cum Platone Porphyrius: Redibunt ad corpora; dicat Plato cum Porphyrio: Non redibunt ad mala: et ad ea corpora redire consentient, in quibus nulla patiantur mala. Haec itaque non erunt nisi illa quae promittit Deus, beatas animas in aeternum cum sua aeterna carne facturus. Hoc enim, quantum existimo, iam facile nobis concederent ambo, ut, qui faterentur ad inmortalia corpora redituras animas esse sanctorum. ad sua illas redire permitterent, in quibus mala huius saeculi pertulerunt, in quibus Deum, ut his malis carerent, pie fideliterque coluerunt..

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 27. On the contrary maxims of Plato and Porphyry, in which, if each had yielded to the other, neither would have strayed from the truth.

Plato and Porphyry each said certain things which, if they could have shared them with one another, might perhaps have made them Christians. Plato said that souls cannot exist for ever without bodies. That is why he said that even the souls of the wise will return to bodies after however long a time. Porphyry, on the other hand, said that the thoroughly purified soul, when it has returned to the Father, will never return to the evils of this world. So if Plato had granted Porphyry what he saw truly, that even the thoroughly purified souls of the righteous and wise will return to human bodies; and if Porphyry in turn had granted Plato what he saw truly, that holy souls will never return to the miseries of a corruptible body; so that each did not say only his one thing but both said both: I think they would have seen that it followed that souls both return to bodies and receive such bodies as they may live in blessedly and immortally. For according to Plato even holy souls will return to human bodies; according to Porphyry holy souls will not return to the evils of this world. Let Porphyry, then, say with Plato, “They will return to bodies”; let Plato say with Porphyry, “They will not return to evils”; and they will agree that they return to bodies in which they suffer no evils. And these will be none other than those which God promises, who will make blessed souls live for ever with their own eternal flesh. For this, I think, both would readily grant us: that, admitting that the souls of the saints will return to immortal bodies, they would allow them to return to their own bodies, in which they endured the evils of this age, in which they worshipped God piously and faithfully so as to be free of these evils.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato (Plato (works)): allusion, medium confidence
- Porphyry, Regr. (Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul): allusion, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Plato's return of souls to bodies (e.g. Phaedrus 248e–249a; Republic 10) and Porphyry's view (On the Return of the Soul) are cited as Augustine reports them in Books 10 and 12.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.27 (CSEL 40:653–654; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-24/#p-22-27).

## City of God 22.28

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-24/#p-22-28
- Source: CSEL 40:654–656
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine notes Plato's myth of a man returned to life, Labeo's tale of two revived men, and Varro's report of a rebirth of the same body and soul after 440 years, and argues that combining these pagan views yields the Christian resurrection.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIII. Quid ad ueram resurrectionis fidem uel Plato uel Labeo uel etiam Varro conferre sibi potuerint, si opiniones eorum in unam sententiam conuenissent. Nonnulli nostri propter quoddam praeclarissimum loquendi genus et propter nonnulla, quae ueraciter sensit, amantes Platonem dicunt eum aliquid simile nobis etiam de mortuorum resurrectione sensisse. Quod quidem sic tangit in libris de re publica Tullius, ut eum lusisse potius, quam quod id uerum esset, adfirmet dicere uoluisse. Inducit enim hominem reuixisse et narrasse quaedam, quae Platonicis disputationibus congruebant. Labeo etiam duos dicit uno die fuisse defunctos et occurrisse inuicem in quodam compito, deinde ad corpora sua iussos fuisse remeare et constituisse inter se amicos se esse uicturos, adque ita esse factum, donec postea morerentur. Sed isti auctores talem resurrectionem corporis factam fuisse narrarunt, quales fuerunt eorum, quos resurrexisse nouimus et huic quidem redditos uitae, sed non eo modo ut non morerentur ulterius. Mirabilius autem quiddam Marcus Varro ponit in libris, quos conscripsit de gente populi Romani, cuius putaui uerba ipsa ponenda. Genethliaci quidam scripserunt, inquit, esse in renascendis hominibus quam appellant παλιγγενεσίαν Graeci; hac scripserunt confici in annis numero quadringentis quadraginta, ut idem corpus et eadem anima, quae fuerint coniuncta in homine aliquando, eadem rursus redeant in coniunctionem. Iste Varro quidem siue illi genethliaci nescio qui (non enim nomina eorum prodidit, quorum commemorauit sententiam) aliquid dixerunt, quod licet falsum sit (cum enim semel ad eadem corpora quae gesserunt animae redierint, numquam ea sunt postea relicturae), tamen multa illius inpossibilitatis, qua contra nos isti garriunt. argumenta conuellit et destruit. Qui enim hoc sentiunt siue senserunt, non eis uisum est fieri non posse, ut dilapsa cadauera in auras in puluerem, in cinerem in umores, in corpora uescentium bestiarum uel ipsorum quoque hominum ad id rursus redeant, quod fuerunt. Quapropter Plato et Porphyrius, uel potius quicumque illos diligunt et adhuc uiuunt, si nobis consentiunt etiam sanctas animas ad corpora redituras, sicut ait Plato, nec tamen ad mala ulla redituras, sicut ait Porphyrius, ut ex his fiat consequens, quod fides praedicat Christiana, talia corpora recepturas, in quibus sine ullo malo in aeternum feliciter uiuant, adsumant etiam hoc de Varrone, ut ad eadem corpora redeant, in quibus antea fuerunt, et aput eos tota quaestio de carnis in aeternum resurrectione soluetur.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 28. What Plato, or Labeo, or even Varro could have contributed to the true faith in the resurrection, if their opinions had come together into one view.

Some of our people, who love Plato for his most splendid style and for some things he truly perceived, say that he held something like our view even about the resurrection of the dead. Tullius touches on this in his books On the Republic in such a way as to assert that Plato meant to play rather than to say that it was true. For Plato introduces a man who came back to life and told certain things that agreed with Platonic teachings. Labeo too says that two men died on one day and met each other at a certain crossroads, and then were ordered to go back to their bodies, and agreed between them to live as friends, and so it happened until they died later. But these authors told of a resurrection of the body such as that of those we know to have risen and been restored to this life, but not in such a way that they would not die again.

Marcus Varro, however, sets down something more wonderful in the books he wrote On the Race of the Roman People, whose very words I thought I should give. “Certain casters of nativities,” he says, “have written that there is in the rebirth of men what the Greeks call palingenesia; they have written that this is accomplished in four hundred and forty years, so that the same body and the same soul, which were once joined in a man, return again into union.” This Varro, or those casters of nativities, whoever they were (for he did not give the names of those whose opinion he recorded), said something which, though false (for once souls have returned to the same bodies they wore, they will never leave them afterwards), nevertheless overthrows and destroys many of the arguments for that impossibility with which these people chatter against us. For those who hold or held this view did not think it impossible that corpses dissolved into the air, into dust, into ashes, into liquids, into the bodies of beasts that ate them, or even of men themselves, should return again to what they were.

