After the shocking rape of Lucretia and her subsequent suicide, Augustine (354-430 AD) concludes that Christians should not commit self-murder

Tarquinius and Lucretia by Titian (1490–1576)

The rape of noblewoman Lucretia was a starting point of events that led to the overthrow of the Roman Kingdom and establishment of the Roman Republic. As a direct result of rape, Lucretia committed suicide. Many artists and writers were inspired by the story, including Shakespeare, Botticelli, Rembrandt, Dürer, Artemisia Gentileschi, Geoffrey Chaucer, and Thomas Heywood.

Of suicide committed through fear of punishment or dishonour



Lucretia by Lucas Cranach the Elder.

What person of human feeling, then, would refuse to forgive those women who for this reason slew themselves rather than suffer in such a way?  And as for those who refused to slay themselves, lest they avoid the crime of another only by a sin of their own: whoever makes that a matter of reproach to them will not himself escape the charge of foolishness.  For if it is not lawful for a private person on his own authority to slay even a guilty man whose death has not been authorised by any law, certainly he who slays himself is also a murderer; and the more innocent he was of that for which he thought he ought to die, the more guilty is he when he kills himself.  We rightly detest what Judas did; but the judgment of truth is that, when he hanged himself, he increased rather than expiated the guilt of that accursed betrayal.  For though he was penitent at death, he left himself no room for wholesome repentance when he despaired of the mercy of God.  If this is so, then, how much more should he who has no sin in him to be punished by such means refrain from killing himself!  For Judas, when he slew himself, slew a wicked man; but he ended this life guilty not only of Christ's death, but of his own also.  For though he killed himself through his own crime, killing himself was another crime.  Why, then, should a man who has done no harm do harm to himself, and in slaying himself, slay an innocent man so as not to suffer the crime of another?  Why should he perpetrate upon himself a sin of his own so that another's sin might not be perpetrated on him?


Of Lucretia, who slew herself because she was ravished




Suicide of Lucretia by Albrecht Dürer?

With clear reason, then, do we say that, when a woman's body is overpowered but the intention to remain chaste persists nonetheless, and is unaltered by any consent to evil, the crime belongs only to the man who violated her by force.  It does not belong to the woman who, forced to submit to violation, did not consent to it by any act of will.  Can it be that those against whom we are defending as holy not only the minds, but also the bodies, for the Christian women who were ravished while in captivity will dare to contradict this?  Certainly, they extol with great praise the modesty of Lucretia, that noble woman of ancient Rome.  When the son of Tarquin the king overcame her with violence and lustfully enjoyed her body, she made known the crime of that most deplorable young man to her husband Collatinus and her kinsman Brutus.  These were men of the highest distinction and courage, whom she adjured to avenge her.  Then, sick with the shame of what had been done to her, and unable to bear it, she slew herself.  What shall we say?  Should she be judged an adulteress or a chaste woman?  Who can think it worthwhile to argue over such a question?  A certain person, reciting this story with distinction and veracity, says: 'Marvellous to relate, there were two people, but only one of them committed adultery.' (The source of this quotation is not known.)  Splendidly and truly said!  He, contemplating in this intermingling of bodies an entirely shameful lust on the one side, and an entirely chaste will on the other, and considering not the union of their members, but the separateness of their minds, says that 'there were two people, but only one of them committed adultery'.


For she is plainly numbered among those who, 'though innocent, laid deadly hands upon themselves, hating the light, and threw away their souls'

The Story of Lucretia (ca. 1500-1501), an artistic and symbolic rendition of the event by Sandro Botticelli. In this detail of the center of the painting, citizens with swords are swearing the overthrow of the monarchy.

How does it come about, then, that the one who did not commit adultery was the more severely punished?  For Sextus was expelled from the fatherland with his father; Lucretia, however, was smitten with the supreme penalty.  If it was not through any impurity on her part that she was taken against her will, then it was not justice by which, being innocent, she was punished.  I appeal to you, O laws and judges of Rome.  Even after the commission of crimes you do not allow a wicked man to be executed uncondemned.  If, therefore, anyone were to bring this case before your tribunal, and it were proved to you that a woman had been put to death not only uncondemned, but also chaste and innocent, would you not punish one who had done this with fitting severity?  Lucretia, however -- she who is so celebrated -- did exactly this: she slew the innocent and chaste Lucretia, who had, moreover, suffered violence.  Pronounce sentence, then; and if you cannot do so because she does praise with such eloquence the murderess of an innocent and chaste woman?  Certainly, you will have no arguments with which to defend her against hose judges of the infernal regions of whom your poets sing in their verses.  For she is plainly numbered among those who, 'though innocent, laid deadly hands upon themselves, hating the light, and threw away their souls'. (Virgil, Aeneid, 6,434ff.)  And if they long to return to the overworld, 'Fate bars the way, and the dismal swamp's unlovely pools confine them.' (Aeneid, 6,438ff).


