14. “How,” sayest thou, “is it not his doing as well as theirs, when they would not do this, if he would do that?” Why, at this rate we go housebreaking with house-breakers, because if we did not shut the door, they would not break it open: and we go and murder with highwaymen, if it chance we know that they are going to do it, because if we killed them out of hand, they would not kill others. Or, if a person confess to us that he is going to commit a parricide, we commit it along with him, if, being able, we do not slay him before he can do the deed when we cannot in some other way prevent or thwart him. For it may be said, word for word as before, “Thou hast done it as well as he; for he had not done this, hadst thou done that.” With my good will, neither ill should be done; but only the one was in my power, and I could take care that this should not be done; the other rested with another, and when by my good advice I could not quench the purpose, I was not bound by my evil deed to thwart the doing. It is therefore no approving of a sinner, that one refuses to sin for him; and neither the one nor the other is liked by him who would that neither were done; but in that which pertains to him, he hath the power to do it or not, and with that he perpetrateth it not; in that which pertains to another, he hath only the will to wish it or not, and with that he condemneth. And therefore, on their offering those terms, and saying, “If thou burn not incense, this shalt thou suffer;” if he should answer, “For me, I choose neither, I detest both, I consent unto you in none of these things:” in uttering these and the like words, which certainly, because they would be true, would afford them no consent no approbation of his, let him suffer at their hands what he might, to his account would be set down the receipt of wrongs, to theirs the commission of sins. “Ought he then,” it may be asked, “to suffer his person to be violated rather than burn incense?” If the question be what he ought, he ought to do neither. For should I say that he ought to do any of these things, I shall approve this or that, whereas I reprobate both. But if the question be, which of these he ought in preference to avoid, not being able to avoid both but able to avoid one or other: I will answer, “His own sin, rather than another’s; and rather a lighter sin being his own, than a heavier being another’s.” For, reserving the point for more diligent inquiry, and granting in the mean while that violation of the person is worse than burning incense, yet the latter is his own, the former another’s deed, although he had it done to him; now, whose the deed, his the sin. For though murder is a greater sin than stealing, yet it is worse to steal than to suffer murder. Therefore, if it were proposed to any man that, if he would not steal he should be killed, that is, murder should be committed upon him; being he could not avoid both, he would prefer to avoid that which would be his own sin, rather than that which would be another’s. Nor would the latter become his act for being committed upon him, and because he might avoid it if he would commit a sin of his own.

14. Quomodo, inquis, non cum eis facit, quando illi hoc non facerent, si ipse illud faceret? Hoc modo frangimus januam cum effractoribus, quia si non eam clauderemus, illi non frangerent: et occidimus homines cum latronibus, si scire contingat hoc eos esse facturos; quia si nos praevenientes eos occideremus, illi non occiderent alios. Aut si fateatur nobis aliquis parricidium se facturum, nos cum eo facimus, si cum possumus eum priusquam faciat, non interficimus, quando aliter eum vel cohibere vel impedire non possumus. Totidem enim verbis dici potest: Fecisti cum eo, quia hoc ille non fecisset, si tu illud fecisses. Ego utrumque malum fieri nollem: sed id tantum cavere potui ne fieret, quod erat in mea potestate; alterum autem alienum, quod meo praecepto exstinguere non potui, meo malefacto impedire non debui. Non ergo peccantem approbat, qui pro alio non peccat; et neutrum placet ei qui utrumque nollet admitti: sed illud quod ad se pertinet, etiam potestate non perpetrat; quod autem ad alterum, sola voluntate condemnat. Et ideo proponentibus illam conditionem atque dicentibus, Si non thurificaveris, hoc patieris; si respondisset, Ego neutrum eligo, utrumque detestor, ad nihil horum vobis consentio: inter haec verba atque talia, quae certe quoniam vera essent, nulla ejus consensio, nulla approbatio teneretur; quaecumque ab eis passus esset, illi deputaretur injuriarum acceptio, illis commissio peccatorum. Debuitne igitur, ait quispiam, stuprum perpeti potius quam thurificare? Si quaeris quod debuerit, neutrum debuit. Si enim 0499 dixero aliquid horum debuisse; aliquid horum approbabo, cum improbem utrumque. Sed si quaeritur quod horum potius debuit evitare, qui utrumque non potuit, sed alterutrum potuit: respondebo, suum peccatum potius quam alienum; et levius potius quod suum, quam gravius quod alienum. Ut enim salva diligentiore inquisitione interim concedam gravius esse stuprum quam thurificationem: illa tamen ipsius erat, illud alienum factum, quamvis id ipse perpeteretur; cujus autem factum, ejus et peccatum. Quamvis enim gravius sit homicidium quam furtum; pejus est tamen facere furtum, quam pati homicidium. Itaque si cuiquam proponeretur, ut si furtum facere nollet, interficeretur, hoc est, committeretur in eum homicidium; quia utrumque evitare non posset, id evitaret potius quod suum peccatum esset, quam quod alienum. Nec ideo et illud ejus fieret, quia in eum committeretur, et quia id posset evitare, si suum vellet admittere.