Therefore Plato and Porphyry, or rather whoever loves them and is still alive, if they agree with us that holy souls will return to bodies, as Plato says, and yet will not return to any evils, as Porphyry says, so that it follows from these what the Christian faith preaches, that they will receive such bodies as they may live in happily for ever without any evil, let them also take from Varro that they return to the same bodies in which they were before, and for them the whole question of the resurrection of the flesh to eternity will be solved.

### Extrabiblical texts

- Plato, Resp. 10.614b (Plato (works)): allusion, high confidence
- Cicero, Rep. (Cicero): allusion, medium confidence
- Varro (Varro): quotation, high confidence
- Porphyry, Regr. (Porphyry, On the Return of the Soul): allusion, medium confidence

### Translation notes

- The man who came back to life is Er in Plato, Republic 10.614b–621b; Cicero's comment was in his Republic (lost; his Dream of Scipio replaces the myth). Cornelius Labeo was a Neoplatonist writer on religion (lost; no id in the controlled list). Varro, On the Race of the Roman People (lost). The Greek word palingenesia (“rebirth”) is restored from the garbled digital text.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.28 (CSEL 40:654–656; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-24/#p-22-28).

## City of God 22.29

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-29/#p-22-29
- Source: CSEL 40:656–664
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine discusses how the saints will see God: certainly with the spirit, and perhaps also through their spiritual bodies, which may see God present in all things as we now see life in living bodies.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXVIIII. De qualitate uisionis, qua in futuro saeculo sancti Deum uidebunt.. Nunc iam quid acturi sint in corporibus inmortalibus adque spiritalibus sancti, non adhuc eorum carne carnaliter, sed spiritaliter iam uiuente, quantum Dominus dignatur adiuuare uideamus. Et illa quidem actio uel potius quies adque otium quale futurum sit, si uerum uelim dicere, nescio. Non enim hoc umquam per sensus corporis uidi. Si autem mente, id est intellegentia, uidisse me dicam, quantum est aut quid est nostra intellegentia ad illam excellentiam? Ibi est enim pax Dei, quae, sicut ait apostolus, superat omnem intellectum; quem nisi nostrum, aut fortasse etiam sanctorum angelorum? non enim et Dei. Si ergo sancti in Dei pace uicturi sunt, profecto in ea pace uicturi sunt, quae superat omnem intellectum. Quoniam nostrum quidem superat. non est dubium; si autem superat et angelorum, ut nec ipsos excepisse uideatur, qui ait omnem intellectum: secundum hoc dictum esse debemus accipere, quia pacem Dei, qua Deus. ipse pacatus est, sicut Deus nouit, non eam nos sic possumus nosse nec ulli angeli. Superat itaque omnem intellectum, non dubium quod praeter suum. Sed quia et nos pro modo nostro pacis eius participes facti summam in nobis adque inter nos et cum ipso pacem, quantum nostrum summum est obtinebimus: isto modo pro suo modo sciunt eam sancti angeli; homines autem nunc longe infra, quantumlibet prouectu mentis excellant. Considerandum est enim quantus uir dicebat: Ex parte scimus et ex parte prophetamus, donec ueniat quod perfectum est; et: Videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem. Sic iam uident sancti angeli, qui etiam nostri angeli dicti sunt, quia eruti de potestate tenebrarum et accepto spiritus pignore translati ad regnum Christi ad eos angelos iam coepimus pertinere, cum quibus nobis erit sancta adque dulcissima, de qua iam tot libros scripsimus, Dei ciuitas ipsa communis. Sic sunt ergo angeli nostri, qui sunt angeli Dei, quem ad modum Christus Dei Christus est noster. Dei sunt, quia Deum non reliquerunt; nostri sunt quia suos ciues nos habere coeperunt. Dixit autem Dominus Iesus: Videte ne contemnatis unum de pusillis istis. Dico enim uobis, quia angeli eorum in caelis semper uident faciem patris mei, quia in caelis est. Sicut ergo illi uident, ita et nos uisuri sumus; sed nondum ita uidemus. Propter quod ait apostolus, quod paulo ante dixi: Videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem. Praemium itaque fidei nobis uisio ista seruatur, de qua et Iohannes apostolus loquens: Cum apparuerit, inquit, similes ei erimus, quoniam uidebimus eum sicuti est. Facies autem Dei manifestatio eius intellegenda est, non aliquod tale membrum, quale nos habemus in corpore adque isto nomine nuncupamus. Quapropter cum ex me quaeritur, quid acturi sint sancti in illo corpore spiritali, non dico quod iam uideo, sed dico quod credo, secundum illud quod in psalmo lego: Credidi, propter quod locutus sum. Dico itaque: Visuri sunt Deum in ipso corpore; sed utrum per ipsum, sicut per corpus nunc uidemus solem, lunam, stellas, mare ac terram et quae sunt in ea, non parua quaestio est. Durum est enim dicere, quod sancti talia corpora tunc habebunt, ut non possint oculos claudere adque aperire cum uolent; durius autem, quod ibi Deum, quisquis oculos clauserit, non uidebit. Si enim propheta Helisaeus puerum suum Giezi absens corpore uidit accipientem munera, quae dedit ei Naeman Syrus, quem propheta memoratus a leprae deformitate mundauerat, quod seruus nequam domino suo non uidente latenter se fecisse putauerat: quanto magis in illo corpore spiritali uidebunt sancti omnia, non solum si oculos claudant, uerum etiam unde sunt corpore absentes! Tunc enim erit perfectum illud, de quo loquens apostolus: Ex parte, inquit, scimus et ex parte prophetamus; cum autem uenerit quod perfectum est, quod ex parte est euacuabitur. Deinde ut quo modo posset aliqua similitudine ostenderet, quantum ab illa quae futura est distet haec uita, non qualiumcumque hominum, uerum etiam qui praecipua hic sanctitate sunt praediti: Cum essem, inquit, paruulus, quasi paruulus sapiebam, quasi paruulus loquebar, quasi paruulus cogitabam; cum autem factus sum uir, euacuaui ea quae paruuli erant. Videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem. Nunc scio ex parte, tunc autem cognoscam sicut et cognitus sum. Si ergo in hac uita, ubi hominum mirabilium prophetia ita conparanda est illi uitae, quasi paruuli ad iuuenem, uidit tamen Helisaeus accipientem munera seruum suum, ubi ipse non erat: itane cum uenerit quod perfectum est, nec iam corpus corruptibile adgrauabit animam, sed incorruptibile nihil inpediet, illi sancti ad ea, quae uidenda sunt, oculis corporeis, quibus Helisaeus absens ad seruum suum uidendum non indiguit, indigebunt? Nam secundum interpretes septuaginta ista sunt ad Giezi uerba prophetae: Nonne cor meum iit tecum, quando conuersus est uir de curru suo in obuiam tibi et accepisti pecuniam? et cetera; sicut autem ex Hebraeo interpretatus est presbyter Hieronymus: Nonne cor meum, inquit, in praesenti erat, quando reuersus est homo de curru suo in occursum tui? Corde suo ergo se dixit hoc uidisse propheta, adiuto quidem mirabiliter nullo dubitante diuinitus. Sed quanto amplius tunc omnes munere isto abundabunt, cum Deus erit omnia in omnibus! Habebunt tamen etiam illi oculi corporei officium suum et in loco suo erunt, uteturque illis spiritus per spiritale