She should not have slain herself if it was possible to do penance which might bear fruit with her false gods

Lucretia by Rembrandt van Rijn

But is she, perhaps, not, after all, among the number of those who have slain themselves even though innocent?  Did she, perhaps, slay herself because she was conscious not of innocence, but of guilt?  What if -- and only she could know this -- even though the young man threw himself upon her with violence, she herself consented, seduced by her own lust?  And what if she was then so stricken by remorse that, in seeking to punish herself, she thought that death was the only expiation?  Even in this case, she should not have slain herself if it was possible to do penance which might bear fruit with her false gods.


If she was an adulteress, why is she praised?  If she was pure, why was she slain?

Lucretia by Monogrammist I.W. (active in the Cranach Studio c. 1520-40)

If this was indeed the case, and it is false that 'there were two people and only one of them committed adultery'; if, rather, both committed adultery, the one by visible assault and the other by hidden assent: then she did not slay herself innocent.  Her learned defenders can therefore say that she is not in the infernal regions among those who 'though innocent, laid deadly hands upon themselves'.  But then the case is reduced to a dilemma.  For if she is acquitted of murder, she is convicted of adultery; and if she is acquitted of adultery, then she is convicted of murder.  It is not possible to find a way out of this dilemma.  One can only ask: If she was an adulteress, why is she praised?  If she was pure, why was she slain?


She feared that, if she remained alive, she would be thought to have enjoyed suffering the violence that she had suffered

Symbolic rendition of Brutus holding the knife used by Lucretia to commit suicide with Lucretia and swearing the oath of vengeance.

Our purpose, however, is to refute those who, fair removed from any understanding of holiness, reproach Christian women who were outraged in captivity.  For us, therefore, it is enough that, in the case of this noble lady, it is well said in her praise that 'there were two people, but only one of them committed adultery'.  For the Romans prefer to believe that Lucretia was not one who could have soiled by consenting to adultery.  In that case, therefore, when she slew herself because she had endured the act of an adulterer even though she was not an adulteress herself, she did this not from love of purity, but because of a weakness arising from shame.  She was made ashamed by the infamy of another, even though committed against her without her consent.  Being a Roman lady excessively eager for praise, she feared that, if she remained alive, she would be thought to have enjoyed suffering the violence that she had suffered while she lived.  Hence, she judged that she must use self-punishment to exhibit the state of her mind to the eyes of men to whom she could not show her conscience.  She blushed, indeed, to think that, if she were to bear patiently the infamy that another had inflicted upon her, she would be believed to have been an accomplice to it.


But this is not what those Christian women did who suffered in the same way yet are still alive.

The Bulgarian martyresses, a painting depicting the rape of Bulgarian women by Ottoman troops during the April Uprising of 1876 by Konstantin Makovsky (1839–1915)

But this is not what those Christian women did who suffered in the same way yet are still alive.  They did not avenge another's crime upon themselves; and it was because they feared adding to the crime of others a crime of their own that they did not do so.  For this is what they would have done if, when their enemies committed rape on them out of lust, they had committed murder on themselves out of shame.  Within themselves, indeed, by the testimony of their own conscience, they have the glory of chastity.  Moreover, they have it in the sight of God, and they require nothing more.  They intend no more than to do right, without straying from the authority of the divine law by doing wrong to avoid the scandal of human suspicion.

That there is no authority which extends to Christians the right to die of their own will in any circumstances whatsoever

The Suicide by Édouard Manet 1877–1881

It is not without significance that, in the holy canonical books, no divine precept or permission can be discovered which allows us to bring about our own death, either to obtain immortality or to avert or avoid some evil.  On the contrary, we must understand the Law of God as forbidding us to do this, where it says, 'Thou shalt not kill.' (Exodus 20:13).  This is especially so given that it does not here add 'thy neighbour', as it does when it forbids false witness.  It says, 'Thou shalt no bear false witness against thy neighbour.' (Exodus 20:16)  No one, however, should consider himself innocent of this crime if he has borne false witness only against himself; for he who loves his neighbour has received a rule under which he must love himself also.  For it is indeed written: 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' (Matthew 22:39).  Thus, a m an is no less guilty of false witness if he testifies falsely only against himself than if he does so against his neighbour; and this is so even though, in that commandment where false witness is prohibited, only false witness against a neighbour is forbidden.  It might seem that it is not forbidden for someone to bear false witness against himself; but only to those who do not understand the matter rightly.  Still more, then, must we understand that a man is not permitted to kill himself, since, when it is written, 'Thou shalt not kill', nothing is then added to this commandment, and no one -- not even the person to whom the commandment is addressed  -- is seen to be excepted.


Some persons endeavour to extend this commandment even to beasts and cattle

Tiffany Window of St Augustine - Lightner Museum by Louis Comfort Tiffany (1848–1933).  St. Augustine was once a Manichaean.

