De peste quaestiones duae explicatae

man. There are, therefore, some who so condemn withdrawal made for the sake of the plague without exception that they even think it is a heinous crime, although they judge that one should not use temerity by remaining. On the other hand, there are those who, having no regard, or at least a very light one, for this society and the duties that Christian charity commands, as soon as the plague attacks, and as if a signal for flight had been given, believe that everyone should look out for himself. I think I have most just causes why I dissent from both, and especially from the latter group. But before I say plainly what seems to me to be the case on this matter, I ask that we first hear them debating against one another. So, they argue philosophically against them first. They say, following Plato's Gorgias a Socratic dialogue on rhetoric and ethics, that it is foolish to fear death: nor can he seem to be temperate who flees death, since that arises from an excessive delight in life: nor just, because he who looks out for himself by flight in time of plague does not render what is his to God or to men. To these arguments they add others taken from the Holy Scriptures: namely, that they do not think rightly concerning the providence of God, by whose immutable decree the course of human life is especially defined: that they distrust God, and especially do not have faith in this promise, "I will be your God and your refuge": that they are destitute of all charity, and even σοφροσύνη temperance/moderation: that they tempt God by the example of the Israelites, Exod. 17:3 and Psalm 78:18, prescribing to God in what manner, place, time, and