corpus. Neque enim et ille propheta, quia non eis indiguit ut uideret absentem, non eis usus est ad uidenda praesentia; quae tamen spiritu uidere posset, etiamsi illos clauderet, sicut uidit absentia, ubi cum eis ipse non erat. Absit ergo, ut dicamus illos sanctos in illa uita Deum clausis oculis non uisuros, quem spiritu semper uidebunt. Sed utrum uidebunt et per oculos corporis cum eos apertos habebunt, inde quaestio est. Si enim tantum poterunt in corpore spiritali eo modo utique etiam ipsi oculi spiritales, quantum possunt isti quales nunc habemus: procul dubio per eos Deus uideri non poterit. Longe itaque alterius erant potentiae, si per eos uidebitur incorporea illa natura, quae non continetur loco, sed ubique tota est. Non enim quia dicimus Deum et in caelo esse et in terra (ipse quippe ait per prophetam: Caelum et terram ego inpleo), aliam partem dicturi sumus eum in caelo habere et in terra aliam; sed totus in caelo est, totus in terra, non alternis temporibus. sed utrumque simul, quod nulla natura corporalis potest. Vis itaque praepollentior oculorum erit illorum, non ut acrius uideant, quam quidam perhibentur uidere serpentes uel aquilae (quantalibet enim acrimonia cernendi eadem quoque animalia nihil aliud possunt uidere quam corpora), sed ut uideant et incorporalia. Et fortasse ista uirtus magna cernendi data fuerit ad horam etiam in isto mortali corpore oculis sancti uiri Iob, quando ait ad Deum: In obauditu auris audiebam te prius, nunc autem oculus meus uidet te; propterea despexi memet ipsum et distabui et existimaui me terram et cinerem; quamuis nihil hic prohibeat oculum cordis intellegi, de quibus oculis ait apostolus: Inluminatos oculos habere cordis uestri. Ipsis autem uideri Deum, cum uidebitur, Christianus ambigit nemo, qui fideliter accipit, quod ait Deus ille magister: Beati mundi corde, quoniam ipsi Deum uidebunt. Sed utrum etiam corporalibus ibi oculis uideatur, hoc in ista quaestione uersamus. Illud enim quod scriptum est: Et uidebit omnis caro salutare Dei, sine ullius nodo difficultatis sic intellegi potest, ac si dictum fuerit: Et uidebit omnis homo Christum Dei, qui utique in corpore uisus est et in corpore uidebitur, quando uiuos et mortuos iudicabit. Quod autem ipse sit salutare Dei, multa sunt et alia testimonia scripturarum; sed euidentius uenerandi illius senis Symeonis uerba declarant, qui, cum infantem Christum accepisset in manus suas: Nunc, inquit, dimittis, Domine, seruum tuum secundum uerbum tuum in pace, quoniam uiderunt oculi mei salutare tuum. Illud etiam, quod ait supra memoratus Iob, sicut in exemplaribus, quae ex Hebraeo sunt, inuenitur: Et in carne mea uidebo Deum, resurrectionem quidem carnis sine dubio prophetauit, non tamen dixit: Per carnem meam. Quod quidem si dixisset, posset Deus Christus intellegi, qui per carnem in carne uidebitur; nunc uero potest et sic accipi: In carne mea uidebo Deum, ac si dixisset: In carne mea ero, cum uidebo Deum. Et illud, quod ait apostolus: Facie ad faciem, non cogit ut Deum per hanc faciem corporalem, ubi sunt oculi corporales, nos uisuros esse credamus, quem spiritu sine intermissione uidebimus. Nisi enim esset etiam interioris hominis facies, non diceret idem apostolus: Nos autem reuelata facie gloriam Domini speculantes in eandem imaginem transformamur, de gloria in gloriam, tamquam a Domini spiritu; nec aliter intellegimus et quod in psalmo canitur: Accedite ad eum et inluminamini, et facies uestrae non erubescent. Fide quippe acceditur ad Deum, quam cordis constat esse, non corporis. Sed quia spiritale corpus nescimus quantos habebit accessus (de re quippe inexperta loquimur), ubi aliqua, quae aliter intellegi nequeat, diuinarum scripturarum non occurrit et succurrit auctoritas, necesse est ut contingat in nobis quod legitur in libro Sapientiae: Cogitationes mortalium timidae et incertae prouidentiae nostrae. Ratiocinatio quippe illa philosophorum, qua disputant ita mentis adspectu intellegibilia uideri et sensu corporis sensibilia, id est corporalia, ut nec intellegibilia per corpus nec corporalia per se ipsam mens ualeat intueri, si posset nobis esse certissima, profecto certum esset per oculos corporis etiam spiritalis nullo modo posse uideri Deum. Sed istam ratiocinationem et uera ratio et prophetica inridet auctoritas. Quis enim ita sit auersus a uero, ut dicere audeat Deum corporalia ista nescire? Numquid ergo corpus habet, per cuius oculos ea possit addiscere? Deinde quod de propheta Helisaeo paulo ante diximus, nonne satis indicat etiam spiritu, non per corpus, corporalia posse cerni? Quando enim seruus ille munera accepit, utique corporaliter gestum est; quod tamen propheta non per corpus, sed per spiritum uidit. Sicut ergo constat corpora uideri spiritu, quid si tanta erit potentia spiritalis corporis, ut corpore uideatur et spiritus? Spiritus enim est Deus. Deinde uitam quidem suam, qua nunc uiuit in corpore et haec terrena membra uegetat facitque uiuentia, interiore sensu quisque, non per corporeos oculos nouit; aliorum uero uitas, cum sint inuisibiles, per corpus uidet. Nam unde uiuentia discernimus a non uiuentibus corpora, nisi corpora simul uitasque uideamus, quas nisi per corpus uidere non possumus? Vitae autem sine corporibus corporeis oculis non uidemus. Quam ob rem fieri potest ualdeque credibile est sic nos esse uisuros mundana corpora tunc caeli noui et terrae nouae, ut Deum ubique praesentem et uniuersa etiam corporalia gubernantem per corpora quae gestabimus et quae conspiciemus, quaqua uersum oculos duxerimus, clarissima perspicuitate uideamus, non sicut nunc inuisibilia Dei per ea, quae facta sunt. intellecta conspiciuntur per speculum in aenigmate et ex parte, ubi plus in nobis ualet fides, qua credimus, quam rerum corporalium species, quam per oculos cernimus corporales. Sed sicut homines, inter quos uiuentes motusque uitales exserentes uiuimus, mox ut adspicimus, non credimus uiuere, sed uidemus, cum eorum uitam sine corporibus uidere nequeamus, quam tamen in eis per corpora remota omni ambiguitate conspicimus: ita quacumque spiritalia illa lumina corporum nostrorum circumferemus, incorporeum Deum omnia regentem etiam per corpora contuebimur. Aut ergo sic per illos oculos uidebitur Deus, ut aliquid habeant in tanta excellentia menti simile, quo et incorporea natura cernatur, quod ullis exemplis siue scripturarum testimoniis diuinarum uel difficile est uel inpossibile ostendere; aut, quod est ad intellegendum facilius, ita Deus nobis erit notus adque conspicuus, ut uideatur spiritu a singulis nobis in singulis nobis, uideatur ab altero in altero, uideatur in se ipso, uideatur in caelo nouo et terra noua adque in omni, quae tunc fuerit, creatura, uideatur et per corpora in omni corpore, quocumque fuerint spiritalis corporis oculi acie perueniente directi. Patebunt etiam cogitationes nostrae inuicem nobis. Tunc enim inplebitur, quod apostolus, cum dixisset: Nolite ante tempus iudicare quidquam, mox addidit: Donec ueniat Dominus, et inluminabit abscondita tenebrarum et manifestabit cogitationes cordis, et tunc laus erit unicuique a Deo.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 29. On the kind of vision with which the saints will see God in the age to come.