Hence, some persons endeavour to extend this commandment even to beasts and cattle, and maintain that it is not lawful to kill any of them either.  Why, therefore, not also include plants and whatever else is rooted in the soil and fed by it?  For things of this kind are said to live, even though they have no sensation.  By the same token, they can also die, and, consequently, when force is applied to them, be slain.  The apostle himself, when he speaks of seeds of this kind, says: 'That which thou sowest is not quickened except it die.' (1 Corinthians 15:36)  And in the psalm it is written: 'He killed their vines with hail.' (Psalm 78:47)  Do we, then when we hear 'Thou shalt not kill', for this reason conclude that it is wicked to pull up a weed, and acquiesce in the most senseless error of the Manichaens?  Let us leave these maunderings aside, however.  When we read 'Thou shalt not kill', we are not to take this commandment as applying to plants for these have no sensation.  Nor does it apply to the non-rational animals which fly, swim, walk or crawl, for these do not share the use of reason with us.  It is not given to them to have it in common with us; and, for this reason, by the most just ordinance of their Creator, both their life and death are subject to our needs (Cf. Genesis 1:28).  What remains, then, is this: that, when it is said, 'Thou shalt not kill', we must understand this as applying to man, and hence to mean 'neither another nor thyself'' for he who kills himself kills what is no other than a man.

Source: Augustine. The City of God against the Pagans. Edited and translated by R.W. Dyson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, Book I, Chapters 17, 19 and 20, pages 26, and 29-33.

If you are considering insurrection, rebellion, or a coup d'etat, consider Miriam and Aaron's experience in opposing Moses. True humility consists in a commitment to obeying God's will to the point of self-denial.

Numbers 12:1-16 -- Miriam and Aaron oppose Moses

Moses, confronted about his Cushite wife, 10^th century, Vatopedi monastery

A third rebellion followed at Hazeroth, the next camp site.  Moses had married a Cushite wife, probably Ethiopian (in Genesis 10:6 Cush means Ethiopia), and this was probably his second wife (his first wife was Zipporah, a Midianite; Exodus 2:16-21).  Making this an excuse, Miriam and Aaron spoke against him.  They desired equality with him as leaders of Israel.  Miriam seems to have been the main culprit and she bore the punishment.  It may seem strange that she, being a woman, should have challenged the authority of her brother.  However, she was a prophetess and leader of the Israelite women (Exodus 15:20-21).


In the rebellions, God's provisions are rejected and God judges the rebels





"Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." First proposed seal of the United States, 1776, depicting God, Moses, and the Egyptians.

Again, we read that the Lord heard their hostile words.  His response was to confirm his choice of Moses (6-8) and then to judge Miriam and Aaron (9-10).  There are many parallels between Miriam's rebellion and Israel's craving for meat (Numbers 11:4-35).  On both occasions, God's provision (the manna; Moses' leadership) was rejected, and in response, God confirmed Moses' position (by giving him elders and by his word) and judgment fell (the plague; Miriam's leprosy).  The author comments about Moses' humility.


True humility consists in a commitment to obeying God's will to the point of self-denial.

Saint Humility (Beata Umilta (1226-1310 AD)) Transports Bricks to the Monastery by Pietro Lorenzetti (c.1341) Oil on wood, 45 x 32 cm Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence

True humility consists in a commitment to obeying God's will to the point of self-denial.  Such self-sacrifice can leave a man vulnerable and forced to cast himself on God to protect and sustain him.  Further, as he strives to serve God, he discovers his own weaknesses and failings, and in that way reaches a proper view of himself.  Humility is not a negative quality (devaluing of self) but a positive commitment to service, supremely exemplified in Christ (Philippians 2:3-8).


Moses showed humility in continuing to lead Israel through the desert for forty years, even though it was a burden.  He did not defend himself but turned to God, who defends and helps the humble (Psalms 14:6; 149:4; Matthew 5:5; 1 Peter 5:6).  On this occasion, the Lord left Miriam and Aaron in no doubt as he upheld his servant Moses.  Thus, Numbers records three 'complainings' before Israel was half way to Canaan.


Source:  Naylor, Peter John.  "Numbers."  In New Bible Commentary – 21st Century Edition, eds. D.A. Carson, R.T. France, J.A. Motyer, and G.J. Wenham, pages 181-182.  Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1994.

In his somber moments, John Newton (1725-1807), Anglican cleric, argues that humans are monsters, fools, worse than beasts and worse than the meanest idiots, and resemble the devil.

Newton (1725-1807), contemporary portrait

On Man in his Fallen Estate.

Lord, what is Man!

Dear Sir,

We hear much in the present day of the dignity of human nature. And it is allowed that man was an excellent creature as he came out of the hands of God; but if we consider this question with a view to fallen man, as depraved by sin, how can we but join with the Psalmist in wonder that the great God should make any account of him? 

Man is a monster, a vile, base, stupid, obstinate, and mischievous creature

The Head of Medusa by Peter Paul Rubens, circa 1618.

