--- title: "City of God · De civitate Dei" author: "Augustine" translator: "Marcus Dods" languages: [la, en] shelf: "Church Fathers" section: 65 of 116 url: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/65/ cite: "Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods, City of God · De civitate Dei, section 65. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/65/" --- # City of God · De civitate Dei *Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods* “Two loves have made two cities.” Augustine’s Latin, in Hoffmann’s critical text, beside Dods’s English, chapter by chapter. > Latin: Augustine, De civitate Dei, ed. Emanuel Hoffmann, CSEL 40 (Vienna: Tempsky, 1899–1900), as encoded by the Open Greek and Latin project, University of Leipzig (stoa0040.stoa003.opp-lat3, CC BY-SA 4.0); apparatus omitted. > English: Marcus Dods, The City of God (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, vol. 2, 1887). > Chapters are matched one to one except where the two editions divide them differently; within a chapter the Latin sentences are shared out over the English paragraphs by position. ## 65. That the Sin is Caused Not by the Flesh, But by the Soul, and that the Corruption Contracted from Sin is Not Sin But Sin’s Punishment. Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/65/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/65/#p-N [¶0] Chapter 3.—That the Sin is Caused Not by the Flesh, But by the Soul, and that the Corruption Contracted from Sin is Not Sin But Sin’s Punishment. > Latin: Caput III. Peccati causam ex anima, non ex carne prodisse, et corruptionem ex peccato contractam non peccatum esse, sed poenam. [¶1] But if any one says that the flesh is the cause of all vices and ill conduct, inasmuch as the soul lives wickedly only because it is moved by the flesh, it is certain he has not carefully considered the whole nature of man. For “the corruptible body, indeed, weigheth down the soul.” Whence, too, the apostle, speaking of this corruptible body, of which he had shortly before said, “though our outward man perish,” says, “We know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up in life.” We are then burdened with this corruptible body; but knowing that the cause of this burdensomeness is not the nature and substance of the body, but its corruption, we do not desire to be deprived of the body, but to be clothed with its immortality. For then, also, there will be a body, but it shall no longer be a burden, being no longer corruptible. At present, then, “the corruptible body presseth down the soul, and the earthly tabernacle weigheth down the mind that museth upon many things,” nevertheless they are in error who suppose that all the evils of the soul proceed from the body. > Latin: 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 (cs o rpu s 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. [¶2] Virgil, indeed, seems to express the sentiments of Plato in the beautiful lines, where he says,— [¶3] “A fiery strength inspires their lives, [¶4] An essence that from heaven derives, [¶5] Though clogged in part by limbs of clay [¶6] And the dull ’vesture of decay;’” > Latin: 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. [¶7] but though he goes on to mention the four most common mental emotions,—desire, fear, joy, sorrow,—with the intention of showing that the body is the origin of all sins and vices, saying,— [¶8] “Hence wild desires and grovelling fears, [¶9] And human laughter, human tears, [¶10] Immured in dungeon-seeming nights [¶11] They look abroad, yet see no light,” [¶12] yet we believe quite otherwise. For the corruption of the body, which weighs down the soul, is not the cause but the punishment of the first sin; and it was not the corruptible flesh that made the soul sinful, but the sinful soul that made the flesh corruptible. And though from this corruption of the flesh there arise certain incitements to vice, and indeed vicious desires, yet we must not attribute to the flesh all the vices of a wicked life, in case we thereby clear the devil of all these, for he has no flesh. For though we cannot call the devil a fornicator or drunkard, or ascribe to him any sensual indulgence (though he is the secret instigator and prompter of those who sin in these ways), yet he is exceedingly proud and envious. And this viciousness has so possessed him, that on account of it he is reserved in chains of darkness to everlasting punishment. Now these vices, which have dominion over the devil, the apostle attributes to the flesh, which certainly the devil has not. For he says “hatred, variance, emulations, strife, envying” are the works of the flesh; and of all these evils pride is the origin and head, and it rules in the devil though he has no flesh. For who shows more hatred to the saints? who is more at variance with them? who more envious, bitter, and jealous? And since he exhibits all these works, though he has no flesh, how are they works of the flesh, unless because they are the works of man, who is, as I said, spoken of under the name of flesh? For it is not by having flesh, which the devil has not, but by living according to himself,—that is, according to man,—that man became like the devil. For the devil too, wished to live according to himself when he did not abide in the truth; so that when he lied, this was not of God, but of himself, who is not only a liar, but the father of lies, he being the first who lied, and the originator of lying as of sin. > Latin: 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. ### What It is to Live According to Man, and What to Live According to God. [¶14] Chapter 4.—What It is to Live According to Man, and What to Live According to God. > Latin: Caput IV. Quid sit secundum hominem, quid autem secundum Deum uiuere. [¶15] When, therefore, man lives according to man, not according to God, he is like the devil. Because not even an angel might live according to an angel, but only according to God, if he was to abide in the truth, and speak God’s truth and not his own lie. And of man, too, the same apostle says in another place, “If the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie;”—“my lie,” he said, and “God’s truth.” When, then, a man lives according to the truth, he lives not according to himself, but according to God; for He was God who said, “I am the truth.” When, therefore, man lives according to himself,—that is, according to man, not according to God,—assuredly he lives according to a lie; not that man himself is a lie, for God is his author and creator, who is certainly not the author and creator of a lie, but because man was made upright, that he might not live according to himself, but according to Him that made him,—in other words, that he might do His will and not his own; and not to live as he was made to live, that is a lie. For he certainly desires to be blessed even by not living so that he may be blessed. And what is a lie if this desire be not? Wherefore it is not without meaning said that all sin is a lie. For no sin is committed save by that desire or will by which we desire that it be well with us, and shrink from it being ill with us. That, therefore, is a lie which we do in order that it may be well with us, but which makes us more miserable than we were. And why is this, but because the source of man’s happiness lies only in God, whom he abandons when he sins, and not in himself, by living according to whom he sins? > Latin: 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? [¶16] In enunciating this proposition of ours, then, that because some live according to the flesh and others according to the spirit, there have arisen two diverse and conflicting cities, we might equally well have said, “because some live according to man, others according to God.” For Paul says very plainly to the Corinthians, “For whereas there is among you envying and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk according to man?” So that to walk according to man and to be carnal are the same; for by flesh, that is, by a part of man, man is meant. For before he said that those same persons were animal whom afterwards he calls carnal, saying, “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things which are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the animal man perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him.” It is to men of this kind, then, that is, to animal men, he shortly after says, “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal.” And this is to be interpreted by the same usage, a part being taken for the whole. For both the soul and the flesh, the component parts of man, can be used to signify the whole man; and so the animal man and the carnal man are not two different things, but one and the same thing, viz., man living according to man. In the same way it is nothing else than men that are meant either in the words, “By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified;” or in the words, “Seventy-five souls went down into Egypt with Jacob.” In the one passage, “no flesh” signifies “no man;” and in the other, by “seventy-five souls” seventy-five men are meant. And the expression, “not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth” might equally be “not in words which fleshly wisdom teacheth;” and the expression, “ye walk according to man,” might be “according to the flesh.” And this is still more apparent in the words which followed: “For while one saith, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, are ye not men?” The same thing which he had before expressed by “ye are animal,” “ye are carnal, he now expresses by “ye are men;” that is, ye live according to man, not according to God, for if you lived according to Him, you should be gods. > Latin: 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