Now let us see, as far as the Lord deigns to help, what the saints will do in their immortal and spiritual bodies, when their flesh lives no longer carnally but spiritually. And indeed what that activity, or rather rest and leisure, will be like, if I wish to tell the truth, I do not know. For I have never seen it through the senses of the body. And if I were to say I had seen it with the mind, that is, with the understanding, how great or what is our understanding compared with that excellence? For there is “the peace of God,” which, as the apostle says, “surpasses all understanding.” Whose, if not ours, or perhaps also that of the holy angels? For not God's too. If, then, the saints are to live in the peace of God, they will certainly live in that peace which surpasses all understanding. That it surpasses ours there is no doubt; but if it surpasses the angels' too, so that he who says “all understanding” seems not to have excepted even them, we must take the saying in this sense: that the peace of God, by which God himself is at peace, we cannot know as God knows it, nor can any angels. So it surpasses all understanding, except, no doubt, his own. But because we too, made partakers of his peace in our measure, shall obtain supreme peace in ourselves, among ourselves, and with him, as far as supreme is possible for us, in this way the holy angels know it in their measure; but men now far below, however much they excel in advance of mind. For we must consider how great a man it was who said, “We know in part and we prophesy in part, until what is perfect comes,” and, “Now we see through a mirror in an enigma, but then face to face.”

So the holy angels already see, who are also called our angels, because, rescued from the power of darkness and, having received the pledge of the Spirit, transferred into the kingdom of Christ, we have already begun to belong to those angels with whom we shall share that holy and most sweet city of God itself, about which we have now written so many books. So those are our angels who are God's angels, just as God's Christ is our Christ. They are God's, because they did not abandon God; they are ours, because they have begun to have us as their fellow citizens. And the Lord Jesus said, “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.” As they see, then, so we too shall see; but we do not yet see so. That is why the apostle says what I quoted a little earlier: “Now we see through a mirror in an enigma, but then face to face.” This vision is kept for us as the reward of faith, of which the apostle John also says, “When he appears, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.” By the face of God we must understand his manifestation, not some such member as we have in the body and call by that name.

So when I am asked what the saints will do in that spiritual body, I do not say what I already see, but I say what I believe, according to what I read in the psalm: “I believed, therefore I spoke.” I say, then: they will see God in the body itself; but whether through it, as we now see sun, moon, stars, sea and earth and what is in it through the body, is no small question. For it is hard to say that the saints will then have such bodies that they cannot close and open their eyes when they wish; but it is harder to say that anyone who closes his eyes there will not see God. For if the prophet Elisha, absent in body, saw his servant Gehazi accepting the gifts that Naaman the Syrian gave him, whom the prophet had cleansed from the deformity of leprosy, which the wicked servant thought he had done in secret without his master seeing, how much more in that spiritual body will the saints see all things, not only if they close their eyes, but even from where they are absent in body! For then will be that perfection of which the apostle speaks: “We know in part,” he says, “and we prophesy in part; but when what is perfect comes, what is in part will be done away.” Then, to show by some comparison, as best he could, how far this life, not of just any men but even of those endowed here with outstanding holiness, is from that which is to come, he says, “When I was a child, I thought as a child, I spoke as a child, I reasoned as a child; but when I became a man, I did away with the things of a child. Now we see through a mirror in an enigma, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know even as I am known.”

If, then, in this life, where the prophecy of wonderful men is to be compared with that life as a child with a young man, Elisha nevertheless saw his servant accepting gifts where he himself was not, when what is perfect has come, and the corruptible body no longer weighs down the soul but the incorruptible hinders nothing, will those saints need bodily eyes to see what is to be seen, which Elisha, though absent, did not need to see his servant? For according to the Seventy translators these are the prophet's words to Gehazi: “Did not my heart go with you when the man turned from his chariot to meet you, and you took the money?” and so on; but as the presbyter Jerome translated from the Hebrew: “Was not my heart present,” he says, “when the man turned back from his chariot to meet you?” So the prophet said he saw this with his heart, wonderfully helped, no one doubts, by God. But how much more will all abound in this gift then, when God will be all in all! Yet those bodily eyes too will have their function and will be in their place, and the spirit will use them through the spiritual body. For that prophet too, because he did not need them to see what was absent, did not therefore fail to use them to see what was present; which, however, he could see with his spirit even if he closed them, as he saw things absent, where he was not with them. Far be it from us, then, to say that those saints in that life will not see God with their eyes closed, whom they will always see with the spirit.