Fallen as man is from his original state of happiness and holiness, his natural faculties and abilities afford sufficient evidence that the hand which made him is Divine. He is capable of great things. His understanding, will, affections, imagination, and memory—are noble and amazing powers. But view him in a moral light, as an intelligent being, incessantly dependent upon God, accountable to him, and appointed by him to a state of existence in an unchangeable world: considered in this relation—man is a monster, a vile, base, stupid, obstinate, and mischievous creature; no words can fully describe him. Man, with all his boasted understanding and attainments, is a fool: so long as he is destitute of the saving grace of God, his conduct, as to his most important concerns, is more absurd and inconsistent than that of the most contemptible idiot; with respect to his affections and pursuits, he is degraded far below the beasts; and for the malignity and wickedness of his will, can be compared to nothing so properly as to the devil. 

The heart itself is universally deceitful, and desperately wicked

Nero's Torches (Christian Candlesticks), Henryk Siemiradzki (1843–1902)  

The question here is not concerning this or that man, a Nero or a Heliogabalus, but concerning human nature, the whole race of mankind, the few excepted who are born of God. There is indeed a difference among men, but it is owing to the restraints of Divine Providence, without which earth would be the very image of hell. A wolf or a lion, while chained, cannot do so much mischief as if they were loose, but the nature is the same in the whole species. Education and personal interest, fear and shame, human laws, and the secret power of God over the mind, combine to form many characters that are extremely decent and respectable; and even the most abandoned are under a restraint which prevents them from manifesting a thousandth part of the wickedness which is in their hearts. But the heart itself is universally deceitful, and desperately wicked.

Man is a fool

"Keying Up" - The Court Jester, William Merritt Chase (1849–1916)  

Man is a fool. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Romans 1:22. He can indeed measure the earth, and almost count the stars; he abounds in arts and inventions, in science and policy—and shall he then be called a fool? The ancient Heathens, the inhabitants of Egypt, Greece, and Rome, were eminent for this kind of wisdom. They are to this day studied as models by those who aim to excel in history, poetry, painting, architecture, and other exertions of human genius, which are suited to polish the manners without improving the heart. But their most admired philosophers, legislators, logicians, orators, and artists, were as destitute as infants or idiots of that knowledge which alone deserves the name of true wisdom. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Ignorant and regardless of God, yet conscious of their weakness, and of their dependence upon a Power above their own, and stimulated by an inward principle of fear, of which they knew neither the origin nor right application, they worshipped the creature instead of the Creator, yes, placed their trust in stocks and stones, in the works of men's hands, in non-entities and chimeras. An acquaintance with their mythology, or system of religious fables, passes with us for a considerable branch of learning, because it is drawn from ancient books written in languages not known to the vulgar; but in point of certainty or truth, we might receive as much satisfaction from a collection of dreams, or from the ravings of lunatics. If, therefore, we admit these admired sages as a tolerable specimen of mankind, must we not confess that man, in his best estate, while uninstructed by the Spirit of God, is a fool? But are we wiser than they? Not in the least, until the grace of God makes us so. Our superior advantages only show our folly in a more striking light. Why do we account any people foolish? A fool has no sound judgment; he is governed wholly by appearances, and would prefer a fine coat to the deed to a large estate. He pays no regard to consequences: fools have sometimes hurt or killed their best friends, and thought they did no harm. A fool cannot reason, therefore arguments are lost upon him. At one time, if tied with a straw, he dares not stir; at another time, perhaps, he can hardly be persuaded to move, though the house were on fire. Are these the characteristics of a fool? Then there is no fool like the sinner, who prefers the toys of earth to the happiness of heaven; who is held in bondage by the foolish customs of the world; and is more afraid of the breath of man, than of the wrath of God. 

Man is a beast and worse than a beast

Beast (Henry Philip "Hank" McCoy) is a fictional superhero appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics and is a founding member of the X-Men

Again, Man in his natural state is a beast, yes, below the beasts which perish. In two things he strongly resembles them; in looking no higher than to sensual gratifications, and in that selfishness of spirit which prompts him to propose himself and his own interest as his proper and highest end. But in many respects he sinks sadly beneath them. Unnatural lusts, and the lack of natural affection towards their offspring, are abominations not to be found among the brute creation. What shall we say of mothers destroying their children with their own hands, or of the horrid act of self-murder! Men are worse than beasts likewise in their obstinacy; they will not be warned. If a beast escapes from a trap, he will be cautious how he goes near it again, and in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird. But man, though he be often reproved, hardens his neck; he rushes upon his ruin with his eyes open, and can defy God to his face, and dare damnation. 

Man resembles the devil

William Blake's illustration of Lucifer as presented in John Milton's Paradise Lost.