But whether they will see him also through the eyes of the body when they have them open, that is the question. For if the spiritual eyes themselves, in the spiritual body, can do only as much as those we now have can do, beyond doubt God will not be able to be seen through them. They will be of a very different power, then, if through them that incorporeal nature is to be seen which is not contained in place but is everywhere whole. For because we say that God is both in heaven and on earth (for he himself says through the prophet, “I fill heaven and earth”), we are not going to say that he has one part in heaven and another on earth; but he is whole in heaven, whole on earth, not at alternate times but both at once, which no bodily nature can be. The power of those eyes, then, will be far stronger, not so as to see more sharply than certain serpents or eagles are said to see (for however great their keenness of sight, these animals too can see nothing but bodies), but so as to see even incorporeal things. And perhaps this great power of seeing was given for a moment even in this mortal body to the eyes of the holy man Job, when he says to God, “I heard you before by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despised myself and wasted away and counted myself earth and ashes”; though nothing here prevents our understanding the eye of the heart, of which eyes the apostle says, “that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened.” That God is seen by these eyes when he is seen, no Christian doubts who faithfully accepts what that God and Teacher says: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” But whether he is also seen there with bodily eyes, this is what we are turning over in this question.

For what is written, “And all flesh shall see the salvation of God,” can be understood without any knot of difficulty as if it had been said, “And every man shall see the Christ of God,” who was certainly seen in the body and will be seen in the body when he judges the living and the dead. That he is himself the salvation of God there are many other testimonies of the Scriptures; but the words of that venerable old man Simeon declare it most plainly, who, when he had taken the infant Christ into his hands, said, “Now, Lord, you let your servant depart according to your word in peace, for my eyes have seen your salvation.” Also, what the Job mentioned above says, as it is found in the copies translated from the Hebrew, “And in my flesh I shall see God,” certainly prophesied the resurrection of the flesh; yet he did not say, “Through my flesh.” If he had said that, God could be understood as Christ, who will be seen through the flesh in the flesh; but as it is, “In my flesh I shall see God” can also be taken as if he had said, “I shall be in my flesh when I see God.” And what the apostle says, “face to face,” does not compel us to believe that we shall see God through this bodily face, where the bodily eyes are, when we shall see him with the spirit without ceasing. For unless there were a face of the inner man too, the same apostle would not say, “But we, with unveiled face beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord”; nor do we understand otherwise what is sung in the psalm, “Come to him and be enlightened, and your faces shall not be ashamed.” For it is by faith that we come to God, and faith is evidently of the heart, not of the body.

But because we do not know how great the powers of the spiritual body will be (for we are speaking of something not experienced), where some authority of the divine Scriptures, which cannot be understood otherwise, does not meet and aid us, what we read in the book of Wisdom must happen in us: “The thoughts of mortals are timid, and our foresight uncertain.” For if that reasoning of the philosophers, by which they argue that intelligible things are seen by the sight of the mind and sensible, that is, bodily, things by the sense of the body, so that the mind can see neither intelligible things through the body nor bodily things by itself, could be most certain for us, it would surely be certain that God can in no way be seen through the eyes even of a spiritual body. But both true reason and prophetic authority laugh at this reasoning. For who is so turned away from the truth as to dare to say that God does not know these bodily things? Has he, then, a body, through whose eyes he could learn them? Further, what we said a little before about the prophet Elisha, does it not show clearly enough that bodily things can be perceived even by the spirit, not through the body? For when that servant accepted the gifts, it was surely a bodily event; yet the prophet saw it not through the body but through the spirit. As, then, it is agreed that bodies are seen by the spirit, what if the power of the spiritual body will be so great that spirit too is seen by the body? For God is spirit.

Further, each person knows his own life, by which he now lives in the body and quickens these earthly members and makes them living, by an inner sense, not through bodily eyes; but the lives of others, though they are invisible, he sees through the body. For how do we distinguish living bodies from those not living, unless we see bodies and lives together, which we cannot see except through the body? But lives without bodies we do not see with bodily eyes. Therefore it may be, and it is very credible, that we shall then see the bodies of the world of the new heaven and the new earth in such a way that we see God, everywhere present and governing all things, bodily things included, through the bodies we shall bear and those we shall behold, wherever we turn our eyes, with the clearest transparency; not as now “the invisible things of God are seen, being understood through the things that are made,” “through a mirror in an enigma” and “in part,” where faith, by which we believe, has more power in us than the appearance of bodily things, which we perceive through bodily eyes. But as with the men among whom we live, who are alive and display vital movements, as soon as we look at them we do not believe that they live but see it, though we cannot see their life without bodies, and yet we perceive it in them through bodies beyond all doubt: so, wherever we turn those spiritual lights of our bodies, we shall behold the incorporeal God ruling all things, even through bodies.

Either, then, God will be seen through those eyes in such a way that in their great excellence they have something like the mind, by which even an incorporeal nature may be perceived, which is difficult or impossible to show by any examples or testimonies of the divine Scriptures; or, what is easier to understand, God will be so known and visible to us that he will be seen by the spirit by each of us in each of us, seen by one in another, seen in himself, seen in the new heaven and the new earth and in every creature that will then exist, seen also through bodies in every body, wherever the eyes of the spiritual body are directed with their penetrating sight. Our thoughts too will be open to one another. For then will be fulfilled what the apostle, after saying, “Do not judge anything before the time,” at once added: “until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and make manifest the thoughts of the heart; and then each one will have praise from God.”

### Scripture references

- Phil 4:7: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 13:9: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 13:10: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 13:11: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 13:12: quotation, high confidence
- Col 1:13: allusion, high confidence
- 2 Cor 1:22: allusion, high confidence
- Matt 18:10: quotation, high confidence
- 1 John 3:2: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 116:10 (115:1 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- 2 Kgs 5:26: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 15:28: allusion, high confidence
- Jer 23:24: quotation, high confidence
- Job 42:5: quotation, high confidence
- Job 42:6: quotation, high confidence
- Eph 1:18: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 5:8: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 3:6: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 40:5: quotation, medium confidence
- Luke 2:29: quotation, high confidence
- Luke 2:30: quotation, high confidence
- Job 19:26: quotation, high confidence
- 2 Cor 3:18: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 34:5 (33:6 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- John 4:24: quotation, high confidence
- Isa 65:17: allusion, medium confidence
- Rom 1:20: quotation, high confidence
- 1 Cor 4:5: quotation, high confidence

### Extrabiblical texts

- Wis 9:15 (Wisdom of Solomon): allusion, high confidence
- Wis 9:14 (Wisdom of Solomon): quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: Phil 4:7; 1 Cor 13:9–12; Col 1:13; 2 Cor 1:22; Matt 18:10; 1 John 3:2; Ps 116:10 (LXX 115:1); 2 Kgs 5:26 (LXX 4 Kgdms 5:26, quoted in both the Septuagint-based Old Latin and Jerome's version from the Hebrew); 1 Cor 15:28; Jer 23:24; Job 42:5–6; Eph 1:18; Matt 5:8; Luke 3:6 (Isa 40:5); Luke 2:29–30; Job 19:26 (Jerome's version); 2 Cor 3:18; Ps 34:5 (LXX 33:6); John 4:24; Isa 65:17; Rom 1:20; 1 Cor 4:5. “The corruptible body weighs down the soul” is Wis 9:15, and “the thoughts of mortals are timid” Wis 9:14. Augustine leaves open whether God will be seen through bodily eyes; the translation keeps his two alternatives.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.29 (CSEL 40:656–664; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-29/#p-22-29).