Once more, Let us observe how man resembles the devil. There are spiritual sins, and from these in their height the Scripture teaches us to judge of Satan's character. Every feature in this description is strong in man; so that what our Lord said to the Jews is of general application, "You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do." Man resembles Satan in pride: this stupid, wicked creature values himself upon his wisdom, power, and virtue, and will talk of being saved by his good works; though if he can, Satan himself need not despair. He resembles him in malice; and this diabolical disposition often proceeds to murder, and would daily, if the Lord did not restrain it. He derives from Satan the hateful spirit of envy: he is often tormented beyond expression, by beholding the prosperity of his neighbors; and proportionably pleased with their calamities, though he gains no other advantage from them than the gratification of this rancorous principle. He bears the image likewise of Satan in his cruelty. This evil is bound up in the heart even of a child. A disposition to take pleasure in giving pain to others, appears very early. Children, if left to themselves, soon feel a gratification in torturing insects and animals. What misery does the wanton cruelty of men inflict upon cocks, dogs, bulls, bears, and other creatures, which they seem to think were formed for no other end than to feast their savage spirits with their torments! If we form our judgment of men, when they seem most pleased, and have neither anger nor resentment to plead in their excuse, it is too evident, even from the nature of their amusements, whose they are and whom they serve. And they are the worst of enemies to each other. Think of the horrors of war, the rage of duelists, of the murders and assassinations with which the world is filled, and then say, "Lord, what is man!" Further, if deceit and treachery belong to Satan's character, then surely man resembles him. Is not the universal observation, and complaint of all ages, an affecting comment upon the Prophet's words, "Trust not in a friend, put no confidence in a guide, keep the doors of your mouth from her that lies in your bosom, for they hunt every man his brother with a net?" How many have at this moment cause to say, with David, "The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart; his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords!" Again: Like Satan, men are eager in tempting others to sin; not content to damn themselves, they employ all their arts and influence to draw as many as they can with them into the same destruction. Lastly: In direct opposition to God and goodness, in contemptuous enmity to the Gospel of his grace, and a bitter persecuting spirit against those who profess it, Satan himself can hardly exceed them. Herein, indeed, they are his agents and willing servants; and because the blessed God is himself out of their reach, they labor to show their despite to him in the people of his people. 

"Lord, what is man!"

Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man displays the proportions of a man.

I have drawn but a sketch, a few outlines, of the picture of fallen man. To give an exact copy of him, to charge every feature with its full aggravation of horror, and to paint him as he is—would be impossible. Enough has been observed to illustrate the propriety of the exclamation, "Lord, what is man!" Perhaps some of my readers may attempt to deny or extenuate the charge, and may plead, that I have not been describing mankind, but some of the most abandoned of the species, who hardly deserve the name of men. But I have already provided against this exception. It is human nature I describe; and the vilest and most profligate individuals cannot sin beyond the powers and limits of that nature which they possess in common with the more mild and moderate. Though there may be a difference in the fruitfulness of trees, yet the production of one apple decides the nature of the tree upon which it grew, as certainly as if it had produced a thousand: so in the present case, should it be allowed that these enormities cannot be found in all people, it would be a sufficient confirmation of what I have advanced, if they can be found in any; unless it could be likewise proved, that those who appeared more wicked than others, were of a different species from the rest. But I need not make this concession; they must be insensible indeed who do not feel something within them so very contrary to our common notions of goodness, as would perhaps make them rather submit to be banished from human society, than to be compelled to disclose to their fellow-creatures every thought and desire which arises in their hearts. 

Man is capable of the most atrocious crimes

The spiked heads of executed criminals once adorned the gatehouse of the medieval London Bridge.

Many useful reflections may be drawn from this unpleasant subject. We cannot at present conceive how much we owe to the guardian care of Divine Providence, that any of us are preserved in peace and safety for a single day in such a world as this. Live where we will, we have those near us, who, both by nature, and by the power which Satan has over them, are capable of the most atrocious crimes. But He whom they know not, restrains them, so that they cannot do the things that they would. When he suspends the restraint, they act immediately; then we hear of murders, rapes, and outrages. But did not the Lord reign with a strong hand, such evils would be perpetrated every hour, and no one would be safe in the house or in the field. God's ordinance of civil government is one great means of preserving the peace of society; but this is in many cases inadequate. The heart of man, when fully bent upon evil, will not be intimidated or stopped by gibbets and racks. 

Can beasts and devils inherit the kingdom of God?

The Adoration of the Golden Calf by Nicolas Poussin

How wonderful is the love of God in giving his Son to die for such wretches! And how strong and absolute is the necessity of a new birth, if we would be happy! Can beasts and devils inherit the kingdom of God? The due consideration of this subject is likewise needful, to preserve believers in an humble, thankful, watchful frame of spirit. Such we once were, and such, with respect to the natural principle remaining in us, which the Apostle calls the flesh, or the old man, we still are! The propensities of fallen nature are not eradicated in the children of God, though by grace they are made partakers of a new principle, which enables them, in the Lord's strength, to resist and mortify the body of sin, so that it cannot reign in them. Yet they are liable to sad surprisals; and the histories of Aaron, David, Solomon, and Peter, are left on record, to teach us what evil is latent in the hearts of the best men, and what they are capable of doing if left but a little to themselves. "Lord, what is man!"

Source: Newton, John.  The Works of the Rev. John Newton.  Volume I, London: J. Johnson, St. Paul's Church-yard and J. Smith, No 6, Coleman-Street-Buildings, 1808, Letter XXXIII, pages 332-339.

1,600 years ago, Augustine (354-430) debated with people who did not believe in the historical and allegorical worldwide flood that is documented in the ancient Book of Genesis.

Of the Ark and the Flood; and that we cannot agree with those who accept the historical meaning of the story but reject its allegorical meaning, nor with those who accept the symbolic meaning but not the literal.

The Isaiah scroll (1QIsa^a) of the Dead Sea Scrolls contains almost the whole Book of Isaiah.  Augustine views books like Isaiah as, "books which have been so religiously preserved for thousands of years."

No one, however, should suppose that the story of the Flood is simply without purpose; or that we should seek in it only a true historical account without allegorical significance; or, conversely, that the events recorded in it are entirely unhistorical, and the language merely figurative; or that, whatever else it is, the story is not a prophecy of the Church.  For who save one with a perverse mind would contend that books which have been so religiously preserved for thousands of years, and with such concern on the part of their guardians for a well-ordered transmission, were written to no purpose, or that they are to be consulted for the sake of historical facts only?  To say nothing of anything else: if it was the large number of animals that compelled Noah to make an Ark of such great magnitude, what compelled him to put into it two of each unclean animal, but seven of each clean kind, when both kinds could have been preserved by the same number?  Moreover, although God required them to be preserved in this way in order to renew their species, did He therefore not also have the power to re-create them in the same way as he had first created them?

Some contend that the Flood is not historical

The Deluge, John Martin (1789–1854).

We come next, then, to those who contend that the story of the Flood is not historical, but consists merely of things symbolic and figurative.  First, they maintain that it is not possible for there to be a flood so great that the waters rise to a height of fifteen cubits above the highest mountain tops; for, they say, clouds cannot gather above the summit of Mount Olympus, because that summit is already located so high in the heavens that the denser air in which winds, clouds and rain are formed is absent.  But they do not notice that earth, the densest element of all, can exist there; or will they perhaps deny that the summit of the mountain is made of earth?  Why, then, do they admit that earth is allowed to rise so high into the realm of heaven, and yet contend that water cannot be allowed so to rise?  For those who measure and weigh the elements tell us that water rises higher and weighs less than earth.  What reason do our adversaries offer, then, to explain why earth, a heavier and lower element, should have been invading the more rarefied region of heaven during the revolution of so many years, yet water, a lighter and higher element, was not permitted to do so even for a short time?

Some say the Ark could not have contained so many animals

Noah's Ark (1846), a painting by the American folk painter Edward Hicks.

They say also that the Ark could not have contained so many animals of both sexes, two of each of the unclean and seven of each of the clean.  But it seems to me that our adversaries are here counting only the 300 cubits of length and the fifty of breadth, without noticing that there is the same amount of space on the storey above, and the same amount again on the storey above that, so that, multiplied by three, the dimensions of the Ark come to 900 cubits by 150.  Let us also note the suggestion not inappositely made by Origen: that Moses, the man of God, was, as it is written, 'learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians' (Book of Acts 7:22), who loved geometry, and that he therefore may have meant geometrical cubits, one of which is said to be equal to six of ours.  Who, then, does not see how many things an Ark of such great capacity might hold?

Some say it would not be possible to assemble an Ark of such magnitude

The Building of Noah's Ark (painting ascribed to a "French master" of 1675)

It is also argued that it would not be possible to assemble an Ark of such magnitude; but this is a falsehood, and a very inept one.  For our adversaries know that immense cities have been constructed, and they fail to notice that a hundred years were spent on the building of the Ark.  Now if it is possible for stones to adhere to one another when cemented merely by lime, to make an encircling wall many miles in length, why is it not possible for timbers to be joined together by pegs, bolts, nails and bituminous glue, to make an Ark extending to such great length and breadth in straight, not curved, lines?  Such an Ark would not require to be launched into the sea by human effort, but would be lifted up by the water when it came, because of the natural difference in weight; and, when afloat, it would be steered by divine providence rather than by human prudence, lest it incur shipwreck anywhere.