## City of God 22.30

- URL: https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-29/#p-22-30
- Source: CSEL 40:664–671
- Translation: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), 2026-09-27

Summary: Augustine concludes the work with the eternal happiness of the city of God: the praise of God who is all in all, a freedom that can no longer sin, and the final seventh-day Sabbath and eternal eighth day of rest, vision, love, and praise.

### Latin text

CAPUT XXX. De aeterna felicitate ciuitatis Dei sabbatoque perpetuo. Quanta erit illa felicitas, ubi nullum erit malum, nullum latebit bonum, uacabitur Dei laudibus, qui erit omnia in omnibus! Nam quid aliud agatur, ubi neque ulla desidia cessabitur neque ulla indigentia laborabitur, nescio. Admoneor etiam sancto cantico, ubi lego uel audio: Beati, qui habitant in domo tua, in saecula saeculorum laudabunt te. Omnia membra et uiscera incorruptibilis corporis, quae nunc uidemus per usus necessitatis uarios distributa, quoniam tunc non erit ipsa necessitas, sed plena certa, secura sempiterna felicitas, proficient in laudibus Dei. Omnes quippe illi, de quibus iam sum locutus, qui nunc latent, harmoniae corporalis numeri non latebunt, intrinsecus et extrinsecus per corporis cuncta dispositi, et cum ceteris rebus, quae ibi magnae adque mirabiles uidebuntur, rationales mentes in tanti artificis laudem rationabilis pulchritudinis delectatione succendent. Qui motus illic talium corporum sint futuri, temere definire non audeo, quod excogitare non ualeo; tamen et motus et status, sicut ipsa species, decens erit, ubi quicumque erit, quod non decebit non erit. Certe ubi uolet spiritus, ibi erit protinus corpus; nec uolet aliquid spiritus, quod nec spiritum possit decere nec corpus. Vera ibi gloria erit, ubi laudantis nec errore quisquam nec adulatione laudabitur; uerus honor, qui nulli negabitur digno, nulli deferetur indigno; sed nec ad eum ambiet ullus indignus, ubi nullus permittetur esse nisi dignus; uera pax, ubi nihil aduersi nec a se ipso nec ab aliquo quisque patietur. Praemium uirtutis erit ipse, qui uirtutem dedit eique se ipsum, quo melius et maius nihil possit esse, promisit. Quid est enim aliud quod per prophetam dixit: Ero illorum Deus, et ipsi erunt mihi plebs, nisi: Ego ero unde satientur, ego ero quaecumque ab hominibus honeste desiderantur, et uita et salus et uictus et copia et gloria et honor et pax et omnia bona? Sic enim et illud recte intellegitur, quod ait apostolus: Ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus. Ipse finis erit desideriorum nostrorum, qui sine fine uidebitur, sine fastidio amabitur, sine fatigatione laudabitur. Hoc munus, hic adfectus, hic actus profecto erit omnibus, sicut ipsa uita aeterna, communis. Ceterum qui futuri sint pro meritis praemiorum etiam gradus honorum adque gloriarum, quis est idoneus cogitare, quanto magis dicere? Quod tamen futuri sint, non est ambigendum. Adque id etiam beata illa ciuitas magnum in se bonum uidebit, quod nulli superiori ullus inferior inuidebit, sicut nunc non inuident archangelis angeli ceteri; tamque nolet esse unusquisque quod non accepit, quamuis sit pacatissimo concordiae uinculo ei qui accepit obstrictus, quam nec in corpore uult oculus esse qui est digitus, cum membrum utrumque contineat totius carnis pacata conpago. Sic itaque habebit donum alius alio minus, ut hoc quoque donum habeat, ne uelit amplius. Nec ideo liberum arbitrium non habebunt, quia peccata eos delectare non poterunt. Magis quippe erit liberum a delectatione peccandi usque ad delectationem non peccandi indeclinabilem liberatum. Nam primum liberum arbitrium, quod homini datum est, quando primum creatus est rectus, potuit non peccare, sed potuit et peccare; hoc autem nouissimum eo potentius erit, quo peccare non poterit; uerum hoc quoque Dei munere, non suae possibilitate naturae. Aliud est enim esse Deum, aliud participem Dei. Deus natura peccare non potest; particeps uero Dei ab illo accipit, ut peccare non possit. Seruandi autem gradus erant diuini muneris, ut primum daretur liberum arbitrium, quo non peccare. homo posset, nouissimum, quo peccare non potest, adque illud ad conparandum meritum, hoc ad recipiendum praemium pertineret. Sed quia peccauit ista natura cum peccare potuit, largiore gratia liberatur, ut ad eam perducatur libertatem, in qua peccare non possit. Sicut enim prima inmortalitas fuit, quam peccando Adam perdidit, posse non mori, nouissima erit non posse mori: ita primum liberum arbitrium posse non peccare, nouissimum non posse peccare. Sic enim erit inamissibilis uoluntas pietatis et aequitatis, quo modo felicitatis. Nam utique peccando nec pietatem nec felicitatem tenuimus, uoluntatem uero felicitatis nec perdita felicitate perdidimus. Certe Deus ipse numquid, quoniam peccare non potest, ideo liberum arbitrium habere negandus est? Erit ergo illius ciuitatis et una in omnibus et inseparabilis in singulis uoluntas libera, ab omni malo liberata et inpleta omni bono, fruens indeficienter aeternorum iucunditate gaudiorum, oblita culparum, oblita poenarum; nec ideo tamen suae liberationis oblita, ut liberatori suo non sit ingrata: quantum ergo adtinet ad scientiam rationalem, memor praeteritorum etiam malorum suorum; quantum autem ad experientis sensum, prorsus inmemor. Nam et peritissimus medicus, sicut arte sciuntur, omnes fere corporis morbos nouit; sicut autem corpore sentiuntur, plurimos nescit, quos ipse non passus est. Ut ergo scientiae malorum duae sunt, una, qua potentiam mentis non latent, altera, qua experientis sensibus inhaerent (aliter quippe sciuntur uitia omnia per sapientiae doctrinam, aliter per insipientis pessimam uitam): ita et obliuiones malorum duae sunt. Aliter ea namque obliuiscitur eruditus et doctus, aliter expertus et passus; ille, si peritiam neglegat, iste, si miseria careat. Secundum hanc obliuionem, quam posteriore loco posui, non erunt memores sancti praeteritorum malorum; carebunt enim omnibus, ita ut penitus deleantur de sensibus eorum. Ea tamen potentia scientiae. quae magna in eis erit, non solum sua praeterita, sed etiam damnatorum eos sempiterna miseria non latebit. Alioquin si se fuisse miseros nescituri sunt, quo modo, sicut ait psalmus, misericordias Domini in aeternum cantabunt? Quo cantico in gloriam gratiae Christi, cuius sanguine liberati sumus, nihil erit profecto illi iucundius ciuitati. Ibi perficietur: Vacate et uidete quoniam ego sum Deus; quod erit uere maximum sabbatum non habens uesperam, quod commendauit Dominus in primis operibus mundi, ubi legitur: Et requieuit Deus die septimo ab omnibus operibus suis, quae fecit, et benedixit Deus diem septimum et sanctificauit eum, quia in eo requieuit ab omnibus operibus suis, quae inchoauit Deus facere. Dies enim septimus etiam nos ipsi erimus, quando eius fuerimus benedictione et sanctificatione pleni adque refecti. Ibi uacantes uidebimus quoniam ipse est Deus; quod nobis ipsi esse uoluimus, quando ab illo cecidimus, audientes a seductore: Eritis sicut di et recedentes a uero Deo, quo faciente di essemus eius participatione, non desertione. Quid enim sine illo fecimus, nisi quod in ira eius defecimus? A quo refecti et gratia maiore perfecti uacabimus in aeternum, uidentes quia ipse est Deus, quo pleni erimus quando ipse erit omnia in omnibus. Nam et ipsa opera bona nostra, quando ipsius potius intelleguntur esse quam nostra, tunc nobis ad hoc sabbatum adipiscendum inputantur; quia si nobis ea tribuerimus, seruilia erunt, cum de sabbato dicatur: Omne opus seruile non facietis; propter quod et per Ezechielem prophetam dicitur: Et sabbata mea dedi eis in signum inter me et inter eos, ut scirent quia ego Dominus qui sanctifico eos. Hoc perfecte tunc sciemus, quando perfecte uacabimus, et perfecte uidebimus quia ipse est Deus. Ipse etiam numerus aetatum, ueluti dierum, si secundum eos articulos temporis conputetur, qui scripturis uidentur expressi, iste sabbatismus euidentius apparebit, quoniam septimus inuenitur, ut prima aetas tamquam primus dies sit ab Adam usque ad diluuium, secunda inde usque ad Abraham, non aequalitate temporum, sed numero generationum; denas quippe. habere reperiuntur. Hinc iam, sicut Matthaeus euangelista determinat, tres aetates usque ad Christi subsequuntur aduentum, quae singulae denis et quaternis generationibus explicantur: ab Abraham usque ad Dauid una, altera inde usque ad transmigrationem in Babyloniam, tertia inde usque ad Christi carnalem natiuitatem. Fiunt itaque omnes quinque. Sexta nunc agitur nullo generationum numero metienda propter id quod dictum est: Non est uestrum scire tempora, quae Pater posuit in sua potestate. Post hanc tamquam in die septimo requiescet Deus, cum eundem diem septimum, quod nos erimus, in se ipso Deo faciet requiescere. De istis porro aetatibus singulis nunc diligenter longum est disputare; haec tamen septima erit sabbatum nostrum, cuius finis non erit uespera, sed dominicus dies uelut octauus aeternus, qui Christi resurrectione sacratus est, aeternam non solum spiritus, uerum etiam corporis requiem praefigurans. Ibi uacabimus et uidebimus, uidebimus et amabimus, amabimus et laudabimus. Ecce quod erit in fine sine fine. Nam quis alius noster est finis nisi peruenire ad regnum, cuius nullus est finis? Videor mihi debitum ingentis huius operis adiuuante Domino reddidisse. Quibus parum uel quibus nimium est, mihi ignoscant; quibus autem satis est, non mihi, sed Deo mecum gratias congratulantes agant. Amen.

### English translation (Claude)

Chapter 30. On the eternal happiness of the city of God and the everlasting Sabbath.

How great will that happiness be, where there will be no evil, no good will be hidden, and there will be leisure for the praises of God, who will be all in all! For what else would be done there, where there will be no ceasing through any idleness and no toiling through any need, I do not know. I am reminded, too, by the holy song, where I read or hear, “Blessed are those who dwell in your house; for ever and ever they will praise you.” All the members and inward parts of the incorruptible body, which we now see distributed among the various uses of necessity, will serve the praises of God, since then there will be no necessity itself, but full, certain, secure, everlasting happiness. For all those numbers of the body's harmony, of which I have already spoken, which are now hidden, will not be hidden, arranged within and without through all the parts of the body; and together with the other things that will be seen there, great and wonderful, they will kindle rational minds to the praise of so great a craftsman with the delight of a rational beauty. What the movements of such bodies there will be I do not dare rashly to define, since I cannot think it out; yet both movement and rest, like the appearance itself, will be seemly, wherever it is, since whatever will not be seemly will not be there. Certainly wherever the spirit wills, there at once the body will be; and the spirit will not will anything that could not befit either the spirit or the body.

There will be true glory there, where no one will be praised through the error or the flattery of the one who praises; true honour, which will be denied to no one worthy and granted to no one unworthy; nor will anyone unworthy canvass for it, where no one will be allowed to be except the worthy; true peace, where no one will suffer anything adverse either from himself or from anyone else. The reward of virtue will be he himself who gave virtue, and who promised himself to it, than whom nothing better or greater can exist. For what else is it that he said through the prophet, “I will be their God, and they will be my people,” but, “I will be that by which they are satisfied; I will be whatever is honourably desired by men, life and health and food and plenty and glory and honour and peace and all good things”? For so too is rightly understood what the apostle says, “that God may be all in all.” He himself will be the end of our desires, who will be seen without end, loved without weariness, praised without tiring. This gift, this affection, this activity will certainly be common to all, as eternal life itself will be.

But as for the degrees of honour and glory that there will be according to the merits of the rewards, who is fit to imagine them, much less to speak of them? Yet that there will be such degrees is not to be doubted. And that blessed city will see in itself this great good too, that no inferior will envy any superior, just as the other angels do not now envy the archangels; and each will no more wish to be what he has not received, though bound by the most peaceful bond of concord to him who has received it, than in the body the eye wishes to be what the finger is, since the peaceful framework of the whole flesh contains both members. So one will have a lesser gift than another in such a way that he also has this gift, not to wish for more.