Some say that insects would have been overrepresented on the Ark and that aquatic fish and birds could not live on the Ark

The Dove Returns to Noah, c. 1896-1902, by James Jacques Joseph Tissot (French, 1836-1902)

Next comes a question often asked by the excessively pedantic, concerning the tiniest of creatures: not only such things as mice and newts, but also locusts, beetles, and even flies and fleas: might these not have been present in the Ark in greater numbers than the total specified when God gave the command?  First, then, we must remind those who are troubled by this question that the words 'every creeping thing of the earth' (Genesis 6:20) are to be taken to mean that there was no need to preserve in the Ark those creatures able to live in the waters: not only such aquatic creatures as fish, but also those which swim on the surface; many birds, for example.  Again, when it is said, 'they shall be male and female' (Genesis 6:19), this is clearly to be understood in terms of the need to renew the species, and so it was not necessary for there to be in the Ark those creatures which can be generated from certain things, or from the corruption of such things, without sexual intercourse.  Or, if they were present in the Ark, as they are usually present in house, they could have been there without the fixing of a definite number.  On the other hand, a most sacred mystery was there being enacted; and it may be that so great a truth was being prefigured that it could not be properly conveyed unless al the creatures which were prevented by their nature from living in the waters were present in that fixed number.  If so, however, this was not the responsibility of a man or of men, but of God.  For Noah did not catch the animals and then put them in; he let them in as they came and entered.  And this is why it is said, 'they shall come unto thee' (Genesis 6:20): not, that is, by any act of man, but by the command of God.

Sexless creatures were not included on the Ark according to Augustine

The Animals Enter the Ark, c. 1896-1902, by James Jacques Joseph Tissot (French, 1836-1902)

We are not, however, to believe that this included those creatures who lack sex; for it was definitely prescribed that 'they shall be male and female'.  There are some animals, such as flies, which are generated from certain things without sexual intercourse, but which subsequently reproduce by means of intercourse.  There are others, such as bees, in which there are no male and female characteristics.  Again, there are creatures which, though they have sexual organs, do not produce young, such as male and female mules; and it would be a wonder if these last were included in the Ark.  Instead, it would suffice to have their parents there, that is, the species of h orse and ass.  And so too with any other animals which produce some different kind of creature by a mingling of different species.  But if such creatures had anything to contribute to the symbolic meaning of the Ark, then they were included, for such a species also has male and female.

Some are troubled regarding what food the carnivorous animals ate while on the Ark

Noah's ark. 1882. The State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg, Andrei Ryabushkin (1861–1904)

Not a few people are troubled as to the kinds of food which those animals which are thought to eat nothing but flesh could have had had in the Ark.  They wonder whether animals in excess of the prescribed number were taken on board, without transgressing the command, since their inclusion would have been compelled by the need to feed the others; or whether (and this is the more readily believable explanation) there could have been some form of nourishment apart from flesh which would have been suitable for all the animals.  For we know that many animals whose food if flesh also eat vegetables and fruit, especially figs and chestnuts.  Would it have been any wonder, therefore, if so wise and righteous man as Noah, divinely instructed as to the food appropriate for every animal, had prepared and established a stock of meatless food suitable to each kind?

Some are concerned about what the animals would have eaten on the Ark

A previously unreadable fragment of the Dead Sea Scrolls photographed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at NASA in the early 1990s using digital infrared technology. The fragment, translated into English, reads "he wrote the words of Noah."

What is there that we would not eat if compelled by hunger?  Again, what is there that God could not make pleasant and wholesome?  The divine power could, indeed, easily have endowed these animals with the ability to live without food at all, were it not for the fact that their eating had its part to play in completing the allegorical representation of so great a mystery.  For only a love of contention would allow anyone to suppose that the many signs contained in the historical story of the Flood do not prefigure the Church.  For the nations have already filled the Church, and clean and unclean alike are, as it were, contained in the hull of the Church's unity, until the appointed end is reached.  The meaning in this regard is so manifestly clear that we cannot lawfully doubt that the other aspects of the story have their own meanings, even thought he language is somewhat more obscure and difficult to understand.

Augustine argues that the events recorded in the account of the Flood are historical and that their symbolic meaning is to prefigure the Church

Noah. Mosaic in Basilica di San Marco, Venice, XII-XIII century. "For only a love of contention would allow anyone to suppose that the many signs contained in the historical story of the Flood do not prefigure the Church," says Augustine.

This being so, then, no one, no matter how stubborn, will dare to suppose that the story of the Flood was written without purpose; or that the events there recorded have only historical significance; or that they have no historical, but only symbolic meaning; or that their symbolism has nothing to do with the Church.  Rather, we are to believe that the writing of this account had a wise purpose; that the events recorded are historical; that they have a symbolic meaning also, and that the symbolic meaning is intended to prefigure the Church.

Source: Augustine. The City of God against the Pagans. Edited and translated by R.W. Dyson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, Book XV, Chapter 27, pages 689-693.

Origen (185 - 254 A.D.) gave up his job, slept on the floor, ate no meat, drank no wine, fasted twice a week, owned no shoes, and reportedly castrated himself for the faith.

Origen: Biblical Scholar and Philosopher

Origen, Illustration from "Les Vrais Portraits Et Vies Des Hommes Illustres" by André Thévet

"We who by our prayers destroy all demons which stir up wars, violate oaths, and disturb the peace are of more help to the emperors than those who seem to be doing the fighting."

Origen from http://www.origenes.de

This third century "religious fanatic" gave up his job, slept on the floor, ate no meat, drank no wine, fasted twice a week, owned no shoes, and reportedly castrated himself for the faith. He was also the most prolific scholar of his age (with hundreds of works to his credit), a first-rate Christian philosopher, and a profound student of the Bible. 

Child prodigy Origen Adamantius ("man of steel") was born near Alexandria about A.D. 185. The oldest of seven children in a Christian home, he grew up learning the Bible and the meaning of commitment. In 202 when his father, Leonidas, was beheaded for his Christian beliefs, Origen wanted to die as a martyr, too. But his mother prevented him from even leaving the house—by hiding his clothes. 

To support his family, the 18-year-old Origen opened a grammar school, copied texts, and instructed catechumens (those seeking to become members of the church). He himself studied under the pagan philosopher Ammonius Saccas in order to better defend his faith against pagan arguments. When a rich convert supplied him with secretaries, he began to write. 

Bible student and critic 

The Hexapla by Origen

Origen worked for 20 years on his Hexapla, a massive work of Old Testament analysis written to answer Jewish and Gnostic critics of Christianity. An examination of Biblical texts, it had six parallel columns: one in Hebrew, and the other five in various Greek translations, including one he found at Jericho in a jar. It became an important step in the development of the Christian canon and scriptural translation, but unfortunately it was destroyed. So massive was it that scholars doubt anyone ever copied it entirely. 

This painting by the Workshop of Pieter Coecke van Aelst, depicts St. Jerome in his study.  Jerome asked "Has anyone read everything that Origen wrote?"

This first Bible scholar analyzed the Scriptures on three levels: the literal, the moral, and the allegorical. As he put it, "For just as man consists of body, soul, and spirit, so in the same way does the Scripture." Origen, in fact, preferred the allegorical not only because it allowed for more spiritual interpretations, but many passages he found impossible to read literally: "Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the second and the third day … existed without the sun and moon and stars?" In any event, Origen's method of interpretation became the standard in the Middle Ages. Origen's main work, De Principiis (On First Principles), was the first systematic exposition of Christian theology ever written. In it he created a Christian philosophy, synthesizing Greek technique and biblical assumptions. Add to these massive works his homilies and commentaries, and it's clear why he was reputed to have kept seven secretaries busy and caused Jerome (c.354–420) to say in frustrated admiration, "Has anyone read everything that Origen wrote?" 

Heretical church father? 

The Castration of Uranus: fresco by Vasari & Cristofano Gherardi (c. 1560, Sala di Cosimo I, Palazzo Vecchio, Florence).  Origen is reported to have castrated himself.

Origen has always been controversial. His reported self-mutilation, in response to Matthew 19:12 ("… there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven….") was condemned as a drastic misinterpretation of the text. In Palestine he preached without being ordained and was so condemned by his bishop, Demetrius. When on a second trip, he was ordained by the same bishops who had invited him to speak the first time, Demetrius sent him into exile. 

While some of his writings are thought to have been hypothetical, Origen did teach that all spirits were created equal, existed before birth, and then fell from grace. Furthermore, "those rational beings who sinned and on account fell from the state in which they were, in proportion to their particular sins, were enslaved in bodies as punishment"—some demons, some men, and some angels. He also believed that all spirits, even Satan, could be saved. "The power of choosing between good and evil is within the reach of all," he wrote. 

An attempt at a depiction of The Trinity.

Most notably, however, Origen described the Trinity as a hierarchy, not as an equality of Father, Son, and Spirit. And though he attacked Gnostic beliefs, like them, he rejected the goodness of material creation. 

VI Surikov . " Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople ." The sketch for the painting of the church of Christ the Savior (1876).  The council pronounced Origen a heretic.

Three centuries after his death, the Council of Constantinople (553) pronounced him a heretic: "Whoever says or thinks that the punishment of demons and the wicked will not be eternal … let him be anathema." 

Some contend that Origen was merely trying to frame the faith in the ideas of his day; still his works were suppressed following his condemnation, so modern judgment is impossible. 

Despite such condemnation, Origen said, "I want to be a man of the church … to be called … of Christ." His Contra Celsum, in fact, is one of the finest defenses of Christianity produced in the early church. Answering the charge that Christians, by refusing military service, fail the test of good citizenship, he wrote, "We who by our prayers destroy all demons which stir up wars, violate oaths, and disturb the peace are of more help to the emperors than those who seem to be doing the fighting." 

Trajan Decius (201 – 251), was Roman Emperor from 249 to 251.  He had Origen imprisoned and tortured.

The authorities, however, were not convinced: in 250 the emperor Decius had Origen imprisoned and tortured. He was deliberately kept alive in the hope that he would renounce his faith. But Decius died first and Origen went free. His health broken, Origen died shortly after his release.

Source:

Galli, Mark and Ted Olson, eds. 131 Christians Everyone Should Know. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2000, pages 286-287.