Nor will they lack free choice because sins will be unable to delight them. For it will be more free, freed from the delight of sinning to an unswerving delight in not sinning. For the first free choice, which was given to man when he was first created upright, could not sin, but could also sin; but this last will be all the more powerful in that it will not be able to sin; yet this too by God's gift, not by the capacity of its own nature. For it is one thing to be God, another to be a partaker of God. God by nature cannot sin; but a partaker of God receives from him that he cannot sin. And the degrees of the divine gift had to be kept, so that first a free choice was given by which man could not sin, and last one by which he cannot sin; and the former belonged to acquiring merit, the latter to receiving the reward. But because this nature sinned when it was able to sin, it is freed by a more abundant grace, so as to be brought to that freedom in which it cannot sin. For as the first immortality, which Adam lost by sinning, was the ability not to die, and the last will be the inability to die, so the first free choice was the ability not to sin, and the last will be the inability to sin. For so the will to godliness and justice will be as impossible to lose as the will to happiness. For certainly by sinning we kept neither godliness nor happiness; but the will to happiness we did not lose even when happiness was lost. Surely God himself, because he cannot sin, is not therefore to be denied free choice?

In that city, then, there will be a free will, one in all and inseparable in each, freed from all evil and filled with all good, enjoying unfailingly the delight of eternal joys, forgetting its faults, forgetting its punishments; yet not so forgetting its deliverance as to be ungrateful to its deliverer. So, as far as rational knowledge is concerned, it will remember even its past evils; but as far as the feeling of one who experiences them is concerned, it will not remember them at all. For a most skilled physician too knows almost all the diseases of the body as they are known by art; but as they are felt in the body he does not know most of them, those he has not suffered himself. As, then, there are two kinds of knowledge of evils, one by which they are not hidden from the power of the mind, the other by which they cling to the senses of one who experiences them (for all vices are known in one way through the teaching of wisdom, in another through the very bad life of a fool), so too there are two kinds of forgetting of evils. For the learned and educated man forgets them in one way, the one who has experienced and suffered them in another: the former if he neglects his expertise, the latter if he is free of misery. According to this forgetting, which I put second, the saints will not remember past evils; for they will be free of them all, so that they will be wholly blotted out of their feelings. Yet by the power of knowledge, which will be great in them, not only their own past but also the everlasting misery of the damned will not be hidden from them. Otherwise, if they are not going to know that they were miserable, how, as the psalm says, will they “sing the mercies of the Lord for ever”? Nothing will surely be more delightful to that city than this song to the glory of the grace of Christ, by whose blood we have been freed.

There will be fulfilled, “Be still and see that I am God.” That will truly be the greatest Sabbath, having no evening, which the Lord commended in the first works of the world, where we read, “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works which he had made; and God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it he rested from all his works which God had begun to make.” For we ourselves shall be the seventh day, when we have been filled and remade by his blessing and sanctification. There, being still, we shall see that he is God; which we wished to be ourselves when we fell away from him, hearing from the seducer, “You shall be as gods,” and departing from the true God, by whose making we would have been gods by participation in him, not by desertion. For what have we done without him except fail in his anger? Remade by him and perfected by greater grace, we shall be still for ever, seeing that he is God, with whom we shall be filled when he will be all in all. For even our good works themselves, when they are understood to be his rather than ours, are then credited to us for attaining this Sabbath; because if we attribute them to ourselves, they will be servile, whereas it is said of the Sabbath, “You shall do no servile work”; for which reason it is also said through the prophet Ezekiel, “And I gave them my Sabbaths as a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord who sanctifies them.” This we shall know perfectly then, when we are perfectly still and perfectly see that he is God.

The very number of the ages, too, as of days, if it is reckoned according to the periods of time that seem to be marked out in the Scriptures, will show this sabbath rest more clearly, since it is found to be the seventh. The first age, as the first day, is from Adam to the flood; the second from there to Abraham, not by equality of times but by the number of generations; for each is found to have ten. From there, as the evangelist Matthew marks out, three ages follow up to the coming of Christ, each of which is unfolded in fourteen generations: one from Abraham to David, another from there to the deportation to Babylon, a third from there to Christ's birth in the flesh. So there are five in all. The sixth is now going on, not to be measured by any number of generations, because of what is said: “It is not for you to know the times which the Father has set in his own power.” After this, as on the seventh day, God will rest, when he makes that same seventh day, which we shall be, rest in himself, God. It would take long now to discuss each of these ages carefully; yet this seventh will be our Sabbath, whose end will not be an evening, but the Lord's day, an eternal eighth day, as it were, which has been made holy by the resurrection of Christ, prefiguring the eternal rest not only of the spirit but also of the body. There we shall be still and see, see and love, love and praise. Behold what will be in the end without end! For what other end do we have than to reach the kingdom of which there is no end?

I think that, with the Lord's help, I have paid the debt of this huge work. Let those for whom it is too little, or too much, forgive me; but let those for whom it is enough give thanks, rejoicing with me, not to me, but to God. Amen.

### Scripture references

- 1 Cor 15:28: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 84:4 (83:5 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Lev 26:12: quotation, high confidence
- Jer 31:33: allusion, low confidence
- 1 Cor 12:17: allusion, medium confidence
- Ps 89:1 (88:2 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Ps 46:10 (45:11 LXX): quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:2: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 2:3: quotation, high confidence
- Gen 3:5: quotation, high confidence
- Ps 90:7 (89:7 LXX): echo, low confidence
- Lev 23:7: quotation, high confidence
- Ezek 20:12: quotation, high confidence
- Matt 1:17: allusion, high confidence
- Acts 1:7: quotation, high confidence

### Translation notes

- Quotations and allusions: 1 Cor 15:28; Ps 84:4 (LXX 83:5); Lev 26:12 (compare Jer 31:33; 2 Cor 6:16); 1 Cor 12:15–21; Ps 89:1 (LXX 88:2); Ps 46:10 (LXX 45:11, Latin uacate, “be at leisure, be still”); Gen 2:2–3; Gen 3:5; Ps 90:7 (LXX 89:7); Lev 23:7 (and elsewhere); Ezek 20:12; Matt 1:17; Acts 1:7. The seven ages (the fifth ending with Christ, the sixth the present age of unknown length) and the eternal “eighth day” of Christ's resurrection are Augustine's scheme, translated as written. The distinction between the first freedom (“able not to sin”) and the last (“unable to sin”) is Augustine's own formulation.

### Citation (SBL)

Augustine, Civ. 22.30 (CSEL 40:664–671; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/augustine-civitate-dei/22-29/#p-22-30).
